Current Events > It is inconsistent to support soda taxes but oppose SNAP restrictions on soda

(+) Yeah! (+)

It literally makes no sense to me. Does someone who supports soda taxes but thinks you should be able to buy soda with food stamps want to take a run at this for me? I could just be stupid and missing something obvious

made this topic because philadelphia's soda tax had a huge impact on soda sales:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2733208
---

They want non-poor people to pay more for soda, but not poor people.
---

The issue with SNAP restrictions like this is that it costs more to implement/enforce than it saves.

The high tax is supposed to act as a discouragement to buying it. When you're on SNAP, the discouragement is already more significant since it eats up more of what you have available. No one is trying to tell people not to buy it if you really want it.

But I also don't like the idea of calling it a soda tax. It should also apply to sugary drinks in general like hi-c, capri sun, various fruit juices, etc.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

The issue with SNAP restrictions like this is that it costs more to implement/enforce than it saves.

that's true when states try to implement their own rules, but all of that decision making already happens at the USDA/FNS

Tyranthraxus posted...

The high tax is supposed to act as a discouragement to buying it. When you're on SNAP, the discouragement is already more significant since it eats up more of what you have available. No one is trying to tell people not to buy it if you really want it.

Yeah, that's true. Most people on SNAP already have money, though, which they use to purchase non-food items. If you think it's justifiable to put a surcharge on soda, why does it make sense to subsidize its purchase? Cooked meals are also excluded from SNAP, but that's not the same as saying you can't buy a hot meal.

Tyranthraxus posted...

But I also don't like the idea of calling it a soda tax. It should also apply to sugary drinks in general like hi-c, capri sun, various fruit juices, etc.

sugar sweetened beverage is the technical term, I said soda because its easier and takes up less space
---

Balrog0 posted...

If you think it's justifiable to put a surcharge on soda, why does it make sense to subsidize its purchase?

like I said, the purpose of the tax is to act as a discouragement. Even when subsidized, purchasing sugary drinks means purchasing less other things. The tax isn't necessary to raise money, it's functionally acting as a luxury tax. A tax on shit you don't need to stop you from buying it.

This is functionally a compromise between "do whatever you want" and "nanny state ban things that are not good for you"
---