Why Berkeley passed a soda tax and S.F. didn’t

[steve2470]

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Why-Berkeley-passed-a-soda-tax-and-S-F-didn-t-5879757.php

Many Americans consider San Francisco and Berkeley two peas in a very liberal pod — both of them far-left, wacky cities filled with pot-smoking, quinoa-eating eccentrics whose mayoral candidates go by names like Chicken John (San Francisco, 2007) and Running Wolf (Berkeley, 2012).

But there are plenty of differences between the two bluest of blue Bay Area cities. Take a look at Tuesday’s election and the very different outcomes for both cities’ attempts to pass a tax on sodas.

Berkeley became the first city in the nation to adopt a soda tax after 30 other cities and states around the country failed. Its Measure D levied a penny-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened drinks. Its revenues weren’t pegged for any particular purpose so it needed just a simple majority, but it won the support of a whopping 75 percent of voters.

San Francisco, always a city that loves being first, instead became the 31st municipality to opt not to adopt a soda tax. Its Proposition E would have levied a 2-cents-per-ounce tax, and it needed two-thirds of voters to support it because it would have directed revenue to physical education and nutrition programs for children. A majority of San Francisco voters, 55 percent, supported Prop. E — but that wasn’t enough for it to win.

[hfojvt]

1. so Berkeley is supposed to be more liberal?

Fuck soda taxes.

We can't tax the rich, so let's go after soda drinkers. We can vote with out feet too.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Taxing soda isn't about making money any more than taxing tobacco is.

It's a means to help create a healthier populace, by making the things that directly impact health in a negative way more expensive. Fewer people indulge in expensive habits, and indulge in them less often. Like it or not, large swathes of the American public are seriously overweight, and sugared drinks are one large reason why, packing on lots of added calories with no other nutritional value. Obesity not only shortens lives in a myriad of ways, but is also one of the reasons American healthcare costs have skyrocketed. We have to move from a system that waits until people get diseases, and then pushes a lifetime of drugs onto them to one in which people are kept healthier to begin with.

[yeoman6987]

3. It just hurts the poor period.

Sure throw the health in, but saying the poor can't make choices on their own is not the right answer. The rich and even middle class have the luxury of choice.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. By making them healthier?

'The rich and middle class have the luxury of choice'... to drink crap that makes them die sooner? Well sure. And quite frankly, I'm all for the rich gorging themselves on sugary foods and chugging soda by the gallon and smoking every single minute of the day. They'll die decades sooner, putting their money back into wider circulation.

[hfojvt]

15. many years ago, I thought I should quit soda

about twenty years ago.

And then I thought. You know what, my life sucks enough already and I happen to enjoy a nice cold, sweet drink, so fuck it, I am gonna indulge myself.

And you know what else? Nobody else in this world has been harmed by second-hand soda from me.

So here you are, all determined to make my life suck little bit more. But on the plus side, my crappy life will at least be longer.

[hfojvt]

8. it's a means for some people to try to control others

Tell you what, let's just have a weigh in every six months and we can directly tax fat.

Soda is not really making me fat at 6 foot and 168 pounds.

But the fact remains, with the addition of a soda tax, you would be taxing poor people, while at the same time many elected bodies are quite happy to give tax breaks to the rich.

You propose a soda tax, I guarantee you that I will oppose you with everything I've got. Go wag your finger somewhere else. How about we tax something that YOU indulge in?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. I do indulge.

So if you want to tax something I indulge in, go ahead and tax soda. I also indulge in home ownership, and vote FOR raising my property taxes for various health-related things, like the mental health issue that was just on the ballot locally.

[alp227]

11. Control? How? SOMEBODY has to pay the externalities of junk food.

The tax only makes junk food/drink more expensive instead of outright banning it. First World Problems much?

[Oktober]

67. Not sure if serious...

Not about making money... ha!

edit: ok... 60% making money... 40% pushing your beliefs onto the masses...

[LostInAnomie]

4. Because Berkley has more nanny staters/authoritarians...

... looking to control the behaviors of others under the guise of "health"?

That would be my guess.

[First Speaker]

5. Agreed. This has little to do with "health"...

...and much to do with our national Puritanism, coming back in very thin disguise. The arguments against Demon Rum 100 years ago, and against "Big Soda" today, are virtually interchangeable.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. Demon run made you obese and gave you diabetes?

