Sugary Drink Sin Tax

[Randolphkeys]

What about...
Five Guys Fries? Dunkin Donuts Supreme Bagel? Applebee's Quesadilla Burger? Chop't Cobb Salad Wrap? KFC Chicken Bowl? They are 5 of the top 10 unhealthiest fast food options in America due to their fat and bad cholesterol content. You can say all the things you said above about these items. Do we tax any fat foods? Where do we stop? It's a slippery slope.

See, I am not 100% on board with this tax, but I think jumping to a "slippery slope" argument is limiting the discussion before it begins. The first federal tobacco tax came along in 1794. Did it immediately lead to everything bad for you getting taxed? Did it immediately make tobacco use unaffordable? No, in fact tobacco remained very affordable - perhaps too affordable - through the 1990s. The discussion should stick to 1-2 cents per ounce of high fructose corn syrup or sugary beverage. A slippery slope defense is a logical fallacy for this reason.

Well, we at least can be confident that Berkeley with all never pas a "liberal douchebag" tax.

Hey, I'm a liberal douchebag and I don't necessarily support the tax. How dare you!

 

[David.]

People are fat and gluttonous. Tax the fuck out of them as penalty for making the world a less attractive place.

Make the tax sting

 

[MalTalm]

See, I am not 100% on board with this tax, but I think jumping to a "slippery slope" argument is limiting the discussion before it begins. The first federal tobacco tax came along in 1794. Did it immediately lead to everything bad for you getting taxed? Did it immediately make tobacco use unaffordable? No, in fact tobacco remained very affordable - perhaps too affordable - through the 1990s. The discussion should stick to 1-2 cents per ounce of high fructose corn syrup or sugary beverage. A slippery slope defense is a logical fallacy for this reason.



Hey, I'm a liberal douchebag and I don't necessarily support the tax. How dare you!

I guess I don't see the endgame. There is a marked difference between high fructose corn syrup, sugar, and sugar substitutes such as sucrose and truvia. Some of those things are significantly worse for you than others. The amount of sugar matters a great deal too. Will fresh squeezed juice be taxed due to it's high sugar content? (Honest question, I could look it up but I'm lazy)

What bothers me about these social taxes is who they affect: almost unilaterally the poorer class bears a larger burden. Who benefits? If the idea is to encourage healthier alternatives, incentivize corporations with tax credits for going to natural sugar, or reducing the amount of sugar per beverage. Replacing Coke with Coke Zero may lead to bigger health issues down the road while punishing the working class which is already squeezed by these tertiary taxes.

The goal is noble, the methodology is shit.

 

[Randolphkeys]

I dig your question, Maltalm:

http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Berkeley_Sugary_Beverages_and_Soda_Tax_Question,_Measure_D_28November_2014%29

Here is the measure, with all the fine print.

The proposed ordinance would impose a general tax of one cent ($0.01) per ounce on the distribution in Berkeley of sugar-sweetened beverages and the added-calorie sweeteners (“sweeteners”) used to make them. The tax on added-calorie sweeteners would be calculated based on the number of ounces of sweetened beverage that would typically be produced using that sweetener.

The tax would be payable by the distributor, not the customer.

Beverages

Sugar sweetened beverages whose distribution would be subject to the tax would include high-calorie, low-nutrition products, like soda, energy drinks, and heavily presweetened tea, that contain at least 2 calories per fluid ounce.

Certain beverages would not be subject to the tax:

· Baby formula
· Beverages in which milk is the primary ingredient
· Beverages or liquids sold for use for weight reduction as a meal replacement
· Medical beverages (beverages used as oral nutritional therapy or oral rehydration electrolyte solutions for infants and children),
· Beverages containing only natural fruit and vegetable juice
· Alcoholic beverages

Added-calorie sweeteners

Added-calorie sweeteners would include any edible product that is perceived as sweet and adds calories, and is used to make sugar-sweetened beverages, including but not limited to sucrose, fructose, glucose, other sugars, and high fructose corn syrup.

Added-calorie sweeteners would not include natural, concentrated, or reconstituted fruit or vegetable juice or any combination thereof.

Applicability and exemptions

The tax would apply to:

· distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages to stores and restaurants;
· distribution of sweeteners to restaurants; and
· distribution of sweeteners to stores where they are used to make sugar-sweetened beverages for customers.

