General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPhiladelphia Is 1st Major American City With Soda Tax
Source: Associated Press
By NATALIE POMPILIO, ASSOCIATED PRESS PHILADELPHIA Jun 16, 2016, 8:45 PM ET
Philadelphia became the first major American city with a soda tax on Thursday despite a multimillion-dollar campaign by the beverage industry to block it.
The City Council gave final approval to a 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax on sugary and diet beverages. The tax is set to take effect Jan. 1.
Only Berkeley, California, has a similar law. Soda tax proposals have failed in more than 30 cities and states in recent years, including twice in Philadelphia. Such plans are typically criticized as disproportionately affecting the poor, who are more likely to consume sugary drinks.
Democratic Mayor Jim Kenney sold the council on the idea with a plan to spend most of the estimated $90 million in new tax revenue next year to pay for prekindergarten, community schools and recreation centers.
"Thanks to the tireless advocacy of educators, parents, rec center volunteers and so many others, Philadelphia made a historic investment in our neighborhoods and in our education system today," he said.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/philadelphia-set-soda-tax-industry-opposition-39909390
GP6971
(31,286 posts)but for good causes
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It will be like the lottery, the offsetting money will go back to the general fund
GP6971
(31,286 posts)More money to be squandered
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)This is mainly a tax hike on the poor.
MH1
(17,635 posts)I don't like the supposed effect on the poor, but I really wish it was easier for them to have and make better choices. Part of the complex fabric of the problem is the "food desert" issue. So a lot of people are already paying far more for actual groceries, not to mention soda, than they should be. Then there's also the issue of water quality in their homes. Not likely they can afford a Brita filter on their faucet. (Although it would be cheaper to use Brita filters and drink cold, decent-tasting water, than to drink soda. BEFORE this new tax.)
The one thing that's making me happy that this passed is the egg on the face of the "no grocery tax" nonsense yahoos. I got so tired of hearing those ads. Those DISHONEST ads. They thought they couldn't win the argument honestly. Maybe they couldn't, but maybe they could have if they tried. They didn't even try. So they went with dishonesty and lost anyway. Eff them. Frankly these people are like the cigarette makers, trying to push their poison on the vulnerable any way they can.
ram2008
(1,238 posts)Obesity overwhelmingly affects poorer individuals. Soda is terrible for you and no one should be drinking it.
Hopefully this accomplishes a few things: makes people eat healthier, raises revenue, and lowers obesity.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"This is mainly a tax hike on the poor."
What is the objective, peer-reviewed source of your statement?
The CDC's breakdown of demographics is limited to three groups:
Men typically drink more soft drinks than women on daily basis.
Teens and young adults consume more soft drinks than any other age groups.
Caucasians typically drink more soft drinks than other racial demographics.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)It's sexist
ageist
and racist
scscholar
(2,902 posts)MH1
(17,635 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)So the justification for this tax is that soda contributes to high childhood obesity rates...but they include taxing diet soda? What part of zero calories contributes to childhood obesity?
Freddie
(9,283 posts)Kinda removed the justification for the tax.
Pretty sure that part was a compromise, the original proposal was .03/ounce on sugared drinks only.
I got mighty sick of those misleading "no grocery tax" ads too.
I foresee suburban supermarkets doing a booming business in soft drinks, since the tax is only within city limits.
Igel
(35,393 posts)(a) Any non-alcoholic beverage that lists as an ingredient:
(.1) any form of caloric sugar-based sweetener, including, but not
limited to, sucrose, glucose or high fructose corn syrup; or
(.2) any form of artificial sugar substitute, including stevia,
aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), saccharin, and
advantame.
(b) Any non-alcoholic syrup or other concentrate that is intended to be
used in the preparation of a beverage and that lists as an ingredient:
(.1) any form of caloric sugar-based sweetener, including, but not
limited to, sucrose, glucose or high fructose corn syrup; or
(.2) any form of artificial sugar substitute, including stevia,
aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), saccharin, and
advantame.
Yes, they say that aspartame and sucralose can "sugar-sweeten" a beverage. They're politicians and, like many here, seem to think that it doesn't matter what words mean. (Granted, jargon can get thick, but very few groups would have words in their jargon that are at severe odds with current speech. "Rat, hand me the strychnine for this cesspool--it's around the red jar" would not be reasonable jargon for a kitchen, meaning "Waiter, hand me the salt for this chile, it's in the blue tin."
Stevia =/= sugar. But, as I said, they're politicians, so you don't expect common sense or reasonableness.
So basically every non-alcoholic beverage except water, unsweetened tea and coffee, 100% fruit juice, seltzer water, club soda and non-flavored milk.
I think Kool-Aid will become very popular.
Staph
(6,258 posts)The funds used helped to build and now to maintain the state's first medical school, at West Virginia. We consider it a very good thing, and the only arguments are whether to use the funds for the state's other medical school or to expand funding to other higher education projects. At present, the tax is one cent on 16.9 ounces of pop or 80 cents per gallon of soft drink soda.
And it has the advantage of somewhat discouraging the consumption of sugary drinks.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)99 cent tax on a 2 liter .99 cent diet pepsi ?
Note the article does not state 'soda' but sugary and diet 'beverages'. So tea, chocolate milk, sparkling flavored waters ?
This will get ugly.
I assume it will be the end of 'fill it yourself as many times as you like' fast food places.
No break fir the ice and soda water actually mixed into a soda I guess.
if it moves tax it, if it doesn't move tax it double seems to be at play in philly.
Igel
(35,393 posts)Not merely "flavored" waters.
The fill-it-yourself places will continue. There's the option of taxing the syrup before it's mixed--heck, you can't take delivery of the syrup without paying the tax, and the distributor collects it from the dealer. The tax would almost certainly be distributed, making the cost just go up for everybody.
The most disturbing bit was where a councilperson said that by imposing the tax they're investing in schools. No, by imposing the tax they're increasing revenue. The actual investment in schools, should it occur, is a year or more away and will require a different legislative act. But since this bill defines "sugar sweetened" as including anything sweetened with aspartame or sucralose or stevia, well, it's obvious they need a dictionary.
I wonder if one of them goes up to his honey and says, "Give me some sugar" she'd hand him an inflatable doll. "Here, synthetic or the real thing, you think both are sugar."
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Its going to tax pretty much everything but water.
edit: 16 not 11