Seattle Charging A Hefty Fee For Sugary Drinks

[DorkVader]

Just saw this on the news this evening, and it seems pretty damned steep.
Any Seattle Dopers care to weigh in? Will there be a popular rebellion by the people of Seattle against the City Council? I was watching the evening news on the telly when I saw this, and it was made to seem that it was City Council that was really pushing for and championing this tax. I don’t know how they really are, but the little bit they had there spokesperson on tv made them seem really snotty and arrogant to me. Has Seattle’s current city government just taxed themselves out of a job?

[Voyager]

I’m not in Seattle, but I’m paying a tax on soda now in the Bay Area, and I have not heard any complaints so far. Certainly we are not rising up in protest.
Even as someone who consumes too many of these things, it is good for society to try to discourage use by people who might be harmed by them. Just like cigarettes.

[Smapti]

@guestchaz

Has Seattle’s current city government just taxed themselves out of a job?

We just had a mayoral election where the winner was on record as supporting the tax, so probably not.

[Grrr]

I’m not a soda drinker, but if I were, I think I’d drive over to the next town and save myself 10 bucks on a case of soda.

[BigT]

You say it’s steep, but you give no numbers. Grrr! does, but is that the actual numbers?

Not that I agree with this concept. It’s still an inherently regressive tax, which is why it seems to be in fairly affluent neighborhoods. And, unlike cigarettes, it’s not like soda is inherently unhealthy and we’re trying to stop everyone.

Still, a small amount might be something I’d be willing to try out, and see if the benefits outweigh all that. But if it’s what Grrr! says, which is basically a 200% tax or more, then I’m definitely opposed. You just did what Republicans try to do: take away pleasure foods from poor people.

I’d definitely see it as class warfare.

[Bill_Door]

I’ve seen some numbers, and it works out to be 1.75 cents per ounce, or around $5.00 for a 24 can case of 12 ounce containers. It does seem to put a burden on those without automobiles, in that it’s a tax that can be avoided by those with the ability to drive out of town once a month to buy a few cases.

[DorkVader]

The signage on the news and shown in the article said 7.50 i think( sorry i cant click my own link right now) raising the price to near 20 fpr a case of soda

[Lord_Feldon]

@Voyager

Even as someone who consumes too many of these things, it is good for society to try to discourage use by people who might be harmed by them. Just like cigarettes.

But the city seems to be claiming that the tax isn’t intended to raise prices for consumers:

The tax is not collected by the retailer nor is the tax burden intended to fall onto the consumer.

So, if you believe that, they aren’t trying to discourage use. It’s evidently supposed to be a magic tax that will give the money tree a little shake.

[GaryM]

That makes no sense at all to me. The distributors/manufacturers are supposed to pay the tax and not raise prices? Sure, that’s going to happen.

[John_Mace]

@Voyager

I’m not in Seattle, but I’m paying a tax on soda now in the Bay Area, and I have not heard any complaints so far. Certainly we are not rising up in protest.
Even as someone who consumes too many of these things, it is good for society to try to discourage use by people who might be harmed by them. Just like cigarettes.

@Bill_Door

I’ve seen some numbers, and it works out to be 1.75 cents per ounce, or around $5.00 for a 24 can case of 12 ounce containers. It does seem to put a burden on those without automobiles, in that it’s a tax that can be avoided by those with the ability to drive out of town once a month to buy a few cases.

Unless you live in SF, Oakland or Berkeley, you wouldn’t be paying the tax in the Bay Area. OR, unless you live in San Jose and do your grocery shopping in SF. Those municipalities have a $0.01/ounce tax. You can see all the cities that have such a tax here. Boulder, CO is on top with a $0.02/ounce tax, for the US. It looks like the tax is only in effect in places that are already petty liberal, so not too surprising there is no revolt.

