Soda tax class warfare weapon of choice

Connecticut General Assembly is considering a penny-perounce excise tax on sweetened beverages.

Hard working individuals enjoy rewarding themselves for their efforts; however, the rewards they choose vary. For instance, some Connecticut residents may decide to eat a piece of chocolate; others may opt for a thrill adventure and go white water rafting. Consumers don’t usually pay extra taxes based on how risky others view their leisure activity. Well, at least for now.

New taxes may be coming for those who reward themselves with a White Birch soda from Pepe’s Pizza or with a visit to Avery’s Beverages in New Britain. The Connecticut General Assembly is considering a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sweetened beverages. The revenue would theoretically go toward programs for kids, scholarships and schools, programs that the General Assembly could choose to fund with the $20 billion it spends each year. Yet lawmakers claim they don’t have enough money — unless we start taxing soda.

California should serve as a warning to Connecticut. In 2014, Berkeley, California, passed a 1-cent per ounce tax on soda, adding to the already high costs of living in the area (NPR). Those with the least amount of purchasing power will be hurt the most. NPR found that businesses absorbed 30 percent of the extra costs and passed 70 percent of it on to consumers. San Francisco along with two other cities in California have passed similar taxes, making soda a luxury for low-income residents.

Like California, Connecticut has recently experienced economic challenges, including significant outmigration. A statewide soda tax isn’t likely to help, as Connecticut would be the first to take such a policy to the state level. Timothy G. Phelan, president of the Connecticut Retail Merchants Association, commented on the policy said “any new tax would harm our smaller, independent merchants who already operate under very small margins. Any decline in sales would have a devastating effect on their bottom line and ability to remain in business” (CT Post). Philadelphia’s recent soda tax experience should also serve as a warning to Connecticut, with some responding by traveling outside the city to purchase groceries and hurting local Philadelphia stores. (Billy Penn).

Furthermore, taxing sweetened beverages isn’t likely to achieve the desired result. Soda isn’t the only cause of obesity, lack of exercise and poor nutrition in general as contributing factors. Today, the American life is more sedentary compared to the 1970s. The CDC found that 60% of Americans are not regularly active while 25% are not active at all (CDC).

In addition, consumers can substitute one high-sugar item for another, unless the government pursues this idea fully, and makes us pay extra taxes on a lot more than just sweetened beverages. Taxing soda does not address the underlying problems behind an unhealthy lifestyle. Instead, it gives way to a slippery slope where government can invoke superfluous taxes on almost anything. If the government must do something, it should focus on educating the public about exercise and sensible eating habits rather than taxing soft drinks.

This bill represents the latest attempt by the nanny state to control people’s’ behavior. The healthiest society may not be the best society to live in anyway. One would be hard-pressed to find someone who avoids all behavior hazardous to one’s health, including eating raw sushi, paragliding, and yes, drinking soda. If Connecticut travels down Philadelphia’s path, it will continue to drive away the working class and others fed up with over taxation in the state.

Connecticut can’t tax away all our bad habits. And even if it could, who’d want to live here?