Philadelphia

[ice grillin you]

Because new tax revenues are always spent exactly how they are intended.

not always but usually...no one will ever agree where the money should be spent....but the notion that government just throws away more money than it spends on society is a neat little thing that people in Kansas and south Dakota yell about but its just not true....we have the greatest country in the world USA USA USA oh but all our governments from the white house down to the town council are horrible...farging most of the physical world we live in is due to taxes and governmental spending

I really wish states were allowed to vote on the amount and which taxes they should pay......just so people could see everything they depend on and love just disappear one day

in this case specifically kenney has drawn out dollar for dollar what the monies will go to...does that money there some of it may go awry....no....but Kenny is a great progressive who with all his being believes every kid should get a good education and because of his passion for this I believe will install the proper oversite to see the monies thru

[rjs246]

Three cents an ounce is farging outlandishly stupid and it's a hideously regressive tax that disproportionately affects the poor. 

I hate this argument. I heard (and continue to hear) the same thing about the cigarette tax increase that Obama endorsed and congress enacted.

Sales/consumption taxes are regressive. Flat taxes are regressive. They disproportionately affect poor people across the board. Taxes on farging soda and cigarettes may disproportionately affect the poor, but they are not regressive. They're designed to modify behavior. Poor people may smoke more an drink more soda, but that also means that they are the population most in need of behavioral modification. Stop drinking so much farging soda and smoking so many farging cigarettes and the tax becomes less disproportionate in its impact and accomplishes a major public health goal.

I look at the soda tax as a sin tax. Tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and soda can be taxed all to hell for all I care.

[Rome]

Nothing says freedom quite like government enacted behavior modification.

The farg has happened to you, Russell?   You used to have libertarian leanings but now you're interested in the government forcing you to change your consumption habits.

Thanks but no thanks. 

[ice grillin you]

behavior modification is a seatbelt or helmet law

this is if you choose to continue to dilapidate your body with bad things at least your kids will get pre k out of it...and again this isn't a sales tax...its a distribution tax...theres a reason the aba has spent millions of dollars to defeat this....its not the people in the hood that are going crazy

i do think its unfair that poor people don't have the same choices that wealthier people do....doesn't seem right to raise prices on soda and juice while a lot of these people have to take three buses and a train to find some fresh fruit and vegetables....then again they have to take seven buses and two trains to find a good school or an open pre k spot

newsflash: the world aint perfect

[rjs246]

Nothing says freedom quite like government enacted behavior modification.

The farg has happened to you, Russell?   You used to have libertarian leanings but now you're interested in the government forcing you to change your consumption habits.

Thanks but no thanks. 

So you're arguing that the government shouldn't put taxes on alcohol and cigarettes and weed and soda because of freedom? Hot take, bro. No one is forcing anyone to do anything here. They're encouraging healthier behavior by enacting a tax. Oh, and funding education all the while.

I don't think the government should force behavior of any kind. But if they can raise funds and encourage healthier choices at the same time what is the problem with that exactly? I've never considered taxes to be some infringement on freedom. That's some right-wing shtein right there.

Also, to be clear, if the government was saying that they were outlawing unhealthy behavior, I'd be up in arms. We are adults and can choose to do whatever sort of unhealthy shtein we want as long as we aren't farging with anyone else. But, of course, that isn't what's happening here. What's happening here is the government is taxing unhealthy behavior. We can make all the bad choices we want, but the government is under no obligation to make (or keep) those bad choice inexpensive.

[Rome]

I'm saying they shouldn't arbitrarily decide to tax the shtein out of certain goods or services that are deemed to be morally or physically corrupting.

Oh that butter is bad for you so we'll throw a dollar tax per pound on it to "help" you switch to Parkay. 

Taxing the farging air we breathe will be next because government officials don't know how to allocate the dollars they receive appropriately.   Sin taxes are a swindle that hurt poor people and I want nothing to do with them. 

[rjs246]

It isn't arbitrary in the slightest. Soda has literally no redeeming health value. None. And we're the fattest farging population in history. So yeah, tax the shtein out of it. farg soda.

[Susquehanna Birder]

They're encouraging healthier behavior by enacting a tax. Oh, and funding education all the while.

That's the big, feel-good smokescreen. They aren't changing behavior, and they know it. Politicians and bureaucrats take advantage of vices to create new lines of revenue. They tell us how they will help us all, while they line their pockets and build more bureaucracy that requires more and more money and influence to keep it all going.

[Munson]

I think it's been pretty much proven that 'sin' taxes tend to reduce use of the products that are taxed at this point.

If Philly has a universal pre-K program up and running in the next couple of years, I'll take it.

[rjs246]

They're encouraging healthier behavior by enacting a tax. Oh, and funding education all the while.

That's the big, feel-good smokescreen. They aren't changing behavior, and they know it. Politicians and bureaucrats take advantage of vices to create new lines of revenue. They tell us how they will help us all, while they line their pockets and build more bureaucracy that requires more and more money and influence to keep it all going.

I think it's been pretty much proven at this point that 'sin' taxes tend to reduce use of the products that are taxed at this point.

If Philly has a universal pre-K program up and running in the next couple of years, I'll take it.

Exactly. But honestly, who farging cares? If soda is so goddamned important to you that you can't pay an extra tax on it you've got bigger problems.

[PhillyPhreak54]

Agreed Russell.

Wanna drink a big gulp? You'll pay more than $1.99 or whatever they cost.

[rjs246]

Or maybe, to phrase it a little differently, if you're drinking so much soda that a .03/oz tax is going to materially impact your bottom line, maybe that money could be better spent elsewhere.

[Rome]

A 32 ounce soda is 69 cents at a gas station, right?

Now that same product costs $1.65 or 239% more because of a tax. 

That is straight up bullshtein and don't tell me it doesn't affect the poor disproportionately because it does.

[rjs246]

I literally don't care who it affects because I don't care if people choose to drink soda. It could cost 50000000% more with the new tax and I wouldn't give any shteins.

[Susquehanna Birder]

I'm just sick of government slowly finding new ways to farg the consumer. Soda taxes may be just a tiny thing, but it's indicative of a longer term problem.