Philadelphia soda tax

[RoyalShock]

I don't think it's any surprise Philly is and has been a lefty-controlled city for some time. They instituted a sweetened drink tax at the beginning of the year.

http://6abc.com/news/new-philly-beverage-tax-giving-shoppers-sticker-shock/1682844/

How about $1.92 in tax on a $1.77 gallon of sweet tea?

An extra $2+ on that 12-pack of soda.

Sports drinks, energy drinks, juices with less than 50% real juice. Even vegetable juices that have fruit added to them.

[jdshock]

[Dave Stalwart]

Yes, the "child sized" beverage on Parks and Rec :)

[Aargh]

I don't think it's any surprise Philly is and has been a lefty-controlled city for some time. They instituted a sweetened drink tax at the beginning of the year.

I don't understand how that's a left-wing tax. It's essentially a sales tax, which is considered a regressive tax and generally attributed to right-wing politicians.

Is it because taxing sugary drinks has a social issue? Since it apparently doesn't affect drinks with artificial sweeteners, it doesn't have free market implications. Manufacturers can use a sugar substitute.

Or is it because the monies collected are dedicated to a pre-K progeram, which is generally associated with left-wing politicians?

I don't see a reason to attribute that type of tax to either side of the political spectrum. If there's any lean to it, it would be a lean to the right because of the regressive nature of the tax.

[pinstripers]

I don't understand how that's a left-wing tax. It's essentially a sales tax, which is considered a regressive tax and generally attributed to right-wing politicians.

Is it because taxing sugary drinks has a social issue? Since it apparently doesn't affect drinks with artificial sweeteners, it doesn't have free market implications. Manufacturers can use a sugar substitute.

Or is it because the monies collected are dedicated to a pre-K progeram, which is generally associated with left-wing politicians?

I don't see a reason to attribute that type of tax to either side of the political spectrum. If there's any lean to it, it would be a lean to the right because of the regressive nature of the tax.

the left initiated the tax, and you think it's a right-wing tax?

[wufan]

I don't understand how that's a left-wing tax. It's essentially a sales tax, which is considered a regressive tax and generally attributed to right-wing politicians.

Is it because taxing sugary drinks has a social issue? Since it apparently doesn't affect drinks with artificial sweeteners, it doesn't have free market implications. Manufacturers can use a sugar substitute.

Or is it because the monies collected are dedicated to a pre-K progeram, which is generally associated with left-wing politicians?

I don't see a reason to attribute that type of tax to either side of the political spectrum. If there's any lean to it, it would be a lean to the right because of the regressive nature of the tax.

It's a tax against sugar, which is "unhealthy". That's a left wing tax. The right wing taxes alcohol, which makes people "sin". There's a difference...sorta.

What I'm saying is that each party has their pet projects. Philosophically, it's the same. Both taxes are attempting to curb a behavior, and in my view both taxes are a form of social engineering that I wish the government would stay out of.

[WuDrWu]

Clearly this is a tax that hits the poor hardest, just like sin taxes do. I love how the mayor claims the distributors don't have to pass it along....lol, like they're going to just eat it. That mayor is as stupid as @shaka khan, but not nearly as well connected.

They will both be claiming that the poor are unjustly and unfairly taxed, even though they're responsible for exactly this tax that hits the poor so hard.

[RoyalShock]

It's also NOT a sugar tax. Diet drinks that use artificial sweeteners are taxed, as well.

The measure was pushed by Philly's Democrat mayor and passed their council 13-4. The four "nays" were from the only three Republicans on the council, plus one Dem. The mayor originally wanted it to be 3 cents per ounce, twice the amount that passed.

Pretty much the only things that aren't taxed are pure water, unsweetened tea and coffee, and fruit juices with more than 50% juice.

Oh, and there is a tax credit to businesses that sell "healthy" drinks.

It's social engineering, which is very much a leftist pursuit.

[SHOCKvalue]

I'm so glad the left embraces liberty, and just wants to stay out of people's lives. I'd be terrified to see what they'd look like otherwise.

[Play Angry]

Just to play devil's advocate, what should be done about the droves of fats soaking up exponentially higher amounts of healthcare spending at all levels? Tiered subsidies depending on the level of fat ass-ness of that particular patient perhaps (i.e., your weight exceeds Wade Boggs' career batting average, only 40% of your diabetes and heart procedure costs are covered)?

250+ pound dudes and 175+ pound gals with little self-control make my FICA deductions higher than necessary, which is essentially a tax on me for their unhealthy eating. Cigarette and soda taxes, while highly regressive, at least generally nail the consumers soaking up resources as a direct result of their behavior. They also die sooner (albeit often at tremendous cost to government sponsored health care) so I guess there is some extremely minor offset for social security expenses.

I think the sugar tax is a bit dumb but this is a locally elected body implementing the decision, so I think they certainly have the right to give it a shot. If the constituencies are appalled by its implementation, those council members will get voted out and the move will be overturned by the future representatives.

[RoyalShock]

If this was really about health, it would extend to candy, chocolate, doughnuts, ice cream, potato chips and pretty much all junk foods.

It's a poorly disguised revenue program, only half of which is earmarked for "pre-K". The other half is going to employee benefits (code for "we can't afford the pension plans") and council member's pet projects.

[Play Angry]

I agree it's a revenue grab in this case, although the other prong is also certainly aimed at curbing consumer behavior which has been deemed unhealthy. It may not be primarily "health driven" (cough cough, give us your money for our budget shortfalls) but it's also far from unrelated to health concerns.

The discussion nobody wants to have on either side is that we all want liberty/freedom from interference/etc. but many of the same advocates for those freedoms all total wusses about confronting consumers (here, fats) about the ridiculous cost they impose on everybody else down the road b/c hurr durr, gotta have my big gulp and supersized everything but GOD DAMMIT I PAID INTO MEDICARE FOR YEARS (at pittance rates) SO HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY RIGHT TO EXTRACT NINE TIMES WHAT I PAID INTO IT JUST BECAUSE I WEIGH A BILLION POUNDS. KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OUTTA MY GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE!

We conservatives should be fit folks based on our views of personal responsibility but my life experience of spending all but 1 year residing in red or purple states doesn't really pass the eye test. What is the most efficient way to curb obesity? Is it through taxes at the lowest consumer levels? Is it by giving insurers greater freedom to differentiate rates based on weight and other factors? Obviously there is a massive public information campaign but the tide is far from turning and that will be a decades-long fight.

[im4wsu]

People in good health drink lots of soda and eat candy and drink alcohol (which turns to sugar). Lots of fit people eat butter (fat) and do not balloon to 300+ pounds. It is totally unfair to punish those who don't have a problem to try to fix a problem of those that have the problem when the only fix for those people is really themselves and their doctor.

[Play Angry]

Your approach of leaving it to the fats and their doctor does not work, and it costs everyone else money.

What should be done about it? Or are you a defender of limitless welfare in the form of healthcare spending for fat people at everyone else's expense? That would be a very liberal attitude.

[rrshock]

I'm afraid that we will start seeing taxes like this all over. It's just a money grab because politicians on both sides have no frickin clue how to spend within a budget and do what they should do.

This particular tax is a sin tax. They believe that people are "sinning" by drinking something that can make them fat. But they chose to include some actually healthy drinks in there as well. This particular group in Philly is showing just what the left wants to do. They want total government control of everything and they start with little things until it gets to where they say what kind of housing I can live in. Or where I have to keep my money.

This type of stuff just pisses me off.