Sign up for the Today newsletter
Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.
‘Another money grab’: Here’s why readers don’t support a sugary drink tax
“People won't stop drinking soda because of a small tax,” one respondent said.
Some Boston City Councilors are considering a new tax on sugary beverages that have been linked to chronic health conditions like obesity, diabetes and heart disease. But Boston.com readers are largely opposed to the measure.
“It is not the job of the government to oversee my sugar intake,” reader John R. from Lynn said.
City Councilor Sharon Durkan filed an order last week to schedule a hearing on potentially taxing sugary drinks – also called sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) – to help address health disparities and generate millions in new revenue for the city.
“A SSBT of $0.02 per ounce could generate $20 – $30 million annually for Boston. Imagine how our communities could benefit from those funds,” Durkan wrote in a post on Substack.
Advertisement:
She pointed to a recent study of five cities (Boulder, Oakland, Philadelphia, Seattle, and San Francisco) that implemented an SSB tax and saw a sustained decrease in consumption, both immediately after the tax was implemented and over the next three years.
“If Boston achieved similar results, it could lead to significant reductions in diet-related diseases while generating meaningful revenue to reinvest in our communities,” she said in the Substack post.
But despite the potential economic and health benefits, Boston.com readers were against an SSB tax. Of the nearly 500 readers who responded to our poll, the majority (70%) said they wouldn’t support a tax on sugary drinks if it came to fruition. Just over a quarter of readers were in favor of a tax, with just 2% unsure of their stance.
The Boston City Council is proposing a tax on sugary drinks. Would you support it?
Yes, I would support it
28%
No, I would not support it
70%
I'm not sure
2%
Many readers who opposed an SSB tax called it a “money grab” and expressed doubt in its efficacy to decrease consumption or chronic health problems.
Advertisement:
“Another money grab. People won’t stop drinking soda because of a small tax,” reader Bob from Charlestown said.
Others expressed concern about how a potential SSB tax would impact small businesses and low-income individuals, who might turn to sugary beverages over other drink options because of their affordability.
But proponents of an SSB tax argued it would be a necessary step to improving public health and addressing chronic diseases.
“Health is important! And sadly, this encouragement might be what people need,” reader Dan from Watertown said.
Below, readers share their thoughts, concerns, and suggestions for a sugary drinks tax in Boston.
Responses have been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.
The Boston City Council is proposing a tax on sugary drinks. Would you support it?
No, I would not support it
‘This will hurt small businesses’
“People will just go over the border to other towns to ‘stock’ up, and in the end this will hurt small businesses. The person that would buy a sub and a drink now will only buy a sandwich. You can’t tax people to change their behaviour.” – John B., Roslindale
“With inflation running rampant, now is a very inopportune time to implement a tax on sugary drinks. Small business owners (e.g. convenience store owners) would suffer. Any health benefits and revenue benefits that a tax like this could bring would be inadequate to offset the potential loss in business that small businesses would realize.” – Jeff, Natick
‘This tax will hurt people more than help them’
“If we start taxing SSB’s where does it end? Do we then start taxing [doughnuts], cakes, and other foods that are deemed unhealthy? Who decides what is healthy and what is not? This bill also doesn’t take into account that people who live in poverty and lower incomes can sometimes only afford a can of soda, versus a fresh pressed juice. Fast food, soda, etc. are less expensive than fresh produce and food. When you have only $10 to spend to feed your family of four, what are you going to get? A family meal from KFC or McDonald’s $1 menu is sometimes the only choice. Instead of taxing SSB’s, how about providing less expensive alternatives and educating on healthy food choices? The Bounty Bucks program with Mass Farmers Markets, food pantry program at Saint [Cecilia’s] parish, and Catholic Charity’s food pantry in Dorchester are good ways to start to help alleviate food insecurity, but more needs to be done. A tax is not an answer and solution.” – S.L.C., Chelsea
“I don’t understand the reasoning behind taxing sugary drinks. I don’t believe they aid any people in any way. It’s up to the discretion of the politicians who aren’t taking in the fact that this tax will hurt people more than help them. We’re already in a bad situation with the cost of living that’s hurting the poor people and senior citizens. It’s hard enough to make ends meet every month – we don’t need another tax burden put upon us!” – P.K., Arlington
