Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-15-2017, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
14,059 posts, read 8,928,321 times
Reputation: 10393

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2002 Subaru View Post
How about Dr. Witt's Polish multi-vitamin juice? I can only find it in Krakus Market in Port Richmond ... I hope it hasn't went from $1.99 a quart to $2.47.
Check the label.

If it's 100 percent juice (you'll find that stat above the Nutrition Facts label), there's no tax.

If the label contains the phrase "juice cocktail" or "juice drink" anywhere on it (usually in smaller type below the type of juice drink it is), it's not 100 percent juice and thus taxed.

Though based on the post above, it appears the city sets 50 percent as the threshold above which a juice drink is not taxed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2017, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
16,569 posts, read 15,201,502 times
Reputation: 14589
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post

Though based on the post above, it appears the city sets 50 percent as the threshold above which a juice drink is not taxed.
We are talking "sugar tax" here, not juice tax. A bottle of V8 has 72 grams, that's 7-2, of sugar and yet is not taxed. Who cares how much juice it has? Zero has zero sugar but IS taxed. Looks like this is not about sugar after all. It's a money grab.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2017, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Mid-Atlantic
32,846 posts, read 36,153,303 times
Reputation: 43630
Which V8? The Berry Blend has 16 grams per 8 ounce serving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2017, 04:40 AM
 
Location: Midwest
1,283 posts, read 2,219,761 times
Reputation: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider View Post
We are talking "sugar tax" here, not juice tax. A bottle of V8 has 72 grams, that's 7-2, of sugar and yet is not taxed. Who cares how much juice it has? Zero has zero sugar but IS taxed. Looks like this is not about sugar after all. It's a money grab.
It's about added sugar. It's not that difficult to figure out. Fruits have sugar in them, therefore any fruit juice will also have sugar in it.

Juice "blends" or "cocktails" made of only partially juice tend to have a lot of added sugar - which is taxed. And the city figured out a dividing line in terms of added/natural sugar at which point the tax kicks in - which makes sense, as there's no other way to do it. And the line would have to be drawn somewhere.

If you're going to be so opposed to the quite simple tax you'd best figure out what the tax is actually on.


It's a bad tax for all other kinds of reasons. For one, very few people believe it will accomplish what it's stated purpose is.

For two, it's a regressive tax. The progressive tax being illegal in the state of Pennsylvania - a problem in its own. Yet these taxes that Philadelphia has come up with fall disproportionately on lower income people, who even if they don't drink much sugar or smoke many cigarettes as a rich person, are proportionally paying a much greater amount of their income and/or assets on the tax. And generally looking through history, when the tax burdens shift from the rich to the poor, it's not a sign of great health for the governing society.

And three, the tax is just really out of proportion with the original cost of the item. For example, with large quantities of beverages being on sale or just cheap, it's possible for the tax of the item to be more expensive than the item itself. Which simply defies logic. And things that defy logic tend to not be great policy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2017, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Center City
7,528 posts, read 10,223,112 times
Reputation: 11018
Quote:
Originally Posted by FamousBlueRaincoat View Post
If you're going to be so opposed to the quite simple tax you'd best figure out what the tax is actually on.
That. And . . . the person most worked up about the whole affair lives in Montgomery County.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2017, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
14,059 posts, read 8,928,321 times
Reputation: 10393
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider View Post
We are talking "sugar tax" here, not juice tax. A bottle of V8 has 72 grams, that's 7-2, of sugar and yet is not taxed. Who cares how much juice it has? Zero has zero sugar but IS taxed. Looks like this is not about sugar after all. It's a money grab.
Follow the conversation, okay?

Someone upthread said they crossed the city line to buy some juice.

Pine to Vine responded, "Juices aren't taxed." (Which is correct.)

You then responded with a list of "juices" that aren't - they're either "juice cocktails" or "juice drinks," both of which are not pure juice and have added sweeteners.

We were trying to clarify what was (untaxed) juice and what wasn't.

