Seatle sin taxes soda

a reply to: amazing

I am perfect in every way/sarc.

I think that the taxes will deter consumption. And will also lead to selling these product without taxes and lead to loss of revenue in the area that are taxed.

This is a moot point til the info about sugar is released, the public needs to know how dangerous this stuff is.



,

a reply to: tadaman

I love pork. Especially in a 'caja china'. Cooked for about 8 hours.

But I take exception with smoking. Why should I be forced to endure some other persons habit? That's like me forcing you to listen my loud ass music that you hate. We should be courteous to one another.

a reply to: ketsuko

uhhhh.... funny you mention alcohol.

You pay taxes on that.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: ketsuko

uhhhh.... funny you mention alcohol.

You pay taxes on that.

Not as much as you now do on soda in Seattle.

a reply to: seasonal

Really?

You grew up thinking sugar was good for you? Please tell me you were never that dumb.

a reply to: grey580

I agree man. Its just not an option to say they can just not drink the soft drinks they want. That they should just fall in line and do what those who started this wanted from the beginning...Its unfair to people who live an unhealthy lifestyle so as to be happy.

For some its all they got and this makes their lives worse.

It cant be done "for their own good" or by force or tax, thats my point I guess. The tax part is bad government being terrible at its job again. I mean come on with the damn taxes already. FFS.

The main problem with this is that the government is not doing it to make you be healthy.

They're making a naked cash grab, pure and simple. If the government really cared about your health, they wouldn't give you the option of even having a soda. They'd just ban it. No soda? No bad health. Right?

Nope. They don't do that. Instead, they sell you the idea that they're still leaving you your so-called freedom by letting you have your soda ... just that you have to pay insanely expensive prices for it, so you can't have as much. Get it? They're modifying your bad behavior with a "sin" tax to punish you for making a bad choice.

What they're really doing is hoping no one changes their behavior at all, so they can make a metric sh!t ton of money. And what happens when their new revenue stream dries up because people will change their behavior? They've already made plans for that money, so they'll have to find new ways to tax everyone for it, and this time it won't be just those darn unhealthy gits who drink the soda they come after just like it won't be those darn smokers who aren't buying cigs they're coming for.

a reply to: ketsuko

There is just too much common sense in your reply!

Yes, they don't want the behavior changed and that is why this failed in Chicago! People didn't change, they just changed where they shopped and the city lost revenue.

a reply to: grey580

Here is a solution for you.

Instead of imposing your tastes on the rest of us, why don't you choose to stay the hell out of any restaurant or bar that allows smoking.

Just go to the facilities that cater to your tastes.

A simple sign on the door should suffice. Even dumb smokers can read a sign and respect the premises. Why can't you read a sign and respect the wishes and business model of the person who actually owns it?

See how that works? The business owner, the one with the dog in the fight and not the government or the SJW makes the decision.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
This lame tax was probably brought up by the former mayor as a diversion from his sex scandal. Didn't work so well and should be repealed anyway. Wait and see the reaction of the businesses. a reply to: Oaktree

The original one and the others in the city will have the tax.

Oh you mean thisSeattle PI:Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Mayor Ed Murray proposed a new tax on sugary beverages earlier this year, a tax since altered to include artificial sweeteners after the realization that leaving artificially sweetened beverages (diet sodas, juices and their ilk) out of the mix would disproportionately hit people of color and low income communities harder. Wealthier white people tend to favor drinks with artificial sweeteners, public health officials and community organizers told Murray.

Seattle Times: April 28, 2017

The mayor says that reports of sales losses and layoffs in Philadelphia, where a soda tax was enacted this year, have been overblown.
To bolster his proposal for Seattle, Murray points to a new study on the effects of a soda tax in Berkeley, California. Sales of sugary beverages declined nearly 10 percent in the year after the city imposed the nation’s first such tax, while sales of water and other untaxed beverages increased, according to the study, which was primarily paid for by soda-tax booster Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor.

But lets look at this tid-bit from April 6, 2017:

Seattle times: April 6, 2017

A new lawsuit accuses Seattle Mayor Ed Murray of child sexual abuse decades ago. Two other men have told The Seattle Times they, too, were abused by Murray as teenagers in the 1980s. The mayor vigorously denies all the accusations.

So to answer your question, dreamingawake, Yes, it would appear to be the case. Now that's to the incompetent leadership in King County (mainly Seattle though) the tax was never looked at as what it is, and only looked at as a new source of cash for the city.

