Taxing soda and other sugar-rich drinks—a measure lawmakers and voters have weighed to combat the nation’s growing obesity epidemic—would have no negative effect on jobs, a study finds.
Researchers at the University of Illinois (Chicago) found that a 20 percent increase on the price of sugar-sweetened beverages would have an overall positive impact on the labor market.
The American Beverage Association has long pushed back against such a tariff on the price of soda, arguing that the decreased demand for the drinks would cause job losses in the industry. But the new study evaluates the overall job market, including the effect on jobs in the non-sugary-drink sector as well as the added positions in state and local governments that result from the new revenue. The study finds that the employment gains in other sectors of the economy far outweigh the job losses for soda makers.
“People who don’t spend a dollar on a sugar-sweetened beverage still have that dollar to spend elsewhere,” said Lisa Powell, the study’s primary author and a professor at UIC.
That dollar could go to support the fruit-juice industry and the milk and dairy industry, or it could go back to the bank. But that dollar is still a dollar to be spent, along with the added revenue from the sugar-sweetened beverage tax, a factor that was not taken into account by studies released by the American Beverage Association, Powell said. While soda makers may face job losses, perhaps a truck driver begins to transport milk due to the new increased demand from the soda tax, she said.
When asked for a comment, ABA reiterated its original findings about job losses in the beverage industry, and added that taxes on sugary drinks have not garnered the support of voters nationwide.
“Americans have made it clear they don’t support taxes and other restrictions on common grocery items, like soft drinks,” said ABA spokesman Chris Gindlesperger in an email. “Soda taxes have unintended consequences on middle-class jobs and small businesses. For these and other reasons, tax proposals continue to fail wherever they are introduced.”
The UIC researchers looked at Illinois—their home state—and California to study the effects of soda taxes on the labor market. California is one state where voters have considered but defeated soda-tax ballot measures, and San Francisco is considering another tax measure again this fall. The researchers found an increase of 4,509 jobs in Illinois and 6,252 jobs in California.
The study was conducted independently through a grant from the Healthy Eating Research Program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is a philanthropic organization devoted to improving public health.
“It’s important for health; it is a substantial amount of money, and it looks like it would not hurt jobs and may even modestly help,” said Jim Marks, senior vice president at RWJF. “The question is, will in any jurisdiction, will the leaders and the public support such a tax in a way so that it can implemented and see its effects in the real world?”
While sugar-sweetened beverages have been linked with obesity, diabetes, and other health problems, ABA also says its members are not directly responsible for the nation’s obesity epidemic. Obesity has been on the climb while the sugar content of drinks has fallen. Despite the debate around the overall public health effect, numerous soda-tax measures around the country include provisions to spend a portion of the revenue on childhood wellness and anti-obesity programs.
What We're Following See More »
"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”
The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.
President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."
Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.