I hate taxes on anything, as most of us do, but living in South Carolina what I can’t stand is watching young men and women who are grossly obese drinking 20oz bottles soda. I can’t believe, even though I see it with my eyes, men and women filling up their one gallon drink cup with regular soda then picking up a few packaged Danish cakes, did you ever read in caloric content and ingredient listing in those things. These people, in my opinion, seem to also gouge themselves with fast fattening foods and frankly their parents, or adults sitting with them, are doing the same thing. I have seen people with butts and thighs that hang over both sides of the chair and also some that filled a whole booth bench. I see, every day, kids under the age of ten who can barely walk. One thing that really gets to me is a well built and fit Mother pulling along her obese Daughter. To me, it seems she wants to make sure that her Daughter will never be as good looking as she. Kids go through hell in school when they are obese and if the parents don’t care we have to do something.

I know we have the right to eat and drink as much as we want and I don’t want to impinge on that right so that’s why I think this is a well thought out way of bring the manufacturing of soda and other sugar loaded drinks under control. Yes the consumers will see an added cost at the point of sale (POS) but they would still have to make the final decision. “To Buy, or Not to Buy, that is the question.”           

From the New England Journal of Medicine:

An Effective Tax Policy and Projected Effects

Key factors to consider in developing an effective policy includethe definition of taxable beverages, the type of tax (salestax or excise tax), and the tax rate. We propose an excise taxof 1 cent per ounce for beverages that have any added caloricsweetener. An alternative would be to tax beverages that exceeda threshold of grams of added caloric sweetener or of kilocaloriesper ounce. If this approach were used, we would recommend thatthe threshold be set at 1 g of sugar per ounce (30 ml) (32 kcalper 8 oz [237 ml]). Another option would be a tax assessed pergram of added sugar, but such an approach would be difficultto administer. The advantage of taxing beverages that have anyadded sugar is that this kind of tax is simpler to administerand it may promote the consumption of no-calorie beverages,most notably water; however, a threshold approach would alsopromote calorie reductions and would encourage manufacturersto reformulate products. A consumer who drinks a conventionalsoft drink (20 oz [591 ml]) every day and switches to a beveragebelow this threshold would consume approximately 174 fewer calorieseach day.

A specific excise tax (a tax levied on units such as volumeor weight) per ounce or per gram of added sugar would be preferableto a sales tax or an ad valorem excise tax (a tax levied asa percentage of price) and would provide an incentive to reducethe amount of sugar per ounce of a sugar-sweetened beverage.Sales taxes added as a percentage of retail cost would havethree disadvantages: they could simply encourage the purchaseof lower-priced brands (thus resulting in no calorie reduction)or of large containers that cost less per ounce; consumers wouldbecome aware of the added tax only after making the decisionto purchase the beverage; and the syrups that are used in fountaindrinks, which are often served with multiple refills, wouldremain untaxed. A number of states currently exempt sugar-sweetenedbeverages from sales taxes along with food, presumably becausefood is a necessity. This practice should be eliminated, whetheror not an excise tax is enacted.

Excise taxes could be levied on producers and wholesalers, andthe cost would almost certainly be passed along to retailers,who would then incorporate it into the retail price; thus, consumerswould become aware of the cost at the point of making a purchasedecision. Taxes levied on producers and wholesalers would bemuch easier to collect and enforce than taxes levied on retailersbecause of the smaller number of businesses that would haveto comply with the tax; in addition, the sugar used in syrupscould be taxed — a major advantage because of the heavysales of fountain drinks. Experience with tobacco and alcoholtaxes suggests that specific excise taxes have a greater effecton consumption than do ad valorem excise taxes and can alsogenerate more stable revenues because they are less dependenton industry pricing strategies.³² In addition, tax laws shouldbe written with provisions for the regular adjustment of specificexcise taxes to keep pace with inflation, in order to preventthe effect of the taxes on both prices and revenues from erodingover time.

A tax of 1 cent per ounce of beverage would increase the costof a 20-oz soft drink by 15 to 20%. The effect on consumptioncan be estimated through research on price elasticity (i.e.,consumption shifts produced by price). The price elasticityfor all soft drinks is in the range of –0.8 to 1.0.³³(Elasticity of –0.8 suggests that for every 10% increasein price, there would be a decrease in consumption of 8%, whereaselasticity of 1.0 suggests that for every 10% increase in price,there would be a decrease in consumption of 10%.) Even greaterprice effects are expected from taxing only sugar-sweetenedbeverages, since some consumers will switch to diet beverages.With the use of a conservative estimate that consumers wouldsubstitute calories in other forms for 25% of the reduced calorieconsumption, an excise tax of 1 cent per ounce would lead toa minimum reduction of 10% in calorie consumption from sweetenedbeverages, or 20 kcal per person per day, a reduction that issufficient for weight loss and reduction in risk (unpublisheddata). The benefit would be larger among consumers who consumehigher volumes, since these consumers are more likely to beoverweight and appear to be more responsive to prices.⁷ Highertaxes would have greater benefits.

A controversial issue is whether to tax beverages that are sweetenedwith noncaloric sweeteners. No adverse health effects of noncaloricsweeteners have been consistently demonstrated, but there areconcerns that diet beverages may increase calorie consumptionby justifying consumption of other caloric foods or by promotinga preference for sweet tastes.³⁴ At present, we do not proposetaxing beverages with noncaloric sweeteners, but we recommendclose tracking of studies to determine whether taxing mightbe justified in the future.