4 ms·

I hate 'sin' taxes in all forms including this one. Tax alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and now sugar. It's meant to control behavior, but they disproportionately

by snarfy 9y ago

I hate 'sin' taxes in all forms including this one. Tax alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and now sugar. It's meant to control behavior, but they disproportionately affect the poor. They do a poor job of controlling behavior. Any cigarette smoking given the choice between having no lunch or having no cigarettes is going to choose cigarettes every time. That's not controlling behavior it's subverting it.

baq 9y ago
and yet it apparently works with sugar, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/22/mexico-sugar-tax-lower-consumption-second-year-running https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/22/mexico-sugar...
- tomhoward 9y ago
  In Australia, it works with tobacco taxes too, particularly because it makes it too expensive for teenagers to take it up and become heavy smokers before they're old enough to understand the consequences. Research indicates smoking among Australian teenagers declined by about 65-70% in the 15 years to 2014. [1] http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1-6-prevalence-of-smoking-teenagers http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1-...
jackvalentine 9y ago
They also disproportionately benefit the poor. The poor are disproportionately affected by obesity related diseases. https://theconversation.com/rejection-of-sugar-tax-is-based-on-faulty-logic-about-the-poor-50230 https://theconversation.com/rejection-of-sugar-tax-is-based-...
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  Per the CDC[1], "Low-income persons consume more sugar drinks in relation to their overall diet than those with higher income." In fact, individuals with an income of 3.5x or more of the poverty level consume half as much as those with an income of 1.3x or less. Levying a tax targeted at the poor does not "benefit" them. 1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.htm
  - jackvalentine 9y ago
    Yes it does because the intended effects (lower consumption of sugary drinks leading to lower disease and lower health care costs) have an outsized effect on them. Nobody is disputing sugar taxes are regressive, they’re disputing that’s actually a bad thing.
mrmrcoleman 9y ago
Sin taxes taxed proportionately based on income, although impractical, would help. Semi-related: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...
svantana 9y ago
The word "sin" implicates that it's all about morality, but there are also real negative externalities associated with these stimulants that are costing society a lot of money. Also, taxes have to come from somewhere, isn't it good to tax things that are (on average) bad for society rather than only good/neutral things (like income)?
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  Yes, it is everyone paying for the "sin" of working who picks up the health care tab so I am fine with shifting some of the burden.
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  "Pigouvian tax" is the term for a tax on negative externalities. A tax on sugar is both a sin tax and a Pigouvian tax. IMO the real reason for its introduction was the sin tax angle, but it's Pigouvian tax principles is what makes it a "good" tax.
  - pm90 9y ago
    I was under the impression that the taxes were more from a public health perspective: smoking, alcohol etc. are leading causes of death and we want to discourage public consumption while at the same time raising revenue
    - bryanlarsen 9y ago
      That's basically the definition of a sin tax: a tax to discourage you from doing things that are bad for you.
saas_co_de 9y ago
The whole paternalistic government thing is a bit creepy, but if you are going to do it (which we obviously are) then good to apply it somewhat equally. Soda is basically poison. The producers would be driven out of business in any rational economy where they were not shielded from product liability law suits. A free market requires a free and just legal system. In the US every single producer of toxic and deadly products has their own specially granted immunity from product liability, either by judicial custom or legislation.
dagw 9y ago
They do a poor job of controlling behavior. Debatable. Here is one study[0] that claims that while it has minimal effect on people who already are heavy smokers, it does have an effect on reducing the consumption among the young. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/

by snarfy 9y ago

baq 9y ago

and yet it apparently works with sugar, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/22/mexico-sugar-tax-lower-consumption-second-year-running https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/22/mexico-sugar...

tomhoward 9y ago
In Australia, it works with tobacco taxes too, particularly because it makes it too expensive for teenagers to take it up and become heavy smokers before they're old enough to understand the consequences. Research indicates smoking among Australian teenagers declined by about 65-70% in the 15 years to 2014. [1] http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1-6-prevalence-of-smoking-teenagers http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1-...

jackvalentine 9y ago

They also disproportionately benefit the poor. The poor are disproportionately affected by obesity related diseases. https://theconversation.com/rejection-of-sugar-tax-is-based-on-faulty-logic-about-the-poor-50230 https://theconversation.com/rejection-of-sugar-tax-is-based-...

LyndsySimon 9y ago
Per the CDC[1], "Low-income persons consume more sugar drinks in relation to their overall diet than those with higher income." In fact, individuals with an income of 3.5x or more of the poverty level consume half as much as those with an income of 1.3x or less. Levying a tax targeted at the poor does not "benefit" them. 1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.htm
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  Yes it does because the intended effects (lower consumption of sugary drinks leading to lower disease and lower health care costs) have an outsized effect on them. Nobody is disputing sugar taxes are regressive, they’re disputing that’s actually a bad thing.

mrmrcoleman 9y ago

Sin taxes taxed proportionately based on income, although impractical, would help. Semi-related: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...

svantana 9y ago

The word "sin" implicates that it's all about morality, but there are also real negative externalities associated with these stimulants that are costing society a lot of money. Also, taxes have to come from somewhere, isn't it good to tax things that are (on average) bad for society rather than only good/neutral things (like income)?

saas_co_de 9y ago
Yes, it is everyone paying for the "sin" of working who picks up the health care tab so I am fine with shifting some of the burden.
bryanlarsen 9y ago
"Pigouvian tax" is the term for a tax on negative externalities. A tax on sugar is both a sin tax and a Pigouvian tax. IMO the real reason for its introduction was the sin tax angle, but it's Pigouvian tax principles is what makes it a "good" tax.
- pm90 9y ago
  I was under the impression that the taxes were more from a public health perspective: smoking, alcohol etc. are leading causes of death and we want to discourage public consumption while at the same time raising revenue
  - bryanlarsen 9y ago
    That's basically the definition of a sin tax: a tax to discourage you from doing things that are bad for you.

saas_co_de 9y ago

The whole paternalistic government thing is a bit creepy, but if you are going to do it (which we obviously are) then good to apply it somewhat equally. Soda is basically poison. The producers would be driven out of business in any rational economy where they were not shielded from product liability law suits. A free market requires a free and just legal system. In the US every single producer of toxic and deadly products has their own specially granted immunity from product liability, either by judicial custom or legislation.

dagw 9y ago

They do a poor job of controlling behavior. Debatable. Here is one study[0] that claims that while it has minimal effect on people who already are heavy smokers, it does have an effect on reducing the consumption among the young. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/