RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Philadelphia’s Soda Tax Bombed As Predicted - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Philadelphia’s Soda Tax Bombed As Predicted Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 36,039
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 22 May 2019 - 01:24 PM

Philadelphia's Soda Tax Bombed As Predicted
JAZZ SHAW
Posted at 2:31 pm on May 18, 2019
Hot Air

<More Surprise Here Because democrats Are Just That Stupid>

Back when Philadelphia decided to join the ranks of liberal cities fleecing its inhabitants with a soda tax to "improve their health," we predicted here that it was going to backfire. The effects were felt almost immediately when workers starting losing their jobs at Pepsi. But still, they persevered and stuck with it. Surely people would start opting for healthier beverage options and those big tax revenues would begin streaming in to fill the city's coffers. Now that they've been at it for well over a year, how did it work out? Sales in local retail outlets have plunged by more than 50% and mysteriously people are still drinking soda. (CNN)

Implementing a sales tax may help get Americans to stop drinking sugary drinks, if a new study about Philadelphia soda consumption is any indication.

In 2017, Philadelphia became the second US city to put a tax on sugary drinks and soda. In the wake of the tax, sales on those beverages dropped by a whopping 51% in the first year, according to a study published Tuesday in the medical journal JAMA.

The study compared beverage costs and sales in Philadelphia — following implementation of the 1.5 cents per ounce tax — with Baltimore, which has a similar demographic but doesn't have the same sales tax. With the tax, beverages in Philadelphia jumped from 5.43 cents per ounce in 2016 to 6.24 cents in 2017.

Take note of how CNN chooses to open the story and the way they phrase the results. Having a sales tax of this type "may help get Americans to stop drinking sugary drinks." Oh, so it "may," eh? If all you read was the first few paragraphs, you might come away with the impression that this was the goal all along and it must have worked, right? A 51% decline in sales surely must mean healthier lifestyles are sweeping the city.

But that's only if you stopped reading there. Just as happened in so many other municipalities, the report shows that soda sales in neighboring counties and towns mysterious shot up at the same time. From the article, emphasis added:

While researchers found that sales of sugary beverages fell in Philadelphia after the tax, beverage sales in nearby towns and counties without the tax went up. That suggests people may have been traveling to get their soda at a reduced price.

Wonders never cease.

(snip)

<More Surprise Here Because democrats Are Just That Stupid>
0

#2 User is offline   mjperry51 

  • My Brain Hurts!!
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 12,120
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 22 May 2019 - 01:40 PM

Fascinating. . .
0

#3 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 36,039
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 22 May 2019 - 01:50 PM

View Postarticle, on 22 May 2019 - 01:24 PM, said:

While researchers found that sales of sugary beverages fell in Philadelphia after the tax, beverage sales in nearby towns and counties without the tax went up. That suggests people may have been traveling to get their soda at a reduced price.


Any bets that people don't drive to another municipality or county JUST for soda? Maybe Philly should be looking at the overall decline of the sales tax receipts from grocery stores in general. Because democrats are JUST that stupid.
0

#4 User is offline   CHANG 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 757
  • Joined: 07-July 04

Posted 22 May 2019 - 03:57 PM

View PostMTP Reggie, on 22 May 2019 - 01:50 PM, said:

Any bets that people don't drive to another municipality or county JUST for soda? Maybe Philly should be looking at the overall decline of the sales tax receipts from grocery stores in general. Because democrats are JUST that stupid.


I live in south jersey, about 20 mins from philly. On the weekends my local Walmart and shoprite parking lots are jammed with cars with pennsy tags.
0

#5 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,103
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 22 May 2019 - 04:30 PM

View Postmjperry51, on 22 May 2019 - 01:40 PM, said:

Fascinating. . .

Shazaham!
0

#6 User is online   helton 

  • Blueberries good, liberals bad!
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 02-September 03

Posted 23 May 2019 - 12:09 AM

Who'd a thunk it?

Attached File(s)


0

#7 User is offline   Timothy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 9,999
  • Joined: 12-December 03

Posted 23 May 2019 - 01:39 AM

View PostMTP Reggie, on 22 May 2019 - 01:24 PM, said:

Take note of how CNN chooses to open the story and the way they phrase the results. Having a sales tax of this type "may help get Americans to stop drinking sugary drinks." Oh, so it "may," eh? If all you read was the first few paragraphs, you might come away with the impression that this was the goal all along and it must have worked, right? A 51% decline in sales surely must mean healthier lifestyles are sweeping the city.