“This is just another way to add taxes to an already financially burdened community. Why not include sugar-packed cereals, candy, and ice cream in such a tax bill? It’s another way to hurt people’s pockets and small businesses.” – David, Marlborough
‘The tax is simply a money grab’
“This is just a way to raise more taxes. The role of government is to serve and protect, not to be a nanny state.” – Theo N., Somerville
“We do not need the government to tell us what to eat or drink. The tax is simply a money grab. If the government really wants to do something, how about passing laws that prevent corporations from using ingredients that are unhealthy, just like Europe does?” – Bob, Cambridge
“I do not support this as I believe it’s just a cash grab for the city under the guise of ‘public health.’ What’s next, a fast food tax? If Boston really cared about ‘public health,’ they would ban sugary drinks from the City of Boston.” – Chris, C., North Andover
“If the tax revenue was mandated to mitigate the direct cost associated with health problems from these drinks I could support it, but it’s just another money grab that will be wasted on unrelated spending programs.” – Tim, Milton
Alternatives to an SSB tax
“If you want people to eat better, then you need to address food deserts and make healthy food more affordable. I don’t think nickel-and-diming anyone is going to solve the problem. I’m sure the [Boston City Council] can examine [their] budget a little more closely.” – Mabel, West Roxbury
“A tax on sugary drinks is not going to change the purchasing habits of anyone; it will just take more money out of their pockets. The City of Boston does not need any additional taxes. They need to use the money they collect more efficiently.” – Brighton C.
“We do not need any additional government taxes that affect a person’s choice. I do not drink many sugary drinks by choice, due to my own due diligence on the potential negative effects and don’t need anyone in the government to assist me in making that choice. Let’s try education on the effects of the products, instead of an additional tax to force human behavior in what the government believes is their best interest.” – Larry F., South Shore
“The government needs to stay away from regulating what people eat and drink. They need to focus on affordable housing and other services to help people.” – Bob G., Hyde Park
Yes, I would support it
“As a health care provider I see way too much diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Cigarette taxes work. Making unnecessary sugary drinks more expensive will work too. Sugary drinks are not necessary in anyone’s diet.” – Antonia M., Jamaica Plain
“These drinks are so unhealthy. Using the funds from the tax in a positive way and curbing the purchase from people who are disproportionally impacted by chronic health issues is a win-win.” – Emily B., Danvers
“High consumption of sugar leads to obesity, and medical costs alone due to obesity costs the US north of 260 billion dollars. Any vice that incurs significant societal damage ought to be taxed so that societal damages can be offset. Taxing soda will afford an opportunity to break health costs down.” – Zack, Worcester
“Low-income families should be persuaded not to spend their money on sugary drinks that harm them. Sugary drinks are expensive and have absolutely zero nutritional value. Businesses do not care about people’s health. People must become personally ‘fiscally disciplined and fiscally responsible.’” – Ruth T., Lexington
I’m not sure
“It’s a great idea, but 1.) Boston isn’t huge in area, so it needs to be state-wide. 2.) To make it more palatable and less of a burden on consumers, it should be revenue neutral, perhaps by eliminating the sales tax on certain non-food necessities, like toothpaste and bar soap.” – Mike, Saugus
“I worry that the nuances of what levels and types of ingredients companies put into their drinks, and their effects on bodies, will make [such a tax] really cumbersome for those enacting the regulations. It would help both lawmakers and consumers to see solid data on what outcomes are expected in MA, based on what has really happened in states where such drinks are already taxed. Otherwise, it might just come across as a money grab.” – Annie, Providence, Rhode Island
“I see the benefits of health care and using the money for education/ health services. I would like the money targeted for specific programs and not dumped in the general fund.” – Kevin S., Newburyport
“This is a tough one. Similar to the tax on tobacco, it worked and targeted a dangerous consumer good. Taxing sugary drinks should have the same effect, yet even the discerning consumers are affected and are paying into yet another government program.” – John, Shrewsbury
Boston.com occasionally interacts with readers by conducting informal polls and surveys. These results should be read as an unscientific gauge of readers’ opinion.
To comment, please create a screen name in your profile
To comment, please verify your email address
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com