[SilasX]

“Haha! People wouldn’t bear any meaningful cost to avoid a piddling 1.75 cents/oz tax, that can be dismissed as laughable.”

“I am uncritically accepting a study that says a 1.75 cents/oz tax was successful in changing consumer behavior because the additional burden it added to the cost of soda.”

You can’t have it both ways, claim the tax influenced behavior in terms of reducing consumption but not in terms of circumventing the tax.

[cycomanic]

? Yes you can. The argument he's making is that the cost of circumventing the tax is larger than the tax. So if the tax is working because people are sensitive to the extra cost, it would make perfect sense that they would not spend 2 cents/oz to avoid the tax and thus loose money.

Now one can certainly make a good argument that people are not fully rational and often do not consider fuel and time costs when looking for the cheapest deal, but that's not what you did.

[SilasX]

First, the point was very vague; if you want to convert it into a specific one, that’s a different argument. I was responding to the differential standard of evidence being imposed for the different possible responses. The tax only works if it changes people’s behavior and so it’s inconsistent to claim that it’s a big enough burden for behavior responses you like but any others are ridiculous and not worth considering at all.

Second, if the point was that driving further can’t save money, it’s flat out wrong because the cost of the driving is largely independent of the tax savings. Eg a single trip to stockpile.