Manmademan
Member
An extra 15c for a bottle of dew is wreaking havoc you don't understand
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do other big cities have a "Soda Tax" or are we just lucky in Philly?
- Thread starter Soapbox Killer
- Start date
- Status
An extra 15c for a bottle of dew is wreaking havoc you don't understand
BronsonLee
Member
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
Smoking is a good example. Higher tax rates correlate to dramatic drop offs in smoking rates. Sure there are other factors as well but if you want people to stop buying unnecessary consumables the most obvious way to cut volume is to increase price.
Manmademan
Member
That's a different discussion. Blame the state for that.
The Albatross
Member
This is an unjustifiable sin tax then. Sin taxes should go to correct the sin, not fill budget shortfalls in other areas or introduce new programs. Taxing the poor to pay for education that they're already underserved by is an assinine regressive tax.
The evidence of the first two is inconclusive; Communities that have implemented sin taxes on sugary sodas have declared that sale of sugary sodas has decreased, but critics have suggested that they're being bought elsewhere, illegally, or that it's being supplanted by something else (e.g., sugary energy drinks), and that the tax is not what introduced the change, but consumer habits. The sin tax episode of Stuff You Should Know goes into these and it's great: http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/sin-taxes.htm Sorry just a podcast though. Chuck and Josh are split on it, Josh is more or less in favor of sin taxes but kind of jokingly, Chuck refuses to take a position on it because assholes on both sides pester him.
But you're complaining about paying more for a drink that has 27 grams of high fructose corn syrup derived sugar in 8 oz for your kids?
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Studies from berkley where this is already law have been very positive with consumption decreases in the double digits.
Again the tax is supposed to go toward education on health issues and the negative effects of mass sugar intake so there's a long lead benefit for decreased consumption as well
Edit: appears this is already being discussed in detail
Vermont wanted a or ounce sugary drinks tax, but then opponents brought up the idea that Maple Syrup should get taxed too.
Manmademan
Member
Yeah as I pointed out, this isn't a sin tax and was never presented as a way to improve public health.
Since I'm guessing you don't live here, you may not be aware that the city has no control over school funding. It doesn't even have a school board.
The state legislature controls all of that, and has been slashing funding and mandating charter schools for years- both of which cost the city a ton of money. This is why the city has been implementing the liquor tax and tobacco tax as a workaround to increase revenue to replace what the state removes.
This time the city wanted a pre K initiative, but once again cannot levy or control school taxes. The soda tax was presented to the public as a way to accomplish that and it does.
There's additional revenue in the tax to fund the other items as well, though most of those aren't recurring like the fund balance, or juvenile lifer issue.
Iorv3th
Member
I want to know how they plan to use this money to "educate people about sugar being bad".
If they are going to do it for kids in school they already have health classes and it shouldn't cost them anything extra. Or do they plan on making public advertisements like #truth campaign but for sugary drinks?
Seems like more of an income generator than anything. Same as tax on tobacco. People don't stop smoking because of the tax they just stop buying other things. They aren't opposed to people doing it as long as they pay them to do it.
If they are going to do it for kids in school they already have health classes and it shouldn't cost them anything extra. Or do they plan on making public advertisements like #truth campaign but for sugary drinks?
Seems like more of an income generator than anything. Same as tax on tobacco. People don't stop smoking because of the tax they just stop buying other things. They aren't opposed to people doing it as long as they pay them to do it.
Ron Mexico
Member
They're not.
This was a way to add revenue to fund additional programs (like the Pre-K mentioned above) and boost the coffers (the 6% general fund and 20% tacked on in committee).
Disregarding the fact that the parking authority alone has over $300M in assets, the answer was clearly not to address a poorly maintained budget but rather generate more revenue and sell it as a greater good. Based on how the conversation is centered around the philosophy of a sin tax and not how it's being spent, I'd say they're doing a good job.
Manmademan
Member
Hey Ron! You ARE aware that the city has no control over what the PPA does, and their funding is not part of the city budget?
That agency is entirely staffed by republican appointees and is controlled by the state legislature. It's mandated to transfer some revenue back to the school system but what it actually DOES is far below it's obligation since the city has no oversight.
