Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Full Version: Tax Plan Fails Spectacularly in Philly
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
The Law of Unintended (but easily predicted) Consequences strikes again. Fewer jobs, pay reductions, and less revenue for the city's coffers; who'da thunk?

BACKFIRE: Philadelphia Implemented Soda Tax, But It Didn't Go As Planned

FTA: “The beverage tax fell on about 4,000 items. In Acme city stores, soda sales dropped as much as 80 percent. Sales of other items covered by the tax, such as juices, creamers and energy drinks, were down 30 percent, and the number of customers declined by 5 percent. Philly stores cut an average of 150 to 200 employee hours per week, resulting in lighter paychecks for employees."

Did it help with the health issues? Nope.

[font=lato, sans-serif]“Philadelphia did not see an increase in sales of untaxed beverages such as bottled water,” CNN reported.[/font]

What did happen? People adapted a different way.

[font=lato, sans-serif][font=lato, sans-serif]FTA: “While researchers found that sales of sugary beverages fell in Philadelphia after the tax, beverage sales in nearby towns and counties without the tax went up. That suggests people may have been traveling to get their soda at a reduced price.”[/font][/font]
If you want people to do less of an activity, Tax it
I cannot believe people are okay with having their choices decided for them by price fixing.

If corporate America did this the Left would be up in arms, but because the all-knowing Leftist Government is doing it it's a-okay
(05-21-2019, 11:34 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ][font=lato, sans-serif][font=lato, sans-serif]FTA: “While researchers found that sales of sugary beverages fell in Philadelphia after the tax, beverage sales in nearby towns and counties without the tax went up. That suggests people may have been traveling to get their soda at a reduced price.”[/font][/font]

Translation: Oh [BLEEP] guys, it really was the sugar industry all along!
(05-21-2019, 11:40 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]If you want people to do less of an activity, Tax it

So if we want people to drink less sugary soda pop, in order to lower the obesity rate, and lower the cost of obesity to the TAXPAYERS and the GENERAL PUBLIC, we should tax sugary soda pop?  I think it's a valid idea in theory.
(05-24-2019, 09:13 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-21-2019, 11:40 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]If you want people to do less of an activity, Tax it

So if we want people to drink less sugary soda pop, in order to lower the obesity rate, and lower the cost of obesity to the TAXPAYERS and the GENERAL PUBLIC, we should tax sugary soda pop?  I think it's a valid idea in theory.

Glad you love the idea of having your freedom taken away.

I'll be coming to take your wife in a couple hours.

Yes, that's an absurd jump - but it is a slippery slope.
(05-24-2019, 09:34 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-24-2019, 09:13 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]So if we want people to drink less sugary soda pop, in order to lower the obesity rate, and lower the cost of obesity to the TAXPAYERS and the GENERAL PUBLIC, we should tax sugary soda pop?  I think it's a valid idea in theory.

Glad you love the idea of having your freedom taken away.

I'll be coming to take your wife in a couple hours.

Yes, that's an absurd jump - but it is a slippery slope.

I've got a better idea. Take my wife. Please.

[Image: hqdefault.jpg]
(05-24-2019, 09:34 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-24-2019, 09:13 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]So if we want people to drink less sugary soda pop, in order to lower the obesity rate, and lower the cost of obesity to the TAXPAYERS and the GENERAL PUBLIC, we should tax sugary soda pop?  I think it's a valid idea in theory.

Glad you love the idea of having your freedom taken away.

I'll be coming to take your wife in a couple hours.

Yes, that's an absurd jump - but it is a slippery slope.

I think my freedom has already been taken away.  Obese people inflict huge costs on society.   And that means they inflict costs on me.  For example, if insurers have to cover pre-existing conditions, what effect do you think that has on health insurance rates?   That's just one example.  If I have to pay the bills for their health problems, shouldn't I have be able to tell them they have to cut their bad habits?
(05-24-2019, 10:14 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-24-2019, 09:34 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Glad you love the idea of having your freedom taken away.

I'll be coming to take your wife in a couple hours.

Yes, that's an absurd jump - but it is a slippery slope.

I think my freedom has already been taken away.  Obese people inflict huge costs on society.   And that means they inflict costs on me.  For example, if insurers have to cover pre-existing conditions, what effect do you think that has on health insurance rates?   That's just one example.  If I have to pay the bills for their health problems, shouldn't I have be able to tell them they have to cut their bad habits?

I agree with your premise, in a way, because the same sort of scheme was used to discourage smoking. However, the rise in cigarette prices was coupled with an intensive public education campaign about the health hazards of tobacco. Additionally, a large percentage of tobacco use (before vaping) was conveyed via cigarettes which enabled a sharply focused campaign. 

Sugar, on the other hand, is conveyed in hundreds of different ways. If the government is in the business of regulating sugar intake, then everything from M&Ms to ice cream to Oreo cookies should be taxed heavily as well. If not, it is a punitive measure unfairly aimed at beverage producers and not the myriad other purveyors of sugar.
(05-24-2019, 09:13 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-21-2019, 11:40 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]If you want people to do less of an activity, Tax it

So if we want people to drink less sugary soda pop, in order to lower the obesity rate, and lower the cost of obesity to the TAXPAYERS and the GENERAL PUBLIC, we should tax sugary soda pop?  I think it's a valid idea in theory.

Except that it's a scheme doomed to fail from the start. The soda industry, as an offshoot of big sugar, has gone to great lengths to make sure its products are incredibly addictive. Raising taxes on something like soda or cigarettes doesn't curb that. In fact, if you look at the placement across the income scale of people relying on that kind of stuff, it basically ends up being a punitive tax on lower-income families. They won't stop drinking it, they'll just pay more to do so, because a two-liter of Sam's Choice Cola is $0.99, a gallon of milk is $3.59 and a half-gallon of orange juice is $5-6.

If you're going to use tax to reduce usage of an item, tax the industry directly. If you raise the taxes Coke pays on its high-fructose corn syrup, for example, Coke will raise its taxes to the end consumer. Then the end consumer is pissed at Coke for raising the price of a 2L from $1.19 to $1.79, not at you for taxing them more.
(05-24-2019, 10:14 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-24-2019, 09:34 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Glad you love the idea of having your freedom taken away.

I'll be coming to take your wife in a couple hours.

Yes, that's an absurd jump - but it is a slippery slope.

I think my freedom has already been taken away.  Obese people inflict huge costs on society.   And that means they inflict costs on me.  For example, if insurers have to cover pre-existing conditions, what effect do you think that has on health insurance rates?   That's just one example.  If I have to pay the bills for their health problems, shouldn't I have be able to tell them they have to cut their bad habits?

One more reason why Society shouldn't be on the hook for health care.