Funny how soda is targeted by politicians but sugary coffees are not.
I suspect it's a class issue: politicians see soda as something that poor, obese people drink, but a white chocolate mocha is not.
I suspect it's a class issue: politicians see soda as something that poor, obese people drink, but a white chocolate mocha is not.
Bloomberg targeted sugary drinks, there was no exception for Starbucks. What soda banning events to you believe constitute this pattern?
[1] The organisation Public Health.
To drink one of those coffees you have to actually go to Costa Coffee or Starbucks. It's too expensive to drink daily for the vast majority of the population. And most people who go to coffee shops don't drink those anyway. All of those would suggest that the public health effects of the two are vastly different. The tax should apply to both, but from a public health perspective I doubt it matters.
The tax on soda seems to be about correcting behavior and raising money, while the tax on sugary coffee drink seems to be mostly about raising money. And extra 0.10 on a mocha whatever isn't going to stop people from buying them.
> And most people who go to coffee shops don't drink that anyway.
This isn't true. I worked at a Starbucks while in college and frappuccinos are very very popular. The majority of people who go to Starbucks order drinks with sugar, especially after the morning rush where a many people will just get black coffee... some of those people also add sugar, too. Caramel Frappuccino's and Caramel Macchiato are 2 of the most popular items on the menu, and Frappuccino's are much more popular in the summer.
Are you in the UK? There is more of a social stigma on that than in the US.
If you earn 50K a year then 10 quid for a bottle of wine that cost 2 quid to produce isn't really a problem.
If you earn 10K a year and have nothing left after rent, it is.
Another point to consider is that 'encouraging people to eat healthily' is an attempt to impose a culture - that's half of what a 'class' is (the other half being income/wealth). It's essentially saying - live like us, we're better, society will be better if you're like us.
The elite don't need to care about their impact on the NHS - the middle classes are probably paying enough in taxes - the poor aren't.
Common rhetoric at the moment in the UK is to decry any notion of taxes as redistribution - the poor are openly considered 'scroungers' by the government - it's pretty much business as usual these days for the state to minimize the impact of the poor on the rest of society.
I see it as an attempt to save money, or rather an attempt to account for all the externalities - that is, at least if there is scientific consensus that the measure you're introducing statistically helps people live longer/healthier and reduces healthcare costs (I've no idea if that's the case here).
This is a crazy way of looking at it. You might as well have said 100 years ago that education beyond 14 was an imposition on the poor. In a lot of cities in the UK there is an 18 year gap in life expectancy between rich and poor areas. Almost 20% of children and 30% of adults in the UK are clinically obese. At some point you have to stop with ideological back and forth and start actually doing something practical.
Too often terms get overloaded - taxation is definitionally an imposition; consumption taxes impose on the poor more than on the rich. Compulsory education is also an imposition.
Whether it's worth doing it anyway is of seperate concern. I don't know a better way.
My personal view is that socialized healthcare is excellent - but the limits it eventually imposes on personal freedom (taxes on tobacco, alcohol, sugar, etc etc) are something we should be very careful with.
The main issue as I see it is that I feel that the role of the private sector is to act in a 'one dollar = one vote' manner, whilst the public sector should act in a 'one person = one vote' manner. Consumption taxes break this because they work on the former basis. I think that if we want to discourage bad habits, we should apply the same 'discouragement' to both the wealthy and the poor.
(Interestingly enough, if we take the standpoint that sugary drinks are a net negative to health, then it makes sense from an economic point of view to expend more effort on wealthy consumers of sugary drinks, because they presumably are able to convert health into taxes at a higher rate...)