Why not raise taxes on common consumptions of the better off, like wine, champagne, or even $5 coffees to help fund universal health care? I see $3 bottle wine at Trader Joes and elsewhere frequented more often by the better off than the poor, and they can certainly help fund a common cause by sacrificing a few dollars on their 'entertaining' consumptions.
4
The tax on sugary drInks would be even more appropriate for funding health care for several reasons among them is the fact that health care is less accessable for poorer people and because many poor people's diet contain a higher propeortion of simple sugars regardless of source. If the tax isn't for health care directly then preschool education is just a fine place to park that money.
6
Professor, read the two links you provided. Hillary said she supported the tax on sugary drinks as a way to fund universal prekindergarten. She did not say anything about "achieving an admirable public health goal of less sugar consumption". You said that, you introduced a straw man argument to make Sanders' position look irresponsible. As you quoted in your links, he said "“Making sure that every family has high-quality, affordable preschool and child care is a vision that I strongly share,” Mr. Sanders said, in a written statement. “On the other hand, I do not support paying for this proposal through a regressive tax on soda that will significantly increase taxes on low-income and middle-class Americans. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it should be the people on top who see an increase in their taxes, not low-income and working people.” His point, like Clinton's was only about how to fund universal prekindergarten. Neither Clinton nor Sanders cited the health advantages of a tax on sugary drinks as part of their rationales.
Please stop your partisan attacks and stick to the facts.
Please stop your partisan attacks and stick to the facts.
4
What they do with the tax money is immaterial if it will really cut down sugar consumption,though healthcare seems more appropriate.
4
How about a surtax on bonuses paid to banksters who caused the 2008 meltdown? Oh, yeah, we can push poor people around, but the wealthy just get richer.
8
Holy smokes another red herring from the Clinton camp. What we have to do here is outlaw all sugar in processed food, like canned tomatoes. You can look at the ingredients and never find the word sugar but for sure it's there.
Did you know that the majority of the sweeteners come from sugar beets? Did you also know that almost all sugar beet crops are genetically modified. I thought not.
Come on folks we have some major problems in this country and sugar drinks isn't one of them. Ask the clothing industry.
Did you know that the majority of the sweeteners come from sugar beets? Did you also know that almost all sugar beet crops are genetically modified. I thought not.
Come on folks we have some major problems in this country and sugar drinks isn't one of them. Ask the clothing industry.
2
But, a real issue is pre-school for all. I'm not pro "sin taxes", but I am for early childhood education.
4
Sugary drinks (including those sweetened with corn and beet sugars) are a major public health problem. Every major study shows it, and every study shows that government can help the people who are most seriously harmed by it with a major tax hike. The same is true for cigarettes. There may be other arguments against the tax, but the scope of the public health problem is not one of them.
8
Instead of taxing the people who consume sugar, why not start at the source of this problem by halting the absurd and completely idiotic sugar subsidies?
Here's what the right wing National Review says about sugar subsidies:
Oftentimes, invoking “national security” to defend a particular subsidy is just a pretext for maintaining a racket. In 1954, the U.S. government established price supports for domestic wool and mohair production “as a measure of national security.” (Seriously.) 1
Even Jeb Bush wants to cut back sugar subsidies and he was the governor of the main sugar state. 2
Finally, here's an article on npr.org, a source most consider center-left.
Op-ed By: Leslie Paige, Vice President, Citizens Against Government Waste
Excerpt: [because of the sugar subsidies] the cost everyday staples like bread, pasta and peanut butter — that are more expensive as a result of the high This hidden tax cost American consumers and businesses roughly $3.5 billion annually between 2009 and 2012.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that U.S. sugar policy will cost taxpayers an additional $115 million over the next 10 years. The only beneficiaries from the U.S. sugar program are a small, special interest group of sugar producers. 3
see sources at www.olivialrosa.com/ AND search no sugar subsidies
9
My website is temporarily inaccessible. My sources are listed here:
1 Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423243/rubio-sugar-subsidies
2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/surprise-jeb-bush-wants-phase-ou...
3 http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175569499/farm-bills-sugar-subsidy-more-ta...
4 http://sugarreform.org/news/
1 Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423243/rubio-sugar-subsidies
2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/surprise-jeb-bush-wants-phase-ou...
3 http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175569499/farm-bills-sugar-subsidy-more-ta...
4 http://sugarreform.org/news/
More crony-capitalism.
1
Sanders is such a vile hypocrite. The most regressive thing in the USA that most affects the young sons of poor black communities are the Friday-night semi-automatic specials.
These illicit and unregistered handguns are bought for less than a hundred bucks because the underground market, thanks to Sanders and his longstanding support for the US gun industry, is overflowing with them.
And Saint Bernard cries his crocodile tears about the relatively trivial effect upon the poor of soda taxes. And like a heavenly choir, his besotted disciples weep in unison with their martyr.
These illicit and unregistered handguns are bought for less than a hundred bucks because the underground market, thanks to Sanders and his longstanding support for the US gun industry, is overflowing with them.
And Saint Bernard cries his crocodile tears about the relatively trivial effect upon the poor of soda taxes. And like a heavenly choir, his besotted disciples weep in unison with their martyr.
7
The proper thing for a government to do is limit the amount of sugar that can go into these dreadful drinks. When any item, made for obscene profits, is designed to cause a kind of obsessive dependency, they should simply be banned at the source (like cigarettes) If you want to save our children from rotting teeth and addled brains, limit the amount of sugar per-ounce that can be added to any food or drink, and still called food. Insist that any that does get to market is marked "POISON."
We already pay plenty of tax money to educate our children to the highest degree to which they are qualified to succeed.
Our tax revenues are diverted for regime change, new weapons of mass destruction, and free rides for the 1% and every time we need infrastructure repair, libraries, social services, or care in our old age, we have to find a new way to tax the little guy. Bernie is the evidence that we are sick and tired of being the victims of the latest Robber Barons.
We already pay plenty of tax money to educate our children to the highest degree to which they are qualified to succeed.
Our tax revenues are diverted for regime change, new weapons of mass destruction, and free rides for the 1% and every time we need infrastructure repair, libraries, social services, or care in our old age, we have to find a new way to tax the little guy. Bernie is the evidence that we are sick and tired of being the victims of the latest Robber Barons.
4
As his hero Martin Luther King Jr did, Bernie says ENOUGH is ENOUGH.
1
Of course I mean "cant", NOT "can't". Darn spellchecker!
1
This is bizarre. When did these artificial, overpriced, sickening drinks become necessary staples? Drink water! It's disturbing watching people use their food stamps to pay for a cartful of soda pop at the supermarket.
And all this can't about "nanny government" and disproportionate taxes for the poor? When did the Republicans develop such solicitude for the poor? Protecting the profits of the soda industry, now THAT is a goal worth fighting for!
And all this can't about "nanny government" and disproportionate taxes for the poor? When did the Republicans develop such solicitude for the poor? Protecting the profits of the soda industry, now THAT is a goal worth fighting for!
9
Rather than the narrow effect of a soda tax, a better approach would be to apply a national value added tax (VAT) to manufactured and processed goods, including soda.
2
Why a VAT on consumer goods? That's just one form of taxing the middle class and working classes more tax. Why not a VAT on immoral obscene wealth instead?
2
Speaking strictly from economics, Bernie is probably more right than Hillary. A soda tax is likely to be regressive. However, from a wide policy angle, Hillary probably has a much better argument on many grounds: health, education, and overall fiscal. It would be far better for Bernie to talk about obesity, diabetes, etc which disproportionately afflict the poor -- and then ask why subsidies to the soda and sugar industries make no policy sense and should be attacked as a root cause. Once again, pity that Bernie has chosen to be all glam, but behind in substance.
10
You are blaming him for not knowing everything about being President yet? Of COURSE you are going to gather bright public-interest-oriented staff and consider and test a number of policy options. These policies must be carefully weighed so as to create the least burden on our people yet effectively manage the problem at hand.
Et Tu Hillary?
This is a poor idea for an infinite # of reasons, here's a few:
1) Tax the poor to help the poor, it hasn't worked EVER, fake lib states are now sporting some of the highest regressive tax rates and the highest poverty rates. These states also have the highest gov't pay, and the biggest gov't bureaucracies.
2) Count how many ways we over tax, over fine, over fee the poor, and rig our court systems to milk the poor. Is it as many ways as we subsidize corn syrup?
3) What if we started a lottery that takes 50% of every dollar, then future discounted payouts so it pays less, and taxed the winnings, then used the proceeds to fund education? The desperate poor will blow their paychecks on it and we can fund their education. But instead, we'll find ways to cut education regardless, and direct the payouts to higher income areas. Proven!
4) Hey 'nudgers' education works, since we started explaining the evils of soda and sugar, soda consumption is way down, Coke is on their knees and reeling. Healthy options are exploding in sales. This is a nudger Trojan horse to raise taxes, overstepping their constitutional boundaries.
5) Oh, the constitution, when Sarah Palin is called in to fire up the crowd holding a big gulp and a rifle the fake libs like to make jokes. Welcome to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, keep making the jokes fools.
6) The complete cowardice of going after the poor instead of the rich. Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy are rolling in their graves...
This is a poor idea for an infinite # of reasons, here's a few:
1) Tax the poor to help the poor, it hasn't worked EVER, fake lib states are now sporting some of the highest regressive tax rates and the highest poverty rates. These states also have the highest gov't pay, and the biggest gov't bureaucracies.
2) Count how many ways we over tax, over fine, over fee the poor, and rig our court systems to milk the poor. Is it as many ways as we subsidize corn syrup?
3) What if we started a lottery that takes 50% of every dollar, then future discounted payouts so it pays less, and taxed the winnings, then used the proceeds to fund education? The desperate poor will blow their paychecks on it and we can fund their education. But instead, we'll find ways to cut education regardless, and direct the payouts to higher income areas. Proven!
4) Hey 'nudgers' education works, since we started explaining the evils of soda and sugar, soda consumption is way down, Coke is on their knees and reeling. Healthy options are exploding in sales. This is a nudger Trojan horse to raise taxes, overstepping their constitutional boundaries.
5) Oh, the constitution, when Sarah Palin is called in to fire up the crowd holding a big gulp and a rifle the fake libs like to make jokes. Welcome to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, keep making the jokes fools.
6) The complete cowardice of going after the poor instead of the rich. Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy are rolling in their graves...
3
I'd be interested in how NYT's commenters would respond if the candidates were sparring over a special tax on steak, lobster, tasting menus, foie gras, pizza, bagels, imported cheeses, Italian wines, and guided historical tours of European museums? All of those items except the last are undoubtedly not good for your health. On second thought, I would include the last as also not good for your health. On a different note, it's interesting that neither Sanders nor Clinton are discussing the root cause of America's sugar addiction, namely the massive government subsidies that give food and beverage makers an incentive to pump so many foods up with cheap corn syrup and sugar.