The tax would not apply to:

· distribution of sweeteners to food stores;
· distribution of sugar sweetened beverages or sweeteners to retailers with less than $100,000 in annual gross receipts.

The proposed ordinance would also establish a panel of experts to advise the City Council on how and to what extent the City should establish and/or fund programs to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley and to address the effects of such consumption.

The panel would consist of 9 members, who must satisfy at least one of the following criteria:
· have experience in community-based youth food and nutrition programs; or
· have experience in school-based food and nutrition programs and be referred by the Berkeley Unified School District; or
· have experience in early childhood nutrition education; or
· have experience in researching public health issues or evaluating public health programs related to diabetes, obesity, and sugary drink consumption; or
· be a licensed medical practitioner.
This proposed ordinance was placed on the ballot by the City Council.[5]

”

—Berkeley City Attorney, Zach Cowan[4]

 

[Pick6]

Well I am a healthy human being who hasn't been the doctor's in maybe 3 years and I pay $250 a month in health insurance, so if people had to pay more for making my premium as high as it is, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

But seriously, sugar is horrible for you and you should do all you can to avoid it. I've been making a conscious effort for the past month and a half to avoid sugar as much as possible and I have had a noticeable improvement in lifestyle. Clearer skin, teeth aren't rotting (13 fillings is a nice wake up call), improved energy, and not to mention better gains in the gym.

 

[gourimoko]

Food for thought... tobacco taxes worked wonders in Hawaii.. they simply taxed cigarettes to the point where people had no choice but to quit.

I've no problem with people, as a local community, levying taxes on things they find to be harmful to society. Fattening foods are undeniably harmful. So local governments can tax them.

I don't get the outrage here.

And btw, I'd have voted "No" on the issue; as I don't think it's the place of the state to use the mechanism of taxation towards social engineering goals; but, it's not unconstitutional, or illegal.

What would be curious is to determine how much we could tax unhealthy foods (all unhealthy, processed, foods thus spreading the burden), in order to offset the rising cost of health care.

 

[theSwayze]

My problem with this whole concept is that it shifts the burden for change to the consumer rather than the manufacturer of the dangerous products. All cars are required to have airbags to protect citizens from the physical and fiscal consequences of being a shit driver. I would be happy to live in a world where there are nutritional standards that restaurants are held to protect ppl from being lousy nutritionists. Health codes aren't perfect but a pretty good model to consider for implementation.

 

[Sumac13]

Just get rid of corn subsidies that make corn syrup so damn cheap. Seems messed up to give a subsidy and then tax for it later.

If sugary drinks are to be taxed, then 100% of the money should go toward healthcare in some form. The tax is being justified for public health reasons, therefore it shouldn't be used as a backdoor way to raise revenue for the city for other purposes, even for schools.

Watch King Corn.

 

[gourimoko]

My problem with this whole concept is that it shifts the burden for change to the consumer rather than the manufacturer of the dangerous products. All cars are required to have airbags to protect citizens from the physical and fiscal consequences of being a shit driver. I would be happy to live in a world where there are nutritional standards that restaurants are held to protect ppl from being lousy nutritionists. Health codes aren't perfect but a pretty good model to consider for implementation.

But what you describe is extremely different and something I just couldn't come to support. Restaurants not being allowed to serve unhealthy food? That means most restaurants wouldn't be able to cook classic dishes.

I don't want to be prevented from serving food or eating the foods that I like; but I don't mind contributing towards health care costs while I'm doing it.

 

[brownindian]

The money is supposed to go toward health based programs like nutrition classes in public schools. But, the city council will determine exactly where the money will go.

I was watching John Oliver show some time back when they were doing this report about State Lotteries and how while they advertise that most of the money that we spend towards buying lotteries goes towards childrens education - that seldom seemed to be the case.

This too almost sounds like the money will in all likely-hood not be going towards public schools.

The tax would be payable by the distributor, not the customer.

Isnt it obvious that the cost is always passed on to the consumers? That is dumb thinking again.

Certain beverages would not be subject to the tax:

· Baby formula
· Beverages in which milk is the primary ingredient
· Beverages or liquids sold for use for weight reduction as a meal replacement
· Medical beverages (beverages used as oral nutritional therapy or oral rehydration electrolyte solutions for infants and children),
· Beverages containing only natural fruit and vegetable juice
· Alcoholic beverages

There are cereal with lots of sugar, Ice creams, Donuts etc -are they exempt ? Why no mention of them? Without any guidelines on how much sugar is acceptable this sounds more like a witch-hunt and an excuse to levy tax .

