Transcription
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 12, Issue 3, March 2022ISSN 2250-3153348The Eligibility of Tax Imposed On Sugar-SweetenedBeverages: A Literature StudyEka Susia Justika *, Mila S. Seyowati *****Faculty of administrative Sciences, Universitas IndonesiaFaculty of administrative Sciences, Universitas IndonesiaDOI: 10.29322/IJSRP.12.03.2022.p12348Paper Received Date: 4th March 2022Paper Acceptance Date: 13th March 2022Paper Publication Date: 20th March 2022Abstract- Tax policies can be formulated and implemented to prevent adverse health and social impacts on the community, especiallyon sweetened beverage products. It can be designed by designing a tax imposition model for products containing added sugar content.The writing of this article through a literature study can recommend to design a value added tax policy model for sugar-sweetenedbeverage products because it can have the eligibility to be applied by determining the definition of products containing sweetenedbeverages or referring to the classification of international standardization, determining the basis of taxation as an indirect tax onconsumption, determine threshold levels of sweetened drinks in determining tariff levels in order to reduce consumption behaviour ofsweetened drinks for consumers, and formulate levels of added sugar content for producers. Sweetened beverage tax revenues can beallocated to subsidize improved access to clean water in the area of a city/region with the highest consuming population of consumers,advocate for behaviour to reduce consumption of sweetened drinks, and become a source of tax revenue for the central government orlocal government which has the benefit of increasing the economy, social and public health.Index Terms- Value Added Tax, Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Policy FormulationI. INTRODUCTIONAdditional sugar including Sugar-Sweetened Beverages has caused a negative impact on health, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes,cardiovascular diseases, cancer and adverse dental health (Powel, et.al, 2021). The sweetened beverages consist of 90% of waterand the rest consist of additives, such as sweeteners, artificial colours, CO2, and/or preservatives. The sweeteners used in soft drinks aregrouped into two categories, such as nutritive sweeteners consisting of granulated sugar, liquid sugar, liquid invert sugar, High FructoseCorn Sugar (HFCS) and dextrose as well as synthetic sweeteners (non-nutritive) (Rosyada & Ardiansyah, 2018).Indonesia is in the third position in consuming the Sugar-sweetened Beverages within 20.23 litres/person of consumption in theSoutheast Asian. A high consumption on Sugar-sweetened Beverages had contributed to high mortality and morbidity rates as a resultof overweight, obesity, non-communicable diseases like diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and had increased the medicalexpenditures. However, the governance regulation in Indonesia did not create a regulation system to reduce high consumption on theSugar-sweetened Beverages products (Fanda, et.al, 2020).In 2018, the sweetened-beverages in Indonesian consumed at least once a week by 62% of children, 72% of teenagers and 61% ofadults by a ready-to-drink tea became the great and rapidly growing Sugar-sweetened Beverages (SSB). A great market to sell unhealthybeverages has scattered in various places, such as schools, supermarkets and some hospitals (Morena, 2009; Moira Smith, et.al, 2019).A survey result with questionnaires on children’s meal frequencies disclosed that 815 of them have consumed commercial snacks and40% of them have consumed sweetened beverages one day prior to the survey conducted (Green, et.al, 2019). The data published bythe Agency of Indonesian Health Research and Development (Balitbangdes) in 2014 disclosed that the daily consumption on carbonatedbeverages amounted to 2.4 millilitres (ml) per person.The highest consumption was found in a group of 13 – 18 years old i.e., 4.7 ml/day (Mutaqin, 2018). In 2014, the total sales onSSB were 3.894 billion litres, in which the carbonated beverages contributed 944 million litres (24.2%), 167 million litres (16%) ofjuices, for a little more than 250 million people. Sales on SSB annual per capita in Indonesia was about 16 litres in 2014 compared toSingapore in which was more than 70 litres (Bourke, E.J & Veerman, J.L, 2018).In accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO, 2016), it was necessary for the government to establish a fiscal policyto maintain the public consumption trend that can impact on diabetes. The research conducted by Escobar, et.al (2013), Eykelenboom,et.al (2019), Redondo, et.al, (2018), and Lumbreras (2018) described that tax on SSB could increase the tax amount and the tax on SSBalso could become a fiscal policy to reduce a calorie and sugar overconsumption as well as increased a behaviour trend to consume theThis publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC 3XXwww.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 12, Issue 3, March 2022ISSN 2250-3153349healthier products. Tax on the sweetened beverages had a potency to reduce a calorie and sugar consumption and increased an intentionto do a reducing consumption behaviour in the future at least increased by 20%.A lot of countries such as Mexico, France, Hungary, Finland, Norwegian, Belgium, Chile and Barbados have imposed tax onSweetened Sugar Beverages (SSB) as a fiscal action to reduce the sugar consumption from beverages (Jones, et.al, 2017). In Seattle, asone of the federated states of the United States of America has imposed tax policy on the sugar-sweetened beverages that were classifiedto the size and the type (Powel, et.al, 2021). Meanwhile, the United Kingdom, Ireland and South Africa were classified as the countriesthat propose the tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (Jones, et.al, 2017). Tax on Sugar-sweetened beverages were much moreimplemented in lots of countries as a policy tool proposed to reduce its consumption. This tax was usually implemented on sodas, fruits,sport and energy beverages, and sweet teas/coffees. The tax has not been implemented to a kind of sweet milks/flavours with additionalsugar and to non-sugar beverages such as juices or teas/coffees with sugar added separately by the consumers (Powel, et.al, 2021).As observed in the implementation of tax policy on sweetened beverages that applied in Sri Lanka, most citizens who consumedthe sweetened beverages were the poor and the middle class, therefore their country imposed 15% of VAT on the sweetened beverages.This scheme was expected to be able to reduce their lost income and spent money when they were sick (WHO, 2018). In Mexico, afterimposing 10% for tax on the sweetened beverages, this country has succeeded in reducing 6% of the sweetened beverages that the entirepopulation consumed (Alvarez-Sanches, et.al, 2018). In the UK, the tax has encouraged a leading sweetened beverages industry toreformulate. The industry has reduced the level of sugar added to their products by half (Roache S.A & Gostin, 2017).Intervention outside the health care system could significantly impact the health of a country as recognised as a framework of WHOcalled ‘health-in-all-policies’ (Leppo, et.al, 2013). As reviewed from Indonesian administration system and taxation policies, it was alsorecognised taxes on other consumptions, such as Value Added Tax (VAT), Luxury Goods Sales Tax (LGST) or Local Tax. Hence, inthis journal will be conducted a literature study related to the eligibility of VAT imposed on the sweetened beverages in Indonesia. Thisjournal aims to describe the factors determining the eligibility of VAT imposed on sweetened beverage products in Indonesia through aliterature study.II. LITERATURE STUDYTax Imposition Model on Sweetened BeveragesIn formulating a tax imposition model on sweetened beverages, there was a main consideration required by policy makers – that isdetermining the tax base. It means, determining specific products that would be subject to tax. In terms of sweetened beverages, thepublic health goals to reduce sugar consumption by suggesting a tax imposition on all sweetened beverages, including water-basedsweetened beverages (carbonated beverages, energy beverages, sport beverages/isotonic, juice and fruit or vegetable beverages), sugarsweetened coffee, coffee substitute, tea and herbal infusion drinks (tea/coffee), sugar-sweetened milk and milk-based beverage products(sugar-sweetened milk/flavour and yoghurt), and concentrate, powder, and syrup used to make sweetened beverage products by addingwater or carbonated water. Even though flavour or sweetened milks were significant contributors for consumption of sweetenedbeverages for the children which were generally not classified to the beverage tax base (Pan American Health Organization, 2020).As observed from taxation, tax on sweetened beverages has been implied with a single rate, either based on volume (tax as specific)or based on product value (ad valorem) which a tax base covered all beverage products that were subject to tax using a single rate. Eventhough, single ad valorem customs or volume-based specific customs possessed an important virtue in implementation that not gaveincentive to the customers to turn to non-sweetened beverage products or to the beverage industries reformulate the products to reducesugar contents in every sweetened beverage product packaging (Pan American Health Organization, 2020).Tax on sweetened beverages can be designed with separated layers based on the threshold which tax rate varies (for example Chile,Peru and the UK) or can be based on continuum (not a separated layer) of sugar content in a sweetened beverage product.Meanwhile, the layered tax approach has attracted an increasing interest to the policy makers globally although still had inquiriespertaining to the determination of an appropriate tax threshold in terms of impact on consumption, reformulation, and income earnedfrom taxes. When considering it, a tax design of sweetened beverages in layers can depict an actual distribution