12
Brilliant
1
I LOVE Bernie but he's wrong here. For one thing, put it in perspective: how about a huge soda tax and they shut down the lottery and most of the prisons? Poor people would love that outcome, and the dollar value of a soda tax pales in comparison to the cost to poor people of the lottery and prisons.
Second, diabetes is the important issue and anything that keeps diabetes away is good for the person of any income level. Again, the importance of diabetes prevention is hugely more valuable than the cost to the poor man of any soda tax.
Second, diabetes is the important issue and anything that keeps diabetes away is good for the person of any income level. Again, the importance of diabetes prevention is hugely more valuable than the cost to the poor man of any soda tax.
4
Motherhood and (low cal) apple pie -- it turns out that the evidence for universal preschool is equivocal at best, and may very well make things worse: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/11/20-evidence-raises-doub...
1
Of course the elites like Mrs. Clinton won't extend the tax to sugary drinks that they consume.
http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/espresso/caramelized-honey-latte?fo...
http://www.starbucks.com/menu/drinks/espresso/caramelized-honey-latte?fo...
2
So Clinton is. Bloomberg now? We can't have a decent mini my wage but we can be taxed on high fructose corn syrup.
1
Bernie is off the rails. The lower 2 quintiles also have the highest rate of diabetes due to obesity. They are stretched economically and consume inexpensive foods that provide a quick feeling of 'fill'. Using funds from taxes collected on unhealthy foods -a sin tax akin to Federal tax on liquor- to help fund enlarge food stamp program is helpful to everybody. Persons change eating habits, become healthy, health insurance rates stablise or go down. Bernie, what's the problem?
8
The problem Jim Jamison is that Bernie Sanders is a purist, an ideologue, hence he often doesn't see nuances and gray areas. I cannot believe he is taking this position. In doing so, he is opposing the progressive newly elected Philadelphia mayor. Of course, Bernie probably views Mayor Jim Kenney as part of "the establishment."
5
Instead of taxing the people who consume sugar, why not start at the source of this problem by halting the wasteful, elite, and lethal sugar producer subsidies?
Turns out Uncle Sam is also “Uncle Sugar.” We taxpayers should not be propping up sugar producers with massive subsidies while taxing the buyers. If you pay for your product you should not have to pay again with tax subsidies. That’s an immoral means of making money. You are in essence making people pay twice for the same product.
The people who make the money producing sugar have been getting off easy for decades. Time for them to pay the costs their harmful product inflicts on humanity.
Turns out Uncle Sam is also “Uncle Sugar.” We taxpayers should not be propping up sugar producers with massive subsidies while taxing the buyers. If you pay for your product you should not have to pay again with tax subsidies. That’s an immoral means of making money. You are in essence making people pay twice for the same product.
The people who make the money producing sugar have been getting off easy for decades. Time for them to pay the costs their harmful product inflicts on humanity.
3
Sanders is right, in that it is not fair to load taxes and fees on the poorest,or to shift the focus to using this sort of revenue for funding programs which deserve more stable funding. The taxes on tobacco are as addicting to government as the tobacco itself is to users.
But HRC is right in that the soda tax is sensible for health reasons, and may reduce ingestion of sugars. Soda distributers will start selling products in smaller bottles, I would guess, which will reduce the serving size.
But HRC is right in that the soda tax is sensible for health reasons, and may reduce ingestion of sugars. Soda distributers will start selling products in smaller bottles, I would guess, which will reduce the serving size.
2
"It can be seen as achieving an admirable public health goal of less sugar consumption or as a very regressive tax that falls more on the poor than the rich, since the poor tend to drink more soda"
This "regressive" tax has far more social benefit than not. Poor people are typically victims of their own poor health habits which include cigarette smoking and yes, sugary drinks. In the case of the latter, the huge rise in diabetes and associated health care costs exact a toll on society as well.
A simple change of habit to artificially sweetened or flavored seltzer type drinks should not be too much to ask for the potential benefits, including universal prekindergarten.
Bernie means well but this "regressive' tax is truly more "progressive" than meets the eye. Advantage, Clinton.
This "regressive" tax has far more social benefit than not. Poor people are typically victims of their own poor health habits which include cigarette smoking and yes, sugary drinks. In the case of the latter, the huge rise in diabetes and associated health care costs exact a toll on society as well.
A simple change of habit to artificially sweetened or flavored seltzer type drinks should not be too much to ask for the potential benefits, including universal prekindergarten.
Bernie means well but this "regressive' tax is truly more "progressive" than meets the eye. Advantage, Clinton.
10
How about taxing the sugar SELLERS for the damages their products do. Maybe they would stop making so many.
2
Kudos to Hillary! This is exactly the kind of smart policy Democrats should endorse.
Tax payers are paying $140 billion a year to treat diabetes and other diseases directly related to sugar consumption. We are subsidizing soda through Medicare and insurance premiums. Why? It's not a tax; it's a clawback.
And the regressive argument is cynical - making soda or smoking cheaper for low income Americans is hardly a public policy goal. Moreover, the more price sensitive the consumer is the more they benefit.
Tax payers are paying $140 billion a year to treat diabetes and other diseases directly related to sugar consumption. We are subsidizing soda through Medicare and insurance premiums. Why? It's not a tax; it's a clawback.
And the regressive argument is cynical - making soda or smoking cheaper for low income Americans is hardly a public policy goal. Moreover, the more price sensitive the consumer is the more they benefit.
8
there's a TON of food out there worse than soda if you read the ingredients on your food and look them up. Soda isn't great for you, but in moderation its not going to ruin your health. There's easily food on shelves that you eat daily that put you in risk for cancer.
I like to occasionally drink coca cola.
I think education for excessive sugar is needed, but people shouldn't be manipulated into not purchasing it because of a targeted tax. educate the people on a non-biased, factual level, and then let THEM decide.
like other people said in this forum, if this gets passed, what's stopping it from just being soda?
I like to occasionally drink coca cola.
I think education for excessive sugar is needed, but people shouldn't be manipulated into not purchasing it because of a targeted tax. educate the people on a non-biased, factual level, and then let THEM decide.
like other people said in this forum, if this gets passed, what's stopping it from just being soda?
4
I'm with Clinton on this. The message sent by the increase in cost due to the tax should be that soda is an unnecessary indulgence; in other words, Stop drinking so much soda! The increase will be more salient to those who have been targeted by the junk food industry the most: the poor. If people of less modest means don't really notice this message and keep slugging it down, then at least the tax will allow someone other than purveyors of soft drinks to profit from it, in the form of improved education (for the poor, mostly).
10
I think I am for Clinton but side with Sandets here. When I lived in Detroit, there were not a lot of beverage options in the corner store, miles from a grocery store. On the Crow Reservation, in Lame Deer, 60 minutes from nearest grocery store in my town of Billings, the gas station sells only no perishables and limited beverage choices. I know soda is behind a lot of obesity- liquid candy as it is- but how about targeting food deserts? When healthy foods are expensive or unavailable, a Coke does fill the stomach for a bit.
Yes- this is raising taxes on poor people. The rich desserts I get at fancy restaurants could put on a lot of weight . How about taxing those?
Yes- this is raising taxes on poor people. The rich desserts I get at fancy restaurants could put on a lot of weight . How about taxing those?
8
It seems highly likely that the beverage options in those corner stores and in those gas stations will change to suit the demand for less expensive (in this case, non-sugary) options. Which is exactly the point of this tax.
5
I wonder if some pro-sugar lobby group is behind the "a soda-tax is a regressive tax" meme. As Mexico has demonstrated, a soda tax helps the poor. Perhaps not coincidentally, Mexico lost its place as having the highest obesity rate around the time the soda tax went into effect. The USA regained its place as #1.
And let's not forget, obesity is a major driver of healthcare costs, a leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US.
And let's not forget, obesity is a major driver of healthcare costs, a leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the US.
13
If the idea is to reduce sugar consumption, why not an excise tax on sugar?
If soda is taxed too heavily, some may switch to cheap beer. Which is even worse.
What next, a potato chip tax? Candy bar tax? Pizza tax?
I suggest something else for Mrs Clinton. A "go to war" tax. Zero base much of the military budget, and have a national sales tax recalculated quarterly to fund the zero base portion. Maybe that will encourage the curbing of some bad habits.
If soda is taxed too heavily, some may switch to cheap beer. Which is even worse.
What next, a potato chip tax? Candy bar tax? Pizza tax?
I suggest something else for Mrs Clinton. A "go to war" tax. Zero base much of the military budget, and have a national sales tax recalculated quarterly to fund the zero base portion. Maybe that will encourage the curbing of some bad habits.
8
Interesting. As Mayor of Burlington Sanders proposed exactly the same sort of tax, rather than raise the property taxes on his donors (and himself). He claimed raising property taxes would be "regressive"--but it was fine to stick it to the poor, college students, etc.: "Sanders has set out to find alternatives to the property tax. The first attempt was a proposed 3 percent tax on drinks, restaurant meals and other entertainments."
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18806/this-1983-profile-of-bernie-sander...
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18806/this-1983-profile-of-bernie-sander...
11
That proposal was a tax on eating out and bars, which is completely different from taxing a certain type of grocery the poor are known to buy disproportionately. Saying he was trying to stick it to the poor and college students is just not true.
7
What is the basis for your assertion that the poor drink more soda than the rich? Are there any studies on this or does it just "feel" true.
The article does make the claim that poor people drink more soda than rich people without providing evidence, which is unsatisfactory. However, even without that assumption, a tax of this sort is normally considered regressive (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp)
3
Just another tax on the poor by Hillary. If only she was as enthusiastic about taxing her billionaire buddies on Wall Street.
10
I usually support Bernice Sanders. But his idea of how nutrition supports disease is bunk.
Diabetes is up all over the U.S. so is obesity and other life-threatening ailments. When people pour sugar into their bodies they get fat and sick. Many people don't even see the connection.
Inflammation creates disease. Sugar creates inflammation.
Don't just tax sugar but educate the public on why.
Diabetes is up all over the U.S. so is obesity and other life-threatening ailments. When people pour sugar into their bodies they get fat and sick. Many people don't even see the connection.
Inflammation creates disease. Sugar creates inflammation.
Don't just tax sugar but educate the public on why.
7
Please erase the c in my mention of Bernie Sanders. (I didn't do it.)
1
I glad the NYT censors are alive and well so that they can review and approve my comments. What hypocrites.
2
So now it really will take a village to raise all the kids democrats, republicans, and socialist's idiots have to solve a so called health crisis. I am really amazed that rational people believe universal pre-K and college is the path to an enlightened citizenry. Taxing soft drinks or whatever some moron decides is bad for us is bad public policy. My sense is you just cannot fix stupid so lets just cut to the chase and follow Karl Marx's theory straight to the proletariatian utopia. But be careful what you ask for because when the few working people finally give up and quit working to pay taxes to support all the lazy folks all the free lunches will stop.
