Posted on 01/11/2011 6:43:59 AM PST by JustSurrounded
Like Pepsi wouldn’t pass the expense on to their customers. No, they moved out for some other reason.
Probably right. I just thought it was interesting that they cited it. I suppose they were going to leave anyway, but had to get in a dig on behalf the soda business, since they’re still marketing in the city?
Hey! Baltimore is well known for a large surplus of job opportunities. So what’s the problem? (/s - duh!)
I’m not clear on this. Is the tax on retail or wholesale or both? If it’s on wholesale sales, then it’s easy to understand why a bottling plant would move.
When you consider the product, the price sensitivity of the consumer, the ease of shopping elsewhere for a better price, it should be no surprise. The clincher is that "city unions" were involved in the heated discussions about the tax.
We're told the city had to balance the budget and this tax surely balanced it on paper with the usual CBO-style estimate with no basis in reality. Stores report beverage sales are down so the tax revenue will also be down but more important, they have lost the tax revenue that came from the plant itself.
So ask yourself, why didn't they put the tax on the consumer side? Yes, the Pepsi products would be subject to the tax but so wouldn't those products bottled outside the city but sold within. At least it wouldn't directly impact the plant and conceivably, product sales lost within the city would be regained in the surrounding communities. But they wouldn't put their business at a comparative disadvantage.
Copy cats they just want to be just like California,broke.
send me your money
"All right, give me a Pepsi Free."
Once again, liberals destroy an economic sector.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
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.