> They become more healthful at the same cost? I find that highly unlikely. What you are doing is raising the cost of food across the board. There is a real li

> They become more healthful at the same cost? I find that highly unlikely. What you are doing is raising the cost of food across the board. There is a real limit to how much food expenditure in general can increase. If prices had safe room to go up, they'd already be higher. You can see this by just looking at the price differences between poor area grocery stores and wealthy area grocery stores. There's a reason why poor people don't shop at Whole Foods, and it isn't because they don't like mochi ice cream and espresso bars. A very large percentage of people in the US actually don't have extra money to spend. On top of that, you're imagining that literally everything has and needs to have a bunch of sugar in it when that's just not true. What people will do first is switch to foods with less sugar, even if they don't like it as much, because the vast majority of grocery buyers are both extremely price sensitive and also adaptable. > I could get behind subsidizing fresh meat and vegetables. 1. We do that already. 2. You're the only one suggesting that a tax on sugar can't go directly and completely to additional consumer-side price subsidization of fresh meat and vegetables. I think that would be great and fully inline with the goal of taxing sugar in the first place.