Support NeoGAF

[entremet]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/venessawong/its-not-rocket-science

It’s too soon to tell whether a so-called “soda tax” can improve public health. But early data shows it certainly seems to lead to people drinking less soda.
Consumption of sugary drinks has declined in three places that recently started taxing soda: two cities (Berkeley, CA and Philadelphia, PA) and a country (Mexico.)

Grocers and beverage distributors in Philadelphia, which implemented a 1.5-cents-per-ounce tax on soda on this year, recently told Bloomberg that in the first few weeks their sales have slid by as much as 50%. Results in Philadelphia, the country’s fifth most populous city, could provide feedback on what impact these taxes would have on soda consumption in a major urban market.

In Berkeley, the first US city to adopt a soda tax, a 2016 survey by UC Berkeley found consumption of soda and other sugary beverages in low-income neighborhoods fell 21% after a 1-cent-per-ounce tax was rolled out in 2015.

What do you think of proposed soda taxes? Nanny state overreaching? Or helpful regulation in fighting the obesity epidemic?

 

[Salvadora]

I'm all for it given the significant burden that obesity places on the NHS.

This data doesn't surprise me either, given the results of taxing products like cigarettes.

 

[Y2Kev]

Sure. There are significant negative externalities for soda drinking and the tax better helps the market reflect the true cost. I think the tax should be ten feet higher.

I think manipulating the tax code is one of the better ways to discourage undesirable behavior. On the other hand, this is clearly a regressive tax that ultimately hurts poor people most.

 

[Air]

I mean, we tax cigarettes. Soda does a lot of damage and probably shouldn't be given to kids either

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

I mean, we tax cigarettes. Soda does a lot of damage and probably shouldn't be given to kids either

My wife's sister gives it to her 4 and 3-year-old kids. It's incredible.

 

[elrechazado]

Should be a tax on added sugar, to all food products - not on carbonated drinks per se.

 

[entremet]

My wife's sister gives it to her 4 and 3-year-old kids. It's incredible.

Their poor teeth....

 

[maxiell]

Carbonated drinks have other positive health functions, and it is completely wrong to tax them at a higher rate. Young people require calories to function, and while there are certainly better sources for them, soda is preferable to nothing.

 

[plebator.jayus]

I mean, we tax cigarettes. Soda does a lot of damage and probably shouldn't be given to kids either

big difference, soda didnt cause any harm to others who dont drink it

 

[Air]

My wife's sister gives it to her 4 and 3-year-old kids. It's incredible.

This makes me so sad. These kids' oral health will suffer. Man, getting off of soda was one of the best things to happen to me.

 

[purnoman3000]

Carbonated drinks have other positive health functions, and it is completely wrong to tax them at a higher rate. Young people require calories to function, and while there are certainly better sources for them, soda is preferable to nothing.

Wait, What??

 

[Easy_D]

Should be a tax on added sugar, to all food products - not on carbonated drinks per se.

Yeah. Sugar tax would ultimately be a better way. Might also have the effect of companies reducing or removing needlessly added sugar in their products.

 

[Lkr]

I bought a 44oz for 70 cents the other day and was thinking how I wish there was a tax to give me incentive not to buy this shit

 

[veryslowhand]

Do they also tax diet ones?

 

[Yaboosh]

I bought a 44oz for 70 cents the other day and was thinking how I wish there was a tax to give me incentive not to buy this shit

Personal responsibility would go a long way also.

 

[Shanlei91]

Carbonated drinks have other positive health functions, and it is completely wrong to tax them at a higher rate. Young people require calories to function, and while there are certainly better sources for them, soda is preferable to nothing.

Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

 

[Futureman]

My wife's sister gives it to her 4 and 3-year-old kids. It's incredible.

My friend was saying his niece and nephew drink soda for breakfast.

 

[thesoapster]

My wife's sister gives it to her 4 and 3-year-old kids. It's incredible.

When I was a kid, being part of the No Cavity Club was cool. OK, maybe only I thought it was cool.

 

[Easy_D]

I bought a 44oz for 70 cents the other day and was thinking how I wish there was a tax to give me incentive not to buy this shit

Hey man. Just thinking that means you're well on your way to reduce your soda intake. I need to cut down on it myself. Finally found a balance that makes me not gain weight and if I cut out soda and other shit I think I'd gradually lose some.

But yeah, it's too fucking tempting when you see a good deal.

 

[plebator.jayus]

My friend was saying his niece and nephew drink soda for breakfast.

how to get diabetes 101

 

[CornBurrito]

Carbonated drinks have other positive health functions, and it is completely wrong to tax them at a higher rate. Young people require calories to function, and while there are certainly better sources for them, soda is preferable to nothing.

Can you hook me up with a job at Coca Cola? I assume you work there.

 

[entremet]

how to get diabetes 101

Not quite, but it may make them more susceptible to childhood obesity, which can predispose to Type 2 if they remain overweight/obese.

The biggest concern here would be oral health.

 

[Mr.Shrugglesツ]

Large Soda isn't gonna stand for this.

 

[Manmademan]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/venessawong/its-not-rocket-science



What do you think of proposed soda taxes? Nanny state overreaching? Or helpful regulation in fighting the obesity epidemic?

This one is more complicated than Buzzfeed makes it sound.

First: The soda tax is restricted to Philadelphia, it doesn't hit the surrounding counties or Jersey. Many of those retailers seeing a hit are located close to border towns where it's easier for consumers to just buy from a place down the street or across the bridge. The same thing happened with the cigarette tax exclusive to Philadelphia.

Second: Even retailers within the city knew the tax (which is levied on distributors, not on the end user) was coming, and therefore stocked up on product in advance prior to the tax kicking in when January hit.

This resulted in a decline in purchases from distributors for the first month of 2017, since retailers could simply sell their stocked up 2016 inventory at inflated pricing and blame the soda tax, taking in more revenue.

Third: A sharp decline early on when the tax was implemented was a known thing. Consumers reacting badly to sticker shock for taxes like this is well documented, but that effect peters off as they get used to the new normal re: pricing. Still, even with this decline the amount of revenue that the city took in (which is directly tied to volume of drinks sold) was flat out DOUBLE their projected expectation. 5.7 million in revenue vs. a projected 2.3 million.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...7-million-in-January-double-expectations.html

Or to put it simply, the expected decline was drastically less than projections. Philadelphians simply don't care about the tax as much as the soda industry would like you to think they do.

 

[Air]

I mean, juice will do that to kids too

I would be ok with a sugar tax like another poster said. The amount of it in a large part of our food is crazy to me.

Edit: I'd also be ok with putting warning labels on products with over 20+ grams of sugar

 

[maxiell]

Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

Of course soda is not great to consume in any serious quantity.

Certain people who struggle to drink water, who have trouble digesting food without painful gas, who have no other source of calories, who have low blood sugar, drink soda in moderate quantities. Did it never occur to you that someone might drink soda because they can't afford a meal?

 

[entremet]

I mean, juice will do that to kids too

I agree. The saving grace of fruit juice are the vitamins at least.

But whole fruit is preferable. That said a small glass of OJ daily shouldn't be a huge concern.

 

[Polioliolio]

Do it. Tax all things unhealthy. Tax soda, tax guns, whatever. Even video games, whatever, it's not a big deal if people get healthier.

 

[Sinfamy]

I don't drink soda.
But this a poor people tax.
Tax the rich.

 

[entremet]

I don't drink soda.
But this a poor people tax.
Tax the rich.

So are cigarettes taxes. You think the rich are smoking at a higher rate than less wealthy income brackets?

The purpose here is to improve public health as well.

 

[Pastulio]

I drink about half a can of Soda everyday to stay awake during work because I can't stand coffee and energy drinks are probably worse than Soda. I know it's not ideal, but I need something to stay awake and I keep it to a minimum, so it has use to some people. (I also despise tea)

 

[grap3fruitman]

The reason soda and sweets are so cheap to begin with is because the government's subsidizing corn which gets turned into high fructose corn syrup. Stop the subsidies and the price of pop and other "unhealthy" items will go up on its own.

 

[entremet]

I drink about half a can of Soda everyday to stay awake during work because I can't stand coffee and energy drinks are probably worse than Soda. I know it's not ideal, but I need something to stay awake and I keep it to a minimum, so it has use to some people. (I also despise tea)

Why not address the sleep issues first? Not possible due to lifestyle?

 

[CornBurrito]

I don't drink soda.
But this a poor people tax.
Tax the rich.

Any sales tax is.

 

[CornBurrito]

So are cigarettes taxes. You think the rich are smoking at a higher rate than less wealthy income brackets?

The purpose here is to improve public health as well.

Maybe instead of taxing the shit out of the poor we can end subsidies for huge corporations and farms that result in incredibly low junk food/soft drink prices?

HFCS isnt naturally dirt cheap.

 

[purnoman3000]

Of course soda is not great to consume in any serious quantity.

Certain people who struggle to drink water, who have trouble digesting food without painful gas, who have no other source of calories, who have low blood sugar, drink soda in moderate quantities. Did it never occur to you that someone might drink soda because they can't afford a meal?

Struggle to drink water? If you are unable to take in water I think you'd be dead

If they can't afford a meal, paying money for soda when water is free sure as shit isn't going to help

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Of course soda is not great to consume in any serious quantity.

Certain people who struggle to drink water, who have trouble digesting food without painful gas, who have no other source of calories, who have low blood sugar, drink soda in moderate quantities. Did it never occur to you that someone might drink soda because they can't afford a meal?

This has been clear for a long time, but it brings up the question why it's easier to fill up on soda than actual meals. Poor people are basically caught between a rock and a hard place and when you consider that it's no wonder the US has such a problem with obesity.

 

[Manmademan]

So are cigarettes taxes. You think the rich are smoking at a higher rate than less wealthy income brackets?

The purpose here is to improve public health as well.

