Seattle Sugary Drink Tax Take Effect: $10.34 Tax On $15.99 Purchase

download-8.jpgI have previously discussed my opposition to sugary drink bans or prohibitive taxation schemes in Chicago and New York.  While Cook County reluctantly yielded to public opinion and court decisions recently, Seattle has gone forward with a ridiculous tax of 1.75 cents per ounce on sugary drinks. This paternalistic law is designed to make such drinks economically undrinkable or at least unpalatable for citizens who do not share the views of the majority on beverages and health.  The result is that a large box of 35 bottles of Gatorade at Costco with a list price of $15.99 is now taxed at $10.34.  So almost $10.50 of the $26.50 price is taxes.


I have previously stated that I agree with the opposition to sugary drinks and the unhealthy consumption of such beverages. (We rarely let our kids have such drinks and I have literally not had a sugary soda in decades). However, that is our choice.  Too many politicians (largely on the left of the political spectrum) believe that they have a license to dictate (through either bans or prohibitive taxes) the lifestyles and choices of other citizens.  Liberals (who correctly balk at the government trying to dictate other aspects of their lives on issues of intimate relations or other health decisions) have no hesitation in “correcting” the bad choices of those with different priorities or lifestyles.  What you eat and drink is a lifestyle choice.  It is possible to consume sugary drinks and not be obese.

264 thoughts on “Seattle Sugary Drink Tax Take Effect: $10.34 Tax On $15.99 Purchase”

  1. Does the State of Washington allow pot to be grown or sold? Will they tax that out of existence?

    1. The tax rate for marijuana is so confiscatory there remains a black market, though it is weakened. Just a few days ago the Lewis County Sheriff’s Office raided a large indoor grow operation. The grow was so sophisticated they went to the cost and effort to install an elaborate air filtration scheme where the neighbors were unaware of the odor. It shows the demand remains strong enough that investment in such infrastructure remains attractive.

  2. One major correction: It’s not just “Liberals”. Conservatives social-engineered” the tax code to give tax deductions to churches and parents. Single taxpayers without kids pay higher tax rates than married couples, parents or churches. The reason why, this “paternalistic” system is promoting social engineering!

  3. Given that attitude, Turley, should the hospital ER demand up front payment before anything?

  4. In the spirit of Seattle’s new law, I would propose that a ban is also enacted in Seattle to prevent people from attempting to substitute the names “Sugar,” “Honey,” “Babycakes,” and other such confectionery terms when referring to loved ones. A fine of $50 per offense seems reasonable, and individuals in Seattle should be encouraged to report any violations by their neighbors by requiring the Seattle’s treasury office to pay individuals that report said offenses a finder’s fee of $10 for each separate offense.

    Of course, this also means that songs using such terms are also banned and will be subject to fines if such expressions are publicly disclosed:

  5. “Liberals (who correctly balk at the government trying to dictate other aspects of their lives on issues of intimate relations or other health decisions) have no hesitation in “correcting” the bad choices of those with different priorities or lifestyles. What you eat and drink is a lifestyle choice.”

    “Res Ipsa Loquitur”

    Professor Turley for President…

    in post-Constitutional America.

    Social engineering, redistribution of wealth and central planning are all irrefutably unconstitutional as the core principles in the antithetical Communist Manifesto. If it is unconstitutional to compel an American to purchase a product, it is similarly unconstitutional to preclude the purchase of a product.

    If Americans have the right and freedom of thought, speech, belief, religion, press, assembly, etc., Americans most certainly have the unalienable right to soda pop, limited only by their imaginations and palates.

    Congress has merely the power to tax for “general Welfare”, omitting and, thereby, excluding individual welfare. The entire American redistributionist welfare state of social engineering is unconstitutional.

    Anyone objectively ensconced in the realm of American jurisprudence knows that the judicial branch has criminally failed to support the “manifest tenor” of almost every facet of the Constitution for well over a century. The Constitution establishes individual freedom and the dominion of the People over a severely limited government.

