Philadelphia Soda Tax Causes Declining Sales, Layoffs & Falls Short of Projections

W

WhatInThe

SF VIP
Philadelphia who imposed a 1.5% per ounce tax on soda and other drinks has seen retailers lose sales, force layoffs and revenue projections fall short.

http://www.modbee.com/news/business/article134225474.html

Some retailers have seen a 50% drop in soda/drink sales. One supermarket chain has had to layoff 300 employees since January. Revenue projections were $7.6 million a month where early results only see $2.3 million from the first month. The city wants/needs over 90 million dollars a year in revenue just from the soda tax.

In the meantime communities surrounding the city have seen a 20% increase in sales.
 

I don't agree with the tax but it sounds like it's working, they need to keep widening the area where the tax is in effect until it no longer makes sense to travel to buy untaxed soda, that is how it worked with cigarettes. IMO it's foolish to rely on a sin tax for revenue, the tax is structured to decrease over time.
 

It's too bad about the job losses, but sugar is so bad for you it seems like a necessity to force people off the stuff. And Aunt Bea, you're right I think that they need to start widening the area that is taxed on the stuff. I'm sure over time, if they were to track it, they would find that health care costs would begin to show improvement as well as health outcomes.

********

But a second reading of the article and I caught this:

"They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven-figure bonuses," Kenney said.


 So is it fear mongering on the part of the soda producers? Because seriously, I can't imagine driving to a suburban area to pick up my 'stash' of soda pop because it got a little more expensive! That's just nuts. I might buy one bottle instead of two, but I'm not going to waste time and gas to go buy it in some other community! Actually, that would be pretty stupid wouldn't it?





Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/business/article134225474.html#storylink=cpy
 
Debby said:
It's too bad about the job losses, but sugar is so bad for you it seems like a necessity to force people off the stuff. And Aunt Bea, you're right I think that they need to start widening the area that is taxed on the stuff. I'm sure over time, if they were to track it, they would find that health care costs would begin to show improvement as well as health outcomes.

********

But a second reading of the article and I caught this:

"They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven-figure bonuses," Kenney said.


 So is it fear mongering on the part of the soda producers? Because seriously, I can't imagine driving to a suburban area to pick up my 'stash' of soda pop because it got a little more expensive! That's just nuts. I might buy one bottle instead of two, but I'm not going to waste time and gas to go buy it in some other community! Actually, that would be pretty stupid wouldn't it?

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/business/article134225474.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...

It sounds like the mayor is talking about the soda companies greed when he talks about 7 figure bonuses. But is he a business man or accountant? That tax is a 1.5% per ounce tax so if someone buys a carton or case that's a $1.50 for every 100 ounces. That's a lot of money for those companies to absorb.

As far as driving for a deal if there's a highway to a store they'll probably do it. Many warehouse stores are already spread out so if one goes to one there is already a drive. The people really hurt are those in the inner city not near a bordering town or those without a car.

Sugar and sugary drinks are only part of the problem when it comes to health issues. They need to incentivize things like exercise and do something to make the healthier foods cheap. They also must realize many families are extremely busy and can't prepare every meal in their kitchen so a Micky Ds stop is a convenience they really need.
 
WhatInThe said:
Sugar and sugary drinks are only part of the problem when it comes to health issues. They need to incentivize things like exercise and do something to make the healthier foods cheap. They also must realize many families are extremely busy and can't prepare every meal in their kitchen so a Micky Ds stop is a convenience they really need.
Click to expand...

Health care costs and issues are a major issue in this country. However, a major portion of those problems and costs are due to our own people, and their lifestyles. The CDC estimates that fully 1/3rd of our health care costs are due to Obesity and its various side effects. Virtually everywhere you go, there is an abundance of people with serious weight issues. It is a given that smoking causes many health problems, but nowhere near as many as Obesity. Cigarettes are taxed heavily, and smokers are required to pay more for their health insurance. IMO, the same thing should be applied to those who are overweight. If they had to pay several percentage points more for their coverage, perhaps some of these Obese would get off the couch and start taking a walk, and eating healthier. It's real easy to blame the insurance companies, etc., but the root causes of poor health are often based in the poor choices our people make.
 
I drank my 'share' of sugary drinks(and alcohol) back in the day...now I don't. Water, tea and an occasional club soda(with a twist of lime) works for me.

It's not rocket science to put toxic substances out of one's life, just gotta do it. Or not.
 
I think it's a great idea. Soda is bad for you. That is why I switched to beer years ago.
 
