How to Solve the Budget Standoff: Soda Tax

How about enforcing the royalty tax on Microsoft for $100 million, Alex?

If the Democrats tax Microsoft, how would they ever again recruit a suburban King County candidate for any office?

A Soda Pop tax would solve the problem, but still put the majority of the cost back on already hurting low income and lower middle class families.

They should tax stupidity!

Soft drinks are already taxed. Why burden the family trying to make ends meet? This discriminatory tax would also cost jobs of people in the industry. Washington does not need more unemployment!

It would only hurt lower income and middle class families who make the bad choices of purchasing unhealthy luxuries like soda. Water is thankfully free and tasty in our region. A general sales tax would affect all purchases, including necessities like toilet paper, feminine hygiene products etc. Taxing soda is a no-brainer given the alternatives.

I'm glad you have free water. I know the stuff I get out of the facet costs me an arm and leg every two months. I guess I could buy bottled water…..oh wait we tax plastic bottles.

Oh, and as a regularly soda drinker can I use my regular dental checkups, constant need for toothpaste, and the fact I go to the gym 5 days a week and run 3 as tax write-offs? Or, can we just acknowledge that in my right to pursue happiness if I chose soda for myself its ok.

I don't support increasing the sales tax either. Frankly, the failed to provide us with what we need an Income Tax and their answers since then have all been on the backs of the poor or the working.

Every tax is going to have some adverse effect on unemployment. Why not tax something that has undeniable negative effects to society of increasing diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, etc.?

As for burdening the family trying to make ends meet: Here's a tip: Cut back on soda and drink some water!

I'm totally for this tax. Sorry to disagree with my buddy Dorsol, but soft drinks are a luxury item, and hardly a necessity. Everybody knows this shit has no nutritional value whatever. Tax it like we tax tobacco, it's the same damn principle.

So do you oppose any sort of targeted taxes on principle then? Do you oppose luxury taxes, gas guzzler taxes, alcohol and tobacco taxes, car tabs, gas taxes, etc.?

If not, I fail to see why soda is so sacrosanct. As for the facile comments about water not being free, while you may be right in a technical sense, the cost of a glass of tap water probably rounds to zero. And we don't tax plastic bottles, we propose taxing bottled water. You can use reuse your bottle as many times as you'd like and fill it with “practically free” tap water.

Yeah, water is SOOOO expensive here.

If you're a moron, that is.

Go have yourself a six pack of coke dorsol. Your behind in your diabetes groundwork.

Gas Guzzling/Gas Tax: Kills the planet we all share

Tobacco: Kills the people standing next to the people using it.

Car Tabs: Driving is not a right, it is a privilege afford by the government

T Chen, you don't pay the Water Bill they shut it all off. So if that tap water does round to zero (I couldn't find my latest bill) it doesn't matter because you still have to pay for all of it. I'm glad that you only drink water in your life thats truly great for you, but the reality is that the majority of Americans don't. We can say shoulda/woulda/coulda all day long about a 1,000 different choices each individual makes every day.

Considering just how much this population is already targeted by taxation, cost of living, and everything else I don't think now is the time to start crack the whip. Families are already making the hard choices for themselves, you want to force one more?

The point of the sales tax increase isn't to bring in money, it's to institute the “Working Families Tax Credit.” That's why the Senate is so insistent that sales tax be raised, if only by .1 percent. There are no shortage of ways to raise $100m…that's not the hang-up.

I think we're at loggerheads here. Either you think soda pop is some near-necessity, for which forbearance would represent a “hard choice” or you think it is one of many products that are vastly overconsumed in our country, to the great detriment of the 6-pack a day drinkers and the general society.

To me, a hard choice is deciding whether to keep medical insurance or pay for food. Whether to buy a case of Mountain Dew or use the money on some black eyed peas, bananas, rice and tofu is not a hard choice to me. We already subsidize the production of corn, which becomes high fructose corn syrup; we might as well tax it to even things out.

