[7Figures2Commas]

> The study you linked to didn't even mention the word "sugar"...

http://www.rti.org/newsroom/news.cfm?obj=5C84B2F7-5056-B100-...

> The study, published online in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, found that a half-cent per ounce increase in sugar-sweetened beverage prices, which adds up to about ten cents on a typical 20-ounce bottle of soda, could reduce total calories from the 23 foods and beverages examined under the study.

> However, researchers found, the reduction in sugary beverages due to a soda tax would likely lead consumers to substitute for those beverage calories by increasing their calorie, salt and fat intake from untaxed foods and beverages.

> “Instituting a sugary beverage tax may be an appealing public policy option to curb obesity, but it’s not as easy to use taxes to curb obesity as it is with smoking,” said Chen Zhen, Ph.D., a research economist at RTI, and the paper’s lead author. “Consumers can simply substitute an untaxed high calorie food for a taxed one. And as we know, reducing calories is just one of many ways to promoting healthy eating and reducing nutrition-related chronic disease.”

http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/07/28/ajae...

Study name: Predicting the Effects of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes on Food and Beverage Demand in a Large Demand System

Study publication date: July 29, 2013

> I'm not going to read...

At this point I think it's fair to say that is precisely your problem.

[wpietri]

When I say "the study you linked to" I am referring to the link in this post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8547734

Because I presume that's what you were referencing when you said, "Apparently you didn't read the study I linked to."

That study is titled "How Effective are Taxes in Reducing Tobacco Consumption?" and continues not to mention the word sugar. Probably because it is about tobacco.

[7Figures2Commas]

I might be wrong, but I'm responding to you because I think you're genuinely confused and not trolling.

You pointed to the efficacy of cigarette taxes in clear support of the Prop E tax ("Cigarette taxes are regressive and definitely represent progress. They were a big help in reducing smoking, and in turn reducing smoking-related health problems.").

I linked to multiple studies which found there was a strong likelihood consumers would simply substitute the taxed sugary beverages with untaxed foods that are just as unhealthy, calling into question the efficacy of such a tax.

I included a link to a study about cigarette taxes in support of my argument that "the problem with your comparison is that you assume the market for sugary drinks functions the same way the market for cigarettes does when, in fact, studies have not found the same type of substitution dynamic."

To make this simple for you:

1. Studies on sugary beverage taxes find strong substitution effects.

2. Studies on cigarette taxes do not find strong substitution effects.

Given this, your suggestion that taxes on sugary beverages are likely to have a similar level of efficacy to taxes on cigarettes is not congruent with the evidence. Instead of needing to explain this to you, you could have just read what I posted before responding to it. If you did that, you probably would have noticed what the lead researcher for one of the studies stated:

> “Instituting a sugary beverage tax may be an appealing public policy option to curb obesity, but it’s not as easy to use taxes to curb obesity as it is with smoking."

Good night.

[wpietri]

Hi! Thanks for the detailed reply. I see where things got confused.

> You pointed to the efficacy of cigarette taxes in clear support of the Prop E tax

No, I didn't.

You wrote "So a tax that is regressive represents 'progress'?"

I replied to that by giving an example of a regressive tax that represents progress. That's all. Your comment struck me as annoyingly glib, constructing a false contradiction through word games. Since cigarette taxes have been so successful, I thought it was a good counterexample to the false contradiction. Everything else you write is about what you read into my statement, not what I said.

But to address your point:

I agree that a sugary beverage tax in San Francisco could lead to substitution and no net health gain. But A) the circumstances are different enough (and the original sample size is small enough) that I'm happy to try it out to see what happens, and B) if it doesn't work like the proponents hope, I think that's fine because humans often have to try the obvious thing before they will try the less obvious thing.