Tax on Pop, Candy Proposed by Governor Deval Patrick

I don't live in his state But it might help fight obesity.

Yes. And, can pop and candy really be considered "food" to warrant the tax-free status? Pop and candy have zero nutritional value. I say tax it!

It will not combat obesity any more than the tax on liquor fights alcoholism.

Good idea. I don't know why they've been exempt in the past, but they shouldn't be.

I agree! Hopefully Governor Patrick will open some eyes and get the ball rolling. All states should tax pop and candy.

It is a bad idea unless you own a store on the New Hamshire or Rhode Island border.

In 2010 Washington State passed a law taxing pop and candy. The voters repealed it by initiative that November. The campaign run by the pop and candy industries was quite overwhelming--convincing taxpayers that it was totally unAmerican to tax these items. The state sure could use that money now as legislators propose draconian cuts to social services and education. I hope Massachusetts citizens are less impressionable.

Thanks for this information! It's interesting to hear how other states have approached this issue, and how it affects them. I can't imagine approving cuts to education or social services before taxing something that isn't vital to the community, like candy and pop.

It seems I recall Monsanto defeating an initiative in Oregon to force industry to simply label genetically modified products. I would think citizens Washington and Oregon are more knowledgeable than that. Apparently, I would be wrong. I'm sure, that's why the fossil fuels are blanketing the airways now re: how "clean" they are, how they "create jobs", and how the Gulf of Mexico is now as clean as a baby's butt.

Good luck, MA....

I agree that "junk" food items shouldn't be tax exempt, however it will have zero impact on obesity or health issues. People want it, people will buy it. A 6.25% increase in the cost of a $3 bag of candy won't deter anyone.

If beer is taxed at 6.25%, then candy should be.

By Pop do you mean Soda?

Yes, pop and soda are the same thing. I debated on which word to use in the article. I live in the midwest, where we use the word pop. I know some friends in the northeast use the term soda. Some local people call all of it "Coke" -- even if they are drinking Pepsi!

Also, diet soda is sugar free...why should we have to pay taxes on that?

Yes.

Diet drinks are "sweetened" with aspartame. If you're not aware of the risks associated with aspartame and other "artificial sweeteners", then THIS may help. Hopefully, soft drinks will soon be sweetened with stevia.

I agree, Steve B. ! Artificial sweeteners are horrible! When I bake I use stevia, honey or raw sugar. Why can't soft drink manufacturers use these too?

I predict they will, eventually. I have switched to stevia - and I know many others, who have too. It's actually tastes much better than the artificial "sweetener", too.

Dear Angela,
The correct word is "tonic", not "pop".
Also, the question isn't "Why should tonic and candy be exempt?"; it's "Why are any of theseitems be taxed in the first place?"

Maggie, correct is a relative term. Correct for you isn't necessarily correct for everyone else. And in answer to your second question, why shouldn't they? They offer no nutritional value. They serve only to make profits for their makers.

Carol Ann,
The topic is a Massachusetts tax proposed by the Governor of the Commonwealth, therefore the correct colloquialism for a carbonated beverage in Massachusetts is tonic.
Taxes are supposed to produce revenue to fund government services in the fairest way possible. They are not supposed to be a means to moderate the behavior of citizens.
Also, 3.5 cups of M&Ms will give you 100% of your recommended daily calcium!

Thanks, Maggie Miller. However, this post is a news commentary written by a gal from the midwest. Me. It seems silly to write in "lingo" that I've never used. But, I did learn something from you. I have never heard the term "tonic" before this discussion!

I live in Massachusetts and grew up in New England and Tonic is a kind of carbonated water. Soda....is soda. Coke is a brand. Cola is generic. Pop is what Midwesterner's say, but for the purpose of an article being written about a specific geographic area, clarifications should be made. I am certain Governer Patrick's bill never once mentions the term "pop"

http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-11/news/29532962_1_sugar-sweetened-beverages-sales-tax-obesity-programs

I really just asked cuz I read the whole thing trying to figure out what pop was....

D Strong,
Tonic water is not tonic. Soda is club soda, which is used to make Ice Cream Sodas. Coke is indeed a brand and you might use it to specify which kind of tonic you wanted. Perhapsyou just younger than I am. After all, lots of our cultural idioms have been watered down by TV & people who aren't from here.
Pop is a mid-west thing. It's like asking for a hoagie when what you want is a sub.

