Philly's Soda Tax doubles price of products, Mayor claims it's price gouging.

[gigantalor]

So whats the final price? i dont get it.

Yeah, that's a tough one.

Lemme see if I can figure this one out....

0.99 + 1.01 = 2.00

 

[gigantalor]

Shouldn't the pro-soda-tax people (specifically, the mayor) be happy about this? (as it might deter people from drinking soda)

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

I would be more OK with soda taxes if they reduced or eliminated taxes on vegetables. I don't think improving people's health is really their goal though. I think the government officials were just looking for another revenue stream and thought there would be less public outcry taxing something unhealthy. I know that every time my state needs money they increase the tax on alcohol and cigarettes.

It looks like vegetables are tax exempt in PA. Not sure if there is a municipal sales tax?

Pennsylvania – grocery items are tax exempt, and in Pennsylvania, this includes candy and gum but not alcohol.

http://blog.taxjar.com/states-grocery-items-tax-exempt/

 

[Sycho Sid]

While I am all for sin tax on sugary stuff (as a fat bastard myself) it does not seem as if this law was particularly well written or implemented.

Also, how is that soda that is less than a dollar taxed at over a dollar? Aren't taxes supposed to be percentage based? Does that not just make it a fee then?

 

[oldshadow]

Let's see.

Legalize weed (drugsin general), the government has no fight to tell us what we can put in our bodies.

Tax soda people have no right to be fat by putting that shit in their body.

 

[kpt018]

In a more perfect scheme, we would have a system that gives health grades to the food we manufacture, and tax the manufacturer based on the grade. They will pass the tax on to the consumer.

The problem with trying to differentiate between things like environmental regulations, criminal laws, and business regulations, and trying to separate out vice tax attempts to influence our behavior is that lots of those laws are there to protect health. Something as obvious as homicide, or limits lead in gasoline, or laws that require a 40 hour work week, are there to protect health.

I agree that where we the draw the line is going to be rather arbitrary. Your line is arbitrary, Philly's line is arbitrary, my line would be arbitrary. Often, when a line is drawn it is arbitrary, and yet the situation demands that a line be drawn. That's what democracy is for. If we are going to have arbitrary lines, it is better than they are created by the will of the majority.

There's a big difference between choices I make that effect my body and those that could be imposed on me by others. I want a law that could prevent someone from sucker punching me or from keeping dangerous work environments, but I can decide if I want to drink a soda.

And I hear your last point. If most of society agreed that we needed a tax to keep people from drinking too much soda I would have to comply and I'd be ok with complying with laws I disagree with. I'd put up with it because the benefits of a liberal democracy outweigh the negatives (by a lot actually).

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

Let's see.

Legalize weed (drugsin general), the government has no fight to tell us what we can put in our bodies.

Tax soda people have no right to be fat by putting that shit in their body.

The error in that is that one issue is legalization, the other is taxation. Is anyone suggesting banning soda?
I'm all for taxing marijuana AND soda. Like I said, coming at it from the reality that municipal government needs funds to function, taxation of things like soda or marijuana is about the least egregious means I can think of. More so than increasing property taxes or blanket taxes on groceries.

 

[Rod1]

Let's see.

Legalize weed (drugsin general), the government has no fight to tell us what we can put in our bodies.

Tax soda people have no right to be fat by putting that shit in their body.

Yes, there is no difference between going to prison for years and paying 18 cents in taxes for a can of soda.

Completely the same, not an hyperbole at all.

 

[oldshadow]

The error in that is that one issue is legalization, the other is taxation. Is anyone suggesting banning soda?
I'm all for taxing marijuana AND soda. Like I said, coming at it from the reality that municipal government needs funds to function, taxation of things like soda or marijuana is about the least egregious means I can think of. More so than increasing property taxes or blanket taxes on groceries.

I agree they have a legal right to tax soda but I think it's stupid when there are some many other things that are bad for you.

 

[oldshadow]

Yes, there is no difference between going to prison for years and paying 18 cents in taxes for a can of soda.

Completely the same, not an hyperbole at all.

Thats was not the point.

The point was the government telling you what you can put in you body argument, not the penalty involved.

 

[Rod1]

Thats was not the point.

The point was the government telling you what you can put in you body argument, not the penalty involved.

Of course that was not the point, the point is trying to draw a completely inconsistent false analogy.

a 1 dollar tax on 2 liters of soda is not an unreasonable burden.

Being locked in jail and branded and losing several constitutional rights for life are indeed reasonable burderns to drugs.

In fact one of the biggest plus for pro-drug people are the amount of taxes raised from legal drugs and the amount of government spending saved from law enforcement.

 

[oldshadow]

Of course that was not the point, the point is trying to draw a completely inconsistent false analogy.

a 1 dollar tax on 2 liters of soda is not an unreasonable burden.

Being locked in jail and branded and losing several constitutional rights for life are indeed reasonable burderns to drugs.

In fact one of the biggest plus for pro-drug people are the amount of taxes raised from legal drugs and the amount of government spending saved from law enforcement.

The point is do you believe the government has a right to tell you what you can put in your body?

If yes they can tax it to discourage it or tthey could make it illegal.

 

[Gandhi]

What a fucking moron....

He's right of course. It's price gouging by the City, not the retailers.

So did he expect the stores would just eat the increase in price? The price of the products are the same. But he's angry because stores are showing the breakout of the Soda Tax and not just showing the total price.




***************************************************************
Mayor Jim Kenney, who proposed the soda tax and championed its passage through city council last year, told reporters on Tuesday it's not the new 1.5-cents-per-ounce tax that's making it more expensive to buy a can of Coke in Philly. No, according to the mayor, those higher prices are caused by city businesses price gouging their customers in order to stir up opposition to the tax.

"They're gouging their own customers," Kenney said, KYW News reports.


The new tax technically is applied at the wholesale level. That is, the city is charging a tax on the transaction that takes place when a business, like a sandwich shop or grocery store, purchases soda (or the syrup used to make soda in a fountain) from a distributor. In the mayor's mind, it seems, distributors and retailers are supposed to eat the cost of the tax and continue selling their products at the same price as before the tax went into effect.

In the real world, those sandwich shops and grocery stores, of course, are adjusting the retail price of sugary drinks to make up for the added cost imposed by the tax. Some of them have posted signs to inform customers why drink prices have skyrocketed.

Kenney doesn't like that. He called those efforts "wrong" and "misleading" and suggested that it could be an extension of the expensive fight put up by soda companies, retailers, and even the city's Teamsters Union in a failing effort to prevent the tax from passing in the first place.

"This is what they do," Kenney told KYW News. "And they'll continue to lose because their legal case is not sound and their public case is not sound."
******************************************************************

LOL - It's what "They" do. Who are you referring to when you say "They"? Jack-ass. You mean store and restaurant owners? Are they your "They"? "They" are evil assholes, am I right?

Yay! Let's fight obesity by making poor people pay more for products that they want. Just call it what it is jerky, it's a fucking money grab and it only hurts the middle and lower classes.

Let's check back in a year or two and see how that extra money is being spent.

The guy is a MORAN, taxes like this decrease demand by increasing price. He should own what he is doing.

 

[Rod1]

The point is do you believe the government has a right to tell you what you can put in your body?

If yes they can tax it to discourage it or tthey could make it illegal.

No, the government cant tell you what you put in your body, taxes are not unsurmountable burdens to putting soda in your body. Jail is.

Trying to draw a parallel between taxes and jail is not even worth the discussion is just dishonest attempt at trying to draw a false equivalency.

 

[panamaican]

It makes sense and of course the retailers are price gouging. At 1.5 cents per oz. some drinks are going to see massive increases in cost and some retailers are going to reduce their sales price to make the tax hit seem more significant (Buy it for $0.60, normally they sell for $0.80, but now they'll sell it for $0.65 and highlight the tax hit). It's gamesmanship on the retailer side - the specialized sales labels are a dead giveaway not to take them seriously.

That said, I just read that ~9% of SNAP spending is on sugarly drinks like soda (7% for everyone else...both high). That's nationally, not Philly specific.

So if this is true, we've been subsidizing the soda companies for years and I don't have a problem with using tax planning to: 1) take back some of that money; 2) reduce the long term health costs that result from people filling up on sugary drinks; and 3) applying that revenue to funding the school system.

I was more negative on the whole thing before I learned about the SNAP part of it.

 

[Burning Hammer]

Philly is a great city.

lol no

 

[panamaican]

lol no

Care to expand?

 

[Burning Hammer]

Care to expand?

The city is a dumpster. It's poorly kept up it has awful pockets of poverty the people have very loose morals and an even worse standard of ethics. I used to date a girl there are every time I noticed the general perception of it's people is shitty.

 

[ncordless]

There's a big difference between choices I make that effect my body and those that could be imposed on me by others. I want a law that could prevent someone from sucker punching me or from keeping dangerous work environments, but I can decide if I want to drink a soda.

And I hear your last point. If most of society agreed that we needed a tax to keep people from drinking too much soda I would have to comply and I'd be ok with complying with laws I disagree with. I'd put up with it because the benefits of a liberal democracy outweigh the negatives (by a lot actually).

Well, you can decide if you want to work at a place with dangerous work environments as well, and you can still decide whether you want a soda with a vice tax on it, But I get your point.

 

[gigantalor]

While I am all for sin tax on sugary stuff (as a fat bastard myself) it does not seem as if this law was particularly well written or implemented.

Also, how is that soda that is less than a dollar taxed at over a dollar? Aren't taxes supposed to be percentage based? Does that not just make it a fee then?

Percentages don't have to be less than 100.

Why can't it be 102% tax? (1.01 on 0.99)