Tax on sweet drinks leaves a sour taste

27 May 2010 -- It was recently reported that lawmakers in more than a dozen states have proposed taxing soda, teas and sports drinks — all in the name of improving our nation's health. Or so they say.

Their argument? They believe that placing a tax on sugary drinks will reduce consumption and subsequently curb rates of obesity and diabetes. Also, revenue from these new taxes could conceivably go toward paying for health-related programs, too.

Last year, federal lawmakers dropped a proposal to use a penny-per-ounce drink tax — an extra $1.44 for a 12-pack of soda — to help pay for health care reform legislation. In the year since, however, various state and local politicians have proposed similar taxes.

Understandably opposed to such taxes is the American Beverage Association. An ABA spokesman recently said that the taxes unfairly single out one product and don't change behavior.

While we believe obesity is an ongoing problem in the United States — one that, among other things, puts an added burden on the cost of health care because of related complications — and while we believe that soda and other sugary drinks contribute to the problem, we don't buy into the argument that this tax would help curb obesity.

We hardly feel that a mere $1.44 will be enough to prevent — or even slow — someone from buying a 12-pack of soda, or a family from buying several of them at a time.

Take the price of a carton of cigarettes, which has risen for years, due in part to higher taxes. But according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of current adult smokers in the United States rose from an estimated 43.4 million in 2007 to 46 million in 2008.

If lawmakers are serious about fighting obesity by taxing food or drinks, they would implement a much higher — or more comprehensive — tax.

To be clear, we don't suggest they do so because it could set a dangerous precedent. Why not tax potato chips or candy? Who would have the expertise and authority to decide which foods lead to obesity and diabetes? Where would it end?

We believe that implementing this kind of tax in the name of "better health" is a thinly veiled cash grab by government entities short on funds and facing voters unlikely to approve of paying more taxes simply to plug a budget gap.

It's disingenuous, but sadly not very surprising considering state lawmakers across the country are up for re-election this November and don't likely want the record to show that programs had to be reduced or eliminated on their watch.

If better health is the end goal, then we suggest encouraging behavior changes through better education and offering positive incentives to make better choices. If propping up a government program or budget with more taxpayer dollars is the objective, then we ask that politicians at least be forthright about the taxes they intend to raise or create.