 

[Kyrieville]

So if the healthy people cost more, why not make them "foot the bill" and tax the shit out of the tofu eaters? @The Oi

The money is supposed to go toward health based programs like nutrition classes in public schools. But, the city council will determine exactly where the money will go.

I was watching John Oliver show some time back when they were doing this report about State Lotteries and how while they advertise that most of the money that we spend towards buying lotteries goes towards childrens education - that seldom seemed to be the case.

This too almost sounds like the money will in all likely-hood not be going towards public schools.

The tax would be payable by the distributor, not the customer.

Isnt it obvious that the cost is always passed on to the consumers? That is dumb thinking again.

Certain beverages would not be subject to the tax:

· Baby formula
· Beverages in which milk is the primary ingredient
· Beverages or liquids sold for use for weight reduction as a meal replacement
· Medical beverages (beverages used as oral nutritional therapy or oral rehydration electrolyte solutions for infants and children),
· Beverages containing only natural fruit and vegetable juice
· Alcoholic beverages

There are cereal with lots of sugar, Ice creams, Donuts etc -are they exempt ? Why no mention of them? Without any guidelines on how much sugar is acceptable this sounds more like a witch-hunt and an excuse to levy tax .

In Ohio, lottery and casino money go towards education, but the state cut an equivalent amount of existing funds. Georgia and Florida use the money to pay for 3.0+ GPA students to go to state universities.

 

[macbdog]

I don't really see it curbing sugary drink consumption, though. A few pennies doesn't mean shit especially when Pepsi is still making their money. This won't stop me from buying a Dr Pepper every once in a while.

I haven't seen the numbers but soda consumption is down big time from what I understand. Social forces are doing more to reduce consumption than a tax. Just seems a little frivolous, especially in Berkelys case. I mean a chunk of the cash is going to find a 'panel of experts' to decide what to do with the tax money from it. Really? They need to fund a panel to figure out how to spend money? Just sounds idiotic. I guess to fund health education? I don't think it takes a panel of experts to hire an advertising firm.

Sugary drinks have shown to be a health hazard but bit everything can be assigned a stigma like smoking has gotten. I can't imagine an education program being that expensive that it requires a New tax but what do I know? I just know this stuff rarely goes to fund what it was supposed to.

 

[theSwayze]

But what you describe is extremely different and something I just couldn't come to support. Restaurants not being allowed to serve unhealthy food? That means most restaurants wouldn't be able to cook classic dishes.

I don't want to be prevented from serving food or eating the foods that I like; but I don't mind contributing towards health care costs while I'm doing it.

Oh I agree it's a different take and it'd be difficult to build but it as I see it there is miles of flexibility in implementation and it doesn't have to be restrictive. I am not at all cool with anyone saying "no more cheeseburgers"- I would harm them. I don't have any problem with having nutritional inspections that establish grades for that establishment that are posted in the front of a restaurant. This is done all over with health codes in to empower the consumer to make a more informed decision. I want parents to walk their family past a big red "F" nutritional rating sign on their way into Red Robin. Change comes from changing consumption habits not taxing consumers for their ignorance.

 

[Cavatt]

What about...
Five Guys Fries? Dunkin Donuts Supreme Bagel? Applebee's Quesadilla Burger? Chop't Cobb Salad Wrap? KFC Chicken Bowl? They are 5 of the top 10 unhealthiest fast food options in America due to their fat and bad cholesterol content. You can say all the things you said above about these items. Do we tax any fat foods? Where do we stop? It's a slippery slope.

I don't think it's a slippery slope at all. Doritos are cheaper than plain corn chips. It simply should not be less expensive to eat poorly than well.

Tax junk food and subsidize healthier options and everyone wins. What is the downside to people eating healthier?

 

[Soda]

I'm of the opinion that we SHOULD tax sugary drinks AND fattening foods... but only if we use the proceeds to subsidize private billion-dollar businesses that have been proven through sound economic studies to have little economic benefit to society at large.

Right @Soda ?!?

Sigh... Do you really need the sin tax explained again?

First mistake? Neglecting the fact that the properties are owned by municipalities, regardless of whether or not it's a fiscally responsible endeavor.

I think you know all of this, though.