Wednesday Rant: Should Uncle Sam Tax Sugary Drinks?

To answer my own question: HELL YES!!!
Now that we got that out of the way, on to the debate...

In the news recently in the Philadelphia and NYC metro areas has been a growing debate of state and local governments consideration of up to a 1 cent tax per ounce on "sugary" drinks.  That means a can of soda that would normally sell for $1 would now be $1.12.  Officials contend that the revenue from these sugary drinks would be funnelled to programs like road/infrastructure improvements, schools, local civic programs, and healthcare.  On this latter point, the same officials site the growing diabetes and heart disease epidemics as one of the main reasons to impose a tax on sugary drinks. 

Since over indulgence of sugar has long been identified as a key factor in the rise of American's declining health, government officials now want to treat sugary drinks much like they do tobacco when it comes to taxes. 

The NY Times link below helps to highlight some positions on this debate and current events.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/business/economy/19leonhardt.html?hp
To me, the most poignant statement in the article reads: "When an activity imposes costs on society, economists have long said that the activity should be taxed. Doing so accomplishes two goals: it discourages the activity, and it raises money to help pay society’s costs."

I could not agree more.  Some of my conservative friends might consider this "another step towards Socialism."  However, I think a key distinction is that when a behavior, entity, practice, or for that matter food has a real, actual cost and detrimental effect on society, it's effects are akin to Socialism anyway. If gone unchecked and counter balanced by reform or a mechanism like taxes, it is a classic example of a socialistic effect on universal freedom.

Some might say, if you start taxing soda and everything else that is said to be harmful to us, then where does it stop?  Who is the judge of what's good for us and not?
I can't answer that question, but I agree that beginning to tax a common and widely available item will certainly open the door for other consumables.  But I'm not sure that is completely a bad thing.

American society right now thrives off of cheap, sugary foods.  Many would argue that this is the same cause of our epidemic and record decline in health as a nation.  Others would say that if you begin to tax cheap, sugary foods, that those who are less fortunate would not be able to afford common foods, and would be directly impacted by the tax.  I personally think that is a weak argument.  People who are poor eat those foods BECAUSE it is cheap and widely available, and not necessarily because they want to.
Like any other commodity, I believe that the higher the supply, then the higher the demand.  The higher the supply, the lower the cost.

If fresh fruits, vegetables, and other items are in greater supply, then they would be in greater demand, and would ultimately reduce the consumption of "bad foods".
However, as long as sugar is cheap, there is no chance for FRESH to come back into our lives on any substantive level.

So after ranting a bit, I can firmly say that I believe the scientific and health care community when they say that sugar is killing us. 

The question is: are taxes the way to turn the epidemic into an opportunity?

What do you think?  Would you support this tax for your state?  Are you a "slave" to sugar, or are you health conscious?

Leave a comment.
JB