And the cost of the bureaucracy to maintain and enforce this mandate is....?
12
Next time you look at a soda label, remember that there are 4g/1t. IF said beverage has 28g sugar, that is 7 teaspoons of sugar in one drink.
4 grams to one teaspoon.
One 8 0z Big Gulp has 82 grams of sugar.
That's 20 teaspoons of sugar in an 8 ounce drink.
Love your poor liver & pass soda by.
4 grams to one teaspoon.
One 8 0z Big Gulp has 82 grams of sugar.
That's 20 teaspoons of sugar in an 8 ounce drink.
Love your poor liver & pass soda by.
26
I wish I had a grocery in northern Maryland on the way to Philly. I'd have to add a stock clerk soon.
Liberals love to hike taxes but then. like Hillary, immediately find their own way around them. They'll be shopping in Maryland.
Liberals love to hike taxes but then. like Hillary, immediately find their own way around them. They'll be shopping in Maryland.
17
NYC! Are you listening? We are being bulldozed over by Philadelphia and we are considered the most progressive city in the USA. ( LA and San Francisco are pretty close too ). We should have listened to Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Perhaps then we would have in the forefront making healthy decisions for NYCers.
13
They are taxing diet drinks as well? Is there any scientific consensus on whether diet drinks are as bad (or bad at all) compared to sugary drinks?
6
A wonderful idea! A dollar tax for each bubble. Or at least one dollar for each gram of sugar. :-)
When I was a student, in a galaxy far far away, there was a milk machine in the basement of the dorm which dispensed both whole and chocolate milk,
Now we have super pasteurized milk which will last a few months without refrigeration. So the problem of storage is much simpler than it used to be.
But now you simply cannot find milk in these dispensing machines!
When I was a student, in a galaxy far far away, there was a milk machine in the basement of the dorm which dispensed both whole and chocolate milk,
Now we have super pasteurized milk which will last a few months without refrigeration. So the problem of storage is much simpler than it used to be.
But now you simply cannot find milk in these dispensing machines!
10
No one can pass a tax on banks or financial products, however, and you can be sure that particular revenue source will go untouched.
14
Here we go again: The big population northeastern states overspend themselves and then go looking for tax money just to balance their budgets.
When is it going to stop? Never. That is all the white and black old line politicians know in the way of a formula to keep their jobs.
HERE is where Don Trump ought to begin his march to the presidency. Here is where he ought to make a name for himself. Here is where he shows how he can get along with minorities (or can't). When he demonstrates all of these to The Colonel; then, and only then will Don be considered for higher office. - The Colonel
When is it going to stop? Never. That is all the white and black old line politicians know in the way of a formula to keep their jobs.
HERE is where Don Trump ought to begin his march to the presidency. Here is where he ought to make a name for himself. Here is where he shows how he can get along with minorities (or can't). When he demonstrates all of these to The Colonel; then, and only then will Don be considered for higher office. - The Colonel
9
Real question that isn't addressed. If the tax is aimed at sugar, what about those of us who drink diet (0 sugar) sodas?
19
What's next a toilet tax cause of the water wasted?
9
Tax and Spend?
6
Hooray!
We buy some sodas, we drink some sodas, teas, and so forth. We are HAPPY to pay a share of sin tax, on these beverages.
More funds for education and parks.
Drink less calories and go out for a walk in the park.
YES!
We buy some sodas, we drink some sodas, teas, and so forth. We are HAPPY to pay a share of sin tax, on these beverages.
More funds for education and parks.
Drink less calories and go out for a walk in the park.
YES!
28
Oh no...people don't understand that regular soda drinking people, many of them poor are now straddled with the extra $100.00 a year or so to pay. The corporate tax makes more sense. Money at the top helping the bottom, not poor people all ready strapped paying for our community improvements. UNINFORMED ELECTORATE, or corporate welfare is a better name. Shame!!!
11
How does increased taxes help anyone except the politicians. Are sugary drinks killing us? If they are then pass laws to raise the age limit like we did on cigarettes and alcohol. Raising taxes seems like their saying kill yourself as long as we get paid who cares. Then whats next? How about more taxes on wine, liquor, pizza, desserts, etc. Are all of those ok as well? Have any of you thats for more taxes ever added up your total tax bill? If our politicians where looking out for the greater good it would not be through taxation. Hopefully soon this country will wake-up. The middle class has all but been eliminated and wherever you are in society it is only going to get worse.
10
So we should let poor people do whatever they want to their bodies and then give them health care paid for by taxpayers to deal with the consequences? I am of the view that, if you live off of the taxpayers, the taxpayers should dictate to you how you live. If you want the right to drink soda with impunity that's fine with me. But by doing so you should give up the right for Medicare or Obamacare.
9
How does giving the state a financial incentive in high soda consumption a healthy choice?
15
Check out the lady on the right, holding her sign upside down. Seems that this bill is sponsored by the best and the brightest!
5
This is about paying the unfunded pensions that can never be paid in full of government workers in Philadelphia.
13
This is an elite liberal trifecta!
1. Feel superior to the unwashed masses.
2. But pretend to care about them at the same time.
3. Avoid any sacrifice yourself, making others pay for satisfying your ego.
Well done!
1. Feel superior to the unwashed masses.
2. But pretend to care about them at the same time.
3. Avoid any sacrifice yourself, making others pay for satisfying your ego.
Well done!
