3 ms·

Are they honestly suggesting a substitution effect between soda and liquor? God the Tax Foundation is ever more hackish than usual. The blog then continues to

Are they honestly suggesting a substitution effect between soda and liquor? God the Tax Foundation is ever more hackish than usual. The blog then continues to make an extended comparison to show how much more people are drinking: > Of course, that's a ridiculous number, because Pennsylvania prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to individuals under the age of 21. That prohibition blocks some 26% of the city's population from even being able to buy Icehouse beer, assuming that the law is actively enforced against Philadelphia residents under that age. If we do the back-of-the-envelope math to estimate how many extra equivalent 12-fluid-ounce bottles of Icehouse beer that Philadelphia's adult population is consuming, we come up with a monthly increase of 12.9 bottles per legal drinking-age Philadelphian, or over 154 bottles of Icehouse beer per adult in the city per year. So adding 15 cents to the cost of a can of coke led people in Philly to drink 26 additional six-packs of beer annually? Gee -- There's a huge spike in early 2018 that's really throwing that whole chart off. I wonder if anything else happened in Philly in early 2018 that would explain a huge spike in alcohol consumption: https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/02/05/super-bowl-52-eagles-patriots-peter-king-mmqb https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/02/05/super-bowl-52-eagles-patri...

narag 8y ago
What does soda tax tax? Soda or sugar soda? I mean, is diet coke also taxed? In that case, what's the reason? If not, why is it called soda tax instead of sugar tax? Has the tax affected strong liquours mixes? (not sure how do you call it, i mean whisky/ron/vodka/etc + soda) Then drinking beer would be a downsizing option.
- tzs 8y ago
  Here's what it covers, straight from the City of Philadelphia's website [1]: > What is taxed > The tax is not just on sodas. This tax is on any non-alcoholic beverage, syrup, or other concentrate used to prepare a beverage that lists as an ingredient any form of caloric sugar-based sweetener, including, but not limited to sucrose, glucose, or high fructose corn syrup. > Drinks considered “diet” or “zero calorie” are also taxed. Specifically, this tax is on any non-alcoholic beverage, syrup or other concentrate used to prepare a beverage that lists any form of artificial sugar substitute, including stevia, aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), saccharin, and advantame. > Examples of sweetened beverages > Soda (regular and diet); non-100%-fruit drinks; sports drinks; sweetened water; energy drinks; pre-sweetened coffee or tea; and non-alcoholic beverages intended to be mixed into an alcoholic drink. [1] https://www.phila.gov/services/payments-assistance-taxes/business-taxes/philadelphia-beverage-tax/ https://www.phila.gov/services/payments-assistance-taxes/bus...
  - berbec 8y ago
    What's the logic behind not taxing 100% juice? It has just as much sugar as a Coke; the fact the sugar comes from a grape/apple/guava etc changes one thing - it's now "naturally" sweetened sugar water.
    - tzs 8y ago
      As a guess, it is because whether or not the tax applies seems to be based on the ingredient list. 100% orange juice, for example, typically lists either just orange juice, or orange juice plus added vitamins. So, not taxed. The less-than-100% juice drinks usually add sweeteners in addition to the sweetness that comes from the fruit juice. So, taxed.
      - berbec 8y ago
        Think they can bypass this by using concentrated juices as sweeteners?
  - narag 8y ago
    > Drinks considered “diet” or “zero calorie” are also taxed. That's nuts. I guess sugar providers lobbied that crap into the law to neuter it.
- chrismcb 8y ago
  The soda tax is a tax on drinks sweetened with sugar. But it is taxed at the distribution level. Does the tax affect alcoholic drinks? Sure, but it is a tax per ounce. With alcoholic drinks being relatively small, and with a large markup, the tax is virtually invisible. The biggest problem with the tax is, because it is per ounce, and not a percentage it affects cheaper drinks more. The healthier drinks tend to be cheaper. A $2 bottle of coke is increased 20 cents or so, while a $2 jug of sweetened tea is doubled! It was called the soda tax because it targeted sodas. Here in Seattle they referred to it as the sugar tax, but they exempted milk based drinks. So drink up that milkshake, which is one of the worst calorie per ounce drink.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  We have a sugar tax on drinks in the UK now but in my experience Coke and Pepsico just put all their prices up. Regular still costs the same as Diet/Zero, they're just paying more to government for it.
birken 8y ago
Not to mention all the calories the residents must be consuming from the massive spike in Philadelphia's Crisco consumption [1] in January 2018. The soda tax really affects everything! 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/21/sports/philadelphia-eagles-grease-poles.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/21/sports/philadelphia-eagle...
ReGenGen 8y ago
also... article assumes that everyone drinks $7.99 / 12pack of Icehouse for its bottle consumption increase numbers.
wnevets 8y ago
yeah this is a stupid post.
ajross 8y ago
I hate when I come to make a point and find someone else already has. To wit: the linked article has turned an obvious outlier (postseason booze consumption due to the Eagle's unlikely playoff run) into "data" to make a fundamentally partisan point. This isn't the worst example, though. I save this link to bring up in "misleading with outliers" discussions: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/07/worst-editorial-ever/43174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/07/worst-e... (Basically a decade old article where someone used Norway's very strange taxation regime due to the nationalized oil industry to "prove" the Laffer curve).

