 |
| Sugar in drinks |
"Initiative 1634 - taxes on "certain items intended for human consumption" - Seattle Times analysis here
The City of Seattle thought they would raise some new money while helping consumers modify some bad behaviors, so they put a tax on sugary drinks.
The soda pop industry and some grocers were not happy because purchase of drinks like Coca products did decline.
Coca Cola and other related companies poured millions into a campaign designed to prevent the sugar drink tax.
They framed it as an attack on little old ladies who wouldn't be able to afford groceries.
Here's what it says on your ballot:
Initiative Measure No. 1634 concerns taxation of certain items intended for human consumption.
This measure would prohibit new or increased local taxes, fees, or assessments on raw or processed foods or beverages (with exceptions), or ingredients thereof, unless effective by January 15, 2018, or generally applicable.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
_____Yes
_____No
The soda industry wants you to vote Yes.
The City of Seattle wants you to vote No, so they can continue to tax pop.
Our previous story said that the soda industry had put their money in the No campaign. That was incorrect.
Please remember that this does NOT mean you locality will impose "soda tax". The initiative is intended to prevent your locality from every being able to make that decision at a local level. If we tax cigarettes, liquor, marijuana, why should sugar (that has been identified to be bad for us) get a free pass?
ReplyDelete