It sounds great doesn't it. . .'Help people by taxing things that are probably bad for them and then those people will make healthier choices'. But wait a second.
We're talking about people who are consuming things that we think are bad for them: soda, tobacco, etc. So obviously, whether they were aware of it or not, these people were consuming things that were bad for them. If there is any change in the value of what they consume as a result of a tax on that product, why on earth should we assume that they will then choose to consume something that is better for them? Haven't they already shown themselves to be consumers of things that are bad for them? Aren't they more likely to continue consuming things that are bad for them?
If there is a new soda tax, why on earth should we assume that people won't just spend more of the money they could use for healthful things (a turkey sandwhich for example) on soda instead? Why on earth should we assume that they won't cut back on soda and switch to something worse (food high in cholesterol, for example).
Many of us enjoy soda. If we go to the vending machines and don't have enough change for a 20 ounce bottle of Dr. Pepper, how often do we then look for something better for our waistlines? I don't. It doesn't even cross my mind!
I find the best lower priced substitute I can in the snack machine: stuff that doesn't even really "hit the spot", probably gets stuck in my teeth, and is arguably just as bad or worse (snickers, M&Ms, etc.) Of course, there are times when I don't have any of those options and may have to just wait until lunch or dinner. And to be quite honest, that just sets me up for a big splurge anyway.
What's helpful to remember is, just because something *sounds* like a good idea at first, it doesn't mean it necessarily is. If we think these things through using common sense, we can identify potential problems with them. If it is still a debateable idea, believe it or not, we can actually test ideas out to see if they'll work. For example, what do you think actors in the private sector do when they want to get you to buy a product? They do lots of testing until they have a good degree of certainty that the idea will "take off". And believe it or not, they actually end up "netting" lots of money!
But then, when is the last time a politician ever went to the trouble of really testing something out? They usually don't. They just seem to pitch whatever *sounds* like a good idea.