    The legislative and executive branches are subject to the vote. The judicial branch is subject only to impeachment for crimes of high office. That process should have long ago been strengthened and accelerated to accommodate burgeoning judicial treason.

    The judicial branch has not lost its mind, it has lost its American mind.

    Alexander Hamilton –

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

  6. I have a fabulous idea. Seattle should ban sugar, for our own good, you see, and require that all consumer goods be sweetened with sugar alcohols, which are non digestible by humans. The result, in most people, is massive, prolonged, explosive diarrhea, flatulence, and gripping, unbearable abdominal pain.

    My absolute favorite example of the effect of sugar alcohol on the human digestive system is the infamous review, “My Date with Andrea” on the Haribo Sugar Free Gummies site on Amazon.

    May I present, for your enjoyment:

    And my second favorite involved the construction workers crying at a job site without proper toilet facilities.

    1. Lest you ever be tempted to follow the sugar free fad:

      Customer Review
      1.0 out of 5 starsMy Dinner With Andrea
      By@StuPurdueon November 21, 2013
      I’m pretty sure Andrea (I’ll call her) agreed to have dinner at my apartment only because I always spoke to her using nothing but my two-years-of-high-school German. Her English was perfect. Probably better than mine. But the fact that I could only ask her directions to the Autobahn or inquire about the health of her non-existent Tante Amelia, seemed to make me appealing to her in a sweet and non-threatening way.
      My intentions, however, were considerably less child-like. Which is why the shopping that night was done at one of those upscale groceries with an international flair. Moules Marinieres is as much of a panty-peeler as anything I can cook, and isn’t that hard to pull off. But still, I was busy tracking the recipe in my head when I found myself in the sweets aisle. And that, to my great chagrin, is why I didn’t immediately notice the difference between Haribo Normal Gummi Bears (which are designed for human enjoyment) and Haribo Sugarless Gummi Bears (which are designed for use in maximum security prisons as a way to punish uncooperative inmates).
      I shan’t make that mistake again. (notice you can’t spell SHAN’T without SHAT.)
      Prior to Andrea’s arrival, I sat in my living room, creating a playlist of make-out music and nervously binging on the Gummi Bears I had placed in a decorative bowl because I am fancy.
      The doorbell rang, and within minutes we were standing in the kitchen, drinking beers and both of us probably worrying that we were about to exhaust my ability to communicate in her native tongue. But soon that would be the least of my worries. In the middle of trying to ask Andrea if she likes to dance to young people’s music, I felt a flutter in my midsection, accompanied by a guttural pronouncement so loud it threatened to drown out my own voice.
      Maybe it was because I was mentally refreshing my language lessons, but it suddenly struck me how much pre-diarrheal grumblings sound like German words.
      “ENTSCHULDIGUNG!” was the next thing uttered by my rapidly clenching stomach. Appropriately, Andrea looked up in response.
      “Sind Sie Kaffee machen?” she asked.
      Am I making coffee?
      I thought I must have mistranslated her at first, then finally I realized that yes, the loud, ominous gurgling coming from my gut could easily be mistaken for the percolating of some bachelor’s crappy coffeemaker.
      It’s remarkable how quickly one knows that one is about to have a traumatic pottymaking experience. Maybe that’s the body’s way of buying you the precious seconds you need. I was already calculating the number of steps to the bathroom, speculating on whether I would have time to lift the lid to the toilet, when my own voice cried out loudly in my head.
      She’s going to hear EVERYTHING!
      Thanks to an acoustical idiosyncrasy in my building, the hallway outside the bathroom works as an amplifier pointed straight at my living room-slash-kitchen. So that somehow even the gentlest tinkle sounds like I’m pouring lemonade out of a bucket.
