Kansas Public Voices Harsh Opposition to Proposed Soda Tax

Share This Story

Kansas legislators found out yesterday that taxing soda is not the easy, controversy-free way to raise revenue they probably thought it would be. Hundreds of soft-drink bottlers, convenience store owners, and restauranteurs descended on the Statehouse in Topeka to voice their opposition to a measure that would impose a 0.4 cent tax on every teaspoon of sugar in non-diet sodas, sports drinks, and other sugared beverages. That would amount to about 5 cents for every 12-ounce can.

Lawmakers thought that slapping a $40 million soda tax on consumers would help eliminate a $467 million state budget deficit. Instead, the proposal generated a groundswell of opposition. So many soft drink workers showed up at the Kansas Senate Tax Committee hearing that some bottling plants shut down for the day.

This protest is just the latest sign of growing discontent against cash-strapped politicians who look to soda taxes to raise money in the name of public health. Industry representatives are increasingly making it clear that soda taxes don’t promote better health and will only cost jobs in a troubled economy. They argue it’s unfair to single out soft drinks when other sources of calories are just as much to blame for rising rates of diabetes and obesity. Kansas restaurant owners are saying the tax would force them to raise soft-drink prices for customers or cut costs elsewhere.

We reported earlier this week about opposition to a proposed soda tax in Philadelphia. Mayor Michael Nutter wants to add a tax of 2 cents per ounce on sweetened beverages as a way to raise $77 million in revenue. Opposition to that plan appears to be building as well. Local retailers and the Teamsters Union argue that the soda tax would kill at least 1,000 jobs out of the 13,000 food-store jobs in the city. They also predict that some of area’s 2,000 beverage industry jobs will be lost. Danny Grace of Teamsters Local 830 told the Philadelphia Inquirer, “If the mayor was successful in passing this new bill, I believe we will lose about 50 percent of our members in soda today, because less sales equals less volume, and less volume means loss of jobs.”

It looks like politicians may be getting the message. At a city council hearing yesterday, many council members questioned the wisdom of a soda tax. “I can’t be supportive of any kind of a tax increase until I’m convinced that this government is sized properly and running as efficiently as it can,” said Councilman Frank Rizzo. Other council members predict the Nutter tax will go nowhere. Democratic whip Darrell Clarke told a local Fox TV affiliate, “I’m just not seeing the support for it.”

Share This Story

`
Submariner's picture

15,000 jobs lost due to a soda tax ? Seriously?

First of all, if the only people that came out against this thing were people making money on soda's, then this is NOT the Kansas public voice.

Second, it is unlikely that taxes will disuade those that drink soda any more than the 300%+ inflation rate of the price of a carbonated hfcs beverage over the last 30 years.

Third, stop allowing lying corporate whores to put articles on this site. If soda pop needs a voice, let its consumers talk. I suspect all you will here is "I know it's bad for me but so what?".

ecuadmail's picture

people who know best that the soda tax would cost jobs are the soda companies themselves. The money makers. The opposite I think needs to be put in effect for industries across the board. Drop taxes . Make people WANT to start businesses. Make things cheaper.

MrBook's picture

“people who know best that the soda tax would cost jobs are the soda companies themselves.”

Those are also the people whose profits are most directly threatened by the tax.

“The opposite I think needs to be put in effect for industries across the board. Drop taxes . Make people WANT to start businesses. Make things cheaper.”

And what of the associated costs that come from such a process? The cost to health care that comes from a population consuming significantly more sugar then is healthy?

ecuadmail's picture

why they know how it will affect jobs . They still want a profit. If they have to cut jobs to make one and keep share holders happy they will.

As for your other point, is it the governments job to regulate my diet ? People should pay for their own health care . If they treat themselves like crap then its their business. Besides, sucrose is easily broken down by the body if its put to use when it is taken in. Other wise its whisked through alternative chemical processes to become fat . Why don't we put a tax on people who don't exercise ? That would fix the problem too

Submariner's picture

People that work full time should be able to afford health care without being impoverished for it.

Do you guys even know what you are saying when you say " pay "? I thought all the people against taxes knew what our money actually is.

You would think eveyone just shovels money up from the ground and no one has any that they did not thusly earn. I should like to see such a system, because I am positive Bill Gates could not shovel 1,000,000 times more than the average household.

These ridiculous variations in income are only possible when money is being made from nothing, and the extreme concentration of wealth we have is only possible when the people "printing" the "money" get to do it for profit.

SolarSanitizer's picture

Why is O.V. allowing free speech which doesn't perfectly align with Sub's political agenda?! Do you people not know who Sub is?

Censorship is how capitalism , the very foundation of our nation, can be finally replaced with communism, provided only one side of the argument has access to a voice.

Squelch the voices of dissent! Blow-hards of the world unite!

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Submariner's picture

Does not mean free advertising. It certainly is not liscence to fabricate nonsense for monetary gain.

My point is best made by the fact that no " Consumer Freedom " groups have to advocate for products that are not already on the defensive for health hazards or other concerns.

Since most of these interest groups work for money from the entities so frenetic about taking losses, it seems clear that these companies exepct a return on their investment, however fraudelent the design.

It's not defensible. Which is probably why you are just whining about my post...

SolarSanitizer's picture

I think censorship is more damaging to the marketplace (of ideas and products) than even government regulation.

I don't understand your selective narrow-mindedness.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Submariner's picture

Let me explain it.

Upon receiving stimuli of some form, I first determine if I can recongize it or not. If it's new I employ a number of evolved and learned faculties to deterime the purpose and usefulness of the data being recieved. If it is not new I employ a number of evolved and learned faculties to categorize and relate the data. If this succeeds I can then determine if the data is signal or noise, and the latter is put through the hazmat process as appropriate, usually by inscribing enough info to recognize it for refusal purposes later.

Like if someone offers you some unrecognizable food and you try it and it tastes like poop, you should try to remember it so you don't eat poop again.

You should not feel compelled to suffer more poop everytime someone offers it to you in the interest of appearing open-minded.

To me, people using undue influence over our various airtimes to spin fraud, waste, and abuse for their personal gain are some of the poopiest out there.

SolarSanitizer's picture

But to taste poop once should not cause you to regard every new idea as: "Poop".

Water and ammonia appear the same, but after tasting a bit of ammonia, you do yourself (and everyone who respects your opinion) a disservice to label all clear liquids as ammonia.

Hence, my accusation of selective narrow-mindedness.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter

OV Social

 

randomness