***FORGOT TO ADD THIS FUN FACTOID***

Seattle Times: December 21, 2017

During his three-plus years as Seattle’s mayor, Ed Murray built a staff around him that mirrored the city’s rising population and wealth.
He recruited a senior aide to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to lead a new innovation team. He hired more executives than his predecessor, with salaries topping $170,000, and brought on advisers for public safety and homelessness. By Murray’s final year in office, his staff had grown by about a third and his budget by 70 percent.

The Mayor’s Office wasn’t the only one to expand.
Almost every city department increased in size over the five years ending in 2016. Public-safety costs soared by $100 million. Transportation expenses doubled. The city shelled out $1.1 billion on employee wages last year, with nearly half of full-time workers making at least $100,000, according to a Seattle Times examination of thousands of payroll records, budget documents and financial statements.
Seattle added 11 percent more residents over these five years — the fastest of any U.S. city with at least a half-million people — but government spending accelerated even faster. Excluding city services like utilities that pay for themselves, government costs shot up nearly 40 percent, among the sharpest increases of any major U.S. city.

But it's not all bad news:

Seattle Times: December 31, 2017

In Seattle, when the drink is a Caramel Macchiato from Starbucks — 42 grams of sugar in a Venti, the largest size. Or a Caramel Brulée Latte with whipped cream — 68 grams of sugar in a Venti.

The city’s new tax on the distribution of sweetened beverages, syrups and concentrates, which starts Monday, excludes drinks that list milk as their first ingredient.
That rules out taxes for chocolate milk and eggnog, obviously. But some coffee-shop drinks also will be spared, said Mark Watterson of Seattle’s Finance and Administrative Services Department, which drew up rules for the tax. Flavored lattes at Starbucks list milk as their primary ingredient.

So Starbucks and Seattle's Best cafe's are safe from the taxing. So where will this money "go":

Let's look From The Office of Seattle's Mayor

Mayor Burgess sponsored legislation, as a Seattle City Councilmember, to impose a $0.0175/oz. tax on distributors of sweetened beverages, with proceeds dedicated toward food security and education. The City anticipates approximately $14.8 million in 2018 revenues from the tax, which will go into effect in January 2018. The Mayor has proposed proceeds be dedicated toward the following programs::

It's a whole list of things, but I find this to be typical of Seattle politics,

Other Items
The proposed budget also includes $500,000 for the Auditor’s Office to conduct an evaluation of the effects of the tax as well as $1.2 million related to the costs to implement and collect the tax.

a reply to: ketsuko

Really?

I was never told that sugar lead to diabetes, dementia and heart disease. And I would lay good money that a good % of the US population think it is bad cause it will make you fat. I was told that it will make you hyper.

The corps that are hiding their research will be treated like the tobacco industry.

a reply to: seasonal

So that is the way NGO's survive. The government pays them to conduct "research" to "proof" that "correlation" means "causation". Then they destroy the industry and sue the hell out of them and put the money in their pocket. The rest of us suffer job losses and stock losses and the government taxes the hell out of the rest of us.

Do you really think that is a good business model.

a reply to: seasonal

They told us quite early that if you ate too much of it you'd get diabetes. And if you eat too much and get fat, well getting fat leads to heart disease.

In my growing up years, there wasn't much known about dementia.

But while I was growing up, there wasn't near the problem with sedentary kids either. If there was one overweight kid in the class, it was weird.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Seattle metro is gaining population similar to as it did in the gold rush, could use less people that just don't want to be here. Idaho is right next door, easier move, cheaper rents, marijuana won't pass anytime soon there. Less job opportunities for those seeking employment unless you're in the Bosie metro, CDA or are willing to cross into Spokane.

a reply to: Guyfriday

He had straws, and plastic utensils banned too that goes into effect later this year. Not too long ago the city wanted to shift through people's trash to make sure it wasn't filling up with food that could be composted and put into the provided bins. That was later deemed a no go zone without a warrant- more here.

ETA: Seen your update: Exempting them from the tax isn't going to sit well with other business.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

(the sugar industry is harming people)

a reply to: ketsuko

Who is they?

The fact of the matter is that the tobacco industry-asbestos industry-pharma industry-chemical industry-auto industry has on many occasions held back info on how dangerous certain products they make are.

When this happens they get sued and loose, and loose bigly.

.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
You know Bacon tax is coming!!

That could potentially be shot down as illegal and unfair due to it not affecting vegans and those who follow the Muslim religion.

I will bet that this tax will also apply to diet sodas in the future.
Philadelphia taxes diet sodas
Cook County, Illinois taxes diet sodas.

when that happens this will just become another government ripoff.

a reply to: seasonal

And that has what to do with a tax whose revenues aren't even being used to ameliorate the effects of the product that is the evil in question?

They, btw, were most of the teachers who taught health class in school, the doctor who was treating my grandmother when she had diet controlled diabetes, etc.