Extra taxes on cigarettes worked in New York City.
EstoyBlackWaldo
Member
I don't drink soda, and don't really have a sweet tooth for sugar. But, I mean do they tax candy, sweets, desserts, baked goods etc filled with added sugar in addition to this?
Manmademan
Member
Also in Philadelphia. Smoking way down from where it was. Though the city banning smoking from most bars and restaurants probably was a contributor
Ron Mexico
Member
And you do know where the revenue for the PPA goes? $76.4M in 2015 to the city's coffers. Edit: And that was just from parking revenue on street and at PHL.
Regardless, the PPA is just the lowest hanging fruit. We can do wage tax revenues, etc etc etc.
Manmademan
Member
You're misinformed. Revenue from the PPA is split between the school district (which is it's own thing- the city cannot raise revenue for the Philly school district) and the general fund.
The PPA's funding to both has been well below it's obligation for a decade due to out of control spending, sky high salaries, and outright cash hoarding by the state controlled PPA.
But besides that, the tax is overwhelmingly funding new initiatives that were not part of the budget. There are no "shotgun sized holes" it's being used to fill. It's all establishing and expanding services that would go unfunded and unimplemented otherwise. But fuck kids and fuck the homeless, right? Any taxation is bad!
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
They just fell $26m short of expectations in Philadelphia. Unlike NYC it's a ton easier for people here to cross the county line and buy cigarettes that aren't taxed at the same rate.
Anyway, the number one problem with this tax is that the tax is per oz instead of per gram of sugar. A 12oz beverage that has 4g sugar is taxed just as harshly as a 12oz beverage with 12g sugar, even though the latter is three times worse for you. The diet portion of the tax is also questionable. The implementation should have been on actual sugar content in sugar sweetened beverages, and if they insisted on taxing artificially sweetened beverages then the tax should have had an alternative minimum for low sugar and artificially sweetened beverages.
Regardless, the motivation for this tax was to generate revenue. It may seem on its face like it's just a health measure, but that was not the primary motivation. A little back story is that the previous mayor, the Honorable Mayor Nutter, tried to pass the soda tax during his administration, and billed it as a health conscious measure. It was resoundingly unpopular at the time and eventually went nowhere. Flash forward to the current leadership, Jim Kenney, and he presented the sweetened beverage tax as a measure to raise funds to go for universal Pre-K and community. The goal was to make the majority or all of the tax revenue go to Pre-K and community schooling, which are programs which directly benefit the low classes that are also the hardest hit by this tax. It made the tax easier to swallow for a large portion of the population as they saw it as something that could provide them greater benefit than it came with negatives. Real opposition to the tax came from the beverage industry, though there was still significant opposition among regular residents.
TL;DR This tax was never about health, it was about funds for Pre-K and community schools.
Now, with the tl;dr out of the way, we can get around to looking at why Soapbox Killer takes issue with this tax. Philadelphians are already among the highest taxed residents of anywhere in the US. New taxes hurt, especially new taxes that target lower classes like sales taxes tend to be. The issue is that there is not a feeling that the local government uses the funds it does get well. The final round of negotiations on the soda tax diverted a significant portion of the funding away from the Pre-K and community schools initiative. To many it feels inevitable that the funding will be misused, and that it would be better to leave that cash in the hands of the poor than use it to run mismanaged government programs that have little benefit to constituents. Given a track record of poorly using tax revenue, on top of other recent tax increases, such as a recent wide spread property tax increase, it's not hard to figure out why people might be feeling the squeeze here.
Ron Mexico
Member
Assuming the Inquirer isn't misinformed, $11M of the on-street parking fees went to the schools. (From an article about privatization talks--http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/PPA_privatization_Revenue_generator_or_boondoggle.html)
Regardless, we're on two completely different wavelengths. The soda tax was a reactive measure to fund programs not included in the established budget. With the argument being that the budget as it stood was set in stone, sure, there's no other ways around it without increasing revenue and Kenney went for a soda tax as his source. But to say that the budget in Philadelphia is so masterfully handled and at the peak of its efficiency that there was just no other possible scenario to include any of this without this soda tax? Sorry, I can't go that far.
