Explain to me why this is discriminatory

[disneysteve]

This is not intended as a political post or to spur a political debate so please keep politics out of the discussion.

The mayor of Philadelphia recently proposed a tax on soda and other sugary drinks. Opponents of the proposal have said, among other things, that the tax would "unfairly burden the poor". A union rep said, "I'm representing low-income single mothers, welfare recipients, everybody this is an unfair burden on."

What am I missing here? How is taxing Coke and Pepsi discriminatory? Why does that place a burden on the poor? If you are a low-income single mother on welfare, shouldn't you probably be spending your limited funds on something better than soda? Besides, the tax wouldn't apply to Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi so you could still buy all the soda you want at the normal price just without the sugar, which would actually have tremendous health benefits for you and your family.

I realize that the real reason behind the opposition is coming from the beverage industry, and that makes sense. They don't want to see their sales drop. I just can't figure out the reasoning (I'll refrain from using the word logic) behind claiming it discriminates against the poor.

[Singuy]

I believe they are referring to any taxation on essentials such as food in this case, directly affects the poor more than the rich.

If
Person A makes 50 dollars/day
Person B makes 500 dollars/day

12 pack of Soda jumps from 5 dollars after tax to 7 dollars.
If both person A and B buys this soda.

The 2 dollars jump can be calculated like this.

2/50 vs 2/500

Essentially the 2 dollars is 4% of person A's income vs 0.4% of person B's income.

You see this is what they mean by it's a "tax on the poor". Or the poor is hurt more by the tax.

[disneysteve]

I believe they are referring to any taxation on essentials such as food

I understand that, but we're not talking about essentials here. We're talking about soda. If the proposed tax was on milk or eggs, it would make sense to me. Soda is junk food, a bottle of flavored sugar water. Nobody needs soda to survive or to live a healthy life - just the opposite in fact. Wouldn't making soda a lot more expensive actually be beneficial to the poor (and everyone else)?

[Singuy]

I understand that, but we're not talking about essentials here. We're talking about soda. If the proposed tax was on milk or eggs, it would make sense to me. Soda is junk food, a bottle of flavored sugar water. Nobody needs soda to survive or to live a healthy life - just the opposite in fact. Wouldn't making soda a lot more expensive actually be beneficial to the poor (and everyone else)?

Only if you make soda either

1. So expensive it's out of reach of the poor
2. Ban soda completely

Poor people will shrug off the 2 or 3 dollars surtax like the rich because they like this stuff. I mean poor people pay for beer all the time and that's 3x the cost of soda and 4x worst for your health.

So at the end of the day, the tax is not going to stop anyone from getting soda..except now the poor need to pay a more portion of their paycheck to soda. You'll see poor people put soda on credit and pay it off over time with a 20% interest rate because this is what makes them poor..bad decisions all over the place. If poor people where to do all the calculations that goes through your head daily, they wouldn't be so poor anymore.

[disneysteve]

So at the end of the day, the tax is not going to stop anyone from getting soda..except now the poor need to pay a more portion of their paycheck to soda. You'll see poor people put soda on credit and pay it off over time with a 20% interest rate because this is what makes them poor..bad decisions all over the place. If poor people where to do all the calculations that goes through your head daily, they wouldn't be so poor anymore.

Assuming all of that is true, I still don't see that as discriminatory. The fact that a poor person makes a bad decision and buys soda instead of milk or beer instead of water doesn't make raising the price of soda a form of discrimination.

[Singuy]

Assuming all of that is true, I still don't see that as discriminatory. The fact that a poor person makes a bad decision and buys soda instead of milk or beer instead of water doesn't make raising the price of soda a form of discrimination.

You can prove this with studies but at the end of the day, you're right..it's not really discrimination.

You can say that it's not a direct discrimination but indirect? If you were to sit down and count the amount of money you end up getting from the poor after surtax, you'll end up collecting more money from the poor.

You can argue and call it discrimination but it's not really....

[disneysteve]

You can argue and call it discrimination but it's not really....

My thought exactly. Just because the poor make bad decisions doesn't make something discriminatory. If we raised the price of a lottery ticket from $1 to $2, the same lobbyists would probably be arguing against that as being discriminatory. What a load of BS.

[Singuy]

But the same can be said about predatory lending. Technically there's no such thing as "predatory" lending. When people are under educated and desperate, all of a sudden lending at high interest rates become "predatory."

[disneysteve]

But the same can be said about predatory lending. Technically there's no such thing as "predatory" lending. When people are under educated and desperate, all of a sudden lending at high interest rates become "predatory."

Very interesting point.

I guess the bottom line is that nobody is forcing anyone to go to a loan shark, buy lottery tickets, smoke cigarettes, or drink Coke. Those are all choices that people make on their own. The simple fact that those products and services exist is not discriminatory. If you don't want to pay the high tax on regular soda (which is unlikely to ever pass), don't buy regular soda. That's a lot easier, though, than avoiding the high interest loans since those folks probably don't qualify for traditional borrowing methods.