But that's only if you stopped reading there. Just as happened in so many other municipalities, the report shows that soda sales in neighboring counties and towns mysterious shot up at the same time. From the article, emphasis added:

While researchers found that sales of sugary beverages fell in Philadelphia after the tax, beverage sales in nearby towns and counties without the tax went up. That suggests people may have been traveling to get their soda at a reduced price.

Wonders never cease.

And if you read the very next sentence in the article it says: "Adjusting for this shift, researchers found sales dropped 38% overall." (bolding mine)

So it doesn't really disprove the idea that this it has been successful in reducing soda consumption.
0

#8 User is offline   USNJIMRET 

  • Rule 1:The Chief is right Rule 2:If in doubt, check Rule 1
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,291
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 23 May 2019 - 02:58 AM

Quote

That suggests people may have been traveling to get their soda at a reduced price.

Ya think??So glad we have expert analysis like this from the MSM.
0

#9 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 30,997
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 23 May 2019 - 03:03 AM

View PostTimothy, on 23 May 2019 - 01:39 AM, said:

And if you read the very next sentence in the article it says: "Adjusting for this shift, researchers found sales dropped 38% overall." (bolding mine)

So it doesn't really disprove the idea that this it has been successful in reducing soda consumption.

:biglaugh:

The sales dropped there, but went up elsewhere because the people went elsewhere to buy their sodas, genius! :lol:

View PostUSNJIMRET, on 23 May 2019 - 02:58 AM, said:

[/i][/left]
Ya think??So glad we have expert analysis like this from the MSM.[/size][/font][/color]

And Timmah! :lol:
0

#10 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,481
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 23 May 2019 - 09:06 AM

View PostTimothy, on 23 May 2019 - 01:39 AM, said:

And if you read the very next sentence in the article it says: "Adjusting for this shift, researchers found sales dropped 38% overall." (bolding mine)

So it doesn't really disprove the idea that this it has been successful in reducing soda consumption.


:yawn:

Timmah!
0

#11 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,481
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 23 May 2019 - 09:07 AM

View PostRock N, on 23 May 2019 - 03:03 AM, said:

:biglaugh:

The sales dropped there, but went up elsewhere because the people went elsewhere to buy their sodas, genius! :lol:


And Timmah! :lol:


He's just that, another leftist dullard. Like the idiots in Failadelphia that dreamed up this retarded tax!

View PostMTP Reggie, on 22 May 2019 - 01:50 PM, said:

Any bets that people don't drive to another municipality or county JUST for soda? Maybe Philly should be looking at the overall decline of the sales tax receipts from grocery stores in general. Because democrats are JUST that stupid.


:exactly:

Without stupidity, Democraps don't thrive.
0

#12 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,795
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 23 May 2019 - 09:08 AM

View PostTimothy, on 23 May 2019 - 01:39 AM, said:

And if you read the very next sentence in the article it says: "Adjusting for this shift, researchers found sales dropped 38% overall." (bolding mine)

So it doesn't really disprove the idea that this it has been successful in reducing soda consumption.


Not necessarily. Let's put both parts together and examine the whole thing carefully:

"While researchers found that sales of sugary beverages fell in Philadelphia after the tax, beverage sales in nearby towns and counties without the tax went up. That suggests people may have been traveling to get their soda at a reduced price. Adjusting for this shift, researchers found sales dropped 38% overall."

See that part I bolded & underlined? They're only talking about "nearby towns and counties" specifically, and not towns and counties farther away.

And in any case - just because I can't help being curious - Do you believe government has any right to deliberately try to interfere in the sales of "sugary beverages" in the first place?

B)
0

#13 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 36,039
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 23 May 2019 - 09:12 AM

View PostTimothy, on 23 May 2019 - 01:39 AM, said:

And if you read the very next sentence in the article it says: "Adjusting for this shift, researchers found sales dropped 38% overall." (bolding mine)

So it doesn't really disprove the idea that this it has been successful in reducing soda consumption.



