Taxes Have Consequences

For some unknown reason, politicians love to spend other peoples’ money. And they love to raise taxes to get more of other peoples’ money to spend. However, raising taxes does not always work–sometimes it has unforeseen consequences. The Laffer Curve taught us that.

Last Friday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the soda tax in Philadelphia. It just hasn’t gone as predicted.

The article reports:

That 1.5 cents per ounce doesn’t sound like a lot, but it is. The Tax Foundation notes that it’s “24 times the Pennsylvania excise tax rate on beer.”

“The high tax rate on nonalcoholic beverages makes them more expensive than beer in some cases,” the nonpartisan think tank wrote.

Some people, suddenly facing absurdly high costs for colas, root beers and other soft drink favorites, are turning to alcohol instead.

Probably not what was envisioned with the tax. And the tax has been put on diet drinks as well as sugared ones. So, if they had hoped to alter people’s consumption away from sugar-filled soda toward less-unhealthy, non-sugared alternatives, it was a failure.

Tax increases never sound like much–they are sold that way. Remember the luxury tax that went into effect in 1991 that nearly killed the boat industry. The tax was only supposed to impact the rich, but it caused a serious recession as the impact of the tax began to trickle down.

The article at Investor’s Business Daily further reports:

“Beverage tax collections were originally promoted as a vehicle to raise funds for prekindergarten education,” the Tax Foundation said, “but in practice Philadelphia awards just 49% of the soda tax revenues to local pre-K programs.” The majority of the money goes to government employees’ benefits and local schools that already have funding.

…the tax didn’t bring in the money the city thought it would. The city budgeted a “conservative” $46.2 million in revenues from the tax for fiscal 2017. At current projections, they’ll come up $6.7 million short. Many people are leaving Philly to do their shopping, while others have switched to other beverages, leaving a big unexpected hole in the tax revenue estimates.

“In July, city officials lowered beverage tax revenue by 14%, leaving the prekindergarten programs that the tax promised to fund in jeopardy,” the study said.

Meanwhile, local Coca-Cola and PepsiCo operations laid off nearly 150 workers and pulled some brands off Philly shelves. And angry local businesses are suing the city over the tax.

Raising taxes is never the answer. Cutting spending usually is.

Things I Never Knew

Hopefully this will be the last thing I ever post about Trayvon Martin. In surfing the internet today, I found that part of my education was severely lacking in terms of understanding this case.

In June 2012, the American Thinker posted a timeline of the events the night Trayvon Martin was killed. In listening to the news, we all heard that Trayvon was an innocent young man going to the store for iced tea and skittles. Nothing to see here, move along, folks. Well, my ignorance is showing.

The article at the American Thinker explains the significance of tea and skittles:

Trayvon, with his hoodie up, grabs two items from the shelves of 7-11.  One is the Skittles.  The other is Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail.  The media avoid the name of the real drink — possibly because of the racial implications of the word “watermelon,” but possibly to avoid probing the real reason for Trayon’s trip.

Trayvon, in fact, had become a devotee of the druggy concoction known as “Lean,” also known in southern hip-hop culture as “Sizzurp” and “Purple Drank.”  Lean consists of three basic ingredients — codeine, a soft drink, and candy.  If his Facebook postings are to be believed, Trayvon had been using Lean since at least June 2011.  

On June 27, 2011, Trayvon asks a friend online, “unow a connect for codien?”  He tells the friend that “robitussin and soda” could make “some fire ass lean.”  He says, “I had it before” and that he wants “to make some more.”  On the night of February 26, if Brandy had some Robitussin at home, Trayvon had just bought the mixings for one “fire ass lean” cocktail.

I stumbled on this information accidentally through a friend on Facebook. Where was the media on this? We have been sold a bill of goods on this trial and everything connected with it. The media has again destroyed its own credibility.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Imposing Portion Control On Sugary Drinks

CBS News today posted an article about the New York City ban on sugary drinks of more than 16 ounces that goes into effect tomorrow.

The article reports:

The cola crackdown goes into effect on Tuesday. The new regulation puts a 16-ounce limit on sugary drinks and applies to both bottled and fountain drinks.

The ban but does not include grocery or convenience stores that don’t serve prepared food. It also does not apply to diet soda, other calorie-free drinks or anything that has at least 50 percent milk or milk substitute.

So when I order my million-calorie pizza for delivery, I can order it with a 2-liter diet soda–I just can’t order it with a 2-liter regular soda. Wow!

Because lattes have more than 50 percent milk or milk substitute, Starbucks can continue offering 20 ounce drinks because of the milk content. Like Dunkin’ Donuts, customers will also be able to add their own sugar to their coffee.

Just for the record, a 20-ounce regular coca-cola has 240 calories. A grande size Starbucks Caramel Macchiato has 224. Coca-cola in that size cannot be legally purchased in a restaurant in New York City, the Caramel Macchiato can.

What this says is that all that the coffee shops  have to do is put the sugar in a place where the customer can add their own sugar to their drink. This will result in higher cost to the coffee shop, more of a mess where the sugar is added, and general inconvenience for everyone involved. It also does nothing to solve the problem of obesity.

This law is government at its worst. New York City has bigger problems than residents buying large sodas.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Mess With My Pizza Order

Yesterday the New York Post posted an article about some of the consequences of Mayor Bloomberg‘s ban on serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. That ban means that when you call your local pizzeria for a delivery, that delivery cannot include the standard 2-liter bottle of Coke (which you can legally buy in the grocery store).

The article reports:

Typically, a pizzeria charges $3 for a 2-liter bottle of Coke. But under the ban, customers would have to buy six 12-ounce cans at a total cost of $7.50 to get an equivalent amount of soda.

There is some serious food for thought in the fact that you can no longer get a 2-liter bottle of soda with your pizza. First of all, how many people are going to eat the pizza? If the entire pizza is going to be eaten by only one person, the large bottle of soda is the least of his worries. If the pizza is going to be shared, can we also assume that the soda is going to be shared? Therefore, how can the city know that any one person eating the pizza and drinking the soda will actually get more than 16 ounces of the soda? Therefore, the law probably should not apply.

The article further reports:

Families will get pinched at kid-friendly party places, which will have to chuck their plastic pitchers because most hold 60 ounces — even though such containers are clearly intended for more than one person.

Changes will be made at the Frames bowling alley in Times Square, where 26-ounce pitchers are served at kids’ parties, said manager Ayman Kamel.

“We’re going to try to get creative,” he said, noting drinks with 100 percent juice are exempt from the ban.

“We’re figuring out a way to have freshly squeezed juice for the birthday parties. We might have to raise the price about a dollar or so.”

At this risk of totally skewing the issue, what happens to bars that provide pitchers of beer to tables of patrons? Is beer subject to the same restrictions as soda? Does beer have sugar? Do the carbs in beer count as sugar? Has anyone ever been arrested for driving under the influence of Coca-Cola?

This ban is an exercise in stupidity and unintended consequences and needs to be repealed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Get Your Hands Off My Coca-Cola

Yesterday the New York Times reported that New York Mayor Bloomberg is planning to ban the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts. This is part of the Mayor’s effort to combat obesity.

The article reports:

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

Diet drinks are not included in this ban.

The article includes an interesting statement by the Mayor:

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.

What??!!!

At this point in the article I would like to point out that Mayor Bloomberg is pro-choice. If asked, he would explain that the government does not have the right to interfere with woman’s healthcare. This is the same man who is intent on passing laws allowing the government to tell us what we can drink. I think the inconsistency in those two views is amazing.

Enhanced by Zemanta