COMMENTARY: Sin tax crusade a money grab aimed at consumers

The World Health Organization has launched a new global tax campaign called “3 by 35.” It demands that countries increase taxes on tobacco, alcohol and sugary drinks by at least 50 percent by 2035. It’s being pitched as a clever way to reduce disease and boost public health.

In truth, this is a global money grab disguised as a moral crusade, aimed squarely at consumers by bureaucrats scrambling to fill budget holes.

With the United States having already withdrawn significant funding from the WHO due to its repeated policy failures and lack of accountability, the organization is now turning to what it sees as a softer target, domestic health officials who are under political pressure to deliver services without the necessary funds.

The WHO’s pitch is hard for desperate governments to ignore. It argues that by raising these “sin taxes,” not only will unhealthy behavior be discouraged, but billions in new revenue will be generated.

Americans should see this scheme for what it really is: a deeply regressive and anti-consumer agenda pushed by an unelected body that has no legal or moral authority to tell any country how to tax its citizens.

The United States cut funding in the first place because of the WHO’s botched handling of major global health crises and its questionable ties to authoritarian regimes. The agency’s repeated failures on transparency, responsiveness and scientific integrity made continued U.S. support politically untenable.

Faced with a massive $600 million funding shortfall, the WHO is now hunting for other ways to keep its operations afloat, and rather than tighten its own belt, it has chosen to pass the burden onto consumers around the world.

Make no mistake. This is not about health, it’s about plugging budget holes.

And while the WHO claims to be acting in the public interest, its own financial record tells a very different story. In 2020, it was revealed that the organization was spending more than $200 million annually on luxury travel, including first-class flights and five-star hotel stays for its top executives. That’s more than the agency spent on HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and hepatitis combined. In fact, the WHO’s travel spending amounts to 20 times more per employee than frontline health non-governmental organizations, such as Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders).

Now, those same globe-trotting bureaucrats want to fund their operations by urging governments to raise prices on soda, beer, and cigarettes — products that millions of working-class people rely on for simple and affordable pleasures.

This is not progressive policy. It’s a textbook case of regressive taxation.

Sin taxes don’t hurt corporations. They hurt consumers. Especially lower-income Americans. These taxes will hit hardest in rural areas, in Black and Latino communities and among blue-collar workers already struggling to make ends meet. During a time of inflation and economic instability, making everyday life more expensive isn’t just tone-deaf, it’s cruel.

These taxes are often passed with little debate under the guise of public health. The evidence is murky at best as to how many chronic illnesses are really prevented by making soda $1 more expensive. What’s not murky is the fact that raising these taxes will pump billions into government coffers. Revenue that health departments, under pressure from bureaucrats, may be eager to accept.

That’s the danger. The WHO doesn’t need to convince Congress or the American public; it just needs to persuade enough mid-level health officials around the world that this is a palatable revenue scheme. It’s a backdoor attempt to impose an economic policy that would never survive direct democratic scrutiny in the United States or elsewhere.

The U.S. government was justified in withholding funding from the WHO until it demonstrates that it can operate transparently and responsibly. But the WHO’s indirect influence must be resisted. Its proposals still shape international discourse, influence grant requirements and pressure lower-income countries into accepting policy templates written in Geneva, not their own capitals.

The “3 by 35” campaign is a one-size-fits-all policy that claims to prioritize health while overlooking the real costs to economic dignity and consumer freedom. It’s easier for officials to raise the price of a six-pack than to tackle hospital mismanagement or waste in public budgets. But easy doesn’t mean right.

If the WHO were serious about public health, it would embrace harm reduction strategies such as low alcohol or reduced-sugar drinks, and vaping and nicotine alternatives. Instead, it is still fighting a 20th-century war on behavior while trying to finance it with 21st-century dollars pulled from the pockets of the poor.

If Washington wants to help Americans live healthier lives, it should invest in access, innovation, and education. Health policies should be shaped by science, transparency, and respect for economic fairness, rather than by bureaucrats in Geneva scrambling to balance their budgets.

Martin Cullip is the International Fellow at The Taxpayers Protection Alliance’s Consumer Center and is based in South London. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.