      With only half an idea of what I was doing, I grabbed Andrea’s hand and pulled her roughly down onto my sofa. I must have looked like a madman as I booted up my iTunes playlist, plugged in the gigantic new headphones I had just bought to keep me looking young and hip, and clamped them down over her ears. (the sweat forming on my brow and upper lip couldn’t have helped.) In response to her nervous expression, I kept shouting “You’ll love this! You’ll love this!”
      I spun her around so that she was looking out the window. My “plan” was that she’d be so distracted by the modest 4th floor view, that it would allow me to pull my pants off while I sprinted down the hall, silently singing the praises of the noise-reducing quality of my new headphones. (this story will be reprinted in its entirety as a 5 star review on the Sony Beats Audio Amazon page.)
      As I slammed the bathroom door shut, already half naked, it occurred to me that I had not been shouting “You’ll love this!” at Andrea. I don’t even know how to say that in German. In my desperation I had been saying “Ich Leibe Dich!” Repeatedly professing my love for her in a shaky and frantic voice. But maybe that was a good thing, because as I threw myself at the toilet, I figured the best I could hope for is that she would be so creeped-out that she would sneak out of the apartment, blissfully unaware of the carnage taking place in the next room.
      What can I say about the ensuing white-knuckle bowel movement that hasn’t been expressed in other reviews on this page? I’m pretty sure I haven’t seen the adjective “Kafkaesque” used anywhere else.
      By the end of Act One of this private little torture-porn movie, I was confessing to every unsolved crime in history. Praying I would stumble upon the one that would satisfy my invisible captors.
      Quickly I realized that I had more than Andrea’s sense of sound to worry about. Were she to get even the faintest whiff of the weapons-grade sluice that my anus was angrily shouting into the porcelain, I would have to change my name and move to another city.
      And so I flushed. And flushed. And flushed and flushed.
      And then I flushed and nothing happened.
      I have never looked down into a broken toilet with more horror in my entire life. And I once stopped up George Clooney’s crapper! (a true story for another time.)
      I reached for the plunger, but my hand froze and my heart seized when I saw it on the floor, broken in two and covered in what looked like teeth marks. Apparently I had used the wooden handle to keep from biting my tongue off and had chewed clean through it. When did that happen? It seems my mind had already started the process of repressing this entire event.
      Amid the feverish, fruitless dance I did across my tiny bathroom floor, it dawned on me that it had been more than a minute since my last soul-wrenching anal tantrum. Dear Lord, is it over? I asked, quite possibly aloud.
      I may have been light-headed and delusional, but I began to imagine a non-ignominious resolution to this ordeal. I just needed to get her the hell out of here. If Andrea hadn’t fled the building, vomiting in terror, then I supposed I could pull up my trousers and make a cavalier exit. As long as I could get her off premises and as far away from this post-apocalyptic commode as humanly possible. Assuming that the Diarrhistas had retreated to the hills temporarily, maybe I could even whisk Andrea away to a candlelight dinner at Bernardo’s. How impulsive!
      My first few steps back toward the living room were tentative. And not just because my sphincter felt raw and tattered. It was a slow approach to the Moment of Truth, especially when I saw her figure still planted on my sofa. I knew any look on Andrea’s face other than her mouth agape would constitute a miraculous victory. And when she smiled at me, the wash of relief that engulfed me was more glorious than any throes of ecstasy I might have wished for at the beginning of the night.
      And then I saw it.
      The decorative bowl sitting in her lap. Down to just the last few sugarless Gummi bears.
      “Du hast Haribo!” she said to me. Accompanied by a satisfied smile. A big, beaming Hansel and Gretel smile, that slightly turned down in one corner at the sound we both suddenly heard. A low rumble from deep within her GI tract that sounded like Gefahrrrrr.
      The German word for Danger.
      Her eyes shot past mine and refocused on the bathroom door just down the hall behind me.

  7. It is not the government’s job to police what we eat or drink.

    It is our job. We are responsible for what we put in our mouth.