32
Has Warren Buffett started dumping his Coca Cola shares yet?
3
Low income people love soft drinks. So, just another way to soak the poor. Yeah, Liberalism!
18
I am a liberal.
This is a despicable tax. I am sick of people trying to control behavior through the tax system.
The founding fathers are crying.
This is a despicable tax. I am sick of people trying to control behavior through the tax system.
The founding fathers are crying.
36
I would prefer smaller serving sizes and dumping the corn syrup. Obesity rates were lower when soda sizes were 10- 12 oz and used cane sugar. No body needs a 20 oz serving of corn syrup!
11
why not tax the manufacturers and have the money go directly to healthcare?
5
If the intent is to tax sugar, then why no tax on sugar (and candy
and ice cream and cereals and...) ?
and ice cream and cereals and...) ?
22
Going to send my son to Philly to college this fall. Good for them to tax soda. It will help keep off the freshman fifteen, and his teeth in his head while he's not seeing a dentist regularly.
14
Another industry dented and soon broken by government greed. How much does government need? How much do they waste? And then there's corruption. Some of us are sick of paying for parasites.
9
Great, nobody learns... never tax an undesirable activity... you then become dependent of that undesirable activity. Learn from the tobacco tax... less people smoking now and revenue is way down so now they need to find something else to tax (E-cigs) to make up for the loss.
Never put yourself in a position to benefit from something bad.
Never put yourself in a position to benefit from something bad.
7
The Philadelphia City Council couldn't care less about the obesity rate among it's citizens. It's money, as usual. If it's motive was health, it wouldn't have carved out an exception that allows sugar-filled beverages with at least 50 percent juice to keep selling without the tax. Big Soda will just flog the sugar-filled "juice drinks" and keep the populace rife with obesity, diabetes, and all kinds of other chronic illnesses.
11
"Advocates Ask: Who’s Next?"
there is still tobacco, which is truly addictive and causes second hand smoke. taxes could be increased in philadelphia and elsewhere. our lungs are worth it.
but if you want to consider only beverages, then look at alcohol, which has a range of deleterious effects on individuals and societies, including drunk driving.
there is still tobacco, which is truly addictive and causes second hand smoke. taxes could be increased in philadelphia and elsewhere. our lungs are worth it.
but if you want to consider only beverages, then look at alcohol, which has a range of deleterious effects on individuals and societies, including drunk driving.
4
cigs and booze are already heavily taxed
7
As a Philadelphian, I offer congratulations to Mayor Kenney!! Now I won't have to have flacks calling my house trying to pretend this has something to do with food, or somehow hurts poor and working people, whose communities have the MOST to gain from universal Pre-K and refurbished rec centers. "Grocery tax," my @#@. More like a corn (death) syrup tax. Thanks also to Mayor Nutter for an earlier attempt to make this work!!
15
After reading many comments it becomes clear this is just a tax. The pols aren't solving a problem just raising taxes while standing behind the old "it's for the kids" , "it's for your benefit".
10
People are naive, at least in California. All of these new, creative taxes simply further underwrite the extreme wage and benefit packages paid to public employees. Our cities spend more and we get less.
14
The question is is $0.015 / oz a steep enough tax to change behavior?
My guess (and I'm sure there is research somewhere) is that the price elasticity of sugar is quite low. This means a high tax rate is needed to shift demand (induce substitution) from sugary drinks to non-sugary drinks.
Philly should have erred on the side of too large a tax rather than too low. If it doesn't work, we may be left without a true test of the impacts of taxation policy on substitution between sugary and non-sugary drinks.
My guess (and I'm sure there is research somewhere) is that the price elasticity of sugar is quite low. This means a high tax rate is needed to shift demand (induce substitution) from sugary drinks to non-sugary drinks.
Philly should have erred on the side of too large a tax rather than too low. If it doesn't work, we may be left without a true test of the impacts of taxation policy on substitution between sugary and non-sugary drinks.
2
It is about time. Compare to excise tax on alchoholic beverages. The state balances income need from taxes against reduced consumption taxes cause and the concern of less income. Let's not treat sugar water differently. Now let's stop allowing SNAP cover soda and treat soda the same as other killers, tobacco and alcohol.
9
I drink my share of soda and think a tax on it is just fine. We need revenue to pay for wars, student debt, health care and infrastructure. Where better to get it than from something that actually harms our health. In fact, I'd support a rating system in which all foods get a number based on how much it costs tax payers in the end (in health and non-productivity dollars). Maybe soda is a 5, along with Twinkies and candy bars. Broccoli would be a 1. The categories could be loose enough to allow for uncertainty. For example, we have just recently discovered that coffee is actually good for us. Maybe coffee is a 2 or 3.
10
About time---public policy that serves our nation's common good rather than serving the financial interests of the corporate and shareholder class to maximize profits. No surprise this legislative achievement comes from the Philadelphia City Council rather than our national government. A example of what can happen when K Street money--money from the 1% --- does not pervert Lincoln's "government of the people, by the people and for the people...."
10
According to the theory, if you tax something, you'll get less of it...
That's why 'we' tax wages and employment, no?
That's why 'we' tax wages and employment, no?
