Soda Tax considered to pay for health care reform

The Senate Finance Committee today is hearing proposals on how to pay for President Obama's proposed universal health care plan, which is expected to cost more than $1 trillion. Among the proposals, as Consumer Affairs reports: A three-cent tax on sodas as well as other sugary drinks, including energy and sports drinks like Gatorade. Diet sodas would be exempt.

"While many factors promote weight gain, soft drinks are the only food or beverage that has been shown to increase the risk of overweight and obesity, which, in turn, increase the risk of diabetes, stroke, and many other health problems," Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is pushing the idea, said in his testimony. "Soft drinks are nutritionally worthless…[and] are directly related to weight gain, partly because beverages are more conducive to weight gain than solid foods."

According to Jacobson, "Beverage companies market more than 14 billion gallons of calorie-laden soft drinks annually. That is equivalent to about 506 12-oz. servings per year, or 1.4 servings per day, for every man, woman, and child."

He argued that each penny of tax on a 12 ounce drink would raise $1.5 billion annually and lower consumption roughly one percent, improving overall health. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a three-cent tax would generate $24 billion over the next four years.

Such a tax might well be considered a "sin tax" similar to the taxes levied on cigarettes, which are extremely high compared to most other consumer products. Jacobson also wants the taxes on alcohol raised -- he argues that doing so will "compensate society for the costs of alcohol abuse and alcoholism and to marginally reduce problem drinking." The argument echoes the idea of cigarette taxes helping pay for health care costs associated with smoking.

In his testimony, Jacobson also called for a ban on artificial trans fat and a reduction in sodium levels in food.

Any soda tax a proposal is unlikely to pass easily, as New York Governor David Paterson well knows. Paterson's proposed 18-percent tax on soft drinks died amid pressure from the industry and resistance among New Yorkers who didn't want to pay more for soda.

It would also, it should be noted, only pay for a tiny portion of the health care overhaul.

Susan Neely of the American Beverage Association, which represents Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc. and others, told the Wall Street Journal that the tax would hit poor Americans hardest and would not lower consumption.

"Taxes are not going to teach our children how to have a healthy lifestyle," she said. Neely said the industry backs programs to lower consumption of sugary drinks in schools.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5009316.shtml

Good idea? It sounds like a very reasonable solution to raise revenue imo.

Could just stop using aspertame in everything. That way they will save money from having to produce aspertame and the people won't have to pay for ill effects it has on health.

And have the tax be less on sodas that use sugar instead of corn syrup and no tax on sodas that use natural or unprocessed sugars. In terms of artificial sweetners, I agree on taxing Aspartame and Saccharine (where it's legal) but I'm not sure if sucralose should be taxed since all research that I know of indicates that it's fairly harmless. Also, taxes on sweetners made from imported products should be greater than those grown domestically to encourage domestic farm production.

lol

yay pet issues.

We don't want the government to be able to tax based on how harmful it thinks something is.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
And have the tax be less on sodas that use sugar instead of corn syrup and no tax on sodas that use natural or unprocessed sugars. In terms of artificial sweetners, I agree on taxing Aspartame and Saccharine (where it's legal) but I'm not sure if sucralose should be taxed since all research that I know of indicates that it's fairly harmless. Also, taxes on sweetners made from imported products should be greater than those grown domestically to encourage domestic farm production.

Yeah, maybe we can base all taxation on your personal preferences. That would be great.

Well one of the purposes of taxation, specifically sales tax is to regulate and discourage bad behavior. So if you're going to tax sweetners, why not do it in a way that encourages better health, better flavor and product quality, and more advantages to domestic product?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well one of the purposes of taxation, specifically sales tax is to regulate and discourage bad behavior. So if you're going to tax sweetners, why not do it in a way that encourages better health, better flavor and product quality, and more advantages to domestic product?

Because flavour is subjective for one.

Then because science regarding nuztizion is very unclear at times, Fr one unprocessed, natural sugard aren't inherently good.

do taxes on cigarettes make people smoke less?

does the prohibition of something reduce its use?

such "morality" taxes are useless

can I get specific tax exemptions/rules? I'm a diabetic, so all sugar is very harmful to me. Therefore I should pay more taxes than others, or companies should have to pay more when I buy their products.

also, such taxes are anti-competition, with the government biasing what products will be successful in the market.

Then I insist that the government lower my personal taxes, as I exercise regularly and rarely eat fastfood, while the guy who doesn't exercise and eats Burger King 4 days a week should increase.

What about basing taxes on bodyfat, cholesterol levels, blood-sugar etc?

lol, the market for fake HbA1C results would skyrocket.

by the way, can I buy some of your blood Rob? Just to cover my bases

Reminds me a bit of Gattaca.

Sure, buy two pints and I'll throw in a semen sample for free.

😮 I bet you say that to everyone who buys your vital fluids

Originally posted by inimalist
😮 I bet you say that to everyone who buys your vital fluids

Just you, just you.

BTW. I recommend you buy this book, as to not waste me.

The government should be bias towards domestic products, especially right now. Protectionism works. As for the subjective nature of my argument, ignoring the health research, I challenge you to find someone who prefers the flavor of High Fructose Corn Syrup to cane or beet sugar. I challenge you to find someone who prefers the flavor of any other sweetener to sucralose.

how about the fact that there are people to whom the taste of sweetener isn't the primary motivation behind their usage of it?

I can't drink sugar, natural or processed, so why should I be taxed for a genetic condition?

Originally posted by inimalist

I can't drink sugar, natural or processed, so why should I be taxed for a genetic condition?

From this thread's POV, you wouldn't be taxed here, as you're likely not going to buy fountain drinks.

But I understand what you mean in the bigger scheme.

jello was promoting the taxing of sweeteners. I jumped to assuming that meant sweeteners in diet soft drinks. my bad if thats not what he was saying

someone mentioned aspartame so if it were to expand to diet sweetners, what i meant was not taxing sucralose but taxing the other products since they taste worse and have more proven negative health effects.

Originally posted by inimalist
jello was promoting the taxing of sweeteners. I jumped to assuming that meant sweeteners in diet soft drinks. my bad if thats not what he was saying

Seems he's down for taxing sweeteners, on the health issue.