3 ms·

In theory, this idea is great. In practice, it's a failure every time. Not every sin need be taxed. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-evidence-

In theory, this idea is great. In practice, it's a failure every time. Not every sin need be taxed. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-evidence-is-clear-sugar-taxes-just-dont-work https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-evidence-is-...

ethbro 6y ago
> Not every sin need be taxed. Absolutely... as long as every individual is willing to pay the full costs of their sins.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- elric 6y ago
  I'm going to have to disagree with that. There are many "sins" that are not entirely (or entirely not) the individual's fault or choice. Addictions are hard to overcome. It's easy to fall into the trap of needing distractions (food, drugs, sex, whatever) because you happen to be stuck in a dead-end job or have family issues or whatever. Making each and every individual responsible for the cost of their own "sins" completely removes society's responsibility for creating the circumstances in the first place.
Cenk 6y ago
> In practice, it's a failure every time. The study literally came to the opposite conclusion: > Three types of taxation on sugary drinks lower healthcare costs, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, but some – such as taxing sugar content – perform even better than taxing based on the volume of the beverage.
- jfengel 6y ago
  But the study itself is a model, so it's theory rather than practice. I had hoped that the article would be about real world results, but it's really about comparing different results theoretically. Which is also helpful, but not nearly so helpful as data. Actually gathering data is hard. The effects of sugar in the diet take decades to show up, and there are millions of variables and compounding factors. So it's not really a surprise that the article is theoretical rather than practical, but it is disappointing that the headline doesn't make that more prominent. The real-world experiments will be policy, and those policies will have to be driven by these models ahead of there being experimental results. So we have to do it. But we won't know how good they were for a long time.
emerongi 6y ago
Not all people are fully aware of the causes and results of their sins and are taking that all into account. There's so many people that smoke and wish they never started. Why did they start in the first place? Even my generation (I am in my 20s) is affected by it, although we grew up with our parents addicted to the stuff. A lot of these issues are offloaded to healthcare. It is the government's job to figure out strategies to reduce the load on healthcare systems. It's definitely a hard problem to solve, it could all end up in a failure, but it's important to discuss it before stamping "FAILURE" on it. Maybe there are good strategies that do work? To give an example of what works: when I was young we had many lessons about what smoking does to you. We discussed the effects of it and were shown pictures of gnarly lungs. That, plus how my parents smelled after smoking, definitely helped me make up my mind about smoking. Sugar is way more difficult than that, as you get addicted to it before you ever realize the effects of it. After years of just eating sugary foods and drinks, regular food starts to taste bland. I remember as a kid I hated the taste of water - how insane is that?! A tax is a worthwhile strategy to explore in my opinion.
bendergarcia 6y ago
At minimum every sin should be taxed because you’re sinning doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Your poor eating habits affects everyone around you to an extent. It does need to be done in conjunction with education though. That’s why I think smoking tax has helped reduce smoking. A lot of education around the negative side effects. I guess taxes can fuel that no?
gspr 6y ago
I try to view these things differently: we shouldn't tax sugar, fat, alcohol, tobacco, etc., because they are sins that we try to reduce the use of for moral reasons. We should tax them to help mitigate the extra burden the consumers of these products put on the public healthcare system statistically speaking. I speak of course from the perspective of a country with good public healthcare, i.e. most of the developed world.

ethbro 6y ago

> Not every sin need be taxed. Absolutely... as long as every individual is willing to pay the full costs of their sins.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
elric 6y ago
I'm going to have to disagree with that. There are many "sins" that are not entirely (or entirely not) the individual's fault or choice. Addictions are hard to overcome. It's easy to fall into the trap of needing distractions (food, drugs, sex, whatever) because you happen to be stuck in a dead-end job or have family issues or whatever. Making each and every individual responsible for the cost of their own "sins" completely removes society's responsibility for creating the circumstances in the first place.

Cenk 6y ago

> In practice, it's a failure every time. The study literally came to the opposite conclusion: > Three types of taxation on sugary drinks lower healthcare costs, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, but some – such as taxing sugar content – perform even better than taxing based on the volume of the beverage.

jfengel 6y ago
But the study itself is a model, so it's theory rather than practice. I had hoped that the article would be about real world results, but it's really about comparing different results theoretically. Which is also helpful, but not nearly so helpful as data. Actually gathering data is hard. The effects of sugar in the diet take decades to show up, and there are millions of variables and compounding factors. So it's not really a surprise that the article is theoretical rather than practical, but it is disappointing that the headline doesn't make that more prominent. The real-world experiments will be policy, and those policies will have to be driven by these models ahead of there being experimental results. So we have to do it. But we won't know how good they were for a long time.

emerongi 6y ago

Not all people are fully aware of the causes and results of their sins and are taking that all into account. There's so many people that smoke and wish they never started. Why did they start in the first place? Even my generation (I am in my 20s) is affected by it, although we grew up with our parents addicted to the stuff. A lot of these issues are offloaded to healthcare. It is the government's job to figure out strategies to reduce the load on healthcare systems. It's definitely a hard problem to solve, it could all end up in a failure, but it's important to discuss it before stamping "FAILURE" on it. Maybe there are good strategies that do work? To give an example of what works: when I was young we had many lessons about what smoking does to you. We discussed the effects of it and were shown pictures of gnarly lungs. That, plus how my parents smelled after smoking, definitely helped me make up my mind about smoking. Sugar is way more difficult than that, as you get addicted to it before you ever realize the effects of it. After years of just eating sugary foods and drinks, regular food starts to taste bland. I remember as a kid I hated the taste of water - how insane is that?! A tax is a worthwhile strategy to explore in my opinion.

bendergarcia 6y ago

At minimum every sin should be taxed because you’re sinning doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Your poor eating habits affects everyone around you to an extent. It does need to be done in conjunction with education though. That’s why I think smoking tax has helped reduce smoking. A lot of education around the negative side effects. I guess taxes can fuel that no?

gspr 6y ago

I try to view these things differently: we shouldn't tax sugar, fat, alcohol, tobacco, etc., because they are sins that we try to reduce the use of for moral reasons. We should tax them to help mitigate the extra burden the consumers of these products put on the public healthcare system statistically speaking. I speak of course from the perspective of a country with good public healthcare, i.e. most of the developed world.