15
Using a base price of $2.00 for a 2 liter of Coke (Approx. 68 Oz), this equates to an effective sales tax rate of about 50%. The effective tax rate for a pack of cigarettes is 37.2% (only including the State of Pennsylvania cigarette tax, excluding Federal taxes).
Just a little context for people to think about
Just a little context for people to think about
10
In my area, a 2 liter bottle of soda often goes for as little as 99 cents at the grocery store, so the tax would effectively more than DOUBLE the cost. More than a 100% markup. Seeing that it's a city and not state tax, I'd just buy my groceries one town over. Currently I go from the Boston area to southern NH to buy smokes once a month. The savings make the journey WELL worthwhile.
Some people will quit soda, some will cut down, many will simply buy it elsewhere. The city, however, will NEVER see anywhere near 91 million per year from this.
Some people will quit soda, some will cut down, many will simply buy it elsewhere. The city, however, will NEVER see anywhere near 91 million per year from this.
10
Bravo for a win over corporate money and influence. I've become tired of the endless commercials positioning this as a 'grocery tax.' Philadelphia is a city that badly needs additional revenue and most sources aren't viable i.e. raise income or property taxes on the fast-disappearing middle class. Of course, it's also a city that's owed a tremendous amount of back property taxes by landlords; and if they tried to raise one nickel by tackling corporate taxes, you'd hear the screaming in CA. Yes, over time, it will reduce consumption- an incredibly positive side effect. And I say that as someone who drinks my daily Pepsi. Like other 'sin taxes,' it makes perfect sense to have soda- which is nothing more than a sugar-delivery system- bear some of the cost of soaring health problems while contributing some of that substantial corporate profit to the public good.
16
pat, any chance you think Philadelphia might have a spending problem?
13
Tax stupidity, starting with a poll tax. Anyone dumb enough to waste their time voting should be charged for the privilege. Sure, I know, poll taxes are illegal. So, what? Laws can be changed...
7
The argument that this tax is regressive is, to me, ridiculous. Soda should be viewed as akin to tobacco, not food. We are fine with taxing tobacco, which is also regressive. Soda has no nutritional value and leads to awful health consequences. Just as tobacco does.
39
Regressive? Tobacco and sugary drinks are both products of leisure (whether or not they are adverse to one's health) not tick marks to be passed on the progressive (whatever that means) agenda.
5
Far too many Americans choose to make the wrong choices in consuming foods and drinks which impact negatively on their health. Many of these same individuals are unwilling or unable to make health-conscious choices.
U.S. emergency rooms are filled with the morbidly obese, those with diabetes, hypertension, pulmonary and cardiac problems. In the end we all pay for millions of Americans who are uninformed and teaching their children to continue the harmful health decisions that will result in their becoming
chronic emergency room visitors.
U.S. emergency rooms are filled with the morbidly obese, those with diabetes, hypertension, pulmonary and cardiac problems. In the end we all pay for millions of Americans who are uninformed and teaching their children to continue the harmful health decisions that will result in their becoming
chronic emergency room visitors.
14
This tax applies to 0-calorie diet sodas as well. Its proponents frankly admit they are out to raise revenue, not change behavior.
19
If the city of Philadelphia need the money so badly, why don't they just get rid of some of the useless, parasitic, over paid, under worked parasitic bureaucrats that infest the government.
11
The 0-cal sodas are probably unhealthy as well, though, Jonathan, I would guess -- and two doctors have told me that artificial sweeteners are implicated in weight gain for some reason. I think Sanger-Katz's article "frankly" shows a dual purpose for the tax, though the behavior-change motive doesn't work and the motive of funding of desirable projects like pre-K-schools worked in Philly.
4
Great - Democrats have just passed another tax on poor people, who will now have a little bit less money to spend on vegetables and whole grains. Because anyone who believes that low income families will be drinking less soda as a result of this tax needs their bumps examined. Just look at those white bread yuppie moms in the picture, ecstatic with joy because they think they know what's best for poor people. I will take an utmost contempt of the liberal-leftist social engineering mentality to the grave with me. These people are not capable of rational thought.
37
Cigarettes (also linked to poor health) have been highly taxed for awhile, and they're consumed more heavily by lower socioeconomic groups too. Do you feel the same way about those taxes? And aren't you implying poor people have no ability to control their purchases? Isn't that condescending as well? If they have a little less money, why are they automatically buying fewer whole grains and vegetables? Won't they have free will?
6
If you have money to buy a soda, completely devoid of nutritional value, it is money you are taking away from healthy foods. So the argument that it will take even more money away from poor people is ridiculous. Nobody has to drink soda if they do not have the money to pay for it. It is not like milk or vitamins. If you do not have money to buy soda AND vegetables, do not buy soda.
9
Baloney
If ever there were an example of conspicuous consumption on a mass level, these products are it. Bereft of even a nanogram of nutritional value,addictive,and expensive to boot.
If ever there were an example of conspicuous consumption on a mass level, these products are it. Bereft of even a nanogram of nutritional value,addictive,and expensive to boot.
6
And just who will really pay this tax? Educated people, who have already cut down on soda? Oh.
19
Or poor people could, you know, just not drink soda.
8
People using SNAP via their EBT cards
The people who voted for this probably have never looked at the nutrition label on "healthy" apple juice. It has no vitamin C and roughly the same calorie content as soda.
The people who voted for this probably have never looked at the nutrition label on "healthy" apple juice. It has no vitamin C and roughly the same calorie content as soda.
