There's a reason mom told you it's badDoes this outrage you? Before we get out our pitchforks and begin raging against the machine - I mean the feds - let's think about this.
What is a sin tax? To quote Investopedia, it's "a state-sponsored tax added to products or services that are seen as vices...levied by governments to discourage...such activities." Such activities currently include alcohol and cigarettes - both consumer products which are generally considered to be bad, both health-wise and socially. Much as I would love to explore the reasoning on making cigarettes and alcohol heavily taxed "taboo" products, that's another can of worms for another post.
These are both sins. In fact, all fun things are sins.
These are both sins. In fact, all fun things are sins.So, why would soda be sin-taxed? The WSJ quotes Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, saying "Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something the government should discourage the consumption of."
Interestingly, this tax is being considered as an option to supplement funds for public health care. Over the period of four years, this 3 cent tax per 12oz soda is estimated to generate $24 billion.
But soda? How could they! Soda isn't a sin, there isn't anything wrong with it - why make soda-drinkers pay for social health care? Is nothing sacred!?
*disclaimer: all of the statements above were intended to be satirical.*
Ok, let's compare. What are a few reasons most people find sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes socially, morally and legally acceptable?
No? It is in my house, it is in my mother's house, it is in my naturopathic doctor's house, and it is in many of my friends' houses. Why? Well, notice the first seven points. Don't you think cigarettes and alcohol are considered morally offensive and taboo by many people for all those good reasons? Well, if those seven points apply to soda, why shouldn't the last two also?
Why the vendetta against soda, you ask. Two reasons:
high fructose corn syrup
aspartame
HFCS is the sweetener used in regular drinks - not just soda, or even beverages. Check your ingredient labels next time you go to the grocery store. I'm not going to try to give you all the reasons why this is bad here, but you can read up on it yourself.
Aspartame is the sugar substitute found in all "diet" products, Nutrasweet and Equal. This is a recognized carginogen which has a long list of harmful and deadly side effects, one of which, ironically, is obesity. Again, educate yourself.
I have a commercial by the Corn Refiner's Association I want to show you, as well as a more in-depth discussion on the corn syrup and aspartame industries, but this post is getting outta control as it is, so we'll save that for Part II. Think about soda tax. If it makes sense to discourage people from smoking cigarettes with heavy taxes, doesn't a 3 cent tax on harmful beverages make sense? Doesn't it also make sense to have those taxes go into a fund which is allocated to take care of the inevitable health complications of those beverage consumers?
Don't agree? Fight me in the comments! And stay tuned for next post's rage against Monsanto...
But soda? How could they! Soda isn't a sin, there isn't anything wrong with it - why make soda-drinkers pay for social health care? Is nothing sacred!?
*disclaimer: all of the statements above were intended to be satirical.*
Ok, let's compare. What are a few reasons most people find sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes socially, morally and legally acceptable?
- they're terrible for your health
- they're really, REALLY terrible for your health
- they're addictive
- they often cause delinquent, irresponsible behavior
- they draw in the lower class who works hard, wants release and doesn't have money to go on vacation
- they cause people, usually of the lower class, to become dependent on a certain industry-driven substance
- they're expensive, and waste the money of consumers who, let's face it, don't have much money to waste
- they're societal taboos
- they're found morally offensive to many societal groups
No? It is in my house, it is in my mother's house, it is in my naturopathic doctor's house, and it is in many of my friends' houses. Why? Well, notice the first seven points. Don't you think cigarettes and alcohol are considered morally offensive and taboo by many people for all those good reasons? Well, if those seven points apply to soda, why shouldn't the last two also?
Why the vendetta against soda, you ask. Two reasons:
high fructose corn syrup
aspartame
HFCS is the sweetener used in regular drinks - not just soda, or even beverages. Check your ingredient labels next time you go to the grocery store. I'm not going to try to give you all the reasons why this is bad here, but you can read up on it yourself.
Aspartame is the sugar substitute found in all "diet" products, Nutrasweet and Equal. This is a recognized carginogen which has a long list of harmful and deadly side effects, one of which, ironically, is obesity. Again, educate yourself.
