Posted on 03/09/2015 8:24:15 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
As lawmakers in Vermont consider a tax to help end obesity, a study by economists at George Mason University finds raising taxes on “unhealthy” foods hurts the poor financially and does nothing to lower consumption.
As the midsession break comes to and end, all eyes are focused on the ever-growing hole in the Vermont state budget, which has reached $130 million.
One of the more unusual solutions to the state’s budget crisis is a proposed 2-cents-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks.
Sponsored by state Rep. Alison Clarkson, D-Woodstock, H.235 aims to raise about $34 million by taxing beverages like soda, fruit juice, teas and sports drinks.
While the tax would help fund Vermont’s obese budget, the bill claims to be a solution to the growing obesity crisis.
Clarkson’s legislation reads like a warning from the World Health Organization:
Vermont is facing a serious public health crisis as the incidence of preventable illnesses related to obesity, such as Type II diabetes, heart disease, and many forms of cancer rise with overall rates of obesity in Vermont’s population. … There is overwhelming scientific evidence that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is directly linked to the incidence of obesity, obesity-related diseases, and dental caries.
The proposed legislative fix is to give the state two pennies for every single ounce of “sugar sweetened” liquid distributed to stores.
But a new study finds that sin taxes like those proposed in H235 take money from the poor while doing nothing to curb consumption.
The Mercatus Center study, “Regressive Effects: Causes and Consequences of Selective Consumption Taxation,” examines the impact of price hikes on sin-taxed food products.
Of the 12 items examined in the study — soda, alcohol, cookies, donuts, chips, and the like — none saw a significant change in consumption based on adjustments to consumers’ purchasing power.
While alcohol purchases correlated slightly with greater or lesser consumer purchasing power, purchases of sugary items and “junk food” remained steady.
Moreover, the economists conclude that sin taxes are regressive in nature, since low-income Americans consume these foods and beverages at disproportionate levels.
“Because the types of goods targeted by these taxes have relatively inelastic demand — meaning consumers will keep purchasing them regardless of increases in price — the taxes are regressive in nature,” researchers wrote in the report summary.
The authors expressed concern that consumption-oriented taxes would increase the plight of the poor.
“Individuals who continue to purchase ‘unhealthy’ items after a tax has been levied or raised will see a decline in their disposable income — the money they have available for spending on other goods — making it more difficult for them to climb out of poverty,” the researchers added.
According to the report, educating the public and offering healthy alternatives would be more effective, moral options for addressing obesity.
Kleptocrats are interested only in the fifth and sixth words of the headline (including ‘Study’).
The rest is feel-good window dressing that would be ignored or ridiculed if ignorance were not the most urgent ‘public health’ problem in the nation.
Stopping obesity is just the excuse. Grabbing the million$ is the objective.............
Besides, it's not even their money. We pay for their EBT cards, welfare, WIC, medical care, housing, telephones, etc., etc., etc.
Our new Liberal Dweeb Democrat Governor here in PA wants to slap the state sales tax on Child Care Services.
Now THERE’S a move that’s really gonnna help those “working families”!
Author is probably talking about ‘fruit drinks’ not ‘fruit juices’
Fruit drinks are flavored water with sugar added because processed sugar is cheaper than fruit is.
Illinois has had the “sugar tax” since 2009. Now the legislature and governor are talking about raising it again. That’s right, our “republican” governor.
Taxation sure discouraged smoking, much more than other methods.
Maybe THAT'S the obesity we should be talking about, BUDGETS nation wide.
FMCDH(BITS)
I’ll just shop in NH.
Raise taxes but never, ever consider cutting the fat out of the budget.
Not that I support another tax, but I’m okay with making “the poor” pay their “fair share.”
First they came for the druggies, then they came for the smokers, now it is time to get the soda drinkers! Next up, chocolate eaters and eventually those that will not exercise!
The tobacco warriors won, now they get to live with the empowerment that they handed their rulers. Enjoy it FReepers that celebrated your “win.” Enjoy your “Brave New World.”
So a 2 liter bottle of store brand soda, which sells for 79 cents in Maryland would have a tax of $1.26?
So, the university study agrees with the secret taxpayer funded gov. study done before this policy was recommended. ;-)
It would just be laundering welfare money and turning it into tax revenue.
As long as they leave the bacon eaters alone. :-)
The entire country has gone mad.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.