Home Categories About
argument top image
Should there be a tax on sugar? Should there be a tax on sugar?
Yes, there should be a tax on sugar Yes, there should be a tax on sugar
No, there should not be a tax on sugar No, there should not be a tax on sugar
It is difficult to tax a sugar It is difficult to tax a sugar
Sugar is not a substance the body requires to function Sugar is not a substance the body requires to function
Sugar should be taxed because it's actually an addictive substance Sugar should be taxed because it's actually an addictive substance
Sugar should not be taxed because it is no longer a luxury good Sugar should not be taxed because it is no longer a luxury good
It is unclear what is considered 'sugar' It is unclear what is considered 'sugar'
Debate Mini Map

Should there be a tax on sugar?
Back to question

No, there should not be a tax on sugar

< (2 of 3) Next position >

Sugar should not be taxed because it is no longer a luxury good

Sugar used to be a luxury good that only the rich could afford. In today's world sugar is no longer a luxury good but a household item. No longer is it reserved for the wealthy. With its new status of being a. it is no longer a luxury good nor should it be taxed as such.
Sidney Mintz
< (1 of 1) Next argument >

The Argument

In the past, sugar was a luxury good; something that only the rich could afford. This was because in the past there weren't fields of sugar beets or the more popular and mainstream sugar cane.[1] It was expensive to produce and was always in short supply and high demand. The most common form of sugar was fruit that only lasted as long as the season. Now it's different. After a production explosion that began with slavery and cheap labor, the system was furthered by industrialization, allowing for continued cheap production. With these changes, sugar is no longer a luxury good; it's a household item. Since sugar is no longer a luxury good, it isn't fair to tax it. It's a common ingredient and not a very rare ingredient that's expensive to import. Since it's left raw, it has been exempt from taxes and unlike other items that are taxed, i.e. soda pop or candy which are both processed and take extra steps beyond the sugar refinement.[2] Even those taxes though are rarely used which may suggest how unpopular a potential tax would be.

Counter arguments

Sugar might no longer be a luxury good but that doesn't change its uses. Sugar is an extremely versatile medium in the realm of cooking and baking. Just one look at how far the cooking industry has progressed shows its potential. The history of sugar doesn't have the best start, nor should people forget that, but in today's world sugar is everywhere. Not just foods but medicines. It's in every kitchen, every restaurant, and every medicine cabinet. With how many uses it has even a small tax will be able to generate a large amount of tax dollars which will be able to contribute back to the people in our communities. A luxury good or not, that’s not the point of taxes. Taxes were created for money to flow from people back into the community. Luxury taxes were created as a way to tax the rich to do the same instead of holding onto all of it.[3] Luxury goods were usually necessary, frivolous items that people could splurge on. Sugar is no longer such a frivolous item with its importance in todays society but that's the reason why it should be taxed. Sugar is an indulgence and while it's no longer a luxury good it's a luxury to splurge on having. A small tax would allow for it to contribute to more than just health problems.

Proponents

Premises

[P1] Sugar is no longer seen as a luxury good and should not be treated as such

Rejecting the premises

References

  1. https://chocolateclass.wordpress.com/2015/03/13/sugar-past-and-present/
  2. https://www.thebalance.com/soda-tax-and-which-cities-have-one-4151209
  3. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/luxury_tax.asp

In the Wild

This page was last edited on Friday, 13 Nov 2020 at 11:07 UTC