I'm an American expat living in London and the recent sugar-tax movement and legislation here has across-the-spectrum support because it's a common sense law.
If only selfish Republicans and the low-information Sanders supporters would read ALL of the information about the Pre-K initiative then they would get past their NO-TAXES and NO-HILLARY ignorant biases and children would/will be healthier for it.
If only selfish Republicans and the low-information Sanders supporters would read ALL of the information about the Pre-K initiative then they would get past their NO-TAXES and NO-HILLARY ignorant biases and children would/will be healthier for it.
17
Clinton and Sanders should just stop their squabbling and unite to prevent the animals in the Republican race from making any kind of a foothold.
3
hey hillary - how about releasing some people from jail and taxing them?
5
A tax is a tax is a tax.
Enough.
Enough.
1
There is indisputable medical evidence that sugar is a killer. Young children who develop the habit of drinking soda put themselves on a path that will ravage their bodies in future years from diabetes to heart disease to cancer. Clinton has taken the unpopular but responsible position. Once again Sanders just like in gun control reform is playing to an audience that has more in common with the Tea Party when it comes to not raising taxes. If Bernie is a saint for the well being of people he is certainly not showing it here. Perhaps Ben and Jerry will be giving him all the ice cream he can eat for the remainder of his life.
15
(Then it will be a very short life, indeed.)
I am for Bernie Sanders getting on the education bandwagon to teach poor neighborhoods the connection between guzzling sugar drinks and their illnesses.
Sugar causes inflammation and inflammation causes illness, from diabetes to cancer to death.
Clinton is taxing the poor to pay for their children's education? She doesn't mention the ways sugar inflames every cell in ones body. Get the RICH to pay for everybody's early childhood education. They will be taxed less in the long run because the sugar brains young people have, which lead to bad behavior and acting out, will impinge on those very rich who cried before about having to contribute to early childhood education.
Put up billboards teaching the connections between sugar and crazy behavior, sugar and illness. Teach it in schools. (It already is being taught in rich people's schools.) Already, schools, which used to make a lot of money selling Coke and Pepsi in their schools have removed them from their snack machines.
I am for Bernie Sanders getting on the education bandwagon to teach poor neighborhoods the connection between guzzling sugar drinks and their illnesses.
Sugar causes inflammation and inflammation causes illness, from diabetes to cancer to death.
Clinton is taxing the poor to pay for their children's education? She doesn't mention the ways sugar inflames every cell in ones body. Get the RICH to pay for everybody's early childhood education. They will be taxed less in the long run because the sugar brains young people have, which lead to bad behavior and acting out, will impinge on those very rich who cried before about having to contribute to early childhood education.
Put up billboards teaching the connections between sugar and crazy behavior, sugar and illness. Teach it in schools. (It already is being taught in rich people's schools.) Already, schools, which used to make a lot of money selling Coke and Pepsi in their schools have removed them from their snack machines.
3
The obesity rate in America remains stubbornly high, and the myriad health hazards associated with it (diabetes, heart disease, etc) constitute a public health crisis. Addressing the consumption habits of unhealthy populations will require a multi-pronged approach if we are to succeed in improving outcomes. Expanding access to primary care is an excellent and necessary step, and the ACA has made that easier; but I simply can't see a way around consumption taxes like the so-called "soda tax" if we are to treat the issue seriously. This is especially true when considering the heightened vulnerability of children, who are bombarded with slick advertising and addictive products from a young age. They lack the agency to make their own dietary choices and also lack the information needed to make an informed decision about the food and drink they consume. Given the circumstances, we need to empower lawmakers and health officials to deliver the [very hard] nudge required to get parents, especially low-income parents, to make better decisions about the consumption habits of their families.
8
How about the government leave me alone?
8
The tax is for pre K education. This has nothing to do with your rights.
1
Diet soda won't be taxed. Sports drinks and sweet tea would also be taxed. The tax would pay for Pre-K. Do it AND raise the minimum wage.
7
'Diet' drinks have been shown to be very hard on the heart. They're full of chemicals.
1
A big enough sin tax is proven to shape behavior. The children of poor parents will benefit from a near confiscatory fizz y drink tax.
6
Coca cola should have paid hillary 250,000 to come give them a speech so they wouldnt have to deal with this. She should start by getting behind taxing carbon and then worry about soda.
6
She is behind reducing carbon dioxide emissions. You employ a false dichotomy.
9
It's becoming increasingly clear that although Sanders cares about average Americans in the abstract, when it comes to day-to-day practical matters — soda taxes, gun control — he's blind to what we normal folks are facing in our daily lives (and wallets).
He provides great and admirable rhetoric — not to be sneezed at — but rhetoric neither governs a country nor deigns to drop down from its lofty perch to deal with quotidian challenges (such as Republican control of congress).
Sanders for Political Philosopher in Chief; Clinton for "Get Stuff Done" President.
He provides great and admirable rhetoric — not to be sneezed at — but rhetoric neither governs a country nor deigns to drop down from its lofty perch to deal with quotidian challenges (such as Republican control of congress).
Sanders for Political Philosopher in Chief; Clinton for "Get Stuff Done" President.
26
Probably, per capita, a lot fewer rod and gun clubs in San Francisco than in Vermont.
Great point.
Why stop at just soda though? How about a tax on fries as well? Let's tax potato chips, cookies, and prepared foods high in sodium? Let's tax all forms of candy, bags of sugar for baking, tax all salt, tax muffins.
Why only soda? If it's sugar that's the culprit tax the raw product so that everyone has to pay. Soda isn't the only path to an unhealthy diet.
Why not remove some military spending and corporate welfare to fund these ideas. That to me seems like a much better solution. Better allocation of resources not more taxes.
Why only soda? If it's sugar that's the culprit tax the raw product so that everyone has to pay. Soda isn't the only path to an unhealthy diet.
Why not remove some military spending and corporate welfare to fund these ideas. That to me seems like a much better solution. Better allocation of resources not more taxes.
13
Yah, why not. And why would you think we won't see to it that those will happen too?
2
Sugar in soda is the number one reason for the epidemic of type II diabetes in this country. This single, preventable disease costs the America taxpayer $250 billion/year. We tax cigarettes for the EXACT same reason. I make healthy choices and my insurance premiums are largely inflated because of the very unhealthy choices made by others and their desire to consume more sugar in a single day than a human a hundred years ago consumed in a year. The government tends to over reach at times. This isn't one of those times.
20
No, as this article makes clear, we tax soda (and tobacco) to pay for social programs that should be funded through progressive taxation but aren't because the wealthy won't pay up. Instead they want working class and poor people to pay for them, and this is a way of doing so while appearing moral at the same time. Public health has little to do with it.
1
Sugar subsidies were a point of disagreement among the GOP candidates in Iowa. We are already being taxed because our government intervenes to keep sugar prices in the US higher than the global average.
There are so many competing interests (big agra, big beverage, big government) that share one common goal: big money.
The economy around high-fructose corn syrup and the related ethanol industry is a disaster at so many levels.
Perhaps king corn in the US should be allowed to die a natural free-market death.
There are so many competing interests (big agra, big beverage, big government) that share one common goal: big money.
The economy around high-fructose corn syrup and the related ethanol industry is a disaster at so many levels.
Perhaps king corn in the US should be allowed to die a natural free-market death.
9
Have you seen the price of orange juice lately? A random Internet search finds it at about $4.50 for a quart. As opposed to about $3.50 for a gallon of diet soda. Is there any wonder why the poor are drinking one and not the other?
5
The only advantage of orange juice over soda is that it contains a good dose of vitamin C, but juice still contains far too much sugar for us to be swilling it like water. Eating whole fruits and drinking water is always a better choice over juice (unless you live in Flint). Whole vegetables are better still. It's best to stay away from *all* sweet foods unless you're about to hit the gym.
5
Will liberals finally admit something?
Cigarette taxes reduce cigarette use...
Soda taxes are to reduce sugar intake...
High fuel taxes will reduce gasoline usage...
So what do income taxes do?
Cigarette taxes reduce cigarette use...
Soda taxes are to reduce sugar intake...
High fuel taxes will reduce gasoline usage...
So what do income taxes do?
2
Pay for social security, medicaid and the military.
17
Clinton is such a hypocrite! She criticized Sanders' Medicare for all because it would raise taxes on the middle class. But now advocating a tax on the middle class on sugary drinks. I guess some taxes on the middle class are better than others -- as long as Clinton supports them.
It's hypocritical, self-serving actions like this that reinforce people's negative opinions of Clinton. Although I'm a moderate-to-liberal Independent, I've voted Democratic in every presidential election for 50 years. But I won't be doing that in the upcoming election. Hilary Clinton is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
It's hypocritical, self-serving actions like this that reinforce people's negative opinions of Clinton. Although I'm a moderate-to-liberal Independent, I've voted Democratic in every presidential election for 50 years. But I won't be doing that in the upcoming election. Hilary Clinton is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
4
Yeah, good thinking. Trump or Cruz is a much better choice.
3
I am so glad to hear that Senator Sanders wants to empower and enable soda companies to keep destroying the health of the poorest and most vulnerable.
This consumption tax is meant to change behavior, not punish it. Poor people can and will adjust their habits; it is condescending to think otherwise.
This consumption tax is meant to change behavior, not punish it. Poor people can and will adjust their habits; it is condescending to think otherwise.
35
It's Sanders who is responsible for coke and Pepsi now? That's a new one. I would have thought that the actual companies themselves are the issue.
5
Soda pop and bathrooms for transgender people -- is that all the Democrats have to offer or just what the New York Times is fascinated by?
5
You're right - we should be talking about a wall and carpet bombing.
5
It would seem to me that the poor are more price-sensitive than the more well-to-do. If a tax on sugary drinks leads to the poor drinking less of them, so much the better. Win win.
The poor have some the highest rates of diabetes in this country. You want to talk about the costs of health care? The costs of diabetes can be tremendous, from kidney failure (and dialysis is VERY expensive) to blindness and amputations.
With apologies to the Ancien Regime, let them drink water.
(But first, get their water clean up.)
The poor have some the highest rates of diabetes in this country. You want to talk about the costs of health care? The costs of diabetes can be tremendous, from kidney failure (and dialysis is VERY expensive) to blindness and amputations.
With apologies to the Ancien Regime, let them drink water.
(But first, get their water clean up.)
27
Once the government start paying, they then have to start regulating behavior. They should pay for NOTHING except for our military forces to totally destroy our enemies, just as the Constitution is written.
4
The government start paying? I thought the article was about a tax. Maybe the spendthrift government should stop funding air traffic controllers? That's not in the Constitution either. How about maintaining GPS satellites? Let's just let the Chinese do it. Next time a tornado roars through your area in Texas it's none of my concern in Massachusetts. Or, if avian flu wipes out your family, why should you expect We The People to help you? Unconstitutional. Your problem. Right?
