[bootlegga]

stratos stratos:

My question is why Tax the consumer. Tax the company. I'll use Brenda's example of Coke but this can be for any product. For every gram of sugar coke puts in it's product over X amount tax them. Say the line is 10g, for ever gram coke goes over 10g's tax them.

Thus you can get the product taxed while at the same time having companies seriously look at their product and see if they can change the sugar amount to help reduce and or avoid the sugar tax.

Taxing the company won't make a difference, as the company will simply pass on its costs (in this case taxes) to the consumer.

[Lemmy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Taxing the company won't make a difference, as the company will simply pass on its costs (in this case taxes) to the consumer.

Not quite. Demand still determines consumer actions. The company may try to to pass all of the tax (or any new cost) on to consumers, but can't unless the good is perfectly inelastic. The slope of the demand curve will determine how the cost of the tax would be shared among producer and consumer.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Actually, there is a fair amount of peer-reviewed research that shows that cigarette taxes did help in reducing smoking:

It's nice to say, but can you offer up any of those papers?

Taxation isn't the answer or the "silver bullet" because if it was, booze sales would be on the decline. Instead, we're hitting all-time highs in areas like Ontario. Drinking is still very socially acceptable.

Education combined with by-laws and taxation have lead to the decline in smoking. Due to the education, smoking is widely considered as socially unacceptable.

[DrCaleb]

I don't know about cigarette taxes reducing smoking, but sugary drink taxes are reducing consumption in Mexico.

http://time.com/4168356/mexico-sugar-drink-soda-tax/

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Actually, there is a fair amount of peer-reviewed research that shows that cigarette taxes did help in reducing smoking:

It's nice to say, but can you offer up any of those papers?

Taxation isn't the answer or the "silver bullet" because if it was, booze sales would be on the decline. Instead, we're hitting all-time highs in areas like Ontario. Drinking is still very socially acceptable.

Education combined with by-laws and taxation have lead to the decline in smoking. Due to the education, smoking is widely considered as socially unacceptable.

So you're saying it yourself, taxation reduces smoking. I also listed a couple of references earlier. Here's one again: T

$1:

obacco taxation, passed on to consumers in the form of higher cigarette prices, has been recognized as one of the most effective population-based strategies for decreasing smoking and its adverse health consequences

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/

Raising prices on cigs is especially effective in reducing smoking among young people. Which is what you want. Same with reducing sugary drink use by young people.

But we should go the whole hog on education - ie tv education campaigns against them, banning of advertising, force pop to be hidden in the store and allow it only to be bought by adults. Like we do with cigs - that certainly has an educative impact.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

So you're saying it yourself, taxation reduces smoking.

No, read it again. Taxes are part of the equation. Higher taxes alone won't reduce consumption.

andyt andyt:

Raising prices on cigs is especially effective in reducing smoking among young people. Which is what you want. Same with reducing sugary drink use by young people.

Young people turn to cheaper alternatives like reserves and their cigarettes in a bag.

[BeaverFever]

First thing, I think people need to acknowledge that one big reason that pop and junk food in general are consumed in such quantities is because it's made artificially cheap via government subsidies that pervert the market. I mean, pop is cheaper than water, and pop is just water with carbonation and other junk added to it - how does that make sense?

$1:

How Billions In Tax Dollars Subsidize The Junk Food Industry
http://www.businessinsider.com/billions-in-tax-dollars-subsidize-the-junk-food-industry-2012-7

We really shouldn't be talking about taxes until the subsidies are ended. But since that will never happen in the corrupt, unaccountable cesspool of legalized bribery known as the US Congress, a tax will help the US recover some of that lost money. Even in Canada, it will help offset the problems that spill over the border from shitty American policy.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

So you're saying it yourself, taxation reduces smoking.

No, read it again. Taxes are part of the equation. Higher taxes alone won't reduce consumption.

And who said anything about taxes alone. We already have education, I know about the harm from sugar from the media. If we put in this tax, the govt could use the money to educate further. It certainly doesn't make sense to say no to half a loaf when you don't have the whole loaf.

andyt andyt:

Raising prices on cigs is especially effective in reducing smoking among young people. Which is what you want. Same with reducing sugary drink use by young people.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Young people turn to cheaper alternatives like reserves and their cigarettes in a bag.

Guess you'll have to argue that with the National Institute of Health. Me, I'll take their word for it.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

And who said anything about taxes alone. We already have education, I know about the harm from sugar from the media. If we put in this tax, the govt could use the money to educate further. It certainly doesn't make sense to say no to half a loaf when you don't have the whole loaf.

The entire post is about taxes on sugar. Little to nothing about education.

When is the last time you saw a PSA about sugar consumption?

Seeing the occasional story on the news about sugar doesn't qualify as "education".

[andyt]

Well, then as I say, argue for the tax to fund education, not against the tax. That would seem more logical to me.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Guess you'll have to argue that with the National Institute of Health. Me, I'll take their word for it.

Maybe yous should look towards a Canadian source for your information so you're comparing data with the actual topic and Country we're discussing.

[andyt]

Oh, right, Canadians respond differently than Americans to higher prices. And the topic at the time was your claim that raising tobacco taxes did nothing to reduce smoking.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Oh, right, Canadians respond differently than Americans to higher prices. And the topic at the time was your claim that raising tobacco taxes did nothing to reduce smoking.

Canadians do respond differently to higher prices, especially when you have a fantastic source for black-market product.

Raising tobacco taxes wasn't the sole reason smoking rates have declined.

[andyt]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Raising tobacco taxes wasn't the sole reason smoking rates have declined.

Great, so some of the decline is attributable to taxes. So why not raise them? You're arguing against a straw man here, since nobody has claimed that the only reason people smoke less is because of higher taxes.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Raising tobacco taxes wasn't the sole reason smoking rates have declined.

Great, so some of the decline is attributable to taxes. So why not raise them? You're arguing against a straw man here, since nobody has claimed that the only reason people smoke less is because of higher taxes.

Sure. Let's raise taxes on everything.

I mean, why not?