4 ms·
> Seattle the sugar tax doesn't apply to Starbucks hilariously. Wow, to exclude an organization which sells 1000+ cal. drinks (vast majority/all from sugars) t
by craftyguy 8y ago
> Seattle the sugar tax doesn't apply to Starbucks hilariously.
Wow, to exclude an organization which sells 1000+ cal. drinks (vast majority/all from sugars) to millions of people a day, is hilarious indeed. And sad.
- bskap 8y agoIt's milk-based drinks that are excluded, not Starbucks specifically. So it doesn't apply to things like chocolate milk, milkshakes, or milkshakes with a small amount of coffee in them.
- exabrial 8y agoWhat's so better about a drink with milk with tons of sugar than a drink without milk with tons of sugar? The drink without milk probably has fewer calories. This is just an example of a corporation buying out a local government.
- Ntrails 8y ago> This is just an example of a corporation buying out a local government. I gotta question whether it's realistic to say that Starbucks bought out local government with it's infinite resources but McDonalds couldn't afford to? I'd love to see the actual/official reasoning behind the exclusion though
- craftyguy 8y agoStarbucks was born/raised in Seattle.. so maybe that affiliation won them a free pass?
- bskap 8y agoOh, it's certainly a sell out. I'm just saying it's not a sellout to Starbucks. It's a sell out to the dairy industry.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]