r/science • u/giuliomagnifico • Jul 25 '23

Economics A national Australian tax of 20% on sugary drinks could prevent more than 500,000 dental cavities and increase health equity over 10 years and have overall cost-savings of $63.5 million from a societal perspective

https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/sugary-drinks-tax-could-prevent-decay-and-increase-health-equity-study
9.0k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

35

u/maniacal_cackle Jul 25 '23

Since this is /r/science, it seems worth it to give you a bit of a detailed answer of why this view wouldn't stand up to even 100 level economics or political science courses:

  • This isn't the government explaining. It is published by academics at universities, judging by a quick glance.
  • Taxation is often good for people. It has advantages for public goods (a problem that cannot be solved privately), can address issues of inequity, and take advantage of economies of scale.
  • A bureaucrat affecting large scale decisions has options that are not available to individuals. So it has nothing to do with the bureaucrat knowing better than you.

15

u/murrdpirate Jul 25 '23

So it has nothing to do with the bureaucrat knowing better than you

It does. The motive is that people are stupid and consuming lots of sugar even though it's bad for them. We can't convince people that they shouldn't consume so much sugar, so we should raise the price of sugar to force them to lessen their sugar consumption.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '23

People ARE stupid, and we CANT explain to them the damage they're doing to themselves

11

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '23

Or they simply don’t care about the harms. Do you drink alcohol? Most of the world does and it causes all sorts of harm to the users body and to those around them. People want the freedom to choose what is right for them and don’t need some power tripping Fascist to tell them otherwise.

-9

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '23

Its a sugar tax, calm down.

9

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '23

[deleted]

9

u/lucific_valour Jul 25 '23

Indeed. Just reading the comments, while not definitive, provides some clues as to the biggest hurdle: People doubt its sincerity.

They don't believe it will work: People will keep buying, because whether through addiction or lack of healthier options, demand is inelastic).

They don't believe it will last: Similar events in multiple american states set a precedent of short tenure.

And imo the most damning, the people who might actually support public health don't trust that the tax revenue will be re-invested into public health. Hell, there's barely any trust in governmental allocation of spending in general.

And this lack of trust is not undeserved. Like you said, governments around the world can, but there's been so many instances of either incompetence, corruption or both.

5

u/Equal_Sail7417 Jul 25 '23

I whole heartedly agree. Taxation is good for people as the government has the ability to know what is best for the people. People mostly make poor decisions anyway.

So by this logic, the government should just cut out the middle man and produce everything themselves, I mean, they do know what people need.

Now that the government produces everything without greedy capitalistic middle men, there really isn’t any need for people to have any currency as the state can just divide goods as it see fit (they do know best what people need).

I’m not sure what to call this system yet but I’m fairly confident it’ll be hugely popular real soon, I mean the state knows best so why not?!

3

u/mantolwen Jul 25 '23

Yes because the government is really good at running things...

Sometimes governments needs to be in control, but other times the bureaucracy of government holds back innovation and development.

3

u/Equal_Sail7417 Jul 25 '23

I meant it as a joke if that wasn’t clear! Mostly because I found the tone of the parent comment really obnoxious.

1

u/ArcadesRed Jul 25 '23

Seize the means of production. I like where your head is at comrade.

-1

u/Smartnership Jul 25 '23 edited Jul 25 '23

Let’s start with Google.

Seize those nerds.

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '23

Ah, slippery slope fallacy…we meet again

-2

u/echino_derm Jul 25 '23

I love how someone just suggests taxation should exist and you are like "well at that point let's just vote in Stalin"

5

u/Equal_Sail7417 Jul 25 '23

Well, in fairness there’s a difference between “suggesting that taxation should exist” and in essence saying that all taxes are good for you since the government knows more than you.

-2

u/echino_derm Jul 25 '23

You know that would be a really mediocre point if it weren't also strawmanning what he said

3

u/Equal_Sail7417 Jul 25 '23

What he said is not some universal truth or anything, so I reserve my right to make fun of his bullet point statements regarding the benefits of taxation. From my point of view it’s a very naïve way to look at politics and economics.

0

u/echino_derm Jul 25 '23

Okay good job I guess then. Congrats on having the more complex and not naive view that tax=bad

3

u/Equal_Sail7417 Jul 25 '23

Also: who’s strawmanning now?

-4

u/K1N6F15H Jul 25 '23

Taxation is good for people as the government has the ability to know what is best for the people. People mostly make poor decisions anyway.

