Taxing soda.

**imagine** · 03-10-2010, 09:49 AM

Have you seen the idea of taxing soda? Much like the tax on cigarettes.

If not here is an article:Would A Soda Tax Be A Big Deal? - Planet Money Blog : NPR There are also many more on the net. Try googling taxing soda.

I have seen it suggested that this would decrease the amount of soda consumed and thus fight obesity.

I have also seen it suggested as a way to make extra capital to fill in budget gaps at state levels.

What do you think? Less consumption or more money for states?

My Hubby says the extra cash would cause him to rethink or get rid of this daily soda at work.

**MomsaBasketCase** · 03-10-2010, 10:07 AM

As a frugalite, I'd like to say that it would slow me down lol. As it stands, I only buy soda once a week for the boys. If I have it in the house, they'll drink it all so I don't buy more than a 6pk every friday.

I'm not sure that it would slow down the general population. If the price went up a few cents, people would dish out the dough if they really wanted the product.

**imagine** · 03-10-2010, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by MomsaBasketCase

As a frugalite, I'd like to say that it would slow me down lol. As it stands, I only buy soda once a week for the boys. If I have it in the house, they'll drink it all so I don't buy more than a 6pk every friday.

I'm not sure that it would slow down the general population. If the price went up a few cents, people would dish out the dough if they really wanted the product.

Yeah I think in my frugal house it would cut back on our soda drinking.

Not much of a money generator here.

I wonder on how it has done in generating funds in states that have already taxed it.

Here ar some other interesting articles on the topic
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...da_make_a.html

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/21650

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb...ax21-2010feb21

**nodmicks** · 03-10-2010, 10:32 AM

Doesn't matter to me personally because we might buy 1 two liter bottle a month. I don't really think it will make the majority of people buy less soda. Look at the price of cigarretes. Lots of people smoking (yuck)

**nancycg56** · 03-10-2010, 10:35 AM

It's a sin tax and in general, I don't like sin taxes. It doesn't do much to stop certain behaviors, IMO. Are people are still smoking? I don't buy regular soda ~ just diet. And, no, it wouldn't stop me. And neither would the pizza tax they are talking about.

**Greebo** · 03-10-2010, 10:37 AM

Minimal impact to us - but I deeply object to any "sin tax". Government's job is not to be our freaking parents.

**MomToTwoBoys** · 03-10-2010, 10:45 AM

People will continue to pay any amount of money for the things that they're addicted to.

I support the soda tax. Heck, I'll even pay it. It makes you think twice (if you're smart, but we know that doesn't apply to everyone) about buying it especially when it takes a huge chunk out of your wallet.

I'm a huge advocate on taxing things that promote an unhealthy lifestyle.

Perhaps this will go far into putting money into programs that promote a healthier awareness. I'd like to see more physical fitness programs and perhaps a tax credit for people who put their children into sports (they do the latter part here - $75 per child).

**Greebo** · 03-10-2010, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by MomToTwoBoys

People will continue to pay any amount of money for the things that they're addicted to.

It makes you think twice about buying it

You seem to be a bit contradictory on this...

**imagine** · 03-10-2010, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Greebo

Minimal impact to us - but I deeply object to any "sin tax". Government's job is not to be our freaking parents.

So do you see this "sin tax" like the soda industry does, a grab for money?

**ncarr** · 03-10-2010, 10:49 AM

I don't drink soda so it wouldn't effect me. I don't really think it would deter people though.

**Inkstain82** · 03-10-2010, 10:51 AM

I don't have a moral objection to sin taxes, and I don't have an objection to the government trying to influence people to act in ways that are more beneficial to themselves and society.

That said, I'm not convinced this would be particularly helpful or effective, and it's kind of a pointless line to draw.

**nodmicks** · 03-10-2010, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by MomToTwoBoys

I'm a huge advocate on taxing things that promote an unhealthy lifestyle.

but who decides what is an unhealthy lifestyle is my concern. I have followed a ketogenic diet for many years. It got me and keeps me off insulin. If your not familiar with a ketogenic diet it is much higher fat that the gov recommends. Will I pay more for consuming higher fat beef?

**imagine** · 03-10-2010, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Inkstain82

I don't have a moral objection to sin taxes, and I don't have an objection to the government trying to influence people to act in ways that are more beneficial to themselves and society.

That said, I'm not convinced this would be particularly helpful or effective, and it's kind of a pointless line to draw.

What if you looked at it from a money point of view?

It seems to me that it would save states money my making people healthier or it would generate extra money from the continued sale of soda.

Sound like a win-win situation for state budgets

**Greebo** · 03-10-2010, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by imagine

So do you see this "sin tax" like the soda industry does a grab for money?

Don't care. Morally it is not the place of Government to decide for us what we do with our bodies.

**Inkstain82** · 03-10-2010, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by imagine

What if you looked at it from a money point of view?

It seems to me that it would save states money my making people healthier or it would generate extra money from the continued sale of soda.

Sound like a win-win situation for state budgets

If it's for money, it's regressive, which I have a problem with. It will inherently tax poor people are a higher percentage of their income than rich people.

And healthy people don't necessarily save the state money. The jury is still out on whether having health complications and dying at 60 is cheaper than lingering around until 105.