Our statist friends like high taxes for many reasons. They want to finance bigger government, and they also seem to resent successful people, so high tax rates are a win-win policy from their perspective.
They also like high tax rates to micromanage people’s behavior. They urge higher taxes on tobacco because they don’t like smoking. They want higher taxes on sugary products because they don’t like overweight people. They impose higher taxes on “adult entertainment” because…umm…let’s simply say they don’t like capitalist acts between consenting adults. And they impose higher taxes on tanning beds because…well, I’m not sure. Maybe they don’t like artificial sun.
Give their compulsion to control other people’s behavior, these leftists are very happy about what’s happened in Berkeley, California. According to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health, a new tax on sugary beverages has led to a significant reduction in consumption.
Here are some excerpts from a release issued by the press shop at the University of California Berkeley.
…a new UC Berkeley study shows a 21 percent drop in the drinking of soda and other sugary beverages in Berkeley’s low-income neighborhoods after the city levied a penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages. …The “Berkeley vs. Big Soda” campaign, also known as Measure D, won in 2014 by a landslide 76 percent, and was implemented in March 2015. …The excise tax is paid by distributors of sugary beverages and is reflected in shelf prices, as a previous UC Berkeley study showed, which can influence consumers’ decisions. …Berkeley’s 21 percent decrease in sugary beverage consumption compares favorably to that of Mexico, which saw a 17 percent decline among low-income households after the first year of its one-peso-per-liter soda tax that its congress passed in 2013.
I’m a wee bit suspicious that we’re only getting data on consumption by poor people.
Why aren’t we seeing data on overall soda purchases?
And isn’t it a bit odd that leftists are happy that poor people are bearing a heavy burden?
I’m also amused by the following passage. The politicians want to discourage people from consuming sugary beverages. But if they are too successful, then they won’t collect all the money they want to finance bigger government.
In Berkeley, the tax is intended to support municipal health and nutrition programs. To that end, the city has created a panel of experts in child nutrition, health care and education to make recommendations to the City Council about funding programs that improve children’s health across Berkeley.
In other words, one of the lessons of the Berkeley sugar tax and the 21-percent drop in consumption is that the Laffer Curve applies to so-called sin taxes just like it applies to income taxes.
But the biggest lesson to learn from this episode is that it confirms the essential insight of supply-side economics. Simply stated, when you tax something, you get less of it.
Which is something that statists seem to understand when they urge higher “sin taxes,” but they deny when the debate shifts to taxes on work, saving, entrepreneurship, and investment.
I’m not joking. I debate leftists all the time and they will unabashedly argue that it’s okay to have higher tax rates on labor income and more double taxation on capital income because taxpayers supposedly don’t care about taxes.
Oh, and the same statists who say that high tax burdens don’t matter because people don’t change their behavior get all upset about “tax havens” and “tax competition” because…well, because people will change their behavior by shifting their economic activity where tax rates are lower.
It must be nice not to be burdened by a need for intellectual consistency.
Speaking of which, Mark Perry used the Berkeley soda tax as an excuse to add to his great collection of Venn Diagrams.
P.S. On the issue of sin taxes, a brothel in Austria came up with an amusing form of tax avoidance. The folks in Nevada, by contrast, believe in sin loopholes. And the Germans have displayed Teutonic ingenuity and efficiency.
