5 ms·

But why only tax the "largest source"? It might make sense if it's 90% sugary drinks vs. 10% sugary pastries and candy, and if for some reason taxes on pastries

But why only tax the "largest source"? It might make sense if it's 90% sugary drinks vs. 10% sugary pastries and candy, and if for some reason taxes on pastries and candy were hard to calculate or collect. It would make less sense if it's 51% sugary drinks vs. 49% pastries/candy. And taxing sugar-the-substrance directly would make the tax easier to compute and to collect at the source as well. The real reason for targeting sugary drinks vs. fancy patisserie is that the drinkers of sugary drinks tend to be less well off than the eaters of fancy patisserie and less likely to have a political lobby.

coldpie 6y ago
> But why only tax the "largest source"? To effect the largest impact with the smallest policy change. Bakers aren't going to oppose a tax on sugary drinks, but would oppose a tax on baked goods. Further, why try to change a behavior that isn't significantly contributing to the problem? > The real reason for targeting sugary drinks vs. fancy patisserie is... I don't think you can assert this so definitively. Just because you can't think of another reason doesn't mean there isn't one.
- tom_mellior 6y ago
  > Bakers aren't going to oppose a tax on sugary drinks, but would oppose a tax on baked goods. This is almost exactly what I wrote, which you claimed I couldn't assert. You just switched my rich-people-who-love-patisserie to the-people-who-sell-rich-people-their-patisserie. Either way, there would be more opposition to doing the right thing, but more opposition does not mean that it wouldn't be the right thing to do. > Further, why try to change a behavior that isn't significantly contributing to the problem? But... but... there are obese and diabetic people out there who love cake but only drink Diet Coke. Also, again, "largest source" doesn't tell you whether it's "the only significant source" (say, 90% of total sugar consumed from sugary drinks) or just barely "largest among different groups, if you group them just right" (say, 34% from sugary drinks vs. 33% from pastries and 33% from candy). I don't know which of these extremes is closer to the real values, but I know that only one of them is consistent with your argument, and I haven't seen data to support that.

coldpie 6y ago

> But why only tax the "largest source"? To effect the largest impact with the smallest policy change. Bakers aren't going to oppose a tax on sugary drinks, but would oppose a tax on baked goods. Further, why try to change a behavior that isn't significantly contributing to the problem? > The real reason for targeting sugary drinks vs. fancy patisserie is... I don't think you can assert this so definitively. Just because you can't think of another reason doesn't mean there isn't one.

tom_mellior 6y ago
> Bakers aren't going to oppose a tax on sugary drinks, but would oppose a tax on baked goods. This is almost exactly what I wrote, which you claimed I couldn't assert. You just switched my rich-people-who-love-patisserie to the-people-who-sell-rich-people-their-patisserie. Either way, there would be more opposition to doing the right thing, but more opposition does not mean that it wouldn't be the right thing to do. > Further, why try to change a behavior that isn't significantly contributing to the problem? But... but... there are obese and diabetic people out there who love cake but only drink Diet Coke. Also, again, "largest source" doesn't tell you whether it's "the only significant source" (say, 90% of total sugar consumed from sugary drinks) or just barely "largest among different groups, if you group them just right" (say, 34% from sugary drinks vs. 33% from pastries and 33% from candy). I don't know which of these extremes is closer to the real values, but I know that only one of them is consistent with your argument, and I haven't seen data to support that.