News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax.

Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by snarfy on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @06:41AM (#16105363)
I hate 'sin' taxes in all forms including this one. Tax alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and now sugar. It's meant to control behavior, but they disproportionately affect the poor. They do a poor job of controlling behavior. Any cigarette smoking given the choice between having no lunch or having no cigarettes is going to choose cigarettes every time. That's not controlling behavior it's subverting it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by svantana on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @06:57AM (#16105466)
The word "sin" implicates that it's all about morality, but there are also real negative externalities associated with these stimulants that are costing society a lot of money. Also, taxes have to come from somewhere, isn't it good to tax things that are (on average) bad for society rather than only good/neutral things (like income)?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by bryanlarsen on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @08:29AM (#16105961)
"Pigouvian tax" is the term for a tax on negative externalities.

A tax on sugar is both a sin tax and a Pigouvian tax. IMO the real reason for its introduction was the sin tax angle, but it's Pigouvian tax principles is what makes it a "good" tax.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by pm90 on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @11:52PM (#16112645)
I was under the impression that the taxes were more from a public health perspective: smoking, alcohol etc. are leading causes of death and we want to discourage public consumption while at the same time raising revenue
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by bryanlarsen on Wednesday January 10, 2018 @06:36AM (#16114219)
That's basically the definition of a sin tax: a tax to discourage you from doing things that are bad for you.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by saas_co_de on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @07:19AM (#16105600)
Yes, it is everyone paying for the "sin" of working who picks up the health care tab so I am fine with shifting some of the burden.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by jackvalentine on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @06:52AM (#16105435)
They also disproportionately benefit the poor. The poor are disproportionately affected by obesity related diseases.

https://theconversation.com/rejection-of-sugar-tax-is-based-...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by LyndsySimon on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @09:33AM (#16106388)
Per the CDC[1], "Low-income persons consume more sugar drinks in relation to their overall diet than those with higher income." In fact, individuals with an income of 3.5x or more of the poverty level consume half as much as those with an income of 1.3x or less.

Levying a tax targeted at the poor does not "benefit" them.

1: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db71.htm

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by jackvalentine on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @04:50PM (#16110467)
Yes it does because the intended effects (lower consumption of sugary drinks leading to lower disease and lower health care costs) have an outsized effect on them.

Nobody is disputing sugar taxes are regressive, they’re disputing that’s actually a bad thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by baq on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @06:51AM (#16105425)
and yet it apparently works with sugar, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/22/mexico-sugar...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by tomhoward on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @06:58AM (#16105472)
In Australia, it works with tobacco taxes too, particularly because it makes it too expensive for teenagers to take it up and become heavy smokers before they're old enough to understand the consequences.

Research indicates smoking among Australian teenagers declined by about 65-70% in the 15 years to 2014.

[1] http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-1-prevalence/1-...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by dagw on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @08:50AM (#16106096)
They do a poor job of controlling behavior.

Debatable. Here is one study[0] that claims that while it has minimal effect on people who already are heavy smokers, it does have an effect on reducing the consumption among the young.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by mrmrcoleman on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @06:52AM (#16105439)
Sin taxes taxed proportionately based on income, although impractical, would help.

Semi-related: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax by saas_co_de on Tuesday January 09, 2018 @07:18AM (#16105597)
The whole paternalistic government thing is a bit creepy, but if you are going to do it (which we obviously are) then good to apply it somewhat equally.

Soda is basically poison. The producers would be driven out of business in any rational economy where they were not shielded from product liability law suits.

A free market requires a free and just legal system. In the US every single producer of toxic and deadly products has their own specially granted immunity from product liability, either by judicial custom or legislation.

[ Parent | on HN ]