People are feeling sticker shock over Seattle’s sugary drink tax.
You might’ve seen a picture circulating on social media that shows a more than $10 tax on a $15.99 case of Gatorade at Costco. On Friday, shoppers were taking their own pictures, stunned by the new prices.
That is insane. Though a part of me is curious to see if it has an effect on obesity and diabetes. I tend to doubt it but we’ll see. Regardless, I am against “sin taxes” in general.
Not very "green" either as folks will likely resort to shopping (and dining?) excursions outside of the mega-tax zone.
Two easy solutions
1) buy your sugary drink in another town
2) add the sugar yourself.
Shop owners in Seattle are going to lose money as people just go outside of the city to buy. Liberals are idiots.
Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax
$10 tax on a $16 product? Jesus. Thank god I don't live in Seattle.
I also remember seeing studies that switching to diet soda doesn’t result in an average loss of weight because people are more likely to just make up for those calories elsewhere. You feel less guilty about eating a snickers if you are downing it with a diet drink. So you are more likely to eat that snickers. Again, on average. If you make no changes to your diet other than switching to diet sodas you will lose weight, or at least gain less than you were. But that isn’t how most people behave.
Very likely. It will come down to what percentage of people just have to have their non-diet soda. I’m one of those weird people who actually prefers the taste of diet soda to its full-sugar counterpart so it is hard for me to put myself in their shoes.
for me, it has been calories in / calories burned. putting everything into the food diary has helped me to keep the weight off. a diet soda is zero calories.
Only the idiotic ones. Maybe they ought to stop that.
Two easy solutions
1) buy your sugary drink in another town
2) add the sugar yourself.
However, many places charge you based on the size of the drink cup - not what you may choose to put into that cup. I am willing to bet that those places simply raise the price of each drink cup.
I agree 100%. Counting calories work. It really is just calories in vs calories out. But most people aren’t methodical like that and greatly underestimate the number of calories they take in.
Depends on where the dollars go and the perceived need of those funds, if you ask me. If the dollars just go into the general fund or are used to pay salaries of bureaucrats or advertising campaigns, I'm not as interested in them save desperate revenue generation. However, because sin taxes often have public health consequences, I'd rather institute a sin tax in order to provide services and care to folks.i don't like sin taxes. they are too regressive.
Sticker shock over Seattle's new sugary drink tax
$10 tax on a $16 product? Jesus. Thank god I don't live in Seattle.
https://billypenn.com/2017/12/12/philly-soda-tax-year-one-the-finances-fights-and-its-future/Mayor Jim Kenney and City Council passed the soda tax with revenue for schools foremost in mind, not public health. They need people to continue drinking sugary beverages. If too many people avoid the 1.5 cent per ounce levy by opting for alternative drinks or fleeing to the suburbs, the city won’t get enough revenue. The Mayor’s staff believed consumption would drop off no more than 27 percent because of the tax.
Revenue totals, through November, show consumption down more than anticipated. The tax brought in $66.2 million from February through November, according to the Mayor’s Office. Health Department data show typical pre-tax consumption of sugary drinks in Philadelphia was about 640 million ounces a month. Over 10 months that would be 6.4 billion. These revenue totals suggest consumption of 4.41 billion ounces of sugary drinks — a 31 percent reduction.
Depends on where the dollars go, if you ask me. If the dollars just go into the general fund or are used to pay salaries of bureaucrats or advertising campaigns, I'm not as interested in them save desperate revenue generation. However, because sin taxes often have public health consequences, I'd rather institute a sin tax in order to provide services and care to folks.
For instance, half of all cigarettes smoked in this country are from people with mental health needs. Given the substantial health problems, costs to taxpayers to support declining health, and the dearth of cost-effective services for mental health and substance abuse, I would be and have been in support of sin tax increases that take the revenue and put that into city and state mental health funds to create services that didn't exist prior.
Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?