Thank you for saving them.
0

#14 User is offline   AntonToo 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 15,404
  • Joined: 28-September 04

Posted 23 May 2019 - 09:31 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 23 May 2019 - 09:08 AM, said:

Not necessarily. Let's put both parts together and examine the whole thing carefully:

"While researchers found that sales of sugary beverages fell in Philadelphia after the tax, beverage sales in nearby towns and counties without the tax went up. That suggests people may have been traveling to get their soda at a reduced price. Adjusting for this shift, researchers found sales dropped 38% overall."

See that part I bolded & underlined? They're only talking about "nearby towns and counties" specifically, and not towns and counties farther away.

And in any case - just because I can't help being curious - Do you believe government has any right to deliberately try to interfere in the sales of "sugary beverages" in the first place?

B)


Straw grasping, there wouldn't be significant soda-getting from far away, esp. while there is soda to be had nearby.

Thread should be renamed to - Philadelphia’s soda tax highly successful in it's goal to reduce soda sales.
0

#15 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,795
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 23 May 2019 - 09:47 AM

View PostAntonToo, on 23 May 2019 - 09:31 AM, said:

Straw grasping, there wouldn't be significant soda-getting from far away, esp. while there is soda to be had nearby.

Thread should be renamed to - Philadelphia’s soda tax highly successful in it's goal to reduce soda sales.


*sigh*

I realize English isn't your native language. You've demonstrated a distinct inability to comprehend plain English many times in the past, so I'll have to presume that's what happened here too. The article clearly states that they're talking specifically about nearby towns and counties, and makes no allowance whatsoever for those who went a little further.

And driving local businesses bankrupt, causing local workers to lose their jobs, losing tax revenue, etc, that's what you call "highly successful"???

Wow.

:blink: :pinch: :wacko:

But in any case, I'll ask you the same question I asked Timothy: Do you believe government has any right to deliberately try to interfere in the sales of "sugary beverages" in the first place?

:rolleyes:
0

#16 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 36,039
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 23 May 2019 - 10:00 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 23 May 2019 - 09:47 AM, said:

But in any case, I'll ask you the same question I asked Timothy: Do you believe government has any right to deliberately try to interfere in the sales of "sugary beverages" in the first place?


I want to chime in on this if you don't mind, Monty...

I don't believe government has a RIGHT to do so. But they are certainly allowed at the LOCAL or STATE level to try if they want, provided whatever they are attempting doesn't conflict with the Federal Constitution or that particular State's Constitution. Of course, in this example, the democrats as usual are idiots and can't see past first order effects.

This post has been edited by MTP Reggie: 23 May 2019 - 10:08 AM

0

#17 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,795
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 23 May 2019 - 10:32 AM

View PostMTP Reggie, on 23 May 2019 - 10:00 AM, said:

I want to chime in on this if you don't mind, Monty...

I don't believe government has a RIGHT to do so. But they are certainly allowed at the LOCAL or STATE level to try if they want, provided whatever they are attempting doesn't conflict with the Federal Constitution or that particular State's Constitution. Of course, in this example, the democrats as usual are idiots and can't see past first order effects.


Yes, I agree: They have no "right" whatsoever on any sort of reasonable, moral, sensible or objective level, but are "allowed" to do it anyway as long as it doesn't directly "conflict" with any specific part of the State or Federal constitutions.

I also agree that, AS USUAL, they're just too damned stupid to grasp why this was a terrible idea that was bound to backfire.

B)
0

#18 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,481
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 23 May 2019 - 11:10 AM

View PostAntonToo, on 23 May 2019 - 09:31 AM, said:

Straw grasping, there wouldn't be significant soda-getting from far away, esp. while there is soda to be had nearby.

Thread should be renamed to - Philadelphia’s soda tax highly successful in it's goal to reduce soda sales.


:rolleyes:

Darn, the vacation already over?

View PostMontyPython, on 23 May 2019 - 09:47 AM, said:

*sigh*

I realize English isn't your native language. You've demonstrated a distinct inability to comprehend plain English many times in the past, so I'll have to presume that's what happened here too. The article clearly states that they're talking specifically about nearby towns and counties, and makes no allowance whatsoever for those who went a little further.

And driving local businesses bankrupt, causing local workers to lose their jobs, losing tax revenue, etc, that's what you call "highly successful"???

Wow.

:blink: :pinch: :wacko:

But in any case, I'll ask you the same question I asked Timothy: Do you believe government has any right to deliberately try to interfere in the sales of "sugary beverages" in the first place?

