Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Seattle purposely avoids placing sugar tax on Starbucks lefties

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator_fever, Jan 11, 2018.

  1. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,891
    493
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    https://conservativetribune.com/democrats-liberal-exemption/

    Seattle’s leftists lawmakers approved an ordinance last year that imposed a tax on all sweetened beverages, save of course for the lattes consumed by the city’s highfalutin, upper-class elites.

    The new tax, which went into effect Jan. 1, specifically added a tax on “sweetened beverages, syrups and concentrates” except for those “that list milk as their first ingredient,” according to The Seattle Times.

    This means the fancy lattes enjoyed by Seattle’s Starbucks-sipping liberals get a pass, despite the fact that some of these lattes contain up to 68 grams of sugar.

    “Where and when is a sweetened beverage not a taxable sweetened beverage? In Seattle, when the drink is a Caramel Macchiato from Starbucks — 42 grams of sugar in a Venti, the largest size. Or a Caramel Brulée Latte with whipped cream — 68 grams of sugar in a Venti,” the Times explained.

    -----------------------------------

    It figures the crazed lefty elites would exclude most of their purchases of sugary drinks.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. docspor

    docspor GC Hall of Fame

    1,556
    399
    318
    Nov 30, 2010
    I was just on the horn with my boys in Bern. They will get a kick out of this. I always told 'em this Swiss fav would never fly in the states, but this may be it's chance. First ingredient water, but milk is 2nd at 35%.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,067
    527
    378
    Dec 9, 2010
    You think the "highfalutin, upper-class elites" in Seattle are frequenting Starbucks above their local coffee shops? Yeah, no...
     
  4. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 VIP Member

    60,643
    9,016
    2,358
    Apr 3, 2007
    If this is the case than that "law" does not apply equally to all businesses, and should be un-Constitutional.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,067
    527
    378
    Dec 9, 2010
    Yeah, that is not true either. The law against marijuana is not unconstitutional because we allow people to smoke other substances legally (like tobacco). They listed a specific exception based upon ingredients. Pepsi bottles Frappacinos which would also be exempted under this law and wouldn't be subject to the tax and sodas that are. You can argue that the law is stupid or designed to benefit a particular special interest, but it is not unconstitutional.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 VIP Member

    60,643
    9,016
    2,358
    Apr 3, 2007
    Total non sequester...
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,891
    493
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    I think the locals have a lot of freedom on stuff like this however. I am trying to remember why NYC's big soda ban was struck down. It might have been because it was based on the size of the soda and wasn't a tax.
     
  8. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 VIP Member

    60,643
    9,016
    2,358
    Apr 3, 2007
    Sugar tax some but not others would/should go all the way to the Supreme Court, IMHO. It's totally un-equal...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,067
    527
    378
    Dec 9, 2010
    It is simply not unconstitutional to write a law involving an ingredient that one company uses and another one doesn't.
     
  10. tilly

    tilly Superhero Moderator with bulletproof posts! Moderator VIP Member

    OK. I am far from a lefty, But McDonalds likely sells more sugary drinks than most anywhere, and they would benefit too. This is not an elite issue. McD's McCafe menu is very similar to big coffee chains IRT it's sugar/dairy content
     
  11. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 VIP Member

    60,643
    9,016
    2,358
    Apr 3, 2007
    What about taxing some that use that ingredient (Sugar) but not others...
     
  12. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    8,067
    527
    378
    Dec 9, 2010
    If you have an exception based on a different ingredient, then no.
     
  13. docspor

    docspor GC Hall of Fame

    1,556
    399
    318
    Nov 30, 2010
    I don't see how this would be ruled unconstitutional. Isn't alcohol usually taxed differently depending on whether it's beer, wine or booze? & in many places where it is sold, bar vs. store.

    The arg could be that these are diff products. I doubt they've ever made it a secret that it is sodas they are after. They'd run into trouble if they taxed coke & not pepsi.
     
  14. homer

    homer GC Legend

    745
    204
    298
    Nov 2, 2015
    Silly progressives
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,891
    493
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    I am sure McDonalds sales were being thought of in Seattle with that exception.

    What about a McDonalds soda loaded with ice - how is that being taxed?
     
  16. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,891
    493
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
    Unfortunately the law allows progressives to force mess like this on others.

    The 9th Circuit probably would have tried to claim a ban like NYC's attempted ban on large sodas was legal also with the crazies on that appeals court.
     
  17. fastsix

    fastsix Premium Member

    9,214
    846
    833
    Apr 11, 2007
    Seattle
    The tax is on how much finished product the concentrate would make. McDonalds would pay the tax before you ever got the drink.
     
  18. danmann65

    danmann65 GC Hall of Fame

    2,086
    286
    288
    May 22, 2015
    But they are drinking candy coffee wherever they go. When I just get a coffee which rarely happens I go to a local place called campus grounds. What the stetson students drink I suspect is less healthy for you than a jolt cola but what do I know.
     
  19. tilly

    tilly Superhero Moderator with bulletproof posts! Moderator VIP Member

    My guess is you are unaware of how much McCafe generates, but I tend to agree with you, that often this is a leftist way. But in this case, I don't think this was about Starbucks.
     
  20. JerseyGator01

    JerseyGator01 GC Hall of Fame

    15,386
    293
    558
    Apr 10, 2007
    I am Howard Schultz and I approved this tax.

    CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!