8
exactly! we really need to have the soft drink providers pay the tax. they can afford it, and it's their responsibility. i can see future decades where we treat junk food like predatory lending.
2
Now, let's tax a high fat content food...cheesesteak.
No? Why not?
No? Why not?
18
Why not? Because sugar leads to far more health problems than fat. A diet rich in unsaturated fats leads to weight loss even when combined with saturated fats, provided one eliminates sugar and starches/breads (sugar). Eating fat does NOT make one fat, however, sugar has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
8
Tax it at 500% at once. The more cheese the more tax. If cheese whiz is not used, the restaurant is fined $1000.
4
Nutritionally:
The meat / milk industry funds fabricated studies to prove sugars are evil when diabetes is actually a fattened, over-cholesterol-d vein that sugars can't escape from--thereby trapping blood sugar into the vein. Ask an Asain if he'll stop eating rice any time soon; ask any middle eastern what they'd do without bread; ask Africans what life without barley, wheat, or millet is like. While you're at it, ask any diabetes patient if they got anywhere with medication, without having to take a host of others, you know, to make it "work." Starches have fueled human civilizations long before the advent of industrial animal farming could pretend to. If I had a choice between a diet coke and grass fed 100% organic beef flown in from sweden--I'd take it with ice. Wanna really promote health? Tax the Philly Cheese Steak that usually accompanies the soda, not the soda.
Legally:
Conservatives actually make some sense (surprise!) "They're taking our rights!" The right to eat whatever way you chose has been compromised, and an equal protection claim makes sense. But the SC also makes things up as they go, so if they apply a rational basis test predicated on the belief that sugary foods are the evil every bought-out study says, it'll pass. Wanna really promote health? You're better off revamping education programs in public schools about food choices.
Practically:
Tax the rich at the LOW amount you would've put on soda. Being rich isn't a fundamental right.
The meat / milk industry funds fabricated studies to prove sugars are evil when diabetes is actually a fattened, over-cholesterol-d vein that sugars can't escape from--thereby trapping blood sugar into the vein. Ask an Asain if he'll stop eating rice any time soon; ask any middle eastern what they'd do without bread; ask Africans what life without barley, wheat, or millet is like. While you're at it, ask any diabetes patient if they got anywhere with medication, without having to take a host of others, you know, to make it "work." Starches have fueled human civilizations long before the advent of industrial animal farming could pretend to. If I had a choice between a diet coke and grass fed 100% organic beef flown in from sweden--I'd take it with ice. Wanna really promote health? Tax the Philly Cheese Steak that usually accompanies the soda, not the soda.
Legally:
Conservatives actually make some sense (surprise!) "They're taking our rights!" The right to eat whatever way you chose has been compromised, and an equal protection claim makes sense. But the SC also makes things up as they go, so if they apply a rational basis test predicated on the belief that sugary foods are the evil every bought-out study says, it'll pass. Wanna really promote health? You're better off revamping education programs in public schools about food choices.
Practically:
Tax the rich at the LOW amount you would've put on soda. Being rich isn't a fundamental right.
6
Being rich isn't a fundamental right, but the pursuit of wealth is.
5
"diabetes is actually a fattened, over-cholesterol-d vein that sugars can't escape from--thereby trapping blood sugar into the vein." Why does the Times permit utter nonsense, factually incorrect, made-up statements like that to be published? Please go study the physiology and pathophysiology of diabetes before you make ridiculous statements like that.
10
It's too bad that Philadelphia didn't choose to combine the financial benefits with possible health ones.
Diet sodas are not very healthy but they are more so than the sugared ones. Unfortunately by taxing both equally, the city didn't choose to at least push people to replace sugared ones with the the diet ones.
A wasted opportunity to have some impact on public health.
Diet sodas are not very healthy but they are more so than the sugared ones. Unfortunately by taxing both equally, the city didn't choose to at least push people to replace sugared ones with the the diet ones.
A wasted opportunity to have some impact on public health.
6
As you say, diet sodas are not very healthy. So, just pushing consumers from sugared to artificially sweetened beverages would not be all that great. By taxing diet sodas, we have the benefit of moving higher up the income chain as those with higher incomes are more likely to drink diet sodas. Plus, juices and water are not taxed - moving people to those would be the best impact on public health.
4
No, Philadelphia absolutely did the right thing. To not tax both beverages equally might have encouraged people to consume poisonous diet beverages, which are even worse than soda (corn syrup water), and have been shown to have no purpose in reducing weight.
8
Actually, research on obesity found that diet soda will also lead to weight gain because the brain perceived the sweet taste as sugar and causes the body to release insulin...
4
There are no meaningful arguments for the nutritional value of sugary sodas. It is equally clear that overconsumption of these beverages can lead to obesity, diabetes, etc. So I don’t object to a governmental policy that seeks to discourage their purchase. But I am troubled by the unquestionably regressive nature of this tax; I suspect the tax will disproportionately affect poor and minority communities. Further, while the underlying public policy may be sound, the fact that this ordinance was enacted at the city council level with relatively little public debate bothers me. I would be much more convinced of its legitimacy if it had been voted in.
6
So do the tax on cigarettes, gas, property, ... ALL taxes will affect the poor more than the rich unless there is an exemption , like for income tax.