:rolleyes:


Good luck getting anything coherent, or anything at all.
0

#19 User is offline   Timothy 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 9,999
  • Joined: 12-December 03

Posted 23 May 2019 - 02:50 PM

View PostRock N, on 23 May 2019 - 03:03 AM, said:

:biglaugh:

The sales dropped there, but went up elsewhere because the people went elsewhere to buy their sodas, genius! :lol:

I know it's hard but you should try reading for context some time. That number was explicitly stated as drop AFTER accounting for people buying in neighboring counties.

View PostMontyPython, on 23 May 2019 - 09:08 AM, said:

Not necessarily. Let's put both parts together and examine the whole thing carefully:

"While researchers found that sales of sugary beverages fell in Philadelphia after the tax, beverage sales in nearby towns and counties without the tax went up. That suggests people may have been traveling to get their soda at a reduced price. Adjusting for this shift, researchers found sales dropped 38% overall."

See that part I bolded & underlined? They're only talking about "nearby towns and counties" specifically, and not towns and counties farther away.

True, but I'm not inclined to think that is a big number if we're talking about consumers.

1) Sodas are often impulse buys, not something people often 'plan' for.
2) If people can go a shorter distance to avoid the tax they have little reason to go a longer distance.
3) Sodas aren't a big enough expense to justify going way out of your way for. The tax is 1.5 cents per ounce. You're standard 12 ounce can is going to cost 18 cents more. If you are going to buy 10 cases with a dozen cans each, that saves you $21.60.

I'm more inclined to doubt the claim because a 51% drop (or 38% drop) for something like 15-30 extra cents a beverage sounds implausibly high. Vending machines charge somewhere around $1 for a soda, restaurants around $2-3. My gut feeling is that there is something missing in this analysis. Especially something having to do with the supply chain for soda machines... like if this tax is on the end product when the customer buys a soda or on the concentrate when the restaurant or convenience store buys it. If it's on the concentrate it would make sense for them to buy in bulk elsewhere. But this article doesn't dig that deeply.

Quote

And in any case - just because I can't help being curious - Do you believe government has any right to deliberately try to interfere in the sales of "sugary beverages" in the first place?

B)

I don't think government has the right to ban it but I don't think it's unreasonable or wrong for the government to use taxes to create a disincentive to discourage it. Especially when sugary drinks contribute to higher health care costs which are often covered by the government.
0

#20 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 57,795
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 23 May 2019 - 03:25 PM

View PostTimothy, on 23 May 2019 - 02:50 PM, said:

True, but I'm not inclined to think that is a big number if we're talking about consumers.

1) Sodas are often impulse buys, not something people often 'plan' for.
2) If people can go a shorter distance to avoid the tax they have little reason to go a longer distance.
3) Sodas aren't a big enough expense to justify going way out of your way for. The tax is 1.5 cents per ounce. You're standard 12 ounce can is going to cost 18 cents more. If you are going to buy 10 cases with a dozen cans each, that saves you $21.60.

I'm more inclined to doubt the claim because a 51% drop (or 38% drop) for something like 15-30 extra cents a beverage sounds implausibly high. Vending machines charge somewhere around $1 for a soda, restaurants around $2-3. My gut feeling is that there is something missing in this analysis. Especially something having to do with the supply chain for soda machines... like if this tax is on the end product when the customer buys a soda or on the concentrate when the restaurant or convenience store buys it. If it's on the concentrate it would make sense for them to buy in bulk elsewhere. But this article doesn't dig that deeply.


I don't think government has the right to ban it but I don't think it's unreasonable or wrong for the government to use taxes to create a disincentive to discourage it. Especially when sugary drinks contribute to higher health care costs which are often covered by the government.


OK, thanks for the answer. I'm sure it'll come as no surprise I disagree with a few points. For example, I can't support government intrusion 'for our own health' (thanks for saving us!) If that was "reasonable" then they'd have to ban everything from red meat to candy to chips to twinkies and everything in between. Plus all "dangerous" activities like white-water rafting and skateboarding and mountain climbing and everything in between. Nope, no way to justify it.

Nor do I agree about how often soda is an "impulse buy" that most people "don't plan for". Of course I realize some will be impulse sales, but those of us who drink soda regularly and frequently make sure there's always a steady supply on hand. It's on every grocery list.

B)
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users