Anti-tax: One big band-aid?

One of the biggest problems with the proposed Soda Tax is that in essence it is a solve-all solution with a complex problem. It is a band-aid for a tummy ache, or in this case a growing tummy. Kelly Brownell, a professor of psychology and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University argues that MORE than just the Soda Tax will lead to real change. Community programs to fight obesity and encourage active lifestyles are needed as well as a major re-haul on the way food is marketed. “Until healthful foods routinely cost less than unhealthful ones, getting people -- especially low-income people -- to eat them will remain a challenge, he says.”

From everything that Brownell and many others are pushing for in lieu of the Soda Tax argument one thing stands out, government involvement. Shouldn’t weight problems, exercise and diet be a matter of personal responsibility? Should the government influence what kind of food you buy?

Jennifer LaRue Huget, a columnist for the Washington Post argues that the entire “band-aid” of the Soda Tax “smacks of paternalism and over-reliance on government intervention . . . Brownell counters that the ubiquity and marketing of fattening food stack the deck against individual willpower, and their allure is more than many people can resist on their own, no matter how responsible they are.” Two major problems with the Soda Tax are brought up here- it is a solve-all solution for a complex problem and it requires TOO much government intervention.

Written by Bekah

Pro-tax: Existing state soda taxes

Opponents of a soda tax often argue that dozens of states already have taxes on soda, and none of them have effectively reduced obesity. In particular, some have cited that Mississippi, the most obese state in the Union (at 32.8 percent of the population), has a tax on soda; therefore, they say, the soda tax must be ineffective.

Indeed, these state soda taxes have had little effect on obesity rates. Fortunately these state taxes have, at the very least, raised more than a billion dollars a year. However, as the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) states, "Unfortunately, existing state taxes are too small to significantly reduce consumption and almost none of the revenues are earmarked for health promotion." I have emphasized these points in earlier blog posts: the tax must be significant enough to reduce consumption, and the revenues are best used promoting health and preventing obesity, particularly with children.

As I mentioned in an early blog post, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that a penny-per-ounce tax could reduce consumption of sugary beverages by more than 10 percent. Assuming that an average 12-ounce can of soda costs 60 cents, and that my math is right, this means about a 20 percent tax on soda. But according to my analysis of this data for state soda taxes in 2008, the average tax rate for soda sold in vending machines was 3.981, and the average tax rate for soda sold elsewhere (e.g., convenience stores and grocery stores) was 3.319. The 2008 highest tax rate for vending machine soda was 8 percent; the highest tax rate for non–vending machine soda was 7 percent. (Feel free to comment if you have questions about my calculations.) These are less than half of the recommended 20 percent; therefore it is no surprise that these taxes have had little effect on the consumption of soda and on obesity rates. In this case, the tax must be significant to have any effect on consumption.

I recommend checking out CSPI's Liquid Candy website. I found information for this blog post there, and it has a great compilation of resources related to the soda tax issue. Also, this is where I got the picture for this post. Enjoy!

Pro-tax: Last resort

40 percent of early deaths are a result of behavior choices.

Many of these early deaths can be attributed to obesity. Along with obesity comes many health problems such as diabetes, and obesity and diabetes are the only major health problems in the country that are worsening very quickly. Health Affairs has deemed heath costs from obesity extremely expensive, and costs are increasing more and more each year.

There are many contributors to obesity. People have easy access to fast and fatty foods that lack many essential nutrients. Many do not take the time to exercise, and most people travel by car as opposed to walking or biking as most did decades ago. For these, and many other reasons, obesity rates continue to rise in the U.S.

This information tells us this: we cannot leave it to individuals to initiate good health habits in their lives.

Some have called the fat tax America's last resort. Individuals lack either the motivation, or in some cases, the means to eat well. Maybe it is about time the government took over in some aspects of life...

The link feature's not working.... here are the sites I got my info from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16FOB-wwln-t.html?_r=2
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204563304574314794089897258.html

Pro-tax: Soda taxes then and now

And now for a brief, nostalgic look into the past and present of the soda tax...

1776 | Adam Smith, in his landmark Wealth of Nations, states:

Sugar, rum, and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessities of life, which are become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation. [An Inquiry into the Nature of Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776); New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1910; available on Google Books.]

July 2009 | President Obama tells Men’s Health magazine that taxing soda is “an idea that we should be exploring.” This quote is taken from pages 7–8 of the article:

Would the president consider so-called sin taxes, on soda and other sugar-laden products, or on activities that sabotage the health of the masses? (When I suggest this, I’m picturing tollbooths on every point of access to Vegas.)

“I actually think it’s an idea that we should be exploring,” the president says. There’s no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that’s been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else. Obviously it’s not the only factor, but it is a major factor.”

But even the most powerful man on the planet needs to keep an eye on what’s politically feasible: “Obviously there is resistance on Capitol Hill to those kinds of sin taxes,” he says. “Legislators from certain states that produce sugar or corn syrup are sensitive to anything that might reduce demand for those products. And look, people’s attitude is that they don’t necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that. It is true, though, that if you wanted to make a big impact on people’s health in this country, reducing things like soda consumption would be helpful.”

Not bad when the father of modern economics supports your cause.

Anti-tax: Soda tax not the answer

Whether the government likes it or not, there is simply no way they can construct a society that has perfect conditions for healthy living. People have the ability to make their own decisions, and creating a tax on sodas and sugary drinks will not eliminate obesity. Even if sodas were completely taken out of the market, people still would still have control over all other aspects of their life that determine if they live healthily or not.

Many have compared the soda tax to the previously employed cigarette taxes. However, those taxes were effective because they targeted the indented group of people: smokers. The fat tax, on the other hand, would affect everyone. Is it fair to tax everyone?

Many are obese due to genetics and it is extremely difficult for them to lose any amount of weight at all because they gain weight more easily than the average person. Granted, some are obese due to their food and/or beverage choices.

Furthermore, is it fair to tax the obese who already have to pay medical bills for weight-related medical problems?

The government can do more to encourage healthy eating, exercise, and prevention than deeming one category as the sole contributor of obesity.

Anti-tax: Is it really the soda's fault?

I found this article from the Wall Street Journal called "Coke Didn't Make America Fat: America Needs More Exercise, Not Another Tax." by Muhtar Kent, the CEO of the Coca-Cola Company.

I encourage you to read it. Meanwhile, here's a couple of highlights:

"If we're genuinely interested in curbing obesity, we need to take a hard look in the mirror and acknowledge that it's not just about calories in. It's also about calories out.

"Our industry has become an easy target in this debate. Sugar-sweetened beverages have been singled out in spite of the fact that soft drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and sweetened bottled water combined contribute 5.5% of the calories in the average American diet, according to the National Cancer Institute. It's difficult to understand why the beverages we and others provide are being targeted as the primary cause of weight gain when 94.5% of caloric intake comes from other foods and beverages."

Commentary: He makes a good point. So, if we're going to tax the sodas which only contribute to 5.5% of our calories, why not tax the other 94.5% as well?!

"Will a soft drink tax change behavior? Two states currently have a tax on sodas—West Virginia and Arkansas—and they are among the states with the highest rates of obesity in the nation."

Commentary: Hmmm, so if it hasn't worked in those two states, what's the likelihood it'll work for the nation as a whole?

Just something else to think about...