9 ms·

If you're allergic to the word tax, then think of it more as a fee. If you want to sell a soda in the UK that is greater than X% sugar, you pay an additional, r

If you're allergic to the word tax, then think of it more as a fee. If you want to sell a soda in the UK that is greater than X% sugar, you pay an additional, relatively small, fee. There are a lot of externalities from having an unhealthy populace, this fee can help to counter that.

sublinear 2y ago
Why in the hell would anyone need to pay a tax for this is my question. Sounds like a racket to me. What's next?
- waciki 2y ago
  You're not replying to OP > There are a lot of externalities from having an unhealthy populace, this fee can help to counter that.
  - skatebear 2y ago
    Is this tax sized to cover for that externalities or the amount is decided in other basis (likely to maximize government revenue)? Is the collected money exclusively used to counter the externalities or is the spending left to the discretion of the government? I'm asking from ignorance, but if the answer of any of those questions is no then the purpose of the tax is not to make up for the externalities.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      > Is this tax sized to cover for that externalities No, nothing like it. The final costs to the state of excessive sugar consumption are _vast_. This levy is primarily to discourage people from consuming loads of sugar. > Is the collected money exclusively used to counter the externalities While I don't know, I'd be very surprised. That sort of bucketed approach to tax collection/use is _extremely_ inefficient; the only place it can possibly be justified is social insurance.
- xen0 2y ago
  How else does a state apply pressure? The health implications are real; this stuff was cheap and available and market forces kept them there. Cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed. A similar racket?
  - _g6gm 2y ago
    Yes, similar racket. Nothing you can say justifies more tax.
    - chrisfowles 2y ago
      So you're of the opinion that people who engage in voluntary activities for personal pleasure that put a higher burden on the health system, that those who are more wise about their choices have to use, should not have to pay thier way? Or are you of the opinion that someone should be denied emergency medical care because they had some sodas on the regular?
      - sublinear 2y ago
        You're missing the point. Those who pursue voluntary activities that "burden the health system" don't "pay their way". Those who pay are everyone else. Healthcare t's a tragedy of the commons unlike other taxes where it's more difficult to abuse the common resource such as roads and other infrastructure.
        xen0 2y ago
        So what are you for?
        actionfromafar 2y ago
        Roads are frequently built on the expense of the many to the benefit of the few.
    - Mordisquitos 2y ago
      Of course! I mean, yeah, sure, taxes on unhealthy products may increase the average health of a population, which results in reduced healthcare costs, greater economic productivity by reducing worker sickness, and may save thousands of life-years across the population and increase their quality of life. But does that really justify the state taking a percentage of the price I pay for a pack of cigarettes?
- jowea 2y ago
  Taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax
  - sublinear 2y ago
    And yet many alcoholic products are full of sugar and a majority of adults all around the world are alcoholics. I'm not disagreeing we have problems, but my original question was why the solution is a tax. It's very clear who that benefits and it's also very clear those same people control marketing and education. This is insanity.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > my original question was why the solution is a tax Because it works. Source: TFA.
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      this just means taxes are too low, not that taxes don't work. In a normal way the tax for these should offset the healthcare burden that these produce in treating diseases/accidents caused by alcohol/tobacco consumption. The same way a sugar tax should at least cover all govt diabetes expenditure, but there are other factors that can be covered too.
    - trgn 2y ago
      > a majority of adults all around the world are alcoholics there's no way that can be true right? And isn't alcohol already taxed a lot for the same reason?
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      > a majority of adults all around the world are alcoholics. ... Wait, how are you defining 'alcoholic'? Even by the 'regularly exceeds recommended intake' definition (which most medical professionals would not read as 'alcoholic' on its own, btw), this is not true.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- andylynch 2y ago
  Let’s do alcohol and tobacco. Oh wait, we’ve been doing that for centuries. As for why, most people _like_ a functioning government.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 2y ago
> this fee can help to counter that Can it really?
- dluan 2y ago
  yes this is very basic economics. this is literally the "draw a supply and demand curve" example and intro 101 economics classes talking about elasticity and substitution. or you can model it using elementary game theory.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    so substitution effects and regulatory arbitrage counts?
    - dluan 2y ago
      you might not know, but the science on this method is settled. economists have run so many trials and experiments on this.
      - johnisgood 2y ago
        That is not what I am asking. I am asking if we can say "sugar consumption halved" just because both consumers and producers found ways to circumvent the tax, e.g. consumers bought sugary drinks from neighboring areas with lower or no taxes, or producers reformulated their products in ways that technically avoid the tax but do not necessarily result in a healthier product.
        AndrewDucker 2y ago
        Which neighbouring area to the UK are you thinking that its citizens are popping over to in order to buy their coke?
        rswail 2y ago

sublinear 2y ago

Why in the hell would anyone need to pay a tax for this is my question. Sounds like a racket to me. What's next?