4
I'm sure that if Sanders upsets HRC in Pennsylvania historians will say that it was all because of a proposed excise tax of sodas dispensed at local convenience stores.
Come on Bernie, do you actually believe you can "flip" a lot of low-income people to your side of the ledger a few days before the primary? After all, if this type of tax will only hurt the poor then you, obviously, don't believe they're capable of making intelligent decisions about what they put in their bodies.
Come on Bernie, do you actually believe you can "flip" a lot of low-income people to your side of the ledger a few days before the primary? After all, if this type of tax will only hurt the poor then you, obviously, don't believe they're capable of making intelligent decisions about what they put in their bodies.
12
"But there’s another way to view soda taxes: as measures that hit the poor harder."
Economics is one of the quickest way to motivate behavioral changes. Yes, poor people in general consume way too much sugary drinks. But one has to ask, for poor people and kids in school, would it be cheaper to drink free water at the fountain or from your bottle, or is it to their benefit to just go buy a can of soda because soda is cheaper than even bottled water in so many instances?
HRC is on the right path, and I'm totally with her on that. Tax on sugary drinks is not unlike cigarette tax and carbon tax, both of which help to at least partially pay for the damage that these products cause to the consumers and environment.
Economics is one of the quickest way to motivate behavioral changes. Yes, poor people in general consume way too much sugary drinks. But one has to ask, for poor people and kids in school, would it be cheaper to drink free water at the fountain or from your bottle, or is it to their benefit to just go buy a can of soda because soda is cheaper than even bottled water in so many instances?
HRC is on the right path, and I'm totally with her on that. Tax on sugary drinks is not unlike cigarette tax and carbon tax, both of which help to at least partially pay for the damage that these products cause to the consumers and environment.
21
No doubt everybody hate tax especially newly minted. Proposing soda tax with tie-in in how it will be spend on, such as fixing aged corroding water pipes to poor residential housing makes sense. Sending a message that pipe water is safe to drink and a much cheaper alternative helps.
6
Taxes on sugared soda drinks is a start. There is far too much added sugar, and 'high fructose corn syrup' added to many foods, including many that you would not expect to include added sugar. At the same time this has happened over the last few decades, we see a steady increase in American's obesity and also in diabetes among Americans (and worldwide). As a start a tax on added-sugar sodas seems a good public-health step towards steering all Americans, whatever the income level or political orientation, towards more healthy food choices. I think a tax on added sugar on all foods would be even better - and to align government policy with logical public health goals, a removal of any subsidies for production of 'high fructose corn syrup' and similar sugar subsidies. Americans consume far too much added sugar, and pay the health costs - our tax money should not at the same time be protecting and subsidizing the producers of sugar. Since taxpayers are funding about 50% of healthcare spending now, we should make sure we aren't subsidizing bad health choices.
11
Who are you to tell people what they can eat without being punished? Did Obama make you the Food Czar?
The answer is to stop the government from paying 50% of healthcare costs.
The answer is to stop the government from paying 50% of healthcare costs.
2
Sorry, this strikes me as being quite close to the tobacco settlements that were supposed to be earmarked for non-smoking education and ended up being used in many states to subsidize state budgets in other ways. Education will work, over time, but suggesting that taxes are the right pathway is disingenuous.
7
I'm all for soda taxes (and taxes on similar items) to discourage consumption and to help pay for the resulting costs of healthcare and the social consequences of ill health. This isn't an either/or. Maybe I'm just one of the liberal folks who never saw a tax he didn't like, but, if we want things, we have to pay for them. Senator Sanders will need a lot of money for his programs, and he better support whatever taxes he can get. Secretary Clinton, for her part, needs to be realistic: no Democratic program involving investment in infrastructure, research, health, education, energy, and the environment can be paid for only by taxing the top 1% or top 5%, or by patching together nickel and dime taxes like this. She better break the news to her comfortable, but not top 1%, supporters. We've been pandered too for too long: if you hate taxes, stop complaining about the poor quality of the services you do like; if you want services, recognize it can't always be somebody else who pays.
2
Sanders lost me on that. Soda consumption is easily avoidable. On the other hand I can't avoid my property tax. There is a good deal of evidence that soda consumption not healthy. If it is consumed by poor then their health issues have to be paid by the rest of society. Soda tax is just the matter of common sense.
30
The issue that I have with taxes on sodas, cigarettes, etc. is that the companies that produce and market these dangerous products get off without a scratch. Perhaps their profits will go down but they, in the end, are the responsible parties and, like chameleons, they have the billions to come up with alternative products that are new drugs that people can get hooked on. If such companies were actually held accountable, perhaps substantive changes would be made to the benefit of all.
4
We tax alcohol and I would wager that the poor spend a higher percent of their income on alcohol than the affluent. I don't see much difference between soda and alcohol - they both have their harmful affects. One can argue that at least wine has some health benefits - which is not the case for soda. Being able to drink soda is not a right. We can all drink water as an alternative - it's healthier and cheaper.
20
I'm troubled by the notion that Philadelphia should not introduce this soda tax because it should raise revenues in other ways. Why are these options mutually exclusive?
Introduce the soda tax, thereby increasing revenues for education, improving public health and redirecting private resources toward less unhealthy uses. Then, if the political will exists, move on to taxing other sugary drinks or imposing different taxes on the wealthy. But don't let the perfect combination of taxes (whatever that would constitute) be the enemy of instituting one good tax.
Introduce the soda tax, thereby increasing revenues for education, improving public health and redirecting private resources toward less unhealthy uses. Then, if the political will exists, move on to taxing other sugary drinks or imposing different taxes on the wealthy. But don't let the perfect combination of taxes (whatever that would constitute) be the enemy of instituting one good tax.
9
33 states have taxes on sodas or sugary drinks as do Mexico and some European countries. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the Harvard University School of Public Health find that sugary drinks contribute to obesity. So far the results of such taxes are minor drops, but when there is an obesity epidemic, it's worth trying. The AMA states that obesity contributes to 112,000 preventable deaths each year. Guns kill some 33,000 Americans each year.
The public good is supposed to be the result of good governance, right?
The public good is supposed to be the result of good governance, right?
10
Why not tax all sugary drinks, then? Frappucinos, the Mocha Lattes, frappes, smoothies, Arnold Palmer, etc. If consuming sugary drinks is an unequivocal Bad Thing, it seems odd to merely target soda. Sort of like how my sister is 'lazy' because she sits on her rear and watches television, but because I'm sitting and reading Ovid I'm... erudite.
73
Exactly. If soda is so bad because it has sugar in it, then the same tax should be on KoolAid, Gatorade, Red Bull, Fruit Punches, Arizona ice tea, etc. etc.
It's not the act of sitting that defines her as lazy, it is the watching television.
Caledonia,
Nice that you're from Harvard and not Boston, but I see your point.
I happened to be in a store waiting to pay when a customer in front of me bought a pack of cigarettes; I believe the cigarettes were $8+ and I thought that was excessive, but I liked the pricing. Yes most of it is tax but the tax return helps off set the cost of treating the health problems from smoking.
The customer was dressed so as let me infer they weren't wealthy and I think this is another example of a regressive tax. However, I think such taxes work because they raise the cost of the activity, and sensible people will recognize a bad deal and change their behavior.
Making sugary drinks cheaper does nothing to help the poor.
Nice that you're from Harvard and not Boston, but I see your point.
I happened to be in a store waiting to pay when a customer in front of me bought a pack of cigarettes; I believe the cigarettes were $8+ and I thought that was excessive, but I liked the pricing. Yes most of it is tax but the tax return helps off set the cost of treating the health problems from smoking.
The customer was dressed so as let me infer they weren't wealthy and I think this is another example of a regressive tax. However, I think such taxes work because they raise the cost of the activity, and sensible people will recognize a bad deal and change their behavior.
Making sugary drinks cheaper does nothing to help the poor.
Consumers will likely substitute their soda consumption with the consumption of other sugary drinks such a juice, flavored milk, or sweet tea. This is not a tax that will discourage consumption of sugar and it is an inefficient manner to raise revenue. If the policy's intent is to raise revenue for schools than politicians should increase taxes on state income (this is should be a state not a federal issue). Sugar consumption will remain unchanged but tax revenue will increase. Even with reduced soda demand, Bernie Sanders' opinion is more correct; lower class persons will pay a larger proportion of this tax relative to their income than will the middle and upper class persons.
9
The soda tax proponents ignore the fact that soda consumption has been declining on its own for 15 years - while obesity rates were increasing. As a researcher working on the obesity issue, I object to these "silver bullet" approaches that distract public attention. If we all stopped drinking soda, we'd still be fat (and no, I don't receive any funding from the beverage industry). We must stay committed to understanding the impact of endocrine disruptors in our homes and the composition of our microbiome. I have no love for soda, but this is not the tobacco story. Soda doesn't cause obesity like tobacco causes cancer. Call the this soda-elitism what it is - a morality tale.
16
This is crazy. While less soda intake would certainly be helpful in increasing our national health, there are so many better ways to raise revenue than this. Let's see us actually attempt to close offshore corporate tax loopholes first. That any effort was spent on a soda tax prior than that is absurd.
9
Drink water instead. Better for you anyway
4
What's wrong with taxing sugary drinks? As a mother I am all for it.
It's proven that sugary drinks are NOT beneficial to our health.
NO benefit at all
Diabetes type 1 used to be called juvenile diabetes. Now younger kids are also getting type 2 diabetes, the one used to be called adult-onset diabetes.
Nobody likes to pay more money, but unfortunately sometimes it is the only way we learn... It's a good way to stop "bad behaviors..." and it applies to a lot of them...
It's proven that sugary drinks are NOT beneficial to our health.
NO benefit at all
Diabetes type 1 used to be called juvenile diabetes. Now younger kids are also getting type 2 diabetes, the one used to be called adult-onset diabetes.
Nobody likes to pay more money, but unfortunately sometimes it is the only way we learn... It's a good way to stop "bad behaviors..." and it applies to a lot of them...
13
do like they did during world war II: ration tickets.
1
We all win by trying to minimize and/or eliminate smoking and drinking soda....it's a no brainer. Maybe taxing soda will help lower income folks' health (since lower income people are less likely to have insurance/health knowledge).
Berkeley, Ca taxes soda simply as a public health measure.
Berkeley, Ca taxes soda simply as a public health measure.
7
No one foolish enough to place a tax on Dr. Brown's Black Cherry soda deserves to be elected President. For one thing, this is a product that has been endorsed by a doctor.
15
Memo to Bernie: No one is required to drink soda. It's only a regressive tax in the minds of those whose bias tilts not to solving problems but to political expediency.
63
No, it is factually a regressive tax. Linking it to pre-k education is the politically expedient nonsense. remember how the tobacco settlement funds got rolled into general funds instead of smoking cessation?
