The Facts: The Senate Finance Committee began discussions today about the ways to fund President Barack Obama’s $1.2 trillion health care plan. One of the more exotic propositions involves a tax on sugar-sodas in the amount of one cent per fluid ounce; this could amount to as much as $12 billion in federal tax revenues.
Our Opinion: A tax on soda is bad policy, to say the least. The government is considering what amounts to a flat fine for making a personal consumption decision. The legislation, if approved, creates a very slippery slope.
The Senate Finance Committee will begin hearing expert methodologies for funding President Barack Obama’s proposed $1.2 trillion health care plan today.
One idea, derived from an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, would contribute as much as $12 billion to the health care effort by excising a one cent per fluid ounce tax on soda. Kelly Brownell, an intellectual at Yale, and Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control, theorized the tax could reduce soda consumption by as much as 10 percent.
Tax and health officials seem to think the tax proposal is a sort of win-win for health care. The concept of this idea even being considered is unfathomable and establishes a very slippery slope in the realm of taxation — what’s next, ice cream?
In sincerity, this sort of tax could be applied to just about anything: candy, doughnuts or other fatty foods. Taxing soda is a very precarious step towards a federal imposition on consumer choice. Isn’t this the sort of thing the colonists were upset about when they tossed tea into Boston Harbor?
Soda certainly isn’t the healthiest form of liquid refreshment, and perhaps taxations like this are the only way to pay for health care.
If that’s the case, apply the soda tax universally on all carbonated sodas. The proposed legislation would do nothing of that sort, it would exempt diet sodas that include artificial sweeteners like Splenda or aspartame and raise the cost on chocolate milk and Gatorade.
One of the most absurd things about the tax is that it disproportionately affects the poor. Flat taxes will consistently damage the financial state of the poor more so because people with less wealth tend to spend a higher portion of their income on household expenditures — food, drinks and medications for instance.
The tax most heavily affects the segment of the population that Obama’s health care plan is trying to mend.
One cent may not sound significant, but take a look at the side of your soda can and write down the number of fluid ounces, now multiply that number by 365. You’re probably going to get a good idea of the real consequence (in pennies) this will have on your wallet.
Taxation is sometimes necessary to fund federal projects, especially ones as large as health care reform. But this particular tax sends the wrong message and parades the idea that the government is going to weave an uncalled for web in your personal purchasing decisions.