waciki 2y ago
You're not replying to OP > There are a lot of externalities from having an unhealthy populace, this fee can help to counter that.
- skatebear 2y ago
  Is this tax sized to cover for that externalities or the amount is decided in other basis (likely to maximize government revenue)? Is the collected money exclusively used to counter the externalities or is the spending left to the discretion of the government? I'm asking from ignorance, but if the answer of any of those questions is no then the purpose of the tax is not to make up for the externalities.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    > Is this tax sized to cover for that externalities No, nothing like it. The final costs to the state of excessive sugar consumption are _vast_. This levy is primarily to discourage people from consuming loads of sugar. > Is the collected money exclusively used to counter the externalities While I don't know, I'd be very surprised. That sort of bucketed approach to tax collection/use is _extremely_ inefficient; the only place it can possibly be justified is social insurance.
xen0 2y ago
How else does a state apply pressure? The health implications are real; this stuff was cheap and available and market forces kept them there. Cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed. A similar racket?
- _g6gm 2y ago
  Yes, similar racket. Nothing you can say justifies more tax.
  - chrisfowles 2y ago
    So you're of the opinion that people who engage in voluntary activities for personal pleasure that put a higher burden on the health system, that those who are more wise about their choices have to use, should not have to pay thier way? Or are you of the opinion that someone should be denied emergency medical care because they had some sodas on the regular?
    - sublinear 2y ago
      You're missing the point. Those who pursue voluntary activities that "burden the health system" don't "pay their way". Those who pay are everyone else. Healthcare t's a tragedy of the commons unlike other taxes where it's more difficult to abuse the common resource such as roads and other infrastructure.
      - xen0 2y ago
        So what are you for?
      - actionfromafar 2y ago
        Roads are frequently built on the expense of the many to the benefit of the few.
  - Mordisquitos 2y ago
    Of course! I mean, yeah, sure, taxes on unhealthy products may increase the average health of a population, which results in reduced healthcare costs, greater economic productivity by reducing worker sickness, and may save thousands of life-years across the population and increase their quality of life. But does that really justify the state taking a percentage of the price I pay for a pack of cigarettes?
jowea 2y ago
Taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax
- sublinear 2y ago
  And yet many alcoholic products are full of sugar and a majority of adults all around the world are alcoholics. I'm not disagreeing we have problems, but my original question was why the solution is a tax. It's very clear who that benefits and it's also very clear those same people control marketing and education. This is insanity.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > my original question was why the solution is a tax Because it works. Source: TFA.
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    this just means taxes are too low, not that taxes don't work. In a normal way the tax for these should offset the healthcare burden that these produce in treating diseases/accidents caused by alcohol/tobacco consumption. The same way a sugar tax should at least cover all govt diabetes expenditure, but there are other factors that can be covered too.
  - trgn 2y ago
    > a majority of adults all around the world are alcoholics there's no way that can be true right? And isn't alcohol already taxed a lot for the same reason?
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    > a majority of adults all around the world are alcoholics. ... Wait, how are you defining 'alcoholic'? Even by the 'regularly exceeds recommended intake' definition (which most medical professionals would not read as 'alcoholic' on its own, btw), this is not true.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
andylynch 2y ago
Let’s do alcohol and tobacco. Oh wait, we’ve been doing that for centuries. As for why, most people _like_ a functioning government.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

johnisgood 2y ago

> this fee can help to counter that Can it really?

dluan 2y ago
yes this is very basic economics. this is literally the "draw a supply and demand curve" example and intro 101 economics classes talking about elasticity and substitution. or you can model it using elementary game theory.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  so substitution effects and regulatory arbitrage counts?
  - dluan 2y ago
    you might not know, but the science on this method is settled. economists have run so many trials and experiments on this.
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      That is not what I am asking. I am asking if we can say "sugar consumption halved" just because both consumers and producers found ways to circumvent the tax, e.g. consumers bought sugary drinks from neighboring areas with lower or no taxes, or producers reformulated their products in ways that technically avoid the tax but do not necessarily result in a healthier product.
      - AndrewDucker 2y ago
        Which neighbouring area to the UK are you thinking that its citizens are popping over to in order to buy their coke?
        rswail 2y ago