I’m not sure why Kevin Drum is neutral on a sugared beverage-tax. I like to drink soda that has cane sugar in it every once in a while, but I’ve done my best to completely eliminate high fructose corn syrup from my diet. You should do the same. And diet sodas are just as nasty. Our society pays an enormous price in health-related costs due to the omnipresence of high fructose corn syrup in our diets. It’s on a par with tobacco use, and we have no problem forcing smokers to subsidize everything from our health, to our roads, schools, and property taxes. Why should users of high fructose corn syrup get a break?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
31 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Your such a socialist! 🙂
I realize there’s a campaign going on against HFCS, including by people I greatly admire (Michael Pollan), but it doesn’t look like the evidence warrants singling it out against all forms of added sugar. Corn sweetener is in everything for one reason: the government subsidies that make it so cheap. Same with cane sugar.
This is one case where the best first step would be to let the market work: end subsidies to all forms of sugar production. It would accomplish the same end as a tax, but in a better way both policy-wise and politically. Which is the easier sell — another tax on consumers, or ending a giveaway to big ag? Seems like a no brainer to me.
The number one problem is overconsumption of sugars, whatever their form. But the only studies I’ve seen that say fructose is no worse than sucrose are those sponsored by the corn industry.
Sugar is bad when used excessively. Corn syrup is just plain bad, period. Sugar absorbs and is put into the blood stream at a slower, steady rate. Corn syrup absorbs immediately and is dumped in to the bloodstream all at once. This shock to the pancreas (which has to immediately produce a large amount of insulin to counteract the blood sugar) is likely what’s made type 2 diabetes so common in Americans.
That’s my understanding of it anyway. I used to have a diabetic cat and this is how the vet explained it to me.
I agree fructose is worse than sucrose. But, ending the ag subsidies would raise the price and hopefully reduce consumption as least as much and probably more than tacking on a sin tax. Itt puts the expense on the source. Corn syrup and corn fillers wouldn’t be in almost everything for sale at the grocery store if it wasn’t so darn cheap. Just putting a penalty on soda drinkers doesn’t affect corn syrup in cereal, cake mixes, frozen lasagna, breath mints, etc. The number one ingredient in most dry dog foods is corn and that’s ridiculous. If you want to change the way people eat, change the foods that are cheaply and readily available to them. Put the cost increase on the producer, not the consumer.
Absolutely. Before you tax soda it would make more sense to removes the subsidies for corn. Not only would it serve the same purpose, it would be hard for the yokels to argue about government interference if the govt. got out of the corn subsidy business.
Plus, it would make it harder for Big Ag to flood Mexico with corn and put small farmers out of business and on the road to San Diego. A win-win all over except for Big Ag and their senators.
Which is why it won’t happen.
In order to get rid of corn subsidies, we need to first get rid of Iowa. It’s almost gone, thanks to the corn producers, but I was talking more figuratively.
As long as Iowa is the first caucus state, politicians will continue to suck up to corn producers.
I agree except no need to do this first. Do both, ASAP.
Yeah, the idea of subsidizing production while taxing consumption drives me nuts. I’d support a tax if they’d end the subsidies.
Of course, if we ever stop subsidizing ethanol as well then corn farmers would be hurting.
Cut off the corn subsidy and encourage farmers to plant soybeans and sunflowers for their oil. Both are great at high temperatures for frying without hydrogenation (trans-fats.) And both grow well on the same midwestern land during the same months.
Of course the price of all sugars would go up but we’ve made corn syrup so artificially cheap with the subsidies that it’s like our government is paying us to get fat and get type 2 diabetes at younger and younger ages.
There’s a great documentary out there called “King Corn” that explains alot of what’s wrong with our corn excesses in this country. We need to stop it if we ever want to be a healthy nation.
Couldn’t agree more, yes it’s in all kinds of things that it shouldn’t be, yes it is nasty stuff and yes there should be a tax. And since I’m a little cancer sensitive, yes cancer cells feed off sugar/glucose so time for people to get the message!
Brain cells also run on glucose. 🙂 The problem is that the body just doesn’t regulate intake of fructose as well as it regulates sucrose.
Just what we need… yet another regressive tax.
The number one disease killing the country today is GREED. Until we get serious about taxing that again with a truly progressive income tax, all other discussion about taxation is wankery, to be honest. No offense, Boo.
Worse than wankery, I’d say. It’s the most cynical kind of political scam. Tax the smokers, drinkers, pop drinkers and other “sinners” so the suburban righteous can feel good about parasitizing the poor — it’s for their own good, doncha know.
I’m also sympathetic to this, and ultimately agree with it. I support a VAT; I support most sin-taxes. However, until the other economic crisis is solved–the tax code–I can’t be an advocate for them.
BS. I fully support ‘sin’ taxes on items that either aren’t good for you or not necessary. Tax the luxury items, too. I’d rather see big taxes on widescreen TVs, for example. No one can argue these are necessary. No one can argue sodas are necessary.
Tax the rich TOO. But go for the easy stuff like this.
I can’t believe people actually protested this tax. It’s in everyone’s best interest, period.
Pretty much nothing is “necessary” beyond what prisoners of war survive on. Books, movies, cars, central heat, air conditioning, restaurants, socks, phones, hairbrushes, radios, peaches, beer, computers, the Internet are all unnecessary in that there are people who do/did get by without them.
What’s “necesary” beyond a few potatoes, a dead rat, and a cave is all just somebody’s opinion.
