Conversation on Public Health - Is a Soda Tax Paternalism? Victim Blaming?

The Conversation

Is a Soda Tax Paternalism? Victim Blaming?

By: CHP | Posted on: March 9th, 2010 | 57 comments | Share:
Categories: Economic Issues • Editorial Notes • Policies and Laws • Nutrition • Polls • Public Health

The CHP Twitter feed recently received a message from @erinashmiller, who tweeted that “taxing junk food violates horizontal & vertical equity, also paternalistic.”

The tweet included a link to an article she wrote on agriculture policy wherein she discussed the issue of “fat tax” as violating “horizontal equity.”

Soda and junk food tax proposals, she writes, tax prepackaged junk foods, but not equally unhealthy foods consumed by groups in higher income brackets.”

This, she says, violates “horizontal equity,” which holds that similarly situated taxpayers should be treated similarly. Taxing foods primarily consumed by one group of people while not taxing foods consumed by another group violates horizontal equity. For example, imposing a fat tax on foie gras but not cow livers would violate horizontal equity as would a tax on cheez wiz but not brie, or a tax on Coke but not Martinelli’s non-alcoholic pear cider.

These taxes are also said to violate “vertical equity,” or the extent to which taxes are fairly levied based on the ability of people to pay. Since junk food is consumed more by lower economic groups, people with the least money would bare the brunt of the increased tax.

The tweet and article echo a comment we received from Shane Lorimer on our soda tax poll. Shane wrote that “to artificially increase the price of something we are already artificially reducing the price of, through our farm subsidies for corn crops, is ridiculous. Instead of paying twice for the low cost of soda, why not tax soda companies for purchasing the sugar/corn syrup, or better yet, increase cost of all these nutritionally worthless foods by decreasing the corn subsidies?”

“What are we going to do,” Shane asks, “increase the tax on every unhealthy behavior until only the rich can be unhealthy? We need to stop this waste and focus on issues that will really make a meaningful impact and NOT blame the victim.”

These points are well made, but agricultural policy and tax policy are not mutually exclusive.

Is there anything wrong with ending corn subsidies AND taxing soda AND using the tax money to help reduce obesity in populations most affected by that epidemic?

Want to weigh in on this issue? Leave a comment here, or take our soda tax poll.

Finally, this just in: New research shows a link between soda taxation and better health.

57 Comments:

Viewing page 2 of 2 for comments on this post. < 1 2

51 Posted by Chase Franks on March 11th, 2010 at 03:34 PM

In my opinion I think that taxing “sugary drinks” has a strong upside, if the tax money is put to the right use. With there being a rise in diabetes and obesity I think that a tax on certain drinks could benefit the population. I believe that no matter what people are going to by pop, energy drinks etc. but at least if there is a tax maybe they will consider other options. If it works on a small population of people it would still be considered a successful tax because it is not harming anyone. The tax money that is collected could be put towards campaigns to inform the population about ways to become healthier.

52 Posted by Jenny Cha on March 11th, 2010 at 03:16 PM

All the taxing and increasing prices is getting a bit overwhelming. Just like increasing the prices of cigarettes, people are going to purchase it if they need it. If someone wants to drink a can of soda, hey, they’ll go get a can of soda. I find it ridiculous because it’ll all go towards the non-poverty. Yes, diabetes in the US is at a rise, and if this will decrease that, they can give it a try, I guess anything works.

53 Posted by Lindsey Thompson on March 11th, 2010 at 02:24 PM

I agree with her on this point, I don’t think having a “fat tax” is a good idea. I think that people are in control of their own decisions and if they choose to only buy junk food because they want to, that’s their choice. If people are choosing to buy junk food because that is all they can afford (it is way cheaper) then we shouldn’t penalize them for having a certain income that only allows them to buy that type of food. I don’t see how a “fat tax” would really do anything but make the poorer people, poorer.

54 Posted by Kaylinn Dokken on March 11th, 2010 at 02:09 PM

While I agree that there may be some taxing on some products traditionally consumed by the lower income and not on those consumed by the higher income, I think that the big picture needs to be examined. These taxes aren’t aimed at the low income, the taxes were designed in a way to have an affect on the greatest proportion of the population. It can be argued that alost everyone in the Us as some point in their life has consumed soda. However, taxing soda does not solve the issue that they are trying to sole with this tax. A small tax on soda is not going to have a large impact on obesity. We need to find programs and ways to have a large impact on obesity in this country.

55 Posted by Hannah Doyle on March 11th, 2010 at 01:44 PM

All of these rules and taxes are getting overwhelming. We need to get to the heart of the issue. Obesity is increasing, and where do we point the finger? How do we change what’s going on? I agree with Shane Lorimer and getting rid of corn subsidies, but I know that’s easier said than done because that is a multi faceted issue. Bad foods are bad foods, and categorizing these foods into social status’ seems silly. The wealthy never eat soda or a candy bar? That’s a pretty broad statement, saying that it will only effect the poor. Although they might be effected mostly by it, then so be it. People have to be responsible for the choices that they make! We can’t child-proof everything, people are smart and have the capability of being responsible for themselves.

56 Posted by Sara Gardner on March 11th, 2010 at 01:15 PM

To my understanding, corn subsidies make fast food, junk food, and other unhealthy options cheaper to the manufacturers and thus cheaper to the public. Would ending this make unhealthy foods more expensive? If so, I don’t see why not. I don’t see why implementing more and more rules and taxes will solve all the nation’s problems—financially and dietary. I understand that taxing will mostly hurt the lower income families, but perhaps eating healthier needs to start there. Obviously what we have going on right now is not working. America is getting fatter by the second, and I can appreciate any effort to help stop obesity from continuing to double every decade until we are all doomed!

57 Posted by Steven Ranzoni on March 11th, 2010 at 12:14 PM

I agree on certain point. Yes taxing junk foods, like taxing Cigarettes often boil down to taxing the poor. and it begs the question of whether or not diet soda would be taxed. what about bread. a lot of cheaper wonder bread styles are made with high fructose corn syrup.

But, as we all know, health and health choices have externalities. People that make poor choices in their health, particularly poor individuals with no health insurance put a strain on society. Diabetes is rampant in this country right along with obesity. Why not tax the substances that are directly responsible to the cause of some of the biggest health issues in America? Particularly if the revenues are used for Health related funding. Additionally we see in health data that poorer income brackets are much more prone to obesity than higher income brackets. People with higher incomes tend to be higher educated, make better health decisions and buy better food. So, I spin the question around. Is it fair to tax a “luxury” junk food, that is often NOT overconsumed and does not contribute to obesity and diabetes like Soda and Chips?

We are talking about a dollar soda here. so, if the soda is now a $1.25, is that going to break the bank on people? and if it does, maybe those people should have other priorities than soda.

If a substance is to blame for an issue that affects ALL Americans, in terms of higher health care expenses and wasted tax dollars. then it is only fitting that the substances that bear a significant reason to the cause share the brunt of funding the cure. Typically taxes on junk foods are brought up as means to fund a health policy or program, and they are dollars that might not needed to be spent if the population wasn’t so obese.

Viewing page 2 of 2 for comments on this post. < 1 2