I never knew that. Interesting.

[First Speaker]

13. Every imaginable illness known to man was blamed on booze...

...including, yes, obesity. (Beer was responsible for that.) If they didn't include diabetes, it's probably because they didn't think of it. But on the whole, the diseases and social ills booze were responsible for were different than the ones "Big Soda" is guilty of, so I'll concede your point. My point is that the *tone* of the two campaigns is the same, and they would sound identical with just a few words transposed. And both, in my opinion, are mirror images of each other, and for that matter of the Religious Right and pornography, abortion, etc. I wish the American Left would cut this crap out. If this indeed what "progressives" stand for, then a plague on both their houses.

[adirondacker]

70. +1000. Well Stated. Pushing regressive taxes on the poor is Libertarian 3rd way propoganda.period.

[alp227]

12. So making junk food more expensive to account for the real-world consequences of marketing that crap

is "nanny statism"? Seriously?

[First Speaker]

14. Yes. See how simple some things are?

[alp227]

16. No. It's not the same as STOPPING one from buying sugar water.

All it does is make the buying a bit less convenient and make the buyer think. Should consumers not be properly informed about what they buy? So frustrating how right wingers characterize providing informed decision making as "nanny statism".

[LostInAnomie]

20. Who gets to decide when someone is informed enough?

I'm guessing the mindset of these people is that an informed person would never decide to drink sugary drinks, so only the unformed are drinking them. Therefore, they should be coerced into not buying them.

[alp227]

22. The fact is: SOFT DRINKS CAUSE HEALTH PROBLEMS.

Reality is not a popularity contest, and companies that peddle crap like soda, tobacco, etc. should be responsible for the externalities (like health costs) that come with the profits.

Guess what? When people understand the consequences of the crap they eat, they eat less of the crap!

[LostInAnomie]

23. Well, God forbid they make that choice to drink soda without being punished.

It would be awful for people if people chose to consume something freely without the express approval of the city of Berkley.

You never did answer the question: who gets to decide if you are informed enough to drink soda? Is it possible for person to be fully informed and still decide to drink sugary soda? If they are fully informed, what would be the point of taxing them other than to coerce them into stopping?

[alp227]

24. Oh boo hoo, a tax is PUNISHMENT? Oh those poor, poor soda lovers needing to pay an extra cent or 2!

#FirstWorldProblems!

Your question "who gets to decide if you are informed enough to drink soda" is based on a faulty premise because no one wants to BAN soda, but only to INFORM PEOPLE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF DRINKING SODA! I don't answer leading questions, thank you very much.

"Is it possible for person to be fully informed and still decide to drink sugary soda?" Yes, but as the saying goes, "don't say we didn't warn ya."

"If they are fully informed, what would be the point of taxing them other than to coerce them into stopping?" To repeat myself, the tax is the externality for the soda companies' profit!

[LostInAnomie]

25. What a clever hashtag to dismiss creeping authoritarianism with!

Amazing how liberalism has morphed into using governmental powers to punish behavior we don't approve of. The political spectrum is indeed a horseshoe.

This tax isn't meant to "inform" anyone of anything other than what behavior the government approves of and what it doesn't. If you can't see that as nanny statism/authoritarianism, I don't know what to say.

[alp227]

28. I can't see that as authoritarianism, because it isn't.

If one doesn't want to pay extra for the externalities of junk food, it's the frickin' buyer's fault.

[stranger81]

34. Exactly. There's nothing "authoritarian" about this.

"Authoritarianism" would prohibit the sale of sodas, not marginally increase its associated tax rate.

[stranger81]

35. Presumably, then, you also view cigarette and alcohol taxes, gasoline taxes, VAT taxes

and so forth as "authoritarianism"?

"Authoritarianism" does not mean what you think it means.

[LostInAnomie]

53. I find sin taxes and taxes meant to coerce people into behaving a certain way...

... to be authoritarian. It would be hard to argue that a gas tax or VAT are meant to obtain a behavioral goal.

[backwoodsbob]

39. should we add 10 dollars a pound to beef

and ten bucks a pound to pork to make people think?

