Free Market Groups See Soda-Tax Conspiracy
By Paul Bedard, Washington Whispers
There's more proof that the administration is high on soda taxes as a way to curb obesity and fund healthcare reform. Two pro-free-market groups have discovered a $1 million stimulus grant to the University of Illinois to fund a study of the relationship between fat taxes and food consumption, diet quality, and obesity. Of concern is that the study results might be preordained.
According to the university's press release, "Previous economic studies suggest that food prices do change consumption. However, the researchers want to determine if, for example, consumers will seek out another high-sugar drink such as Kool-Aid if, say, soda is too expensive. If they do, then a tax on soda may reduce soda consumption but will not necessarily reduce weight, improve diet quality, or reduce overall sugar intake."
The makers of the target products—sodas, juices, and sports drinks—have been warning that the administration wants to raise the tax on their products. They also say that higher soda taxes in some states have not led to a drop in obesity, calling into question the societal benefit of such taxes.
The Illinois Policy Institute concluded that "taxpayers are in essence funding a study that will likely call for even higher taxes on the products we consume every day. This isn't change we can believe in." And the Club for Growth's Andy Roth tells Whispers, "The stimulus-financed study about fat taxes proves that the fat cats in Washington show no restraint when it comes to spending our hard-earned tax dollars. Is there any project that would fail to meet Congress's unbelievably low standards? I doubt it."
Tags: taxes
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (6) | Print
Reader Comments
Punish the runners
I have a caloric intake of about five thousand a day just to maintain body weight. I enjoy running and would be very dissatisfied if it cost me that much more just to have the energy to exercise every day. All so some overweight slacker without a job can get his arteries vacuumed.
Freedom of choice
@Stuart of AR
You have to be joking. Who are you or any others to say what an individual can consume or not consume? Freedom should be something valued. If Bob wants to sit in his living room and drink soda or heck eat straight lard that is his choice and a freedom to do so.
You site come phoney line that "We all will pay tenfold more with the financial timebombs of ballooning healthcare costs from the effects of diabetes and obesity epidemics." The simple answer is don't. Whatever happened to a world of personally responsibilty? Just as it's his choice to drink the soda he must also bear the responsibility of his actions and "personally" pay the costs of his choices.
This concept of "I have to tell you what to do because you're to supid to make proper choices and I have to take care of you." Sounds more like control and tyranny rather than freedom and liberty.
Why Just Sodas?
Why just a tax on soda's? Why not also tax cakes, cookies, pies, ice cream and candy?
Better yet tax sugar and corn based sweeteners. Then all those products that are "bad" for us can be removed from the marketplace.
Once that is done we can go after fried food, red meat and other "evil" foods. Better yet, just get straight to the desired answer and make everyone a vegan.
Or we could let folks be responsible for their own bodies. I do not driks sodas with sugar, but I do enjoy a small sweet almost every day. I weigh the same as I did 40 years ago. I do eat less and exercise more to maintain my weight. Why should the government restrict what I choose to eat and drink based on issues that others might have?
One more attempt by the government to eliminate freedom of choice.
advertisement
