Such soft drink taxes have been used or considered elsewhere, including France, Mexico, Norway and some U.S. states, but previous analysis of them have found mixed results on people's drinking habits.

 

 

 

Eh, who cares so long as we get to pat ourselves on the back over how progressive we are, amirite?

http://www.wtop.com/209/3651577/Court-weighs-in-on-New-York-Citys-big-soda-ban
 

NEW YORK (AP) -- Big sodas can stay on the menu in the Big Apple after New York state's highest court refused Thursday to reinstate the city's first-of-its-kind size limit on sugary drinks. But city officials suggested they might be willing to revisit the supersize-soda ban.

 

The Court of Appeals found that the city Board of Health overstepped its bounds by imposing a 16-ounce cap on sugary beverages sold in restaurants, delis, movie theaters, stadiums and street carts. The appointed board tread on the policy-making turf of the elected City Council, the court said.

 

"By choosing among competing policy goals, without any legislative delegation or guidance, the board engaged in lawmaking," the court wrote in a majority opinion. "... Its choices raise difficult, intricate and controversial issues of social policy."

 

Indeed, debate over the soda size cap pitted health officials who called it an innovative anti-obesity tool against critics who considered it unfair to businesses and paternalistic toward consumers. Even a Court of Appeals judge, during arguments earlier this month, wondered aloud whether regulators would target triple-decker burgers next.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/14/pf/taxes/fat-tax-soda-sugar/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom

 

It's an idea that comes up whenever people bemoan how much sugar Americans consume or how common obesity and diabetes have become.

Discourage excess sugar consumption by taxing sodas, other sugary beverages and junk food. After all, if you have to pay more to consume something, you're probably going to do less of it.

But a new paper from the Tax Policy Center suggests that solution is not as straightforward or as effective as it may sound.

Here are just a few reasons why:

A higher tax may change what Americans eat or drink. But what will they eat or drink in place of the highly taxed items?

"The sugar reduction from taxing sweetened drinks, for example, could be partly offset if consumers switch to juice and beer or eat more bread or cookies," authors of the paper note.

That is, if consumers just substitute one high-sugar item for another, that would undercut the effectiveness of the tax.

All kinds of sugar pose risks. Taxing sugary drinks is usually discussed in the context of beverages that have "added" sugar. But all sugars may contribute to health risks, including the naturally occurring ones in juices and other beverages.

Taxes work best when they target the most direct cause of concern. Cigarettes are a very direct cause of lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases. Treating those diseases is costly. And that cost is born in large part by the public through taxes supporting Medicare and Medicaid.

So taxing cigarettes to the high heavens as New York City does can be effective at dissuading smoking, and reducing costs to society.