Skip to content

Recent Posts

  • Taxgirl Goes To The Movies: Star Wars
  • Looking For Tax Breaks?
  • Taxgirl Goes Back To The Movies In 2025
  • Here’s What You Need To Know About Submitting Tax Questions
  • Looking For More Great Tax Content?

Most Used Categories

  • individual (1,314)
  • politics (862)
  • IRS news/announcements (753)
  • tax policy (582)
  • ask the taxgirl (543)
  • prosecutions, felonies and misdemeanors (479)
  • just for fun (478)
  • state & local (403)
  • pop culture (399)
  • charitable organizations (389)
Skip to content

Taxgirl

Because paying taxes is painful… but reading about them shouldn’t be.

  • About Taxgirl
  • Info
    • My Disclaimer
    • A Word (or More) About Your Privacy
    • Subscribe
  • Ask The Taxgirl
  • Comments
  • Taxgirl Podcast
    • Podcast Season 1
    • Podcast Season 2
    • Podcast Season 3
  • Contact
  • Home
  • 2008
  • December
  • 20
  • Governor Paterson Not Sweet On Soda: Fat Tax Proposal

Governor Paterson Not Sweet On Soda: Fat Tax Proposal

Kelly Phillips ErbDecember 20, 2008December 27, 2019

Following in the footsteps of Alabama and countries like the UK, the state of New York is considering imposing a so-called “fat tax.” While each municipality is a little different, the New York proposal would slap an 18% tax on sodas and sugar-filled drinks which contain less than 70% real fruit juice.

The official position on the “fat tax” is to discourage consumption of high-caloried drinks. The government projects a 5% drop in the number of sugary drinks that New Yorkers drink.

But you and I know what this is really about: money.

While sin taxes have been imposed or proposed on a number of items that are said to be bad for you – cigarettes, alcohol and in some states, porn – ostensibly to curb the behavior, these taxes have generally not resulted in dramatic changes. Folks still smoke, drink and yep, look at porn.

What Governor Paterson is really hoping to do is close a gaping hole in the budget: according to the Governor, the new tax will raise almost half a billion dollars in 2010-2011. In a tight economy, taxpayers will howl at the idea of raising personal or property taxes. Taxpayers are far less vocal about a tax on items that health officials have already labeled as bad for you.

Not surprisingly, the American Beverage Association opposes the tax, arguing that it doesn’t make sense to target sodas and sugary drinks as a primary cause for obesity. I would actually agree. If you’re going to make a policy statement about health, then make it across the board. Of course, that would never fly. Can you even imagine a surtax on chocolate?

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
author avatar
Kelly Phillips Erb
Kelly Phillips Erb is a tax attorney, tax writer, and podcaster.
See Full Bio
social network icon social network icon
fat-tax, New-York

Post navigation

Previous: Psst, Where’s Your State Tax Primer?
Next: 12 Days Of Charitable Giving: USO

Related Posts

mansion

LA Times Mention In Mansion Tax Story

June 15, 2023 Kelly Phillips Erb

Navigating the Ever-Changing World of Sales Tax in 2022

January 4, 2022January 25, 2022 John Luckenbaugh
smart phone inside of a car

Lyft and Other Gig Drivers Will Remain Independent Contractors After California Vote

November 5, 2020January 10, 2021 Kelly Phillips Erb

5 thoughts on “Governor Paterson Not Sweet On Soda: Fat Tax Proposal”

  1. GT says:
    December 21, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    If this keeps up “Santa Belly” wont shake like a bowl full of jello.

    Reply
  2. RLW says:
    December 21, 2008 at 4:34 pm

    I don’t think this is how taxes are supposed to be used. Is this not the same as the reason for the Boston TEA Party (Taxation without representation)? How many more things are we going to let law makers tax before we realize, it’s just another TAX. Many of the taxes we pay are disguised as fees, funds, etc. Take our county for example. Flood Fund $47.00+, River Authority $60.00+, Federal Storm Water Fee $13.00+, and that is just the County property tax that I do not remember voting on. We as the People of the United States of America should be allowed to VOTE on any TAX increase, even if they do not call it a TAX.

    Reply
  3. Jim Tressor says:
    August 4, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    I don’t think a fat tax is very practical – there are several things wrong with Pigouvian taxes in general. They are hard to calculate because it is impossible to determine the exact amount of externality caused, in this case by obesity, and they affect different people in different ways! Here is an article about why a fat tax wouldn’t work: http://www.mindreign.com/en/mindshare/Global-Economics/Fat-Tax/sl35291137bp387cpp10pn1.html

    Reply
  4. Michael Crist says:
    February 28, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    The fat tax is so ridiculous. What are they going to tax next. I work for a soda company and I will lose my job along with thousands of other. And why? Oh, because the government needs money and see’s the soda company doing well. I am so scared the faxt tax will pass and I will lose my Job. I actually can’t believe this is happening. The state can’t get money from a tax if there aren’t any soda companies. Many will close. Trust me when I saw that!

    Reply
  5. SimonSays says:
    April 7, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    So next would be sugar and lemons?
    I can buy 5 lbs bag of sugar and few lemons. Combine with the water, it will make perfect refreshing drink full of sugar without tax.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2005-2022, Kelly Phillips Erb | Theme: BlockWP by Candid Themes.
Skip to content
Open toolbar Accessibility Tools

Accessibility Tools

  • Increase TextIncrease Text
  • Decrease TextDecrease Text
  • GrayscaleGrayscale
  • High ContrastHigh Contrast
  • Negative ContrastNegative Contrast
  • Light BackgroundLight Background
  • Links UnderlineLinks Underline
  • Readable FontReadable Font
  • Reset Reset
  • SitemapSitemap
  • FeedbackFeedback