Quite possible we end having to agree to disagree (and that's perfectly ok!). I just think we're setting the starting line at two very different points, which makes the rest a case of apples and oranges.
As for fuck kids and fuck the homeless, not going to dignify that with a response.
BronsonLee
Member
I mean not only do I hate taxing poor people but I also hate children!
But not as much as I hate THE PPA
But not as much as I hate THE PPA
SecretMoblin
Member
What does Diet Coke do to contribute to the diabetes epidemic, and what does taxing it for the purpose of fixing local parks do to combat the problem?
It isn't just "sugary drinks" that are being taxed.
Manmademan
Member
Right. I'm aware that 11 million went to schools, but this is WELL BELOW what the PPA should be contributing. It's only required to split the revenue that remains "after expenses."
The PPA has been jacking up expenses, cash hoarding, and inflating salaries as much as possible to avoid transferring revenue. Without that, far less taxation would be necessary.
But in regards to the school system and revenue, the city has no control over the school district. It's run by the state controlled school reform commission.
Also, unlike every other school system in the state the city does not have the ability to raise property taxes to fund the school district. They're banned from doing so.
THAT is why when the city needs money for the district they need to create a new source of revenue. The city implemented a 10% liquor tax years ago, and a cigarette tax more recently. Both of these things needed state approval though, and the cigarette tax ironically cost the city more in the long run because the state mandated more charters as a requirement to implement it!
Pre-k is one of the things in the city that everyone wanted, but the only way to fund that much like with additional school funding is via a new revenue stream.
Ron Mexico
Member
Once again-- we're talking about 2 different starting lines. To require a new revenue stream in theory should mean that all existing revenue streams are running at peak efficiency. When Philadelphia is operating at peak efficiency, tax the hell out of whatever you want. In the interim, I'll hold the wish for an even modestly efficiently run city in one hand and the other under my ass. We'll see which one gets filled first.
I don't know how it is in the US, but in France you can't advertise on TV: alcoholic drinks or tabac.
And food ads ( tv, paper and radio ) need one of those sentence :
« Pour votre santé, mangez au moins cinq fruits et légumes par jour »,
« Pour votre santé, pratiquez une activité physique régulière »,
« Pour votre santé, évitez de manger trop gras, trop sucré, trop salé »,
« Pour votre santé, évitez de grignoter entre les repas ».
cf :
google translate since I am lazy :
"For your health, eat at least five fruits and vegetables a day,
" For your health, practice regular physical activity ",
"For your health, avoid eating too fat, too sweet, too salty,
" For your health, avoid snacking between meals ".
I doubt that second part does much, but it's still examples of controlling advertising for the sake of public health.
Stop buying Sunny D for your kids, that shit is just ruining their health.
I do believe there is a difference between Sunny D for a kid and Sunny D for an adult. If an adult wants to enjoy Sunny D they should be able to. But there should be regulations when it comes to children. They don't need that stuff daily.
Mind you my family was raised on koolaid and we're alright (minus some dental issues which could be contributed just as much to not being able to afford dental work).
BronsonLee
Member
I WAS RAISED ON THE D wait no
Manmademan
Member
"Peak efficiency!" Is bullshit, flat out.
What does that even mean? Running a city of 1.6 million people with no waste whatsoever? Is there ANY city that does that? Any private company anywhere on the planet?
The answer to that should be obvious, the very concept is lunacy.
What you're saying is "cut 400 million out of the budget over 5 years instead". OK genius, where exactly is Philly going to cut THAT much money from their budget without destroying city services and the economy?
We've already gone over how you weren't aware the city has no access to the "300 million" the PPA is sitting on, nor can it do anything to cut staff or control salaries because that's state controlled.
We've also gone over how the city doesn't control the school district either, and can't control salaries or staff there because THAT is state controlled.
So...tell us where this "peak efficiency" exists that you would find that 400 million. What are you aware of that every single city and state legislator since Rendell has just been blissfully unaware of?
OR
is it more likely that you have no idea how government budgeting is done and you're talking out of that ass?
