I missed that.
Costco and probably Sam’s Club and BJs.
The text of the article doesn’t say anything about that either way, I didn’t watch the video because I originally watched this on the telly, and in that segment of the news they said that diet sodas were either taxed less or not at all…and huh! that’s weird, I would have sworn that the article I linked to had a video.
Anyway, that was also one of my take aways from the story, that the city council seems to think that diet soda is better or healthier somehow. I suppose it is in moderation, but c’mon, this is the United States, since when do we (as a group) do anything with enough moderation to keep it in the healthy category?
They tried one cent an ounce here in Chicago a few months ago. The city’s denizens went fucking apeshit and the tax was repealed a few months later on Dec 1.
Cook County (not just the city), and one of the “features” of the tax was that, despite the stated goal of taxing sugary drinks, they included diet / sugar-free drinks in it, for some reason.
But, yes, it proved to be incredibly unpopular, and had the apparent side effect of causing a lot of people to shift their grocery shopping to outside of Cook County.
Sorry, yes, Cook County. Shows how parochial I am. 
The diet drinks thing pissed me off, as that’s all I drank. I didn’t think I would change my shopping habits but, it turned out I did. A half hour trip to Meijer a county over once every couple of weeks wasn’t too onerous.
Well, there’s some research (far from conclusive, and some of highly dubious quality) that artificially sweetened foods/beverages have negative health implications, so why not tax those too to [del]raise money for the general fund[/del] improve people’s health?
A sufficiently crunchy community might decide to believe published studies showing harm from GMOs, so a tax on any food that isn’t GMO-free could [del]fatten city coffers[/del] help us live longer and avoid chronic diseases.
I read a report recently that said that artificial sweeteners have the same effect on your brain as sugar. It hits the pleasure center, releasing dopamine and causing you a small high that you want to keep replicating. It’s on the lower spectrum of addictive substances, but sweeteners in any form are not great.
I saw on the local news that Costco had clear signs on their pop displays illustrating how the tax raises the price and encouraged consumers to go to their non-Seattle stores. It was pretty clear Costco wasn’t at all happy. I have to go to the Seattle VA today, so I’ll check their machines and the soft drink prices in the canteen. I wonder if government facilities are exempt from the tax?
And the high refined carb food guidelines pushed by the U.S. government in the 1970s was based on faulty science, targeted at children and intended to bolster farmers, was written by a journalist named Nick Mottern and lead to a dramatic increase in obesity. Linkyto pdf with U.S. obesity rates. Note, the new guidelines went into effect in 1977. The last graph is rather amazing. Then the government keeps pushing new guidelines that are just as faultyas the 1970s version.
But yeah. Lets blame businesses and tax soda, that’ll fix it. Because government reports are always non-biased and true…
Slee
Unfortunately, this silliness has a tendency to spread to the rest of us. Philadelphia implemented a soda tax, which has resulted in distribution plant layoffs, loss of revenue for city retailers and (not surprising at all) less tax revenue than the city had projected. Consumers are buying their soda outside of the city limits, or cutting back.
One of the purposes of these taxes is to reduce consumption, so cutting back is actually a good thing.
A good thing in some minds, that’s one of the justifications. But it’s social engineering by tax code, which I don’t support. And in the end, these types of targeted taxes are almost always intended to hit “other people”, not supporters of the tax who have power and influence. And they usually have negative consequences for local residents and businesses.
Wow, that’s horrible.
The actual amount, if applied to dispensed drinks, would not be horrible. 1.75 cents per ounce on a 16 ounce cup would be 28 cents. However, when applied to 12 packs and cases, it becomes absurd to the point of driving local merchants out of the bulk soda market.
Well, I wonder how widespread THIS will be. The Seattle VA did raise their prices from $1.70 a bottle to $2.00. They raised the prices on everything, including water and diet drinks. It completely defeats the purpose of the tax.
Yes, this was a complete disaster in Cook County. Be interesting to see how it fares in Seattle.
Are French pastries subject to the tax too?
No?
Didn’t think so.
Always interesting to see how sugar in some forms is the devil’s tool and in others is A-OK.
The Cook County tax was also rammed through a couple of days after the Trump win, so no one was paying attention to local politics. It applied to the diet cranberry juice I drink, with a whopping 5 calories per serving.
The city leaders are either lying or never took Econ 101.
Note too that it applies to Gatorade and Red Bull but not sugared coffee drinks. Presumably the intention was to avoid arousing opposition from large locally-based coffee-selling companies, but that further widens the perception of class differences in the way it has been imposed.
The tax rate is per volume and doesn’t vary, but the price of soda drops with volume, so the apparent tax rate per dollar rises. It works out to be about a 20% tax on a single can, and it rises to about a 75% tax on cases at bulk stores.
So, it’s the government version of a quick cash payday lender.