Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: French G. on January 07, 2018, 11:21:21 AM
-
I must be bored, been reading Seattle's gov site about their shiny new tax. Of course when it fails, blame very other locality like Virginia has always been blamed for every gun crime in the entire northeast. And by fail I mean destroy business.
First, it is a tax at the distribution level and their abstract says it is not meant to be passed on to the consumer. Yeah, right, fail economics much? More cynically, the writers know it will be, creating a new class of political enemies to blame, those evil businesses!
I saw an exemption for products of companies with less than 2 million gross world-wide sales. So hipsters and your soda you've probably never heard of, safe.
That and other exemptions it is obviously targeted at mass market soft drinks only. I believe like similar assault laws they tax concentrate going to restaurant soda fountains, still reading.
Now, do they tax the feedstock for Starbucks drinks? I think come and Pepsi ought to sue the city. Everybody ought to sue the city. It is a regressive tax on the things those poor people drink.
-
Now, do they tax the feedstock for Starbucks drinks? I think come and Pepsi ought to sue the city.
That's a really good question. Seems like it's a toss up on if Starbucks drinks or soda are worse for you. I'm thinking your average Starbucks drink has three times the calories (and maybe sugar too) of a can of sody pop. You could maybe even say that about the sugar content of many of the "health juices" out there.
-
I can't wait for seattle PD to strangle a guy for selling "loose" sodas...
-
That's a really good question. Seems like it's a toss up on if Starbucks drinks or soda are worse for you. I'm thinking your average Starbucks drink has three times the calories (and maybe sugar too) of a can of sody pop. You could maybe even say that about the sugar content of many of the "health juices" out there.
I like a cafe mocha sometimes, which is (IIRC) 400-ish calories.
-
(https://pics.astrologymemes.com/1051007-gatorade-frost-variety-pack-35-16-9-oz-costco-price-15-99-30078730.png)
I just wish Costco had called it the City of Seattle Sweetened Beverage Tax (Because that's, in fact, what it is... not a "fee")
-
The packaged Starbucks brand drinks will of course get nailed, but the main question is rhetorical, if you doubled the over the counter cost of a half frappe super latte grande turbo mocha espresso the people would out with pitchforks. And of course not biting the corporate hand that feeds.
-
Everybody ought to sue the city. It is a regressive tax on the things those poor people drink.
And since it's per ounce rather than a percentage of the price at any stage of sale, it's even worse on the cheap ones us really poor people drink. I just picked up a couple 2 liter Dr Thunder Cherry sodas for $0.60 each. A $0.02/oz tax would have added $1.35 each. 225% extra just for that tax alone.
-
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/costco-suggests-shoppers-go-to-tukwila-to-avoid-seattles-sugary-drinks-tax/
Costco thinks you should buy your sweetened drinks outside of the Seattle city limits.
-
The packaged Starbucks brand drinks will of course get nailed, but the main question is rhetorical, if you doubled the over the counter cost of a half frappe super latte grande turbo mocha espresso the people would out with pitchforks. And of course not biting the corporate hand that feeds.
That's what I was actually wondering -- is there a tax on the Starbucks drinks when you go in and order at the counter? I'm just curious if they, or Jamba Juice and whoever get a break from applying the tax. I could see Seattle SJWs being happy with the soda tax, but if their coffee specialty drinks at the bajillion coffee shops there double as well, will they rise up, or will they be cool with that too?
-
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/promoting-health-at-a-hefty-price-seattles-soda-tax-starts-jan-1/
"But not every dollar will reach Seattle families. Only $400,000 of the tax revenue set aside for Fresh Bucks in 2018 will be spent on produce vouchers."
"The rest of the $2 million for Fresh Bucks is aimed at administrative costs, such as outreach, technology and hiring five additional city employees to carry out the program’s expansion."
As this "fee" is based on volume, not price, and the poor and minorities have been found to use larger amounts of sugary drinks, this is clearly a regressive tax. Regressive taxes are the bane of liberals..... how can Seattle justify that?!
