How's the sugary drink tax working out? (lawsuit, groceries)

[2002 Subaru]

Originally Posted by phillies2011

Civility is overrated. Some of the dumbest, most racist, hateful idiots that I've met were plenty civil.

Some of the most naïve, boorish, foul, idiotic cretins I've met were 'open-minded' and 'tolerant.' Your point?


BTW, you have a much, much greater chance of getting hurt in a poor minority neighborhood than you do in a 'racist' white neighborhood full of hateful idiots.

[FKD19124]

It doesn't reduce consumption. The sugar tax is proving that people go elsewhere to but soda, cigarettes and have a drink.

It's all a money grab by the corrupt city. In ten years there will be another tax on something because they are misspending money.

Originally Posted by timeEd32

Agree, as should universal pre-k. This displays results from numerous studies on the benefits of pre-k: http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/s...-K_Matters.pdf

And sugary drinks can contribute to many health problems, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease and more.

Philly is ahead of the curve with this tax. Will it change the course of every child who ends up in the pre-k program? Obviously not, there are many other factors starting with home life, but it will help some.

I understand some people don't like the government getting involved, but with things like cigarettes and soda which are so obviously detrimental to health it seems like a no-brainer to me. If it reduces consumption then that's the best outcome as we end up with a healthier population and reduced care costs down the line (which at scale should be passed down -- or maybe will just make insurance companies richer ). If it doesn't then those who are hurting themselves need to pay more to do so and can provide a benefit to something else.

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by 2002 Subaru

I'd rather see tax dollars put to work in the schools in the form of classes that encourage civilized behavior (being considerate of others, taking responsibility for your own actions, being respectful of other's property, etc) and just basically how to function in normal society (teaching them about the dangers of credit cards, how to balance a checkbook, how making a child before your prepared can ruin your life, how not spend all your money on the latest trends and gadgets, etc).
Ingrain in them that they DO have a bright future if they put in the work.


What do you propose we do, as a society, to change the culture? Just sit back on the internet and applaud a soda tax that's mostly going into a slush fund?

I largely agree with this. Doing this during preschool is too early or maybe it needs to be focused on both in preschool and later in middle/high school. The challenge is that it's largely a parents/neighborhood issue. Without parental and neighborhood support, these classes will fall on deaf ears. Kids in tough neighborhoods succumb to peer pressure, poor or missing parental guidance, and dangerous streets. Not much that a class can solve.

Really, this is a larger issue with our education system, even for the "good schools." They don't teach practical, hands-on skills that are needed in life (e.g. how to save for retirement, how to fix basic things in your house, how to act respectfully in public).

[timeEd32]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

This thread has been going strong for 3 months, which is like 300 years in internet time, but I still don't know if we want more sugary drink sales to pay for ever more pre-k programs or low sugary drink sales to check obesity, diabetes, heart disease and more.

We don't want more sugary drink sales, but the tax isn't going to eliminate consumption so it's a balance.

It doesn't reduce consumption. The sugar tax is proving that people go elsewhere to but soda, cigarettes and have a drink.

Which is why this doesn't work as well on a local level, but there are still plenty of people buying these drinks within city limits and that's generating additional revenue for a good mission.

Obviously those of you who are against this for whatever reason aren't going to change your mind (which is fine) so I'm not sure there's much more to say here. The biggest problem with changes to education systems (whether it's pre-k, full day kindergarten, curriculum, etc.) or health related changes (cigarettes, sugar drinks, etc.) is it takes decades to properly evaluate the impact. In the meantime we can all continue to argue like jackasses on a message board.

[phillies2011]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

This thread has been going strong for 3 months, which is like 300 years in internet time, but I still don't know if we want more sugary drink sales to pay for ever more pre-k programs or low sugary drink sales to check obesity, diabetes, heart disease and more.

More sugary drink sales? WTF are you talking about? Literally no one ever said that. We're taxing the sales that are made, while also reducing the amount of sugary drink consumption. Both. Win-win. Consider yourself educated on a topic that you could have easily discerned yourself.

[2002 Subaru]

Originally Posted by phillies2011

More sugary drink sales? WTF are you talking about? Literally no one ever said that. We're taxing the sales that are made, while also reducing the amount of sugary drink consumption. Both. Win-win. Consider yourself educated on a topic that you could have easily discerned yourself.

'Win-win'? The naivete of the Left is so cute ... and their anger makes it that much better.


Like I said before "This tax is going to help society about as much as midnight basketball and Section 8 housing."

[HappyRider]

Originally Posted by phillies2011

More sugary drink sales? WTF are you talking about? Literally no one ever said that. We're taxing the sales that are made,

Lower sales, lower overall tax. How do you know you are making money unless you engage in accounting gimmicks by moving money around?

[phillies2011]

Originally Posted by HappyRider

Lower sales, lower overall tax. How do you know you are making money unless you engage in accounting gimmicks by moving money around?

Hmm. That's a real brain buster, but let me try to walk you through it.

A 2 litter of soda is taxed about One Dollar under the new tax. So in the entire city of Philadelphia you can imagine how many 2 litter bottles of soda are sold. But numbers that rise into the tens of thousands are probably a bit too complicated for you, so let's keep it simple.

So in the interest of keeping this simple, let's say prior to the tax starting, Philadelphians purchased ten 2 litter sodas each day. So if they implemented the tax and everyone kept buying the same amount of soda, then Philadelphia would get $10 a day from the purchase of 2 litters.

But some people aren't going to like the tax, so some go to DELCO to buy their soda and some just don't buy soda. Now only 5 Philadelphians buy a 2 litter soda each day. So sugary drink consumption has gone down... and yet Philadelphia still netted $5 that it didn't have before to fund valuable programs.

Now imagine this on a much larger scale and also affecting many beverages besides 2 litter soda bottles. That's how this tax will both make Philadelphia healthier by driving down sugary drink consumption, while also providing Philadelphia with a new revenue stream.

You know I'm sorry, I was so hard on you before. I thought you were being a wise guy. I didn't realize that you just couldn't understand simple mathematics concepts. Anyway, hope you enjoyed my lesson.

[2002 Subaru]

It's hard to take this 'lesson' seriously from somebody who can't spell 'litre' ... or shall I Americanize it for you and say 'liter?'

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by 2002 Subaru

It's hard to take a 'lesson' seriously from somebody who can't spell 'litre' ... or shall I Americanize it for you and say 'liter?'

One, you should Americanize it, for we're not using British spellings or terminology here. You want to use "litre," "tyre," "centre" and "colour," go back to England where you came from.

Two: the basic point is this: The sweetened-beverage tax brought in revenue of zero before it was enacted, and the city got two cents on the dollar for every dollar's worth of sweetened beverages sold. (Remember, the other six cents goes to Harrisburg.)

The beverage tax reduces sales by a certain percentage. The city loses two cents on the dollar on the dollar volume of beverages no longer purchased (with prices for sweetened beverages ranging from 50c to about $4, that's anywhere from one cent to eight cents per container not sold) but gains anywhere from 50 cents to $1.50 per bottle sold on the volumetric tax on the beverage containers still purchased.

Since that latter figure is larger than the former, it's a net revenue gain for the city.