No it isn't. The tax was promoted by the mayor and the council as a revenue source to improve access to early childhood education. it was NOT sold as a public health initiative as Bloomberg's tax was at all.

The reason for this is complicated, but the simplified explanation is that the philadelphia school district does not have the ability to raise property taxes to fill budget holes, so random taxes like the philadelphia specific cigarette tax, the philadelphia specific alcohol tax, and this soda tax are NECESSARY in order to provide revenue for things the city wants to do, since the state assembly is outright hostile to the city, being controlled largely by rural republicans.

 

[valkillmore]

I will tell you that seeing the price of soft drinks going up due to tax has certainly curbed my consumption. And honestly I don't feel any worse off as a result. I am generally trying to live healthy and the price that pop is at now is definitely a deterent.

 

[Zaph]

I'd like to see them use the revenue to somehow make it easier for lower income people to access fresh, healthy food.

We demonise soda and fast food, but for a lot of people it's the only way to get calories and energy on a tight budget.

 

[God Dayumm]

Of course soda is not great to consume in any serious quantity.

Certain people who struggle to drink water, who have trouble digesting food without painful gas, who have no other source of calories, who have low blood sugar, drink soda in moderate quantities. Did it never occur to you that someone might drink soda because they can't afford a meal?

Soda is a terrible source of energy. You are indeed better off fasting until food is available.

Also, if someone has trouble drinking water or eating, it is probably because something like soda destroyed their innards and have ulcers all along the digestive tract.

 

[Manmademan]

Any sales tax is.

This is not a sales tax, it's a tax on distributors based on volume. The difference might seem trivial, but the tax being imposed this way means that retailers are perfectly free to spread the cost of the tax across any item they sell- in a standard grocery store this could be hundreds of items at varying price points. If done this way the increase seen by the end user would be negligible.

Retailers have largely chosen NOT to do this and directly pass on the cost increase only to soda, largely to make a point because the industry hates it.

I don't drink soda.
But this a poor people tax.
Tax the rich.

it isn't. You think the middle class and wealthy don't eat out? Don't go to bars? It even hits drink mixers. Poor people aren't drinking cosmopolitans and mudslides at happy hour.

 

[torre_avenue]

So you're telling me a tax taught in Econ 101 to discourage harmful behavior is discouraging harmful behavior.

Stunning.

 

[FyreWulff]

Carbonated drinks have other positive health functions, and it is completely wrong to tax them at a higher rate. Young people require calories to function, and while there are certainly better sources for them, soda is preferable to nothing.

should change your name here to Dr. Ian Beetus

 

[R10Neymarfan]

Yeah. Sugar tax would ultimately be a better way. Might also have the effect of companies reducing or removing needlessly added sugar in their products.

US Sugar would never allow for this

 

[CornBurrito]

This is not a sales tax, it's a tax on distributors based on volume. The difference might seem trivial, but the tax being imposed this way means that retailers are perfectly free to spread the cost of the tax across any item they sell- in a standard grocery store this could be hundreds of items at varying price points. If done this way the increase seen by the end user would be negligible.

Retailers have largely chosen NOT to do this and directly pass on the cost increase only to soda, largely to make a point because the industry hates it.

Huh, neat.

 

[Manmademan]

Of course soda is not great to consume in any serious quantity.

Certain people who struggle to drink water, who have trouble digesting food without painful gas, who have no other source of calories, who have low blood sugar, drink soda in moderate quantities. Did it never occur to you that someone might drink soda because they can't afford a meal?

this is the dumbest thing I've read on GAF in quite some time.

Soda is junk. it's sugar, fizzy water, and zero nutritional value. Someone "struggling to drink water" shouldn't be going anywhere near it. Struggle to drink water? you should probably see a doctor and get an IV.

The tax doesn't hit water, milk, or 100% fruit juices like orange juice, cranberry juice, or apple juice. these are exempt. None of these are "meal replacements" (that would probably be something like Ensure- which is also not affected IIRC) but they're far and away a better option than chugging a 20oz mountain dew to "stay alive."

 

[squall211]

I stopped drinking soda a few years ago and honestly I rarely miss it. I get the occasional craving but that's it.

 

[Sulik2]

Just turn refined white sugar and high fructose corn syrup into regulated substances like alcohol already. The metabolic effects are far too devasting to allow children and people unlimited access to it. The diabetes and obesity epidemics need drastic public policy to combat them.

 

[CornBurrito]

this is the dumbest thing I've read on GAF in quite some time.

Soda is junk. it's sugar, fizzy water, and zero nutritional value. Someone "struggling to drink water" shouldn't be going anywhere near it. Struggle to drink water? you should probably see a doctor and get an IV.

The tax doesn't hit water, milk, or 100% fruit juices like orange juice, cranberry juice, or apple juice. these are exempt. None of these are "meal replacements" (that would probably be something like Ensure- which is also not affected IIRC) but they're far and away a better option than chugging a 20oz mountain dew to "stay alive."

Whole milk could make for a decent meal replacement if you're literally at the point of "I can only afford soda for my calories."