5
Increasing the price of tobacco lowers consumption rates. Virtually every study confirms this fact. Even the tobacco companies' studies point to significant reductions in consumption by younger adults when the price goes up for smokes.
4
Linking the two seems like a stupid idea.
If preschool programs are dependent on people drinking soda then what happens if people drink less soda?
If universal preschool is such a good idea, then let's fund it. Period.
If drinking soda is a bad idea, then let's make a real effort to reduce it and/or change the health effects.
If preschool programs are dependent on people drinking soda then what happens if people drink less soda?
If universal preschool is such a good idea, then let's fund it. Period.
If drinking soda is a bad idea, then let's make a real effort to reduce it and/or change the health effects.
31
Will a soda tax decrease obesity? The evidence is an overwhelming no.
Every large long term randomized study done to discourage sweetened beverage consumption among children has failed to decrease their obesity rate.
The one 'success' was a study that required children to drink soda every morning. The children who received this force-feeding protocol were very slightly more obese and taller than the controls immediately after the study concluded, but there was no follow up to see if the weight difference persisted after cessation of the force-feeding.
Every large long term randomized study done to discourage sweetened beverage consumption among children has failed to decrease their obesity rate.
The one 'success' was a study that required children to drink soda every morning. The children who received this force-feeding protocol were very slightly more obese and taller than the controls immediately after the study concluded, but there was no follow up to see if the weight difference persisted after cessation of the force-feeding.
5
Hey Michael - Can you send me the author of that study? Thanks!
3
In response to lightdancer:
Per your request this is the one study that 'proved' that soda causes weight gain in children. The study had to resort to 'force feeding' the children soda each morning in order to prove the point.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203034#t=article
Per your request this is the one study that 'proved' that soda causes weight gain in children. The study had to resort to 'force feeding' the children soda each morning in order to prove the point.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203034#t=article
This what passes as political discourse? How about some discussion of the US plan to "modernize" out nuclear weapons at a cost of $1 TRILLION or whether we should build a bomber capable of being turned into a drone carrying nuclear weapons.
This political circus that passes for a process is going to destroy our nation, perhaps the world. Let's stop this silly stuff about soda. People know it's garbage, have you checked the sales of Coke lately?
This political circus that passes for a process is going to destroy our nation, perhaps the world. Let's stop this silly stuff about soda. People know it's garbage, have you checked the sales of Coke lately?
16
Actually this issue is part of an important intellectual debate on the role of paternalism when people display systematic biases such as not maxing their 401k contributions or drinking too much soda, cf the book "Nudge" by Sunstein and Thaler. It is a good article on an interesting question.
1
Nanny State? Sounds like more the macho "daddy state". Get yer fat, soft sugary loving losers into shape.
9
this seems like a really ineffective way of going after Clinton. There are some good leftist arguments for the soda tax as well.
27
Yes, and the first one is to tax the sugar producers for the harm they cause. They are heavily subsidized by the US government. That's just wrong.
1
What a surprise! Hillary Clinton wants to tax us when we drink something SHE doesn't think we should drink.
I am writing in Bernie when we vote in the general election if she is the party's nominee. I am already sick of her and we are still in the primaries.
I am writing in Bernie when we vote in the general election if she is the party's nominee. I am already sick of her and we are still in the primaries.
19
Agreed.
And more people will feel that way as time goes on, since the more you know her, the more you realize just how much you really dislike her.
If middle-aged gals like myself were eligible for the draft, maybe one of Hillary's most important constituencies would rethink their unquestioning support for Hillary and her testosterone-fueled foreign policy fantasies.
It's appearing that by the time everyone figures this out, it'll be too late.
And more people will feel that way as time goes on, since the more you know her, the more you realize just how much you really dislike her.
If middle-aged gals like myself were eligible for the draft, maybe one of Hillary's most important constituencies would rethink their unquestioning support for Hillary and her testosterone-fueled foreign policy fantasies.
It's appearing that by the time everyone figures this out, it'll be too late.
3
This is an initiative of the Mayor of Philadelphia as a source of revenue for universal preK. Clinton has been an advocate for early education for decades, and here merely said it was fine if the Mayor chose to support the program through a soda tax.
Clinton is simply being supportive of the democratic mayor of Philadelphia. And let's be honest, drinking sugary soft drinks is not a right. Soda pop is disgusting and nobody should drink that poison anyway.
35
No, it's called stupidity.
3
Free clean drinking water is a right. That's why Flint is such a tragedy. But no, drinking "pop" is not a right nor does it have anything to do with Liberty. By your logic, owning a car is a right. Should we not tax cars? Or give them a way? If drinking soda pop is a right then we should provide it for free.
3
You can't buy alcohol until you reach a certain age nor can you buy tobacco. Does a 5 year old know what sugar is? Can he understand that a 12 ounce can of soda has over an ounce of sugar in it?
1
It is a slippery slope. If they can tax soda, they will soon have to tax cakes, candy, donuts, white bread, and all other products that use sugar. Once they have established the concept of taxing food for health, they can go after foods with fats, like meat, butter, and cheese, leaving us cabbage and Brussels sprouts, until they find a health excuse for taxing them (unhealthy farts?). There is nothing a Democrat will not try to tax.
14
Much of the mainstream Democratic Party does not want to tax a particualr sector of society: The rich. Bernie wants to tax the rich at a rate lower than that during the administration of Republican Dwight Eisenhower......and he still gets tremendous pushback on this idea.
6
I'm in favor of taxing added sugar (in whatever form) in all foods. The processed foods companies will quickly figure out ways to preserve the taste while removing the sugar, and the customers buying those foods will end up with lower obesity and diabetes rates over time. Subsidizing agribusiness to produce cheap commodities that end up harming public health and costing taxpayers for healthcare subsidies, we're taking a taxpayer hit twice. Get out of the whole agriculture subsidy business, and let a pure market decide what we get and what we pay. If poor people need cheaper food, give them the subsidy directly, not through big-agriculture subsidies. Tax added sugar because it has provable negative health effects that we all pay for, indirectly through higher Medicaid and Medicare costs, and directly when it happens to us.
6
Maybe some people in poor neighborhoods are drinking the soda because there's lead in their water? Just a thought.....
11
Really Mary? Shame on you. First, if that's the case buying water is cheaper than buying pop. Second, Philadelphia has a safe water filtration system and to suggest otherwise is a dangerous thing. Philadelphia is the fifth largest city in this country and Philadelphia is no Flint Michigan.
11
Actually soda is cheaper than bottled water.
I vote to tax politicians that invoke their knowledge of God's wishes, or lie - at a penny a pop we can eliminate the national debt in no time
I vote to tax politicians that invoke their knowledge of God's wishes, or lie - at a penny a pop we can eliminate the national debt in no time
3
You can buy a whole gallon jug of water for under a buck. I'm not talking about Perrier. Drinking water in a gallon container is under one dollar. Pop is considerably more.
2
So what's the difference about carbon tax? Perhaps Bernie thinks carbon tax is a tax on Exxon Mobile, while sugar tax is not a tax on Coca cola but its customers?
12
I'm not sure Bernie isn't wishing he had though of this first.
9
The article notes that poor people are more likely to consume larger quantities of soda, which is true.
I hate to sound heartless, but if soda consumption is so strongly linked to obesity and the health costs that brings and poor people are more likely to have healthcare subsides paid for by the rest of us, is it too unfair to try to control the costs we are paying to treat heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes among the obese population?
Put bluntly: people who eat well and take care of themselves don't generally have as many health issues as those who don't. As long as we are all on the hook to care for the least among us, why can't we ask a measure of responsibility to be imposed on our behalf?
I hate to sound heartless, but if soda consumption is so strongly linked to obesity and the health costs that brings and poor people are more likely to have healthcare subsides paid for by the rest of us, is it too unfair to try to control the costs we are paying to treat heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes among the obese population?
Put bluntly: people who eat well and take care of themselves don't generally have as many health issues as those who don't. As long as we are all on the hook to care for the least among us, why can't we ask a measure of responsibility to be imposed on our behalf?
40
Don't the affluent already have a leg up on eating well and taking care of themselves because of the exorbitant costs of healthy food and health care?
15
Water doesn't cost more than soda.
3
Sugar added-beverages are a major contributor to obesity and a contributor to high health care costs which are borne by all. Our taxes are higher for paying for Medicare and Medicaid costs for treating obesity. In private firms, higher health care costs are ultimately borne employees who have lower salaries as a result. Taxing sugar added-beverages helps to lessen obesity and thus lessen health care costs borne by others.
This article is written by former NYC Health Commissioner and current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Tom Frieden, MD:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0902392
Ironically, the land for CDC was donated by Coca-Cola, one of the major contributors to obesity through the sale of sugar-added beverages.
This article is written by former NYC Health Commissioner and current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Tom Frieden, MD:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0902392
Ironically, the land for CDC was donated by Coca-Cola, one of the major contributors to obesity through the sale of sugar-added beverages.
30
Well duh. A true conservative and nationalist would support a "pop" tax. Only emasculated wimps would oppose it.
The soda industry like all other 'food/drink" industries are mind controlling and globally influencing power on the American people. They burn your dopamine receptors out by age 40. They take you from the mentality of the moon landing to eating 24/7. It is all about pacifying people so the globalist win.
The soda industry like all other 'food/drink" industries are mind controlling and globally influencing power on the American people. They burn your dopamine receptors out by age 40. They take you from the mentality of the moon landing to eating 24/7. It is all about pacifying people so the globalist win.
2
That is the best reason for getting the government out of health care and taxpayers off the hook for poor health decisions.
1
But higher healthcare costs depress wages in firms, institutions, or government that offers insurance for its employees. Employees of private firms have lower wages from the higher health care costs. So do employees of universities, cities, K-12 and so on. Someone has to pay for higher health care costs and in any organization that offers health insurance, it is borne by the wage earner who earns lower wages as a result.
Economists have often argued that the most effective way to discourage a negative behavior is to make it more expensive. Given the health problems associated with the consumption of sugary soft drinks, policy makers would be more than justified to place a tax on these drinks. This is not a "freedom" issue, since citizens may still purchase as much of these harmful drinks as they choose, within the constraints of their budget. If the tax burden falls more heavily on the lower-income population, adjustments may be made in the overall tax structure to take this into consideration.
32
A tax that would force poor people to cut soda consumption might reduce their enjoyment (at least that's what the soda companies would want us to believe). But the flip side is less risk of diabetes and obesity. Doesn't sound like a bad trade off. And sure, Bernie, sock it to the soda companies as well. All to the good.
16
Let's tax kale instead.
If you want to outlaw sugar or soda, just do it. Enough with another stupid tax. If you don't have the support, leave it alone. We don't need any more trojan horse taxes.
I'm a liberal, rounding up to the idea of a single unitary tax to cover everything. I'm willing to pay my fair share, but I'm tired of the CPA/Tax Attorney Full Employment Acts.