[alp227]

41. You're missing the point - the purpose of these taxes is to cover the SOCIAL COSTS of the products.

"Making people think" goes far beyond merely taxing tobacco and such - there ought to be educational efforts to inform why X is bad. The corporate lobby has successfully framed the "soda tax" issue as an insult to people's individual choices while distracting from the unwritten social costs of junk food. And given the environmental impacts of meat production, I say the tax bill would give the sharpest accountant a headache.

[backwoodsbob]

42. so we should tax the social cost of desicions?

that is a dangerous slippery slope

[alp227]

48. No, these taxes are for CONSUMER PRODUCTS and COMMODITIES, not behaviors. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

68. It comes down to 'pro-social engineering' vs 'anti-social engineering'.

Some folks simply can't stand any form of social engineering, because it eats into their 'freedoms'.

Any control exerted by government comes at the expense of lessened ability to control oneself. This is true, which is why, in the *absence* of compelling evidence that government control needs to be implemented to address serious dangers to society, the government should avoid stepping in. We have labour, safety, health, and other similar regulations and laws as a result of government trying to address various issues in which it was shown that 'self-control' was not being exercised and harm ensued.

At the moment, we have ample evidence that an obesity epidemic has swept the country, and is costing tens of millions of Americans years of life, and costing the country enormous amounts on additional healthcare costs, which drives the country further into debt, and, as a political aside, is also handing power to Republicans, who constantly screech about deficits and the national debt.

So making laws that will help decrease the obesity epidemic has many different benefits, throughout the fabric of society. But such isn't enough for the 'My freeeeedumb' crowd.

[LostInAnomie]

18. Yep. Pretty much.

The consequence of freedom is that people can do whatever they like with their bodies as long as it doesn't harm others. Using government powers to coerce people into making the choices you find acceptable is the essence of nanny statism/authoritarianism.

[alp227]

19. Well, sometimes, what people do with their own bodies has an indirect harm to others.

For example, when big corporations market junk food in a glamorous way, the consequence of such marketing is widespread health problems. Because: advertising works when the greater populace can't make properly informed dietary decisions!

Are you seriously saying that taxing soda with a few pennies "coerce(s) people into making the choices (I) find acceptable"? While "sin taxes" do have an indirect coercion effect, the only reason why one is coerced against buying the product is because of price.

Since when did DU become Ron Paul Forums with people bringing up that libertarian code word "coercion"? Sheesh.

[LostInAnomie]

38. Drinking soda doesn't indirectly hurt others...

... any more than sitting on your ass in front of a computer does. Should we start taxing sedentary lifestyles?

Yes, I am saying taxing soda is an attempt to coerce people into behavior you find acceptable. They call it a "sin tax" because the behavior is frowned upon be the government, so the "sinner" should have to pay. The fact that it's just a few pennies, doesn't make it any less true.

[alp227]

40. C'mon. Junk food. Has. Measurable. Externalities.

As opposed to merely sitting in front of a computer. I'm not gonna buy into your changing of the topic and conflation of sin taxes as a form of "coercion". If one can seriously be coerced against buying soda over a few cents, that person never really wanted soda in the first place.

[LostInAnomie]

50. You don't think living a sedentary lifestyle has externalities?

But, drinking soda does?

The conflation of a soda tax with a sin tax was your baby in post #19. I believe you called it "indirect coercion". Don't like the terms don't use them.

" If on can seriously be coerced against buying soda over a few cents, that person never really wanted soda in the first place."

Well, how classist of you.

[woolldog]

29. In reading your posts,

I notice I often agree with you.

[pnwmom]

30. Being willing to tax doesn't make you a nanny stater/authoritarian

except from the viewpoint of right-wingers and libertarians.

[LostInAnomie]

32. I disagree.

It is essentially taxing a behavior that you don't approve of for the purpose of curbing that behavior. Instead of trusting people to make choices over their own bodies and health, they are attempting to coerce them into making the "right" choice.

That sounds pretty authoritarian to me.

[pnwmom]

33. Most states tax food less than other things because food is necessary to health.

Pop isn't necessary so it doesn't have to be protected from taxes like nutritious foods.

[LostInAnomie]

45. Chip, cookies, and snack cakes aren't necessary either.

Yet, in most states they are taxes the same as every other food. Why should sodas be any different?

