I see that Seattle has added a 1.75¢ per ounce tax on sugary beverages (see meme thread) starting on Jan 1. These planners don't seem to understand economic incentives. People that are apt to buy sugary beverages likely aren't going to stop (some will, sure), they will take their money outside of the city, and likely start buying a portion of their other groceries outside of the city as well. If I were a grocer outside of the city limits I'd be pretty happy with this new tax.

Yeah, there will be plenty of incentive to avoid it (legal and otherwise).

Now, a sugar tax is arguably as justifiable as alcohol or tobacco taxes.  And this is what happens when you have public healthcare and other subsidies - you have to start allocating those costs, some way, to people who's lifestyles choices increase those costs.

And so just to cut to the chase - ultimately, Seattle will need to raise other tax revenues in order to provide additional food stamp benefits for poor people...so that poor people can afford the new sugar tax.

posted by justincredible

I see that Seattle has added a 1.75¢ per ounce tax on sugary beverages (see meme thread) starting on Jan 1. These planners don't seem to understand economic incentives. People that are apt to buy sugary beverages likely aren't going to stop (some will, sure), they will take their money outside of the city, and likely start buying a portion of their other groceries outside of the city as well. If I were a grocer outside of the city limits I'd be pretty happy with this new tax.

 

When I was growing up,  my patents were friends with a guy who managed a Kroger in the Toledo area.  The parking lot was actually in Michigan.  On big holiday weekends, they couldn't keep soda and beer on the shelves because of all the people from Michigan coming to avoid the bottle deposit.   

posted by gut

 

Now, a sugar tax is arguably as justifiable as alcohol or tobacco taxes. 

No. Just no. 

posted by justincredible

I see that Seattle has added a 1.75¢ per ounce tax on sugary beverages (see meme thread) starting on Jan 1. These planners don't seem to understand economic incentives. People that are apt to buy sugary beverages likely aren't going to stop (some will, sure), they will take their money outside of the city, and likely start buying a portion of their other groceries outside of the city as well. If I were a grocer outside of the city limits I'd be pretty happy with this new tax.

 

It is generally accepted that taxes on behavior X reduce said behavior relative to a world w/o such tax (or induce avoidance). That is what supply-side economics is all about - taxes on capital income and labor income theoretically reduce the supply of capital and labor, etc. 

 As far as sugar taxes go, sugar consumption has fallen in Mexico since the tax was introduced. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/22/mexico-sugar-tax-lower-consumption-second-year-running

I will add however that I doubt the municipal level is the best level to implement such a tax as tax avoidance is much easier. 

In any case, taxes on goods that have negative external costs not born by their producers like taxes on sugar are much more preferable to taxes on income and consumption. 

posted by ernest_t_bass

No. Just no. 

Why not?  Sugar's role in diabetes and obesity is pretty well documented, and those diseases impose significant healthcare costs on the public just like alcohol and tobacco.  Where do you think the justification for "sin taxes" comes from?

I'll certainly agree that taxes on income are much worse (read: the worst).

posted by ernest_t_bass

 

No. Just no. 

Not an argument. Sugar consumption and its associated health problems is a larger cause of premature death than either alcohol or tobacco. 

Ban sugar 

posted by gut

Yeah, there will be plenty of incentive to avoid it (legal and otherwise).

Now, a sugar tax is arguably as justifiable as alcohol or tobacco taxes.  And this is what happens when you have public healthcare and other subsidies - you have to start allocating those costs, some way, to people who's lifestyles choices increase those costs.

And so just to cut to the chase - ultimately, Seattle will need to raise other tax revenues in order to provide additional food stamp benefits for poor people...so that poor people can afford the new sugar tax.

Yep. I remember once going to Cleveland during the college years and getting educated on their "sin tax" on alcohol by having to pay extra for beer (not a huge amount more, but for a college student, every extra dollar matters!) at some store. And let's face it, it's BS for any gubment to try to steer people away from certain products by over-taxing the shit out of them as part of an attempt to generate more revenue, so if they're going to do it for a couple things, then fuck it...do it to the shitty sugar drinks and shitty fast food, too.

Best to not do it for anything, but if you're going to do it for something, let the pop-guzzlers feel the pinch and not just us boozers! If you want the tl;dr version.

The only positive argument for a sugar tax is to dump the revenue generated back into health related programs. 

Unfortunately, that rarely happens and it tends to be a revenue generator for cities that are broke. See: Chicago

I'm willing to bet that while sales of sugary drinks fall in cities where a sugar tax is passed, the overall rate of obesity remains unchanged.

What they fail to understand is that not all sugar products are as bad as others.  Taxing a nutrient dense food like gatorade (milk has sugar in it also, they gonna tax that?)  is stupid.

Taxing empty calorie/high sugar/added sugar products would be ok (NY state soda tax) is what needs to be done to reduce the obesity/healthcare issues with over consuming sugar.  

posted by Heretic

Best to not do it for anything, but if you're going to do it for something, let the pop-guzzlers feel the pinch and not just us boozers! If you want the tl;dr version.

Unfortunately, sin taxes are a "negative externality" of social welfare programs.  But just wait until we go to single payer and then Big Gubmit starts dictating where healthcare research dollars are spent.

Also, I don't believe any taxes like this really have anything to do with discouraging behavior....even if there is actually merit, it's nothing more than a way to justify a tax increase.  And the effectiveness in either case (health or revenues), is probably a distant second or third to the political agenda.

posted by Spock

nutrient dense food like gatorade.  

