BACKFIRE: Philadelphia Implemented Soda Tax, But It Didn't Go As Planned

[jc456]

Lol! So the claim is that people wasted gas and time to drive out of town to buy soda for a few cents less??? Yeah, that makes sense .

well actually, it was the businesses that lose the money. it's why it was repealed in Chicago two years ago. you know this correct?

 

[daveman]

Lol! So the claim is that people wasted gas and time to drive out of town to buy soda for a few cents less??? Yeah, that makes sense .

It must, since that's what they're doing.

 

[daveman]

the hike was intended to improve their health.

Yeah right lol

Wanna buy a bridge?

Not me. That's what the leftists who pushed for it said they wanted, though.

Of course, they were lying.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The citizens of Philadelphia have been rocked by a tax on sugary drinks like soda, although the hike was intended to improve their health.

As outlined by Hotair on Saturday, the “soda tax” has actually led to Philadelphia residents traveling outside the city to buy their soda (and likely other goods), decreased the city’s revenue, and led to layoffs in the local beverage industry and cut hours for employees at small markets. It did not, however, lead to an increase in healthier beverage purchases in the city.

When the soda tax was first announced, workers at Pepsi took a hit. “With sales slumping because of the new Philadelphia sweetened beverage tax, Pepsi said Wednesday that it will lay off 80 to 100 workers at three distribution plants that serve the city,” philly.com reported in March of 2017.

And last month, the local outlet reported that the owner of Acme Markets, who has 16 stores in Philadelphia, had to cut employees’ hours because of the tax: “The beverage tax fell on about 4,000 items. In Acme city stores, soda sales dropped as much as 80 percent. Sales of other items covered by the tax, such as juices, creamers and energy drinks, were down 30 percent, and the number of customers declined by 5 percent. Philly stores cut an average of 150 to 200 employee hours per week, resulting in lighter paychecks for employees."

But the hit the employees took did not equate to a win for the “health” of its citizens. As noted by Hotair, Philadelphia residents were traveling outside the city to avoid the tax hike on their drinks.

A CNN report on a study from medical journal JAMA focused in on the 51% drop in city soda purchases, but admitted: “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.”

“People stopped buying their soda in the city (and almost undoubtedly a lot of other shopping list items) and decided to shop where prices were lower,” Hotair noted.

So was there at least an uptick in healthier beverage purchases because of the tax? Nope. “Philadelphia did not see an increase in sales of untaxed beverages such as bottled water,” CNN reported.

CNN did not discuss the revenue hit Philadelphia took, but Hotair did: “The tax on soda increased by 17%, but the sales fell by 51%. So, let’s look at this assuming one million ounces of soda was sold annually before the tax went into effect. If sales had remained the same, the city would have realized $62,400.00 in revenue instead of $54,300.00. But with the volume cut in half, they managed to slash their revenue to $31,200.00.”

Another failed example of using the tax code for social engineering


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wtf?! I had to agree with GG. It is what it is.

 

[daveman]

Water is now the most drank beverage all soda companies are feeling the loss...So yer idea that a tax on soda is the reason, I doubt it.

Your acknowledgement of the reality in Philly is neither expected nor required.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The citizens of Philadelphia have been rocked by a tax on sugary drinks like soda, although the hike was intended to improve their health.

As outlined by Hotair on Saturday, the “soda tax” has actually led to Philadelphia residents traveling outside the city to buy their soda (and likely other goods), decreased the city’s revenue, and led to layoffs in the local beverage industry and cut hours for employees at small markets. It did not, however, lead to an increase in healthier beverage purchases in the city.

When the soda tax was first announced, workers at Pepsi took a hit. “With sales slumping because of the new Philadelphia sweetened beverage tax, Pepsi said Wednesday that it will lay off 80 to 100 workers at three distribution plants that serve the city,” philly.com reported in March of 2017.

And last month, the local outlet reported that the owner of Acme Markets, who has 16 stores in Philadelphia, had to cut employees’ hours because of the tax: “The beverage tax fell on about 4,000 items. In Acme city stores, soda sales dropped as much as 80 percent. Sales of other items covered by the tax, such as juices, creamers and energy drinks, were down 30 percent, and the number of customers declined by 5 percent. Philly stores cut an average of 150 to 200 employee hours per week, resulting in lighter paychecks for employees."

But the hit the employees took did not equate to a win for the “health” of its citizens. As noted by Hotair, Philadelphia residents were traveling outside the city to avoid the tax hike on their drinks.

A CNN report on a study from medical journal JAMA focused in on the 51% drop in city soda purchases, but admitted: “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.”

“People stopped buying their soda in the city (and almost undoubtedly a lot of other shopping list items) and decided to shop where prices were lower,” Hotair noted.

So was there at least an uptick in healthier beverage purchases because of the tax? Nope. “Philadelphia did not see an increase in sales of untaxed beverages such as bottled water,” CNN reported.

CNN did not discuss the revenue hit Philadelphia took, but Hotair did: “The tax on soda increased by 17%, but the sales fell by 51%. So, let’s look at this assuming one million ounces of soda was sold annually before the tax went into effect. If sales had remained the same, the city would have realized $62,400.00 in revenue instead of $54,300.00. But with the volume cut in half, they managed to slash their revenue to $31,200.00.”

Another failed example of using the tax code for social engineering


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wtf?! I had to agree with GG. It is what it is.

I should be scared. Would it surprise you to find out I am against seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking bans, and every other stupid "keep us safe from ourselves" law out there?

It should not if you had been paying attention to anything I post.

 

[Moonglow]

Water is now the most drank beverage all soda companies are feeling the loss...So yer idea that a tax on soda is the reason, I doubt it.

Your acknowledgement of the reality in Philly is neither expected nor required.

Ditto.

 

[daveman]

Water is now the most drank beverage all soda companies are feeling the loss...So yer idea that a tax on soda is the reason, I doubt it.

Your acknowledgement of the reality in Philly is neither expected nor required.

Ditto.

And yet, the only Philly reality you've provided is NUH UH!!

Less than compelling, really.

 

[Marion Morrison]

 

[Kondor3]

Lol! So the claim is that people wasted gas and time to drive out of town to buy soda for a few cents less??? Yeah, that makes sense .

It does if they went to CostCo or Sams' Club and bought a trunk-full to take back home... suburban store sales must have skyrocketed.

Idiot Leftists.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol! So the claim is that people wasted gas and time to drive out of town to buy soda for a few cents less??? Yeah, that makes sense .

No. I don't know why I bother because you are consistently wrong about everything.

Most people have to leave the city anyway for work, or other reasons. On the way back from their trip, they stop at a store outside the city and stock up. Also, the few minute drive to get outside the city limits is worth it for people. It isn't only Soda, it is fruit juice, and anything the city defines as a "sugary drink".

Liberal/Progressive policies that sound good to some on their surface, always have unintended consequences that actually make the situation WORSE. Social engineering through government policy does not work.

They also may do ALL their shopping at a place outside the city instead of doing iit in the city.

So Pathmark doesn't lose, but the Pathmark in city limits does, and the city does because it loses all taxes on the sales, not just the drinks.

Absolutely. People are now going outside the city to do ALL their grocery shopping, so the city retailors, and the city lose out on sales and tax revenue. This was ALL anticipated by the opposition to the tax, yet the city went ahead with it anyway.

You know what it's like trying to teach a liberal something.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol! So the claim is that people wasted gas and time to drive out of town to buy soda for a few cents less??? Yeah, that makes sense .

How big do you think Philadelphia is anyway? The same thing happens here. Our county has a 8.5 cents per dollar sales tax on everything. People who live within ten miles of the county line buy their goods outside our county. For larger items, many travel from well inside of the county to buy their products.

The one philosophy liberals have never understood is action and reaction. When somebody takes an action, in most cases there will be a reaction. If the action is positive (such as lowering corporate taxes) the reaction is usually positive. If the action is negative, the reaction will likely be negative.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The citizens of Philadelphia have been rocked by a tax on sugary drinks like soda, although the hike was intended to improve their health.