    Sin taxes are an abuse of government’s power, and they disproportionately impact the poor. In addition, if a business is legal, it is wrong for the government to try to drive them out of business. Sodas are legal, and yet the local government is trying to drive them out of business, all while legalizing pot. It has decided one product shall have government support, while the other should be driven out.

    It is none of their beeswax.

    This is what the nanny state looks like. They will not stop with sin taxes. Do we value individual liberty, or don’t we? Do we really want to live our lives as perpetual children being raised by their government?

    Since this is an absurd, abusive city tax, I predict that business will be booming in neighboring cities.

    1. When the government starts paying for the healthcare of its citizens, and when we all experience a high rise in pur premiums to care for those who abuse their bodies. . .well, yeah. . .it makes sense for the government to try to step in and save some people from themselves. To save idiots too stupid to stop guzzling this poison. By doing so, it is attempting, however inadequately, to lower its healthcare costs. To minimize its burden. This move isn’t being done out of altruism. This isn’t being nosey for the sake of being nosey. It’s an attempt to lessen the burden of a government charged with taking care of morbidly obese, brain-dead, sick individuals, with a host of medical issues. . .medical issues which, for the most part, would be non-existent if people just utilized a modicum of restraint in their diets. A modicum of wisdom in their lifestyles. You think that the obese slobs, waddling down the isles of Costco, with dozens and dozens of cans of Coke, are going to stop the insanity because a few bucks are added to their final total? Those wanting the sugary drinks will pay the extra, and it won’t curb consumption, one bit. The government is desperate to lower its costs. Its trying, anything.

      1. Trying to improve health through better eating habits or cessation of smoking doesn’t lower the total costs all governments spend. It increases them.

          1. What I said Bam Bam is true. Run all the numbers that governments spend on people and then look at the tallies.

            Being born and dying are two of the most expensive times of our lives. We all die so when we die doesn’t really change the costs that much. Many of us have prolonged illness before we die so that doesn’t change the costs either.

            Take a smoker who works his entire life. He becomes ill and dies. Those are two of the expected costs whether or not one smoked. Smokers don’t generally get sick until later in life and they work until they would normally retire or die. Since they die earlier they have a lot fewer years to develop other chronic problems that have to be paid for by Medicare. In fact, many smokers don’t collect what they put in because they die too early saving costs on Medicare, social security, Medicaid and all the other things governments pay to the elderly.

            We have a tendency not to look closely at what we are doing when we have personal beliefs that we want to be realized. The best thing we can do is to have as little government involvement as possible. As long as I am not harming you, you shouldn’t be involved unless voluntarily.

          2. Adding to Allan’s comment below at 2:55- the people most disadvantaged by the long lives of White people, are the Black workers who subsidize Social Security and Medicare when, on average, Black people draw from the system for substantially less time than White people.

            1. And the shorter lifespan of men means that they draw on these systems for substantially less time than women.

            2. You are absolutely correct on this point Linda and that is another reason the government should reduce its involvement in our lives. Invariably the people involved in these laws are looking out too much for themselves and their friends.

              Unfortunately in your quest to move in a Stalinist direction you have assured yourself of more government intervention and more unfairness.

            3. You’re assuming that black individuals contribute more into the system than they end up withdrawing, in various ways, in terms of all kinds of benefits. All kinds. . .that whites must support. Want to whine about something, whine about that. And, if black individuals live shorter lives, who is to blame for a pervasive, unhealthy lifestyle, adopted by large segments of the black population. . .frequent drinking, smoking, recreational drug use, unhealthy eating. . .so stop your whining. . .whites do not get their benefits because the hard-working black men support them. Laughable.

              1. Bam Bam, I’m not supporting any one group, but social security payments are determined by % of income as is Medicare.

                However, the lowest payments for social security are augmented and there is no limit to how much one is taxed for Medicare so the very high earners are paying a disproportional amount in and then those with high incomes are taxed additional sums when they go on Medicare. Social security is also taxed.

                I think certain minorities lose out on social security payments, but as you say much more than make that money up with other benefits they are offered.

