2009.05.13
A sin tax on your soda
The Wall Street Journal had an interesting story this morning about one idea the Senate is considering to pay for health care: the soda tax.
We talked about this at our morning meeting but aren't planning to write about it. There's the thought that taxing a substance that contributes to obesity and its accompanying health problems might A. collect money from those who place a larger demand on health care and B. serve as an incentive to kick the habit. (See how well that works for smokers.)
While we agreed that signaling out sugarary drinks isn't the right move, we found less unity in figuring out what, if anything, should be tax.
So what do you think? How's a Twinkie tax or something that hits all products with high fructose corn syrup? What about routinely charging obese people more for insurance? Assessing a fat tax?
RSS feed 
Since my byline is "I should own stock in Dr. Pepper and Aleve", I believe I will be a target of this "sin tax". I have no problem with it. I know very well that soda (although I did switch to diet) is not good for me, so it is another self inflicted wound that I own. I also agree that like alcohol and cigarettes (which I do not use), the tax would have to be really high to make me do anything more than be more discerning in my usage. My husband has promised to find a way to get it into my IV if I become incapacitated, so I do consider it an addiction. It is the rest of the world that should consider it a necessity.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 13, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
Honestly, charging more to the people directly who burden the system more seems like the better way to go. Healthcare is expensive for everyone because of the insanely high costs born by a few high-risk people. I know that several companies will charge more in premiums for smokers than non-smokers, sort of like with health insurance, and they could likely also charge higher health insurance premiums if the insured person engages in any kind of risky behaviors like outdoor sports where injuries would be common, or for overweight people to be charged more since they tend to have more health problems than fitter people do. It would make more sense to do that, I think, than to tax anything that someone might see as being a contributor to the problem in this case. If we're looking for things to tax that lead to obesity, we need to hit all soda companies, snack food companies, ice cream companies, fast food, sit-down restaurants, grocery stores, and anyone who happens to sell anything food-related that isn't limited to produce. Americans, in general, just plain eat too much...it's not so much that we eat a lot of the bad stuff, we just eat too much of everything. Maybe charging higher health insurance premiums to people who exceed some sort of standard limits for weight or body mass might encourage folks to pick water instead of Pepsi with their dinner, or to get the 6 oz sirloin rather than the 16 oz ribeye, or to pass on the ice cream sundae for dessert. But, a person who is fit and consumes those things in moderation and stays healthy should not have to pay for someone elses poor decision making, if at all possible.
Comment by Other John — May 13, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
"...that signaling out.." the word singling would make more sense there than signaling. And I don't drink soda so tax away...
Comment by Susan — May 13, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Well I read the whole article and it says most diet drinks will not be included. Does this mean that diet really is better or is this a head fake? I do only stick to diet DP so I guess I will keep on sinning.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 13, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
Luanne..the fat/obese are paying more for medical and life insurance, when purchased individually. Maybe that's one reason why we have so many uninsured.
Comment by BUD — May 13, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
I think this does become a slippery slope issue. There are genetic defects and disease predispositions that also determine some health issues. If we only "go after", "target" or "single out" the ones we can visually see are obese and let the other, perhaps just as deadly variables slide, how is that "fair". A sin tax seems a fairer way to cover the bases as well as raise awareness without having to malign only a group with visible signs of a predisposition. Obese people also tend to die earlier which means they do not live to collect on their Social Security, require less prolonged end of life care in facilities, etc. The Morbidly Obese are a disproportionate share of the "obesity cost" issue as well and that really is a different category. I just do not see an easy answer, but I believe as I said in another thread, very low cost or even free preventive and maintenance programs can have a huge impact and I would like to see any "sin tax" go to such programs. That way, we are at least helping ourselves on some level.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — May 13, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
I don't drink soda...but I don't think this works. We would have to start taxing almost everything as OJ says. Plus, how did they single out soda...there are far worse things out there.
Comment by HCS — May 13, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
If we want to reduce the number of abortions, why not slap a tax on them?
Comment by Henry — May 13, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
I don't think a tax on soda is going to stop anybody from drinking it any more than the tax on cigarettes has stopped anybody from smoking. All it will do is generate some revenue.
Comment by Susan — May 13, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Susan, I think that they use that to sugar coat that they just want the revenue...do you really think they care if people stop drinking soda or not? Sure it would be great if it really did reduce the amount people consumed...but if it doesn't, they won't care...they got what they wanted.
Comment by HCS — May 13, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Why tax? Why?
How about we all just become complete drones to the government and give them all our money. It seems to be where we're going anyways. Lets just be put out of our misery.
"So what do you think?"
It's freakin' ridiculous.
Comment by Uptheriver — May 13, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Taxes are not one of my hotbutton issues but I find this particular tax odd. How can you possibly tax extra on soda and not every single thing from Hostess? Frito Lay?
Comment by Kristen — May 13, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
I'm with you Kristen...I am fully aware that taxes are necessary and sometimes raising taxes are indeed nevessary but now the selection process seems funny and not "funny haha"
Comment by HCS — May 14, 2009 @ 8:36 am
Yeah....why not have ANOTHER tax....we don't already pay enough of the money WE earned to the government.... I'm just wondering when we'll just hand over the whole check on payday...
Comment by Danny — May 14, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
I drink far more soda than I should, so this tax would hit me hard, but if the money from it and other similar taxes went towards paying for healthcare for all Americans, I would be more than happy to pay it. Extending the tax to other unhealthy habits would also seem like a rational step, in addition to the trillions of dollars in savings that could be achieved in reducing the drug companies advertising expenditures, increasing preventative care to reduce costs down the road, and other similar strategies. Our country needs to change the way we look at this whole issue and take some responsibility as consumers.
Comment by Nathan — May 14, 2009 @ 12:50 pm