Should We Tax Sugar to Reduce Obesity?

Tax Sugar

A new study suggests taxing sugar is a far better way to control the enormous cost associated with unhealthy citizens of the United States than product specific taxes. I have no problem with the conclusion of the study, it’s most likely correct even though it is based on simple economic models rather than actual implementations. I do, however, have a problem with using taxes to control the behavior of citizens.

Let’s assume it is completely accurate to forecast an obesity drop and a correlating reduction in the diseases that come from being overweight; heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, cancer, and others. If this sugar tax was put into place we could expect to see a substantial savings in healthcare costs associated with the treatment of all those disease. We’d see fewer missed workdays. There are any number of societal benefits to a healthy population, this cannot be denied. I’m all for these results if not the methods.

Arguments Against

We know for a fact the producers of sugary drinks will see the cost of their products rise. This is the desired outcome. When the price rises, people stop purchasing. Well, at least some people. The reality is many people continue to drink such beverages but now have less money to spend on other things, perhaps a new cellular phone or deck for their house. Each dollar we take out of consumer’s pockets must be accounted for on the scale. Thus, the effect on many industries is negative, not just the sugary drink providers.

Arguments For

What are some of the arguments against such taxes? There are certainly undesirable impacts on the sugary drink industry but these negatives are presumably offset by gains in other places. If people move away from sugary drinks they will move to something else. Perhaps they will purchase more tea or water. So, not a bad thing you might say. I’d say, yes, very bad thing. The industries so benefiting have a competitive advantage against the sugary drink companies brought on by government intervention, capitalism has been subverted by crony capitalism. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the attempts to tax soda and the funding for studies like the one I referenced earlier were not coming from such industries. When the government becomes involved in which company succeeds and which company fails; then such businesses are forced to attempt to corrupt government as a means of survival.

The idea of taxes in general is to support government programs. We pay a gasoline tax largely to fund road related services. In this case there is no correlating service. We’re merely doing it to try and get people to behave in a way the government thinks best. This deeply offends my Libertarian ideology.

When the Government Gets Involved

I think it is important to consider the government’s role in milk and cheese production. Our tax dollars go to these endeavors including advertising campaigns. The consumption of such food is not necessarily healthy. If we trust the government to promote or demonize one thing, we cannot be upset when they do so for many different things. This is my biggest problem with a sugar tax. By empowering the government to tax simply to engineer a particularly desired behavior, we essentially give them carte blanche to promote any such behavior.

I do not think it takes a leap of logic to understand that unscrupulous business owners will immediately look to subvert this supposed altruistic process. They will immediately, let’s be honest, they are already, attempting to get government to work for their industries.

Even when the government is right, sugar filled drinks and food contribute to obesity and we should probably be eating and drinking less; we cannot allow it to act as an agent for or against a particular industry. The more government has the ability to shape our purchasing habits, the more it will become corrupted by industry.

In essence, the government will simply become a corrupt agent of particularly industries. This is not its intended role. Sadly, I’m of the opinion we are well on our way to such a state of affairs. It does not bode well.

Tom Liberman

3 thoughts on “Should We Tax Sugar to Reduce Obesity?

  1. “In this case there is no correlating service”

    “healthcare costs”

    We depend on our government to not just govern, but to provide ample services that 9 times out of ten make the simple act of living easier/nicer: police to serve and protect, fire/EMS to save us, teachers to make us less dumb, parks, pools, libraries, roads… taxing all sweeteners and recreational intoxicants could go a long way toward funding a proper complete public health system.

    “The … government has the ability to shape our purchasing habits”

    This is a creepy concept. But, cut further:

    “The … government has the ability to shape our … habits”

    Suuuperrr creeeepy.

    But that’s what governing is.

    Reasonable, responsible taxes which guide our behavior are not an icy, unclimbable peak between two slippery slopes of anarchy and a corporate-sponsored big-brother police state. I’m a pretty big fan of people running into walls when they rape, kill, or steal. Crimers gonna crime, but I like that there are governnnnnment barriers that deter casuals from criming and thus, minimize the likelihood that anyone I know will be victimized by anyone other than their own selves. I love pot and Little Debbie cakes, and I would be pissed if I had to pay double the regular price for either, for a half second- then I’d remember 1) the tax is paying for someone with a busted body to get anesthesia, surgery, post-op care, and that I myself am likely to be calling on the benefits of that tax someday (probably while on vacation somewhere) and 2) I really like pot and Little Debbie cakes and am going to just have to enjoy them half as often as I do. No one will have their life shattered by facing a $4 bottle of Dr Pepper and a $1.35 bottle of Aquafina and making a decision to purchase either one or neither one.

    Also, “The industries so benefiting have a competitive advantage against the sugary drink companies” make it seem like you’re unaware that Pepsi and Coke both have products that typically take up 40-90% of the typical convenience store’s water door and that it would only make good business sense for Coke, Pepsi, Anheuser-Busch, Coors-Molson, and InBev to save money on flavoring and other additives, and just sell plain old water. The current price is stuuuupid profitable. It would only be the sugar lobby (a lobby proven to be nearly unstoppable in DC) who would stand to lose in the drinks and candies game. If Kraft can move units at the register without sugar, Mars can too. It isn’t that far fetched to imagine that the whole Healthy-Living marketing push would be motivated by those gas station giants- a bag of celery or bottle of h2ohyeah is cheaper to process and distribute than gooey concoctions that require mixers, heating, and cooling. I fail to imagine that a tocopherol-handler’s wages are lower than or on-par with a carrot-bagger’s.

  2. Pingback: Sweet Drinks Advertised Deceptively - Tom Liberman

  3. Pingback: Tipping is Taxes at best Stealing at Worst - Tom Liberman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *