Even the movies cant make this shit up. Seattle raising taxes on the poor again.

[Mikeoxenormous]

$26.33 instead of $15.99 a case? Costco shows Seattle customers just how much soda tax costs them

The city recently enacted a tax of 1.75 cents an ounce on surgary beverages. The result: A case of Gatorade that used to cost $15.99 now costs $26.33 — a 65% markup.

And a case of Dr. Pepper now costs $17.55 instead of $9.99, according to Costco. That’s a 76% surcharge.

Here is Costco's answer for this bullshit tax.

Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle: It’s telling customers just how much the tax will cost and encouraging them to buy soft drinks outside the city.

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Reminds me of the CHIP program in Californication, where a cigarette tax was used to pay for the Child Healthcare Insurance program, and when the cost of cigarettes(do to taxes) go too high, many people just quit smoking, thus making the taxes go down, and those children cant be covered by CHIP anymore. Liberal compassion kills people...

 

[Penelope]

Sin tax. Soon water will become a commodity. Can't wait to see the price of that.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Sin tax. Soon water will become a commodity. Can't wait to see the price of that.

Sin Tax should be on sex, most the liberals in Hollyweed would be taxed to hell.

 

[usmbguest5318]

$26.33 instead of $15.99 a case? Costco shows Seattle customers just how much soda tax costs them

The city recently enacted a tax of 1.75 cents an ounce on surgary beverages. The result: A case of Gatorade that used to cost $15.99 now costs $26.33 — a 65% markup.

And a case of Dr. Pepper now costs $17.55 instead of $9.99, according to Costco. That’s a 76% surcharge.

Here is Costco's answer for this bullshit tax.

Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle: It’s telling customers just how much the tax will cost and encouraging them to buy soft drinks outside the city.

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Reminds me of the CHIP program in Californication, where a cigarette tax was used to pay for the Child Healthcare Insurance program, and when the cost of cigarettes(do to taxes) go too high, many people just quit smoking, thus making the taxes go down, and those children cant be covered by CHIP anymore. Liberal compassion kills people...

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Seriously?!? Do you truly not realize the above statement isn't at all accurate and cannot possibly be accurate as stated and given the information in the article you linked?

From the article:

"Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle."
​

That's the very first sentence in the article!

With regard to your assertion, what are the operative words in the preceding sentence? "New soda tax." What does "new soda tax" mean? Among other things, it means that previously there was no such tax. Consequently, tax revenue will at best be unaffected by the tax; however, insofar as it's all but certain that people will nonetheless buy soda in Seattle, far more likely is that Seattle's tax revenue will increase.

Also, King County (in which Seattle exists) appears not to have an excise/sales tax on restaurant-purchased food and drink.

• King County food and beverage tax | Washington Department of Revenue

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

$26.33 instead of $15.99 a case? Costco shows Seattle customers just how much soda tax costs them

The city recently enacted a tax of 1.75 cents an ounce on surgary beverages. The result: A case of Gatorade that used to cost $15.99 now costs $26.33 — a 65% markup.

And a case of Dr. Pepper now costs $17.55 instead of $9.99, according to Costco. That’s a 76% surcharge.

Here is Costco's answer for this bullshit tax.

Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle: It’s telling customers just how much the tax will cost and encouraging them to buy soft drinks outside the city.

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Reminds me of the CHIP program in Californication, where a cigarette tax was used to pay for the Child Healthcare Insurance program, and when the cost of cigarettes(do to taxes) go too high, many people just quit smoking, thus making the taxes go down, and those children cant be covered by CHIP anymore. Liberal compassion kills people...

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Seriously?!? Do you truly not realize the above statement isn't at all accurate and cannot possibly be accurate as stated and given the information in the article you linked?

From the article:

"Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle."
​

That's the very first sentence in the article!

With regard to your assertion, what are the operative words in the preceding sentence? "New soda tax." What does "new soda tax" mean? Among other things, it means that previously there was no such tax. Consequently, tax revenue will at best be unaffected by the tax; however, insofar as it's all but certain that people will nonetheless buy soda in Seattle, far more likely is that Seattle's tax revenue will increase.

FWIW, King County (in which Seattle exists) appears not to have a sales tax on restaurant-purchased food and drink.

• King County food and beverage tax | Washington Department of Revenue

You go ahead and believe what you say, just like with CHIP, soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle, elections have consequences and those in Seattle deserve all the misery and poverty that the liberal FORCE upon them...

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Ahh, the West Coast. The Leftie's Paradise.

OT: California's Jerry Brown is about to tell pensioners to fuck off. That'll be fun.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Ahh, the West Coast. The Leftie's Paradise.

OT: California's Jerry Brown is about to tell pensioners to fuck off. That'll be fun.

Well pensioners who lose their pensions will soon be on the Californication welfare program, they get less pay but still need the government to take care of them. That is the way of liberalism and making it fair for everyone. Those evil pensioners make too much money anyway....

 

[usmbguest5318]

$26.33 instead of $15.99 a case? Costco shows Seattle customers just how much soda tax costs them

The city recently enacted a tax of 1.75 cents an ounce on surgary beverages. The result: A case of Gatorade that used to cost $15.99 now costs $26.33 — a 65% markup.

And a case of Dr. Pepper now costs $17.55 instead of $9.99, according to Costco. That’s a 76% surcharge.

Here is Costco's answer for this bullshit tax.

Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle: It’s telling customers just how much the tax will cost and encouraging them to buy soft drinks outside the city.

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Reminds me of the CHIP program in Californication, where a cigarette tax was used to pay for the Child Healthcare Insurance program, and when the cost of cigarettes(do to taxes) go too high, many people just quit smoking, thus making the taxes go down, and those children cant be covered by CHIP anymore. Liberal compassion kills people...

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Seriously?!? Do you truly not realize the above statement isn't at all accurate and cannot possibly be accurate as stated and given the information in the article you linked?

From the article:

"Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle."
​

That's the very first sentence in the article!

With regard to your assertion, what are the operative words in the preceding sentence? "New soda tax." What does "new soda tax" mean? Among other things, it means that previously there was no such tax. Consequently, tax revenue will at best be unaffected by the tax; however, insofar as it's all but certain that people will nonetheless buy soda in Seattle, far more likely is that Seattle's tax revenue will increase.

FWIW, King County (in which Seattle exists) appears not to have a sales tax on restaurant-purchased food and drink.

• King County food and beverage tax | Washington Department of Revenue

You go ahead and believe what you say, just like with CHIP, soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle, elections have consequences and those in Seattle deserve all the misery and poverty that the liberal FORCE upon them...

soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle

Seriously?!? Surely you don't mean that with regard to the increase in the price of soda resulting in some people instead choosing to drink something other than soda/sugary beverages? How exactly is it that drinking fewer sodas/sugary beverages constitutes anything one can legitimately qualify as "suffering?"

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

$26.33 instead of $15.99 a case? Costco shows Seattle customers just how much soda tax costs them

The city recently enacted a tax of 1.75 cents an ounce on surgary beverages. The result: A case of Gatorade that used to cost $15.99 now costs $26.33 — a 65% markup.

And a case of Dr. Pepper now costs $17.55 instead of $9.99, according to Costco. That’s a 76% surcharge.

Here is Costco's answer for this bullshit tax.

Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle: It’s telling customers just how much the tax will cost and encouraging them to buy soft drinks outside the city.

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Reminds me of the CHIP program in Californication, where a cigarette tax was used to pay for the Child Healthcare Insurance program, and when the cost of cigarettes(do to taxes) go too high, many people just quit smoking, thus making the taxes go down, and those children cant be covered by CHIP anymore. Liberal compassion kills people...

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Seriously?!? Do you truly not realize the above statement isn't at all accurate and cannot possibly be accurate as stated and given the information in the article you linked?

From the article:

"Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle."
​

That's the very first sentence in the article!

With regard to your assertion, what are the operative words in the preceding sentence? "New soda tax." What does "new soda tax" mean? Among other things, it means that previously there was no such tax. Consequently, tax revenue will at best be unaffected by the tax; however, insofar as it's all but certain that people will nonetheless buy soda in Seattle, far more likely is that Seattle's tax revenue will increase.

FWIW, King County (in which Seattle exists) appears not to have a sales tax on restaurant-purchased food and drink.

• King County food and beverage tax | Washington Department of Revenue

You go ahead and believe what you say, just like with CHIP, soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle, elections have consequences and those in Seattle deserve all the misery and poverty that the liberal FORCE upon them...

soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle

Seriously?!? Surely you don't mean that with regard to the increase in the price of soda resulting in some people instead choosing to drink something other than soda/sugary beverages? How exactly is it that drinking fewer sodas/sugary beverages constitutes anything one can legitimately qualify as "suffering?"

On the right, we believe in the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. If someone is happy drinking a soda, that is their choice, yet you liberals who can never be happy even fucking with everyone else, must continue to FORCE everyone to live their lives under the Nanny State, because you dumbasses THINK you are smarter than the rest of US. Shame you mother fuckers don't go to Cuba and live your miserable lives in the Socialist Utopian Nanny State and leave the rest of US alone.

 

[Wyatt earp]

$26.33 instead of $15.99 a case? Costco shows Seattle customers just how much soda tax costs them

The city recently enacted a tax of 1.75 cents an ounce on surgary beverages. The result: A case of Gatorade that used to cost $15.99 now costs $26.33 — a 65% markup.

And a case of Dr. Pepper now costs $17.55 instead of $9.99, according to Costco. That’s a 76% surcharge.

Here is Costco's answer for this bullshit tax.

Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle: It’s telling customers just how much the tax will cost and encouraging them to buy soft drinks outside the city.

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Reminds me of the CHIP program in Californication, where a cigarette tax was used to pay for the Child Healthcare Insurance program, and when the cost of cigarettes(do to taxes) go too high, many people just quit smoking, thus making the taxes go down, and those children cant be covered by CHIP anymore. Liberal compassion kills people...

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Seriously?!? Do you truly not realize the above statement isn't at all accurate and cannot possibly be accurate as stated and given the information in the article you linked?

From the article:

"Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle."
​

That's the very first sentence in the article!

With regard to your assertion, what are the operative words in the preceding sentence? "New soda tax." What does "new soda tax" mean? Among other things, it means that previously there was no such tax. Consequently, tax revenue will at best be unaffected by the tax; however, insofar as it's all but certain that people will nonetheless buy soda in Seattle, far more likely is that Seattle's tax revenue will increase.

FWIW, King County (in which Seattle exists) appears not to have a sales tax on restaurant-purchased food and drink.

• King County food and beverage tax | Washington Department of Revenue

You go ahead and believe what you say, just like with CHIP, soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle, elections have consequences and those in Seattle deserve all the misery and poverty that the liberal FORCE upon them...

soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle

Seriously?!? Surely you don't mean that with regard to the increase in the price of soda resulting in some people instead choosing to drink something other than soda/sugary beverages? How exactly is it that drinking fewer sodas/sugary beverages constitutes anything one can legitimately qualify as "suffering?"

 

[Wyatt earp]

$26.33 instead of $15.99 a case? Costco shows Seattle customers just how much soda tax costs them

The city recently enacted a tax of 1.75 cents an ounce on surgary beverages. The result: A case of Gatorade that used to cost $15.99 now costs $26.33 — a 65% markup.

And a case of Dr. Pepper now costs $17.55 instead of $9.99, according to Costco. That’s a 76% surcharge.

Here is Costco's answer for this bullshit tax.

Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle: It’s telling customers just how much the tax will cost and encouraging them to buy soft drinks outside the city.

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Reminds me of the CHIP program in Californication, where a cigarette tax was used to pay for the Child Healthcare Insurance program, and when the cost of cigarettes(do to taxes) go too high, many people just quit smoking, thus making the taxes go down, and those children cant be covered by CHIP anymore. Liberal compassion kills people...

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Seriously?!? Do you truly not realize the above statement isn't at all accurate and cannot possibly be accurate as stated and given the information in the article you linked?

From the article:

"Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle."
​

That's the very first sentence in the article!

With regard to your assertion, what are the operative words in the preceding sentence? "New soda tax." What does "new soda tax" mean? Among other things, it means that previously there was no such tax. Consequently, tax revenue will at best be unaffected by the tax; however, insofar as it's all but certain that people will nonetheless buy soda in Seattle, far more likely is that Seattle's tax revenue will increase.

FWIW, King County (in which Seattle exists) appears not to have a sales tax on restaurant-purchased food and drink.

• King County food and beverage tax | Washington Department of Revenue

You go ahead and believe what you say, just like with CHIP, soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle, elections have consequences and those in Seattle deserve all the misery and poverty that the liberal FORCE upon them...

soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle

Seriously?!? Surely you don't mean that with regard to the increase in the price of soda resulting in some people instead choosing to drink something other than soda/sugary beverages? How exactly is it that drinking fewer sodas/sugary beverages constitutes anything one can legitimately qualify as "suffering?"

Screw you prick What is wrong with fucking control freak?

 

[Skull Pilot]

OK so here's whats going to happen

Soda sales will slump and retailers will raise the prices on those beverages that are not taxed to make up the lost revenue then if the sales of those items slump because of the price rise retailers will raise prices on other items besides beverages.

I'm so happy the fucking idiots in government are "looking out" for the little guys aren't you?

 

[usmbguest5318]

$26.33 instead of $15.99 a case? Costco shows Seattle customers just how much soda tax costs them

The city recently enacted a tax of 1.75 cents an ounce on surgary beverages. The result: A case of Gatorade that used to cost $15.99 now costs $26.33 — a 65% markup.

And a case of Dr. Pepper now costs $17.55 instead of $9.99, according to Costco. That’s a 76% surcharge.

Here is Costco's answer for this bullshit tax.

Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle: It’s telling customers just how much the tax will cost and encouraging them to buy soft drinks outside the city.

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Reminds me of the CHIP program in Californication, where a cigarette tax was used to pay for the Child Healthcare Insurance program, and when the cost of cigarettes(do to taxes) go too high, many people just quit smoking, thus making the taxes go down, and those children cant be covered by CHIP anymore. Liberal compassion kills people...

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Seriously?!? Do you truly not realize the above statement isn't at all accurate and cannot possibly be accurate as stated and given the information in the article you linked?

From the article:

"Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle."
​

That's the very first sentence in the article!

With regard to your assertion, what are the operative words in the preceding sentence? "New soda tax." What does "new soda tax" mean? Among other things, it means that previously there was no such tax. Consequently, tax revenue will at best be unaffected by the tax; however, insofar as it's all but certain that people will nonetheless buy soda in Seattle, far more likely is that Seattle's tax revenue will increase.

FWIW, King County (in which Seattle exists) appears not to have a sales tax on restaurant-purchased food and drink.

• King County food and beverage tax | Washington Department of Revenue

You go ahead and believe what you say, just like with CHIP, soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle, elections have consequences and those in Seattle deserve all the misery and poverty that the liberal FORCE upon them...

soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle

Seriously?!? Surely you don't mean that with regard to the increase in the price of soda resulting in some people instead choosing to drink something other than soda/sugary beverages? How exactly is it that drinking fewer sodas/sugary beverages constitutes anything one can legitimately qualify as "suffering?"

On the right, we believe in the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. If someone is happy drinking a soda, that is their choice, yet you liberals who can never be happy even fucking with everyone else, must continue to FORCE everyone to live their lives under the Nanny State, because you dumbasses THINK you are smarter than the rest of US. Shame you mother fuckers don't go to Cuba and live your miserable lives in the Socialist Utopian Nanny State and leave the rest of US alone.

Do you or do you not have a direct answer to the question?

How exactly is it that drinking fewer sodas/sugary beverages constitutes anything one can legitimately qualify as "suffering?"

You, not I, wrote:

soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle

If someone is happy drinking a soda, that is their choice

Nobody is depriving anyone of the right to determine whether drinking soda makes them happy. There are plenty of things that I suspect make myriad people happy when they do them and that yet those same people don't daily do those things because it's too expensive for them to do so. They too are not deprived of choosing for themselves that doing those things makes them happy.

There are all sorts of laws that aim to dissuade various kinds of behavior. Indeed some laws expressly prohibit certain behaviors. Speed limits are one such genre of laws. Do speed limits stop people from speeding? No; however, if one is by a speed camera caught speeding, one likely will pay a price for doing so. Did that stop one from speeding? No. Did one enjoy speeding when one did? Presumably one did insofar as one chose to do so in spite of knowing the instant one got behind the wheel that if one sped, one risked getting caught doing so. Just as nobody denies one the joy of driving at whatever speed one desires, nobody has mandated that anyone, poor or otherwise, refrain from drinking, enjoying soda.

I don't know why it is that you and others like you do not understand that liberty to act and freedom from there being consequences for one's actions are not the same things. They clearly are not the same things, for all manners of actions would no longer exist were the mere presence of a law taxing or prohibiting a given action enough to effect that action's extinction from society.

Maybe you and folks like you don't comprehend the difference between actions and emotions? Perhaps more likely is that you cannot or don't distinguish between an its effects? Maybe it's because you and folks like you only acknowledge that distinction when it suits you, such as when gun advocates argue that mere gun ownership does not make one criminal or result in increases in murders, crime, etc? Make no mistake, however; the law most certainly does and long has. It remains to be seen whether it always will.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

$26.33 instead of $15.99 a case? Costco shows Seattle customers just how much soda tax costs them

The city recently enacted a tax of 1.75 cents an ounce on surgary beverages. The result: A case of Gatorade that used to cost $15.99 now costs $26.33 — a 65% markup.

And a case of Dr. Pepper now costs $17.55 instead of $9.99, according to Costco. That’s a 76% surcharge.

Here is Costco's answer for this bullshit tax.

Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle: It’s telling customers just how much the tax will cost and encouraging them to buy soft drinks outside the city.

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Reminds me of the CHIP program in Californication, where a cigarette tax was used to pay for the Child Healthcare Insurance program, and when the cost of cigarettes(do to taxes) go too high, many people just quit smoking, thus making the taxes go down, and those children cant be covered by CHIP anymore. Liberal compassion kills people...

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Seriously?!? Do you truly not realize the above statement isn't at all accurate and cannot possibly be accurate as stated and given the information in the article you linked?

From the article:

"Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle."
​

That's the very first sentence in the article!

With regard to your assertion, what are the operative words in the preceding sentence? "New soda tax." What does "new soda tax" mean? Among other things, it means that previously there was no such tax. Consequently, tax revenue will at best be unaffected by the tax; however, insofar as it's all but certain that people will nonetheless buy soda in Seattle, far more likely is that Seattle's tax revenue will increase.

FWIW, King County (in which Seattle exists) appears not to have a sales tax on restaurant-purchased food and drink.

• King County food and beverage tax | Washington Department of Revenue

You go ahead and believe what you say, just like with CHIP, soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle, elections have consequences and those in Seattle deserve all the misery and poverty that the liberal FORCE upon them...

soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle

Seriously?!? Surely you don't mean that with regard to the increase in the price of soda resulting in some people instead choosing to drink something other than soda/sugary beverages? How exactly is it that drinking fewer sodas/sugary beverages constitutes anything one can legitimately qualify as "suffering?"

On the right, we believe in the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. If someone is happy drinking a soda, that is their choice, yet you liberals who can never be happy even fucking with everyone else, must continue to FORCE everyone to live their lives under the Nanny State, because you dumbasses THINK you are smarter than the rest of US. Shame you mother fuckers don't go to Cuba and live your miserable lives in the Socialist Utopian Nanny State and leave the rest of US alone.

Do you or do you not have a direct answer to the question?

How exactly is it that drinking fewer sodas/sugary beverages constitutes anything one can legitimately qualify as "suffering?"

You, not I, wrote:

soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle

If someone is happy drinking a soda, that is their choice

Nobody is depriving anyone of the right to determine whether drinking soda makes them happy. There are plenty of things that I suspect make myriad people happy when they do them and that yet those same people don't daily do those things because it's too expensive for them to do so. They too are not deprived of choosing for themselves that doing those things makes them happy.

There are all sorts of laws that aim to dissuade various kinds of behavior. Indeed some laws expressly prohibit certain behaviors. Speed limits are one such genre of laws. Do speed limits stop people from speeding? No; however, if one is by a speed camera caught speeding, one likely will pay a price for doing so. Did that stop one from speeding? No. Did one enjoy speeding when one did? Presumably one did insofar as one chose to do so in spite of knowing the instant one got behind the wheel that if one sped, one risked getting caught doing so. Just as nobody denies one the joy of driving at whatever speed one desires, nobody has mandated that anyone, poor or otherwise, refrain from drinking, enjoying soda.

I don't know why it is that you and others like you do not understand that liberty to act and freedom from there being consequences for one's actions are not the same things. They clearly are not the same things, for all manners of actions would no longer exist were the mere presence of a law taxing or prohibiting a given action enough to effect that action's extinction from society.

Maybe you and folks like you don't comprehend the difference between actions and emotions? Perhaps more likely is that you cannot or don't distinguish between an its effects? Maybe it's because you and folks like you only acknowledge that distinction when it suits you, such as when gun advocates argue that mere gun ownership does not make one criminal or result in increases in murders, crime, etc? Make no mistake, however; the law most certainly does and long has. It remains to be seen whether it always will.

Do you or do you not have a direct answer to the question?

I answered and you deflected, game over folks.
Cant communicate with someone who wont pull their heads out of their asses.

 

[usmbguest5318]

$26.33 instead of $15.99 a case? Costco shows Seattle customers just how much soda tax costs them Here is Costco's answer for this bullshit tax. So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Reminds me of the CHIP program in Californication, where a cigarette tax was used to pay for the Child Healthcare Insurance program, and when the cost of cigarettes(do to taxes) go too high, many people just quit smoking, thus making the taxes go down, and those children cant be covered by CHIP anymore. Liberal compassion kills people...

So when more people stop buying soda in the city of Seattle their tax revenues will go down and soon Seattle(shit city) will have to cut programs again hurting the poor, who buy soda's but are now priced out of it.

Seriously?!? Do you truly not realize the above statement isn't at all accurate and cannot possibly be accurate as stated and given the information in the article you linked?

From the article:

"Costco has adopted a novel way to show its objection to a new soda tax in Seattle."
​

That's the very first sentence in the article!

With regard to your assertion, what are the operative words in the preceding sentence? "New soda tax." What does "new soda tax" mean? Among other things, it means that previously there was no such tax. Consequently, tax revenue will at best be unaffected by the tax; however, insofar as it's all but certain that people will nonetheless buy soda in Seattle, far more likely is that Seattle's tax revenue will increase.

FWIW, King County (in which Seattle exists) appears not to have a sales tax on restaurant-purchased food and drink.

• King County food and beverage tax | Washington Department of Revenue

You go ahead and believe what you say, just like with CHIP, soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle, elections have consequences and those in Seattle deserve all the misery and poverty that the liberal FORCE upon them...

soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle

Seriously?!? Surely you don't mean that with regard to the increase in the price of soda resulting in some people instead choosing to drink something other than soda/sugary beverages? How exactly is it that drinking fewer sodas/sugary beverages constitutes anything one can legitimately qualify as "suffering?"

On the right, we believe in the right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. If someone is happy drinking a soda, that is their choice, yet you liberals who can never be happy even fucking with everyone else, must continue to FORCE everyone to live their lives under the Nanny State, because you dumbasses THINK you are smarter than the rest of US. Shame you mother fuckers don't go to Cuba and live your miserable lives in the Socialist Utopian Nanny State and leave the rest of US alone.

Do you or do you not have a direct answer to the question?

How exactly is it that drinking fewer sodas/sugary beverages constitutes anything one can legitimately qualify as "suffering?"

You, not I, wrote:

soon the poor will suffer more in Seattle

If someone is happy drinking a soda, that is their choice

Nobody is depriving anyone of the right to determine whether drinking soda makes them happy. There are plenty of things that I suspect make myriad people happy when they do them and that yet those same people don't daily do those things because it's too expensive for them to do so. They too are not deprived of choosing for themselves that doing those things makes them happy.

There are all sorts of laws that aim to dissuade various kinds of behavior. Indeed some laws expressly prohibit certain behaviors. Speed limits are one such genre of laws. Do speed limits stop people from speeding? No; however, if one is by a speed camera caught speeding, one likely will pay a price for doing so. Did that stop one from speeding? No. Did one enjoy speeding when one did? Presumably one did insofar as one chose to do so in spite of knowing the instant one got behind the wheel that if one sped, one risked getting caught doing so. Just as nobody denies one the joy of driving at whatever speed one desires, nobody has mandated that anyone, poor or otherwise, refrain from drinking, enjoying soda.

I don't know why it is that you and others like you do not understand that liberty to act and freedom from there being consequences for one's actions are not the same things. They clearly are not the same things, for all manners of actions would no longer exist were the mere presence of a law taxing or prohibiting a given action enough to effect that action's extinction from society.

Maybe you and folks like you don't comprehend the difference between actions and emotions? Perhaps more likely is that you cannot or don't distinguish between an its effects? Maybe it's because you and folks like you only acknowledge that distinction when it suits you, such as when gun advocates argue that mere gun ownership does not make one criminal or result in increases in murders, crime, etc? Make no mistake, however; the law most certainly does and long has. It remains to be seen whether it always will.

Do you or do you not have a direct answer to the question?

I answered and you deflected, game over folks.
Cant communicate with someone who wont pull their heads out of their asses.

View attachment 171082

I answered and you deflected

You just keep thinking both those things be so....