Tax on Soda Proposed to Counter Costs of Health Care, Obesity

There has been much debate over health care reform, with one of the main concerns being funding, as in, "Where do we get the money to pay for all this?" President Obama has suggested that we can pay for the plan almost entirely by cutting out the rampant waste plaguing the current system (which of course begs the question, "If you know about the waste, why don't you just get rid of it now?", but that's a whole 'nother debate). One of the suggestions that has been made is an additional tax on sugary beverages.

This has been referred to as the "soda tax", but it would also cover such high-sugar beverages as fruit drinks, sports drinks, and energy drinks, adding approximately one penny per ounce to the cost. These sweet drinks have been targeted by the medical community as a major contributor to the soaring rates of obesity and its related health problems.

Taxes on non-essential items like this are frequently referred to as "sin taxes", especially when they occur on such items as alcohol and tobacco, widely acknowledged to be not only non-essential, but actively bad for people. Taxes on cigarettes far outstrip the actual cost of the cigarettes themselves and are imposed in an effort to recoup the large amounts of money the states have to shell out in public health care dollars to treat the diseases that are brought on directly by the use of tobacco-emphysema, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, asthma, and cancers of the lung, larynx, throat, lip and mouth, to name a few.

It is along these lines that the sugar-sweetened beverages that are guzzled more and more frequently in place of healthier choices like milk and plain old water by children whose rates of obesity-not to mention obesity-related diseases such as hypertension and Type II diabetes, all but unseen in children before-are soaring in proportionate amounts. Granted, children are also exercising less, with the popularity of video games, the trend of socializing by computer or text message insttead of at the playground or activity field, and the propensity of frightened parents to keep their children inside rather than letting them bike around the neighborhood replacing the more active lifestyles of yesteryear, but it's kind of hard to tax laziness, and we've got to cover a whole new set of health-care costs.

I am all for the tax. As with other "sin taxes", you certainly don't have to use the product, so it is quite easy to avoid. On the other hand, the taxes are relatively miniscule, so it shouldn't make much difference within a typical grocery budget. Soda and other prepackaged drinks are already somewhat expensive; if it within your means to allow for these expenditures already, a few cents per serving won't break the bank. I spent my childhood in West Virginia, which has already had a tax on soda-both sugar and diet-for decades, and I do not ever recall my mom saying, "Oh, we can't afford soda; that tax is just too expensive." And believe me, my mom was quite ready to let me know when we couldn't afford something. She had four kids to raise!

It is my opinion that the only ones that are really opposed to this proposed tax are the large agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland and ConAgra who fear their corn-syrup sales might be affected and so are throwing lobbyists with sacks full of cash and favors at members of Congress like a hyperactive seven-year-old in a snowball fight with three opponents, and those people whose "knee-jerk protest switch" is triggered by any mention of new taxes. But agribusinesses needn't fret-their product is addictive, too, and the tobacco companies still make billions in profits. People who love soda will pay for the stuff, and people who could take it or leave it probably don't buy enough of it to be affected adversely by a tax. As with all other groceries, the price always goes up anyway, and we all expect it.

So, the tax will not cause any harm. On the other hand, think of the good it can do: More money to fight illness and ease health-care costs from soda taxes means less money taken from the general tax fund. Why, after all, should you pay taxes to cover the illness of a person whose condition was self-inflicted via smoking, drinking or overeating? Wouldn't you feel better knowing that person paid for his own bad calls? And if the tax actually does get people to choose healthier beverage alternatives, revenue might fall, but so would the health-care expenses.

Folks, it's a win-win. Call your member of Congress and tell him or her to push for that soda tax!