I have a commercial by the Corn Refiner's Association I want to show you, as well as a more in-depth discussion on the corn syrup and aspartame industries, but this post is getting outta control as it is, so we'll save that for Part II. Think about soda tax. If it makes sense to discourage people from smoking cigarettes with heavy taxes, doesn't a 3 cent tax on harmful beverages make sense? Doesn't it also make sense to have those taxes go into a fund which is allocated to take care of the inevitable health complications of those beverage consumers?
Don't agree? Fight me in the comments! And stay tuned for next post's rage against Monsanto...
Posts
7 comments:
yes, great, now the government can decide what we should or shouldn't do and make us act accordingly. if you wanted, you could make an argument that a LOT of things fall under vices, and tax them as such. who gets to pick?
finally, you pointed to issues of the underclass. if cigarettes or soda are addictive/abused by the lower class, and this is a problem because of their poverty, then what the ** kind of solution is increasing their price? O.o
If the govt is going to pay for the insulin you start needing at age 20, you had better pay them for the diabetes-inducing soda you imbibe.
I find the idea of all sin taxes pretty hypocritical. Is the government really trying to discourage such activities or is it a tax that sounds moral enough to justify?
I think a three cent tax is too little to change habits, but just enough to fill the fed's pockets. It's a poor excuse for a tax.
@Matthew
thanks for the awesome comments! i agree on most points - obviously, i have no reason to love cigarette and alcohol taxes because i consume them both - in fairly large amounts, at times. of course, the problem is that the unemployed, overworked and underpaid - or, at least my self and my husband - use alcohol and cigarettes (or whatever) to relax. why are we being punished for being part of a system that refuses to help us out?
if people could be encouraged to live healthy lifestyles - soda and processed food being, in my mind, as big an issue as cigarettes & tobacco - none of these legislatures would be necessary. but, if we're looking at laying a public health care system of sorts at the feet of the taxpayer, isn't it fair to give some of that back, just like with land?
hmm...
I agree with this idea! A tax on sweetened beverages is hardly going to price anybody out of enjoying a pop once in a while, but the overall revenue from this could go a ways toward paying for all the public-sponsored health care that will be needed by people who drink too much of it. I suppose it could price somebody out if they drink a serious and constant volume of pop and they are poor... This idea is also particularly nice because the more you drink, the more it may damage your health and cost collective money towards care for your preventable condition, so the more you have to contribute... even if the total cost of your care far exceeds the total extra tax you've paid (I'm guessing it would). It seems quite fair to me.
I'm not sure if the real motivation behind "vice taxes" is to try to discourage people from using these things though. Rather, I suspect the motivation is to obtain a guaranteed source of revenue, just like the industries that sell these products. I seriously doubt many people are going to decrease sweetened beverage consumption because it costs a few cents more, or because the "vice tax" educated them about the associated health repercussions!
(p.s. this is Kate, your friend friend from the early teen years! I enjoy reading your blog posts you share on fb.)
@Kate
Those were all pretty much my thoughts...look at us midwestern-raised women turning into liberal hippies! I hear you've been in Ann Arbor - I've been on the Left Coast, so we can probably blame it on that. ;-) So glad you enjoy reading - I love the comments, and hearing from old friends!
You can debate the 'sin tax'issue all day...but the gov't is already in the business,so there's no going back. I think anything that supports the whole corn syrup industry should be sin taxed; how 'bout we just tax everything the FDA approves. (I remember years ago when the Fed Food Program wouldn't pay Day Care's for things like yogurt and air popped popcorn...both healthy, but it would pay for all the Lucky Charms you wanted!) Hey, there you go....I say sin tax soda pop and Lucky Charms....now there's some revenue!!!! I'm serious...try to buy cereal w/out corn syrup. And then there's the whole veg oil industry, and last but hardly least we should zone in on the GMO industries.....we could eliminate the entire National debt!!!!
Post a Comment