  8. Notably, they exclude hometown company, Starbucks from the ordnance. Wonder how many of the city council member’s campaigns were financed by Starbucks?

    1. Nailed it, Sierra Rose:

      1 tsp sugar = 4 g

      According to this article, a 16 oz Cinnamon Dolce Latte contains 40 g sugar, which equals 10 tsp sugar, or 3.3 Tbsp. (The article’s conversion from tsp to g is off.)

      In comparison, there is around 39g sugar in a typical 12 fl oz can of cola.

      So why, pray tell, is Starbucks not held to the same standards as soda companies in Seattle? Could it possibly be…money given to politicians makes it against their interests to sin tax Starbucks?

      1. One of the first thoughts that came to mind was the retailers who sell fountain drinks could drive outside the city and buy the syrup from a distributor through a will-call order. But the city council covered that scenario by labeling those who do this distributors. Surprisingly they managed to summon the intelligence to anticipate this tax avoidance. Surely there will be those who find ways to get around that.

        I propose the distributors should just decide to end sales of pop or sweetener to retailers in Seattle. It would only be a matter of weeks before the ensuing outrage focused on the city council.

        1. That proposal would spark action.

          It makes no sense that Seattle would approve recreational pot sales, but try to tax soda out of existence.

          1. Karen S.,..
            I don’t think they’re trying to tax anything out of existence.
            These are “revenue enhancers”….the ultimate objective is fiscal.
            For example, the last thing a state like Washington wants to do is to tax cigarettes out of existence.
            That tax simply brings in too much money.
            The calculation involved is “how far can we go with this tax before the tax rate becomes counterproductive?”.

  9. Ridiculous tax – people have to take responsibility for what they eat! I would like to see nutrition education in all schools though as some parents are ignorant and being aware might help kids make better choices.

    What bothers me is the fact that we don’t have labeling for GMO foods – while Michelle was promoting the organic White House garden Obama and the rest of the bought and paid for Congress passed the “Dark Act”

    And artificial sweeteners (and colors) are not only in foods and beverages but in medicines, vitamins, etc. as well which makes it harder to avoid them.

    1. CA tried to pass a food labeling law that would have identified GMO foods. Monsanto launched a costly campaign and quashed it. There was a steady stream of attacks against it, calling it a “food labeling scheme” that would increase the cost of food. Nowhere, was it ever mentioned that it would label GMOs. Their claim that it would drastically increase prices neglected to mention that food labeling requirements are routinely updated, and food labels already change as a matter of course.

      Those proposing the new regulation did not have the funds to get their message out.

      I would love to see more school gardens, organic, of course. Also, as you mentioned, a course on how to calculate whether you are getting all of the nutrients that you need, including how to read a food label and how to look up the nutrients on fresh, whole food.

      I wish we could see a return of voluntary Home Ec classes, that would teach everything from how to balance a checkbook, how to calculate how much more money you pay when you pay interest, the difference between good debt (groceries) and bad debt (restaurants), how to sign up for your college classes so that you get all of your prereqs done and satisfy your major, how to choose a major, how to choose a trade school, how to plant an apartment garden, how often to change your oil, how to sew on a button, how to cook an egg. I think there would be a lot of interest in the class.

      1. KarenS – you must have attended a helluva Home Ec program – during my semester of Home Ec we baked a cake and made a pillow and another sewing project. Thereafter I took shop as an elective – much more rewarding to make bookends for my Dad, a cutting board for Mom and stilts for yours truly!

        1. Oh I wish. That was the Home Ec class of my imagination as an idea for schools. I never took Home Ec, but I was told they sewed an apron and did a few other domestic tasks. I took Wood Shop, myself.

          I think Home Eq should be a generally useful class for kids about to go off on their own to either a trade school, college, or the workforce, and it should be an elective. Some parents teach those skills to their kids, but for those who don’t, it would be a useful class.

