We at Sip & Savor recognize that, just like our federal government, states and cities across the nation are struggling to fill budget gaps. And while we also recognize the need to balance the budget, we know there is a better way to do so than to target one portion of the items in our grocery cart for additional taxation. We’re not alone in this line of thinking. In fact, just yesterday on WHYY Philadelphia, City Controller Alan Butkovitz discussed a recent budget proposal to tax soft drinks in the City of Brotherly Love.
“Philadelphia just went on this wild ride last year of having to ask the state to change the sales tax and it pushed us on the verge of bankruptcy of not being able to have the money to pay our bills,” Butkovitz said. “Under state law, Philadelphia would have to ask permission for a soda tax. It’s a bad idea after going through the experience so recently to go on that roller coaster ride again.”
We couldn’t agree more. A discriminatory and regressive tax on sugar-sweetened beverages is nothing more than a money grab. It proved unpopular in Maine when voters repealed a similar tax on beverages in 2008, and in New York where the Governor himself withdrew the proposal early last year.
In today’s economy, hard-working families are already struggling to make ends meet. Adding the additional burden of plugging a hole in the budget with a tax to people’s grocery bills just isn’t right.
March 5, 2010
I’m not a soda drinker, but I’m against this tax. Not only will beverages such as Coke and Pepsi be taxed, but natural sodas such as Hansen’s and Blue Sky, along with fruit juices, and beverages that use cane sugar rather than high fructose corn syrup will also be taxed. Some drinks, such as cranberry juice and lemonade HAVE to be sweetened in order to be edible.
Diet beverages will not be taxed, so this is more of a sugar tax than a beverage tax. This sucks for me, as my body does not tolerate artifical sweetners (or MSG). Many people have sensitivites to chemical sweetners.
Also, there have been some articles recently that show diet beverages do little to reduce obesity, as people will think they can eat badly, or more because they aren’t getting calories from their beverages. Supposedly this is a tax that will make people healthier and less obeese. What good is a soda tax going to do for health, when someone opts to have water with their fried chicken and cheesesteak?
It’s also been a long-known fact that saccharin is linked to cancer in laboratory studies, and that aspartame is linked to problems with phenylketonuria.
This tax is nothing more than the city administration being money-grubbing to make up for the fact that it can’t manage funds properly. What Philly needs is an independent audit, rather than more taxes.
June 4, 2010
First, let’s address beverage taxes. People are weary of more taxes, and extremely leery of the government using the tax code to tell them what to eat or drink.
Second, let’s address the alleged health issues you brought up in your comment. Our industry agrees that obesity is a serious and complex problem. However, it is best addressed by living a balanced lifestyle—consuming a variety of foods and beverages in moderation and engaging in regular physical activity. All of our industry’s beverages—including diet beverages—can play a role in a healthy lifestyle.
When it comes to diet beverages, the current body of available science shows that low-calorie sweeteners can help reduce calories and sugar intake and aid in maintaining a healthy weight. These positions are supported by health organizations including the American Diabetes Association and the American Dietetic Association.
And if you’d like to learn more about expert opinions on the safety of saccharin, you can visit the Calorie Control Council’s Web site at http://www.caloriecontrol.org/health-professional-library/expert-opinions/saccharin.