In answer I have included the link to SPU listing the water rates:

http://www.cityofseattle.net/UTIL/Services/Wate…

And a link to NUS Consulting that does an annual report to compare the cost by city:

http://www.nusconsulting.com/index.php/en/energ…

For those interested, the national average is around $2.07. Though Atlanta, Ga has the highest ratings from last year.

Also, I drink Pepsi not coke.

T Chen I would of responded to you as well, but oddly enough it won't let me.

By my calculations, the marginal cost of a cup of water to a Seattle resident's water bill is 1/34 of a cent per cup of water. Like I said, it rounds to zero.

As for Pepsi v. Coke, I guess we really can't agree on much! If we're drinking soda, give me Coke, please; it's not as sweet as Pepsi, but more than sweet enough.

Your link on water is wrong. There is one report on water, and it shows that the United States has some of the cheapest water in the world.

Tender concern for the poor vis-a-vis taxes is the new last refuge of the scoundrel.

I grew up decidedly middle class: Soda was a once-a-week luxury (Friday nights, and only one bottle, in part because there was a ten cent deposit per bottle) yet we were able to eke by. We even grew up to be fairly normal, and get ourselves an education.

And no, this tax will have absolutely no effect on jobs. People will still drink pop, just as they have continued to drink liquor, despite our rather draconian control of it in this state. Try another right-wing talking point, won't you? This one is way too stale.

Dorsol, I agree with you about taxes that disproportionately affect poor people, but people who rent don't generally pay water/sewer/garbage in Seattle. Their landlords pay that, because the City bills owners.

An income tax would be good but whenever it's enacted, it will spend about two years being litigated so it wouldn't have taken effect immediately anyway.

I agree with the soda tax, but a better idea would be a livestock tax. Not only is red meat at least as unhealthy as sugar, it is the #1 human cause of climate change, destroys our natural environment for pasture and excess soy/corn cropland, and undeniably leads to animal abuse. I can't see any greater “sin tax.” At the very least get rid of the sales tax exemption.

Common sense does not make one “right wing”. Jeez Louise, anybody who has an opinion that conflicts with another on here is usually branded right wing. Ever heard of a different opinion? And why can only the “progressives” disagree? A lot of people sure beat the drum to tax items, and most of those items are widely discouraged, so, what's the end game here? If a large portion of the population actually relent and change their lifestyle for the better (cut out soda, tabacco, etc) the revenue also must go down (or just get more expensive, then you'll have a whole different outcry) which means that tax must go down. Sooner or later 100% tax on $0 results in $0 revenue; yes, that example is extreme but just like sustainability for the environment, governmental, state, and city revenues also must become sustainable. See, once all those gas guzzlers are off the highway and we're all on hybrids, where does the shortfall of the old gas tax go? probably start taxing the weight of your car (ouch, those batteries are heavy), or who know, but my point is sooner or later all the things being pushed as “progressive” now are going to be taxed in the future, maybe not significantly because it is unlikely gas vehicles can every be removed from the roads, but it'll be reduced and they the “other” road users are going to have to make up the shortfall…and you can't hammer the “tab” tax either, because pretty soon there'll be less cars on the road and it'll be cheaper to take public transportation which will end up costing an arm and a leg because subsidies will be reduced by the reduction in gas tax since there are less cars on the road….just wait until your real estate taxes on your home cost the same as your mortgage…..then who'll be able to afford a home? Call me what you want but sooner or later all this entitlement spending is going to get really expensive and hurt many people in many different ways….a lot of those wealthy folks out there now (that make up the 53% that actually pay taxes) will eventually fade a way and pay less taxes because there incomes will be down as a result of no longer “having” to work…then what?

I thought nothing could top “We won't re-elect Dow Constantine,” but you've done it.

Misha, you should read this recent article about cows, turns out they're not as bad for the environment as previously reported; big surprise after more research. And, don't plants need CO2 to grow and thrive? I may be wrong there but me thinks we might need some of that nasty toxin…but, please read the article about the cows you may want to lighten your representation about the impacts; or just argue that your scientists are better than others because, well, there yours I suppose…..?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/cl…