That would be asking a majority to impose a new tax on themselves. You know that will never happen. The reason we have “no problem” taxing the life out of smokers is because they are a minority who could never show up in numbers to prevent the tax from passing. It’s free money to the majority who doesn’t smoke – so they go and spend it on
cancer research and treatment and smoking cessation programs like they shouldkids’ education and health care.Majorities are only going to support a new tax that doesn’t affect them and they have completely lost sight of taxing the cause of a problem to pay for the solution to the problem.
Boo: “And diet sodas are just as nasty.” Diet sodas have nothing to do with corn syrup. It’s as much a non-sequitur as saying, “And liver is just as nasty.” As politically unsupportable as a soda tax is, throwing in diet soda because you don’t like the taste or whatever reason is self-defeating.
By the way, I drink diet soda and don’t eat liver.
Without looking it up, my impression is that the syntho-sweetners are at least as medically suspect as sugar. But you make a good point about the arbitrariness of deciding which “sin” to tax. Turns out it’s all about what the mob can get away with.
At least? I’d say more so. I’d never drink a diet soda, but will occasionally have a real Coke, provided the temperature outside is sufficiently warm to make me crave a cold drink. And it’s too early for alcohol. 🙂
He’s talking about taxing soft drinks in general, I gathered. I agree – both diet and regular should be taxed specially. We shouldn’t be drinking them in the first place.
A lot of liberals don’t like sin-taxes because they especially hurt the poor the most. Due to the addiction to cigarettes being somewhat beyond a lot of the users’ control, I am sympathetic to this, but ultimately cannot agree to it.
I think what would be better than a tax is to stop subsidizing the damn industry. Alternatively you could do both, which is ultimately where I am on this topic; end their corporate welfare, and start taxing their products.
On the topic of taxes, am I one of the only liberals who supports a VAT? I don’t know how many in our circles supports this, so I’m just asking.
How is a VAT not regressive?
By definition, of course it’s a regressive tax.
Do you think we should get rid of the sales tax altogether, without instituting a VAT?
I think of a VAT vs. sales tax similar to cap/trade and a carbon tax. Sales tax, like a carbon tax, is more direct.
The advantage of VAT, is that you can tax other goods are a higher rate; especially luxury goods. The problem is that this could lead to protectionism, and have unintended consequences.
VAT’s can be structured in such a way that they’re progressive, one just has to worry about the issues of protectionism and unintended consequences.
Like cap and trade versus carbon tax, one is more bureaucratic and messy whereas another is more direct. However, if structured correctly, a VAT could be vastly superior to a sales tax.
Not to mention that conservative right wing groups like the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform both oppose one, and I’m always giddy to support something they oppose 😛
Living in a 10 percent sales tax county, yeah, I think we should dump the sales tax entirely. Or at least radically reduce it.
Coincidentally, I just got back from Walgreens, where the guy ahead of me had 3 giant bags of chips, several giant bottles of pop and hawaiian punch-type crap, several packages of toxic looking hot dogs and whitebread buns to match. Oh, and a 12 pack of pretentious bottled water — superbowl supplies presumably. Not sure about the pop, but for everything else he’d have paid 2.5 percent tax because of the food/pharma exemption. If he’d had rogain that was prescribed he’d have paid the special rate for that, too.
The person behind me had a box of elastic bandages, assorted gauze and such, tylenol, toilet paper, and dish soap. She’d pay the 10 percent tax because none of them are necessities, by the county bureaucrats’ reckoning.
I’m Libertarian enough to hate the government butting in and deciding what’s a luxury and what ain’t. Which is the common problem with the sales tax and the VAT. A teacher I used to know had a sailboat, so people thought she was rich. But she explained that she did without a car so she could keep the boat. A VAT would hit her hard, presumably, while a car would be considered a “necessity”. She’d have to pay extra to the government for making a non-mainstream lifestyle choice that happens to be vastly less damaging to the commons. And on and on it goes — micromanagement of the worst kind, the kind of nanny state bull that makes people despise liberals. Though it sure would be a cornucopia for the lawyers.
It’s kind of telling of Libertarian Party types that they’re too dumb or dishonest to recognize that a sharply progressive income tax and corporate tax is both the most fair and the least bureaucratic option there is if we accept that somebody has to pay for all this infrastructure, security, and safety net. Since they dropped the ball, I think it should be the foundation plank of the Democratic Party. Not holding my breath though.
I’ll let Bruce Bartlett make the argument for me:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1479/bbct-new-term-vat
But for once, this is a regressive tax that is VERY MUCH IN POOR PEOPLE’S BEST SELF INTEREST.
The less sugar they consume, especially through beverages, the less their health care (and, by extension, ours) will cost. The longer their teeth will last. The more energy their kids will have.
This is a total win-win. I’m shocked at so-called progressives who object to this.
As Bruce Bartlett argues, it’s also essential for a European-like welfare state. It’s why Heritage and conservative activists don’t want one.
“Why should users of high fructose corn syrup get a break?”
Hate to sound like an arch conservative but, quite frankly, hardly any tax money actually goes to helping people in need. The vast bulk of it goes to:
Under these circumstances, why should anyone pay anymore taxes? Why am I supposed to accept paying money for these things as some kind of patriotic duty? I’d prefer to see fructose users (and smokers) keep their money. (of course, I’d prefer they quit for their own sake, but I’m not going to tax them into it)
I avoid both HFCS and any foods that have hydrogenated oils in them. Cookies, bread, pancake mix, whatever.
I don’t really care if anyone taxes those products, I just happen to believe that the human body cannot effectively process food with either of those items in it.
I believe what Dr. Oz says and I do not believe that he has an axe to grind.