Tax policy informed by Libertarian paternalism suggests that taxesshould be levied on non-‘rational’ choice (i.e., where a person makes a ‘foolish’decision by their own internal standards). In respect of excise taxes on sugarsweetened beverages, the regressivity of such policies can then be justified byreference to a progressive health effect, since the poor are more sensitive to changesin price and disproportionately tend to consume sugar sweetened beverages.However, as it currently stands, that conclusion is based merely on a presumption ofirrationality of the poor as a class and neither the relative price of goods subject tosuch taxes, nor the associated ‘welfare loss’ from the levy of the tax, have beensystematically measured. Such a presumption of non-‘rationality’ in food choiceonly holds with respect to persons who arenotbound by relative prices of food,namely the wealthy. Accordingly, it is reasonable for scholars to consider the levyof excise taxes on unhealthy food consumed primarily by the wealthy (e.g.,foiegras) as a ‘nudge’ toward a healthier food choice. Furthermore, the poor are rationalagents capable of analysing and comparing relative prices of food products takinginto account the health effects. As various scholars have now proposed in medicaljournals, any incremental tax levied on the poor in respect of sugar-sweetenedbeverages should be offset, for example, with a credit for healthy foods includingfruits and vegetables

EB00000003966K			Available
EB00000003967K			Available

• A ‘Fool’ and His Sugar-Sweetened Beverage are SoonTaxed