Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Philadelphia Nanny Staters Pass Soda Tax

Philadelphia Nanny Staters Pass Soda Tax

It’s for your own good.

The left is celebrating the passage of a new tax on soda and sugary drinks in Philadelphia. It’s the second tax of its kind, the first was in Berkeley, California. This victory will only embolden proponents.

CNN reports:

Philadelphia passes a soda tax

In a final vote of 13-4, the Philadelphia City Council on Thursday passed a 1.5-cents-per-ounce tax on sugar-added and artificially sweetened soft drinks. That would add 18 cents to the cost of a can of soda, $1.08 for a six-pack or $1.02 for a two-liter bottle.

The new soda tax would be on top of the 8% sales tax that already applies to soda in Pennsylvania. Soda is classified as food, which is tax exempt in some states, but not in Pennsylvania.

The measure is expected to be signed by Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney. Kenney originally proposed a 3-cents-per-ounce soda tax.

The new tax goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2017 and is estimated to raise $91 million a year.

That money will be used to fund pre-K expansion, community schools, reinvestment in parks and recreation centers, and add to the City’s General Fund. It will also fund tax credits that the council approved for retailers that sell “healthy” beverages.

Back in 2014, Berkeley, California, became the first city in the country to pass a soda tax.

Lauren Kane, spokeswoman for the American Beverage Association, slammed the tax as regressive. “The fact remains that these taxes are discriminatory and highly unpopular – not only with Philadelphians, but with all Americans.” She also noted that the ABA would try to take legal action to stop it.

Here’s a video report from the Associated Press:

The cost of this tax will be passed on to consumers, many of them poor, but hey – who cares?

We’re forcing people to make healthier choices, right?

Fans of the new tax have big plans for the rest of us. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Health experts: Philly soda tax could start national movement

The public health community far and wide reacted instantly and enthusiastically to Philadelphia City Council’s final vote Thursday to tax sweetened beverages. It also largely avoided commenting on one big part of the new tax: the inclusion of artificially sweetened drinks.

Some also noted an irony: The mayor who intentionally did not emphasize public health in campaigning for the tax could end up causing a major impact on his city’s well-being. And his example will likely resonate in other American cities, experts predicted.

Lynn Silver, a physician, researcher, and advocate for the California-based Public Health Institute, said she thought singling out beverages – at least those sweetened with sugar – for a tax would quickly win public acceptance around the country. She compared it with smoke-free air regulations, which seemed like an oddity when first proposed.

“This is an idea whose time has come,” said Silver, who is studying the impact of a penny-per-ounce sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Berkeley, Calif., the only other jurisdiction to impose a levy so far. Sales of “unhealthy” beverages are down there, while more “healthy” drinks are being sold, she said.

That sound you hear in the distance is Ben Franklin spinning in his grave.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Looks like we’ll be bringing the soda when we visit family in Philadelphia this summer. Or someone will be making bootleg runs over into Jersey.

    Paul in reply to katiejane. | June 17, 2016 at 9:25 am

    I guess the jackboots won’t be shutting down little Suzie’s Lemonade Stand any more…they’ll be sending the revenue man after her instead.

    nordic_prince in reply to katiejane. | June 17, 2016 at 10:10 am

    Exactly – are these people that stupid? Neighboring cities will see a spike in their carbonated beverage sales, methinks.

    Whenever these nuts spout off about how many millions of dollars these type of taxes will supposedly raise, they never account for the fact that human behavior is not static. It adjusts and adapts to whatever situation is imposed. People will bootleg sodas. How long before they put out PSAs warning kids about strangers in trenchcoats – only instead of it being a flasher, it’ll be a guy with bootleg pop. “Psst, kid – wanna buy a Pepsi?”

    ronk in reply to katiejane. | June 17, 2016 at 10:19 am

    don’t bet the farm on that, don’t be surprised if the neighboring states do the same thing

      UnCivilServant in reply to ronk. | June 17, 2016 at 10:24 am

      It’s a municipal level tax, you don’t even have to get out of state to evade it.

I simply cannot understand the mindset of someone who gets all excited and cheers the prospect of the government confiscating more under threat of force. WTF is wrong with those people?

“This is an idea whose time has come,” said Silver, who is studying the impact of a penny-per-ounce sugar-sweetened beverage tax in Berkeley, Calif., the only other jurisdiction to impose a levy so far. Sales of “unhealthy” beverages are down there, while more “healthy” drinks are being sold, she said.
—————————————————–

I’d bet big money that ditz hasn’t studied the INCREASE in sales in the immediately adjoining areas that are NOT insane.