The article certainly explains that while the "fee" is designed to address health concerns, it actually puts more of the collected "fees" into administrative costs such as hiring more "fee" collectors.
-
The article certainly explains that while the "fee" is designed to address health concerns, it actually puts more of the collected "fees" into administrative costs such as hiring more "fee" collectors.
That's because the more taxes you charge, on more specific things, the less efficient taxing becomes.
I remember reading that, at least before fast-pass systems dominated, the cost of running toll operations often exceeded 50% of collections, meaning that more of the money you paid went towards making you pay money than maintaining the road or bridge the toll was intended to fund, making it an extremely inefficient means of funding infrastructure.
That said, they did close the biggest loophole by making it so that retailers transporting their own syrup boxes would still be taxed by considering them distributors (really, I buy half a dozen boxes of syrup for my own store/restaurant and I'm a distributor?).
They're trying the same 'hide it from the customers' by charging the tax to the distributors, and missing the same deal that while the tax isn't that big of a deal if you're buying the smallest sizes single-serve(which has the highest profit margins), there's no way in hell that bulk soda purchasers aren't going to see a 50% or more increase in price.
But then left a lot more loopholes open for customers. Especially the small sales deal.
I figure that:
1. This will cost them money, because as MillCreek says, people will shop outside of the city limits instead, and once they're doing that, they'll avoid other city taxes as well buy buying in bulk as long as they're there. Revenues will be no where near what was expected.
2. Evasion is going to be rampant, given that they left more loopholes open. I figure on a number of methods.
a. Blended 100% fruit juices are now cheaper than soda. Not really any better for you, but cheaper. I wonder if carbonated still counts as 100%? You might be able to come very close with the right 100% fruit juices if you get tricky. I'm sure there's some 'fruit' that is close to 100% sugar if you squeeze it right. What about V8, liquid vegetables, not fruit?
b. Return of the soda shops. You know, tiny joints that mix their own? They have an exemption.
c. Chocolate milk and such. That might be healthier, might not.
d. diet sodas are now substantially cheaper.
e. For gatorade type drinks, those pouches where you buy a bottled water then empty a powder into them. As far as I know, the powders aren't taxed.
f. For things like sweet tea, I can see them switching to you buying unsweet and getting a pouch/baggie of sugar if you want it sweeter.
-
The article certainly explains that while the "fee" is designed disguised to address health concerns, it actually puts more of the collected "fees" into administrative costs such as hiring more "fee" collectors.
Fixed it for you.
Socialism at work. More good little bureaucrats sucking at the government teat. A liberal's wet dream.
Lemme see -- $2 million minus $400,000 leaves $1,600,000. How much will they spend waste on "technology" and "outreach"? $600,000? So that leaves a cool million bucks to hire five (5) "fee" enforcers. $200,000 / year isn't a bad salary for essentially doing nothing.
-
Fixed it for you.
Socialism at work. More good little bureaucrats sucking at the government teat. A liberal's wet dream.
Lemme see -- $2 million minus $400,000 leaves $1,600,000. How much will they spend waste on "technology" and "outreach"? $600,000? So that leaves a cool million bucks to hire five (5) "fee" enforcers. $200,000 / year isn't a bad salary for essentially doing nothing.
It's a double disguise. The 5 extra employees aren't fee enforcers. They're to 'expand' the fresh food program - get it into more schools or something like that.
The enforcers are higher up in the chain, and while the tax is supporting all sorts of 'for the children' feel good programs, it's all penny-ante stuff.
Philly is trying this as well, but Cook county found so much pushback it was repealed. I figure the same will probably happen elsewhere, though in some cases it might take a year or so to get the politicos out of office.
-
Come on guys it's not a tax on the people the distributors will eat that $2.52 on every 12 pack of soda.
Are the politicians that poor at economics or do they think the people that elected them are this stupid?
-
Are the politicians that poor at economics or do they think the people that elected them are this stupid?
Yes.
-
Are the politicians that poor at economics or do they think the people that elected them are this stupid?