If you want to outlaw sugar or soda, just do it. Enough with another stupid tax. If you don't have the support, leave it alone. We don't need any more trojan horse taxes.
I'm a liberal, rounding up to the idea of a single unitary tax to cover everything. I'm willing to pay my fair share, but I'm tired of the CPA/Tax Attorney Full Employment Acts.
5
I live in Philadelphia, and I find it interesting that a local issue has become a national debate, without much knowledge of the local context in which the tax was proposed. The reality is that we Philadelphians are already heavily taxed. If you want to talk about regressive taxes, look at our additional 2 percent sales tax (on top of the state's 6 percent). That's regressive, and there's no way to avoid it. We also live in a state which drastically underfunds public education, particularly in poor areas like much of Philadelphia, damaging the opportunities for poor kids; and that, unlike every other state, does not have an extraction tax on fracking, something that would raise money that could be passed to localities.
The estimates for the amount of money the tax would generate figure in the decreased amount of sugary drinks that would probably be sold, given the tax. If the tax encourages people to reduce their consumption of sugary drinks, or change to diet soda, which is not taxed in the proposal, that's a good thing, because it can reduce health problems. And reduction in these health problems can save everyone money and anguish.
But the real purpose of the tax is to pay for universal pre-K for poor kids and other essential services for them. And sorry, but Philadelphia can't find the money by taxing yachts or Wall Street trades or whatever other suggestions people have made.
I write this as a middle-class, lifelong Coca Cola drinker who will be happy to pay the tax.
The estimates for the amount of money the tax would generate figure in the decreased amount of sugary drinks that would probably be sold, given the tax. If the tax encourages people to reduce their consumption of sugary drinks, or change to diet soda, which is not taxed in the proposal, that's a good thing, because it can reduce health problems. And reduction in these health problems can save everyone money and anguish.
But the real purpose of the tax is to pay for universal pre-K for poor kids and other essential services for them. And sorry, but Philadelphia can't find the money by taxing yachts or Wall Street trades or whatever other suggestions people have made.
I write this as a middle-class, lifelong Coca Cola drinker who will be happy to pay the tax.
48
Diet soda is actually even more harmful than regular soda. This seems silly - there are lots of places where hidden calories from sugar hide. Either we tax them all or not but just going after soda is misguided and does indeed seem punitive to low income people. They should be encouraged to lower their consumption but so should fat wealthy people slugging back Frappacinos.
1
I know. I'm not sure why the proposal here doesn't include diet soda. It does, though, include other sugary drinks, like sweetened tea and sweetened fruit drinks. It's not just a soda tax. Artificial sweeteners seem to be way worse than natural sugar.
1
Bottom line, anything other than progressive income taxes fall most heavily on those who earn less. This applies to phone bills, cable bills, sales taxes of all kinds. Some politicians love them because they can boast "I won't raise income taxes".
If pre-K is important, which it is, pols should tell the truth. It's not free and we need to raise income taxes, or find the money by making budget cuts in other areas. The same goes for lotteries used to "fund" education. I'm not against lotteries. But when it comes to education and the like, fund it the old fashioned way, and tell the truth about it.
If pre-K is important, which it is, pols should tell the truth. It's not free and we need to raise income taxes, or find the money by making budget cuts in other areas. The same goes for lotteries used to "fund" education. I'm not against lotteries. But when it comes to education and the like, fund it the old fashioned way, and tell the truth about it.
16
Policymakers are all the same: why would you try to fix the problem, which is many miles down the river, when you can just go to the source and fix a number of issues tied to the problem.
Massively subsidized corn is the reason why soda is dirt cheap, but it is also the reason why fast food and nearly all processed foods are as well.
In regards if this is a "tax" on the poor. I believe Bernie and many of his followers I not using a full cost-accounting / life cycle approach here.
1. They are assuming that the poor will continue to buy same amounts of soda, which means they will pay more of their total income to soda. - Not true here, because a higher cost in most non addicting goods will equate into a lower usage. Soda is no different. Increasing a person's monthly soda expenses by $20 will mean they will buy less soda and in most cases, this will be large decrease than the increase of costs.
2. That buying less soda does not improve said buyer's life in other areas. Given soda is one of the worst possible dietary supplements, it would be hard for anyone to argue that the decrease in soda somehow makes the buyer equally or WORSE off than their previous consumption habits.
It strikes me odd that Bernie can say he wants ALL of us to pay for a national insurance plan, but does not also say that under said insurance plan, it might make a little sense if we stopped subsidizing the most onerous of dietary products: the soda.
Massively subsidized corn is the reason why soda is dirt cheap, but it is also the reason why fast food and nearly all processed foods are as well.
In regards if this is a "tax" on the poor. I believe Bernie and many of his followers I not using a full cost-accounting / life cycle approach here.
1. They are assuming that the poor will continue to buy same amounts of soda, which means they will pay more of their total income to soda. - Not true here, because a higher cost in most non addicting goods will equate into a lower usage. Soda is no different. Increasing a person's monthly soda expenses by $20 will mean they will buy less soda and in most cases, this will be large decrease than the increase of costs.
2. That buying less soda does not improve said buyer's life in other areas. Given soda is one of the worst possible dietary supplements, it would be hard for anyone to argue that the decrease in soda somehow makes the buyer equally or WORSE off than their previous consumption habits.
It strikes me odd that Bernie can say he wants ALL of us to pay for a national insurance plan, but does not also say that under said insurance plan, it might make a little sense if we stopped subsidizing the most onerous of dietary products: the soda.
13
Huuge Bernie supporter but I think I disagree on this one, given that soda is contributing nearly the majority of people's high daily sugar consumption. This would have a significant public health benefit, just as taxing cigarettes has helped drive down smoking. OBesity is becoming the major driver of our health costs. However a soda tax should go strictly towards health education, since obviously a successful tax would drive down consumption. Pre-k ought to get its funding from taxing millionaires like Hillary Clinton.
11
Don't children deserve programs that could help them become successful and well adjusted people without scrounging pennies on a sin tax? What if the tax works and everyone stops drinking soda, no more pre-k? Obviously that's not going to happen. It seems shameful that the two issues are even being tied together. This is another example of why Clinton comes across as sleazy and untrustworthy. I'm really saddened that I will probably have to vote for her.
8
If a tax can be used to encourage the use of clean energy it benefits everyone.
What is the difference? Sugar is an addiction that many people can't control and children have the least control of all.
We have the 2nd highest rate of obesity in the world. Americans consume about 20 teaspoons a day or over 60lbs of added sugar a year. Soda isn't the only culprit, that supposedly healthy fruit drink is mostly sugar.
Why in the world should this be a political issue?
What is the difference? Sugar is an addiction that many people can't control and children have the least control of all.
We have the 2nd highest rate of obesity in the world. Americans consume about 20 teaspoons a day or over 60lbs of added sugar a year. Soda isn't the only culprit, that supposedly healthy fruit drink is mostly sugar.
Why in the world should this be a political issue?
10
It is also a tax on diet drinks. So it is just a tax to grab money from the mostly lower and middle class period! Not to reduce consumption of sugar drinks which is a lie.
6
A soda tax punishes poor people no more than a cigarette tax. I do not get all of the faux outrage. Tax dollars that could be used for pre-school now go to Medicare and Medicaid to treat people whose Type 2 diabetes was fed in no small part by cheap 20 oz drinks from convenience stores— volumes of liquids unthinkable 30 years ago, and as rare then as, well, Type 2 diabetes. Whether Philadelphia will better spend the money than any other funds it gets is another issue, but taxing this junk that is destroying the kidneys of tens of thousands of Philadelphian (who like in one of the "fattest" cities in the country) is ok by me.
34
I feel for the poor police. So, you put in a big soda tax. Then, people do an end run and bring in black market soda. The big city police have their hands full with violent crime, but, now they are supposed to lock up soda criminals. Will it be the soda pushers only, or will they be forced to turn soda black market buyers into criminals , as well? Then, there will be a hue and cry when the soda criminals can't vote, or get bumped out of job prospects because of their soda record. And, when the poor cops wants to salve their soda arrest misery with a twenty ounce bottle of sugar water, they will get taxed, unless they can find it on the black market.
6
I think Hillary Clinton is right. We should never let Americans make their own choices. There is far too much freedom in the United States and telling people what to do and buy should be more the way government operates. Actually, rich people from Wall Street or government officials can be trusted as they know more, but the poor and non-government people are ignorant and need to be told what to eat, what to drink, and what to wear. A better world is one where people such as Hillary Clinton can tell everyone what to do.
13
@Mike-Your reply using a republican talking points answer makes no sense. Nobody is talking about taking away freedom. It's a tax on pop. Choose to buy it or not.
9
Mike,
You should have the #1 ranked comment on this article for providing such incisive analysis into the true nature of the problem as well as for providing the resolution to said problem.
Do you think there might be something about political correctness that causes sanctimonious people to band together, certain in their righteousness, that tolerance and humor have no place in 21st century America?
You should have the #1 ranked comment on this article for providing such incisive analysis into the true nature of the problem as well as for providing the resolution to said problem.
Do you think there might be something about political correctness that causes sanctimonious people to band together, certain in their righteousness, that tolerance and humor have no place in 21st century America?
3
My concern is what happens to funding for Pre-K education if the tax is successful (which I hope happens for public health reasons)? How will the budget shortfall be made up then? I don't hear any politicians talking about that scenario.
4
I have no insider knowledge, but I wonder if politicians have thought of that scenario. They just know that by the time revenues from a soda tax fall below what they need to provide Pre-K, the program will already be implemented and therefore much harder to get rid of (because of inertia in programs generally, because people who benefit from it will fight harder for it, because taking things away from people raises more ire than giving them to people, and because you would be eliminating jobs as well). Then at that time it might be more politically feasible to get the money elsewhere or to make Pre-K a higher spending priority.
The motivation for the soda tax is highly important.
If the primary motivation is to reduce the consumption of soda and increase public health, then it is a financially sound measure, though with ideological arguments against it on both sides of the aisle.
If the primary motivation for the tax is to raise a generally set amount of money (for universal pre-K in this case), then what happens when people drink less soda, and pay less tax? Does Hillary Clinton endorse raising the tax rate on soda, taxing other goods, or shortchanging the pre-K program? Anyone proposing the tax on these grounds had better have a plan for this (very likely) eventuality.
Obviously, it is also disingenuous to a soda tax on the basis of BOTH reduced soda consumption and generation of tax revenue, because one defeats the other.
If the primary motivation is to reduce the consumption of soda and increase public health, then it is a financially sound measure, though with ideological arguments against it on both sides of the aisle.
If the primary motivation for the tax is to raise a generally set amount of money (for universal pre-K in this case), then what happens when people drink less soda, and pay less tax? Does Hillary Clinton endorse raising the tax rate on soda, taxing other goods, or shortchanging the pre-K program? Anyone proposing the tax on these grounds had better have a plan for this (very likely) eventuality.
