Soda Tax Sticker Shock Grips Seattle

[Independent voter]

1.75 cents per OUNCE on sugary drinks, that's $10.34 tax on a $15.00 Case of Coke.

I know sugary drinks are bad for you but this is a little out of hand. Don't you risk creating a black market with taxes like these?




https://pjmedia.com/trending/soda-ta...grips-seattle/

On January 1, Seattle had several new progressive laws go into effect. Along with mandatory paid sick leave, mandates for employers to post work schedules 14 days in advance, and severe restrictions on short-term rental platforms (Airbnb, VRBO, etc.), Seattle imposed a massive new soda tax — 1.75 cents per OUNCE on sugary drinks.

In response, at least one major retailer advertised in detail the reason for the significant increase in prices.

Costco, famous for selling products in bulk quantities, faces especially stiff price increases. On the previously mentioned pallet of 35 bottles of Gatorade, a list price of $15.99 is taxed $10.34, with a total cost of $26.33. Signs all over the Seattle stores list the tax separately, and then have another sign offering solutions to the consumer:


This item is also available at our Tukwila and Shoreline locations without City of Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax. (Sweetened Beverage Recovery Fee)
Notice that they try to hide its true nature by calling it a fee instead of a tax. That is a common tactic among public officials looking to appear tough on tax increases.

This insane new tax fee applies to a wide range of beverages, as a stroll through Costco will demonstrate:


Two weeks in, and this issue still dominates social media — and for good reason. Sticker shock has gripped Seattle. Luckily, a solution presented itself right away, as Costco pointed out. Just head to the next town over to avoid the tax!

A plan so crazy it just might work.

Of course, don't ask Seattle City Council members about that. In fact, they held a press conference to make the simultaneous points that the new tax will generate $15 million in new revenue for the city, and the new tax will force people to consume fewer beverages that they consider unhealthy.

Yes, really:

“I’m just very excited,” said Jim Krieger, who is on the committee for Seattle Healthy Kids Coalition and is the executive director of Health Food America.
“The hope is consumption of the unhealthy product -- which causes heart disease, diabetes -- will go down, the sugary drinks to go down, and we fully expect that to be the case,” Krieger said.

The other purpose is tax dollars.

The $15 million Seattle expects to raise from the tax will go toward programs that will help people who are in need have better access to fresh fruits and vegetables. The money will also fund education programs. See the full breakdown provided at the end of the article.

But back at Costco, signs above each taxed sugary drink remind shoppers you can leave the city and buy the product without paying the tax.

And that’s what Villagran plans to do. “It’ll have to be Tukwila, the closest to me,” she said.

KIRO7 has talked with worried business owners, but City Council members say they’ve looked at data from other cities that have this tax.

“Do you have any concerns at all about this hurting local businesses and driving shoppers out of Seattle?” KIRO7’s Deedee Sun asked City Council members at the press conference on Friday.

“We did not see any data that really shored up the argument that this hurts local businesses,” said Lorena González, a Seattle City Council member.

“There’s not a lot of cross-border shopping. People realize it’s not worth my while,” Krieger said. One of his roles with the Seattle Healthy Kids Coalition is to follow the impact of the sugary drink taxes in other cities.

So they hope to curtail this unhealthy behavior, and when people still buy these drinks anyway, the tax revenue will help the city, and people aren't going to think about paying 40 less by driving a mile and a half outside of town to purchase a product they were going to buy anyway.

Got it?

When this hare-brained proposal was first floated last spring, it originally included coffee drinks that contained sugar, and also diet drinks — because not including them would be racist.

Yes, really:

The Seattle City Council approved a proposal by Mayor Ed Murray (D) to impose a new tax on sales of soda, coffee, and other beverages containing sugar and artificial sweeteners.
... Murray revised a previously announced soda tax to include “diet” drinks containing non-caloric artificial sweeteners, after city Councilmember Tim Burgess raised concerns about the regressive nature of soda taxes. Burgess cited research studies showing taxes levied on added-sugar drinks took more money from low-income earners and minority demographics than other classes.

“After Murray’s initial announcement, some suggested the exclusion of beverages with artificial sweeteners would be unfair because affluent white people tend to consume more diet drinks,” The Seattle Times reported ...

[...]

Because the tax includes non-soda drinks containing syrup or sweetener, customers at coffee shops such as Starbucks will be required to pay an additional tax of about 21 cents for every “tall” cup of espresso.

Eventually, the City Council left these beverages out of the final ordinance.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has made it his personal crusade to raise these taxes in municipalities all across the nation, funding campaigns in several major cities. Despite the high-minded objectives of forcing people to avoid risky behavior — to save them from themselves — most observers realize this move for what it is: nothing more than a dressed up revenue grab.

Chris Snowdon is director of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs in the UK. In an interview, he said:

Many politicians have given up the pretence that soda taxes are about anything other than raising revenue. France taxes diet drinks at the same rate as sugary drinks and Portugal plans to do likewise. Claims about health and obesity were only ever used to provide for cover for taxes that hit the poor. The ‘public health’ lobby have been the useful idiots for a political tax-grab.

These types of sin taxes have been tried in many cities across the US, with results mixed at best. Last year, Chicago repealed a smaller soda tax after an outcry from retailers. The Chicago Tribune summed up what most city residents suspected: "That penny-per-ounce soda tax had nothing to do with our health. It was only about the money." Albuquerque, N.M. also repealed its soda tax in 2017, and Philadelphia is reportedly considering doing away with its soda tax as well.

