[delayed]

yes this is very basic economics. this is literally the "draw a supply and demand curve" example and intro 101 economics classes talking about elasticity and substitution. or you can model it using elementary game theory.

so substitution effects and regulatory arbitrage counts?

you might not know, but the science on this method is settled. economists have run so many trials and experiments on this.

That is not what I am asking. I am asking if we can say "sugar consumption halved" just because both consumers and producers found ways to circumvent the tax, e.g. consumers bought sugary drinks from neighboring areas with lower or no taxes, or producers reformulated their products in ways that technically avoid the tax but do not necessarily result in a healthier product.

Which neighbouring area to the UK are you thinking that its citizens are popping over to in order to buy their coke?

Maybe it's another example of the benefits of Brexit to Northern Ireland when they start trading "EU Coke" into the UK.

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: alcohol and tobacco

France: fuel

Luxembourg and the Canary Islands: high-value items like electronics, designer clothing, and luxury goods.

Why in the hell would anyone need to pay a tax for this is my question. Sounds like a racket to me. What's next?

How else does a state apply pressure? The health implications are real; this stuff was cheap and available and market forces kept them there.

Cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed. A similar racket?

Yes, similar racket. Nothing you can say justifies more tax.

So you're of the opinion that people who engage in voluntary activities for personal pleasure that put a higher burden on the health system, that those who are more wise about their choices have to use, should not have to pay thier way?

Or are you of the opinion that someone should be denied emergency medical care because they had some sodas on the regular?

You're missing the point. Those who pursue voluntary activities that "burden the health system" don't "pay their way".

Those who pay are everyone else. Healthcare t's a tragedy of the commons unlike other taxes where it's more difficult to abuse the common resource such as roads and other infrastructure.

Roads are frequently built on the expense of the many to the benefit of the few.

So what are you for?

Of course! I mean, yeah, sure, taxes on unhealthy products may increase the average health of a population, which results in reduced healthcare costs, greater economic productivity by reducing worker sickness, and may save thousands of life-years across the population and increase their quality of life. But does that really justify the state taking a percentage of the price I pay for a pack of cigarettes?

More more more more moooooooore comrade! Take it all, everything! Don't subsidise better options, just take MOOOOOOOORE!

So your gripe is with the type of state intervention?

Non-sugary foods and drinks are already heavily subsidized - like all agriculture - and that's something necessary to maintain food security. People still choose the unhealthy stuff.

Taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax

And yet many alcoholic products are full of sugar and a majority of adults all around the world are alcoholics.

I'm not disagreeing we have problems, but my original question was why the solution is a tax. It's very clear who that benefits and it's also very clear those same people control marketing and education. This is insanity.

this just means taxes are too low, not that taxes don't work. In a normal way the tax for these should offset the healthcare burden that these produce in treating diseases/accidents caused by alcohol/tobacco consumption. The same way a sugar tax should at least cover all govt diabetes expenditure, but there are other factors that can be covered too.

> my original question was why the solution is a tax

Because it works. Source: TFA.

> a majority of adults all around the world are alcoholics

there's no way that can be true right?

And isn't alcohol already taxed a lot for the same reason?

> a majority of adults all around the world are alcoholics.

... Wait, how are you defining 'alcoholic'?

Even by the 'regularly exceeds recommended intake' definition (which most medical professionals would not read as 'alcoholic' on its own, btw), this is not true.

You're not replying to OP

> There are a lot of externalities from having an unhealthy populace, this fee can help to counter that.

Is this tax sized to cover for that externalities or the amount is decided in other basis (likely to maximize government revenue)?

Is the collected money exclusively used to counter the externalities or is the spending left to the discretion of the government?

I'm asking from ignorance, but if the answer of any of those questions is no then the purpose of the tax is not to make up for the externalities.

> Is this tax sized to cover for that externalities

No, nothing like it. The final costs to the state of excessive sugar consumption are _vast_. This levy is primarily to discourage people from consuming loads of sugar.

> Is the collected money exclusively used to counter the externalities

While I don't know, I'd be very surprised. That sort of bucketed approach to tax collection/use is _extremely_ inefficient; the only place it can possibly be justified is social insurance.

Let’s do alcohol and tobacco. Oh wait, we’ve been doing that for centuries. As for why, most people _like_ a functioning government.