Debby said:
It's too bad about the job losses, but sugar is so bad for you it seems like a necessity to force people off the stuff. And Aunt Bea, you're right I think that they need to start widening the area that is taxed on the stuff. I'm sure over time, if they were to track it, they would find that health care costs would begin to show improvement as well as health outcomes.

********

But a second reading of the article and I caught this:

"They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women's jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven-figure bonuses," Kenney said.


 So is it fear mongering on the part of the soda producers? Because seriously, I can't imagine driving to a suburban area to pick up my 'stash' of soda pop because it got a little more expensive! That's just nuts. I might buy one bottle instead of two, but I'm not going to waste time and gas to go buy it in some other community! Actually, that would be pretty stupid wouldn't it?





Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/news/business/article134225474.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...

I don't drink sugary soda, but I strongly disagree with the Nanny State doing this sort of thing. I don't want the government in my face about everything that might be bad for me. What's next -- no chocolate, no cakes or pies, no pizza?

I think the government needs to stay out of our lifestyle choices. While there's such a hue and cry about sugar, are they doing the same thing about alcohol, which is FAR more dangerous in terms of lives lost and destroyed? Are they trying to tax that out of existence?
 
Butterfly said:
I don't drink sugary soda, but I strongly disagree with the Nanny State doing this sort of thing. I don't want the government in my face about everything that might be bad for me. What's next -- no chocolate, no cakes or pies, no pizza?

I think the government needs to stay out of our lifestyle choices. While there's such a hue and cry about sugar, are they doing the same thing about alcohol, which is FAR more dangerous in terms of lives lost and destroyed? Are they trying to tax that out of existence?
Click to expand...

Right. You can't legislate morals.
 
Don M. said:
Health care costs and issues are a major issue in this country. However, a major portion of those problems and costs are due to our own people, and their lifestyles. The CDC estimates that fully 1/3rd of our health care costs are due to Obesity and its various side effects. Virtually everywhere you go, there is an abundance of people with serious weight issues. It is a given that smoking causes many health problems, but nowhere near as many as Obesity. Cigarettes are taxed heavily, and smokers are required to pay more for their health insurance. IMO, the same thing should be applied to those who are overweight. If they had to pay several percentage points more for their coverage, perhaps some of these Obese would get off the couch and start taking a walk, and eating healthier. It's real easy to blame the insurance companies, etc., but the root causes of poor health are often based in the poor choices our people make.
Click to expand...




Yesterday when I was in the lineup at the supermarket checkout, there was a woman there with 14 large size bottles of Coca Cola Zero in her cart. Nothing else. Bad choices? Yes indeed.
 
Butterfly said:
I don't drink sugary soda, but I strongly disagree with the Nanny State doing this sort of thing. I don't want the government in my face about everything that might be bad for me. What's next -- no chocolate, no cakes or pies, no pizza?

I think the government needs to stay out of our lifestyle choices. While there's such a hue and cry about sugar, are they doing the same thing about alcohol, which is FAR more dangerous in terms of lives lost and destroyed? Are they trying to tax that out of existence?
Click to expand...


Except you as a tax payer, pay for those peoples bad choices. It impacts health care costs, productivity (which affects the costs of things you buy or services you require). And some people are just incapable of making the right choices for a variety of reasons. And you're right, alcohol is also hugely bad for the community but even that is better controlled than is the consumption of sugar because kids at least are prevented from accessing it until they are older whereas they are eating sugar every time they open their mouths to put something in.
 
IMO that's the price of living in a free society, we pay for everybody good choices or bad because each person is sure that the choices they make are good and the choices the other fella makes are bad.

I'm not in favor of singling out any groups of people, where do we draw the line on who we will take care of and who we won't. Do we start denying medical care to people who smoke, use drugs, are obese, have birth defects or are too old to contribute to society. I don't ski, jog or play football but I don't feel that those people should not be entitled to care when they break a leg, suffer a brain injury, etc...
 
I don't disagree that sugar is bad for us -- I avoid it because it makes me feel lousy; however, that does not change the fact that I do not believe the government should be making lifestyle choices for us. My body, my choice. I was a runner for years, because it was "good" for me. The orthopedic surgeon who replaced my hips told me that all those years of running contributed significantly to the fact that my hips wore out so early. Tax running because it might be bad for us? The government should govern -- not worry about our personal food choices. How 'bout we tax the heck out of fast food places -- when you eat that stuff you can hear your arteries hardening.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top