Seattle tax raises prices (Starbuck: insurance, homes, buy)

[mhays25]

I like the tax for both revenue and the disincentive to drink crap, but it's probably too high and it sounds like it's targeted at a set of drinks that should be adjusted.

Someone who has one pop per day will pay very little. It's only a burden when people drink stupid amounts.

[Rombus]

Originally Posted by mhays25

Someone who has one pop per day will pay very little. It's only a burden when people drink stupid amounts.

That's telling em!!!

A dollar here, a dollar there and soon Seattle will have solved the problem poor and low-income people. They will all have left for other places.

Next up will be the blue collar middle income folks.

The only real problem will be who will make the lattès all the affluent Seattle residents enjoy slurping.

[Returning2USA]

Originally Posted by RotseCherut

Of course, this typical move by liberal mommy government has really nothing to do with your health. If that was the case, they would have just taxed sugary beverages. Nope. THey are even taxing healthy beverages, including kombucha, stevia drinks and many others that actually help contribute to weight loss..

This is all about taxing the working class as much as they can while these liberal fascists laugh their way to the bank..

The poor get poorer, the liberal politicians get richer. But, it's ok, because they promise, "THEY LOVE THE POOR AND HATE THE RICH PEOPLE (excluding themselves)."

And they raised the tax on alcohol spirits after we voted to close state-run liquor stores and have the booze sold in super-markets.

It never ends. More $$$. Take more out of your pocket from any angle they can.

[Returning2USA]

Originally Posted by Rombus

The only real problem will be who will make the lattès all the affluent Seattle residents enjoy slurping.

And Starbucks has high calorie drinks with lots of sugar that are exempt from this tax.


White Hot Chocolate (590 Calories)

Strangely one of the highest calorie drinks on this list is also one of the most deceptively simple drinks on the Starbucks menu. At 590 calories, a Venti Starbucks White Hot Chocolate has more calories than some meals. The drink also has 15 g of saturated fats, or 75% of the recommended daily value.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/1284...rbucks.html#10

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Returning2USA

And Starbucks has high calorie drinks with lots of sugar that are exempt from this tax.


White Hot Chocolate (590 Calories)

Strangely one of the highest calorie drinks on this list is also one of the most deceptively simple drinks on the Starbucks menu. At 590 calories, a Venti Starbucks White Hot Chocolate has more calories than some meals. The drink also has 15 g of saturated fats, or 75% of the recommended daily value.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/1284...rbucks.html#10

Milk-based drinks are exempt. Hot Chocolate, Chocolate Milk, etc. The logic is that growing children need milk - taxing sugary milk-based drinks could cause some mothers to serve their kids Kool-Aid, which is exempt, because you add your own sugar. As to Fraps and Lattes, kids, who are the main focus of this tax, don't generally drink coffee.

[mhays25]

Originally Posted by Rombus

That's telling em!!!

A dollar here, a dollar there and soon Seattle will have solved the problem poor and low-income people. They will all have left for other places.

Next up will be the blue collar middle income folks.

The only real problem will be who will make the lattès all the affluent Seattle residents enjoy slurping.

A pop a day gets a pretty small tax.

Let me repeat: it's only a burden when people drink stupid amounts. Like the neckbeard in the basement who drinks five liters a day.

[Rombus]

Originally Posted by mhays25

A pop a day gets a pretty small tax.

Let me repeat: it's only a burden when people drink stupid amounts. Like the neckbeard in the basement who drinks five liters a day.

Any increase in costs is a burden on low income people. Why is that so hard to understand? It all adds up. Many people literally have just a few dollars left before payday. Pay the tax once a day and those few dollars are gone.

But like I said, soon Seattle won't have the problem as the poor and lower middle income people move to areas that are not hostile to them.

[thatguy950]

Originally Posted by Rombus

Any increase in costs is a burden on low income people. Why is that so hard to understand? It all adds up. Many people literally have just a few dollars left before payday. Pay the tax once a day and those few dollars are gone.

But like I said, soon Seattle won't have the problem as the poor and lower middle income people move to areas that are not hostile to them.

The same people ok with the nanny government deciding it’s ok to regulate these so-called burdens are also likely to throw a fit if the private sector companies, such as health insurance providers, took it upon themselves to charge them more for their lifestyle choices.

[CrazyDonkey]

Drinking sugary beverages is hardly a necessity - there are plenty of alternatives. Nor is reducing drinking them a hardship, if one doesn't want to pay the tax.

That some poor mothers might be feeding their children sugary beverages, instead of milk, because they are cheaper, that's hardly a reason to not tax them, since we'll all be paying the resulting costs for years to come. It is a reason to increase eligibiliy for WIC subsidies.

That doesn't mean the tax isn't too high.

[RotseCherut]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

Drinking sugary beverages is hardly a necessity - there are plenty of alternatives. Nor is reducing drinking them a hardship, if one doesn't want to pay the tax.

This guy agrees with you..


Let them keep taxing and banning everything they don't like.. He will fill in the void and make sure people get what they need a little bit cheaper, but , of course, don't even think about buying your purple soda from anybody else.. You know what I mean..