Soda taxes are popping up all over the place. Berkeley and Mexico have one; Homer, Alaska, Barbados, and Vermont too. Britain soon will, and Philadelphia is working to implement one. The list goes on.
Yet soda taxes are not without controversy. In the months leading up to the vote on Berkeley’s soda tax in 2013, the American Beverage Association (aka: Big Soda) waged war on the tax. The industry has successfully defeated proposed soda taxes in San Francisco and two other California towns, but Big Soda isn’t the only soda tax adversary. Many individuals say they smack of the nanny-state. Others argue they’re a doubling down on a tax — sales tax — that’s already regressive. Alternatively, proponents speak of the win-win nature of taxing products known to cause health problems: consumption declines and revenue to treat the problems increases.
Recently, Democratic presidential candidates took on the issue. While campaigning for the Pennsylvania primary, Senator Bernie Sanders spoke out against a soda tax proposed by the mayor of Philadelphia. Although he supports the universal preschool it would fund, he said, “I do not support paying for this proposal through a regressive tax on soda that will significantly increase taxes on low-income and middle-class Americans.” Hillary Clinton spoke in favor of it: “I’m very supportive of the mayor’s proposal to tax soda to get universal preschool for kids.”
Although it isn’t often referenced by presidential candidates, sales tax has always been political. State legislators spend a fair bit of time carving out sales tax exemptions and discussing the pros and cons of raising taxes, lowering taxes, eliminating taxes and broadening taxes. And after decades of the enactment and repeal of sales tax legislation in 45 states plus the District of Columbia, sales tax compliance is complicated.
Nowhere is this more evident than with the food and beverage industry.