[pnwmom]

49. How do you know about "most" states?

[LostInAnomie]

51. If bought as groceries...

... most states don't tax those items. Some tax them if you buy as a "convenience" at a gas station or restaurant, but most healthy food is taxed this way too.

[pnwmom]

57. Washington state does. How do you know what most states do? n/t

[LostInAnomie]

61. Here's 26 states that don't tax the items I listed..

Or tax them at the same rate as all other food. Actually, since Dec. 2, 2010 unprepared food (ie. snack cakes, chips, and cookies) are tax exempt.

Here's a general guide if you don't want to click through all the links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States#By_jurisdiction

1. Texas: http://www.salestaxinstitute.com/texas-potato-chips-individually-bagged-and-medicine-individually-packaged-possibly-exempt-0

2. New York: http://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/tg_bulletins/st/food_sold_by_food_stores.htm

3. Florida: http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/tips/tip98a108.html

4. North Dakota: http://www.nd.gov/tax/salesanduse/pubs/guide/gl-22062.pdf?20141108222950

5. Minnesota: http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/businesses/sut/factsheets/FS102A.pdf

6. Massachusetts: http://www.mass.gov/dor/businesses/help-and-resources/legal-library/regulations/64h-00-sales-and-use-tax/830-cmr-64h65-sales-tax-on-meals.html

7. Iowa: http://www.iasourcelink.com/docs/default-source/webinar-docs/food-service-webinar-q-a-11-14-13.pdf?sfvrsn=0

8. Connecticut: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0037.htm

9. Pennsylvania: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/061/chapter60/s60.7.html

10. New Jersey: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/pubs/sales/prior_years/anj20_1100.pdf

11. California: http://www.boe.ca.gov/lawguides/business/current/btlg/vol2/suta/245-1430.html

12. Rhode Island: http://www.tax.ri.gov/regulations/salestax/04-59.php

13. Maryland: http://taxes.marylandtaxes.com/Resource_Library/Tax_Publications/Tax_Notices/Sales_and_Use_Tax_Notices/su_not12.pdf

14. Michigan: http://www.michigan.gov/treasury/0,1607,7-121-44402_44415_44416-7286--,00.html

15. Indiana: http://www.taxrates.com/blog/2011/12/16/indiana-sales-tax-update-food-taxability/

16. Maine: http://www.maine.gov/revenue/salesuse/reference-03.htm

17. Ohio: http://www.tax.ohio.gov/taxeducation/Everyday_Purchases.aspx

18. Wisconsin: http://mikerodey.com/avoid-sales-tax-food-grocery-wisconsin

19. West Virginia: http://www.state.wv.us/taxrev/publications/tsd/tsd419.pdf

20. Kentucky: http://revenue.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/332F2097-1179-4EBC-989F-C5074B482593/0/sufacts_v6n2.pdf

21. Colorada: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251601830690&ssbinary=true

22. Nebraska: http://www.revenue.nebraska.gov/info/6-432.pdf

23. Washington: http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-20-244

24. Utah: http://www.tax.utah.gov/sales/food-rate#bakery

25. South Carolina: http://www.sctax.org/NR/rdonlyres/B296C7DF-BED5-4EC5-8F19-38D96F6A6F9D/0/Chapter21UnpreparedFoodExemption.pdf

26. Louisiana: http://www.rev.state.la.us/Miscellaneous/foodexemptionflyer.pdf

[pnwmom]

62. You've misread the Washington law, #23 on your list.

Washington state exempts food from sales tax except for some products, such as soda, that are specifically not exempted.

So I wonder how many other laws you've incorrectly included on this list.

At most, if you haven't made any other errors, then half the states don't tax soda more than other food items. That isn't "most."

From your link:

(g) Soft drinks. Soft drinks are excluded from the exemptions. "Soft drinks" means any nonalcoholic beverage that contains natural or artificial sweeteners, except beverages that contain:
• Milk or milk products;
• Soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes; or
• More than fifty percent by volume of vegetable or fruit juice.

[LostInAnomie]

63. Take a look again at what I said in #45

You were talking about about how pop isn't a nutritionally necessary food. I replied that most states don't tax cookies. chips, and snack cakes any differently even though they aren't nutritionally necessary. You then asked how I knew most didn't. Then, I proved most didn't.

