Posted on 08/08/2017 9:34:48 AM PDT by C19fan
Philadelphia's tax on sugary drinks has made soda more expensive than beer in the city.
The Tax Foundation released a new study on the excise tax last week, finding that the 1.5-cent per ounce tax has fallen short of revenue projections, cost jobs, and has forced some Philadelphians to drive outside the city to buy groceries.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...

New York - After successfully funding a campaign to pass a soda tax in Philadelphia, billionaire Michael Bloomberg is preparing to fund similar efforts in several other cities, giving new momentum to measures seeking to limit soft drink consumption.
The former New York City mayor contributed the bulk of the money for the pro-soda tax side in Philadelphia, providing around $1.6 million. Now the prominent public health crusader will support measures in San Francisco and Oakland, California this year...
No, they’ll see that as an opportunity to now add a beer tax.
OTOH, I've started drinking more beer, not a lot, but up from zero. There are some decent beers, reasonably priced, and, oddly, they're probably healthier than the soda I was drinking.
Also drinking a lot more coffee instead of soda.
Homer Simpson not hardest hit!
You mean "Tonic"?
I pretty much gave-up drinking pop about six years ago.
Mainly out of a desire to not become a fat old diabetic.
I think it was the right call. You don’t realize how much you consume without thinking about it. Especially when eating out. I think I may have had five glasses of pop during calendar year 2016.
That being said, I am a staunch opponent of nanny governments trying to FORCE you to quit drinking it.
"[T]he tax was originally promoted as a vehicle to raise funds for prekindergarten education, but in practice it awards just 49 percent of the soda tax revenues to local pre-K programs," Shupert and Drenkard write. "Another 20 percent of the soda tax revenues fund government employee benefits or city programs, while the rest of the money will go towards parks, libraries, and community schools."
Wait, the government doesn't do with the money what it said it would? Pays itself instead? And it isn't actually For The Children at all?
Very unexpected.
And the notion that people will leave the area in which the product is taxed and buy it somewhere else - who could possibly have known? (Mr. Smith, Mr. Adam Smith, white courtesy telephone, please).
Armed Pepsi checkpoints and summary execution for possession of Dr. Pepper. It's the only solution.
Sweet Kool-Aid okay then?
Liberal voters are just plain stupid people. Liberal politicians know exactly what they are doing.
Makes sense to me. Beer is far more healthy than soda pop. As a matter of fact, I propose a tax rebate for purchasing beer.
Pretty much all of the tobacco settlement money went to pave streets and prop-up failing pension funds.
These people never learn.
“The Whiskey Rebellion (also known as the Whiskey Insurrection) was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791 during the presidency of George Washington. The so-called “whiskey tax” was the first tax imposed on a domestic product by the newly formed federal government. It became law in 1791, and was intended to generate revenue for the war debt incurred during the Revolutionary War. The tax applied to all distilled spirits, but American whiskey was by far the country’s most popular distilled beverage in the 18th century, so the excise became widely known as a “whiskey tax”. Farmers of the western frontier were accustomed to distilling their surplus rye, barley, wheat, corn, or fermented grain mixtures into whiskey. These farmers resisted the tax. In these regions, whiskey often served as a medium of exchange. Many of the resisters were war veterans who believed that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation, while the federal government maintained that the taxes were the legal expression of Congressional taxation powers.”
“Throughout Western Pennsylvania counties, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion
I don’t know about anybody else, but around where I live, only poor people drink soda. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
“contributed the bulk of the money for the pro-soda tax side”
So he bribed politicians to enact a law he wants.
There should be a traveling militia going around the country taking out folks like this.
Absolutely! I openly mocked Bloomberg’s soda ban.
And I agree that I practically guzzled soda, a bad habit that carries over to my coffee drinking, and thankfully, I’m aware of so it doesn’t become a problem with alcohol
Nah, “Pop” is my father, I’m “Tanniker”.
;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.