I've never understood these types of taxes. Whether it's the fat tax or the cigarette tax.
If you have a real need for additional revenue to support specific programs then why base that revenue on something that you would like to end. If you get what you say you want (i.e. reduced consumption) then your revenue decreases which will force you to find another source of revenue.
This really only makes sense if they know there is no way that it will reduce the activity they are taxing. In that sense I think the author is wrong. I do believe there is a small group that will react quite strongly to taxes like these but there is usually a larger group that seems to support them. They don't see it directly having a huge affect on them so it's easy to get behind it and feel good about it as you are helping to make people healthier.
Of course if the revenue gained by taxing these products was ONLY used to fight issues caused by them then the tax could potentially be successful because as usage waned then you think you'd need less revenue to support the resulting effects of consuming those products. That usually isn't the case however as most of these taxes get passed due to immediate budget shortfalls.
If you have real budget problems then the only answers are to either cut spending or tax something that is consumed by nearly everyone. However, taxing something that effects everyone is much harder to get approved which is why they go for the easy targets.
If you get what you say you want (i.e. reduced consumption) then your revenue decreases which will force you to find another source of revenue.
The cynic in me would say that there's no real end to the list of behaviors our government would like to engineer out of the population.
The benefit to them is two-fold; a possibly short-lived, but endlessly repeatable, source of income, and a populace ever more willing to accept government manipulation.
If you have a real need for additional revenue to support specific programs then why base that revenue on something that you would like to end. If you get what you say you want (i.e. reduced consumption) then your revenue decreases which will force you to find another source of revenue.
This really only makes sense if they know there is no way that it will reduce the activity they are taxing. In that sense I think the author is wrong. I do believe there is a small group that will react quite strongly to taxes like these but there is usually a larger group that seems to support them. They don't see it directly having a huge affect on them so it's easy to get behind it and feel good about it as you are helping to make people healthier.
Of course if the revenue gained by taxing these products was ONLY used to fight issues caused by them then the tax could potentially be successful because as usage waned then you think you'd need less revenue to support the resulting effects of consuming those products. That usually isn't the case however as most of these taxes get passed due to immediate budget shortfalls.
If you have real budget problems then the only answers are to either cut spending or tax something that is consumed by nearly everyone. However, taxing something that effects everyone is much harder to get approved which is why they go for the easy targets.