As outlined by Hotair on Saturday, the “soda tax” has actually led to Philadelphia residents traveling outside the city to buy their soda (and likely other goods), decreased the city’s revenue, and led to layoffs in the local beverage industry and cut hours for employees at small markets. It did not, however, lead to an increase in healthier beverage purchases in the city.

When the soda tax was first announced, workers at Pepsi took a hit. “With sales slumping because of the new Philadelphia sweetened beverage tax, Pepsi said Wednesday that it will lay off 80 to 100 workers at three distribution plants that serve the city,” philly.com reported in March of 2017.

And last month, the local outlet reported that the owner of Acme Markets, who has 16 stores in Philadelphia, had to cut employees’ hours because of the tax: “The beverage tax fell on about 4,000 items. In Acme city stores, soda sales dropped as much as 80 percent. Sales of other items covered by the tax, such as juices, creamers and energy drinks, were down 30 percent, and the number of customers declined by 5 percent. Philly stores cut an average of 150 to 200 employee hours per week, resulting in lighter paychecks for employees."

But the hit the employees took did not equate to a win for the “health” of its citizens. As noted by Hotair, Philadelphia residents were traveling outside the city to avoid the tax hike on their drinks.

A CNN report on a study from medical journal JAMA focused in on the 51% drop in city soda purchases, but admitted: “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.”

“People stopped buying their soda in the city (and almost undoubtedly a lot of other shopping list items) and decided to shop where prices were lower,” Hotair noted.

So was there at least an uptick in healthier beverage purchases because of the tax? Nope. “Philadelphia did not see an increase in sales of untaxed beverages such as bottled water,” CNN reported.

CNN did not discuss the revenue hit Philadelphia took, but Hotair did: “The tax on soda increased by 17%, but the sales fell by 51%. So, let’s look at this assuming one million ounces of soda was sold annually before the tax went into effect. If sales had remained the same, the city would have realized $62,400.00 in revenue instead of $54,300.00. But with the volume cut in half, they managed to slash their revenue to $31,200.00.”

If it's one thing I regret about our Constitution, it's that our founders never thought of prohibiting governments from taxing people into submission. But then again, they never thought anybody would say our Constitution protects abortion, Church and State, or gay marriages either.

If the founders could have seen into the future, the US Constitution would be 75 pages with lots of color pictures so liberals in the future could understand it as well.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Lol! So the claim is that people wasted gas and time to drive out of town to buy soda for a few cents less??? Yeah, that makes sense .

Shockingly the majority of working people actually leave their mom's basement. I would bet that class includes your mom. People travel. They plan. They do what is financially best for themselves.They pick stuff up while they travel. Your mom does this you just don't know it.

Let me give you an example.

I travel quite frequently to Kansas for work. Two things I never do. I never leave my small town without a full tank of diesel and do my best to get back before filling up again. I will only buy what I have to in Kansas in order to make it back home. I buy cartons of smokes and will never buy them outside my town. Diesel is 25 cents a gallon higher due to taxes and cigs are a dollar higher due to taxes. I don't buy anything in Kansas. Kansas guys do the opposite. If the job is on my side they fill up here and buy 4 or 5 cartons of smokes before going home.

Taxes matter. People aren't stupid and they aren't stuck in one shopping zone. They find ways around it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

As outlined by Hotair

Next!

 

[2aguy]

The Mayor, like many other big city Progressives is an IDIOT.

No...this is all part of the plan.....now you have 80-100 people that can get fooled into thinking it is evil "Pepsi" who is to blame and that they need to vote more power to the democrats to increase welfare benefits for people laid off by evil corporations......and now, because the revenue didn't come in on the sugary drinks, they can demand raising taxes on something else...

A win all the way around for democrat party socialists....

 

[2aguy]

Lol! So the claim is that people wasted gas and time to drive out of town to buy soda for a few cents less??? Yeah, that makes sense .

No. I don't know why I bother because you are consistently wrong about everything.

