(05-24-2019, 09:13 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(05-21-2019, 11:40 AM)The Drifter Wrote: If you want people to do less of an activity, Tax it

So if we want people to drink less sugary soda pop, in order to lower the obesity rate, and lower the cost of obesity to the TAXPAYERS and the GENERAL PUBLIC, we should tax sugary soda pop?  I think it's a valid idea in theory.

Except that it's a scheme doomed to fail from the start. The soda industry, as an offshoot of big sugar, has gone to great lengths to make sure its products are incredibly addictive. Raising taxes on something like soda or cigarettes doesn't curb that. In fact, if you look at the placement across the income scale of people relying on that kind of stuff, it basically ends up being a punitive tax on lower-income families. They won't stop drinking it, they'll just pay more to do so, because a two-liter of Sam's Choice Cola is $0.99, a gallon of milk is $3.59 and a half-gallon of orange juice is $5-6.

If you're going to use tax to reduce usage of an item, tax the industry directly. If you raise the taxes Coke pays on its high-fructose corn syrup, for example, Coke will raise its taxes to the end consumer. Then the end consumer is pissed at Coke for raising the price of a 2L from $1.19 to $1.79, not at you for taxing them more.

---