Philadelphia is 1st major American city with soda tax

[dmcowen674]

6-16-2016

http://wishtv.com/2016/06/16/philadelphia-is-1st-major-american-city-with-soda-tax/


Philadelphia became the first major American city with a soda tax on Thursday despite a multimillion-dollar campaign by the beverage industry to block it.

The City Council gave final approval to a 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax on sugary and diet beverages. The tax is set to take effect Jan. 1.

The tax will be levied on distributors. If they pass it entirely on to consumers, the cost of a 12-ounce can of soda would go up 18 cents.

A six-pack of 16-ounce bottles would go up $1.44.

Those extra charges would be much higher than the sales taxes imposed on soda by many states and some other cities.

 

[dmcowen674]

That will fix those Soda Thugs

 

[michal1980]

Liberals once again telling people whats good for them. They want government out of the bedroom, and into your gut.


This nothing but a money grab.

 

[Anubis]

this isn't gonna do anything other then make people pay more for soda

Cigarettes are taxed like mad. people still smoke

 

[Bitek]

CONTEXT:

Philly schools are in dire straits. The state was controlled by a tea party governor after Rendell, as was much of the legislature. There have been massive budget shortfalls and school closures as increased school funding could not be agreed to.

Even with the new dem Gov, the budget situation had not improved, so the city council had been lobbying for this tax to bring in revenue as opposed to higher property taxes or higher business taxes (which pushed business out of the city.)

There are only so many ways to skin a cat.

 

[michal1980]

CONTEXT:

Philly schools are in dire straits. The state was controlled by a tea party governor after Rendell, as was much of the legislature. There have been massive budget shortfalls and school closures as increased school funding could not be agreed to.

Even with the new dem Gov, the budget situation had not improved, so the city council had been lobbying for this tax to bring in revenue as opposed to higher property taxes or higher business taxes (which pushed business out of the city.)

There are only so many ways to skin a cat.

so they pass a tax on the poor. And dems claim they are for the little guy, once again proves they are liars.

 

[fskimospy]

this isn't gonna do anything other then make people pay more for soda

Cigarettes are taxed like mad. people still smoke

You realize research indicates a strong correlation between the cost of cigarettes and smoking rate, right?

 

[MustISO]

I have no issue with this type of tax. No one needs to drink soda, it's a choice (like smoking) and if they don't want to pay the tax just stop drinking it.

It's like luxury cars with gas guzzler taxes, don't want the tax then don't buy the car.

My real concern with tax increases like this is how it's going to be spent. I have 0% faith that it will be efficiently spent. Taxes go up all the time and yet it's very hard to see it being used wisely or efficiently.

 

[Exterous]

CONTEXT:

Philly schools are in dire straits. The state was controlled by a tea party governor after Rendell, as was much of the legislature. There have been massive budget shortfalls and school closures as increased school funding could not be agreed to.

Even with the new dem Gov, the budget situation had not improved, so the city council had been lobbying for this tax to bring in revenue as opposed to higher property taxes or higher business taxes (which pushed business out of the city.)

There are only so many ways to skin a cat.

I think your 'context' missed the mark given that the financial problems started in the early 90s - well before the tea party existed as a political force. I believe the Democrats had the majority in the legislature at the time although I don't know the voting record for the particular bill.

In 1993, the Pennsylvania legislature voted to freeze the funding formula, The "Education Subsidy for Basic Education," so that the funds allotted from the state to districts no longer increased in response to increases in enrollment, proportion of students with special needs, ability to raise local taxes, etc. Since Philadelphia experienced increased enrollment during the 1990s and has a disproportionately high number of students with special needs, this legislation was especially harmful to the financial health of the Philadelphia School District. Even though Philadelphia's local tax rate is essentially double that of surrounding counties, property values in Philadelphia are so low that the school district was not able to compensate for the loss of state funds. Confronted with ongoing ($200 million plus) deficits in projected district budgets and Superintendent Hornbeck's threat to adopt an unbalanced budget if the state did not provide sufficient funding to Philadelphia, in l998 the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a takeover law, Act 46. Act 46 allows the state to take control of financially troubled school districts and was specifically written with Philadelphia in mind.

http://www.urbanedjournal.org/archive/volume-2-issue-2-fall-2003/philadelphia-school-reform-historical-roots-and-reflections-2002-

She's a former principal and one of five members of the School Reform Commission that took over the district in 2001 to stabilize its finances. Instead, the commission has lurched from one budget shortfall to the next.

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/11/04/360146623/philadelphia-schools-another-year-another-budget-crisis

Phily is yet another school district facing declining enrollment while still being tied to past expenditure obligations. Enrollment is down 25% over the last decade which means a corresponding 25% decline in funding based on enrollment (which is, I believe, a huge chunk of the districts funding.)

Required expenditures like pension offerings and health obligations haven't gone down so that means less funding for actual education.

Only 36 cents out of every dollar goes to kids and classrooms.

Like Detroit and Chicago the solution isn't going to be a partisan solution. Both sides need to get together and have honest discussions with everything on the table. Sadly, just like Detroit and Chicago, the Republicans are heavily entrenched behind funding and refusing tax increases while the Democrats are firmly entrenched behind maintaining existing expenditures

 

[echo4747]

so they pass a tax on the poor. And dems claim they are for the little guy, once again proves they are liars.

Well .... if a tax is truly needed (Phila could have probably found a way to cut expenses if they really tried) I guess this is at least a tax that everyone who drinks soda pays including the "poor". So at least all that consume these products have some skin in the game. Folks willing to travel can buy their soda outside city limits I suppose.

 

[fskimospy]

so they pass a tax on the poor. And dems claim they are for the little guy, once again proves they are liars.

It's amusing to watch you lurch from one side to the other. When progressive taxation happens you complain about class warfare and targeting the rich. When consumption taxation happens you suddenly become a champion for the poor. It's so totally transparent.

 

[overst33r]

Didn't NYC try to do something similar? I think they tried to outlaw the supersize xtra large and it was ruled unconstitutional.

 

[JockoJohnson]

CONTEXT:

Philly schools are in dire straits. The state was controlled by a tea party governor after Rendell, as was much of the legislature. There have been massive budget shortfalls and school closures as increased school funding could not be agreed to.

Even with the new dem Gov, the budget situation had not improved, so the city council had been lobbying for this tax to bring in revenue as opposed to higher property taxes or higher business taxes (which pushed business out of the city.)

There are only so many ways to skin a cat.

This is to fund a pre-k program, not to help the higher grades in general. And, just to stick with the pure lunacy of Philthadelphia, a portion goes to the general pension fund for the unions. Keep in mind, the city is the only one passing it. Just like with the higher cig taxes, people can just easily go outside the city to get their fix.

And the city council was not lobbying for this tax. Mayor Nutter introduced it years ago and was opposed by the current mayor. Now the current mayor wanted it and pushed and shoved and held city council hostage right up until the summer break in order to get this passed.

I used to live in that shithole of a city and now I am in the suburbs. I watch the news and see how each side was for or against it and how all this played out.

 

[cubby1223]

The City Council gave final approval to a 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax on sugary and diet beverages. The tax is set to take effect Jan. 1.

A 24-case rises in price by $4.32. A case, at least where I live, is typically $7, we're talking a 61% tax!

 

[cubby1223]

I have no issue with this type of tax. No one needs to drink soda, it's a choice (like smoking) and if they don't want to pay the tax just stop drinking it.

I have no issues with a poll tax. No one needs to vote, it's a choice, and if they don't want to pay the tax just stop voting.


And the other side to your failure of an argument - the city needs people to pay the tax to fund their desires. Your argument is we should tax this until no one buys it anymore. But what position does it leave the city in without any tax revenues left?

 

[echo4747]

What about soda made at home? I see this sodastream device that you can use to make your own soda

 

[fskimospy]

I have no issues with a poll tax. No one needs to vote, it's a choice, and if they don't want to pay the tax just stop voting.


And the other side to your failure of an argument - the city needs people to pay the tax to fund their desires. Your argument is we should tax this until no one buys it anymore. But what position does it leave the city in without any tax revenues left?

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, unlike taxes on soda. Presumably you're a fan of not violating the constitution even if you aren't a fan of soda taxes.

 

[fskimospy]

Didn't NYC try to do something similar? I think they tried to outlaw the supersize xtra large and it was ruled unconstitutional.

No definitely not unconstitutional. If I remember right it was that the city exceeded its regulatory authority.

Good for Philly. It was a shame that this wasn't enacted in NYC but hopefully more cities will follow suit.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Tax em till they squeal and then tax em some more. This tax will be a burden to those who can afford it the least.

 

[Sonikku]

so they pass a tax on the poor. And dems claim they are for the little guy, once again proves they are liars.

Well they sure as hell aren't passes the taxes to the rich. The rich are too well connected and insulated at this point. The poor in contrast can offer no viable resistance.

 

[cubby1223]

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, unlike taxes on soda. Presumably you're a fan of not violating the constitution even if you aren't a fan of soda taxes.

The only argument you have against a poll tax is it is unconstitutional? Geez, you're not even trying anymore...

There once was a time when a poll tax was constitutional. People fought against it and it became unconstitutional.

People fought against alcohol and it became unconstitutional. People fought against that too and it became constitutional again.

Try again.

 

[waggy]

meh. I don't like these type of laws that target one item. I thought they were wrong with cigarettes and knew it would slide to other items.

 

[umbrella39]

It's amusing to watch you lurch from one side to the other. When progressive taxation happens you complain about class warfare and targeting the rich. When consumption taxation happens you suddenly become a champion for the poor. It's so totally transparent.

You are confusing an aspergers patient doing circles on his sit and spin... be nice

 

[Subyman]

Tax seems high. This likely raises a standard 12 pack of cans by 50%. That's insane IMO regardless of if you agree or disagree with taxing sodas.

Also does this extend to anything carbonated? Mineral water and such?

 

[fskimospy]

The only argument you have against a poll tax is it is unconstitutional? Geez, you're not even trying anymore...

There once was a time when a poll tax was constitutional. People fought against it and it became unconstitutional.

No, it's just the most obvious one. The real reason why poll taxes are unconstitutional is that people used them as a form of voter suppression, which undermines the fundamental democratic nature of the country. Soda doesn't exactly fill the same role.

People fought against alcohol and it became unconstitutional. People fought against that too and it became constitutional again.

Try again.

A small tax on soda is not even remotely equivalent to prohibition. Try again.