The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Soda Tax

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 593 times Debate No: 77413
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




No rules
Debate to the death!
You will be taking the position of CON for soda tax.


I accept. I will be arguing that we do not need a soda tax. I await your response.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank You for accepting. I hope I fair well in my first debate.

A report on the effectiveness of soda tax really brought the point home.

Iowa State University said that the consumers should not have to pay for the tax, but the manufacturers should have to pay.

The article from TIMES magazine reads and I quote, "The study, which was published in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy, was based in large measure on the fact that the sweetness you taste in a high-calorie soda can be produced from a lot of different ingredients, including high-fructose corn syrup, more benign cane sugar and artificial sweetener. How you formulate the drink can affect not only the calorie content but also the way the body metabolizes those calories. Applying a tax that encourages manufacturers to choose the healthiest possible recipe can have a powerful downstream effect."[1] By taxing the manufacturers for the soda they produce in turn be healthier for the individuals who drink it.



You did not make a coherent argument. It was mainly just a paragraph that you took from someone else's writing.

One great lesson in economics is that taxation lowers demand. If you tax something that is used so frequently, such as sugary foods, people will consume less.

There are two implications of a soda tax:

1. Lowering Obesity
2. Raising Revenue

I will argue against both.

The soda tax will lower the need for soda. Since you are arguing solely for the soda tax, then I will do as well. People can switch to other sugary foods. After all, only 36% of the American sugar consumption comes from soda and other sugary beverages.

This is relative to the British tax on tea. Tea was a commodity, and the tax resulted in the Boston Tea Party. I am sure that if we tax soda, we won't have a bunch of obese people raiding 7-11's, (considering they are obese, and obese people do not primarily enjoy physical activity).

Soda tax will also make less money for the government.

Let's say that a bottle of Coca-Cola costs $2.00. (I will use just this in my calculation for relative purposes. This is just an example)

Let's say that we have 1,000,000 people who buy a bottle of Coca-Cola every day. A tax usually is between 2-20%. USUALLY.

So let's assume that we get a hefty tax of 15% on soda, with the additional sales tax. I will now get the average for the sales taxes in the entire country.

If you were to take the state sales tax of each state in 2014, and then divide by 50, you would get a sales tax of 5.1865%. I will round this down to 5% to make this easier. I will add room for incorrect measurement later on.

So we get $2 bottle of soda, and 1 million sales each day, with a 15% soda tax and 5% sales tax. So that amounts of 20% tax. Lets say that we take just the $2 of soda, and then use sales tax only, with the 1 mil people. This would be $2.10 per soda. So each day, 1 mil people buy soda, sales tax makes 10 cents per soda, meaning that is 1 million dollars of revenue for the country each day. The stores usually keep 30% of the sales, and the rest goes to the company. With a corporate tax of 35% federally, we would get 70 cents per coke bottle sold. That would be 7 million dollars extra. In total, we would make around 10 million dollars tax revenue each day just from soda, or 3.6 billion a year. Quite a lot of money.

Then let's take the projected amount of incentive lost, which is 31% less sales. I will lower this to 30% for mathematical purposes.

So it would be eventually 30% less on everything. This amounts to 2.5 billion each year. Then let's take into account the fact that prices would need to be lowered, which means the incentive comes back, but we still will make less money on tax revenue.

This is a prime example of government shielding you from your own stupidity, which it should not. I am fit and healthy, and I drink soda on occasion, that should not mean that I have to pay extra just because some obese people are going to the store every day to buy loads of soda. That is not my problem, certainly not my concern, and I should not have to be burdened because of it.

Debate Round No. 2


HumblePeace forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited the previous round. I will wait for his next response, and if he does not respond, then I am the victor.
Debate Round No. 3


HumblePeace forfeited this round.


He has forfeited twice. Vote for me!
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Eli01 1 year ago
Posted by HumblePeace 1 year ago
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
This looks exploitable...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PericIes 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because Pro forfeited two rounds. Equal spelling and grammar, even though Pro didn't say much. Con and Pro had equally reliable sources (Con's .com and a .gov as opposed to Pro's single .com, but Pro's .com was TIME magazine, which is considered to be quite credible). Con had more convincing arguments. I could go more in-depth, but it should suffice to say that Pro only posted an excerpt from TIME magazine, without actually making any arguments of his own.