Explain to me why this is discriminatory

[creditcardfree]

I don't understand why one type of consumption needs to be taxed at a different rate than others? Maybe that is where the beverage company feels they are being discriminated.

[disneysteve]

I don't understand why one type of consumption needs to be taxed at a different rate than others? Maybe that is where the beverage company feels they are being discriminated.

I wasn't referring to the beverage companies. I was referring to opponents and lobbyists saying the poor are being discriminated against with this proposed tax.

Why should one type of consumption be taxed differently? To try and alter people's behavior, for one. If someone walks into their local convenience store to buy a soda and the diet Coke is $1 but the regular Coke is $3, maybe they'll think twice about which one to buy.

Also, the money raised can help fund the costs generated by that consumption. Soda is a major cause of obesity. Obesity results in significantly higher healthcare costs as well as other costs to society. By disproportionately taxing foods that are less healthy, folks who choose to consume those things anyway can contribute to the costs generated by that consumption. It's just like the high taxes on cigarettes or alcohol.

[Nika]

Another point - rich do not buy sugary drinks. In NYC, it is not common for middle class to buy soda's and sugary drinks.

When I am in a poor area, I see toddlers sipping soda! You will never see that walking in Manhattan. It is mostly water, sometimes mineral water or seltzer, or fresh fruit/veggie smoothies (tonns of those shops around). For adults, coffee. That's pretty much it.

I don't think it is discriminatory, in fact, it is a financially prudent for the city to implement such policies - it is the poor soda drinkers that are consuming government sponsored health services and those sodas are costing taxpayers significant money.

[Fishindude77]

Discrimination or not, governments have no business creating more special taxes. They'll just mishandle the money like they always do. Leave the money in the taxpayers hands.

[bjl584]

It's not really. But, a politician can make the argument that just about anything is discrimination, offensive, repressive, or exclusionary to some special interest group. Especially in an election year.

I guess what they are saying is that the poor gravitate toward cheap sugary soda more than they do to more higher end drinks. Yes, they are making a bad choice. But, they still choose to buy it. And now someone wants to make it more expensive. So, it will effect them.

[snafu]

Is it considered 'discriminatory' to tax alcohol, cigarettes and OTC medications? What the worst thing that would happen if parents stopped allowing their children to drink high sugar soft drinks? Your car's licence plates are really just a tax. Lower income folks pay a bigger percentage of their income for every category they select.
How odd to suggest surgery drinks are beneficial to anyone but the manufacturer and re-seller/retail. Aren't all food and beverages sold in restaurants taxed?

[creditcardfree]

Why should one type of consumption be taxed differently? To try and alter people's behavior, for one. If someone walks into their local convenience store to buy a soda and the diet Coke is $1 but the regular Coke is $3, maybe they'll think twice about which one to buy.

Also, the money raised can help fund the costs generated by that consumption. Soda is a major cause of obesity. Obesity results in significantly higher healthcare costs as well as other costs to society. By disproportionately taxing foods that are less healthy, folks who choose to consume those things anyway can contribute to the costs generated by that consumption. It's just like the high taxes on cigarettes or alcohol.

Steve, as a doctor, I hope you are informed about diet sodas being just as bad, if not worse that sugary drinks. Aspartame is nasty, nasty stuff.

That's my point...I don't think there should necessarily be higher taxes on one type of consumption, cigarettes, alcohol, soda. Tax at one rate and leave it at that. Anything else is just greed by the government.

Maybe we should be taxing corporations more for producing such crap.

[FLA]

if this was just happening to SNAP recipients, I would be up in arms. I think they qualify for the benefit and as long as they are not buying cigs and booze, the groceries they choose should be up to them. And for God's sake, change the rules and let them buy toilet paper. SNAP offers nutritional programs to help those who need some nutritional education.

that said I don't think the tax is discriminatory.

I gave up my diet coke habit but even so, I hope they only tax sugar sodas. And yes, I'm a nurse and know the studies about alternative sweeteners. Just don't want my diet coke taxed, lol.

[pflyers85]

I suppose, but I don't think of something being regressive when it isn't on a necessity. A tax on gasoline or clothing or food staple items is regressive. A tax on soda or cigarettes or beer is doing everyone a favor IMO.

That is assuming that a tax on these things would significantly change the consumption and behavior of the consumers of said products. For some it may cause them to cut back a little but I would bet the behavior of the majority would remain unchanged. Another pitfull of a sin tax on a product like cigarettes is that these excise taxes are so penal that they create a black market using smuggling to bypass the law. The government only sees the initial gain in revenues. They don't carefully consider the unintended consequences such taxes have and how more of that revenue is just going to be eroded by the need for increased law enforcement budgets to combat this illegal market that essentially they created.