3
Why have a city council, which is elected by the people to represent them, if there must be a public debate on all policies?
1
And who benefits from universal pre-K and city rec centers and pools? Rich people with kids in private schools who would never set foot in a rec center? What's regressive about that? Join the movement to bring real food to the food deserts, not cheap corn syrup water. If you can't help, then get out of the way!!
2
As I listen to all the rhetoric about healthy food choices being available, guess what, they are. Simply do not serve soda a home as the beverage of choice. put a nice 1/2 pound juicy hamburger on the plate with a slice of tomato, reasonable portion of potato salad, and some slaw, or string beans. Then too there is always a good chicken leg to substitute for the burger. Give them toast lightly buttered with perhaps some cheese or an egg for breakfast, or cold cereal with milk, not the pop tarts or other such stuff. A good ham and cheese sandwich works well for lunch as does tuna. And yes a slice of pizza is not life threatening.
And take away the computers, iPhones, whatevers ,and get them outside.
And take away the computers, iPhones, whatevers ,and get them outside.
10
In many areas of Philly, "getting them outside" (I assume you mean children) means "getting them in the way of stray bullets". Many parents are afraid to let their children play outside, for good reason.
2
So the mayor wants to fund universal prekindergarten with taxes on sugary drinks while simultaneously driving down consumption of sugary drinks, thereby reducing tax revenue used to fund universal prekindergarten.
Does anyone else besides me think this is ultimately self-defeating? I'm sure the mayor will find a much more... comfortable... use for that revenue once they shut down the kiddie classes.
Does anyone else besides me think this is ultimately self-defeating? I'm sure the mayor will find a much more... comfortable... use for that revenue once they shut down the kiddie classes.
17
If it benefits young children to attend quality pre-kindergarden where they will be provided with stimulating activities, nutritious meals and timely health care, if it provides their parents access to good ideas and some relief from the daily frustrations of coping with low income and many responsibilities, I'm all for it.
I'll have a root beer float to celebrate!
I'll have a root beer float to celebrate!
2
Once upon a time, there was a Federal Excise Tax on all luxury goods, because it was a source of revenue from those able to pay the extra on goods that were beyond most people's price range.
I would strongly support any tax that discourages people from buying junk foods and useless drinks. Bottled water, for instance, is not a necessity except in communities where the water is unsafe (and there exist many in our civilized world.) Otherwise, it is a useless, expensive habit. I would definitely place an excise tax on any and all "food" items that are generally recognized as snacks with little nutritional value. In states where food is not taxed, there are, in fact, provisions for taxing "juice drinks" where "100% juice" is exempt from tax. All we need is the incentive to pass judgment on what we believe to be nutritious items, and which are not.
Quite possibly, we who have limited means will think twice over our choices to buy or not to buy what are deemed unnecessary to support good health.
I might stop eating the chocolate and the potato chips that make me fat!
I would strongly support any tax that discourages people from buying junk foods and useless drinks. Bottled water, for instance, is not a necessity except in communities where the water is unsafe (and there exist many in our civilized world.) Otherwise, it is a useless, expensive habit. I would definitely place an excise tax on any and all "food" items that are generally recognized as snacks with little nutritional value. In states where food is not taxed, there are, in fact, provisions for taxing "juice drinks" where "100% juice" is exempt from tax. All we need is the incentive to pass judgment on what we believe to be nutritious items, and which are not.
Quite possibly, we who have limited means will think twice over our choices to buy or not to buy what are deemed unnecessary to support good health.
I might stop eating the chocolate and the potato chips that make me fat!
3
Why not start by making healthier food choices less expensive or, in the case of families with food stamps, giving them more of a subsidy so they can buy the milk, the fresh fruit, the veggies for snacks? Then there is the small problem of all the ads pushing us to keep ourselves well hydrated with this or that sports drink, well nourished with a granola bar, keep energized with this high caffeine drink. The food industry is winning big in America because parents let them. One way to deal with this is not having sodas/ fruit drinks (not juice) in the house at all unless it's a special occasion. Then children won't pick up a taste for Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, Mountain Dew, Kool Aid or Gatorade, etc.
4
After years of cutting service and underfunding schools in Pennsylvania (under Corbett,) a desperate city passes a regressive tax instead of one that would be more progressive in nature (i.e. a tax on higher income earners.) It is a "nanny state" solution being justified by a popular program- universal pre-K. This can be, and probably will be, a slippery slope.
8
"San Francisco; Oakland, Calif.; and Boulder, Colo., are considering soft drink taxes this year."
Actually, San Francisco voted on the issue in 2014. The only reason it didn't pass is that the way the proposal was framed required a 2/3 vote. The measure received 55%, which wasn't enough. The Berkeley proposal required only a majority, and received 75%.
So when San Francisco changes the proposal to not require that the revenue go to particular programs (in this case, physical education and nutrition programs for children), only a majority is needed, and it too will have a soda tax.
Actually, San Francisco voted on the issue in 2014. The only reason it didn't pass is that the way the proposal was framed required a 2/3 vote. The measure received 55%, which wasn't enough. The Berkeley proposal required only a majority, and received 75%.
So when San Francisco changes the proposal to not require that the revenue go to particular programs (in this case, physical education and nutrition programs for children), only a majority is needed, and it too will have a soda tax.
