Coca-Cola: Philadelphia's tax on sweetened drinks is hurting

Associated Press ^ | Apr 28, 2017 10:46 PM EDT

[Olog-hai]

Coca-Cola says Philadelphia’s new tax on sweetened drinks is seriously hurting their business in the city.

According to a story on the beverage company’s website, the company’s volume in Philadelphia is down 32 percent from a year ago.

Fran McGorry, president and general manager of the local bottler known as Philly Coke, says because of the lost sales, the company’s workforce has been reduced by about 40 positions. The company has more than 700 workers in the region. …

[ConservativeMind]

All taxes are penalties.

[EEGator]

It helped soda sales in Montgomery and Delaware Counties...

[wastoute]

“But it is just 3 cents!”

[Sacajaweau]

1.5 cents per ounce

[flaglady47]

The law of unintended consequences.

[MNDude]

I could read that over 12% of food stamps goes towards soda.

[Olog-hai]

Slightly off-topic, but I haven’t looked too deeply into how militias raise funds, i.e. historically. People like Richard Henry Lee believed that having militias would “render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary”, seeing the militia as mentioned in the Second Amendment as “in fact, the people themselves”; what with rather draconian taxation being the big linchpin upon which the feds hang military spending, it would be of great import to pull that rug out from under them, perhaps with the help of the militia(s).

[MrEdd]

And in Philadelphia that is just if they buy one two liter bottle.

[nwrep]

Then why don’t you?

[Popman]

Having been in the soft drink business for about 25 years as a general manager. I know the P&L numbers.

Having a 32 % drop in sales volume and only laying off only 40 out of 700 employees was just a start.

I’m sure Philly Coke is unionized and 40 was probably the number management and the union worked out for now.

More layoffs will be coming.

Coca Cola sells him the concentrate to make the end products, those always come with volume incentives to reach a certain annual volume increase.

It’s a substantial amount of money which he will lose.

This is going to be interesting how it all plays out.

I’d love to see his P&L statements.

[ProudFossil]

Look on the bright side. Diabetics no longer drink the bad stuff and kids will not be as fat because of fewer calories.

Of course diabetics never drank the stuff anyway (I know since I am one) and kids will just eat more fast food and still be fat.

And on the good side, a bunch of union people can now get welfare and unemployment which probably is more money than they were making working hard at the bottling plants.

[IYAS9YAS]

The capital city here in NM wants to do the same thing, but with a 2-cent-per-ounce tax on pretty much all non-water, non-alcohol beverages. That would more than double the current price of a two-liter bottle of soda. Diet, sugared, teas, energy drinks, sports drinks, all of ‘em. It would just apply to sales within the city of Santa Fe, but would be collected at the distributor level. The city wants to fund pre-K education with the money, but they’re already sitting on a multi-million dollar surplus for the city itself.

[IYAS9YAS]

Only 34% of the federal budget spending is discretionary. Defense spending is within the discretionary spending arena. Defense spending makes up 17% of the total federal spending. Mandatory spending (Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment, Snap, interest on national debt, etc...), makes up a total of 66% of all federal spending.

[Olog-hai]

Thanks for the figures, but I was trying to think more in terms of federal control of the military and serving a centralized agenda versus being purely for defense of US interests in a Constitutional sense. Once the federal government controls the supply of the troops, they also control the agenda they fight for.

Richard Henry Lee in Letters From the Federal Farmer discussed the notions I had in mind:

The military forces of a free country may be considered under three general descriptions:

1. The militia,
2. the navy, and
3. the regular troops.

And the whole ought ever to be, and understood to be, in strict subordination to the civil authority; and that regular troops and select corps ought not to be kept up without evident necessity. […]

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government.

First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men not having permanent interests and attachments in the community, to be avoided. …

Federal control in this wise can only be towards maintenance of regular troops and select forces, and indeed against the militia whose functions they subsume.

[eyeamok]

the company’s workforce has been reduced by about 40 positions.” and they reduced sales by 32%.

From their perspective it is a Win Win!, they knocked down to size a Big Greedy Business exploiting the Public and it’s own employee’s, then it created a potential 40 new democrat Voters as soon as they become dependent on Democrat Government Welfare.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Ah, but imbecile Mayor Kenny brags that he’s now raised millions for Pre-K education - that keeps the teachers union happy, and that keeps the donations coming to the ‘rat party, and that keeps the party faithful happy - and that’s all that matters......