[Milchshake]

Dang I was expecting a Supertony thread. He was predicting the minimum wage laws would cripple the city.

Oh no, sugar addicts will be driven from the city!

Thankfully my pumpkin spice latte's will not be affected.

[SL1200]

We crushed that soda tax in Chicago. Follow suit Seattle. Leave the city to do your shopping. It worked.

[Daedius]

Saturate everything with sugar, an addictive substance, for decades... then slap a heavy tax after when obesity skyrocketed.

Genius.

[Stelio Kontos]

Boy am I glad I'm looking to buy my next property out on the Olympic Peninsula. Between over-reaching Seattle, and someone getting gunned down literally outside my apartment building, adding in the opioid junkie problem north of Seattle into Everett, parts of King and Snohomish counties have become expensive and/or general cess-pools.

[DarkAztaroth]

Don't people in the us have to pay for their own healthcare ? I don't see the use of that fee. Discouraging people ?

I could understand it here in canada where if you get obese and you cause problem you actually cost other people money.

[Crissi]

Just Seattle things. I'd just go buy soda out of city. Stock up on a months worth. 1.75 a ounce is a bit ridiculous

Which wouldn't be practical for poor people but it's not like Seattle cares about them that much. Because the health excuse is malarkey

[araine]

21 cent tax on a can of soda hardly strikes me as massive folks still pay 8 dollars for some soda at the ballgame 21 cent really is a microscopic cost increase that can be handled very easily

[Martymark]

The people who voted for the tax weren't the people who drink soda. Easy to vote for a brutal take on OTHER PEOPLE.

[infinit]

I wonder how the HAES community feels about this.

[Captain N]

21 cent tax on a can of soda hardly strikes me as massive folks still pay 8 dollars for some soda at the ballgame 21 cent really is a microscopic cost increase that can be handled very easily

It adds up though. We had a similar 1 cent per ounce tax, and it was chaotic. Some businesses were putting it on items that weren't supposed to have it and nobody knew exactly what was and was not supposed to be taxed at that point. So a majority of people did as Crissi mentioned and just bought the items outside of Cook County and eventually the tax was eliminated.

[McFuu]

Didn't Seattle's retarded mayor propose this tax as a tax on the rich, and everyone was screaming at him that working poor are the biggest consumers of bad food... Nice to see a politician who sticks to his guns even in the face of common sense.

[Celista]

Yeah it's excessive. Also I don't agree with simply taxing soda when there are a ton of foods that are equally bad for you, especially candy.

- - - Updated - - -

21 cent tax on a can of soda hardly strikes me as massive folks still pay 8 dollars for some soda at the ballgame 21 cent really is a microscopic cost increase that can be handled very easily

As stated in the OP when you're paying an additional $10 for a case of soda then yes in my opinion the tax is excessive.

[SL1200]

It adds up though. We had a similar 1 cent per ounce tax, and it was chaotic. Some businesses were putting it on items that weren't supposed to have it and nobody knew exactly what was and was not supposed to be taxed at that point. So a majority of people did as Crissi mentioned and just bought the items outside of Cook County and eventually the tax was eliminated.

Some business are still using the tax to rob their customers. Have to watch your receipts.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah it's excessive. Also I don't agree with simply taxing soda when there are a ton of foods that are equally bad for you, especially candy.

- - - Updated - - -


As stated in the OP when you're paying an additional $10 for a case of soda then yes in my opinion the tax is excessive.

When the tax is more than the price of the product. The tax is broken.

[Exeris]

This is really stupid, my country did this and Coca Cola and Red Bull etc just changed the ingredients to match the new regulations, congrats now you have fake soft drinks.

If they end up not tasting as good then it will be easier to reduce the drinking, the average human is pretty weak.

[rayden54]

1.75 cents per OUNCE on sugary drinks, that's $10.34 tax on a $15.00 Case of Coke.

How big's a case of Coke where you are? 1.75 cents per oz x 12 oz in a can x 24 cans in a case = $5.04

If they end up not tasting as good then it will be easier to reduce the drinking, the average human is pretty weak.

Tell that to all the people who drink Diet.

[Crissi]

If they end up not tasting as good then it will be easier to reduce the drinking, the average human is pretty weak.

They'll just switch to something just as sugary but not covered by the tax, like sugared coffee from Starbucks

Also, yeah diet cokes taste not as good yet they are still chugged

[Macaquerie]

Yeah it's excessive. Also I don't agree with simply taxing soda when there are a ton of foods that are equally bad for you, especially candy.

Taxes might not be the best solution to the problem, but soft drinks are probably the single biggest contributor to obesity. You can only eat so much junk food, but you can chug soda all day long, and that's exactly what lots of people do.

[Celista]

Taxes might not be the best solution to the problem, but soft drinks are probably the single biggest contributor to obesity. You can only eat so much junk food, but you can chug soda all day long, and that's exactly what lots of people do.

Just because it's a liquid doesn't mean it's not filling. Obesity is a complex issue, it's not just a sugar problem. Portion sizes and our overall more sedentary lives are major contributors.

[alzoron]

A few years ago there was a big push here to raise taxes on soda. The main argument the supporters of the bill used was that it would make it more burdensome for people on food assistance to buy unhealthy drinks. It stupidly ended up passing before anyone realized that eligible food items purchased with food assistance is exempt from having paying taxes on it.