Obviously, it is also disingenuous to a soda tax on the basis of BOTH reduced soda consumption and generation of tax revenue, because one defeats the other.
7
This disagreement highlights a major difference between Clinton and Sanders.
Hillary (like her husband) is willing to punish the poor in order to pay for programs that supposedly benefit them. This strategy hits the poor hard by taxing one of the few goods that bring them joy and then uses the money raised to pay for welfare. This is an elitist model of welfare.
Bernie, on the other hand, focuses on the corporations that profit from making the working classes sick. The soda companies, the tobacco companies, the pharmaceutical companies. We shouldn't be punishing poor people who are overworked and under-educated. Punish the companies that spend billions of dollars on R&D, trying to figure out the best ways to 'lure' consumers.
Hillary (like her husband) is willing to punish the poor in order to pay for programs that supposedly benefit them. This strategy hits the poor hard by taxing one of the few goods that bring them joy and then uses the money raised to pay for welfare. This is an elitist model of welfare.
Bernie, on the other hand, focuses on the corporations that profit from making the working classes sick. The soda companies, the tobacco companies, the pharmaceutical companies. We shouldn't be punishing poor people who are overworked and under-educated. Punish the companies that spend billions of dollars on R&D, trying to figure out the best ways to 'lure' consumers.
18
The best way to punish the companies is to cut their profits as would happen if their soda sales fell.
Bernie, once again is on the wrong, uninformed side. Punishing poor people by encouraging them to cut back on sugar ????? How stupid and soooo Bernie.
Bernie, once again is on the wrong, uninformed side. Punishing poor people by encouraging them to cut back on sugar ????? How stupid and soooo Bernie.
8
Why tax soda?
Because with America's Puritan roots, it's a chance to punish poor people who should know better than to engage in such unhealthy indulgences.
Also, it is important to be patronizing to poor people since they are clearly bad people deserving of our opprobrium.
How do we know this?
Obviously, the Lord takes care of the genuinely faithful, so if people aren't doing well, the first step is to get right with God, and all will be well!
Why not add a tax on luxury items? I guess that would upset the constituents who pay to put the politicians in office.
I can't even remember the last time I had a soda, but this politically correct, sanctimonious belief that the "smart" leaders are righteous in imposing financial penalties on the poor, ignorant peasants (it's for their own good!) is just sickening.
There are always rationalizations for why one has the obligation to attempt to control the behavior of lesser mortals, this is just a 21st century spin on "the White man's burden."
Once again Bernie takes a stand on principle, while Hillary never misses an opportunity to pander.
Because with America's Puritan roots, it's a chance to punish poor people who should know better than to engage in such unhealthy indulgences.
Also, it is important to be patronizing to poor people since they are clearly bad people deserving of our opprobrium.
How do we know this?
Obviously, the Lord takes care of the genuinely faithful, so if people aren't doing well, the first step is to get right with God, and all will be well!
Why not add a tax on luxury items? I guess that would upset the constituents who pay to put the politicians in office.
I can't even remember the last time I had a soda, but this politically correct, sanctimonious belief that the "smart" leaders are righteous in imposing financial penalties on the poor, ignorant peasants (it's for their own good!) is just sickening.
There are always rationalizations for why one has the obligation to attempt to control the behavior of lesser mortals, this is just a 21st century spin on "the White man's burden."
Once again Bernie takes a stand on principle, while Hillary never misses an opportunity to pander.
52
Was waiting for a responder to blame Hillary, reminding me only of the South Park song "Blame Canada" (and I'm Canadian). Next I suppose will be blaming Hillary for her wardrobe -- oh, that's already been done.
I suppose Ms Hill, to be consistent, would oppose taxes on cigarettes, alcohol.... nah, didn't think so. So much for "principle."
I suppose Ms Hill, to be consistent, would oppose taxes on cigarettes, alcohol.... nah, didn't think so. So much for "principle."
2
I definitely have to agree with Bernie on this one. Instead of squeezing the poor and working classes to pay for early education, how about taxing Perrier water, caviar, Scotch, expensive wine, Rodeo Drive clothing, yachts, those cheating, useless high speed financial transactions and the rich in general. How about a stiff departure tax for those patriotic American companies who decide to offshore their production?
44
Because none of those things is the single most significant contributor to a global health crisis? Which itself disproportionately falls upon the poor.
13
OK, the poor drink more soda which leads to health issues. And I assume one of the purposes of the tax is to reduce soda consumption. So if the pre-school funding goes down due to less soda consumption is that good or bad?
And don't forget Eric Garner who died last year after a confrontation regarding selling cigarettes on the street. Cigarettes brought in and sold without paying the high taxes, and therefore cheaper. And the cigarette tax was also to primarily fund education. For the soda tax, are we going to have cops going around and arresting people for selling smuggled soda?
Isn't it time to ask whether we need the government to regulate (and criminalize) so much of activity? As well as things like "universal pre-school"?
And don't forget Eric Garner who died last year after a confrontation regarding selling cigarettes on the street. Cigarettes brought in and sold without paying the high taxes, and therefore cheaper. And the cigarette tax was also to primarily fund education. For the soda tax, are we going to have cops going around and arresting people for selling smuggled soda?
Isn't it time to ask whether we need the government to regulate (and criminalize) so much of activity? As well as things like "universal pre-school"?
5
Hillary should not cloud her national campaign with this issue, it gives republicans an opening. Even a plurality of democrats don't like the concept of the government steering their eating habits with taxes. There are numerous other areas to focus on. Educational campaigns are more widely supported, for example. I'm a Hillary supporter, but she needs to back off this losing train as fast as she can. It cost Bloomberg an awful lot of approval points in a very progressive city and there's a valid reason why. People simply don't want the government in their refrigerator.
12
It's not in your refrigerator. It's in the "food" industry's balance sheet.
4
As long as there is clear labeling and public education on health choices, people can decide on their own how many Cokes to drink. The difference with this legislation is that it's directly targeted at changing an individual voter's eating behavior. Using the full force of government to get that personal is highly problematic. If you don't want government telling people who to marry or what bathroom to use, you sure can't use it to directly stop them from eating whatever they want to. You also can't deregulate pot while regulating Pepsi at the same time. The public gave the regulation and heavy taxation of cigarettes a green light, because of the sheer level of industry fraud around cancer. This combined with the fact it isn't just the smoker who's health is directly affected, it's everyone surrounding them too. The same public impact can be attributed to alcohol. I can drink a few Cokes a week or in a month, and it affects no one. It likely doesn't even affect me. This tax goes way too far for most people, ask any opinion poll. Eating habits are among our very most personal.
7
The same argument could be applied for taxes on cigarettes, but ultimately the taxes should exist to discourage consumption and encourage public health
32
I'm a fervent Sanders supporter, however, his view that the sugary beverage tax is a regressive tax on the poor is totally misguided. The idea behind these (Pigovian) taxes is to change market/social behavior for the better. The tax will reduce consumption of sugary drinks - primarily in the low-income demographic where it has the most negative effects. To think that low-income people will consume the same amount and pay the tax is silly. Furthermore, Clinton's idea that the funds generated from the tax should go to fund pre-k is also a bit misguided because it ties pre-k funding to beverage consumption which will indeed decline. The money should be spent on improving nutrition, healthcare and reducing obesity.
54
Sin taxes, a.k.a. Pigovian taxes, may have the intention to change market and/or social behavior for the better, as you put it, but it has the effect of a regressive tax that disproportionately punishes the poor for the same behavior a better-off person would not feel financially. Besides, sin taxes also have the unfortunate side effect of treating poor people like children instead of the adults they are. Sin taxes amount to a backdoor prohibition in that it makes certain behaviors cost-prohibitive, and prohibition is un-American.
People who push for Pigovian taxes to shape behavior into the image of those in charge come across as condescending and paternalistic, as if adults couldn't make their own decisions without the approval of the powers that be. I'm no conservative--in fact I'm a moderate liberal--but I oppose sin taxes because the government has no business telling us how to live.
People who push for Pigovian taxes to shape behavior into the image of those in charge come across as condescending and paternalistic, as if adults couldn't make their own decisions without the approval of the powers that be. I'm no conservative--in fact I'm a moderate liberal--but I oppose sin taxes because the government has no business telling us how to live.
5
Maybe sugar taxes should fund healthier school lunches.
1
When these poor people get diabetes from drinking sugary drinks all day, who will Bernie have pay the medical bills? Rich people, obviously.
10
Would the tax incidence of a carbon tax be very different than a soda tax?
9
Sugar vs tobacco hmmmmm.........
Both are addictive, by age 5 few children smoke but all consume sugar.
Don't you smoke for years, get cancer and die quickly and relatively cheaply?
Isn't sugar a major contributor to obesity and diabetes, health problems which need to be treated for decades, pretty expensive?
If all we cared about was money shouldn't we be banning ice cream and cake and handing out cigarettes at little Timmy's next birthday party?
Okay, I admit that's meant to be provocative, but do we know which does more harm? Are there studies which quantify and compare the financial impact?
Both are addictive, by age 5 few children smoke but all consume sugar.
Don't you smoke for years, get cancer and die quickly and relatively cheaply?
Isn't sugar a major contributor to obesity and diabetes, health problems which need to be treated for decades, pretty expensive?
If all we cared about was money shouldn't we be banning ice cream and cake and handing out cigarettes at little Timmy's next birthday party?
Okay, I admit that's meant to be provocative, but do we know which does more harm? Are there studies which quantify and compare the financial impact?
6
I don't think that many programs or taxes should be about helping the poor rather than working for everyone, period. Progressive income tax and some safety net is enough.
Amazing -- something Sanders doesn't want to tax! That can't be easy when he has proposed increasing federal spending by 50 percent per year.
No surprise that the authoritarian minded Clinton wants to grow the nanny state.
No surprise that the authoritarian minded Clinton wants to grow the nanny state.
4
I totally agree! How about a 3 cent tax per dollar on private foundation funds instead? Or a 3 cent tax per dollar on campaign donations including super PAC's? How about a 3 cent tax per dollar on election advertising? Why do they never ever tax themselves? Seeing how elections are non-stop anymore that could raise millions of dollars across the country instead of just a few middle class neighborhoods! I'm sooo tired of the Clintons!!!!
7
This is not the federal governments job, more control = less freedom.
7
No source in the article says, or implies, it is the federal government's job. The tax in question is being proposed by a municipal government.
5
Dear Bernie,
Does a poor person who over-consumes super sugary drinks suffer fewer health consequences that a wealthy person? Of course not. If poor people drink more sugary drinks, and consequently suffer greater health consequences from said drinks, then does it not help them to reduce this consumption through a tax on the drink? And does funding childhood education not disproportionately help poor people?
To me this seems like a pro-poor tax. Opposing it hurts poor people.
Does a poor person who over-consumes super sugary drinks suffer fewer health consequences that a wealthy person? Of course not. If poor people drink more sugary drinks, and consequently suffer greater health consequences from said drinks, then does it not help them to reduce this consumption through a tax on the drink? And does funding childhood education not disproportionately help poor people?
To me this seems like a pro-poor tax. Opposing it hurts poor people.
95
That argument works unless you assume poor people are just so irrational that they won't respond to the tax by reducing consumption like people who are better off are likely to do. Maybe that's his starting assumption--that the poor are just completely irrational and thus need protection from this? (Notice in Mexico that the poor seemed to be entirely rational and did cut consumption...hmmm, maybe the American poor are just different?)
4
This wouldnt do a thing as far as health goes. What about candy, juice, and all other junk food? A tax on soda will not make people healthier, if they want to drink soda they are going to drink soda. If they can't afford the tax on soda they are just going to buy some other sugary drink. This is classic Hillary pandering, get behind the policies of the politicians in the state you are campaigning in then drop it after they vote. When is the last time she mentioned Flint? Why wont she get behind a tax on carbon? If coca cola paid her for 1 of those amazing speeches she gives you better believe she wouldn't get behind a tax on soda.
Sugary is such a broad term to use for these drinks that mostly contain HFCS (which messes with your hypothalamus) and sugar from genetically modified sugar beets. If soda was still made the way it once was made, with cane sugar, it would not be nearly as bad for you. The other alternative is aspartame-sweetened drinks with carb-based additives that actually make you gain weight. How about stop putting crap in the foods and drinks that are then heavily marketed to kids? The government is not some benevolent entity concerned about pre school kids or kids in general, otherwise there would be more regulation concerning how unhealthy foods/drinks are marketed to kids...and they are bombarded...just as there are restrictions on marketing tobacco and alcohol to our youth.
2
No, scientific evidence really doesn't support that. While Coca-cola tastes better with cane sugar(!) and Pepsi with HFCS (!), sugar is sugar in the body, and HFCS is bad for you for the same reasons that cane sugar is. Going back to cane sugar doesn't do a thing to make soda better for you. Honey, agave, maple syrup may have a few other nutritive things, but they are still, basically, sugar. You don't want any of it in large amounts.
24
On a technical note HFCS is marginally worse than cane sugar since HFCS contains a higher percentage of fructose (HFCS is 60/40 fructose/glucose approx. whereas cane sugar is 50/50 fructose/glucose). Fructose is the "bad" sugar since the body does not use it directly for energy (that's what glucose does) and instead converts it into fatty compounds of which LDL (low density cholesterol) is one. These lipids are stored (fat) and can then be converted back onto glucose when needed (you're starving) The liver is the organ that orchestrates this biochemical wonder. So that's why you don't want any refined sugar (cane sugar or HFCS) in large amounts: both will make you fat, but HFCS will make you fatter, faster.
i support a soda tax not to fund pre-k but to reduce soda consumption.
However, Sanders has a point about taxing the poor.
More to the point it is not enough to make anybody support Hillary Clinton, no carbon tax, war, no single-payer and on and on.
However, Sanders has a point about taxing the poor.
More to the point it is not enough to make anybody support Hillary Clinton, no carbon tax, war, no single-payer and on and on.
7
@.C.C. Kegel
Obviously, you are too young to remember that Hillary was the author of the healthcare reform that would have given us universal healthcare. She was almost run out of town for her trouble.
Obviously, you are too young to remember that Hillary was the author of the healthcare reform that would have given us universal healthcare. She was almost run out of town for her trouble.
6
People have a choice of using artificial sweeteners instead of sugar in their soda. The price of sugary soda is now the same so people choose based upon their taste and health needs. Some liberals want the poor to pay more for sugar - one of the few pleasures they can now afford. Bernie Sanders correctly sees this as morally wrong and Hillary Clinton doesn’t care because she already has the poor vote.
4
It’s part of the Marie Antoinette diet.
8
Why make it so complicated? End sugar subsidies as a first step. This would take care of all sugar ladened products.
A 2011 study by economists at Iowa State University estimated that consumers would save up to $3.5 billion per year if the United States ended all market-distorting sugar policies.
A 2011 study by economists at Iowa State University estimated that consumers would save up to $3.5 billion per year if the United States ended all market-distorting sugar policies.
123
You're certainly correct that the market is distorted, but if the "subsidies" (mostly import duties to support domestic producers) raise the price to the consumer by $3.5 billion according to ISU, wouldn't ending the subsidies lower the cost and increase consumption? I thought the point of the tax was to raise the price to reduce consumption.
7
Yes, let's look at the bigger picture here. While, as a healthcare professional, I can see the value of a soda tax, I can also see what Bernie is arguing. Individual actions are important but we should get also at root systematic causes.
It's like getting disadvantaged folks to eat more fruits and veggies. One of the obstacles is price. Subsidies of certain crops makes them cheaper to buy or put in products but others, just as if not healthier, are not supported.
It's like getting disadvantaged folks to eat more fruits and veggies. One of the obstacles is price. Subsidies of certain crops makes them cheaper to buy or put in products but others, just as if not healthier, are not supported.
1
We are taxing tobacco products, aren't we? And hasn't government action led to ever fewer Americans smoking? And isn't this a good thing?
In addition, the Republicans are against it, which, for me, says that it's probably a good idea.
In addition, the Republicans are against it, which, for me, says that it's probably a good idea.
2
I wholeheartedly support the soda tax; in fact, they should have this tax in every city and state across the country. This would be a great way to fund pre-K education at a time when state revenues are falling from other sources. It's not a regressive tax, it's a consumption tax. Want to avoid being hit with that tax? Don't consume soda; try water instead.
If it decreases the amount of soda poor people drink, that's an added bonus. I will therefore not end up footing the bill when they become overweight, go on disability, or go to the ER with weight-related health issues without any insurance coverage. I will also be happy to see that the parents don't pass on their poor habits to their kids.
If it decreases the amount of soda poor people drink, that's an added bonus. I will therefore not end up footing the bill when they become overweight, go on disability, or go to the ER with weight-related health issues without any insurance coverage. I will also be happy to see that the parents don't pass on their poor habits to their kids.
108
Exactly, Clinton is right on this one, and she has outflanked Bernie on the left this time.
3
PK,
There is something very delicious about feeling superior to others, isn't there?
It's especially delicious when we have an opportunity to swap stories of our superiority with other like minded people and we can all feed off one another's indignation until we experience a climax of satisfaction and realize that, indeed, the Gods always intended for the super smart folks to control the ignorant masses.
I don't drink soda, but I purchase a lot of fresh squeezed vegetable juices.
Why should an individual as obviously superior as myself have to pay taxes toward people who obviously eat red meat and too much cheese?
I tell you, life is unfair!!!
And as for the ignorant masses who can't afford to spend $10 for the natural energy boost that a spinach/beet/carrot/apple juice drink provides, at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that these people will probably die prematurely for their indisciplined lives.
But wait, if sugared drinks are such a life shortener, shouldn't actuaries be able to quantify the amount of SS benefits an individual would receive had he lived a normal life span and then reimburse said individual for all the money he paid into SS that he won't be around to receive?
Best not to think about it too much, as that will only diminish the deliciousness of one's superiority.
There is something very delicious about feeling superior to others, isn't there?
It's especially delicious when we have an opportunity to swap stories of our superiority with other like minded people and we can all feed off one another's indignation until we experience a climax of satisfaction and realize that, indeed, the Gods always intended for the super smart folks to control the ignorant masses.
I don't drink soda, but I purchase a lot of fresh squeezed vegetable juices.
Why should an individual as obviously superior as myself have to pay taxes toward people who obviously eat red meat and too much cheese?
I tell you, life is unfair!!!
And as for the ignorant masses who can't afford to spend $10 for the natural energy boost that a spinach/beet/carrot/apple juice drink provides, at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that these people will probably die prematurely for their indisciplined lives.
But wait, if sugared drinks are such a life shortener, shouldn't actuaries be able to quantify the amount of SS benefits an individual would receive had he lived a normal life span and then reimburse said individual for all the money he paid into SS that he won't be around to receive?
Best not to think about it too much, as that will only diminish the deliciousness of one's superiority.
2
So let's see, the wise and passionate Bernie is all about total support of guns and sugar - that kill and or severely addict and sicken countless millions of Americans every year, but it's the banks that are the boogie man in our midst?
Who is the real shill to deadly special interest?
Who is the real shill to deadly special interest?
83
And who is the paternalistic politician who knows better than the poor people and want to make them pay, for their own good? Clinton. We, Sanders' supporters, are decidedly light-years away of this elitist and arrogant socialism. We'll remember this when we'll have to choose between her and Trump.
3
That would be Hillary Clinton.
3
You may not agree with his policies but dont pretend he is in the pockets of the gun (d- from nra) or sugar (elite southern cabal) industries. That is a dishonest accusation.
4
Instead of introducing more taxes, how about we find a way to put the taxes we already pay to better use.
12
his is just a luxury or sin tax on an item that nobody needs. When was the last time that you believed a claim that soda is good for you?
6
This is pretty much the exact sort of progressive policy I expect Hillary to support if she wins the presidency. No thanks. Also this is very similar to lotteries, which officially support education, but in reality state governments almost always cut funding for education afterwards, so the money is effectively being put into the general fund, and it disproportionately comes from low income people.
42
I don't see the problem here. Sugary sodas are not good for anyone. If poor people can no longer afford to purchase soda and instead drink water or milk, then a good outcome has been achieved. If richer people choose to continue to buy soda despite the negative health consequences, they will in effect be funding the pre schools. And finally, if a reduction in soda consumption results in the soda industry developing new and healthier drinks, it's a win win for everyone.
73
"If poor people can no longer afford to purchase soda and instead drink water or milk, then a good outcome has been achieved."
This assumes that the poor a) have access to clean drinking water (see Flint, Michigan) and b) can afford milk, which, last time I checked, has exceeded the price of gasoline per unit.
As for the soda industry developing "new and healthier drinks," they have - bottled water. All the profit and environmental impact without the complicated formulas and patent protection!
This assumes that the poor a) have access to clean drinking water (see Flint, Michigan) and b) can afford milk, which, last time I checked, has exceeded the price of gasoline per unit.
As for the soda industry developing "new and healthier drinks," they have - bottled water. All the profit and environmental impact without the complicated formulas and patent protection!
2
Problem with this way is if you are using the taxes to fund pre schools then if people don't buy it because it will make them drink less then where does the money for pre schools come from?
I have no problem with a sin tax if it pays for something the sin causes but not to fund something else because then you really want people to keep doing it so you have the money
I have no problem with a sin tax if it pays for something the sin causes but not to fund something else because then you really want people to keep doing it so you have the money
4