They believe their own hype. Group think writ laws.
-
. . .
Philly is trying this as well, but Cook county found so much pushback it was repealed . . .
Hadn't heard of the Cook County repeal. A bit more than a year ago I was in Chicago for a funeral, and my cousins told me that almost everyone who lived within a couple of miles of the county line had begun shopping just OUTSIDE Cook County. A VERY sharp decline in sales - and hence, revenue - of grocery stores within Cook County (Chicago) resulted, because when people went outside the city for soda, they bought the rest of their groceries (and filled their gas tanks) outside the city, too.
Surprised they dumped the law rather than file lawsuits against the "out of county" grocers.
-
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/costco-suggests-shoppers-go-to-tukwila-to-avoid-seattles-sugary-drinks-tax/
Costco thinks you should buy your sweetened drinks outside of the Seattle city limits.
Oh my God... WHY didn't they get a quote from someone on the city council? I bet that would have been absolutely epic schaedenfreude... "HOW DARE THEY SUGGEST THAT PEOPLE AVOID PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE!!!"
-
"Regressive taxes are the bane of liberals..... how can Seattle justify that?!"
Because if there's one thing that liberals "know," is that they know how to live your life better than you do. Espeically if you're poor and/or undereducated. Then it's mandatory (in their eyes) that you STFU and do what they say and vote for them blindly.
-
I wonder how long till some municipality or state makes it a punishable offense to shop outside your city/state?
Don't the veracity but I've heard that some California liberals have talked about implementing an "exit tax" for people that move away from the great state of Commiefornia
-
"I wonder how long till some municipality or state makes it a punishable offense to shop outside your city/state?"
How many states with monopolies on liquor sales already pull that crap? I know of several, and I bet there are a lot more.
-
"I wonder how long till some municipality or state makes it a punishable offense to shop outside your city/state?"
How many states with monopolies on liquor sales already pull that crap? I know of several, and I bet there are a lot more.
Yup. Utah would prosecute if they caught you coming back in with beer from out of state (%3.2 beer state).
-
CA has now made it illegal to get your ammo out of state (without going through a CA FFL).
I'm still not sure how you implement a "you may not purchase [widget X] outside of [Y] city, county, state jurisdiction. At least for portable goods. Seems the only way you could enforce it to any degree is through police state methods.
They could, of course, "make examples" of the 1 in 100 they might catch without going full police state, but otherwise, whether it's a couple of cases of soda or ammo in the trunk, good luck enforcing your ban. Example=marijuana.
To add: I'm betting the Seattle city council gives a thumbs up to pot legalization. Please explain how pot is better for you than soda. Or soda is worse for you than pot. Through the whole pot legalization debate, I have always found it kind of funny that so many of the "pro pot" people are extremely anti other tobacco products, let alone other legal stuff like sody pop.
-
To add: I'm betting the Seattle city council gives a thumbs up to pot legalization. Please explain how pot is better for you than soda. Or soda is worse for you than pot. Through the whole pot legalization debate, I have always found it kind of funny that so many of the "pro pot" people are extremely anti other tobacco products, let alone other legal stuff like sody pop.
I wouldn't take that bet for anything.
http://www.krem.com/news/us-to-end-policy-that-let-legal-pot-flourish/504870679
Here's a random thought, maybe this is a way that the Trump administration is trying to force the issue through Congress. Take pot off of the Schedule 1 list and treat it like alcohol. Could it be he (Trump) expects Congress to address issues they have been sidestepping for years?
bob
-
Yup. Utah would prosecute if they caught you coming back in with beer from out of state (%3.2 beer state).
Ohio has done that on occasions. Since we live in Cincinnati, it is really easy to run down to Kentucky to The Party Source and pickup up your beverage of choice with out having to go to a state store.
-
So should we call Seattle the Philadelphia of the north west or Philadelphia the Seattle of the north east?
-
Ohio has done that on occasions. Since we live in Cincinnati, it is really easy to run down to Kentucky to The Party Source and pickup up your beverage of choice with out having to go to a state store.
