Excise Taxes Appear to Be Good Policy
Taxing soda will reduce its consumption and raise revenue; by one recent estimate a 1 cent/oz. national U.S. excise tax would cut soda calorie consumption 8-10% and raise $15 billion per year (Brownell, et al., 2009). Moreover, from a theoretical perspective, the cross-subsidization from non-consumers of soft drinks to consumers resulting from such a tax is not large, and both classes of consumers can be shown to be better off (O’Donoghue and Rabin, 2006). Even if the caloric reduction in soft drinks is offset by whole milk consumption, the nutritional and metabolic advantages of milk versus soda are clear. If such consumption is of plain, reduced-fat milk, these advantages are amplified. Finally, a 1-for-1 substitution of milk for soda on a per volume basis is unlikely, due to milk’s digestibility relative to soda. For these reasons, wide adoption of such excise taxes appears to be good policy. Even if they fail to reduce caloric intake in young people, the quality of those calories will improve.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Agricultural economists say excise taxes for soda appear to be good policy
The new issue of Choices Magazine, the outreach publication from the agricultural economics profession, has a special policy theme on excise taxes for soda. Although there are some interesting differences across the several articles, the final article by Carlisle Ford Runge, Justin Johnson, and Carlisle Piehl Runge, sums up:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm all for a soda tax. Both to cut consumption and raise revenue. I think that crafting a tenable policy means linking revenue to something like nutritional school lunches or community health centers.
I would love to see some research that shows low fat milk is more nutritious than whole fat milk. Everything I've seen suggests the opposite, and yet the admonishment to consume low fat dairy functions like punction rather than advice in health literature.
Post a Comment