 

Lol

posted by MontyBrunswick

Lol

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/22/philadelphias-soda-tax-isnt-the-windfall-some-had-hoped-for.html

Philly's tax is not going as well as hoped.

posted by Heretic

Yep. I remember once going to Cleveland during the college years and getting educated on their "sin tax" on alcohol by having to pay extra for beer (not a huge amount more, but for a college student, every extra dollar matters!) at some store. And let's face it, it's BS for any gubment to try to steer people away from certain products by over-taxing the shit out of them as part of an attempt to generate more revenue, so if they're going to do it for a couple things, then fuck it...do it to the shitty sugar drinks and shitty fast food, too.

Best to not do it for anything, but if you're going to do it for something, let the pop-guzzlers feel the pinch and not just us boozers! If you want the tl;dr version.

The good thing is how Cleveland has been able to spend much of its sin tax - on subsitdizing the Browns and their stadium.  What a joke.

posted by justincredible

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/22/philadelphias-soda-tax-isnt-the-windfall-some-had-hoped-for.html

Philly's tax is not going as well as hoped.

Not surprising.  You see that pretty much anywhere it's relatively "convenient" to travel 20-30 miles to get a better price.

What's disgusting is the BS given about this being for "health".  Such a tax is not effective on the local level (see above) at discouraging use, and as far as health that's a state cost - the state should be assessing and collecting it statewide to help subsidize health costs.

This is nothing more than big gubmit cities (almost always pretty liberal cities) looking for new tax revenues to fund their monstrous budget shortfalls. 

posted by ernest_t_bass

 

No. Just no. 

How is it different?

posted by BoatShoes

Not an argument. Sugar consumption and its associated health problems is a larger cause of premature death than either alcohol or tobacco. 

As I recall, diabetes complications kill more people each year than any effects from tobacco or alcohol.

posted by gut

Unfortunately, sin taxes are a "negative externality" of social welfare programs.  But just wait until we go to single payer and then Big Gubmit starts dictating where healthcare research dollars are spent.

Also, I don't believe any taxes like this really have anything to do with discouraging behavior....even if there is actually merit, it's nothing more than a way to justify a tax increase.  And the effectiveness in either case (health or revenues), is probably a distant second or third to the political agenda.

Agreed.

And quite frankly, even if the reason was entirely to discourage behavior, is it really a justified purpose of  taxation to act as a social manipulator?

posted by O-Trap

...even if the reason was entirely to discourage behavior, is it really a justified purpose of  taxation to act as a social manipulator?

That's the outcome of social welfare....as soon as other people have to share YOUR healthcare costs, then we have to debate whether you pay your "fair share" of extra costs for bad lifestyle choices.

If you pay 100% of your healthcare costs and your insurance company wants to charge you more for being overweight, then so be it.  Then there's no need to tax sugar because the free market already handles it.  And if you consume sugar in moderation but are otherwise healthy, then you probably pay nothing extra (as it should be).  Remarkably simple, until the gubmit gets involved.

Once you start down the road of "boo-hoo, the free market isn't perfect" you end-up struggling to fix all the problems the govt creates coming up with solutions in search of problems.....cross your fingers and hope most people, on average, are better off after the govt intervenes to "help".

posted by O-Trap

How is it different?

I don't like any of them. 

posted by justincredible

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/22/philadelphias-soda-tax-isnt-the-windfall-some-had-hoped-for.html

Philly's tax is not going as well as hoped.

Color me shocked and amazed.

posted by ernest_t_bass

 

I don't like any of them. 

I see.  I misunderstood.  I thought you were denying his statement.

posted by gut

Not surprising.  You see that pretty much anywhere it's relatively "convenient" to travel 20-30 miles to get a better price.

What's disgusting is the BS given about this being for "health".  Such a tax is not effective on the local level (see above) at discouraging use, and as far as health that's a state cost - the state should be assessing and collecting it statewide to help subsidize health costs.

This is nothing more than big gubmit cities (almost always pretty liberal cities) looking for new tax revenues to fund their monstrous budget shortfalls. 

Question: How many of those big cities looking for new tax revenues are doing so in order to fund arenas/stadiums for pro sports teams because the billionaires owning them want fancy new digs (or they're threatening to move the team, taking away all the revenue/jobs they provide, particularly in the service industry), but want everyone else in the area to actually foot most of the bill? Just because I know the "sin tax" in Cleveland is based around their sports teams and their arenas/stadiums.

posted by Heretic

Question: How many of those big cities looking for new tax revenues are doing so in order to fund arenas/stadiums for pro sports teams because the billionaires owning them want fancy new digs (or they're threatening to move the team, taking away all the revenue/jobs they provide, particularly in the service industry), but want everyone else in the area to actually foot most of the bill? Just because I know the "sin tax" in Cleveland is based around their sports teams and their arenas/stadiums.

That's sort of a separate issue.  It's really just about getting more tax revenues to spend, and it's no secret your liberal cities tend to have the biggest addiction to public spending (and cushy union pensions).

posted by O-Trap

 

As I recall, diabetes complications kill more people each year than any effects from tobacco or alcohol.

Explain this one to me. Cancer is the second leading cause of death and lung cancer is the most common. How do you get lung cancer? A small percentage get it environmentally, but by and large it's from smoking.