narag 8y ago

What does soda tax tax? Soda or sugar soda? I mean, is diet coke also taxed? In that case, what's the reason? If not, why is it called soda tax instead of sugar tax? Has the tax affected strong liquours mixes? (not sure how do you call it, i mean whisky/ron/vodka/etc + soda) Then drinking beer would be a downsizing option.

tzs 8y ago
Here's what it covers, straight from the City of Philadelphia's website [1]: > What is taxed > The tax is not just on sodas. This tax is on any non-alcoholic beverage, syrup, or other concentrate used to prepare a beverage that lists as an ingredient any form of caloric sugar-based sweetener, including, but not limited to sucrose, glucose, or high fructose corn syrup. > Drinks considered “diet” or “zero calorie” are also taxed. Specifically, this tax is on any non-alcoholic beverage, syrup or other concentrate used to prepare a beverage that lists any form of artificial sugar substitute, including stevia, aspartame, sucralose, neotame, acesulfame potassium (Ace-K), saccharin, and advantame. > Examples of sweetened beverages > Soda (regular and diet); non-100%-fruit drinks; sports drinks; sweetened water; energy drinks; pre-sweetened coffee or tea; and non-alcoholic beverages intended to be mixed into an alcoholic drink. [1] https://www.phila.gov/services/payments-assistance-taxes/business-taxes/philadelphia-beverage-tax/ https://www.phila.gov/services/payments-assistance-taxes/bus...
- berbec 8y ago
  What's the logic behind not taxing 100% juice? It has just as much sugar as a Coke; the fact the sugar comes from a grape/apple/guava etc changes one thing - it's now "naturally" sweetened sugar water.
  - tzs 8y ago
    As a guess, it is because whether or not the tax applies seems to be based on the ingredient list. 100% orange juice, for example, typically lists either just orange juice, or orange juice plus added vitamins. So, not taxed. The less-than-100% juice drinks usually add sweeteners in addition to the sweetness that comes from the fruit juice. So, taxed.
    - berbec 8y ago
      Think they can bypass this by using concentrated juices as sweeteners?
- narag 8y ago
  > Drinks considered “diet” or “zero calorie” are also taxed. That's nuts. I guess sugar providers lobbied that crap into the law to neuter it.
chrismcb 8y ago
The soda tax is a tax on drinks sweetened with sugar. But it is taxed at the distribution level. Does the tax affect alcoholic drinks? Sure, but it is a tax per ounce. With alcoholic drinks being relatively small, and with a large markup, the tax is virtually invisible. The biggest problem with the tax is, because it is per ounce, and not a percentage it affects cheaper drinks more. The healthier drinks tend to be cheaper. A $2 bottle of coke is increased 20 cents or so, while a $2 jug of sweetened tea is doubled! It was called the soda tax because it targeted sodas. Here in Seattle they referred to it as the sugar tax, but they exempted milk based drinks. So drink up that milkshake, which is one of the worst calorie per ounce drink.
oliwarner 8y ago
We have a sugar tax on drinks in the UK now but in my experience Coke and Pepsico just put all their prices up. Regular still costs the same as Diet/Zero, they're just paying more to government for it.

birken 8y ago

Not to mention all the calories the residents must be consuming from the massive spike in Philadelphia's Crisco consumption [1] in January 2018. The soda tax really affects everything! 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/21/sports/philadelphia-eagles-grease-poles.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/21/sports/philadelphia-eagle...

ReGenGen 8y ago

also... article assumes that everyone drinks $7.99 / 12pack of Icehouse for its bottle consumption increase numbers.

wnevets 8y ago

yeah this is a stupid post.

ajross 8y ago

I hate when I come to make a point and find someone else already has. To wit: the linked article has turned an obvious outlier (postseason booze consumption due to the Eagle's unlikely playoff run) into "data" to make a fundamentally partisan point. This isn't the worst example, though. I save this link to bring up in "misleading with outliers" discussions: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/07/worst-editorial-ever/43174/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/07/worst-e... (Basically a decade old article where someone used Norway's very strange taxation regime due to the nationalized oil industry to "prove" the Laffer curve).