[bjl584]

I suppose, but I don't think of something being regressive when it isn't on a necessity. A tax on gasoline or clothing or food staple items is regressive. A tax on soda or cigarettes or beer is doing everyone a favor IMO.

Except when the taxes get so high that people turn to crime and the black market to get the products and services that they want. Then all we have done is created more criminals, which in turn burdens the justice system, the prison system, and the taxpayers.

[rennigade]

By disproportionately taxing foods that are less healthy, folks who choose to consume those things anyway can contribute to the costs generated by that consumption.

That means that 80% of everything in a grocery store will go up in price. There is only roughly 20% of items in grocery stores that do not have sugar. Even foods that are considered "healthy" like protein/granola bars are terrible for you. They're candy bars whether you want to look at it that way or not.

Here are some of the worst offenders...salad dressing, yogurt, granola bars, cereal, flavored waters and peanut butter. These are everyday items that a lot of people consume...which are all terrible for you.

[disneysteve]

That means that 80% of everything in a grocery store will go up in price. There is only roughly 20% of items in grocery stores that do not have sugar. Even foods that are considered "healthy" like protein/granola bars are terrible for you. They're candy bars whether you want to look at it that way or not.

Here are some of the worst offenders...salad dressing, yogurt, granola bars, cereal, flavored waters and peanut butter. These are everyday items that a lot of people consume...which are all terrible for you.

Fair enough, though to be reasonable, there are certain items that are consumed in far greater quantity than others. I read a while ago that 8-10% of all calories consumed in the US come from sugary drinks. I'm sure the % of calories from salad dressing is minuscule in comparison. If you can go after the top 2 or 3 items, you could make a big dent in the problem.

The other angle (which is totally OT but it's my thread) is that as public perception and demand changes, manufacturers change. Look at the move to eliminate artificial stuff from food. You've got a big chain like Panera eliminating high fructose corn syrup and other additives from their foods chain-wide. I think Saladworks also announced they were cleaning up their menu.

You mentioned peanut butter. I eat that fairly regularly but not the kind you are probably talking about. I don't eat Skippy or Jif or Peter Pan. I eat Wegman's store brand natural pb. It has ONE ingredient - peanuts. That's it. No oil. No salt. No sugar. No emulsifiers. No additives or preservatives or artificial stuff. If the public demand was there, I bet the big national brands would come up with healthier versions of their products.

[rennigade]

You mentioned peanut butter. I eat that fairly regularly but not the kind you are probably talking about. I don't eat Skippy or Jif or Peter Pan. I eat Wegman's store brand natural pb. It has ONE ingredient - peanuts. That's it. No oil. No salt. No sugar. No emulsifiers. No additives or preservatives or artificial stuff. If the public demand was there, I bet the big national brands would come up with healthier versions of their products.

We're few and far between. I have eaten the all natural pb before...costco sells a generic brand...but talking about the masses I dont know too many people who consume the good peanut butter.

I think its great that companies are slowly moving away from high fructose CS...sadly the only reason is because the cats out of the bag how terrible it is for you. Without any of the press or news on it companies would just continue to use it...along with the whole trans fat crap.

I personally think it would be great if all sugary items were taxed higher. Better yet I wish there were grocery stores or entire sections in stores just dedicated to foods that have no sugar period. Obviously the reason being we do not see these things is because sugar sells. A lot of times it just tastes better than the all natural healthy stuff. It is what it is I guess.

[Nika]

if this was just happening to SNAP recipients, I would be up in arms. I think they qualify for the benefit and as long as they are not buying cigs and booze, the groceries they choose should be up to them. And for God's sake, change the rules and let them buy toilet paper. SNAP offers nutritional programs to help those who need some nutritional education.

that said I don't think the tax is discriminatory.

I gave up my diet coke habit but even so, I hope they only tax sugar sodas. And yes, I'm a nurse and know the studies about alternative sweeteners. Just don't want my diet coke taxed, lol.

I disagree that it should be up to them. The motivation for us as a society offering these SNAP benefits, is to ensure proper nutrition for those who cannot afford it, because we as a society decided we do not want to see starvation and poor health resulting from it. So if a product contains no nutrition or poor nutrition, I see no reason for taxpayers to subsidize it (which is what happens when individual buys it with assistance money).

[disneysteve]

I disagree that it should be up to them. The motivation for us as a society offering these SNAP benefits, is to ensure proper nutrition for those who cannot afford it, because we as a society decided we do not want to see starvation and poor health resulting from it. So if a product contains no nutrition or poor nutrition, I see no reason for taxpayers to subsidize it (which is what happens when individual buys it with assistance money).

I agree. When you are spending your own money, spend it how you please. But when you are spending other people's money, it shouldn't work that way.

I was in a store once and they had little flags on the shelves marking products you could buy with food stamps. Great, except the flags were on things like potato chips, Red Bull, the refrigerator case of soda, etc.