Volume 23, Issue 9 pp. 1159-1184
Special Issue Paper

THE EFFECTS OF TAXING SUGAR-SWEETENED BEVERAGES ACROSS DIFFERENT INCOME GROUPS

Anurag Sharma

Corresponding Author

Anurag Sharma

Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Correspondence to: Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic. 3800, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Katharina Hauck

Katharina Hauck

Centre for Health Policy and the Healthcare Management Group, Imperial College London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Bruce Hollingsworth

Bruce Hollingsworth

Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, UK and Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Luigi Siciliani

Luigi Siciliani

Department of Economics and Related Studies and Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 04 June 2014
Citations: 99

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the impact of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) taxes on consumption, bodyweight and tax burden for low-income, middle-income and high-income groups using an Almost Ideal Demand System and 2011 Household level scanner data. A significant contribution of our paper is that we compare two types of SSB taxes recently advocated by policy makers: A 20% flat rate sales (valoric) tax and a 20 cent/L volumetric tax. Censored demand is accounted for using a two-step procedure. We find that the volumetric tax would result in a greater per capita weight loss than the valoric tax (0.41 kg vs. 0.29 kg). The difference between the change in weight is substantial for the target group of heavy purchasers of SSBs in low-income households, with a weight reduction of up to 3.20 kg for the volumetric and 2.06 kg for the valoric tax. The average yearly per capita tax burden on low-income households is $17.87 (0.21% of income) compared with $15.17 for high-income households (0.07% of income) for the valoric tax, and $13.80 (0.15%) and $10.10 (0.04%) for the volumetric tax. Thus, the tax burden is lower, and weight reduction is higher under a volumetric tax. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.