If we first start taxing soda, do we then tax other foods like donuts, cakes and other "unhealthy food"?
Why does our government feel they have to monitor what we eat by taxing it?
You mention those who are living in poverty in some of our urban suburbs as suffering from greater health risks, but those who are in poverty have to chose on what they can afford to eat, a can of soda cost significantly less than a bottle of fresh pressed juice. Same as how a KFC family meal is less money than an organic chicken that they then have to cook.
Taxing that can of soda is not going to make them chose the fresh pressed juice instead, it's going to limit even more what they can afford to eat and potentially have them not have any to eat.
Those who can afford the tax will probably still pay it.
Dear Sharon, thank you for proposing this tax. Please also ban Coke Zero and other drinks with aspartame that cause cancer.
I believe Boston needs more than new taxes, she needs school closing, right sizing school admin (twice the admin needed for its size) and budget cuts because the increases just aren’t sustainable. Green electricity for affordable housing when the taxpayers can’t afford it for themselves is unfair. The amount of tax dollars used to improve road surfaces in the back bay where bike lanes go in is obscene compared to improvements in Roxbury.
Thanks Susan! I don't think we have the ability to do that in Boston, but it's part of a much broader effort and I'm grateful for your thoughts. Please check out BPS's mergers and closures plan: https://www.bostonpublicschools.org/about-bps/capital-planning/winter-2025, which just dropped. I do think the greening of all public infrastructure is important. BHA is one of the largest landowners in Boston, and federal funding was made available for the project you are describing. I think in terms of infrastructure, often times areas that get development, get mitigation which leads to different levels of investment, which we do need to look into. I'm grateful for all of your feedback, Susan!
I'm sure this is well-intentioned, but it is a horrible, horrible proposal. Please consider that this disproportionately impacts the poor, many of whom are addicted to these foods -- the wealthy can go on eating and getting sick. What really upsets me is that the federal government uses our tax dollars to subsidize both sugar and high fructose corn syrup -- then you seek to tax the people who suffer the consequences with a sin tax. If federal subsidies are eliminated, prices will increase. Invest in education in Roxbury, instead of regressively taxing them to fill your coffers! It just amazes me how routinely progressives inflict economic harm on the communities they claim they are rescuing. I haven't had a sugary drink in many years -- they are gross. And I agree these are extremely unhealthy. But your "solution" will hurt these communities economically, which pushes them into greater despair and a vicious cycle of bad nutrition gone to worse. Will you tax ice cream, candy, and other sugary foods next? Please listen to Stephanie Carrigg -- you have already wasted too much time and energy on a bad policy idea. Maybe cut spending to subsidize organic yogurt and chicken? Government has become a cancer on the very people it exploits to feed its tumor! ALL retail sales or use taxes are patently regressive: tax law 101.
Thank you for proposing an SSBT tax in Boston. I am in agreement with Ms Morris and Ben, as long as the benefits are aimed at the underserved communities who will be paying more of the tax, I am keen on the idea.
On another note, I am NOT keen on the idea of massive developments of higher-story buildings downtown, when there are high office vacancy rates already. Subsidizing the conversion of offices to residential housing is a much better idea.
Thanks Sally. Glad to hear your opinions. I'm working on supporting more office to residential this year and glad to hear you are supportive of this program. We do need more incentives though, as it is expensive to convert. Thanks for reading!
I don't like nanny state measures because of the unintended consequences but if you promise to commit the $$ to making GLP-1 doses free to all city residents with household income below $100k I'm open-minded.
Two points I have:
Help me to understand where does this end?
If we first start taxing soda, do we then tax other foods like donuts, cakes and other "unhealthy food"?
Why does our government feel they have to monitor what we eat by taxing it?
You mention those who are living in poverty in some of our urban suburbs as suffering from greater health risks, but those who are in poverty have to chose on what they can afford to eat, a can of soda cost significantly less than a bottle of fresh pressed juice. Same as how a KFC family meal is less money than an organic chicken that they then have to cook.
Taxing that can of soda is not going to make them chose the fresh pressed juice instead, it's going to limit even more what they can afford to eat and potentially have them not have any to eat.
Those who can afford the tax will probably still pay it.
This feels very short sighted to me.
Dear Sharon, thank you for proposing this tax. Please also ban Coke Zero and other drinks with aspartame that cause cancer.
I believe Boston needs more than new taxes, she needs school closing, right sizing school admin (twice the admin needed for its size) and budget cuts because the increases just aren’t sustainable. Green electricity for affordable housing when the taxpayers can’t afford it for themselves is unfair. The amount of tax dollars used to improve road surfaces in the back bay where bike lanes go in is obscene compared to improvements in Roxbury.
Thanks, Susan W Morris
Thanks Susan! I don't think we have the ability to do that in Boston, but it's part of a much broader effort and I'm grateful for your thoughts. Please check out BPS's mergers and closures plan: https://www.bostonpublicschools.org/about-bps/capital-planning/winter-2025, which just dropped. I do think the greening of all public infrastructure is important. BHA is one of the largest landowners in Boston, and federal funding was made available for the project you are describing. I think in terms of infrastructure, often times areas that get development, get mitigation which leads to different levels of investment, which we do need to look into. I'm grateful for all of your feedback, Susan!
I'm sure this is well-intentioned, but it is a horrible, horrible proposal. Please consider that this disproportionately impacts the poor, many of whom are addicted to these foods -- the wealthy can go on eating and getting sick. What really upsets me is that the federal government uses our tax dollars to subsidize both sugar and high fructose corn syrup -- then you seek to tax the people who suffer the consequences with a sin tax. If federal subsidies are eliminated, prices will increase. Invest in education in Roxbury, instead of regressively taxing them to fill your coffers! It just amazes me how routinely progressives inflict economic harm on the communities they claim they are rescuing. I haven't had a sugary drink in many years -- they are gross. And I agree these are extremely unhealthy. But your "solution" will hurt these communities economically, which pushes them into greater despair and a vicious cycle of bad nutrition gone to worse. Will you tax ice cream, candy, and other sugary foods next? Please listen to Stephanie Carrigg -- you have already wasted too much time and energy on a bad policy idea. Maybe cut spending to subsidize organic yogurt and chicken? Government has become a cancer on the very people it exploits to feed its tumor! ALL retail sales or use taxes are patently regressive: tax law 101.
Dear Sharon,
Thank you for proposing an SSBT tax in Boston. I am in agreement with Ms Morris and Ben, as long as the benefits are aimed at the underserved communities who will be paying more of the tax, I am keen on the idea.
On another note, I am NOT keen on the idea of massive developments of higher-story buildings downtown, when there are high office vacancy rates already. Subsidizing the conversion of offices to residential housing is a much better idea.
Thank you for your service.
Best regards, Sally
Thanks Sally. Glad to hear your opinions. I'm working on supporting more office to residential this year and glad to hear you are supportive of this program. We do need more incentives though, as it is expensive to convert. Thanks for reading!
I don't like nanny state measures because of the unintended consequences but if you promise to commit the $$ to making GLP-1 doses free to all city residents with household income below $100k I'm open-minded.
Thanks for your thoughts, as always, Ben! You're the only one who has read all of my op-eds.