[scfr]

You are (understandably) approaching this from the standpoint of a soda pop consumer, and as a doctor who sees the negative repercussions of soft drink consumption.

But what about people whose livelihood may in part depend on the production or sale of soda?

Does Philadelphia have soft drink manufacturing plants? Will a tax increase cause reduced consumption, resulting in a loss of manufacturing jobs?

Will the increased tax cause reduced sales and subsequent loss of jobs at places where lower-income earners might work (fast food restaurants, convenience stores, sports and other entertainment concessions)?

I'm not arguing that such a tax is or isn't discriminatory, just trying to offer another perspective.

[disneysteve]

But what about people whose livelihood may in part depend on the production or sale of soda?

Does Philadelphia have soft drink manufacturing plants? Will a tax increase cause reduced consumption, resulting in a loss of manufacturing jobs?

Will the increased tax cause reduced sales and subsequent loss of jobs at places where lower-income earners might work (fast food restaurants, convenience stores, sports and other entertainment concessions)?

That part makes sense, though I hadn't considered the fact that many of those workers are lower income folks. I was only thinking of it from the consumer end.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Poor people will shrug off the 2 or 3 dollars surtax like the rich because they like this stuff. I mean poor people pay for beer all the time and that's 3x the cost of soda and 4x worst for your health.

So at the end of the day, the tax is not going to stop anyone from getting soda..except now the poor need to pay a more portion of their paycheck to soda. You'll see poor people put soda on credit and pay it off over time with a 20% interest rate because this is what makes them poor..bad decisions all over the place. If poor people where to do all the calculations that goes through your head daily, they wouldn't be so poor anymore.

Okay, now you know you are exaggerating. Aren't you the person who told us about his parents rising from poverty through wise planning, smart choices and hard work? (Or were they just rising from the middle class?) If so, then you know that there are poor people who will make better decisions.

To make it more personal, I'll tell you that I did not buy soda when I was poor. If I wanted a sweet drink I made it from sugar, water, and lemon juice or tea, or to tell the truth even from a knock-off brand Kool-Aid type powder. I didn't make any of those often, but it was cheaper to make it myself. Besides, carrying home soda from the store was too hard on my elbows. I had to prioritize the weight in bags for more important and versatile foods.....Yes, there were times when I could have put $0.50 in a vending machine for a soda and consumed it on the spot, but when you are poor and you waste $0.50, you might not have bus money to get back home or back to work the next day.

I think you might not realize the extent to which some poor people manage their pennies.

And beer on credit card? Well, personally, I did not have a credit card when I was poor. That would have been ridiculous.

So please, poverty is not all about bad decisions.

DisneySteve, of course you know that it would be a regressive tax. But it would be a regressive tax on a luxury item. I shrug my shoulders.

[disneysteve]

DisneySteve, of course you know that it would be a regressive tax. But it would be a regressive tax on a luxury item. I shrug my shoulders.

I suppose, but I don't think of something being regressive when it isn't on a necessity. A tax on gasoline or clothing or food staple items is regressive. A tax on soda or cigarettes or beer is doing everyone a favor IMO.

[Singuy]

Okay, now you know you are exaggerating. Aren't you the person who told us about his parents rising from poverty through wise planning, smart choices and hard work? (Or were they just rising from the middle class?) If so, then you know that there are poor people who will make better decisions.

To make it more personal, I'll tell you that I did not buy soda when I was poor. If I wanted a sweet drink I made it from sugar, water, and lemon juice or tea, or to tell the truth even from a knock-off brand Kool-Aid type powder. I didn't make any of those often, but it was cheaper to make it myself. Besides, carrying home soda from the store was too hard on my elbows. I had to prioritize the weight in bags for more important and versatile foods.....Yes, there were times when I could have put $0.50 in a vending machine for a soda and consumed it on the spot, but when you are poor and you waste $0.50, you might not have bus money to get back home or back to work the next day.

I think you might not realize the extent to which some poor people manage their pennies.

And beer on credit card? Well, personally, I did not have a credit card when I was poor. That would have been ridiculous.

So please, poverty is not all about bad decisions.

DisneySteve, of course you know that it would be a regressive tax. But it would be a regressive tax on a luxury item. I shrug my shoulders.

I think you are lumping people who have behavioral problems that keep them poor and people who are just poor due to circumstances. I am only referring to the 75% of lotto winners who ends up in poverty after 5 years(behavioral). For you and myself, being poor was always temporary. We never had the poor people's mindset to begin with.

76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and the average CC debt for Americans is 10k.
Are you telling me you don't know a single person who has CC debt but got a beer and paid cash for it? Guess what, until your CC debt is clean, that beer you paid cash for is being charged at your CC's interest rate because it's $ that could of gone to paying off your debt.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I feel like it will affect people working in fast food and other industries with soda. I also think that people will still consume soda. Just like cigarettes a great proportion of the poor.

You know they also say tolls on rolls unfairly taxes the poor because usually people making less live further out.