[…] instance, many of them sound like Milton Friedman when they pontificate in favor of higher tobacco taxes because they want people to smoke fewer […]
[…] instance, many of them sound like Milton Friedman when they pontificate in favor of higher tobacco taxes because they want people to smoke fewer […]
[…] instance, many of them sound like Milton Friedman when they pontificate in favor of higher tobacco taxes because they want people to smoke fewer […]
[…] To the extent these taxes are successful, we get more evidence of the Laffer Curve. That happened in Berkeley. And it happened in […]
[…] partial to what I wrote last […]
[…] Mark Perry is also famous for his Venn diagrams that expose hypocrisy (see here, here, here, here, and here). He even motivated me to create my own […]
[…] of his very clever hypocrisy-exposing Venn Diagrams (taxation and incentives, the War on Drugs, minimum wage, Food and Drug Administration, and consenting […]
[…] Minimum wage […]
[…] The big drop in soda purchases after a tax on sugary drinks was imposed in Berkeley. […]
[…] The big drop in soda purchases after a tax on sugary drinks was imposed in Berkeley. […]
[…] partial to what I wrote last […]
[…] VII in my collection of examples designed to educate my friends on the left (here’s Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, and Part […]
[…] The big drop in soda purchases after a tax on sugary drinks was imposed in Berkeley. […]
[…] last sentence puts me in a good mood. I very much like when greedy politicians are forced to lower tax […]
[…] The big drop in soda purchases after a tax on sugary drinks was imposed in Berkeley. […]
[…] left actually understand this principle when it suits their purposes. They propose sugar taxes, soda taxes, carbon taxes, housing taxes, tanning taxes, tobacco taxes, and even “adult entertainment” […]
[…] partial to what I wrote last […]
[…] The big drop in soda purchases after a tax on sugary drinks was imposed in Berkeley. […]
[…] The big drop in soda purchases after a tax on sugary drinks was imposed in Berkeley. […]
[…] The big drop in soda purchases after a tax on sugary drinks was imposed in Berkeley. […]
[…] Such as the big drop in soda purchases after a tax on sugary drinks was imposed in Berkeley. […]
[…] as the big drop in soda purchases after a tax on sugary drinks was imposed in Berkeley. Such as the big drop in home sales after a tax was imposed in Vancouver on purchases by […]
[…] Such as the big drop in soda purchases after a tax on sugary drinks was imposed in Berkeley. […]
[…] in August, I acknowledged that lifestyle leftists in California won a real victory. They imposed a tax on sugary soft drinks in Berkeley and achieved a reduction in […]
[…] You can enjoy other Mark Perry Venn Diagrams here, here, here, and here (newly […]
[…] can enjoy other Mark Perry Venn Diagrams here, here, here, and […]
[…] in August, I acknowledged that lifestyle leftists in California won a real victory. They imposed a tax on sugary soft drinks in Berkeley and achieved a reduction in […]
[…] in August, I acknowledged that lifestyle leftists in California won a real victory. They imposed a tax on sugary soft drinks in Berkeley and achieved a reduction in […]
[…] in August, I acknowledged that lifestyle leftists in California won a real victory. They imposed a tax on sugary soft drinks in Berkeley and achieved a reduction in […]
[…] tracking certain purchases. Imagine the potential mischief if politicians had a mechanism to easily impose discriminatory taxes on disapproved […]
So this is the famous “Irish Miracle”? Another drunkard scam turning Ireland into tax haven to screw America? This is why Ulster must join Scotland! Yapple was founded by Arabs and run by fags. Fags is what you get when drunken Irish molest their kids. Arabs is where Irish banks make their money funding terorrists who used to work with the IRA.
[…] via A Left-Wing Tax Victory that Is Actually a Triumph for Supply-Side Economics — International Liber… […]
The not-so-delicious irony is that meddling by the central planners leads to the prevalence of HFC sweeteners in the first place. When I buy cases of Coca-Cola from Mexico sweetened with real cane sugar, I’m both pleased and baffled: the former because I can still enjoy real Coke, the latter because I can’t believe you have to resort to that sort of tomfoolery in the Land of Coca-Cola.
P.S. When I lived in the Bay Area, I would shop further east to avoid b.s. from SF/Berkeley/etc. So what’s the real decrease in consumption vs people spending their money elsewhere?
Nanny-State economics is not something I relish as I grew up and left my parents long ago … My only point of contention with the article is that the beverages being taxed are not “sugar-sweetened” – rather – they are sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup – which is nothing like sugar …