The "Soda Tax" Myth Part 3: It's a Slippery-Slope

When people say something is a "slippery-slope", it's considered a informal fallacy because it says there can be no middle ground when people argue a point. I've used the term a lot, and I want to acknowledge that I do see a middle ground in this, but to get there, I have to start with the simple fact that this is the start of something bigger here.

We began with taxing alcohol in 1862 at 20 cents a gallon under Lincoln to help pay for the civil war. Later on, we began taxing cigarettes, largely in part to help generate revenue, but with then a side-effect of helping health. From there, we began smoking bans, and then banning trans-fat foods.

In the end, we accepted all of these ideas and regulations. We realized that alcohol and tobacco was bad for us and we allowed the government to take more and more steps to stop us from, in a sense, killing ourselves. From simple taxation we went to bans. Its gotten to the point where smoking is banned anywhere but your own house, and to be honest, even as a non-smoker, I felt bad for the people who did smoke. In terms of drinking beer, we've agreed that alcohol should be consumed in reasonable quantities and by adults only.

So how does this relate to soda and sugary-drinks?

Sugary-drinks aren't that good for you. Period. Over the past few days, I've defended soda with as much fever and pride as possible. For me, a soda drinker, it effects me a lot. For some people I know, they don't think it will effect them at all, although I am quick to point out that in Philadelphia's case it most likely will.

But they aren't the problem. The problem is with over-consumption, abuse, and not taking personal responsibility for your actions.

That's IT. It's not hard, it isn't difficult, and it isn't much. If you consume too much of anything you run into problems. We seem so quick to run to the government to govern how we live. Why? Why are we so willing to give up our own personal freedoms for the sake of a little ill-conceived safety? We all know and realize that the biggest problem with this tax is that it isn't going to make people healthy in and of itself. We all know that over-consumption is the problem, be it fast food, junk food, or... well, anything.

So, where is this all going?

You may scoff at me getting so mad about this, but consider this: New York State is considering banning additional salt in restaurants. I am not kidding. SALT. Oh, come on, you know why; it's bad for you. Too much salt can give you a heart attack. Salt can kill you. We all know it, we all know its a fact... so why NOT ban it, right? I mean, if the government knows that TransFats will kill you, that soda isn't good for you, they MUST know better than us that salt must be banned as well, right?

Now we're looking at Pizza Tax. Why? Because it's BAD for 'ya! Come on, we all know it! Hell, it's WORSE than salt, let alone soda, right? The government is here to help! They want to make sure you eat right! An extra 10% per pizza isn't too bad, right?

Right?

I think you see my point.

So the soda tax was only the beginning. You, the people, have already shown your OK with the government regulating your day-to-day life and that they should be allowed to tax and/or ban anything THEY deem unhealthy for you. You? You have no say in this. These aren't put up to public vote, only to legislators.

Whatever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?! When did we all decide that giving up our personal rights? When did we decide that we are no longer a nation of grown adults who should be able to make decisions based on what we know an instead nothing more than children? I was never informed! Never got a memo, never got a IM, never got an e-mail, let alone a phone call.

Is this a "slippery-slope" No. The middle ground is there, and it can be reasonable if we actually start to look for it. If we're too quick to jump to a conclusion and don't look for alternatives, we're going to miss it and wonder why things got so bad. But I have argued that, yes, this is the start of the lost of some of out personal rights.

In the end, that is why I oppose this tax more than anything else. Yes, I may be mad about the fact that I'm finally getting taxed for what I enjoy as opposed to the smokers and drinkers. Yes, I may complain about why I think it doesn't make any fiscal sense. And, yes, I may have spent a ton of time and energy just to get to this point. The bottom line is that this tax is, literally, just the beginning of them taxing away your rights and, even more importantly, your responsibility to keep yourself healthy and alive.

Why do I oppose this tax? Because I want to be treated like an adult!

The "Soda Tax" Myth 2: It Will Help Raise Money

Or, in another way, "Why the Soda Tax doesn't make fiscal sense."

This is going to be a long post, folks, so I'm diving it up into a few sections:

1. The Fiscal Argument for the Tax
2. The Key Problem with the Tax
3. Who's Hurt By the Tax Economically
4. The Social Cost of the Tax
5. What About Jobs?
   
6. How To Raise the Funds Without a New Tax

So, point one:

1. The Fiscal Argument for the Tax

When you look at the economic outlook for the City of Philadelphia... it's pretty grim. Millions of dollars are needed to keep the city afloat another year, and the deficit just seems to keep getting bigger. To make up the money, the city has floated around some really unpopular ideas: Taxing trash bags, taxing plastic bags, closing down libraries and pools... even threatening to shut down the court system in order to get more money from Harrisburg. Yet it never happened. With unions working without a contract and the problem only getting bigger, these new harsh economic times called for new thinking.

Sadly, it wasn't for the better.
The argument for the Sugary Drink Tax is not based on health. Let me be clear; this argument isn't about your health. While other states may have thought about doing this in order to help keep health care costs down and, in turn, add more money to health care, this has NOTHING to do wit that.

Instead, the tax would be seen as a way to make more money for the city.


2. The Key Problem with the Tax

The problem, though, is multi-pronged.

For starters, revenue from soda will go DOWN after the first year alone.

Let me explain: The reasoning behind a "Sin tax", which is a tax that is imposed on certain items because we've deemed them harmful, is to REDUCE consumption of an item. Let me repeat that: The idea of taxing soda in the first place is to reduce the actual consumption of the product. In turn, you guessed it, revenue goes down.

While some analysis think it could bring in $18 Million or so the first year, keep in mind its based on the idea that people would continue to consume soda at their present rate. Adding an extra 40 cents to a 20oz bottle really isn't going to help.

So, we've covered that the tax isn't to make you healthy, and that the tax revenue from taxing it don't make any economic sense. But who else is hurt?



3. Who's Hurt By the Tax Economically

Retailers, namely the small ones, will be hurt most by this tax. But also you.

Without going into the much detail, in a capitalistic society, the idea is that the market itself determines what people want. In essence, supply and demand. Over the past few years in terms of health, we've seen more demand for healthy food and healthy food alternatives, and the market has responded by creating more healthy choices. But we also understand that the government needs to help from time to time to make sure that businesses look out for us.
The Sugary Beverage Tax would be leveled against retailers first.

Here's how it works:

Retailers would have to pay an annual tax of $.02 per ounce based on what they sell during the year. In turn, this will do three things; either force retailers to cut back on the drinks, force them to raise prices on their soda, or force them to levy the fee to their customers by raising prices across the board on certain items. To be honest, I couldn't even guess which route would be taken by most.

But, lets assume that retailers put it across the board to lessen the blow across the board. In the end, nothing is being done to stop you from buying soda because, well, you're only seeing a minor price increase in soda itself.

It also means that if you don't drink any sugary drinks yourself, you are now a victim of this tax. If you are in favor of this tax, you may be taxing yourself in a new way without even realizing it.

Grocery bill will go up if this law is passed. If the tax is spread across the board, and it could, it means that food prices will go up for everyone. The casual soda drinker is still hurt as much as the habitual one.

Wouldn't it make more sense to offer an incentive to both retailers and citizens to cut back on soda instead of taxing them? Allowing retailers who either cut back on selling soda a tax incentive or even if they stopped entirely would be more effective than a tax!



4. The Social Cost of the Tax

Now we get the the toll this can, and most likely will, have on society in this city. IF this tax is levied, do not expect people to simply stop buying soda. As I mentioned yesterday, diet soda wouldn't be effected and thus presents a new set of problems. Businesses will lose money and many corner stores keeping neighborhoods alive may disappear since they would not be able to compete against the larger stores offering lower prices on basically one item that everyone wants that the smaller places couldn't.

On top of that, people will start to simply cross the county or state line in order to get a cheap soda instead, or maybe stock up.



5. What About Jobs?

We're also talking about jobs.

Some people scoff at the idea that Coke and Pepsi, who both have factories in Philadelphia employing hundreds, if not thousands, are in danger of losing their jobs. To a degree, they may be right. But, please, tell me this; If the city where you had a major plant started to pass laws exclusive to you and their area, wouldn't you think twice about having a factory there?

Is job lost feasible under this tax? Yes it is. Demand would be down in the city, but its likely that outside the city demand would grow thanks to people simply going across either the county or state line to grab as much cheap soda as possible. So while it is possible we could see job lost at these plants, I doubt we'll see them shut down.

But the local stores and operators will be hurt and we will see job loss there.



6. How To Raise the Funds Without a New Tax

So, we've seen that the tax isn't about your health but about making money. I've shown that the reasoning for the tax itself doesn't make economic sense and that the impact on your wallet is effected even if you don't drink soda since the tax could be applied to everything thanks to retailers. I've stated that I think we won't see Pepsi or Coke leave town, but jobs were still in trouble at small retailers thanks to the tax.

How do we make the money back?

It's insanely simple: First, we don't need new taxes. The idea of a tax is to raise revenue, and as I've pointed out, there is no reason this one would work.

Instead, we need to start enforcing laws. We can start with tax evaders.
The City of Philadelphia is projecting a $150 Million Dollar Deficit. The City of Philadelphia IS OWED $300 MILLION DOLLARS. So let me make this so easy, even Mayor Nutter can understand:
-$150 Million + $300 Million = $150 MILLION SURPLUS

Easy enough?

So, that solves our short-term problem... what about long terms problems? How do we keep crime down while making money? Again, another easy one based on simply enforcing the law.

Currently in Philadelphia, minor crimes, a.k.a. Nuisance Laws, are not enforced. These laws include jaywalking, spitting, and littering among other things. All of these offenses can also be ticketed, thus revenue thanks to fines. The idea of enforcing these "minor crimes" is that it reminds you that the police are there for a reason; to enforce the law. How many times have you seen someone break the law in front of a cop and the officer did nothing?

If people start to respect the people who are supposed to protect them, crime goes down. If crime goes down, you don't need to much police presence. The revenue from ticketing may go down, but you've also reduced costs as well.

To be honest, I could go on and on about this. I've written twice with ideas on solving this mess, and the ideas always seem to get ignored. With City Council and Mayor Nutter trying to get more funds, I hope they look toward this and start using these ideas.

Tomorrow, I'm going to explore the issue even more and discuss your health, personal responsibility, and what it all means to soda.

The "Soda Tax" Myth Part 1: It Will Make You Healthy

Today, I'm going to take the time to debunk the myth that the soda tax will make people healthier. Now, before I start, I want to say a few things: First off, I'm not with a beverage company, I'm not paid by one, nor am I getting free swag from this. Not only that, I also want to point out that I'm not dismissing the fact that soda isn't great for you, but it isn't inherently bad. It seems so many people want to make it an either/or debate, when really, it isn't. But more on that later.

Soda alone does not make a person fat. In fact, simply put, soda in moderation isn't bad at all. If you have a can of soda once every two days, you're not doing that much harm to your body. If you exercise, you're in even better shape. Every day, you see people eating fast food, buying junk food, and simply consuming what they can either get their hands on the easiest or they enjoy. If, in the end, they exercise, stay active, and balance it with healthy food, really, what's the problem?

The idea of "taxing soda" is that it reduces consumption. There's a few problems with that logic.

For starters, it only taxes soda made with sugar and/or high-fructose corn syrup. You know what it doesn't tax? DIET Soda. So, the guy who wants to buy soda still can buy it without paying tax if he's willing to put something worse into his body.

Wait, what?

Point 1: DIET SODA IS BAD FOR YOU

For starters, Aspartame, the sweetener found in Nutra-Sweet, is commonly used in diet sodas. For me and others, it can actually trigger asthma attacks and other problems not related to caffeine consumption itself. Side-effects of it include dizziness, headaches, diarrhea, memory loss, and mood. The FDA has approved it, but it's only allowed in 90 countries out of over 150. In fact, it's 180 times sweeter than sugar. Neat, huh? So all the joy of sugar, but with much more painful side-effects. Throw in the fact that some people seem to ignore the fact that it is just as bad as soda itself, minus the calories, and you have yourself a recipe for disaster. The FDA has approved it, but it's only allowed in 90 countries out of over 150. Just to be clear, the stuff isn't going to kill you unless you drink a keg full of the stuff, and even then you just won't leave the toilet for a week.

Point 2: IT TAXES YOU FOR BEING CHEAP
Now, again, people keep referring to this thing as a "soda tax". The problem, though, is that it isn't a SODA tax; it's a SUGAR tax.

So, lets say you decide to not drink soda anymore because you hate the tax, so you go to the store to buy some juice. You have a choice between Mott's 100% Fruit Juice at $3.99 a gallon or a no-name brand for $2. You go up to the counter, pull out your $2... and then you're hit with a 2-cent per ounce tax! WHAT?!

Well, here's the problem: The juice you just bought has sugar in it. Yep, sugar! That means you would be required to pay an added tax on that juice to make you healthier. Your cost of living just rose thanks to this tax!

So the tax that was supposed to encourage people to make healthier choices may do just the opposite in some cases. Instead, they may buy bottled water which, in some cases, is actually pretty bad for you. It also makes it more expensive to make a healthy choice as well.


Point 3: IT TAXES YOU FOR BEING ACTIVE AND HEALTHY!

OK, lets just say you don't drink soda, and you only drink 100% natural juice. Awesome, and good for you! Personally, I couldn't do it, but still, good for you.

You've just hung out with your friends and played a great game of basketball, or maybe you just got done riding your bike around Fairmount Park, maybe even to work. You've worked hard, you're tired, and now you need to get some nutrients back in your body. So, just like most people, you go into the store and buy a Gateroade, Powerade, or maybe some other sort of sports drink.

BAM! 2 CENT AN OUNCE TAX!

Yes, your sports drink is now taxed thank to this law, so now there's a tax on being active and fit and not paying to drink bottled water. What? When was the last time you saw a water fountain in Philadelphia?

Point 4: TAXING THOSE WHO NEED IT

And now, the final group. Diabetics.

Now, this law, to those who want to point to the health benefits, is supposed to help stop people from getting diabetes, and to be honest, that's a great thing to try and stop. But, sadly, some people have it, and some people develop it at even a young age.

Thanks to this law, their little energy boost just got taxed.

In my life, I only knew of one person with the disease, and I want to state now that I don't know what type it was. I don't know if it was because they had low blood sugar, or if it was high. In the end, I knew they had the disease and it was a problem. Periodically while we were out, their blood sugar would get low and, being out of whatever it was that they may have had on them, we would go into the store and get a bottle of soda, or tea, or anything else with sugar in it to drink.

This tax will effect them as well.




I started by saying that we all want to paint soda in one way or another in this debate. There are people who so easily want, and do, compare it to smoking tobacco when, really, it's apples and oranges. There are also those who may go to far in their love of the drink to say it isn't bad at all. These people are also wrong.

Soda is fine.

We, as a society over the past 30 years, have taken the easy way out in these problems too many times. We seem to look to our government not to protect us, but to protect us from ourselves. This is one of the instances where we must start saying enough. This is when we need to start saying we need to be treated as adults, not children.

Soda isn't great for you. Personally, I drink about 20 - 32oz a day. Everyday. How and why can I do that, you ask? Because I can, and I know how much I can take. Everyone on this planet is different. What's right for you may not be right for me, and vice-versa. As Lemmy Kilmeister would tell you, "Anything that's good for me is fucking poison for a human being!" Actually, that one is true and no exaggeration, but you get my point.

I'm not trying to preach to everyone that soda is great, but I am saying that we need to start treating this just for what it is; a personal health matter.

Parents: Don't give your kid too much soda or sweets, it isn't good for them. A little treat now and then is fine, but not all the time. If you're an adult, just make sure you know how much you can handle and make sure you exercise properly.

In my humble opinion, if the City of Philadelphia cared about your health and that of everyone around, they would instead talk to Trojan and give out free condoms to the people in the city. Considering it's cheaper and easier to prevent STD's than it can be to treat it ($1 a condom if you're lucky)... yeah, lets focus on that and save a few more lives.

Philadelphia New Sugary Drink Tax Would Add 2 CENTS AN OUNCE!

2 CENTS AN OUNCE?!

Those greedy bastards are at it again! The details of this stupid, unhealthy, non-beneficial, and ultimately harmful plan have come out.

They want to tax you 2 cents AN OUNCE to drink ANY sugary drink bought in Philadelphia.

The sound of 2 Cents an ounce may not seem like much at first, until you realize what it adds up to. A 12-0unce drink gets an added quarter, 1 20-ounce goes up an added 40 cents, a 2-liter bottle get's an added $1.36, and a 12-pack goes up $2.88! Throw in an added cost of basic sales tax, and things get worse!

Now, you may be thinking to yourself, if you don't drink soda, "Ha ha! Those losers who drink soda are going to have to pay through the nose!" Well, your wrong. This tax effects ALL SUGARY DRINKS.

So say "Hello" to a tax on Apple Juice, Orange Juice, Prune Juice, and ALL Fruit Juices! Oh, and sports drinks are also subject to this tax.

Let me see if I get this straight: The City of Philadelphia, trying to make people "healthy", has decided to impose a tax that would raise the cost of even healthy fruit alternatives so that the low income citizens of Philadelphia will be outraged and unable to afford them, thus meaning that if you want to drink ANYTHING in Philadelphia, your best bet is tap or bottled water. The odd thing being that bottled water IS harming not only Philadelphia's bottom line, but also the environment.

Soda has become a scapegoat in a war to TAX YOU as much as possible.

Folks, welcome to the modern day stamp tax!

Photo courtesy of NorCalLabs

Why Are Retailers So Fucking Stupid?

Back in 2008, Dr. Pepper made a deal with America: If Guns 'N' Roses finally released "Chinese Democracy" before the year was over, they would give everyone in America a FREE DR. PEPPER. Sounds sweet, huh? I don't normally drink Dr. Pepper, but hey, free soda, right? I don't remember the details of how they did it at all, but I do know that they way they did it was bad: You had to apply for it within a small window of time. I never found out when and when I saw people on a message board I go to complain they didn't get it, I didn't really care.

The fallout was Guns 'N' Roses management was angry with how Dr. Pepper did the offer and created some sort of lawsuit to make them to do it again. Let me state, this is all from memory because I don't feel like wasting time finding it. Apparently, Dr. Pepper decided to give it another go because they offered a Free Diet Dr. Pepper if you applied for a coupon on their site. It was incredibly easy to do and I was done in 2 minutes. Last time, people spent nearly an hour waiting to get through!

Well, I got my coupon Monday after only 2 weeks of waiting (again, as opposed to the 2 months some people went through waiting). I decided to use it today and was pleasantly surprised I could also get a regular Dr. Pepper as well. Cool, huh?

There's a 7-Eleven near where I work and it's run by this god-awful Russian woman. I love Russia, I love Russian women, but her? HORRIBLE! She treats her employees badly, has no respect for customers, and just doesn't know how to do her job. In turn, handing her a coupon from a major manufacture, a fairly simple thing at a retail chain, she said, "We don't take coupon." I took it and left. That place sucks ass. 8th and Chestnut, in case your wondering, next to Quiznos and across the street from Starbucks.

The 3rd place I went to was Rite-Aid. I went to another place in between, a really sweet small shop (Old Nelsons, 7th and Chestnut. Great folks!) who couldn't take it, either. "Rite-Aid! I can't go wrong there!" I was greeted with this: "We don't take Internet coupons." "This isn't from the internet, it was mailed to me by Dr. Pepper themselves." "How did you get it?" "....OK, I had to order it online, but it was MAILED to me." She mumbled that "it didn't matter" and went to check with her manager in the back. If he was like me, he was pissed that a rather simple thing like taking a manufactures coupon was turned into a 5-minute ordeal. They took it, I got a free soda, and went back to work.

All and all... decent. I may have to drink more Dr. Pepper now, it's pretty good.