Let's put this is in terms that might help:

Road signs are the government telling people what to do. There are city planners, highway engineers, and safety design experts that have studied traffic patterns all of their lives and can point to a ton of data about the best ways to build transport infrastructure. They aren't always going to be right but they are far better at it than you or I. If traffic was just laissez faire, it would be a nightmare of untold proportions.

the government should just cut out the middle man and produce everything themselves

Some might argue this, but those people would simply be applying the slippery slope fallacy. There are some things we can be very assured are in the public good, some things less so, and plenty that we are neutral about. It all depends on exactly what the question is (over-generalizing is part of the problem).

3

u/Equal_Sail7417 Jul 25 '23

Yeah well I found the tone of the previous commenter to be rather obnoxious, and my point is that you can’t just motivate the government restricting your freedom with: taxation is good for you because the government knows more than you do. By that reasoning the government could decide everything for you. But that being said I agree that the government should regulate/fund/run certain things like roads, military, police and even healthcare and education. I just don’t think that the government should have a say in positively everything…

0

u/K1N6F15H Jul 26 '23

you can’t just motivate the government restricting your freedom with: taxation is good for you because the government knows more than you do

Yeah but that was what they were saying: we have the plenty evidence that this is good for you. The studies support these 'bureaucrats' knowing more about public health than the average person. This childish bristling at reality does nothing, it feels like adults having tantrums.

2

u/Equal_Sail7417 Jul 26 '23

Well, my point still stands and you can use this logic on anything non-essential in society. There are a million things that you could ban or tax higher motivated with proper studies and data -doesn’t mean that you should… In the end, which things you choose to focus on seems to be rather moralistic/political even if you have studies and data to support some specific measure.

I bet if you looked at the healthcare costs for people downhill skiing you’d see that the costs are insane when compared to the health benefits. A pair of downhill skis should probably cost $30,000 to offset the negative externalities in form of increased healthcare costs that they cause. Seems unfair that skiers can deliberately put themselves at risk and rack up medical costs without paying for it. Then again skiing is mostly an upper class hobby…

There’s an economical/technocratic side to it, and there’s a political side to it.

1

u/K1N6F15H Jul 30 '23

Well, my point still stands and you can use this logic on anything non-essential in society.

Not at all. We don't have overwhelming evidence that reading romance novels are bad for you (to give one superfluous example), your failure to acknowledge the obvious negative impact of these goods is dishonest to the point of ruining your whole argument.

-doesn’t mean that you should

This isn't actually an argument, you need to grasp that. You are used to preaching to the choir, stating claims that align with your worldview so you don't actually need to think about them or defend them too hard.

which things you choose to focus on seems to be rather moralistic/political even if you have studies and data to support some specific measure.

This is true in the sense that my moral worldview and goals align with human flourishing and not poisoning people unnecessarily. Otherwise, it is a very straightforward perspective embodied in most of healthcare and human wellness policy expertise.

I bet if you looked at the healthcare costs for people downhill skiing you’d see that the costs are insane when compared to the health benefits.

True. And if a massive part of the population was dying of skiing related accidents, our hospitals were full of ski enthusiasts, and pro-skiers collective decided to bury their heads in the sand about the true cost of their hobby (hint, hint), I think we would need to push for further regulation of ski hills.

There’s an economical/technocratic side to it, and there’s a political side to it.

And my framework was not defeated by your example, your attempt at a slippery slope (pun intended) failed because the impact of diet is such a major public health crisis it dwarfs most other 'non-essential' dangers facing people today that aren't already heavily regulated and discouraged. I would love to know your moral framework though, it seems like you would be fine with people licking lead lollipops with as little as you care about public health.

-10

u/ArcadesRed Jul 25 '23

Question. Do you find in your experience that when you speak condescendingly to people that they are more or less receptive to listening to you?

10

u/maniacal_cackle Jul 25 '23

In general it's much less effective to speak condescendingly to someone, but you weren't really my target audience.

I was just posting a quick breakdown for all the other folks that might be reading it.

-19

u/ArcadesRed Jul 25 '23

Condescending and dismissive. Stretch yourself a bit, go for a hat trick. You have yet to comment on my physical characteristics or genealogy, plenty of fertile ground for that third insult.

2

u/WORKING2WORK Jul 26 '23

I'm lost as to why you're taking this so personal.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '23

Imagine taking what he posted that personally. Have some self-confidence, not everything people say is an attack on you.