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
You can look at any of Butkovitz reports to see where the city could be saving tons of money. At the very least there should be some low hanging fruit the city could take care of before implementing new taxes. There's also the $1B in uncollected real estate tax, interest, and penalties the city could work to collect to fund this stuff. It's not as if there's no room for improvement, there's just no will from city council to do it because they'd rather deal with the status quo of nepotism and inefficiency. I'm not against new taxes, but there's a very strong argument to be had that they need to be better with the budget than they currently are.
direct_quote
Member
But smoking was banned in most public places so that added to that too. Drinking has a sin tax and a ton of people still drink..
Ron Mexico
Member
I would start with a buyout option for pensions. Again, my numbers are from last year, but that's what $11B in obligations? Even if, say 1/4 of those took up the offer, the savings would be a bundle. The pension board ran numbers for a 50% adoption rate (which I think is insanely generous-- I'd expect a number far less) which would save $3.7B. Again, I don't think $3.7B happens. Half of that? Meh. Maybe. Along with that would require eliminating the loophole that allows them to return of course.
Philadelphia (as of 2015) pays the 4th highest percentage of average income in taxes in the country and that's till not going to be enough?
No city is ever going to be perfect. But 4th in the country already and looking for more? Know who else is in such illustrious company? Newark, NJ and Detroit. Neither one particularly well known for solid fiscal management in its city government.
It's why progressive income/estate/property taxes are a fair and effective way to redistribute wealth and create economic stability.
Exactly.
In my state it costs $8+ to buy smokes which is actually relatively cheap vs NYC or Chicago even. You can get 750ml of vodka for less than that, a 12 pack of some water beer, or a copious quantity of malt liquor.
Alcohol should be taxed much higher than it is imo.
It probably should be. But then Marijuana, the safer drug, should be legal. There are many things that need to be fixed. Too much politics and self interest in these things.
Dash_Riprock
Member
I agree with this tax on paper. As someone who used to drink 5+ cans of coke a day a price hike would definitely make many people think twice about buying all those 12-packs.
But as someone else said, I don't like that they're taxing every soda equally, rather than by sugar content, which leaves Diet drinkers SoL (though personally, Diet anything tastes like garbage to me and I'd rather drink water instead).
But as someone else said, I don't like that they're taxing every soda equally, rather than by sugar content, which leaves Diet drinkers SoL (though personally, Diet anything tastes like garbage to me and I'd rather drink water instead).
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
Alcohol is taxed pretty damn hard in PA. It's a government administered system here, so prices are not cheap.
Torn.
I drink soda everyday as a way to stay up during work. I know its bad as fuck for me tho. I don't think forcing people to be healthy is a great way to go about anything, if they want to be unhealthy then let them...
however, if this truly goes towards schools and such for the children, then I'll pay that extra....
but as for the "just drink water" peeps, sometimes you want some spice in your life...and having to pay extra because some people lack control sucks.
I drink soda everyday as a way to stay up during work. I know its bad as fuck for me tho. I don't think forcing people to be healthy is a great way to go about anything, if they want to be unhealthy then let them...
however, if this truly goes towards schools and such for the children, then I'll pay that extra....
but as for the "just drink water" peeps, sometimes you want some spice in your life...and having to pay extra because some people lack control sucks.
I don't see the general idea as bad, but being focused only on drinks is a problem. It would be super easy for companies to work around this if enough cities implemented it. They could sell coke flavored tablets or syrup, which they market as a food item, to be added into their own branded carbonated water. It'd be like the new coke machines where people mix and match flavors.
There are other products which contain way too much sugar, and the goal here should be the limit the amount of sugar within products across the board. Have a certain amount that's untaxable, and then tax heavily above that, and apply it to foods across the board.
There are other products which contain way too much sugar, and the goal here should be the limit the amount of sugar within products across the board. Have a certain amount that's untaxable, and then tax heavily above that, and apply it to foods across the board.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
You guys are acting as if what I'm buying is an everyday thing. Everything in moderatio. Plus considering to the city handling of taxes, no way this works to form and just becomes another life in Philly tax.
They do, you muppet.
Well he is, guess the taxation is doing its job
BronsonLee
Member
OK, that's it, you and me are throwing down.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Can't afford drinks for kids? Does this tax also eliminate tap water and Britas?
Edit:lmfao at the two posts above
Edit:lmfao at the two posts above
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked