Hacker News Reader

Comment by duncan_bayne | Hacker News Reader

Even worse - in addition to it being more tax, it's in a form that disproportionately harms poor people.

If making more nutritionally balanced foods cheaper relatively to foods with a lot of associated health problems is taken as "harm", then yes.

If a family is struggling financially, a sugar tax could easily push them over the edge. This strikes me as an increase in taxes for the poor as the impact relative to their income (as a %) would be significantly higher. So, the financial strain and stress would likely offset any benefit from reduced sugar for the poor. There were good posts about people on the poverty line on HN yesterday as a case in point.

If the tax is restricted to "high sugar soft drinks"[0] do you still think that there wouldn't be alternatives for a struggling family to purchase?

0 - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

So you really think it's ethical to use taxation and the threat of bankruptcy to coerce people to change their sugar habits? Honestly?

Just checking: Are you talking about the UK?

Me? Not really - I don't think the morality of compulsory taxation is dependent upon geography.

No, not you. Rustynails.

"Harm" here defined by making those poor people buy more expensive but much healthier food.

It is indeed harmful from some point of view. But reducing it into an unconditional label is too much unidimensional thinking.

Out of curiosity, are you against higher taxes on alcohol? It's definitely regressive, but there is also a more definite link to harmful effects (side-stepping somewhat the issue of taxes on necessary items like food).

I'm against compulsory taxes in general, and especially so called 'sin taxes' on alcohol, tobacco and gambling.

Well, no argument here about consumption taxes on "food" being regressive. :)

Edit: adding scare quotes because coke may not be food, but bread is!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com