of most commonlyconsumed sweetened beverages based on sugar content which can assist in informing the threshold options in accordance with a layeredtax structure (Pan American Health Organization, 2020).Consumption of sweetened beverages in urban areas of low- and middle-income countries tends to increase. One of the policy toolsexpected to reduce the consumption on sweetened beverages is tax, which is conducted by valorising the sweetened beverages in acertain region, that can be a city, a federated state or a country. A tax implementation on sweetened beverages is seen as effective andable to gain success in changing the consumption trend of sweetened beverages, so that it was necessary for the policy actors to formulate(Collin & Hill, 2019).In designing a tax on sweetened beverages, it could be developed the various simple indicators to obtain heterogeneity at tax designof a country. It performed an evaluation if the tax complied on a uniform or tiered design. If the level of sugar was utilised as a tax basis,and whether it applied on bottled water to distinguish the sweetened beverages and non-sweetened beverages. Ultimately, the assessmentis if the definition of a taxable product including sweet milk, energy beverage, and powder, concentrate, or syrup that used to make theSugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSB) by adding water or carbonated water, to evaluated if every tax applies on the wide or gap-coveredrange of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSB), giving an incentive on undesirable substitution, and performing a tax evasion (Sandoval,2021).This publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC 3XXwww.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 12, Issue 3, March 2022ISSN 2250-3153350The countries that had imposed tax on the sweetened beverages defined the taxable products in different ways. As observed fromevery country, Caribbean and some Latin American countries (dominantly in Central America) used the rate codes that aligned with theinternational standard nomenclature to classify the traded products in determining the taxable products, though it has a various rate tierrange. The most important point is the rate tier aligned with the definition of the sweetened beverages based on sugar added. For example,Ecuador has imposed certain amounts of tax to the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSB) with sugar concentrate above a specified thresholdand ad valorem tax on the SSB under a specified threshold. All energy beverages regardless of sugar concentration would be subject toad valorem tax.As for ad valerom tax, the tax basis is defined as a tax product value that is able to assess at various stages of the value chain, suchas producer’s product applied in Barbados, Brazil, Dominica, Mexico and Paraguay. Ad valerom tax rate was applied at the lesser value,reducing tax impact on the ending retail price. Besides that, the components of ad valerom also can be used with tax basis of thebeverages that are produced locally that are determined later at the value chain closer to the ending retail price (Sandoval, 2021).One of tax imposition models that is able to generate income can be viewed in the United States of America, with income from taxon soft drinks amounted to 70 billion US Dollar per year. The income from tax can be used to support various obesity reductionprogrammes, nutrition programmes at school, or to fund the foundations that advocate for health, including a continuous reduction ofsweetened beverages consumption. Income from tax also can be used to subsidise a region that consumes the sweetened beverages andhas no access to clean water – it can be refurbished the access on piping to clean water (Escobar, et.al, 2013).III. EXPLANATIONThe Effectiveness of Tax Policy on Sweetened BeveragesTax imposition on sweetened beverages has a positive impact on purchasing and consumption, and was seen as effective in reducingthe purchasing and the consumption of sweetened beverages (Moise, et.al, 2011; Isett, Laugesen, & Cloud, 2015; Nixon, et.al, 2015;Francis, et.al., 2017). Generally, this confidence was raised from a confidence that the price was an important factor in purchasingdecisions (Chan, et.al, 2009). Nevertheless, Tamir, et.al (2018) explained that a scepticism pertaining to the political acceptability of aneffect of reducing the consumption among legislators, policy makers, and regulators has been raised. Furthermore, there was anotherstudy that explained the decreasing in the prices of sweetened beverages has raised as a result of the tax would not impact on thepurchasing and the consumption of sweetened beverages (Chan, et.al, 2009; Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017; Tamir, et.al.,2018; Ortega-Avila, Papadaki, & Jago, 2018; Swift, et.al, 2018).Particularly, tax imposed on sweetened beverages was assumed to be ineffective to those who have addicted to the sweetenedbeverages (Chan, et.al, 2009; Krukowski, et.al, 2016; Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017; Ortega-Avila, Papadaki, & Jago, 2018),those who were less aware of the beverage prices (Giabbanelli, Adams, & Pillutla, 2016; Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017;Ortega-Avila, Papadaki, & Jago, 2018), those who were obesity, and the rich people, as well as the stubborn people (Krukowski, et.al,2016).In the studies that examined the political acceptance disclosed that tax on the sweetened beverages was seen as effective inincreasing results related to the healthy, such as the obesity and the diabetes (Lloyd-Williams, et.al, 2014; Isett, Laugesen, & Cloud,2015; Nixon, et.al, 2015; Signal, et.al, 2018). It tends to relate to the confidence on scientific evidence of a detrimental health effectfrom a sweetened beverage and an advantageous healthy effect from tax imposed on the sweetened beverages (Isett, Laugesen, & Cloud,2015; Signal, et.al, 2018; Purtle, Langellier, & Le-Scherban, 2018). However, there were literatures that disclosed a scepticism on taxeffectiveness in decreasing the result related to the health observed in the study about a public acceptance. Consequently, someresearches among the society have reported a confidence that the tax imposed on the sweetened beverages could improve the health ofthe citizen (Nixon, et.al, 2015; Signal, et.al, 2018; Swift, et.al, 2018), while others disclosed that such policy did not cure anything(Giabbanelli, Adams, & Pillutla, 2016; Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017; Ortega-Avila, Papadaki, & Jago, 2018).As reported in some studies, there was an assessment that the impact on the prices of sweetened beverages has experienced ananxiety (Giabbanelli, Adams, & Pillutla, 2016; Krukowski, et.al, 2016; Thomas- Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017; Signal, et.al, 2018;Ortega-Avila, Papadaki, & Jago, 2018). It was raised from a confidence that the tax on sweetened beverages might not be distributed tothe consumers due to industrial intervention and sweetened beverage vendors (Moretto, et.al, 2014; Giabbanelli, Adams, & Pillutla,2016; Thomas- Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017; Signal, et.al, 2018). Apart from that, the proposed tax rate was too low to make a bigimpact on the prices of sweetened beverages (Moretto, et.al, 2014; Krukowski, et.al, 2016; Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017;Ortega-Avila, Papadaki, & Jago, 2018). Hence, Moretto et.al (2014) and Krukowski et.al (2016) have expected 50% to 100% of tax ratein order to change the consumer behaviour profoundly enough.As for encouraging the industry to reformulate the ingredients of sweetened beverages, Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, and Adams (2017)explained that the tax imposed would encourage industry to reformulate the ingredients of sweetened beverages they produced. As anillustration, a producer will reduce the amount of sugar as a result of tax that is viewed as a potential facilitator in the effectiveness oftax on sweetened beverages. Moreover, the tax on sweetened beverages was assessed as an intervention to cost savings that is useful toimprove the public health nutrition and the obesity prevention (Lloyd- Williams, et.al, 2014; Giabbanelli, Adams, & Pillutla, 2016;Tamir, et.al, 2018).Eligibility of Tax Policy on the Sweetened BeveragesThis publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC 3XXwww.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 12, Issue 3, March 2022ISSN 2250-3153351In this context, the tax on sweetened beverages is viewed as an intervention strategy, an intervention target and the assumption ofcontribution of sweetened beverages on an overweight and obesity. Therefore, taxation is an intervention strategy. Moise et.al (2011)took samples in Mexico and European countries that there was a necessity for a government intervention to oppose the consumption ofsweetened beverages.The regulation instruments including taxation have become a suitable policy tool (Miose, et.al, 2011). Moreover, the decisionmakers have referred to the usage of taxation on tobacco and alcohol (Thow, et.al, 2011; Isett, Laugesen, & Cloud, 2015; Signal, et.al,2018). The comparable existence and success of tax has contributed to a confidence that taxation is a suitable intervention strategy toreduce the usage of sweetened beverage products. Taxation is considered necessary according to Moise et.al (2011) and Thomas- Meyer,Mytton, and Adams (2017) who stated that such a policy was necessary when a person could not be responsible for their own behaviour.However, in other studies regarding politics (Tamir, et.al, 2018) and public acceptance (Nixon, et.al, 2015; Giabbanelli, Adams, &Pillutla, 2016; Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017) stated that taxation was viewed as a government intervention.Sweetened beverages as an intervention target had a correlation to the political acceptability conducted among the senior policymakers from fourteen European countries and politicians and bureaucrats from New Zealand (Lloyd-Williams, et.al, 2014; Signal, et.al,2018). For example, a politician from New Zealand disclosed that a soft drink was cheaper than healthy alternative products (Signal,et.al, 2018). Nevertheless, in a study regarding political acceptability, Israel’s regulator treated the sweetened beverages as ‘a source ofpleasure’ and; therefore, feeling that ‘imposing tax to them would disadvantage the public’ (Tamir, et.al, 2018).Some studies regarding public acceptance have reported the confidence on the eligibility of sweetened beverages as an interventiontarget (Moise, et.al, 2011; Isett, Laugesen, & Cloud, 2015; Nixon, et.al, 2015). It tended to correlate to the confidence concerning thesweetened beverages contribution to obesity (Swift, et.al, 2018), and the confidence concerning the sweetened beverages price (Visram,et.al, 2017). Those who supported that tax and believed that the sweetened beverages were a main contributor of obesity, while theopponents denoted lack of personal evidence that the sweetened beverages could cause obesity and referred to a lot of other obesitydefining factors. Concerning the sweetened beverage price, Visram, et.al (2017) has disclosed that some current energy beverages werecheaper than drinking water.In terms of the sweetened beverages’ contribution to overweight and obesity, it depends on the people’s confidence in beingoverweight and obesity. For instance, Telluride people in the United States of America apparently did not feel that obesity was a localhealth problem that needed to be handled and therefore they opposed tax imposition (Nixon, et.al, 2015). Apart from that, in the UK itwas said that the people with overweight and obesity were their own responsibility (Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017). Theconfidence concerning responsibility attribution for overweight and obesity associated to ‘taxation as an intervention strategy’ subtheme, as there was a paradigm assumed that tax on the sweetened beverages was not fair to the ‘healthy’ people who responsiblyconsumed the beverages (Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017).The Economics and Socioeconomics Advantages of Tax Policy on the Sweetened BeveragesTax imposed on sugar-sweetened beverages had a potency to increase income for social health programme (such as preventionfunds, sport fields and recreational activities) and was considered as a positive consequence of implementation of taxation (Nixon, et.al,2015; Giabbanelli, Adams, & Pillutla, 2016; Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017; Tamir, et.al, 2018; Purtle, Langellier, & LeScherban, 2018).Besides that, tax imposition on sugar-sweetened beverages could increase income for health care. Tax potency of sweetened beveragesto increase income for health care (such as for a National Health Service) was identified by some studies (Thow, et.al, 2011; Isett,Laugesen, & Cloud, 2015; Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017). For an example, Isett, Laugesen, and Cloud (2015) explained thatGovernor Patterson from New York, the United Stated of America opined that tax can help funding care costs to those who were obese.Some studies disclosed that tax on sugar-sweetened beverages was viewed as a potential to increase income for the general budget(Thow, et.al, 2011; Nixon, et.al, 2015; Isett, Laugesen & Cloud, 2015; Tamir, et.al, 2018). For instance, tax was considered to increaseincome to balance the city budget in El Monte, the United States of America (Nixon, et.al, 2015), compensated for the loss due toreduced rate in Fiji (Thow, et.al, 2011) and compensated decreasing in phosphate mining revenue in Nauru (Tamir, et.al, 2018).Anxiety pertaining to the negative impacts of tax on sweetened beverages to the economics was reported in some studies(Giabbanelli, Adams, & Pillutla, 2016; Krukowski, et.al, 2016; Signal, et.al, 2018; Tamir, et.al, 2018), such as anxiety pertaining to thejob reductions and the discontinuation of sweetened beverage companies as a result of a tax imposition. Moreover, a bureaucrat fromNew Zealand disclosed the necessity of more scientific evidence about tax impact on sweetened beverages to the economics and theproductivity (Signal, et.al, 2018).The socioeconomic equality impact on tax on sweetened beverages was believed to have a positive impact on the equality in health(Signal, et.al, 2018; Purtle, Langellier, & Le-Scherban, 2018). As an illustration, Philadelphia Local Health Department, the USA, statedthat tax on sweetened beverages could adapt to a health gap. However, in a study about a political acceptance conducted in Israel (Tamir,et.al, 2018) and in most studies concerning a public acceptance (Nixon, et.al, 2015), there were reports concerning the anxiety concerninga negative impact of tax on sweetened beverages to socioeconomic equality. The anxiety mainly came up from a confidence that tax onsweetened beverages was regressive (Swift, et.al, 2018). People with low income should spend their income much more and consume agreat number of sweetened beverages (Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017).Adoption and Implementation of Tax Policy on Sweetened BeveragesThis publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC 3XXwww.ijsrp.org
