How would you define an unhealthy grocery? Today many different states compose different tax prices and items. An example would be that, when someone buys a Galaxy Milky Way bar would be taxed but a regular Milky Way bar would not. In recent years, taxes have been imposed on sugars, snacks, and soda. This approach took a narrow tax base and paired it with a high tax rate. As stated candy is something that is primarily made from flour and can be packaged as bars, drops, or pieces. Adding on, soda is defined as a non alcoholic beverage that includes artificial sweeteners. The charge on these “unhealthy” items led to a government association known as the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA). Their primary purpose was to control the taxes by reducing costs and burdens to the federal government. Also, SSUTA attempted to create uniformity of the tax among the different sates, although nearly half flouted. Most importantly, a focus on the implement of the sugar, snack, and soda tax was to find a way to contract obesity throughout the United States. Obesity is a growing problem leading to about a 33 percent obesity rate throughout adults in America. In their attempt to decrease this overwhelming population of obese people, 62 percent of 39 states urged a tax to combat the intake of unhealthy groceries especially soft drinks.
To try and fulfill the goals of the tax, the government does benefit in some ways although it is not favorable. By taxing the people who do purchase these unhealthy snacks and drinks, it creates a place of revenue for the government. This tax just adds up extra money for the government because making these items do not cost anymore than what they are selling it for. The benefit to the people is that it helps fund different government services. Federally, they use some to help protect the individuals. On the other hand, on the state level, with these funds they are able to help support the growth of the education systems and creates better school environments for students to work and grow in as well as creates a more affordable healthcare. They can also use it to promote healthy living and subsidize healthy living throughout the different states. Another benefit of taxing the people is that it decreases the consumption of the items that are taxed. Around 1,600 lives could be saved from different medical illnesses including heart attacks and strokes from decreasing their intake of the taxed items. This data could be due to the law of demand, when the price rises the quantity of demand falls.
Although they are lessening the amount of consumption on those taxed items, they replace those foods with other insubstantial things that take up the same amount of calories or in some cases even more. This has no benefit to curing obesity. The issue of intake of these unhealthy groceries is a public health issue. By imposing a narrow tax and punishing bad choices instead of recognizing the good makes it harder to solve a varied problem. Based on a study at Cornell University, they emphasized how the tax on soft drinks just led to an increase in the purchase of beer. In another study at University of Massachusetts, they compared the impacts of cigarette and soda taxes. They concluded that a moderate amount of soda is okay, so therefore it may be unnecessary to many who drink a substantial amount to be taxed. Also, they restated how they replace those items with things with the same consequences. Therefore they suggested, “a tax based on the amount of sugar added in a beverage”. By doing so, it would create an equal cost for those who may drink something with 10 times less than someone else but gets taxed the same. Lastly, a 2010 study deduced that a tax with a 58% increase will change a 6 foot persons weight by less than a pound.
Besides the controversial ideas of the impact of the tax on the rate of obesity and unhealthy lifestyles, another difficult part to manage and that creates fiscal problems is that each state differs in the types of groceries and their tax rates on those. For example, Missouri has a 1.225% tax on candies and soda where as Tennessee has a 5% on the same items. Also, states including Arizona do not tax on groceries including soda and sweets. The varying rates decrease efficiency on the states’ tax system. Also, another fault in the tax is that you can but the same item, say a Coke, and you get taxed at the grocery store, but if you bought that exact same drink at a vending machine you are not going to get taxed for the purchase. Because of this idea, retailers, distributors, and restaurants that are involved with the tax saw a decrease in their total profit and sales.
By taxing a target is the low income consumers. This is because the people who make less than the average salary for an American, they end up spending a larger percentage as well as more cash of their total income on these items. One study found that, “10% soda tax burden high income families by $24.29 while poor families would be harmed nearly twice that amount at $47.38.” Since this is a dramatic increase in tax from one bracket of income to another, the government is trying to implement exemptions to allow these less fortunate citizens to get the necessities they need. Although, an issue they are facing with this is that they can not find a definition for what is considered essential to a wide range of people. Each individual has different requisites. On the other hand, some people coming from the wealthier groups of Americans are saying that lower income people use the governments services more, so this is a way that they are paying for what they are getting for “free”.
When first coming across this idea of the sugar, soda, and snack tax I thought why wouldn’t you do this if all you can get is healthier living for the people living in the United States. I thought that if you could find a way to implement nutritious foods in to peoples’ every day lives we would have less health complexity as well as longer lives. As I continued to research the impacts of this tax, although, I realized that tax codes are hard to follow which makes it much less effective than they have hoped especially in increasing revenue. Instead research suggested that to see a possible change from this tax use the principles of sound tax policy. This includes four different terms: simplicity, transparency, neutrality, and stability. If they are able to incorporate these when implementing the tax, they would be more likely to perceive changes. Another suggestion was to address health issues publicly. By doing so the people would directly and thoroughly get across the message of the additional tax and the unhealthy factors from those groceries that are taxed. In my opinion, I feel that a persons should be able to live their life, and not be punished for doing so. If they chose the unhealthy route, they will face the consequences and if they are willing to have that its their decision. Most importantly, the government is imposing a tax on only specific items but is neglecting the other unhealthy factors that go into obesity such as fast food.