THIS is not the first time that a country turns to a blunt instrument such as taxation to achieve putative public health goals. Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages have been tried in Europe, South and North America. What have we learnt from those experiences?If the purpose of the tax is simply to raise more general revenue under the fig leaf of a public health benefit, it lacks moral force, has no compelling national purpose, and should be rejected out of hand. Having another tax simply to finance a dysfunctional national government is indefensible.But if the tax is clearly structured to fund medical health research on obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and the social habits of lifestyle that result clearly in increases in body mass index, its purpose would be more defensible.The Treasury estimates that about R11bn could be added to the fiscus from which a meaningful portion should be ring-fenced for health research on the relationship between eating and drinking habits and obesity, di...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.