Is Taxing Soda a Good Idea?
We're not sure if you've heard, as it's really flown under the radar without much attention, but there was some recent health care "stuff" that passed in Congress. (yes, that's sarcasm).
It's a pretty expensive new bill — to the tune of nearly 1 trillion dollars — and some are are suggesting helping pay for it directly and indirectly (by lowering health care costs) by taxing soda (and the more you drink, the more you're taxed). 
Here is the thought process: Taxing sugary drinks (soda, sports drinks, etc) will cut the amount people eat/drink because it will cost more, therefore lowering calorie intakes, and as a result decreasing body weights by about 5 lbs per person.
The average American drinks about 450 calories each day in beverages alone.
This would then lower health care costs — overweight and obesity costs are about $147 billion dollars/year.
What do you think?
Has Big Brother gone too far by now controlling our food intake?
OR
Is this a brilliant idea to improve the health of our country?
Let us know what you think!
April 7th, 2010 at 7:36 am
How many people in America still drink and smoke even though they are taxed? We will pay whatever we have to pay to indulge in our "addictions". If I want a vat of soda, I'll still order it if it costs 50 cents more, but if you teach me what that soda is doing to me? If you show me how it affects me now and in the future, that's when I stop. We cannot promote good health by paying for it on the back of those with bad health habits. If everyone stopped eating sugar and smoking and drinking there would still be healthcare costs, so what then?
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 7:38 am
I don't know if I'm for Big Brother controlling our food intake, but unfortunately, too many folks in this country are uneducated on nutrition as it relates to health. And if it really could do what is planned and help to lower the ridiculous insurance premiums, then I'm all for it.
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 7:39 am
It would be smarter if they first stopped subsidising corn production and allowing HFCS to sell for less than it costs to produce in the first place.
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Sugar is doing as much damage to our bodies as nicotine, alcohol, drugs…however, government should start butting out of our choices and more education should be done to the general public. It's amazing how many do not understand the ramifications of sugar!
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 7:51 am
dew it!
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 8:51 am
Looking at this objectively, from the stand point of a coping sugar-holic…. Taxing sugar drinks will not address the underlying problem. And why are we always looking to blame others for our decisions? Let’s take responsibility America!!
With that being said, if the government is going to mandate a tax on sugary drinks I would hope the tax money received off such would be allocated as grant money. To provide communities the opportunity to offer an ongoing nutrition education/assistance program to those interested, either free of charge or a reduced rate …but it would have to be a seriously thought out program to get real, lasting results. I’m thinking a “Real” Wellness Program complete to a customized nutrition program (by a nutritionist), cooking classes on how to cook healthier, one on one coaching, and a certified trainer to write up a program & educate on the physical side of things as well.
Anyway, just my 2 cents….
L
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 9:08 am
I work in healthcare and absolutely believe that all junk food and cigarettes should be taxed. That money should be earmarked to offset the additional costs that these substances cost in healthcare dollars. As a physical therapist, I see many patients with strokes, heart attacks and other conditions that are greatly influenced by diet and overweight condition. As an example, a stroke patient of normal BMI could be seen by 1 or possibly 2 people to transfer or walk. An overweight person or obese person could take up to 2 to 4 people to transfer to sitting or to the chair. Immobility causes a great deal of complications in the hospital setting. Special equipment and training are needed for the markedly overweight person. People should be able to eat what they want to eat but if their choices contribute to raising the costs of healthcare, taxing all junkfood would be a way of proportioning the cost to those who cause the increase.
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 9:19 am
I have been saying exactly the same thing. People who eat junk and cause health care to rise should have to pay for it. Put luxury taxes on soft drinks, chips, candy…
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 9:20 am
<p>I have been saying exactly the same thing. People who eat junk and cause health care to rise should have to pay for it. Put luxury taxes on soft drinks, chips, candy…</p>
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 10:09 am
In general I would like the federal government to leave me alone as much as possible. However, I prefer that they tax sugary drinks and sodas than tax people who work, make money, have insurance and already pay higher income taxes. That being said, I do not think they should exclude "sugar-free" or "diet" drinks from this. Reducing the caloric intake of a soda does not take away the other ill effects of soda consumption. (As a recovering Diet Coke addict I am fully aware of the chemicals that each can puts in my body.)
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Where does it stop? Do you then tax food for it's cholesterol content or maybe tax it per calorie. Tax for trans fat or the the amount of saturated fats.
I don't need a tax to eat healthy. Begin in the schools with dedicated education on food choices. There are a lot of avenues available besides taxing an already overtaxed America.
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
I don't think taxing sodas will stop anyone from drinking them. I also wonder where all of this will end?? The gov't will keep thinking of new ways of taxing. And THEY will decided what THEY think is best for us. It's not a good direction to go in…….
[Reply]
April 7th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I am a Canadian and we do tax our soda and believe me it will not stop people from buying it. We are addicted to sugar and we will get it where ever we can. If you tax soda and people can't afford it they will buy something else in its place it is as simple as that. You can also let the consumer know what it will do to their bodies but that won't turn alot of people away neither. You don't see people quitting smoking even with those disgusting pictures of cancer on the packages. What we do need to do is make exercise and nutrition classes manditory in schools so we can educate our kids early in life before they become addicted to these things. In turn that will lower the amount of people needing to use the health care system because of the wrong choices they have made regarding their lifestyle and food intake.
[Reply]
April 8th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I think it is a great attempt to help lower health care costs, however like several people noted above, I do not believe it will stop people from purchasing and consuming those sugary drinks. If someone really wants a soda, then they will pay extra to have it.
[Reply]
April 8th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Q said it earlier, STOP government subsidies for corn production and maybe cheap sugar wouldn't show up in so many products. Additional taxation won't fix anything, even the national debt.
[Reply]
April 9th, 2010 at 9:18 am
It might slow it down, but like somebody already said, people will pay a lot of money for cigarettes. The mark up of sodas is the reason the big corporations are making so much profit. We need to educate more people to limit or eliminate their soda consumption. After the initial withdrawl people will feel great!
[Reply]
April 11th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
This is a great topic! I think we can agree that higher prices and warning labels haven't stopped anyone from consuming alcohol, smoking, or eating trans fats. I don't know if it has even decreased. I agree with all who have responded that knowing what these substances do to your body is key. My opinion is if the taxation was REALLY used for education, medical costs, & alternatives, I would be all for it. What if the corporations who produce these toxic products were taxed extra by volume of production instead of the consumer being taxed AND poisoned?
[Reply]
April 11th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
<p>This is a great topic! I think we can agree that higher prices and warning labels haven't stopped anyone from consuming alcohol, smoking, or eating trans fats. I don't know if it has even decreased. I agree with all who have responded that knowing what these substances do to your body is key. My opinion is if the taxation was REALLY used for education, medical costs, & alternatives, I would be all for it. What if the corporations who produce these toxic products were taxed extra by volume of production instead of the consumer being taxed AND poisoned? </p>
[Reply]