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 12, Issue 3, March 2022ISSN 2250-3153352Tax implementation on sweetened beverages was considered to be reasonable (Moise, et.al, 2011; Thow, et.al, 2011; Moretto, et.al,2014; Lloyd-Williams, et.al, 2014; Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017; Signal, et.al, 2018). Some perceived barriers inimplementing tax on sweetened beverages were identified. Examples of barriers such as a long lawmaking process in Mexico and theUnited Kingdom (Moise, et.al, 2011; Swift, et.al, 2018), a competing national agenda in Mexico and the United Kingdom (Moise, et.al,2011), complication in determining which products were to subject to tax (Tamir, et.al, 2018) in Israel and the United Kingdom,complication in ‘unlabeled, homemade product’ in Mexico (Moise, et.al, 2011), a black market development in Israel (Tamir, et.al,2018), a high administration expense in New Zealand (Signal, et.al, 2018), and a taxation politics expenses in European countries (LloydWilliams, et.al, 2014).In some studies, disclosed confidences about a support of stakeholders (Thowm et.al, 2011; Moise, et.al, 2011; Nixon, et.al, 2015;Krukowski, et.al, 2016; Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017; Signal, et.al, 2018; Tamir, et.al, 2018), to four stakeholder groupscould be identified, such as sweetened beverage industries (for example producers, supermarket chains and catering companies), society(for example consumers), government (for example policy makers, politicians and ministries) and public health experts (for examplehealth professionals and scientists).Lack of support from stakeholder groups was identified as a considerable barrier to policy adoption and implementation.Particularly, the resistance from the sweetened beverage industry was described as complicating a policy adoption and implementation.The lobbying on the sweetened beverage industry and the relationships between industry and politicians were disclosed in most studies.The sweetened beverage industry was considered possessing considerable political power. As illustration, a Health Ministry officer hasdisclosed that a legislative effort to impose tax on sugar-sweetened beverages systematically has been blocked (Moise, et.al, 2011).Tax policy on sweetened beverages will be effective if there is any trust in existing stakeholders. Nevertheless, some literature thatexplained distrust in three stakeholders such as industries, government, and public health experts were found. Distrust in industries wereidentified in some studies about public acceptance on tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (Krukowski, et.al, 2014; Nixon, et.al, 2015;Signal, et.al, 2018; Swift, et.al, 2018) which considered the activities of sweetened beverage industries were false as not care aboutsafety and health (Nixon, et.al, 2015).Distrust to the government tends to associate to a scepticism about the real purposes of the tax. There was a paradigm that felt thatthe tax was not really intended to improve health (Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017). Hereinafter, a distrust of the governmentwas reported in a study conducted by Tamir et.al (2018) who took Israel’s regulator and legislator cases by indicating that the Ministryof Finance would not utilise income earned for health purposes. On the other hand, distrust of public health experts was declared in astudy (Thomas-Meyer, Mytton, & Adams, 2017). The scepticism to public health experts associated with information trust aboutsweetened beverages and tax on sweetened beverages provided by public health experts.IV. CONCLUSIONThis article concludes that the tax policy model on the assessment of effectiveness, the eligibility, the economic benefits andsocioeconomics, up to the adoption and the policy implementations have an important implication to a successful implementation of taxon the sweetened beverages. It is necessary to utilise a revenue-raising approach for health initiatives instead of for general budgets,transparently communicate the real purpose of a tax, and political will as a solution to face the adoption challenges and the policyimplementations.V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThis research was conducted for academic requirement at Universities Indonesia, and the output of this research is for publicationat acrredited national journal. For the research process, researcher want to said thanks to Indonesia General of Taxation, Fiskal PolicyAssociation, etc, who facilitated the researchREFERENCES[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]Abdelaal, M., le Roux, C. W., & Docherty, N. G.
cardiovascular diseases, cancer and adverse dental health (Powel, et.al, 2021). The sweetened beverages consist of 90% of water . such as schools, supermarkets and some hospitals (Morena, 2009; Moira Smith, et.al, 2019). . Caribbean and some Latin American countries (dominantly in Centr
