3 ms·

I'm likely slightly biased due to recency (I'm researching the effect of tobacco taxes in LMIC's) but I think the tax component is critical here. It's not stron

I'm likely slightly biased due to recency (I'm researching the effect of tobacco taxes in LMIC's) but I think the tax component is critical here. It's not strongly emphasized here but as it's coming more into vogue, sin (or as they're rebranding) health taxes, are one of the more effective ways to get people to cut down on using something. I don't have the data on the company side, just the consumer side, but if you look to other inelastic markets such as tobacco, increased taxes have been massively effective. Add to this the fact that the higher taxes on these goods can also lead not just to reduced health care costs for individuals and the nation, but also to increased revenues that can be allocated for net positive uses. It'll also likely be more effective pound for pound than tobacco taxes because (well, I'm just wildly speculating here) I can't imagine Kellogg's and Kraft engaging in some of the schemes that the tobacco companies do to avoid taxes.

RandallBrown 7y ago
Increased taxes on sugary drinks in Seattle have not led to a decrease in consumption. The consumption appears to be growing faster than the population. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/drink-less-soda-the-sugar-tax-is-seattles-fastest-growing-revenue-source-for-2019/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/drink-les...
- munificent 7y ago
  From the article: > But by definition and by its main purpose, this tax should erode over time. If the revenues don’t start dropping, at least relative to population growth, then it just isn’t working. This is an easy statistical mistake to make. He is comparing today's consumption to the past and declaring failure because the today isn't better. But the correct comparison to make is today versus the alternate today we would have now if the tax had not been passed. It may be that sugary drink consumption has gone up, but would have gone up even more had the tax not been passed. In that case, the tax is a success. Of course, figuring out how to estimate and measure an alternate timeline is hard. But that's what you have to try to do to make sound choices.

RandallBrown 7y ago

Increased taxes on sugary drinks in Seattle have not led to a decrease in consumption. The consumption appears to be growing faster than the population. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/drink-less-soda-the-sugar-tax-is-seattles-fastest-growing-revenue-source-for-2019/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/drink-les...

munificent 7y ago
From the article: > But by definition and by its main purpose, this tax should erode over time. If the revenues don’t start dropping, at least relative to population growth, then it just isn’t working. This is an easy statistical mistake to make. He is comparing today's consumption to the past and declaring failure because the today isn't better. But the correct comparison to make is today versus the alternate today we would have now if the tax had not been passed. It may be that sugary drink consumption has gone up, but would have gone up even more had the tax not been passed. In that case, the tax is a success. Of course, figuring out how to estimate and measure an alternate timeline is hard. But that's what you have to try to do to make sound choices.