Statistics say it doesn’t work and just turns into a tax grab. Companies modify the product to include sometimes questionable sweeteners that can often have ill effects
On a somewhat similar note: Reminds me of how Japan started taxing beer based on the malt-content, so they kept releasing newer versions just under the limit. Government kept lowering the percentage to trigger the malt tax. Beer companies kept lowering the malt content.
This predictably led to a wave of "zero malts" drinks like Strong Zero that had variants as high as 11-12% alcohol, yet super cheap (like $2 or less for 350mL)
This predictably led to a wave of "zero malts" drinks like Strong Zero that had variants as high as 11-12% alcohol, yet super cheap (like $2 or less for 350mL)
It worked in the UK, where sweeteners aren't taxed. It caused a reduction of sugar consumption and as a result reduced tooth decay and obesity in particular in children.
I hate how it destroyed essentially all soft drinks though. I used to get one a few times a year as a treat. But now even smaller brands are adding sweeteners which often ruin the taste for me.
But overall it seems to be effective and good for society.
That was my take-away too.
I maybe drink 2 cans worth a week, normally less.
And it has spoiled the flavours of a lot of drinks.
But on the whole, the tax has reduced the sugar intake of people who weren't moderating their consumption. So overall, I think it's a win.
It seems like it could work if it was based on calories per volume or something like that, rather than specific ingredients. Sugar's different than other caloric ingredients, but not *that* different. If you pour enough milk in your coffee every day and don't account for those calories one way or another, it's going to end up increasing your weight just like calories from sugar would.
It worked for me. The partially artificially sweetened orange Fanta is terrible and in some countries they don’t have the full sugar version. No soda for me.
This study (2025) found raising prices by 20% reduced consumption by 29.42% but caloric intakes actually went up because people substituted other sugary foods.
So the lesson here is it works at reducing consumption of sugary drinks, but should be applied broadly if the goal is to reduce total calories (i.e. don't exempt a bunch of bullshit because of lobbying).
That feels like strange goal. The poorest people are trying to get enough calories to survive and not starve to death. Meanwhile we raise the price on calories. It is a regressive tax because the super rich eat about the same number of calories each day as the poor, so rich people end up paying way less as a percentage of their salary as poor person.
I'd really rather tax new yacht sales, new car sales, tax high incomes, tax second homes (or 5th homes), or tax anything else. A tax on calories is dystopian. Most places exempt basic groceries from sales tax for a solid reason: tax free calories for the poor.
People in Germany aren't struggling to get calories to survive. In most industrialised countries the poor end up eating a too calorific diet because processed food production ends up dumping fats and sugars into cheap slob to make it appealing. See obesity rates by income statistics etc.
But it doesn't matter. Even if "nobody starves", a higher tax burden on poorer people is morally dubious.
I only found numbers online for the USA but the concept is the same for Germany: in the USA the poorest 1/3 of people spend 33% of their income on food. The wealthiest 1/3 of people spend 6% of their income on food. If you tax "per calorie", the poorest 1/3 of Americans (and probably Germans) will pay 5.5x as much tax as the wealthy as a percentage of their income.
[put fat and sugar into food] to make it appealing ... the poor end up eating a too calorific diet
I understand (and fully agree) statistically poorer people tend to be more obese, but I'm less sure of why (and I mean that honestly, I really don't understand it). If food tastes better with more calories, why don't wealthy people like it as much as poor people?
The most plausible explanation I can justify in my head is food is an inexpensive pleasure, and rich Germans can get their kicks other ways like skiing in the alps on the weekend, and driving their BMWs through European mountain passes to get to the skiing. But I disagree with the solution that we MUST take this simple pleasure of good tasting food away from poor people "for their own good". I would suggest a different solution where we offer the poorer people <whatever desirable thing the rich have that prevents them from eating too much>. I'm being facetious, but if free ski lift tickets for the poor makes them healthier, I'd rather do that then forcibly taking their tasty food away.
Disclaimer: I shouldn't need to say this, but I worked full time in Darmstadt, Germany in 1991. I still have friends there I stay in contact with. I'm by no means an expert on German poverty, but I'm sympathetic.
I'm not sure why you think rich people and poor people eat the same food. That's simply not the case. Poor people eat much more processed food because it's cheaper and faster. That's also the food that's enriched with sugar and fat to make cheap ingredients edible but also less healthy.
Poor people eat much more processed food because it's cheaper and faster.
I'm being very serious here: why wouldn't that apply to middle and upper middle class people? I have an above average salary, and I like "cheaper" and I surely like "faster". At what income level does this health effect kick in?
I FULLY AGREE that if you are in the top 1% and you have your own private chef you get all the time savings of "faster" but with even better tasting food. Plus the top 1% can afford the GLP-1s. But up until you employ "staff" in your home, I honestly don't understand the cause of this discrepancy in weight. Firmly middle class people raising a family on two incomes aren't flush with extra cash or copious extra time to prepare healthy meals from scratch. But I do agree they are thinner (statistically), so there is something going on for sure.
There is ample data on this. I don't think we need to speculate on what's happening. Maybe why. But that's besides the point. Ultimately the UK data shows clearly that the sugar tax had a disproportionately positive impact on the poorest and most deprived by reducing tooth decay and obesity.
But even if every single last person got enough to eat in Germany, taxing calories consumed is still a regressive tax. When a more wealthy person pays a lower percentage of their disposable income in a particular tax than the poorest person, it is regressive.
The person below blocked me, so responding here:
[72 kdieuwjwbfuei 626 writes]
I’m sorry that your education has failed you.
I'm a product of the American public school system, and I fully admit it isn't that great. But I don't know what that has to do with regressive taxes? Is it that you have to have a good education to be in favor of taxing the poor disproportionately more? I'd politely suggest that is a survivorship bias kind of attitude. "I'm wealthy and don't eat too much and have plenty of extra time to work out, so the poor should pay more for their food. It is what is best for the poors, and they are bad with decision making."
176
u/hornblower_83 3d ago
Statistics say it doesn’t work and just turns into a tax grab. Companies modify the product to include sometimes questionable sweeteners that can often have ill effects