Search

• Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) may considerably reduce SSBs purchases in Italy. • SSBs sugar consumption may fall even to a higher extent. • Despite being financially regressive, SSBs taxes may be progressive for health. • With equal income, households with children are less affected by SSBs taxes. • Reinvesting tax revenues in health-related programs may reduce the regressivity of SSBs taxes. As over-consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is considered a major contributor to the rising prevalence of obesity and associated diseases, public authorities from different countries are considering the introduction of SSBs taxation. In this study, we evaluate the potential impact of the upcoming Italian sugar tax on SSBs and sugar consumption, also accounting for differences across socio-economic groups. We also analyze alternative SSBs tax designs (i.e., excise tax on sugar and two-tier tax based on sugar content) to compare their effectiveness and provide a more general analysis about the outcomes of SSBs taxation. In our empirical analysis, we first estimate consumers' demand for SSBs using the random coefficient logit demand model (Berry, Levinsohn, and Pakes, 1995) and Nielsen Household Panel data of SSBs purchases for the period 2019–2020. Then, the estimated demand parameters and marginal costs for SSBs are employed to conduct counterfactual simulations to derive the new market equilibria under the simulated SSBs tax scheme scenarios. Our results show that the Italian sugar tax is the most effective in reducing SSBs and sugar consumption (on average, by 18% and 24% respectively) among all the simulated tax scenarios. This is also due to the strategic reactions of SSBs manufacturers who over-shift the change in marginal cost (i.e., tax rate) to final prices. Moreover, despite being financially regressive, taxes on SSBs may be progressive from a health perspective, as low-income groups experience the greatest fall in SSBs and sugar consumption. Reinvesting tax revenues in health-related programs targeting the most vulnerable socio-economic groups (i.e., low-income households with children) may minimize the regressivity of SSBs taxes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We estimate an AIDS for fresh meat in Germany. • We derive price and expenditure elasticities for households overall and by age and. income. • We assess ad valorem and excise tax scenarios to curb climate gas emissions. • Older households are more effected by meat taxes than young households. • Excise taxes are more efficient to reach carbon emission reductions This paper assesses the effect of different meat tax designs in Germany including increasing the value-added tax as well as two climate-gas-emission-sensitive excise tax scenarios. For the simulation study, we first estimate price and expenditure elasticities for fresh meat for different household types using data from the GfK ConsumerScan FreshFood panel over the period 2012–14. The estimated elasticities are used to derive budget and welfare effects for the tax scenarios. A general rise in the value-added tax from 7% to 19% leads to a welfare loss of 0.83 euros per household per month. Disentangling the effect by household group according to income and age shows that low-income and older households experience a higher welfare loss and bear a larger tax burden relative to their income compared to low-income and younger households, respectively. Comparing the different taxation scenarios highlights the comparative efficiency of excise taxes and the importance to consider effects on older households. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Grocery taxes existed in more than one third of U.S. states in 2020. • States with grocery taxes or considering grocery taxes tend to have higher food insecurity. • Taxing groceries correlates with increases in food insecurity. • Taxing groceries on average at 4.2% increases the probability of low-income household food insecurity by 3.3%. • Policymakers should look at ways to lessen the burden of this tax on lower-income households. In the United States, grocery tax policy varies at both state and county levels, with 16 states having grocery taxes in 2020. Several states are engaged in active debates about whether to remove or impose such taxes. Although the extant literature evaluates multiple factors that may contribute to food insecurity, little is known about the relationship between grocery food sales taxes and food insecurity. We present county-level panel data on grocery taxes from 2006 through 2017 and find that jurisdictions with grocery taxes are among the most food insecure in the country. The regressiveness of grocery taxes exacerbates food insecurity, at least in theory. We link our tax data with county-level food insecurity measures and other data from the Current Population Survey. Treating grocery taxes as exogenous, we estimate that a one percentage point increase in grocery tax rates is associated with a 0.84% increase in the probability of being food insecure for low-income households. Using these estimates, we conduct policy simulations of grocery taxes that have been recently considered in six states and assess the potential impacts on food insecurity. One caveat is that our estimator may be biased towards or away from zero depending on whether increases in grocery taxes within counties over time are positively or negatively correlated with unobservables affecting food security. However, assuming the onset and removal of grocery taxes within a county are exogenous, our results show that proposed grocery taxes may exacerbate food insecurity by one to five percentage points. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]