A proposal for a sugary drink tax in Maryland has sparked a heated debate among consumers, business owners, and lawmakers. The bill would impose a 2-cent-per-ounce excise tax on sugary drinks, and it has divided the state.
While supporters argue that it will reduce the consumption of unhealthy beverages and help address Maryland’s budget deficit, opponents believe the tax will hurt families, small businesses, and workers. With a tax on sugary drinks already in effect in other cities like Philadelphia, many are concerned that this could lead to a drop in sales, especially in border areas, as shoppers might choose to purchase their drinks in neighbouring states like Pennsylvania or Delaware.
A Rising Concern for Maryland Shoppers
Robyn Shaber, a shopper from Harford County, Maryland, is one of many who plans to cross state lines if the sugary drink tax is passed. Last week, Shaber left a ShopRite store in Cardiff with her grandson, carrying at least 24 bottles of soda, including Coca-Cola and Mountain Dew.
She says soda prices continue to rise even with store sales, and if Maryland begins taxing sugary beverages, she will no longer buy them at her local ShopRite. Instead, she plans to make the short trip across the Mason-Dixon line into Pennsylvania, where prices are expected to be lower.
Shaber’s concerns highlight a potential problem for Maryland retailers. With many residents living close to state borders, a new tax on sugary drinks could encourage shoppers to make purchases in neighbouring states where the products are not taxed. This could impact local businesses that rely on beverage sales, especially in areas like Harford County, which borders Pennsylvania.
The Proposed Tax: A Solution to Maryland’s Budget Deficit?
The 2-cent-per-ounce tax proposal is part of a broader plan by Maryland lawmakers to address the state’s growing budget deficit. Advocates of the tax argue that it will generate significant revenue for the state, with estimates suggesting that it could raise up to $500 million by fiscal year 2027. Proponents also believe that the tax will encourage Maryland residents to reduce their consumption of sugary drinks, leading to improved public health outcomes in the long term.
The bill’s sponsors, including Montgomery County Delegate Emily Shetty and Prince George’s County kv, emphasize the health benefits of reducing sugary beverage consumption. According to Shetty, the tax is part of a larger effort to invest in healthy school meals, childcare scholarships, and a health equity fund.
“This bill is a public health bill,” Shetty said at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing earlier this month. “It will decrease consumption of sweetened beverages while investing in universal school meals for children and other health needs.”
A Divide Among Maryland Residents
While some residents, like Stephanie Joseph from Silver Spring, support the bill, others are strongly opposed to it. Joseph, a state employee, sees the tax as a necessary step to help Maryland address its budget issues. She argues that the tax could encourage healthier drinking habits among Marylanders while generating revenue for much-needed programs. “It’s a tight budget, and it’s a healthy way to help Marylanders,” she said, adding that she rarely buys soda, only purchasing it for parties.
However, opponents of the tax argue that it will disproportionately impact lower-income families and workers. Daraius Irani, a vice president at Towson University, warns that the tax could drive consumers across state lines to make their purchases. “Higher costs on sugary drinks in Maryland could prompt people who live close to neighboring states to frequent stores in those areas, hurting retailers in Maryland,” he said.
Critics also worry that the tax will harm small businesses, particularly local grocery stores and beverage distributors. Joe Wong, the manager of Brookville Market in Chevy Chase, Maryland, doubts that the tax will significantly change buying habits. “If people want to buy a product, no matter what the tax is, they’re not going to buy less because of a 2-cent tax,” Wong said. However, he acknowledged that businesses near state lines could see a shift in sales if consumers start crossing into states like Pennsylvania.
Impact on Workers and Small Businesses
The proposal has also raised concerns among workers in the beverage industry. William Davis, president of Teamsters Local 639, which represents workers in Maryland’s beverage production and distribution industry, argues that higher prices will decrease sales, which could result in job losses.
“When prices go up, sales go down,” Davis wrote in a letter to the chair of the House Ways & Means Committee. “It is the men and women who manufacture, package, and deliver these products who would suffer from a decrease in sales.”
Local businesses are also expressing concern about the impact on their bottom lines. Luis Quintino, the manager of La Salvadorenita Grocery in Silver Spring, Maryland, said his store has already seen rising costs for products like Coca-Cola, and he expects the tax to make things even more difficult. “Right now, we buy more water,” Quintino said, adding that the rising prices have already forced the store to stop buying Coca-Cola products.
Voter Support and Opposition
Public opinion on the sugary drink tax is divided. A poll commissioned by the American Heart Association found that 63% of Maryland voters support the tax, while a survey conducted by David Binder Research for the Alliance For An Affordable Maryland shows that 56% of voters oppose it. The latter survey was supported by the American Beverage Association and the MD-DE-DC Beverage Association, highlighting the role of industry groups in shaping public opinion on the issue.
Opponents of the tax argue that imposing additional taxes on products deemed unhealthy is not the right approach. Lee Hartman, a Columbia resident, said she believes parents should be able to make their own decisions about whether to buy sugary drinks for their children without the government stepping in. “I know sugary drinks aren’t healthy for little kids, but I think parents can regulate that without a tax,” she said.
The Future of Maryland’s Sugary Drink Tax
As the debate continues, lawmakers will have to weigh the potential revenue generated by the tax against the concerns of business owners and consumers. While proponents argue that the tax will benefit both public health and the state’s budget, opponents fear it will hurt families and workers, particularly in border areas. If the tax is passed, it will be interesting to see how it impacts consumer behaviour, sales in Maryland, and local businesses, especially those near state lines.
Disclaimer: This article has been meticulously fact-checked by our team to ensure accuracy and uphold transparency. We strive to deliver trustworthy and dependable content to our readers.
Jon King is an experienced journalist with 3 years of experience in the field. With a strong background in investigative reporting, Jon is known for his in-depth coverage of crime news, finance news, local news, and USA news. Currently working with Mikeandjonpodcast, Jon brings his sharp investigative skills, where he provides timely updates and analysis on a wide range of topics. His commitment to delivering accurate and impactful news has earned him a reputation for providing insightful and comprehensive stories that resonate with his audience.