3
Since there is a political freeze on raising income and property taxes, where will the money come from to do the things people depend on and expect our governments to do? Governments do need more revenue just like individuals need more income, just to keep up with the rising costs of everything. A dollar in taxes today doesn't buy what it bought ten years ago. New, targeted taxes is a good way to do that IF the revenue is dedicated to agreed-upon purposes and not just thrown in the revenue pot and drawn down for anything and everything in the state budget. Dedicate to education, or infrastructure repairs, job training, or weather-related emergencies, whatever is the will of the people. People can choose not to pay taxes on certain discretionary items, like soft drinks, by not buying those items. I myself prefer a general luxury tax on any consumer goods that people can live without, like jewelry, cosmetics, sporting goods, video entertainment, home decor, on up to jetskis, RVs, yachts and private jets.
2
Don't want to pay the tax? Don't buy the stuff - it isn't good for you anyway. Your choice.
47
How about people don't have children they can't afford? That way we don't have to worry about funding pre-K.
6
OR....go outside of the Philly city limits, to the suburbs and buy your soda there.
4
"Don't want to pay the tax?"
Just go out of the city to buy it or even better just drive down to Delaware where there is NO sales tax whatsoever.
Just go out of the city to buy it or even better just drive down to Delaware where there is NO sales tax whatsoever.
4
I guess we always knew that liberal ignorance was alive and festering in Philly. Shades of Bloomberg and the soda police, we'll likely see black market soda being sold in the alley.
11
That would be hysterical! Got to love a soda addiction so great it needs a black market. Sick!
1
Raise taxes on rich people. Leave the rest of us alone!
7
Word! Rich people are different; off-shore accounts and they teach our middle class and ghetto types how to appreciate designer duds and how to sound like em besides its bad for business if we make corporations and the swells pay their fair share.
Good start. Add fruit juices, baked goods (i cannot believe the cakes/breads/pies etc. I see people in my grocery buying as a matter of routine shopping, let alone all the processed/package sugary cookies and junk), candy and fast food next.
Obesity and diabetes cost all of us. If smokers could be taxed out of existence then hopefully junk food addicts can be prodded via the tab at the cash register to mend their ways.
Obesity and diabetes cost all of us. If smokers could be taxed out of existence then hopefully junk food addicts can be prodded via the tab at the cash register to mend their ways.
8
Smokers actually save the system money because they die sooner and don't need nursing home beds
3
The industry claims the tax is discriminatory...we women, 52% of the population feel your pain when we pay a "luxury" tax on tampons.
10
I'm trying to remember the last time my doctor reminded me to drink more soda. Ah...yes, it was right after he suggested I take up smoking.
18
Perhaps, in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party, there should be a Philadelphia Soda Party.
7
At first they came for soda, but I didn't drink soda, so I did nothing.
And then they came for pizza, but I only had flatbread, so I did nothing.
And then they came for my Melba toast.
And then they came for pizza, but I only had flatbread, so I did nothing.
And then they came for my Melba toast.
51
"Daniel Grace, the secretary and treasurer of the local Teamster’s local, said advocates had 'snookered City Council,' and described the tax as a 'brazen cash grab from one industry.'"
Well, we can't have any "snookerin'" going on, now can we?
Well, we can't have any "snookerin'" going on, now can we?
1
I think such "product-specific" taxes raise a whole bunch of equity issues, especially if divorced from health reasons and proposed as a general revenue.
4
Will we ever find out where the extra revenue will go?
(I am not against this tax, only wondering ...)
(I am not against this tax, only wondering ...)
6
Good for Philadelphia! However they passed it, this is long overdue to discourage consumption of poisonous, sugar laden sodas. This industry is ever so quietly experimenting with lower sugar products, because consumers are better informed of the disastrous health consequences of consuming this junk. I should know. We hardly drank water in my house growing up. Big bottles of pop all the time and I have the health consequences in later life to show for it.
4
Except that it also applies to artificially sweetened drinks it will do little to reduce consumption of ones with sugar.
1
My diabetic dad used to keep a container of soda in his car in case of needing a dose of quick sugar for insulin imbalance. Sugars aren't always evil.
4
Sugar is the greatest chemical on earth, the source of all life, the fuel of mitochondria in every living thing from bacteria to humans. Praise be to sugar.
5
Fun and funny. While the public is duped into thinking the tax is in the interest of "kids," it's just another way of collecting taxes for a bloated government. Why not tax people according to their BMI (body mass Index) instead of the foods we consume. We are governed by educated idiots.
26
Giving government MORE money is like giving an alcoholic a bottle of booze.
The money will be spent, there will be no measurable results, and the city will blame Americans and ask for MORE money.
The money will be spent, there will be no measurable results, and the city will blame Americans and ask for MORE money.
28
Spot on!!
There are apparently few if any limits on what gov can tax. Is this what you want?
Think for yourself?
Think for yourself?
25
Fat tax is next..we need more skinny people!
1
Place a 50 cent consumption tax on all fast food chains in NYC. Start at fifty cents and in one year make it a dollar. Fast food is making a large percentage of our population obese, and to help pay for the sot of the medical care for poor obese individuals place a tax ion the consumption of junk food, until we at least break even . Dunking Donuts, McDonalds, Burger King, Nathan's end up causing obesity throughout NYC. It is time for these retail outlets to pay their share of our subsidized health care system or we will go broke. If fifty cents works, that is high enough, but if we need more raise it to a dollar. Enough is enough with all the crap that is served at these places. Poor children are brought to these places and they get obese for their parents are either unaware of the consequences of the food, or just want to spoil their children. It is time to charge individuals and families for continually consuming food that is not healthy for them for society has to many expenses after these individuals get sick from obesity, and or heart disease.
