Soda tax argument

Activists List
1

Aubrey,

  Did you say you had the text of our previous soda tax argument to send me for reference in writing this?

  Here's the rhetorical part I've got so far – now I need to make some factual arguments:

2

Good catch Mike! You're getting like me with the words. I probably would have dropped "in order" eventually when looking to make more space, because you're right it's not really necessary.

Love & Liberty,
                              ((( starchild )))

3

Hi Starchild. Great argument so far. I found the previous one from 2
years ago and I'm copying it below. Also found the rebuttal and I'm
copying that too--it's definitely your writing style! Also a point could
be made, as the beverage industry is doing, that with the distributors
paying the tax, they'll bump up the prices of all groceries, not just
sugary beverages, to cover the new tax. Hence a grocery tax.

A soda tax is a simplistic and ineffective solution to a very real and
complex problem. Proponents claim that a soda tax will result in lower
calorie consumption and weight loss, but obesity is a complicated disorder
which involves many components besides the intake of sugary drinks.
Calories in soda are no more or less fattening than calories in other food.
Studies show that taxing sodas will not help reduce obesity in the long run
because consumers are able to buy alternative sugary drinks or high
calories snacks in lieu of soft drinks. In fact, in one particular study,
subjects substituted 8 calories of milk for 6 calories of sugar sweetened
beverage.

Besides being ineffective in curbing weight, a soda tax has other
unintended consequences. It is regressive tax—it taxes a larger
proportion of income from poorer people and aims at pleasures they are more
likely to partake in. (Note that the supervisors are not taxing
frappuccinos, which are at least as unhealthy as sodas). Moreover, a soda
tax will hurt small neighborhood stores that rely on soft drinks for much
of their revenue.

This is a “sin tax”. Politicians like these taxes because at least in the
short run they lead to an increase in revenues which increase the power of
the politicians who can dispense them. Longer term, however, this tax will
lead to even greater increases in expenditures (in this case for
recreation, health, and nutrition) that cannot be supported by the tax
imposed.

It’s your body—if you want to eat or drink something unhealthy, shouldn’t
it be up to you?

The City Council of Richmond placed a soda tax on the ballot and 2/3 of the
voters rejected it. This proposal deserves the same fate. Vote NO on Prop
E.

Libertarian Party of SF

*Proposition E contains two ingredients that are unhealthy for San
Francisco:*

*1) Higher taxes making The City even less affordable*

*2) More government attempts to run our lives*

Proponents cite Mexico’s soda tax as proof that such taxes effectively
reduce obesity, but that tax is too new to prove anything besides beverage
sales being down. Where is the proof that obesity rates also dropped? Obesity
rates in the US have risen in recent years despite consumption of
full-calorie sodas *declining*.

But let’s assume drinking sodas *does* contribute to obesity. Targeting
people who buy them with tax hikes is still a poor method of addressing the
issue.

*High cigarette taxes have resulted in smuggling, tax evasion, and
violence, and jacking up soda taxes will likewise have adverse consequences
that legislators cannot anticipate.*

And it isn’t just sodas that Proposition E would tax. *Many juices, ice
teas, sport drinks, etc., will bear higher taxes too.*

Tax hike proponents claim Proposition E is fair because people who use more
health care as a result of drinking unhealthy sodas will pay via the
tax. *Actually
it would unfairly burden everyone who enjoys sweet drinks*, including many
with generally healthy lifestyles.

A better way to fight obesity is eliminating agricultural subsidies that
incentivize the production of cheap high fructose corn syrup.

*Bottom line: Social engineering efforts by government won’t fix our
waistlines. *Only making wise choices about our own diets and lifestyles
will do that.

*Vote NO on E.*

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

www.LPSF.org <http://www.lpsf.org/>

Thanks!

Aubrey

4

Okay, here's the finished version:

5

Looks good....have heard nothing from Aubrey. I hope he's OK.

I'll be down at the Department of Elections this morning to file mine by 10AM .

Mike

6

Hi Starchild. Another great one, as always. I'll print it out and work on
the cover sheets for the Department of Elections. I'm going to leave to go
there around 10 AM. Do you want to come with me?

In the meantime I'm going to take a stab revising C, the amendment to the
city loan bond program for changing the bond so it could be used for
affordable housing. It could have a more Libertarian feel to it. I sent
Phil a revision for his "Dignity Fund" argument and I'm waiting for his
final changes to it. It's coming shortly.

Thanks!
Aubrey

7

Hi Mike. No reason to schlepp over to the Department of Elections. I'll
be going over there around 10-10:30, and unless you want to have your name
on the argument alongside the LPSF's name, I will submit it myself with the
other arguments. It came out great.

Thanks!
Aubrey

8

Thanks Francoise.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))