The exchange makes clear that consumers use the term "juice" broadly to describe many products that have only a little juice in them, or even none.

And the tax started out as a 3-cents-per-ounce tax on beverages with sugar added to them. In order to pick up some more support on Council for it, the bill was altered to cut the tax in half but apply it to any beverage with added sweeteners, natural or artificial. Thus "diet" and "zero" drinks are now taxed because they have sweeteners added to them.

Any non-alcoholic beverage whose sugars all occur naturally is not taxed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2017, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
2,130 posts, read 1,450,836 times
Reputation: 2413
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
Follow the conversation, okay?

Someone upthread said they crossed the city line to buy some juice.

Pine to Vine responded, "Juices aren't taxed." (Which is correct.)

You then responded with a list of "juices" that aren't - they're either "juice cocktails" or "juice drinks," both of which are not pure juice and have added sweeteners.

We were trying to clarify what was (untaxed) juice and what wasn't.

The exchange makes clear that consumers use the term "juice" broadly to describe many products that have only a little juice in them, or even none.

And the tax started out as a 3-cents-per-ounce tax on beverages with sugar added to them. In order to pick up some more support on Council for it, the bill was altered to cut the tax in half but apply it to any beverage with added sweeteners, natural or artificial. Thus "diet" and "zero" drinks are now taxed because they have sweeteners added to them.

Any non-alcoholic beverage whose sugars all occur naturally is not taxed.
I guess I'm safe with my Polish vitamin juice ... I'll know for sure this weekend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2017, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
16,569 posts, read 15,201,502 times
Reputation: 14589
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
Follow the conversation, okay?

Someone upthread said they crossed the city line to buy some juice.

Pine to Vine responded, "Juices aren't taxed." (Which is correct.)

You then responded with a list of "juices" that aren't - they're either "juice cocktails" or "juice drinks," both of which are not pure juice and have added sweeteners.

We were trying to clarify what was (untaxed) juice and what wasn't.

The exchange makes clear that consumers use the term "juice" broadly to describe many products that have only a little juice in them, or even none.

And the tax started out as a 3-cents-per-ounce tax on beverages with sugar added to them. In order to pick up some more support on Council for it, the bill was altered to cut the tax in half but apply it to any beverage with added sweeteners, natural or artificial. Thus "diet" and "zero" drinks are now taxed because they have sweeteners added to them.

Any non-alcoholic beverage whose sugars all occur naturally is not taxed.
Thanks for the "clarification". Now follow this. Sugar causes diabetes. Tax "added sugar" but not "natural" sugar even though both are harmful regardless of where they come from. What does sweet and low or Splenda have to do with sugar? In fact, it was intended to replace sugar. Admit it. The whole scheme is a money grab, which will badly fail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2017, 12:47 AM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
14,059 posts, read 8,928,321 times
Reputation: 10393
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider View Post
Thanks for the "clarification". Now follow this. Sugar causes diabetes. Tax "added sugar" but not "natural" sugar even though both are harmful regardless of where they come from. What does sweet and low or Splenda have to do with sugar? In fact, it was intended to replace sugar. Admit it. The whole scheme is a money grab, which will badly fail.
Nothing I wrote either backs up or negates your opinion about the nature of the tax.

However, my short description of the bill's trajectory is accurate: the tax originally was not to have applied to artificially sweetened drinks.

IOW, it began as a bit of nanny-state public health promotion, like the taxes on cigarettes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2017, 06:32 AM
 
Location: Center City
7,528 posts, read 10,223,112 times
Reputation: 11018
^^^ From where I sat, the tax was promoted less on its health effects and more as a revenue source for one on Mayor Kenney's signature campaign planks: expansion of pre-k in poorer neighborhoods in our city. And in fact, new pre-k's opened up at the start of the year (ref: links on the first page of this thread). I have a feeling this tax wouldn't have had a chance if it were simply a money grab to fill city coffers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:56 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top