It should be taxed on the corporate side. Taxing sugar on the consumer side becomes a poor tax, because poor people will still want sweets from time to time, making those treats now more and more expensive. Well off people will just accept the tax because it’s marginal to them, but when your chocolate bar that you treat yourself to once a week goes from 1.29 to 3.29, then it really fucks your day up.
What should be done is incentives to provide less sugar/glucose-fructose on the product side and encourage companies to make snacks and beverages that have less sugar content.
It doesn’t make a difference which side you tax. If consumers are taxed then corporations will still feel it through reduced demand for their product. If corporations are taxed, consumers will still feel it through increased prices. The tax burden does not depend on who is taxed, but rather how elastic supply and demand are.
It literally doesn’t. The price is the same either way. Reduced demand from the higher tax makes it so producers will lower prices. This is really basic microeconomics.
From Wikipedia: “tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply”
Yeah I consume near 400g carbs every day and am fine as a competitive powerlifter who also runs (which is rare lol). You just can’t be sitting on your ass all day.
The issue is how much hidden sugar there is, especially in the US. Just look at how many things include stuff like corn syrup when it isn’t all that necessary.
Sugar should be heavily taxed, it’s so dangerous at rates of more than 10 grams a day
It should be taxed on the corporate side. Taxing sugar on the consumer side becomes a poor tax, because poor people will still want sweets from time to time, making those treats now more and more expensive. Well off people will just accept the tax because it’s marginal to them, but when your chocolate bar that you treat yourself to once a week goes from 1.29 to 3.29, then it really fucks your day up.
What should be done is incentives to provide less sugar/glucose-fructose on the product side and encourage companies to make snacks and beverages that have less sugar content.
It doesn’t make a difference which side you tax. If consumers are taxed then corporations will still feel it through reduced demand for their product. If corporations are taxed, consumers will still feel it through increased prices. The tax burden does not depend on who is taxed, but rather how elastic supply and demand are.
It sure makes a difference to the people buying it, that’s the point
It literally doesn’t. The price is the same either way. Reduced demand from the higher tax makes it so producers will lower prices. This is really basic microeconomics.
From Wikipedia: “tax burden does not depend on where the revenue is collected, but on the price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence
I have never once seen this happen… i just see prices rise
Do you actually think that 100% a tax burden will always fall on consumers?
Whoa settle down there
Sucrose is 1:1 glucose/ fructose which is near the optimal 0.8 ratio for fueling endurance activities
I rode 100 miles solo in less than 5 hours Sunday on 360g sucrose in 4 750ml bottles
It’sa lot cheaper than all that fancy SIS/skratch etc
Carbs aren’t poison if you move your body
If you paid twice as much for the sugar, would it materially impact you?
At this point in my life no. When I was young, for sure
Yeah I consume near 400g carbs every day and am fine as a competitive powerlifter who also runs (which is rare lol). You just can’t be sitting on your ass all day.
The issue is how much hidden sugar there is, especially in the US. Just look at how many things include stuff like corn syrup when it isn’t all that necessary.