Since earlier this year, Congress has been considering passing a an excise tax on soda, due in part to an article advocating the policy in the Sept. 17 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
The tax is a good thing, proponents argue, primarily because it would generate funds for government health plans while reducing soda consumption, which contributes to health problems and an increase in health care costs.
I have a counter-proposal. Instead, when the secret police inform us of a soda drinking conspiracy, we cut out the perpetrator’s tongue and confiscate all their assets. Surely, this will both serve as a greater deterrent while also generating much more revenue.
It seems unlikely that many supporters of the soda tax would endorse my plan. In fact, they would probably find it morally repugnant and argue that the plan should be rejected on those grounds, despite its potential. Whether or not a bill should be passed, then, depends in large part of the moral status of its effects.
If it is true that it is morally wrong to take property by force or threat of force unless that property is owed to the person trying to take it, then proponents of the soda tax have to show that the money is owed if they wish to avoid the charge that the tax is immoral and should therefore not be implemented.
Virtually the only way to do this is to argue that since drinking large amounts of soda indirectly raises health costs, these people owe something to the community. Of course, this argument applies only to those who drink an excessive amount of soda while the tax itself would apply to many more people. That problem aside, the argument still fails.
Supporters of the tax could be concerned about soda-related government spending on health care or about the general effect soda drinking has on health care prices in general. If the problem is that obese soda-guzzlers use government-funded health care and are therefore a burden to taxpayers, why tackle the problem in the roundabout, imprecise, and inefficient method of a soda tax? We should simply stop giving these people government assistance for health care.
If the problem is instead that just by requiring so much health care, heavy soda-drinkers increase prices, then one can hardly make an argument that they owe anything. To do so would be just as ludicrous as proposing an excise tax on cereal on the basis that people who tend to buy a lot of cereal also buy a lot of milk, which increases the price.
Regardless, it’s simply absurd to claim that people who consume a particular beverage owe money to some government official. That a nationwide soda tax is even being considered is an indication we need to worry more about obese government than obese people. It is a complete mystery to me how anyone with even a hint of self-respect can embrace this outrageous proposal, which drips so heavily with paternalism and condescension.
Join Noah’s soda conspiracy at nnzarr@asu.edu.
