Taxing sugary drink would save $1.4 billion a year in healthcare costs

interesting study on taxing sugary drink and how it has effect cities that have done it.

Taxing sugar-sweetened beverages by the amount of sugar they contain, rather than by the liquid volume of these drinks, as several U.S. cities currently do, could produce even greater health benefits and economic gains, a team of researchers has concluded.

The analysis, by researchers at New York University, Harvard’s TH Chan School of Public Health, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of California, Berkeley, appears in the journal Science.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2019/september/taxing-sweetened-drinks-by-the-amount-of-sugar-could-cut-obesity.html

One of the first things people need to do to lose weight is stop drinking sugar drinks. Period. Water is the best thing for ya and it’s free (unless you’re hooked on bottled water).

Well hey, we could save even more money with state enforced daily calisthenics and a state proscribed diet. Let’s not go in for half measures.

4 Likes

It’s not free, but it’s nominal compared to the other uses of water in your home.

How bout beer.

They better not start taxing my beer

Oh…

Wait…

I’m not really sure how I feel about this. I don’t like the government having so much power over us - at the same time I’m so tired of looking at fat people. :thinking:

Oh, you don’t like to look at fat people, well then, I guess it’s totally ok to support or condone tyranny down to the level of controlling what everyone eats.

4 Likes

I guess you would have a point, if I supported sin taxes on beer or other goods but since I don’t…

Wait, you didn’t blame Obama or Hillary? I’m shocked!

Sorry not following. Is that supposed to mean something?

They would make nothing off me. I don’t drink anything with sugar in it.

So you have no problem with them taxing everyone else? You don’t think it’s tyranny? And you a Republican?

Like all things, there’s nothing wrong with sugary drinks in moderation. In fact, diet drinks without sugar are far more dangerous.

Well, I guess I better start stocking up on my Pepsis now…

You are saying a lot of things i didn’t. All I said was they would make nothing off me.

2 Likes

Me either, like I always told my kids, humans drink water, not soda. Which of course doesn’t mean petty tyrants trying to mandate what I can or can’t drink don’t piss me off.

I’m on board with this, but how much sugar qualifies a drink as a sugary drink? Soda contains much more sugar and carbonic acid, than lemonade or sparkling water. Which drinks would be taxed?

Are they taxing Starbucks?

3 Likes

No. So many people would have a fit if that happened…soda would be easier. But that might be the extent I’ll go.

They should.

Over priced milk/coffee shakes.

Maybe they could mandate we all have blond hair and blue eyes next?

2 Likes

Stop the subsidizing of sugary drinks via EBT SNAP. Recipients are exempt from taxes on those sugary drink products. Seems silly to tax paying people on sugary drinks and then subsidize sugary drinks for SNAP recipients.
This is typical government logic.

According to a 2016 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, sweetened beverages, including soda, are among the most commonly purchased items by recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — or SNAP.

SNAP households spend about 10 percent of food dollars on sugary drinks, which is about three times more than the amount they spend on milk. In New York City alone, as we’ve reported, this translates into more than $75 million in sugary drink purchases each year that are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/10/29/659634119/food-stamps-for-soda-time-to-end-billion-dollar-subsidy-for-sugary

1 Like