          1. In middle school I had to take both Home Ec and Industrial Tech. Made a shirt and cooked and then made picture frames and a cutting board. It was a nice balance.

  10. I haven’t been out there is quite a while. Maybe I’ll take a trip to climb Mt. Rainier and take a quick trip to Seatle and Ray’s. The management used to treat me extremely well.

  11. I wonder what happens to those baking supply isles, in the grocery, containing bags–entire bags–of white, refined sugar? Will they simply become a memory, from the past, where we explain to our children that there were once isles of cooking supplies which offered bags of sugar for bundt cakes? Will those who want to bake tollhouse cookies, for the holidays, need to find a dealer–a sugar dealer–on the seedy side of town, where they can score some good stuff? If it is, indeed, sugar, itself, which is being targeted with this tax on sugary soft drinks, why do we not see Seattle going after the culprit–sugar? I suspect that there is far more in play here. Yes. I do. If you ask me, the multi-billion dollar corporations, who sell this stuff, just haven’t bellied-up to the bar, in Seattle, and sufficiently paid off those responsible for enacting these regulations. Plain and simple. Too cynical for you? Just watch and see. Once they do–and, you and I will never know when that ransom or bribe has been adequately paid–be prepared to see this whole brouhaha dissipate. It will be explained away in some sort of an innocuous manner, with something thrown in about the respect for personal freedoms, but the policy will only change when enough money has been exchanged to satify those controlling this decision. Yes, boys and girls. That’s, unfortunately, how the world works. Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t drink soda. I gave it up, years ago. Refined sugar is not only addictive but it also acts as a poison in the system, triggering inflammation and a host of other problems; however, is Seattle going after the makers of candy, which is loaded with sugar? The manufacturers of those overly sweet breakfast cereals, pedaled to kids? Where’s the tax on Hershey bars? The tax on local bakeries? The list goes on and on.

    Anything that the government can do to dissuade individuals from consuming so much sugar, on a daily basis, is a good thing. It is a serious, national health issue, but it is more than obvious that the government wishes to target the entities with the deep pockets. If you ever get a chance, Google the long and arduous path needed to get the FDA to allow the artificial sweeteners, that we find everywhere, including in soft drinks, onto the market. These artificial sweetness couldn’t get past all of the tests, which showed mice, filled with massive tumors, after ingesting the artificial sweetners. So, what changed? Did the manufacturers of the little rainbow packets finally make a product which would be safe and not produce tumors? No. Not at all. What happened is that the companies, producing these known carcinogens, finally paid off–sufficiently paid off–the individuals charged with making the decision as to whether or not to allow the product, into the marketplace. The same will, eventually, happen here, in Seattle.

    1. Excellent analysis. However, we are wired for sugar, but not highly refined sugar that, as you pointed out, is a poison. But the same people who are deciding what is considered good speech and what is not are also taking it upon themselves to decide what we can and cannot eat. Spiraling out of control.

      1. As long as Coke and Pepsi fund sports arenas, sports teams, school programs, etc., don’t expect that there will be the kind of widespread education, necessary, to teach about the dangers and long-lasting health consequences of their products. Is the information out there? Sure, it is. One needs to take the time and effort to research the health consequences associated with sugar or artificial sweeteners; however, these multi-billion dollar corporations fund so many activities and programs, those accepting and benefitting from the money don’t push or demand the kind of education, within the community, necessary to allow the masses to comprehend–on their own–the risks that they are taking with their lives by the daily consumption of these products.

        True story–around five years ago, I happened to meet an individual who, by all accounts, was a very educated individual. An MBA, teaching business, at a couple of universities. As the friendship progressed, slowly, I began to hear about his Diet Coke consumption. For decades–yes, decades–he had been consuming, on a daily basis, at least twelve cans of Diet Coke. Yes. Per day. He never thought twice about it, and, mind you, this is no dummy. Educated. The problem is that rarely do we hear about the wide range of dangers associated with artificial sweeteners, which are as bad as sugar, if not worse. I was dumbfounded. How could someone, so seemingly intelligent, drink this stuff, mindlessly? I sent him numerous articles, all detailing the dangers of what he was consuming, and he slowly tapered off of the beverage to which he had, quite literally, become addicted. According to him, he had no idea that what he was consuming was putting him at risk for anything from cancer, diabetes and dementia, to name a few.

