Is a tax a good tax if it saves lives

Counting Empty Calories

Can we tax our way to good health? I’m sorry – I’m not convinced.

Years ago, a substantial tax increase on cigarettes prompted a slight dip in cigarette sales and supposedly saved lives. But I don’t buy it. I’ve been a smoker, and I know what it feels like to be addicted. You can charge a dime, a quarter, a dollar more per pack – it won’t matter. Smokers will still smoke until they decide not to smoke.

The same with soft drinks. You can tax people for their own good, but they’ll just pay the tax and move on.

Late last year, New York Governor David Paterson introduced a plan to sharply increase the state tax on soft drinks. In a New York Times op-ed piece, columnist Nicholas D. Kristof offered a few points in support…

According to nutrition specialist Barry Popkin, liquid calories don’t impact hunger (except for soups), so if you consume half-a-dozen Dr. Peppers in an afternoon, you’ll still be hungry for a normal dinner in spite of the large caloric intake.

A study in the American Journal of Public Health raised the possibility that soft drink intake actually increases hunger and makes soda drinkers crave a higher level of sweetness in other foods.

Mr. Popkin also links soft drinks to obesity and diabetes in the same way tobacco is linked to lung cancer.

Without a clue

Kristof concluded his article with this note: “Losing weight is never easy, but one of the most effective diets would start with a soft drink tax.”

And I agree. As long as the tax is absurdly high – like $30 per bottle.

But here in the real world, serious soda drinkers – those who are really hooked – will have to start any realistic diet with a focused resolve to stop drinking sodas. Without exercising that willpower they’re just going to pay the tax and keep drinking.

But Kristof is apparently unaware of a mile-wide problem with this plan: It doesn’t include diet soft drinks.

In the e-Alert “Junk in the Trunk” (8/7/07), I told you about a four-year study in which researchers followed the soda-drinking habits of more than 6,000 subjects. Results showed that those who drank one or more sodas each day were nearly 45 percent more likely to develop obesity, increased waist circumference, impaired fasting glucose, higher blood pressure, high triglycerides, and higher LDL cholesterol. And the surprise for researchers: Results were the same for both non-diet and diet soda drinkers.

Meanwhile, back in New York, this discussion has been put on hold. Just a few days ago, Governor Paterson dropped his soda tax initiative, which, it turns out, was doomed from the start. In his article, Kristof didn’t mention that the soft drink tax was tied to a larger package that included new taxes on movies, digital media downloads, concert tickets, massages, manicures, and haircuts.

And that’s exactly why we’ll never tax our way to good health: Politicians just can’t get it right. They’ll fall for the absurd idea that “diet” soda is healthier than non-diet soda. And then they’ll overreach. A tax on movies, haircuts, and song downloads? One word comes to mind: clueless.

Sources:
“Paterson Reaches Deal With Legislative Leaders to Drop Soda Tax and Other Fees” Nicholas Confessore, New York Times, 3/12/09, nytimes.com
“Miracle Tax Diet” Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times, 12/18/08, nytimes.com