3 ms·

Maybe some related reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax According to a 2019 review of researc

by dfxm12 4y ago

Maybe some related reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax According to a 2019 review of research on sugar drink taxes, the taxes successfully reduced consumption of sugar drinks and reduced adverse health consequences.

hombre_fatal 4y ago
Seems wrong to go after the consumers when we can question why we let companies line their own pockets by selling vices so successful that they are destroying everyone's health, yet so normalized that we don't think to question why we let megacorps do it. I also think it's a scale thing. Selling grandma's cookies at the grocer? Fine. Megacorp optimized junk (and nothing else) sold at every 7/11 on the continent? Perhaps not so excusable.
- yetihehe 4y ago
  > Megacorp optimized junk (and nothing else) sold at every 7/11 on the continent? Perhaps not so excusable. It's excusable because it's just tasty food, which theoretically we are supposed not to eat too much. The problem is that this food became more tasty, convenient and sometimes cheaper (at least in time-value) than normally cooked food and we as a society don't even have enough time and knowledge to cook proper healthy food. > (and nothing else) Because it's cheap. There are many places where you can buy healthy food but it's more expensive.
- bilegeek 4y ago
  It's also double-dipping; excessive subsidies via taxes, then add ANOTHER tax to offset the cheap prices caused by subsidies? Just have less insane subsidies! (Yes, subsidies are necessary, national food security etc.; but a LOT is just from lobbying and corruption. Never gonna reduce them because of that, but we can dream.)
- dfxm12 4y ago
  It's important to note that often, these taxes aren't imposed on consumers directly, but on distributors. Distributors and retailers just choose to price gouge rather than make a fraction of a cent less per ounce sold. Even with that in mind, it's easy to say "why do we let megacorps do it"? Well, we don't, not necessarily. They just have the financial and legal resources to impose their will. A pigouvian tax is probably the easiest tool most levels of the US government has to restrict successful vices. Look at that link again. See how much money Coke, Pepsi, etc. were spending in Philadelphia and San Francisco to fight taxes that have solid legal standing. Localities taking action need to make sure they're bulletproof legally, or else the action will be reversed.
- juve1996 4y ago
  What other way do you regulate this without impacting consumer choice?

by dfxm12 4y ago

hombre_fatal 4y ago

Seems wrong to go after the consumers when we can question why we let companies line their own pockets by selling vices so successful that they are destroying everyone's health, yet so normalized that we don't think to question why we let megacorps do it. I also think it's a scale thing. Selling grandma's cookies at the grocer? Fine. Megacorp optimized junk (and nothing else) sold at every 7/11 on the continent? Perhaps not so excusable.

yetihehe 4y ago
> Megacorp optimized junk (and nothing else) sold at every 7/11 on the continent? Perhaps not so excusable. It's excusable because it's just tasty food, which theoretically we are supposed not to eat too much. The problem is that this food became more tasty, convenient and sometimes cheaper (at least in time-value) than normally cooked food and we as a society don't even have enough time and knowledge to cook proper healthy food. > (and nothing else) Because it's cheap. There are many places where you can buy healthy food but it's more expensive.
bilegeek 4y ago
It's also double-dipping; excessive subsidies via taxes, then add ANOTHER tax to offset the cheap prices caused by subsidies? Just have less insane subsidies! (Yes, subsidies are necessary, national food security etc.; but a LOT is just from lobbying and corruption. Never gonna reduce them because of that, but we can dream.)
dfxm12 4y ago
It's important to note that often, these taxes aren't imposed on consumers directly, but on distributors. Distributors and retailers just choose to price gouge rather than make a fraction of a cent less per ounce sold. Even with that in mind, it's easy to say "why do we let megacorps do it"? Well, we don't, not necessarily. They just have the financial and legal resources to impose their will. A pigouvian tax is probably the easiest tool most levels of the US government has to restrict successful vices. Look at that link again. See how much money Coke, Pepsi, etc. were spending in Philadelphia and San Francisco to fight taxes that have solid legal standing. Localities taking action need to make sure they're bulletproof legally, or else the action will be reversed.
juve1996 4y ago
What other way do you regulate this without impacting consumer choice?