        1. Bam bam, we all have limited lifespans so we should enjoy the time we have. Some like to climb mountains and that might be more dangerous than diet Coke. Should they give up mountain climbing?

          1. One doesn’t, normally, climb mountains, every day. When one does, he or she will attempt to minimize the risks involved. He or she will be fully prepared and trained. Fully supplied, with appropriate gear. It’s called taking a calculated risk–one in which you have tried to anticipate and prepare for any and all potential problems, so one can leave the mountain, all body parts, intact. It’s a sport. An activity. Enjoy it, using the appropriate amount of caution and safety necessary.

            Now, compare that to drinking a beverage. Not sure how you made the comparison, as the two are really nothing alike. You can’t take precautions, to avoid harm, when you drink a beverage full of toxins. There is no way to consume the beverage without consuming the poisons. For most, drinking these sugary drinks isn’t a once in a year deal. . .people get addicted to the stuff, chugging it all day. You can’t prepare away the risks. You can’t dispense with the risks. They are in every sip. By the way, I love the taste of an ice-cold Coke. . .and, every once in a while, on one of our scorching St. Louis summer days, I will buy one. I know the risks. I won’t have anything with sugar for the rest of the day. It’s a treat. A rare treat. A huge difference from people who drink it like water.

            1. “You can’t take precautions, to avoid harm, when you drink a beverage full of toxins. ”

              Sure you can. You can dilute it or pick a slightly different beverage just like you can choose the season you decide to climb and you can choose the mountain you climb. If we take 1,000 people and give them two Cokes per day while healthy, how much of their lifespan do you think they will lose?

              1. Read what all of that sugar, found in a typical soda, does to one’s body, coupled with the sugar ingested from what is found in the rest of the diet for those people. Not healthy. Not at all. Read about the effects of the massive amounts of sugar on the population. The explosion of diabetes. The cancer. The obesity. The widespread inflamation, triggered by sugar. The research is out there. . .read it for yourself. Sugar kills, especially the amount found in the typical American’s diet. The typical soda drinker doesn’t dilute it, so why mention diluting soda? That isn’t the normal manner in which it is consumed. Look, I don’t care who drinks soda or how much soda is consumed. . .the fatsos will just have to pay a surcharge for all of the additional costs to care for their disease-riddled bodies. They need to help make up for what they are making the rest of us pay for their poor lifestyle choices via our higher healthcare costs.

                1. Thanks, Bam Bam. I am fully aware of the healthy lifestyle. Right now I am drinking one of my many sodas I have in a day, sparkling water and a bit of Pom.

                  See my other posting with regard to costs.

        2. Bam bam re” ” by all accounts, was a very educated individual. An MBA”

          Some of the dumbest – as well as the brightest – folks I’ve ever met have an MBA. There is a spectrum like autism.

          1. Granted, acquiring an MBA, not to mention, a JD, do not necessarily mean that someone has common sense. Wisdom. It means that the person has received a formal education and passed the necessary requirements to receive such diplomas. It means that the person, whether he enjoyed it or not. . .whether he liked it or not. . .can read. Do research. Got it? I made mention of this individual, with an MBA, because many believe that it is those, without a formal education, those without a lot of money, those in the lower socio-economic levels of society, who, for the most part, must be saved from themselves. They are deemed to be too stupid to stop smoking, too ignorant to watch what they ingest, too feeble to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy. Yes. That it the case. A common perception. My example was to show that one need not live in a trailer park to fail to comprehend the inherent dangers found in many of our products. Want to know where my friend’s education and training did, however, come into the picture? After I sent him, a dozen or so articles, which he read, understanding, for the first time, about the manner in which he was exposing himself, on a daily basis, to cancer, dementia, various cancers, etc., he stopped the behavior. Yes. I attribute that to his education, where he absorbed, much like he had done throughout his life and throughtout his time in the educational system, what was presented. He understood how to apply the info to his life and make positive changes. Don’t think that education plays no part in that integration. It does.