9
Individual rights to liberty and property are trampled so casually these days, this is further evidence that we have entered a post-Republic phase of US history -- which is not something to cheer about, no matter how unhealthy sugar drinks are.
12
Would you care to explain how this law tramples on your rights to liberty and property? Nowhere in this law is your liberty to buy or keep soda in your home stopped.
3
I don't know with certainty, but I strongly suspect that soda taxes will prove to be regressive. What a brilliant idea! Tax the poor because they don't have the wherewithal to fight back. BTW, I also suspect the tax will not apply to "healthy" sugary drinks such as orange and apple juices.
38
Orange juice is an agriculture commodity and listed on the Exchange; not sure if apple juice has been placed under that umbrella, as yet.
1
Fruit juices with at least 50% juice are exempt.
1
Yes, it's so enlightened to help the poor children of Philadelphia to cheaply obtain sugar water. A sound option given how incredibly hard it is to 'tax the rich' instead.
1
Thank you, Mayor Kenney and City Council!
Though I know there has to be some caution about overstepping, I love this approach to taxation. I know that having too much in the way of sugary beverages is not good for me, and I know that pre-k is fantastic for kids, families and communities.
In contrast to lottery-type programs, this is a smart tax, promoting a healthier Philadelphia. A proud day for Philadelphia.
Though I know there has to be some caution about overstepping, I love this approach to taxation. I know that having too much in the way of sugary beverages is not good for me, and I know that pre-k is fantastic for kids, families and communities.
In contrast to lottery-type programs, this is a smart tax, promoting a healthier Philadelphia. A proud day for Philadelphia.
79
Wow.. It is amazing that people need Government to help them parent and/or give themselves some willpower on an issue. I have 3 boys, young men now, and we/they drank soda/sugary drinks as a treat. Why because I taught them and showed them what happens to you body if you do not take care of it. When friends or family became diabetic or died from life style choices I was honest with them. They seen family members have to deal with insulin shots, losing toes, blindness all due to what and how much they ate. Proud not to be a sheep...
6
The Navajo Nation passed the Healthy Diné Nation Act last year - including a tax on soda and junk food, and eliminating sales tax on fresh fruits and vegetables.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/navajo-nation-will-have-first-j...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/navajo-nation-will-have-first-j...
36
I can pretty much guarantee that this tax increase will not result in one extra ounce of Philadelphia fat being lost, but I guess you have to try something.
18
Nanny taxes are sickening.
30
Get over it. Every tax dollar that goes to our bloated military machine enrages me much more than this. Since business will leave the country before paying a realistic effective tax rate; and middle class jobs (and therefore, tax contributions) are shrinking, this is what a city has to resort to in order to provide education. And preschool for all is a very sound investment.
5
Yet still nowhere near as sickening as the toxicity in sugar-filled soft drinks.
2
It's nice to see the People win against Big Soda.
38
A brazen cash grab from one industry? How much salary & bonuses did this industry's so-called leaders make last year - for making people sick.
Merchants of death.
Merchants of death.
18
Good news! Stop the insanity of brainwashing our kids to eat high calorie foods and drinks. The unfettered all knowing "market" does not care if they feed you unhealthy foods and you die young ... the market only cares you buy their unhealthy stuff even if it is scientifically tailored to be delicious.
The market does respond to price. So lets talk about taxing things that kill 30,000 of us per year ... like bullets.
The market does respond to price. So lets talk about taxing things that kill 30,000 of us per year ... like bullets.
38
Micromanaging the public's food choices by using targeted taxes is unlikely to improve public heath one iota. It also hands conservatives a powerful political argument. In this year of They'll be thrilled to point out the liberal tendency to embrace the "nanny-state" micromanagement of our private lives. Congrats Philly liberals, you've just given republicans something to talk about other than Donald Trump. Food selection is among our most personal of choices. Increasing funding for youth recreation and health education are solutions that most of the wider public can agree on. Directly prescribing the amount of sugar we use when cooking our meals via taxation is an insulting affront to personal freedom. If we don't want government telling us if and how to pray or who and how to love, we certainly don't want it telling us what to eat. Eventually this tax will either be repealed or struck down. It will eventually be shown to have been a valueless exercise in futility. As was the Bloomberg soda tax debacle, this is also a colossal political blunder. Potential legal challenges may even eventually cause it to cost more that it ever takes in. There is one simple reason that Philly is only the second city to do this. The voting majority doesn't want or accept it for the reasons outlined above. Even liberal New York rejected the premise on it's face.
21
I don't mind paying a few extra cents for a bottle of soda if it will help fund Pre-K education in Philadelphia. It is a shame that austerity budget cuts have made this strategy a necessity. All across the country state coffers are being bled dry while tea party legislatures cut basic services to the bone. Harrisburg is no different. States will increasingly have to devise creative ways of keeping their heads above water if their tax revenues continue to be kicked back to the 1%. I would rather pay a few cents more for a bottle of soda than live in Flint Michigan
61
Check the amount of tax revenues that are immediately diverted to pay bloated labor, healthcare and pension costs for municipal employees in cities like Philly, Chicago, NY, SF, LA...Philly has a $6B pension hole due to chronic mismanagement and labor giveaways from elected officials over the last few decades.
PLENTY of waste in the current expense line of the budget to fund pre-K. This is simply just another cash grab to dump into a black hole of municipal spending, dressed up as a "healthy intitiative" to make the sheep feel good about themselves.
Just keep the merry-go-round spinning until the bills really come due; there's a good chance these politicians will be retired or dead by then.
PLENTY of waste in the current expense line of the budget to fund pre-K. This is simply just another cash grab to dump into a black hole of municipal spending, dressed up as a "healthy intitiative" to make the sheep feel good about themselves.
Just keep the merry-go-round spinning until the bills really come due; there's a good chance these politicians will be retired or dead by then.
6
“The fact remains that these taxes are discriminatory and highly unpopular, not only with Philadelphians, but with all Americans,” said Lauren Kane, a spokeswoman for the group, in a statement.
I wonder how much Ms. Kane gets paid to promote an addictive product that causes diabetes, obesity and heart disease.
I wonder how much Ms. Kane gets paid to promote an addictive product that causes diabetes, obesity and heart disease.
95
I'm all for this. Many cities need more revenue from reliable sources, as cigarette sales have declined. Sugared drinks are a good one. The side effect of possibly cutting sugar intake is a beneficial side-effect.
57
Soda taxes, like most sales taxes, are demographically regressive taxes, so using them for fund public programs seems ill conceived to say the least.
The health reasons are equally dubious; singling out one specific element of a multifaceted systemic problem, and claiming you're doing something truly helpful to the overall problem by taxing it, is rather absurd.
The health reasons are equally dubious; singling out one specific element of a multifaceted systemic problem, and claiming you're doing something truly helpful to the overall problem by taxing it, is rather absurd.
25
Why not a tax on bottled water!? It is a useless and wasteful way to package something that could more efficiently be imbibed through home drinking water. Also does the tax apply to diet soft drinks?
This tax is illustrative of two of the Left's worst traits. 1. The desire to create a nanny state. 2. The insatiable desire for higher taxes.
JD.
This tax is illustrative of two of the Left's worst traits. 1. The desire to create a nanny state. 2. The insatiable desire for higher taxes.
JD.
36
I'd love to see a tax on bottled water as a way to slow the flow of plastic.
84
JD. Good suggestion. Bottled water in most places (not Flint) is a major source of plastic rubbish, yet popular enough to be a good source of revenue.
19
Yeah, when we need water to drink, we can just put it into ...
Instead, we can drink the tap water from lead pipes.
Instead, we can drink the tap water from lead pipes.
1
Great victory for the American consumers. Over the years, there is almost like a conspired effort by the food industry to get us as obese as possible while the healthcare industry is trying to get us to pay more and more for everything. This deadly combination has costed the Americans trillions of dollars and many lives lost. This ray of sunshine from Philadelphia, hopefully, is a turning point in this fight against these massive industries that are killing us in every which way.
91
then why tax zero calorie diet soda?
10
Maybe there are other stuff in it that will kill you?
The poorest consumers will be bearing the brunt of this tax just as they bear the brunt of the ill effects of oppressive contrivances of government.
Paying $.24 in taxes for a 16 oz. bottle of soda is regressive and isn't worth the trade off of inefficiently taxing the poor to give to kindergartners.
The food industry provides products consumers want, and have no reason to want us to be obese, as you contend. It is also illogical to attempt to make your point by saying that the food industry is trying to "get us to pay more and more for everything," while at the same time ignoring the fact that this tax will make soft drinks more expensive.
Paying $.24 in taxes for a 16 oz. bottle of soda is regressive and isn't worth the trade off of inefficiently taxing the poor to give to kindergartners.
The food industry provides products consumers want, and have no reason to want us to be obese, as you contend. It is also illogical to attempt to make your point by saying that the food industry is trying to "get us to pay more and more for everything," while at the same time ignoring the fact that this tax will make soft drinks more expensive.
1
I've read that some of this tax revenue is going to be used to pay some city expenses. I'd like to see how much it goes to the children versus city expenses after it's has been in force for three years.
I think we've seen this scam before only it used the school system as the recipient. It's called the Lottery.
I think we've seen this scam before only it used the school system as the recipient. It's called the Lottery.
42
What happened with the Lottery in my state (and probably yours) is that the money going to the schools is CUT from the budget, so the schools ended up with THE SAME MONEY.....and the taxes that would otherwise have gone to schools goes for pork barrel stuff.
It is a crushing failure, and now instead of healthy schools, we have lousy schools and a Lottery that is "stupidity tax" on the poor.
It is a crushing failure, and now instead of healthy schools, we have lousy schools and a Lottery that is "stupidity tax" on the poor.
3
The public is stoopet. Let's take their money away from them.
Dems
Dems
1
I think a tax on internet is warranted. Let's get the overweight kids away from the computer and outside!
20
Uh, that assumes you live in a neighborhood where your kids can safely go outside. Computers are the same as laying around watching TV. Same expenditure of calories and exercise. When I grew up we were out all day and came in at dark, with the parents not necessarily knowing where we were and what we were doing. What parents could consciously do that today?
7