Should We Impose an "Obesity Tax" on Soft Drinks?
By: Stepfanie Romine,
SparkPeople Blogger
12/19/2008 3:43 PM
: 376 comments
Times are tough, and governments, like families, are having a hard time balancing their budgets. New York Gov. David Paterson this week unveiled a plan that would bring $404 million to the state, which is facing a $15 billion deficit this year and next.
As part of his $121 billion budget for 2009, the governor wants to enact an "obesity tax."
That is, he proposes a tax of about 15% on nondiet drinks, including soda and sugary drinks containing less than 70 percent fruit juice. Milk, real fruit juice, diet soda and bottled water would be exempt.
Some questions:
As part of his $121 billion budget for 2009, the governor wants to enact an "obesity tax."
That is, he proposes a tax of about 15% on nondiet drinks, including soda and sugary drinks containing less than 70 percent fruit juice. Milk, real fruit juice, diet soda and bottled water would be exempt.
Some questions:
- Should the tax be called an "obesity tax"? Do you think it's a misnomer? Not everyone who drinks soda is obese, and not everyone who is obese drinks soda.
- Is this a tax you would support? Like other "vice" taxes, such as those on alcohol and tobacco, it only applies to people who indulge in sugary drinks.
- Public health officials say that taxes on sodas might help fight childhood obesity. Do you think that tactic will work?
- Others say the tax will only hurt the middle class, which is already struggling. What do you think?
- A family of four spends about $500 a year on soda, and with this tax, that would add $75 to the bill. As we already know soda is not nutritious, would that be enough to make your family cut back?
 You will earn 3 SparkPoints |
NEXT ENTRY > Habits of Fit People: Work Out When You Travel
Comments
2. I would not support this tax. The government doesn't have the right to regulate or punish people for what they choose to eat.
3. It's really a marginal benefit to kids. There are many sources of unhealthy foods and habits. Are we going to impose a surplus tax on all of them? And honestly, is it wise to try to force artificial sweetener on kids from an early age, anyway?
4 & 5. The amount of the tax wouldn't be enough to force most average families to cut back much or at all or particularly "hurt" the middle class. But a large cut back probably isn't the main objective (simply a stated one). The state needs to raise money (it is projecting over $400 million from this if I read right) and they won't raise it if the taxes are high enough to really push people to drink significantly less soda. - 9/9/2012 12:36:45 PM
2. Yes, even if we still occasionally drink a soda. Many families have replaced water or unsugared tea on the table with sodas, drinking almost their entire fluid intake in soda from toddler age and up. It's just terrible.
3. I really hope so.
4. Nah. No one in the middle class is forced to rely on soda, alternatives are both healthier and cheaper, so cutting back isn't taxing at all.
5. Absolutely. Unhealthy and expensive? Having it less and less. - 9/8/2012 1:42:18 AM
We got ourselves into this position with unethical quick-fixes and get-rich schemes of business men and women, and our own unethical quick-fix behaviors - plagiarizing papers, taking office equipment home for personal use (i.e. pens, printing personal documents, etc.)... and people talk in blogs exasperatingly about how everyone lies.
The bottom line is - taxes are here to stay, and you and I benefit on a daily basis by paying taxes. As for the deficit - we dug ourselves into this hole - and we will have to dig ourselves out - in a slow, carefully planned way, not in a slash our society to pieces way. We can't get ourselves out of this problem with the same thinking that got us into it, any more than we can lose weight by continuing to eat the way we have - nor by going on fad diets and extreme exercise programs. Taxes. Quit complaining. - 9/7/2012 10:56:02 AM
I think that it is your choice and should not have to burden everyone with just abother way to line the coffers of our government that is already to freakin deep into our pockets and lives as it is. As for the name I would love to smack the taste out of the fools mouth that came up with that one. America turning into Britain and then you wonder why you have folks that seem to despise the actions of our current establishment. We need to concentrate on getting more money to the people and working on improving the economy. We need to get out of other countries affairs and focus on solving our own problems that plague us as a nation. As stated the guidelines for the standard would put most of us in the obese column. I work out and body build and. Don't fit the obese picture but by weight and height I fall in the range so I say it makes no sense and stay the hell out of my backyard! - 3/7/2012 9:00:42 AM
Back to the title though...can we stop using the word "obese" in negative situations? Obesity is a medical condition...why don't we call the tax "Dental Rot Prevention Tax" or "Diabetic Coma Tax"...oh, wait...those are socially acceptable medical ailments.
End point is...I'm for it. And if it stimulates our economy in the process of making people healthier (and cutting into the "sugar pusher's" bottom line), all the better! - 7/29/2011 10:13:39 AM
edited to add: The tax actually sounds like a good idea, but a big NO on the title. Then again, it is another bit of government micro-management that we don't need! - 3/7/2011 4:14:11 PM
It's the same thing with sugary drinks. In fact, sugary drinks may be a more compelling case, because of the health risks involved. If someone knows consuming a lot of sugar is bad for them, and could lead to Type 2 diabetes, and they still choose to consume the same amount of soda, then maybe it's better that they pay a few cents more for their drinks rather than be excluded from Medicare or from receiving disability checks in the future.
I also eyeroll at people who claim that eating healthy is more expensive. At my supermarket, an apple is the same price as a Hershey bar. At the markets I frequent, a bottle of Poland Spring costs the same as a bottle of soda. Weight Watchers Smart Ones frozen meals cost the same as Banquet dinners. Sure, there's some healthy stuff that's expensive. But if you really make the effort, I think you'd realize that complaining that it's too "expensive" to eat healthy is really just an excuse to not eat healthy. - 4/26/2010 4:28:17 PM
That's just plain not right. And also, I don't have the documentation to back this up at the moment, but I've heard from many dietitians that diet soda is actually worse for your weight than regular sugar-filled soda. (Unless of course you're diabetic. Which is why I personally drink Diet pop on the rare occasion that I actually DO drink it.) So what does this solve? Nothing at all.
And the name "obesity tax" is utterly appalling. Why not just charge overweight people more money at restaurants while they're at it? Sheesh. - 6/19/2009 11:57:56 AM
Smoking can lead to emphysema and cancer. Alcohol can lead to liver damage and impair driving and judgement. An overconsumption of soda could, I suppose, help contribute to obesity but only if there are other factors involved as well. Does the person drinking the soda also overeat or eat unhealthily? Not exercise? Smoking, alone, can lead to cancer. Drinking alcohol, alone, can lead to alcoholism, liver damage, etc. Drinking non-diet soda, alone, does not lead to obesity.
- 6/16/2009 9:47:29 PM
And remember, those people making 8 or 9 figures (of which I certainly am NOT) are the people who create jobs in this country - as selfish as they may be or appear to be. Tax them too much, and they can and certainly will close up shop and move to the Carribean, not owning you another penny of income. Oh, yeah! That's already happening, what with all the offshoring that's threatening my own job. - 4/19/2009 6:29:06 PM
Please Log In To Leave A Comment: Log in now ›