            1. Bam bam, education is the way to convince people without the use of force. The best you can do is provide the person with knowledgeable choices. We rely too much on government force. The government (FDA) approved of Coke, and Diet Coke so many people believe that is sufficient information. There is always water from the tap, but how many times have you heard a television commercial talking about tap water being the “Real Thing”. Then again the government approved of the food pyramid that was found not to be in our best interests, low-fat diets also not in our best interests, drugs or substitutes that killed or caused severe diarrhea, etc.

              Left to his own resources man has a tendency to improve his well being.

              1. Allan,
                “Left to his own resources man has a tendency to improve his well being.”

                Overall, I agree with you. Though I have one big concern. Broken people do not seem to have this tendency. I have family members who have not changed their diet in any meaningful way despite the articles, podcasts, and books I have shared. They do not want to give up sugar or eat more vegetables despite the physical, emotional, and economic toll it is taking on themselves, family, and society.

                1. Broken people might not be able to improve their well being, but the government generally can’t do much for that either without causing a lot of unintended consequences.

                  However, the government can create loads of broken people without the advantages of man improving his own well being.

                  1. You haven’t been paying attention, Allan.
                    If you had read the hindreds of posts about how the oligarchy is screwing the other 99-99.9% percent of Americans, you would have “learned” that the 99+% can’t improve their well being.😏

                    1. Tom, of course, they can. Use Linda’s plan and after 30 million or so are killed and millions enslaved the rest will feel they are doing fine. 😉

    2. The left’s ultimate goal is that all people become like The Borg. Much of the left act like The Borg today in the political world by following their leader’s command no matter how corrupt their leaders are.

  12. Seattle is free to tax to the limit. (This limit used to be 100%, but in the Land of Leftism, there are not limits on taxation, and I can easily envision Leftist regions taxing things at 120% or more, whereby the consumer incurs debt whenever they make a purchase.)

    The politicians are serving the willing of the people. The people have demanded taxation, and Seattle’s government has simply complied with their wishes.

    If an individual consumer dislikes the tax, they can go to a nearby city that doesn’t impose the tax and then stock up on the desired super-taxed item. And if things really get out of hand with taxation, this will represent an excellent opportunity for criminal enterprises to satisfy public demand at a lower cost.

    And don’t worry about the children. They will find a way to get their fill of fun and drinks:

    1. “And don’t worry about the children. They will find a way to get their fill of fun and drinks:”

      Maybe they will put designer drugs in their sugar-free drinks or maybe they will shift to milkshakes.

      The stupidity of the left is amazing.

    2. Ralph re: “if things really get out of hand with taxation, this will represent an excellent opportunity for criminal enterprises to satisfy public demand at a lower cost.”

      So like “loosies” are sold in NYC and other places folks can sell candy and soda. Well, that should help the unemployed get back on their feet. Supply and demand =)

  13. Darren, so you’re against a sugar tax because it will reduce employment in the healthcare industry?

    Allan, seriously, you reduce Medicaid, Medicare, and subsidized insurance spending when you improve the health of the population.

    1. Vinegart: When you look at total government expenditures what you say is not true. It isn’t true for cigarettes either. If you are looking to decrease government expenditures permit cigarette companies to advertise.

  14. This make little economic sense unless the surrounding tax districts enact similar bad taxes. Otherwise the net effect is to drive the purchasing behavior away from the taxing district which, in turn, takes business away from the local merchants and actually DEPRIVES the district of tax revenue instead of adding to its ill-gotten coffers.

Comments are closed.