> The article talks about why: it does reduce the consumption of soda pop, but people substitute the sugar intake by consuming other sugary foods. They also travel to neighboring towns without the tax.
It's also entirely inconsistent; in Boulder they tax the normal stuff like coke and sprite but will exempt for San Peligrino but then also tax Oceanspray juice. Personally, I've always thought it was a lot like the pervasive green-washing that takes place there as an additional stream of revenue in already bloated bureaucratic system.
I only ever drank kombucha or Water from the SafewayKingsoopers/WF etc... in town anyhow so it never really affected me; but when I think of just how obtuse it is I start to realize how it's a targeted tax on those with poor diets with no real discernible metric for success, it's merely there to self-perpetuate a bad system as poorer people will continue to eat poorly with less expendable income to buy better products as a result of the tax.
The US is obese, and despite Boulder being the time the most healthiest city in the US most of when I lived there it was still clear to see how the economic divide play out where it's most clearest: grocery stores. And it was clear that it was heavily biased to those with larger wages who could fit in 4-5 day workouts per week and the occasional hike and eating from organic sourced restaurants.
If we had a universal healthcare system I would totally be in favour of this, despite being in the lower income level most of time there (boot-strapping founder) I was still on the 'healthiest' demographic but without a clear actionable plan to a desirable end this is one of those 'road to hell are paved with good intention' scenarios.
> in Boulder they tax the normal stuff like coke and sprite but will exempt for San Peligrino but then also tax Oceanspray juice
Assuming they're taxing based on the sugar content, then that's the expected outcome. Coke, Sprite, and juice have sugar in them, sparkling water doesn't.
> Assuming they're taxing based on the sugar content, then that's the expected outcome. Coke, Sprite, and juice have sugar in them, sparkling water doesn't.
But to what end? Those people still ate poorly, and continued to make those poor purchase decisions and had less money to justify making better ones as they didn't miraculously start drinking San Peligrino Italian soda, which also has sugar in them [0].
San Pellegrino without a qualifier typically refers to the sparkling water, not Aranciata; the sparkling water has zero calories. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.Pellegrino
It's also entirely inconsistent; in Boulder they tax the normal stuff like coke and sprite but will exempt for San Peligrino but then also tax Oceanspray juice. Personally, I've always thought it was a lot like the pervasive green-washing that takes place there as an additional stream of revenue in already bloated bureaucratic system.
I only ever drank kombucha or Water from the SafewayKingsoopers/WF etc... in town anyhow so it never really affected me; but when I think of just how obtuse it is I start to realize how it's a targeted tax on those with poor diets with no real discernible metric for success, it's merely there to self-perpetuate a bad system as poorer people will continue to eat poorly with less expendable income to buy better products as a result of the tax.
The US is obese, and despite Boulder being the time the most healthiest city in the US most of when I lived there it was still clear to see how the economic divide play out where it's most clearest: grocery stores. And it was clear that it was heavily biased to those with larger wages who could fit in 4-5 day workouts per week and the occasional hike and eating from organic sourced restaurants.
If we had a universal healthcare system I would totally be in favour of this, despite being in the lower income level most of time there (boot-strapping founder) I was still on the 'healthiest' demographic but without a clear actionable plan to a desirable end this is one of those 'road to hell are paved with good intention' scenarios.