I too hate to see people abusing themselves by being so overweight so I can understand why legislators would like to curb obesity. But the tax proposals before the RI House and Senate miss the mark.
If we really want to improve Rhode Islanders' health the law would require that the tax money generated would be used solely for increasing education, nutrition and exercise programs. Adding a few cents tax to sweet drinks will simply further burden and mostly for the people who can least afford it.
It won't take too long for the added cost to become 'normal' and any possible behavior modification will slowly return to pre-tax levels.
Be honest. It's at least as much a fund raising effort as an effort to improve the public health. If we were seriously trying to improve health perhaps reducing the cost of those items we find beneficial would be more effective. How about targeted income rebates for milk, fruits, vegetables? I suspect it would be far more effective in changing eating habits in the long run.
We all know that the sweet tax will simply find its way into the general revenue stream for cities and towns and the people will remain overweight.
On a slightly different note I think there is a better way to inform people about the sugar content of foods. Instead of the abstraction of calories I'd recommend indicating sugar cube equivalents. It's much more impressive to see that a cup of apple slices contains 2 1/2 sugar cubes and a Snickers bar is like eating 13 1⁄2 cubes of sugar.
An overlooked but vital aspect of the property tax problem is that there are two principles of fairness regarding property taxes that are mutually exclusive.
#1 A person who buys a $1 million dollar home should pay a fair tax on a million dollar home.
#2 The taxes people pay should reflect the budget needs of their town; e.g. if a town eliminates tax increases, property owners should not expect tax increases.
These basic principles can not co-exist because of REVALUATIONS.
Existing owners' property taxes can reflect the tax levy (Principle #2) but only when there is no revaluation. Buyers of properties of (usually) increasing value however, are taxed too little on assessed values thus ignoring Principle #1.
To correct this inequity for new owners, we revalue every three years. As a result, existing owners will pay taxes unrelated to tax levies.
In fact a town could even declare a moratorium on tax increases yet over 50% of existing property owners would pay higher taxes due to revaluation, violating Principle #2.
The typical reaction to high taxes is to look for spending cuts but as I've explained, the results would disappoint the majority of tax payers . This does not bode well for peace, harmony and enthusiastic citizen participation and cooperation.
If we increase taxes somewhat on the wealthy they will cease working hard, produce less and the tax revenues will decline. This assumes that the wealthy, the successful, will change into low achievers and stop trying if they earn less.
That's as simple minded as the assumption that bestowing benefits on the poor will change them into entrepreneurs and high achievers.
We can't change the nature of people simply with money incentives alone.
Theodore Gatchell's article in the Providence Journal on health care reform made several legitimate points that highlight the choices between the conservative right and the liberal left.
"Over time, however, rules become a way of shielding bureaucrats from having to use judgment. For every problem that arises, the answer is a new regulation."
Indeed. Who can deny the truth of this statement? The income tax code is a perfect example of government's infinite ability to complicate our lives. Of course it isn't only conservatives who pass these laws although one could get that impression from the article.
"More rules inevitably require more bureaucrats to interpret them with an attendant higher cost. If you think health care is complicated now, wait until the bureaucrats begin to crank out the reams of regulations that are certain to come."
Again, there is much truth in this statement which also serves as a mantra for those who resist and object to all governmental involvement not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Tea Baggers?
It appears that the conservative right believes best arbiter of what's right and wrong is the free market and when bureaucrats interfere there results inevitably inefficiency, waste, corruption and a disregard for the Constitution.
Again, much is true.
When we consider which beer, which movie, which sneaker shall succeed in the market place, the free market is probably best left alone. The public should be allowed to make free choices in a free market to determine winners and losers in such contests.
If all decisions were only so trivial, so superficial. But they're not. In the process of free market competition the corporate bottom line dominates the decisions made by business executives and without government intrusion, important data may be hidden as people choose among things much more important than which oven cleaner, which detergent, which hairspray shall win out.
Was it the free market that publicized the link between lead based paints and brain damage? the link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer? the link between saturated fats and heart disease? Would corporations competing in free markets print this information on its products unless required by government?
Or is it more likely that millions of people would have to become ill or die before people could make informed choices in an unregulated free market?
The struggle between the right and the left seems to boil down to this:
Is it worth the cost in human sacrifice to respect the sanctity of privacy and let people, unfettered by intrusive and inefficient government rules and regulations, use their free market choices to provide the best ultimate decisions for themselves?
Or should we accept the inefficient, intrusive and expensive government bureaucracy to protect the public from harm that could otherwise result from a private sector where the fundamental obligation is to its executives and stockholders?
It seems that the right favors the first and the left favors the second.
Maybe it just me.