In the south, it is not "pop," "soda," or "tonic." It's "coke".

I agree with the tax, but I think it should be higher - maybe equivalent to that on tobacco and alcohol products. The damage is equivalent, so why shouldn't the tax be?

And for all the "all taxes are bad" ideologues, I'd ask why you oppose a tax on junk food, when it really amounts to a higher tax on all of us through higher medicare/medicaid taxes and insurance premiums? The issue isn't "freedom of choice", as far as I'm concerned. The issue for me is "freedom from" having to pay for other people's bad habits.

"The additional funds are slated for healthcare costs and rising fixed expenses."

It should ALL be targeted for medical treatments. Those, who are going to buy crap that makes them sick, should have to pay for the medical treatments they are going to need. Btw, this has nothing to do with "healthcare". That's what you do at the YMCA and when you eat your fruits and veggies. Maybe some of that tax money could be targeted for subsidizing gym memberships and organic produce.

I didn't say all taxes were bad. I'm talking to the specific topic being discussed here - taxes increases in Massachusetts. First, designated revenue rarely goes to pay for the budget item specified. Second, taxing bad habit items (liquor, cigarettes) rarely changes that behavior and is not the governments job. Third, such taxes hurt the economy of border towns and rarely result in actual revenue increases.

"I didn't say all taxes were bad."

I actually wasn't addressing you, specifically.

"...designated revenue rarely goes to pay for the budget item specified."

Well, it should - and if it isn't written into the policy, then I would still support it, due to the preventive factors.

"...taxing bad habit items (liquor, cigarettes) rarely changes that behavior and is not the governments job."

Actually, taxes has had a preventive effect re: tobacco products, especially among youth. It's the government's job to save taxpayers money. I'm a taxpayer, and I don't appreciate having to pay unnecessary taxes and premiums to cover medical treatments bad behavior makes necessary. But, as I noted above, people (such as yourself), who would oppose these taxes, never consider the taxes I have to pay for the "bad behavior" of others.

"...such taxes hurt the economy of border towns and rarely result in actual revenue increases."

Diseases, resulting from "bad behavior," and the medical treatments they require, hurt my economy.

LOL! How do you know what I consider? Stick with facts please. I well understand that risky behavior drives up healthcare costs. So what? It's not the role of government via the tax system to moderate our behavior.

It's a moot point anyway. People will just continue to cross the border to shop, there will just be two more items on their shopping list. For pity's sake, our Sr. Senator bought his yacht out of state to avoid the excise tax.

This like all the other taxes (sales, liquor, tobacco), only hurts the poor who can't travel and make choices.

"How do you know what I consider? Stick with facts please."

I know what you consider by what you omit and ignore. I have state twice (at least) that there is a tax anyway. That fact seems to excape you. You apparently think it is ok that I am forced to subsidize the bad decisions of others. You apparently think people should not have to pay for their own bad decisions themselves. I have no idea why that point of view escapes you, but I suspect it is your "taxes are evil" ideology.

"I well understand that risky behavior drives up healthcare costs. So what?"

I answered that above. The cost is going to be paid by someone. You cannot seem to understand that without taxing harmful products, those buying them are exempted from the responsibility of their own choices. No - you would have me subsidize them, with absolutely no awareness that that is a tax on me. Why do you think that's appropriate?

"It's not the role of government via the tax system to moderate our behavior."

Ideology just avoids the issue. Why do you think I should have to subsidize others' bad choices. Why do you think I should have to subsidize products that make people sick?

"It's a moot point anyway. People will just continue to cross the border to shop, there will just be two more items on their shopping list."

Really? I doubt most folks are going to fork over more gas money to save a few cents on a carton of cokes. Besides - most people don't live near borders.

"...our Sr. Senator bought his yacht out of state to avoid the excise tax."

Well, that would be enough for me to vote for his opponent in the next election.

"This like all the other taxes (sales, liquor, tobacco), only hurts the poor who can't travel and make choices."

You know what hurts the poor? Selling poison to them cheaply, and calling it "food". No - that crap should be taxed to the hilt, and the revenue collected should be used in two ways: 1. to pay for medical treatments "the poor" will require as the result of eating cheap crap; and 2. subsidizing healthy food. The poor would do much better if they actually could afford real food.