“That money will be used to fund pre-K expansion, community schools, reinvestment in parks and recreation centers, and add to the City’s General Fund. It will also fund tax credits that the council approved for retailers that sell “healthy” beverages.”

There you go. You folks out there don’t deserve freedom from coercion. You are stupid, fat and beneath our smarts. We are Central Government – the Ruling Class – and you are the Kulaks. Know your place. We will make choices for you, so shut up and do what you are told.

Next, they’ll create a “healthy” brand of pop (the Midwestern term) called MichelleO. Pop the top and out comes a nanny who doesn’t give you a wish and instead tells you to bend over.

    healthguyfsu in reply to jennifer a johnson. | June 17, 2016 at 9:52 am

    Are Glacier, Primo, Ozarka, Crystal Springs, etc. going to get some of those credits? The healthiest beverage is water, hands down.

    What about Pepsi..do they collect the tax for pepsi and get a credit for aquafina?

      nordic_prince in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 17, 2016 at 10:22 am

      Or Coke and Dasani.

      Actually, I’m not so sure that water is a better alternative, given the water quality not only in Flint but many other communities as well, I’m sure. Of course there is bottled water, but it’s unbelievable that city water coming out of a tap is not safe to drink.

      Or, we could be like medieval Europe, where everybody drank beer because the brewing process made it safer to drink than straight up water.

      Health issues aside, I am sick and tired of the government telling me what to do “because studies show” and often penalizing me for failing to do it. Seat belts, smoking, “junk” food, pop, saturated fats, red meat, and on and on….

      Brushing and flossing is a great idea, too, but I sure as hell don’t want the government setting up roadside halitosis checks and fining me for failure to perform basic oral hygiene. If I have dragon breath, that’s my business, and the government doesn’t need to make it a revenue opportunity.

    stevewhitemd in reply to jennifer a johnson. | June 17, 2016 at 11:50 am

    As Professor Reynolds would note, this does allow for increased opportunities for graft and corruption.

    Actually Jennifer I think this has more to do with the cost of vote buying rising rather than health.
    They don’t give a damn about anyone’s health other than their own.

healthguyfsu | June 17, 2016 at 9:51 am

It’s funny because I don’t see much of the intellectual honesty from the libs regarding taxes that disparately affect the poor.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the lotto is a poor tax rhetoric is just that. However, if you are the group that champions this nonsense then you ought to be honest about it in this case. I can almost guarantee you this will disparately affect the poor.

    katiejane in reply to healthguyfsu. | June 17, 2016 at 10:20 am

    You’re right because people with cars can easily pick up untaxed soda outside the city but that will be harder for those dependent on public transit

The new tax goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2017 and is estimated to raise $91 million a year.

That money will be used to fund blah, blah, blah …

There you have it.
It’s not about health.
It’s about revenue.
They found another way to put the big gubmint hand inside the citizens’ pockets.

    nordic_prince in reply to Exiliado. | June 17, 2016 at 10:24 am

    Exactly. Same thing with speed limits, red light cameras, and seatbelt laws. Ostensibly it’s for “public safety,” but we all know the city coffers are filled with these ill-gotten gains.

      stevewhitemd in reply to nordic_prince. | June 17, 2016 at 11:51 am

      And the companies that “service” these devices. Don’t forget them and the political contributions they make. Again, more opportunities for graft and corruption.

        nordic_prince in reply to stevewhitemd. | June 17, 2016 at 3:58 pm

        Things that make you go “huh?”…

        * Intersections at which red light cameras are installed actually result in MORE accidents compared to before the “safety devices” were in use (demonstrating that red light cameras do not improve “public safety”)…

        * After the implementation of nutritional guidelines emphasizing more carbs, less red meat, less saturated fat, and other “heart healthy” diet guidelines, the incidence of cardiovascular disease increased – as did the incidence of Type II diabetes…

        But, don’t worry – our nanny state betters are only looking out for us…. 😛

    When it fails to raise 91 mil a year, and the city has already spent the money it didn’t raise, there will be pressure to raise other taxes to cover the ‘unexpected’ shortfall in tax revenue.

    You know, I think I see 91 million dollars worth of wasteful spending right here. Let me get my scissors.

With the Left, I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to pass a breathing tax.

    nordic_prince in reply to Xenomethean. | June 17, 2016 at 11:27 am

    Some places are floating a mileage tax – they’re whining about cars (i.e., hybrids) that get good gas mileage and thus don’t contribute their “fair share” in gas taxes. Illinois floated that trial balloon earlier this spring, but it was shot down – for now ~

    rabidfox in reply to Xenomethean. | June 17, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    If you exhale you are contributing to the CO2 problem. Tax CO2!

Money and Control.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend