In the mid 18th century, the taxation of certain products such as tea, sugar, and stamps led to a revolution that created this country. Currently we are taxed on just about everything, and certain items have an additional tax on them.
In Chicago, we are no strangers to high taxes, as even bottled water has an additional tax. Although these taxes have become the status quo for us, a new tax on soda is causing quite the debate across the country.
Berkley, California has recently become the first city to impose an additional tax on soda. Although many cities, such as New York, have previously sought to tax soda, those propositions were shot down by the State’s highest court.
Supporters of the tax tout the possibility of reducing soda consumption and obesity, as well as its secondary health consequences. They label it as a health hazard similar to cigarettes or alcohol, which are both heavily taxed.
The health risks and implications of drinking and smoking are well known and studied. Therefore, a tax on these is understandable, but this debate is not about the tax on cigarettes or alcohol. This new soda tax is the first to target obesity.
While soda may not be the healthiest drink option, I do not believe it needs to be taxed with the intention of eliminating obesity. No substantial testing has been done to see if a soda tax would even curtail the amount of people that drink soda.
Besides the lack of research in this aspect, it is unfair and scientifically ignorant to label one thing, such as soda, as the cause of obesity and its subsequent health complications.
In my opinion, this move to tax soda is only for money. If they truly cared about the health of children and adults, more money would be spent on efforts to educate those about what is in soda that makes it unhealthy rather than funding a tax effort.
The consumer should be held accountable for what they buy and put into their bodies. Taxes should not be used as a weapon to destroy a business or product. The market economy that we have allows customers to control the success of a product due to supply and demand. By using specific taxes like this, the government is aiming to disrupt this freedom that we have in our economy.
If we, as consumers, deem a product to be harmful then we have the power to eliminate it from the market. The attempt to tax soda is just another façade using health as an excuse to tax more and make more money.
A bottle of water at Walgreens is 99 cents while a bottle of Coke is a $1.99. If the difference between purchasing a healthy alternative to soda is already $1.00, I find it hard to believe that a few extra pennies will prevent soda lovers from purchasing their beverage of choice.
Although I do believe that reducing our countries consumption of soda could reduce obesity and improve our overall health, I also believe that this is a decision that consumers have to make on their own, because at the end of the day they have to live with the consequences of their choices.
Unlike smoking and drinking alcohol, soda does not harm or impact others around the consumer. There is no such thing as second-hand soda drinking; therefore I would like to ask who is this tax really helping, the government or the consumer?
Chicago and the rest of the country will no doubetdly be looking closely at the results of this new soda tax. And with Chicago’s tax reputation I am sure our soda tax is not far behind.
In keeping with the Revolutionary theme of the title I would like to conclude with a phrase that would make our forefathers proud, “Give me tax-free soda, or give me death!”
Zachary Heppner
Viewpoints Editor
About Post Author