[pnwmom]

64. The OP is specifically about pop, so it is misleading to include Washington on that list,

when Washington does tax pop and doesn't tax most foods.

[LostInAnomie]

65. How is it misleading?

I specifically said most states don't tax nutritionally unnecessary food like chips, cookies, and snack cakes. I delivered a list of 26 states that don't tax chips, cookies, and snack cakes. I could have given you another five but I didn't need to.

Unless you can somehow prove that chips, cookies, and snack cakes are "necessary to health" like you said in #33, you don't have a leg to stand on.

[alp227]

37. When corporate marketing outweighs reality-based messaging in food & drink,

something needs to keep the junk food capitalists in check. Look up "social cost" - the fact is that the soda and tobacco companies' business model is to profit off saddling taxpayers with the consumers' medical bills.

[LostInAnomie]

46. There are social costs to every action.

Living a sedentary lifestyle harms your health and indirectly raises health costs. Recreational sex increases you risk for STDs which effects health costs. Sitting on your wallet damages nerves and spinal health which effects heath costs.

There is an indirect cost for every behavior, so why single out drinking soda?

[alp227]

47. Soda is a consumer product, unlike the other two. I ain't buying into fallacious comparisons. nt

[LostInAnomie]

52. You're the one that keeps bringing up "social costs", "sin tax", "externalities"...

... but keep rejecting them when they are used against you. Either quit using the terms or start being intellectually consistent.

All behavior has a social cost, whether you like it or not.

[alp227]

56. they're more measurable with consumer products not behavior. nt

[tularetom]

9. SF did a piss poor job of pounding home the nexus

Between sugary sody pop and obesity/diabetes/cancer/heart disease.

And the sugar water industry spent liters of money to defeat it. So fear of taxes beat out fear of poor health in the minds of the voters. I totally get that. Telling me I have a chance of getting diabetes at some vague date in the future isn't near as much of a deterrent as having to pay another buck and a half for a 2 liter bottle of my favorite belly wash.

[hfojvt]

17. oh, it's only a buck and a half more?

Why didn't somebody say so?

It's not that big of a deal then. Just a 100% price increase. No problem.

[tularetom]

21. 64 oz. @ 2 cents per oz. or $1.28

Quite a bit more when you can buy a 2 liter bottle at Mall Wart for less than a buck.

[arcane1]

27. The only rallies I saw this election year were anti-prop E rallies.

And most of the protesters had identical printed signs and matching clothing.

[Warpy]

26. A buck twenty eight tax on a 2 liter bottle of soda was just too steep

since the soda itself doesn't cost that much if you buy it on sale. Berkley's sixty four cent tax was steep but didn't double the price of the product. That's probably why it lost in San Francisco.

I'm curious, was the tax only on sugared sodas or was it also on artificially sweetened sodas?

[Odin2005]

31. This is authoritarianism, not liberalism.

[alp227]

36. Authoritarianism: Holding a gun to your head and yelling, "GIVE ME YOUR SODA!"

As the meme goes, "people keep using that word without knowing what it means."

[stage left]

43. Let's tax bacon! nt

[steve2470]

44. no, not bacon !

[stage left]

58. But it's got all that fat in it.

All that cris...ah... artery clogging fat.

[steve2470]

59. give me bacon or give me liberty !

Isn't that what Patrick Henry said ?

[shanti]

54. So diet is ok? N/t

[Oktober]

69. No no.. Evil aspartame I believe...

Gotta save the people from themselves don't ya know... They aren't as enlightened as some...

[NobodyHere]

55. It's dumb shit like this

is why liberalism has become a dirty word to many Americans.

[NBachers]

60. I bought a 2 liter bottle of RC Cola at 26th and Harrison in Frisco to go with my pizza tonight.

How many taxable sins have I committed in the above statement?

The convenience store at 26th and Harrison is my RC Cola connection.

Sorry, I voted against the soda tax.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. H.L. Mencken

[sendero]

71. I consider these sorts of things..

... (soda taxes) counter productive. They are what make the "nanny state" argument stick.

It is possible to be a serious progressive without resorting to these bits of frankly insulting regulation.