Most people have to leave the city anyway for work, or other reasons. On the way back from their trip, they stop at a store outside the city and stock up. Also, the few minute drive to get outside the city limits is worth it for people. It isn't only Soda, it is fruit juice, and anything the city defines as a "sugary drink".

Liberal/Progressive policies that sound good to some on their surface, always have unintended consequences that actually make the situation WORSE. Social engineering through government policy does not work.

They also may do ALL their shopping at a place outside the city instead of doing iit in the city.

So Pathmark doesn't lose, but the Pathmark in city limits does, and the city does because it loses all taxes on the sales, not just the drinks.

Absolutely. People are now going outside the city to do ALL their grocery shopping, so the city retailors, and the city lose out on sales and tax revenue. This was ALL anticipated by the opposition to the tax, yet the city went ahead with it anyway.

You know what it's like trying to teach a liberal something.

Yes...it is easier teaching math to a dog than to teach any liberal anything......at least with a dog there is a chance they will understand the math....

 

[2aguy]

Lol! So the claim is that people wasted gas and time to drive out of town to buy soda for a few cents less??? Yeah, that makes sense .

How big do you think Philadelphia is anyway? The same thing happens here. Our county has a 8.5 cents per dollar sales tax on everything. People who live within ten miles of the county line buy their goods outside our county. For larger items, many travel from well inside of the county to buy their products.

The one philosophy liberals have never understood is action and reaction. When somebody takes an action, in most cases there will be a reaction. If the action is positive (such as lowering corporate taxes) the reaction is usually positive. If the action is negative, the reaction will likely be negative.

They understand it.....we just have more safeguards they have to knock down before they get complete control over us........ that's why they love walls, guns, and mass graves.....as long as those walls, guns and mass graves are under their control...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol! So the claim is that people wasted gas and time to drive out of town to buy soda for a few cents less??? Yeah, that makes sense .

No. I don't know why I bother because you are consistently wrong about everything.

Most people have to leave the city anyway for work, or other reasons. On the way back from their trip, they stop at a store outside the city and stock up. Also, the few minute drive to get outside the city limits is worth it for people. It isn't only Soda, it is fruit juice, and anything the city defines as a "sugary drink".

Liberal/Progressive policies that sound good to some on their surface, always have unintended consequences that actually make the situation WORSE. Social engineering through government policy does not work.

They also may do ALL their shopping at a place outside the city instead of doing iit in the city.

So Pathmark doesn't lose, but the Pathmark in city limits does, and the city does because it loses all taxes on the sales, not just the drinks.

Absolutely. People are now going outside the city to do ALL their grocery shopping, so the city retailors, and the city lose out on sales and tax revenue. This was ALL anticipated by the opposition to the tax, yet the city went ahead with it anyway.

You know what it's like trying to teach a liberal something.

Yes...it is easier teaching math to a dog than to teach any liberal anything......at least with a dog there is a chance they will understand the math....

This all kind of reminds me of what happened here a few years ago.

Cleveland thought they would jump on the liberal bandwagon of making minimum wage 15 bucks an hour. After careful study, they realized it would only chase businesses out of the city and into the suburbs. So their next attempt was to try and get the county to make 15 bucks the minimum wage to keep the businesses, and the county rejected the idea for the same exact reason.

They stood no chance at the proposal for the state. But even if they could and successful, it would only chase jobs out of the state.

You can't teach these people anything even it it's right in front of their face.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Mayor, like many other big city Progressives is an IDIOT.

No...this is all part of the plan.....now you have 80-100 people that can get fooled into thinking it is evil "Pepsi" who is to blame and that they need to vote more power to the democrats to increase welfare benefits for people laid off by evil corporations......and now, because the revenue didn't come in on the sugary drinks, they can demand raising taxes on something else...

A win all the way around for democrat party socialists....

They thought it would work like it did for cigarettes and alcohol. Those items are taxed to death, yet people still buy them.

Unfortunately for them, they didn't consider that people don't get addicted to sugar. And they will make adjustments if they wish to continue purchasing those items.