Grab A Beer Philadelphia, The Soda Is Too Damn Expensive

Via SovereignMan.com,

What happened:

Turns out when soda cost the same as beer, people choose to drink beer. That is what is happening in Philadelphia.

The city’s 1.5 cent per ounce tax on soda has made beer a cheaper option. But that isn’t the only effect of the ill conceived plan to raise revenue.

The tax didn’t raise the money expected, according t o a study by the Tax Foundation.

Stores have already seen huge declines in soda sales, meaning people are either going outside the city to buy, buying beer instead, or not drinking soda.

Now if the residents did cut down on soda, some might see this as a win, despite the low tax revenue. But from the outset, the Mayor was quite clear that the aim of the tax was to raise money, not to influence health.

The city claimed the tax revenue would fund pre-kindergarten programs. But less than half of the meager revenue is actually being put into the school system.

What this means:

Looks like “for the children” was just another excuse for government greed.

Governments refuse to believe in economics. They think they can just continue to pile the taxes on. But once the costs get too high, people change their behavior.

Sometimes that means going somewhere else to buy your soda. Sometimes that means making different choices, like beer instead of soda.

But hardly ever do governments get what they predict. The mayor even originally wanted the tax to be 3 cents per ounce. Some stores are reporting a 50% drop in soda sales, so you can imagine what would have happened at double the tax rate. Yet all the greedy politicians imagine is dollar signs.

The beer companies are really the only ones who made out on the deal.

Might make a conspiracy theorist wonder...

Comments

Joe Trader Sub MOA (not verified) Sun, 08/20/2017 - 22:43 Permalink

High consumption of sugar and simple carbs plays a big role in many sicknesses...I know "tyler's" keying in on economics - but arguably, there are some gains from a healthier population that aren't as easily measurable, productivity and lower health care costs being some. It'll be nice if years later they report on the health impact..I guess these taxes only work on things that can't be substituted like cigarettes..

In reply to by Sub MOA (not verified)

just the tip Joe Trader Sun, 08/20/2017 - 23:54 Permalink

the tylers are not keying in on economics.reading comprehension much?Now if the residents did cut down on soda, some might see this as a win, despite the low tax revenue. But from the outset, the Mayor was quite clear that the aim of the tax was to raise money, not to influence health. The city claimed the tax revenue would fund pre-kindergarten programs. But less than half of the meager revenue is actually being put into the school system.

In reply to by Joe Trader

NoDebt Joe Trader Mon, 08/21/2017 - 00:16 Permalink

Diet Coke (which contains no sugar) is also taxed under the Philly "soda tax".  The tax has NOTHING to do with health issues.  Sorry, but it just... doesn't.<NoDebt lights up another cigarette, pours another vodka and air for himself and relaxes a bit, having just come back from vaca>Miss me yet?  Heh heh.  I'm BAAAACK!  

In reply to by Joe Trader

Joe Trader NoDebt Mon, 08/21/2017 - 00:39 Permalink

The government's goal was to generate tax revenue, which failed, just how rent controls fail to create an abundant supply of affordable housing = economics.However, anytime you stop people from drinking high-sugar drinks - the fact is it will always have something to do with health issues - *take a deep breath* - which is seperate from the government's goal - yet is still there - no matter what :)Doesn't help that people turned to alcohol - but the point is sin taxes seem to achieve their goal in generating tax revenue from cigarettes and alcohol - both of which are addictive, and difficult to substitute.

In reply to by NoDebt

nmewn Sun, 08/20/2017 - 22:11 Permalink

Can you drink more than two sodas in a hour and still "legally" drive in the City of Botherly Luuuv or is that against the law now? 

silverer Sun, 08/20/2017 - 22:13 Permalink

The amazing thing about passing a crappy law, is no matter how bad it is, they seem to always leave it on the books. It's like shit on the bottom of your shoe that never wears off. And the lawmakers keep putting more piles out there every day.

Sub MOA (not verified) Sun, 08/20/2017 - 22:31 Permalink

filthadelphia is an over run nigger shit hole left it 23 years ago and never once did nor do I miss that city for that fact never any other city either ...all of them are thirld world microcosims

Phillyguy Sun, 08/20/2017 - 22:42 Permalink

I work in Philadelphia and pick up lunch at a lunch truck about once per week. From what I see, it is business as usual post soda tax. A 12oz can of Coke (searched on Google) has  39 grams of total sugar, which is about 9 1/3 teaspoons of sugar. Increased consumption of Coke, Pepsi and similar sugar laden drinks has helped create the explosion of Obesity and type II diabetes in the US. Why should US taxpayers be held hostage paying for the treatment of many of these individuals? Coke makes lots of profits selling unhealthy sugar water to the public. They should be directly taxed to cover these costs. Cigarettes, which cause heart disease, stroke and lung cancer are taxed - $1.01 federal excise tax + $2.60 PA state tax, while alcoholic beverages are also highly taxed. If anything Coke and related soft drinks are worse and should be taxed accordingly. The beverage industry is freaking out because they know that other cities across the country are watching how the soda tax works out in Philly. Bottom line- Coke and Pepsi are making a fortune selling unhealthy, sugar laden soda. They, along with McDonald's and other junk food outlets which have created the obesity crisis should be taxed accordingly. Come clean and deal with it!

dchang0 Phillyguy Mon, 08/21/2017 - 01:08 Permalink

I could support you if you had said: "We should remove sugar and corn subsidies so that Coke can't get cheap corn syrup and has to pay the actual free market price, which would result in more-expensive Coke drinks and fewer sales, reducing diabetes," but you totally overlooked this moral route that helps consumers by reducing their taxes and chose the immoral "increase taxation" route.

In reply to by Phillyguy