How's the sugary drink tax working out? (Johnstown, Penn: home, taxi)

[ElusiveOne1]

It's funny...I told my mother hours ago that with the soda tax, we will be giving the government what they want (drinking less or no soda and other drinks they taxed.) However, we are not giving them what they want (money for preschools...or for whatever else) at the same time.

[Pennsport]

Originally Posted by ElusiveOne1

It's funny...I told my mother hours ago that with the soda tax, we will be giving the government what they want (drinking less or no soda and other drinks they taxed.) However, we are not giving them what they want (money for preschools...or for whatever else) at the same time.

I have a difficult time coming to grips with how you and others (i.e. Happy Rider) don't understand the following...

1. Let's say for the sake of argument that the entire Philadelphia school system received a nice round number of 100M in funding last year.
2. The beverage tax DID NOT EXIST LAST YEAR
3. Any money realized from the sugar beverage tax will supplement said 100M

Sooo... this is actually EXTRA funding regardless of the amount collected. Oh, and simultaneously, our city health costs should be reduced due to fewer cavities, cases of diabetes, etc...

I imagine you two are simply shills for big soda, but your arguments are really very weak. You should definitely come up with a better stance than what you've been presenting...

[HappyRider]

Originally Posted by Pennsport

I have a difficult time coming to grips with how you and others (i.e. Happy Rider) don't understand the following...

1. Let's say for the sake of argument that the entire Philadelphia school system received a nice round number of 100M in funding last year.
2. The beverage tax DID NOT EXIST LAST YEAR
3. Any money realized from the sugar beverage tax will supplement said 100M

Sooo... this is actually EXTRA funding regardless of the amount collected. Oh, and simultaneously, our city health costs should be reduced due to fewer cavities, cases of diabetes, etc...

I imagine you two are simply shills for big soda, but your arguments are really very weak. You should definitely come up with a better stance than what you've been presenting...

It is not a given that there is "EXTRA" money unless you fall for accounting gimmicks. Let's say there was a billion dollars in soda sales in Philly last year generating 80 million dollars in sales tax. The soda tax is introduced, and as everyone hopes it works just as designed, i.e. drives down the sale of sugary soda, let's say by half. Now you have 40 million dollars in sales tax. The additional soda tax does not generate new money and in fact may not even cover the shortfall. You'll be LOSING money.

Sales tax before soda tax: $80 million
Sales tax after soda tax: $70 million

Where is the "EXTRA" money here to go to the schools. Yes, you can give ALL that soda tax to the schools but you are taking away from others because the whole pie got smaller.

[Pennsport]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

It is not a given that there is "EXTRA" money unless you fall for accounting gimmicks. Let's say there was a billion dollars in soda sales in Philly last year generating 80 million dollars in sales tax. The soda tax is introduced, and as everyone hopes it works just as designed, i.e. drives down the sale of sugary soda, let's say by half. Now you have 40 million dollars in sales tax. The additional soda tax does not generate new money and in fact may not even cover the shortfall. You'll be LOSING money.

Sales tax before soda tax: $80 million
Sales tax after soda tax: $70 million

Where is the "EXTRA" money here to go to the schools. Yes, you can give ALL that soda tax to the schools but you are taking away from others because the whole pie got smaller.

There is zero chance this will result in anywhere near a 50% reduction in consumption. Have you even read up on the topic? Best independent estimates are modest reduction in consumption - around the singe digit percentage range... Sugar is much more addictive than alcohol and the absolutely incredible sin tax increases over the last 20 years has done nothing to stem sale of booze.

Bottom line is the sugar tax will almost 100% definitely generate a substantial amount of revenue for decades while hopefully serving as one more proof point reiterating the harm of ingesting excess sugar.

[thedirtypirate]

A Texas non profit is going to pay for the City's litigation fees for the next few months. Eat Sh#t Koch Brothers! Those fools spend so much money pushing their beliefs on people.

[HappyRider]

Originally Posted by Pennsport

There is zero chance this will result in anywhere near a 50% reduction in consumption. Have you even read up on the topic? Best independent estimates are modest reduction in consumption - around the singe digit percentage range... \

So once again you are pushing and pulling at the same time. In one breath claiming that the sugar tax is meant to reduce sugar consumption and in next breath celebrating that it won't. Only one of us could be right, so let's meet right here next year and look at the numbers. This aside, you are caught in an intellectually indefensible position. By refusing to buy sugary drinks, you are refusing to help the kids. There is not other way to look at it.

[Pine to Vine]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

Is this really the first thread on this? It's now national news. Anyway, I live in Montco so thankfully I don't have to deal with it.

For someone who doesn't have to deal with it, you sure are spending a lot of energy dealing with it.

[Pennsport]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

So once again you are pushing and pulling at the same time. In one breath claiming that the sugar tax is meant to reduce sugar consumption and in next breath celebrating that it won't. Only one of us could be right, so let's meet right here next year and look at the numbers. This aside, you are caught in an intellectually indefensible position. By refusing to buy sugary drinks, you are refusing to help the kids. There is not other way to look at it.

Correct, much like the sin tax, it's meant to do both. There are two goals at play - long-term and near-term. The ultimate goal is to reduce the incredibly harmful act of ingesting 40g of pure sugar in just a 12 ounce drink (that is unbelievable BTW). The near-term goal however is to make those who chose to partake in such risky and harmful behavior pay for their inevitable suck on society (i.e. diabetes, cavities, heart disease) by at least contributing to the public coffers. A pack of cigarettes is 11 dollars now. In 1994 they were less than 2 bucks. Between those times the child smoking rate has reduced substantially. The government isn't saying it's illegal to smoke, but they are phasing it out of the next generation due to cost. Hopefully the same thing happens with sugar water.

This is really a moot point though. Already 33 states have a sugar water tax; and as much as your employer hates to acknowledge this, the proven revenue generated from said tax has all other states, counties and cities incredibly interested. By 2020 we'll probably be adding sugar water to the "sin tax" category. Honestly, this where is should be classified.

Cheers,
A Water Drinker

[FKD19124]

well it seems to me the people all for this tax must be the same people who live in the more affluent areas of the city
and have enough money that the tax doesn't affect them.

[2e1m5a]

I bought a soda today for the first time since the tax and the price was the same: $0.99 small soda at Wendy's (don't judge-I had no time for lunch today LOL). Maybe fast food restaurants are different?