[Shodan]

What is the point of the tax if it doesn’t raise prices for the consumer and thereby reduce demand? At least one of the advocates for the tax says it should do this -

“The soda industry disproportionately targets communities of color,” said Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, “communities of color who are basically being targeted for these sugary beverages, which makes us die earlier, have our kiddos have poorer health outcomes, and — frankly — an industry that makes money off the back of mostly brown communities and lower-income communities.”

But beyond the money itself, the hope is also that consumers will transition to other beverages, like water and 100-percent juice, unaffected by the tax.

“This is a critical public health approach that transitions individual choices so that they can have healthy options in their communities and in their neighborhoods,” Mosqueda said.

Cite.

If you like your sugary soda, you can keep it, apparently.

Regards,
Shodan

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@BigT

Not that I agree with this concept. It’s still an inherently regressive tax, which is why it seems to be in fairly affluent neighborhoods. And, unlike cigarettes, it’s not like soda is inherently unhealthy and we’re trying to stop everyone.

Soda is refined sugars and carbonated water with some flavorants and artificial colors, sold at massive profit by large corporations which create ad campaigns specifically targeted at children and which fund fraudulent scientific “research” to attempt to distance their product from the epidemics of childhood and adult obesity and Type II diabetes. Soda is inherently unhealthy.

Stranger

[Xema]

From Lord Feldon’s link:

@City of Seattle

… nor is the tax burden intended to fall onto the consumer.

This is strange, as discussions of the proposed tax very much centered on the “obesity epidemic” and higher prices leading to lower consumption.

@City of Seattle

The intent of the sweetened beverage tax is to tax the distributions of sweetened beverages into Seattle

Which is a bit like saying “The intent of our jaywalking law is to have a law that applies to jaywalking.”

[John_Mace]

@Xema

From Lord Feldon’s link:
This is strange, as discussions of the proposed tax very much centered on the “obesity epidemic” and higher prices leading to lower consumption.
Which is a bit like saying “The intent of our jaywalking law is to have a law that applies to jaywalking.”

And it’s not as bad to make people fat if you’re a small company. Only those mean old BIG companies are evil:

If a distributor sells products from a certified manufacturer that has worldwide gross revenue of over $2 million but less than 5 million, those sales are eligible for a reduced tax rate (.01/ounce). The manufacturer must apply for the reduced rate certification with the City.

[Xema]

… the hope is also that consumers will transition to other beverages, like water and 100-percent juice, unaffected by the tax.

Of course, a high percentage of 100% juice has sugar content very comparable to the taxed sodas.

[Dewey_Finn]

So does the tax apply to Diet Coke and Coke Zero Sugar as well as regular Coke in the red can?

[Bill_Door]

@guestchaz

The signage on the news and shown in the article said 7.50 i think( sorry i cant click my own link right now) raising the price to near 20 fpr a case of soda

I saw that signage, and the small print showed it was for a 35 can case of 12 ounce containers. I’m not familiar with 35 can cases, and suspect it was selected to make the tax seem more costly.

[John_Mace]

@Xema

Of course, a high percentage of 100% juice has sugar content very comparable to the taxed sodas.

And it seems that, these days, apple juice is the juice of choice for most parents to give to small children.

[Chefguy]

@Dewey_Finn

So does the tax apply to Diet Coke and Coke Zero Sugar as well as regular Coke in the red can?

Pretty sure the news story I saw said that sugar-free soda is not taxed. There is a similar measure being promoted for local voters, also. I don’t drink the stuff, so I have no dog in the fight.

[Dewey_Finn]

@Bill_Door

I saw that signage, and the small print showed it was for a 35 can case of 12 ounce containers. I’m not familiar with 35 can cases, and suspect it was selected to make the tax seem more costly.

Actually, the photo is of a case of 35 16.9oz (500 ml) bottles of Gatorade. Right below it is a photo of a case of 36 12oz cans of Dr Pepper, for which the tax appears to be $7.56. But yes, you’re probably correct that they chose one of the few products where the tax per case is over ten bucks.