Survivors’ Costs Gone Wild, Beverage Tax Edition

June 20, 2010 by Frank Pasquale · 3 Comments
Filed under: Advertising & Lobbying, Taxation 

Mr. Gradgrind Catches Louisa and Tom at the Circus.] by Charles S. Reinhart (1844-1896)

Mr. Gradgrind Catches Louisa and Tom at the Circus. Illustration by Charles S. Reinhart (1844-1896)

Gradgrind is alive and well, as this exchange on soda taxes explains:

This discussion between Greg Mankiw and David Leonhardt reads a bit like an economics textbook gone rogue. At issue is whether a soda tax makes sense. David Leonhardt says it does: There’s good evidence that it will reduce obesity, which will reduce health-care costs. Au contraire, says Mankiw: You have to “net out the appropriate budgetary savings from shorter lifespans.” In other words, maybe it’s not worth it, as the obese live shorter lives and so cost the government less.

Ezra Klein goes on to describe how the calculation of survivors’ costs (without offsetting valuation of survival benefits) “disadvantages the quality/value agenda as compared with the cost-control agenda.”

I would add a couple more points to complicate the analysis:

First, Mankiw may be interested in exploring the benefits of the “plus-size” clothing market. As the NYT reports, “The plus-size market increased 1.4 percent while overall women’s apparel declined 0.8 percent in the 12 months leading up to April 2010 versus the same period a year earlier, the most recent figures available, according to NPD Group, a market research firm.” Certainly taxes that discourage the development of this growth industry should be scrutinized carefully.

Second, for team Leonhardt, we might think of the tax as a way of deterring anti-beverage tax ads which have glutted the tri-state airways over the past few months. We could all do with a little less of the rent-seeking featured below:

Share/Save/Bookmark

Comments

3 Responses to “Survivors’ Costs Gone Wild, Beverage Tax Edition”

Trackbacks

Check out what others are saying about this post...
  1. [...] UPDATE: Professor Frank Pasquale on the latest in beverage tax utilitarian calculus [1] Since then, some studies have shown associations between the consumption of diet soft drinks and risk of Type 2 diabetes. [...]

  2. [...] UPDATE: Professor Frank Pasquale on the latest in beverage tax utilitarian calculus. [...]

  3. [...] Does this mean CSPI should hold the fast food (and junk food) companies responsible for the development of our eating habits, from childhood to adulthood?  The TFAH report also referred to obesity liability laws in 24 states protecting restaurants, manufacturers, and marketers from weight-related lawsuits.  Take note, CSPI.  (And you, dear reader, take note of Michael Ricciardelli’s post containing some staggering numbers relating to the healthcare costs of managing Type-2 diabetes, in which obesity plays a factor, and Professor Pasquale’s beverage tax utilitarian calculus.) [...]



Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!