U.S. Senate leaders are considering a “sin tax” on pop drinks to help pay for health care reform. But is this idea legislating morality or simply trying to wean Americans off liquid sugar?
Congress is trying to conjure up imaginative ways to help pay for health care reform in the U.S. One of the proposed ideas is slapping a tax on all sugary beverages, from pop to energy drinks to Gatorade. This “sin tax” would raise $1.5 billion annually if a one-penny tax were added to a 12-ounce pop drink, according to Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the group behind the proposal. Most importantly to the group, they predict soda consumption would decrease by one per cent in the U.S.
Soft drinks rank as America’s most popular beverage segment, representing 25 per cent of the total beverage market. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a three-cent tax on pop would generate $24 billion over the next four years. President Obama’s universal health care plan is expected to cost $1 trillion.
But the CSPI and Congress are treading on some precarious territory. This “sin tax” is punishing Americans for a vice pooled in the same territory as smoking: you do something bad for your health, your government will tax you. Shouldn’t we be responsible for our own dining decisions? If parents want to give their kids 17 cubes of sugar per Coke, why should their wallet be stung? (Diet soda is exempt from this proposed tax).
It’s understandable to slap a tax on drinks every health professional calls “empty calories.” Pop has no nutritional value whatsoever. Then again, neither do pastries. Or chocolate bars. Or gummy worms. If a sin tax will be applied to sugary drinks, what’s going to stop the feds from wagging the finger at candy lovers?
Beyond health issues, it’s important to figure out the consequences of governments using taxes to socially engineer its citizens. Poor citizens, more often than not, because those are the demographics mostly affected by sin taxes. Sometimes, those low-income families can only afford pop at the dinner table; they can’t splurge on Tropicana or cranberry juice all the time.
It would be better if governments pressured companies to provide more transparency about their products, so consumers can make informed decisions about what they pour down their throat. Few people know about the chemicals swirling inside pop. Then again, how many coffee drinkers are familiar with the calories and sugar loaded into a Frappacino? You don’t see Congress considering a sin tax against any urban trendy latte drinks.
The war on soft drinks is a popular front right now. California, Tennessee, Arizona, Philadelphia, New York City, and other jurisdictions have barred non-diet soft drinks from some or all schools, according to the CSPI. But it’s naive to believe that taxing pop will suddenly turn obese Americans into leaner health-conscious Americans; the American people need more education and fitness-focused schedules in order to veer away from the high end of the weight scale.
A sin tax might sound good on paper to many people, especially parents. “I don’t want my kid buying pop at lunch, and a tax might convince him otherwise.” Really? Three cents more will dissuade kids from gulping down pop with their friends? Highly unlikely. Instead, it will bruise low-income demographics and set a dangerous precedent for imposing taxes on pleasurable — if unhealthy — vices.
