Downing a soda tax would leave a bad taste

According to the Society of Actuaries, obesity costs the United States $270 billion in annual health care costs, but an additional tax on sugary beverages will not help solve the problem.

Some California legislators apparently think that a "soda tax" will make people think twice before consuming drinks high in corn syrup and calories.

Legislation was introduced by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez on Feb. 18 that would impose a fee of one cent per teaspoon of sugar, or any caloric sweetener, added to a beverage.

This fee would be paid by the bottler or manufacturer of sodas or syrups for restaurants.

This is only one proposal that could turn California into a "nanny state" if it becomes law.

Past efforts have included banning soft drink sales in public schools, criminalizing trans-fats in restaurants, and mandating in-store displays of nutritional information at restaurant chains.

But the soda tax proposal makes even less sense. When you read more about the legislation, it—pardon the pun—goes flat.

One of the biggest problems with this misguided piece of legislation is that it places the tax burden on the company and not the consumer.

If the consumers felt they were being forced to pay more for sugary drinks, they would presumably opt for healthier alternatives.

While the laws of economics state that costs incurred by the manufacturer will be passed on to the customer, this may not be true everywhere.

7-Eleven won't necessarily raise the price of their 99-cent Big Gulp refills at all their California stores.

McDonald's won't necessarily take Sweet Tea (how much sugar do they put in that stuff?) off the Dollar Menu.

This amounts to a less significant change in the behavior of the consumer than was originally intended.

Even if the tax was levied on the customer directly, the law still wouldn't work—but it would at least make more sense than it does in its current form.

When customers see that they are paying a California Refund Value tax for each plastic or glass bottle they purchase, they are supposed to be encouraged to recycle so they can get their five or ten cents back.

If customers could see "Drink Sweetener Tax…$0.21" on their receipt, it would really make them think twice about their consumption of saccharine liquids.

A slight rise in the price of the drinks won't be as effective, because many people will not make the connection to the sugar tax.

It also puts another burden on industry in a state that has scared away too many companies already.

In the last decade, corporate giants like Google, Hilton, and Apple are reducing their California operations, and are taking jobs and income to other states—namely Texas and Colorado.

In an economic climate like this, legislators need to consider whether this new tax will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for drink manufacturers.

According to the legislation, the tax would generate an extra $1.5 billion in tax revenues for the ailing state.

These proceeds would go to programs aimed at fighting childhood obesity.

While this is a worthy cause, this means the excise would not really help alleviate the budget crisis, because it goes to specific social programs rather than to general sales tax revenue.

If passed, the soda tax could become a jumping-off place for legislation with similar aims.

It's not a stretch to go from a soda tax to a candy tax.

Excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol make sense; both substances are completely nonnutritive and very addictive.

Cigarettes are carcinogenic and alcohol impairs thinking.

People addicted to these substances need serious help and proceeds from excise taxes go towards helping them.

It is not okay to tax common food because they contain sugar, carbohydrates or fat.

Sugary drinks can be consumed in moderation and an individual can drink soda frequently and still be healthy.

It's up to parents to coach their children on healthy eating and drinking habits.

The soda tax will not change the behavior of consumers.

It will instead be an inconvenience on the consumer (and a minor infringement on their rights) and an uncalled for stress upon industry.

If high dentist and doctor's bills don't open parents' eyes, this tax sure won't.

Don't let it become law.