Taxing Sugary Beverages - the Debate Begins

The latest confrontation in the battle of the bulge seems not be taking place in the local gym or at the open refrigerator door, but in the halls of congress.

It has been recently proposed that the government impose a tax on sugary beverages. The tax would apply to the purchase of soft drinks, energy drinks, sports beverages, sugar-sweetened iced teas, and even some juices, but not to sugar-free diet beverages.

The New England Journal of Medicine published a report by a team of doctors that estimated such a tax would help curb America's consumption of sugary beverages much like the tax on cigarettes reduced smoking in this country.

My dispute with this theory is that I'm not convinced that raising taxes on cigarettes is the sole, or even the primary reason, many Americans have chosen to quit smoking. While my opinion is not based on scientific fact, it is based on the fact that I was married to a man who smoked five packs of cigarettes a day. The taxes (some of which I got around by purchasing his cigarettes at a smoke shop on a local Native American Indian reservation) ate away at our budget, but nothing curbed his cigarette usage until a heart attack claimed his life at the age of 59. An ex- husband is currently dying of emphysema and lung cancer, but he continues to toke on his Marlboros in between gasps of breath from his portable oxygen tank. I have a daughter and future son-in-law that cannot seem to break a habit that hits their pocketbooks for more than $5.00 per pack.

My point: Even in these difficult economic times, people who want to smoke are going to find the money to pay for cigarettes. I believe that any decline in smoking habits is due to the health ramifications, not to how much cigarettes cost. Personally, I do not see how anyone can watch someone deteriorate from the harmful physical effects of smoking and not quit.

I also believe the same will be true if the government taxes sugary drinks. While the study presented research that claims that a 10% rise in the price of soft drinks, decreases consumption by 8 - 10%, I question these calculations. I know, personally, if Diet Coke (my beverage of choice) is significantly higher than Diet Pepsi, I will purchase the Pepsi product. I've even been known to resort to a store brand if all name brand sodas are priced too high. This does not mean that I have reduced my consumption of soft drinks. I have just reduced my consumption of Diet Coke because of its, usually temporary, price increase.

In addition, while the proposed tax would add approximately 50 cents to a 2-litre bottle of soda, once the price stabilizes at that point, people will become accustomed to it, and, I believe, the higher price will lose its ability to deter purchase. This is evident with the current price of gasoline. If you had told me a few years ago that I would spend close to $3.00 for a tank of gas on a regular basis, I would have told you that you were crazy - I would stop driving at that price. Now, that the price of gas has stabilized somewhat, this is the price I expect to pay, and the higher price has very little effect on the amount of driving I do.

People are going to continue to drink what they want to drink. They will just pay dearly for it.

The second argument made in the Journal's study is that such a tax would generate 14.9 billion dollars in revenue during the first year alone. This money is suggested to be used to offset the 10-year, 774 billion dollar debt to be incurred by the currently proposed health care reform package.

My contention is that you are taxing the people who can least afford to pay this tax. Do you really think the Paris Hilton's of the world are concerned about 50 cents on a 2-litre bottle of soda? What does it matter if you do not raise income taxes on lower income families, if you raise taxes on everything they purchase?

The President weighed in during a recent interview that was published in Men's Health magazine.

"I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring," Obama said. "There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else."

No disrespect to the President, but this remark insinuates that parents are not able to keep their children from drinking too much soda now, and that, somehow, this increased tax will do the trick. I'm sure there are parents who allow their children to drink too much soda (some of my family members probably think that I'm one of them); however, I seriously question whether raising taxes will do the trick.

I have an idea. How about removing soda machines from our schools? But, since our schools depend on revenue from soda and snack machines to supplement their seriously lacking budgets, I guess that's not a viable option - instead, we believe that increasing the price on those sodas will solve the problem. I'm not following this logic.

I just do not understand how members of government continue to believe that they can legislate people's behavior - either through laws or taxes. Does no one remember prohibition?