Image by whalesalad
I wrote here a few months ago about how Governor David Patterson of New York was pushing for a 15% obesity tax on sugary drinks (and about how I personally thought that was a pretty lame idea). In a follow-up to that proposal Kelly Brown of Yale University and New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Frieden have made the case for a national sales tax on sugared drinks in an article written for the New England Journal of Medicine.
If implemented as proposed in their article, the tax would increase the cost of sugared drinks by 1 cent per fluid ounce, which doesn’t sound so bad until you realize that a standard can of soda is 12 fluid ounces. 12 cents per can turns into an additional $1.44 in taxes on a 12 pack of soda!
According to the article, adolescents consume 10 to 15 percent of their calories in the beverages they drink. The authors, in proposing the national tax, believe that the higher costs of sugary drinks due to the tax will not only cut down on those numbers but will also raise additional money that can be used to battle the costs of healthcare attributed to our expanding national waist line.
I can’t really argue with the logic here. I personally can attest that cutting sugared soda out of my life was probably one of the largest contributors to my weight loss, and we wouldn’t be writing for this site if it weren’t for the fact that there’s a large number of people out there who want to lose weight. I also recognize, from first hand experience, that higher taxes can be a deterrent to unhealthy activities. Krystalle and I recently quit smoking as a result of the federal sales tax increases that pushed the cost of cigarettes here in Florida over $5 per pack.
I get the motivation behind it. I really do.
However…
I really do have a problem with the mentality that in order for people to make healthy choices about their lives we need to tax the hell out of anything that is bad for them. Personally? I’d rather see the Government be proactive in regards to healthy living. Say, for example, by closing the loopholes that allow broadcasters to get away with putting all the Public Service Announcements they are required to run on the air when nobody is watching. Or how about tax incentives to companies who manufacture healthy foods that would lower the cost of those foods and make them more accessible to lower income individuals? Let’s actively educate and make it attractive to people to make better choices in regards to health instead of simply trying to tax them out of it.
Frankly, in the final analysis, if you don’t teach people how to live better they are just going to find ways to work those higher taxes into their budgets and all you’re going to end up doing is adding yet another source of income to the government coffers.
Unfortunately, that might be the point.
As much as we’d like to avoid it, the fact of the matter is that there are occasions when covering the health and fitness end of the news spectrum is going to lead us here at ShrinkGeek into the murky waters of personal politics. On the whole we strive to be as politically neutral as we can simply due to the fact that we do not wish to alienate readers who may not agree with our views. We want everyone to be healthy, regardless of where they fall in the political spectrum.
