Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May;103(3):961-986.
doi: 10.1111/ajae.12190. Epub 2021 Feb 2.

Would A National Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax In The United States Be Well Targeted?

Affiliations

Would A National Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax In The United States Be Well Targeted?

Pourya Valizadeh et al. Am J Agric Econ. 2021 May.

Abstract

Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes have been proposed to discourage excessive sugar consumption, but it is unclear how high- vs. low-SSB purchasers respond to such taxes. We first examine heterogeneity in the purchase and financial effects of a national SSB tax across different types of households buying varying amounts of SSBs. We find high-SSB purchasers are less responsive to SSB price changes than low purchasers but make larger absolute reductions in SSB purchases in response to the tax, given their notably greater purchase levels prior to the tax. Nonetheless, the economic burden of the tax falls more heavily on high-SSB purchasers who are more likely comprised of lower-income households. We then investigate whether the income regressivity of the tax will be mitigated if low-income households are targeted by fruit and vegetable (FV) subsidies. We show that depending on the tax pass-through and subsidy rates, FV subsidies can fully offset high-SSB purchasers' tax burdens, and subsidy transfers are distributed relatively uniformly across the SSB purchase distribution of low-income households. Therefore, FV subsidy transfers would be financially more beneficial to low- and moderate-SSB purchasers because they bear smaller shares of the tax burden than high-SSB purchasers.

Keywords: C21; C33; D12; SSB tax; fruit and vegetable subsidies; heterogeneity; panel data; price elasticity; quantile regression.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Demand curves for different types of consumers under homogeneous and heterogeneous price response assumptions
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Selected cross-price elasticities of demands for SSBs, fruits, and vegetables
Notes: All estimates are accompanied by 99% confidence intervals. Standard errors were clustered at the household level. All calculations use Homescan’s projection factor. Source: Authors’ calculations based in part on data reported by Nielsen through its Homescan Services for all food categories, including beverages and alcohol for the 2010–2014 period across the U.S. market. The Nielsen Company, 2015.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Net financial effects of combined fiscal policies across the SSB purchase distribution of SNAP-eligible households
Source: Authors’ calculations based in part on data reported by Nielsen through its Homescan Services for all food categories, including beverages and alcohol for the 2010–2014 period across the U.S. market. The Nielsen Company, 2015.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abrevaya J 2013. “The Projection Approach for Unbalanced Panel Data.” The Econometrics Journal 16:161–178.
    1. Abrevaya J, and Dahl CM. 2008. “The Effects of Birth Inputs on Birthweight: Evidence from Quantile Estimation on Panel Data.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 26:379–397.
    1. Allcott H, Lockwood BB, and Taubinsky D. 2019a. “Regressive Sin Taxes, with An Application to the Optimal Soda Tax.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134:1557–1626.
    1. —. 2019b. “Should We Tax Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? An Overview of Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 33(3):202–27.
    1. Andreyeva T, Long MW, and Brownell KD. 2010. “The Impact of Food Prices on Consumption: A Systematic Review of Research on the Price Elasticity of Demand for Food.” American Journal of Public Health 100:216–222. - PMC - PubMed