Was it you who mentioned telling an Ohio revenue agent out of his jurisdiction that you had all day to drive around Kentucky before going home?
Pennsylvania used to do that on 11/15 south of Gettysburg (State Line liquor store is just south of the border), but they were doing it to enforce state underage laws. Drinking age in Maryland at the time was 18, and in Pennsylvania 21.
You'd hear stories about someone going across the line to the store and buying soda and snacks just to get a feel for where the cops were.
-
Yup. Utah would prosecute if they caught you coming back in with beer from out of state (%3.2 beer state).
I hear of this being done locally from time to time: the State Patrol stops cars that were observed shopping at the tribal liquor/smoke shops and seizes alcohol and tobacco purchased there. I think the premise is that the tribal shops don't charge (State? Federal? Both?) taxes on the products.
-
Was it you who mentioned telling an Ohio revenue agent out of his jurisdiction that you had all day to drive around Kentucky before going home?
Pennsylvania used to do that on 11/15 south of Gettysburg (State Line liquor store is just south of the border), but they were doing it to enforce state underage laws. Drinking age in Maryland at the time was 18, and in Pennsylvania 21.
You'd hear stories about someone going across the line to the store and buying soda and snacks just to get a feel for where the cops were.
The closer to 4 July it gets the more Illinois Troopers just sit in the parking lots of the Fireworks stores just over the border in Indiana, radioing Illinois Licence plate numbers (along with make and model) to other troopers in Illinois to pull over.
Which is why I always buy my fireworks on my way TO Indianapolis, and never on the way home.
-
Was it you who mentioned telling an Ohio revenue agent out of his jurisdiction that you had all day to drive around Kentucky before going home?
Pennsylvania used to do that on 11/15 south of Gettysburg (State Line liquor store is just south of the border), but they were doing it to enforce state underage laws. Drinking age in Maryland at the time was 18, and in Pennsylvania 21.
You'd hear stories about someone going across the line to the store and buying soda and snacks just to get a feel for where the cops were.
Not I, but as I work in Kentucky I could go sit in my office all day and not waste the gas. I would then just come across the Anderson Ferry as most people don't even think about that route.
-
Used to have a guy here that would toy with the city cops on the possession of fireworks inside city limits ordinance; he ran a fireworks stand just outside of town, and also had a huge farm. He'd wait until the cops were watching for people buying fireworks and heading back into town, then call up his buddies to come get some discount produce. Cops see a car drive up, and people loading 4-6 big paper sacks into the car, then it heads into the city limits. They pull it over and find absolutely nothing but vegetables.
He did have one of his friends come out in a marked sheriff's department car, but the locals didn't have the guts to pull it over.
-
The closer to 4 July it gets the more Illinois Troopers just sit in the parking lots of the Fireworks stores just over the border in Indiana, radioing Illinois Licence plate numbers (along with make and model) to other troopers in Illinois to pull over.
Which is why I always buy my fireworks on my way TO Indianapolis, and never on the way home.
MN troopers did that to WI fireworks stands - when they refused to leave the (privately owned) parking lots, the WI stands called the WI cops on them. Much hilarity ensued.
Another time, the WI store's employees all got in their cars and blocked in the MN trooper's car. When told to move by the MN trooper, they replied that the MN trooper COULD NOT tell them what to do in WI. MN trooper called the WI cops, who told them that if he wanted to leave, he should ask the WI store's employees - NICELY! - if they would PLEASE allow them to depart.
More hilarity ensued.
-
Here's a random thought, maybe this is a way that the Trump administration is trying to force the issue through Congress. Take pot off of the Schedule 1 list and treat it like alcohol. Could it be he (Trump) expects Congress to address issues they have been sidestepping for years?
Possibly, but an awful lot of congresscritters from pro-pot states are amazingly anti-pot. All three of Alaska's congresspeople are anti-pot, for example. I've read that it's similar for most states, and there's not enough pro-pot reps from non-legalized states to make it such that a federal legalization or even lowering of criminalization can happen.