a taxing problem (and an atrocious pun)

[kindkit]

In May there will be a vote in my city on a proposed tax on soda and sugary drinks; the tax amount will be $.02 per fluid ounce, raising the price of a 12 oz can by 24 cents and a 2-liter bottle by about $1.28. The money raised is supposed to go to improve access to pre-kindergarten education.

I'm not often on the fence, politically, but I am about this.


Pro: Pre-K education is a good thing and poor children should receive it.

Con: All sales taxes are regressive, because poor people spend more of their income on goods than rich people do. Therefore it will hit poor people harder. It might have an extra dose of regressiveness, too, because I suspect (although I have no numbers) that poor and working class people are more likely to drink soda than middle-class people, and so the people most in favor of the tax (i.e. middle class people) are likely to pay a lot less of it.

Pro: Soda and other sugared drinks are not a necessity. If people drink fewer sugared drink because of the tax, that could even be a good thing.

Con: The "pro" point above has a strong element of food policing, which I hate. And it's a highly class-inflected food policing, too; nobody has proposed a special tax on expensive triple-cream cheeses or foie gras. This tax is, in part, about making poor people behave in the way middle class people think they should.

Pro: The main force behind opposition to the tax is the beverage industry, which is trying to create panic over (probably spurious) job losses and so on. This makes me want to vote for the tax just to hurt the corporations.

Con: On the other hand, I want to vote against it to spite the sanctimonious hippies, food police, and obesity panic-mongerers. I recognize that this isn't the moral equivalent of voting against corporate interests, but I feel it nevertheless.


Unanswered questions: How much money will the tax actually raise (the city projects $7 million per year)? How much will that amount of money actually improve pre-K access? Why has nobody proposed, say, a property tax increase on houses worth over $300,000 as an alternative that would shift the financial burden to the well off?


Anybody have thoughts?

N.B.: Given the nature of the post, I will accept reasoned comments about potential health impacts. My definition of "reasoned" includes, "You have given some thought to why it's problematic to try to dictate what other people eat." I will delete the hell out of concern trolling, fat-shaming, etc.

Comments

[fleetsparrow]

We had a similar tax last election, but on cigarettes (which, obvs is different to legit food, but still) and I voted against it for much of the same reasons you list. It doesn't stop people from using it (be it smoking or drinking fluids), but instead just hurts those who are already buying it.

From a nutrition standpoint, soda and sugared drinks are incredibly useful (despite the food police). As someone who barely eats enough as is, if I couldn't drink it, I'd never get any calories at all. Plus, considering that poor people are already working labor-intensive jobs, that extra sugar (and caffeine, potentially) is a huge help.

It's likely that it'll pass anyway (ours did) because "health" panics are the easiest way to get sanctimonious votes, but at least you made your voice heard, whichever way.

[kindkit]

I hadn't thought about the fact that some people need the extra calories sugared drinks provide. That's a good point.

It probably will pass, although the beverage industry is spending a ton of money advertising against it. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

[lilacsigil]

Yeah, it keeps being debated here and I'm on the fence for all the same reasons. In Australia, all "prepared" food is already taxed - so you can buy flour, sugar, fresh fruit, raw meat etc. untaxed, but everything else is taxed. I like that because it's not particularly food judgy - the foie gras and the soft drink both get taxed 10%, meaning that the foie gras consumer who can pay more does. Meanwhile, expensive cut of steak and cheap beef mince are equally untaxed.

I guess it comes down to who you hate more on the day: the soft drink companies or the food police. I can go either way!

[kaberett]

(... which is terrible from the perspective of people who don't have the time or energy to cook, e.g. folk working two jobs and disabled people...)

[lilacsigil]

I am disabled, and it's still better for me to be able to get staples at a lower cost - the other option was everything taxed at 10%. No tax on food was never an option, sadly.

[kindkit]

There may be no good way to do a food tax, though I agree that taxing prepared food only may be the least bad option. I guess the real problem is that governments are so cash-strapped (because income and wealth taxes are politically unpopular) that they have to resort to so many sales taxes.

[lilliburlero]

I dislike the idea of voting with corporate interests, but I'm quite strongly against taxes like this. As you point out, sales taxes are regressive, and I feel that important services like early-years education should be funded in a more progressive and stable manner: what if the tax achieves its aim and revenues fall -- are they going to cut the access programmes for early education too? It's also treating sugar like it's an unequivocally toxic substance, which it isn't. Does the tax include fruit juices, by the way? A lot of those are as sugary as pop.

[kindkit]

treating sugar like it's an unequivocally toxic substance, which it isn't

*nods* That's why the comparison between the soda tax and the cigarette tax is not as valid as it seems. Cigarettes are full of proven carcinogens, and nicotine is proven to create physical dependency.

ETA: I think our proposed tax only includes drinks that are sweetened with sugar or high fructose corn syrup, but I'm not actually sure. I should find that out. I especially want to know if diet sodas are excluded, because artificial sweeteners are probably not good for people.

[marginalia]

There's one being proposed in Seattle & I hate it for all of the reasons you mentioned. Ours will apparently leave out diet sodas, as if chemicals are great for you (& of course wealthier + white folks are more likely to drink them), and in the home of Sbux it of course leaves out Frappuccinos and the like. I can't even remember what it will go to - we have a pre-K program already, & it's a property tax. Wait - I think it's some kind of disadvantaged youth thing, and iirc it's a very top-down program, not community supported. So that's also gross.

Tax structure is interesting. And frustrating. We don't have a state income tax, & our local taxing authority is heavily regulated - read: kneecapped - by the state legislature who hate on Seattle even though we keep the rest of the state afloat.

tldr if ours hits the ballot I'm voting against it.

[kindkit]

Yeah, soda taxes seem to be A Thing all of a sudden because they seem like an easy solution. Raise taxes in a way that respectable people will like! But the more you think about them, the more complicated and troubling they become.