Skip to comments.Board puts soda tax before San Francisco voters
Posted on 07/22/2014 8:22:48 PM PDT by Olog-hai
San Francisco lawmakers narrowly agreed Tuesday to place a 2-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks on the November ballot, a move that promises to turn the election into an expensive fight between the beverage industry and public health advocates.
The citys Board of Supervisors voted 6-4 to ask voters to approve the tax on sodas, sports drinks and other beverages sweetened with sugar and sold in the city. It would have to be approved by two-thirds of the electorate to take effect.
City officials have estimated the measure would raise somewhere between $31 million and $52 million a year. The proceeds would go toward nutrition, health, disease prevention, recreation and school physical education programs.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Don’t forget to include funding the Black Panthers, La Raza, Ms-13, Al-qaeda, and other Leftist terrorist groups in your list!
And if the voters turn it down, they’ll do it anyway, like they have time, and time, and time, and time again.
Voting means precisely nothing in California.
1992 Aussie study, 9k self-identifying male homoz:
50% reported > 100 partners
15% “ > 1,000 “
And a little look into the dark soul of statists: Its backers agreed that it would be better if the tax were not limited to San Francisco ... No where may be free. Control must be exerted everywhere and over everything.
The nanny staters strike again!
Will they tax some of those God forsaken bathhouses which are known to spread diseases????? That would be a positive move in taxing an activity which is detrimental to public health.
So that's what this is about, politicians stealing more of the people's money? I'll bet the dumbasses approve it.
They need a pee&poop in public tax. Especially for all of the crap we see coming from their politicians.
Quite seriously, our last visit, that was our “homeless” experience, watching them do their thing in front of a restaurant. Lovely memories...I think it was corn.
That is a lot of soda.
I love these desperate greedy cities. Many have various taxes on everything. Philadelphia, for example, has a poured drink tax. Then the extra 1% sales tax. And the huge wage tax. Now they want a two dollar a pack cigarette tax.
So? Everyone that has more than a few dollars lives outside the city limits, shops outside the limits, and most businesses are moving to the suburbs. Have been for decades. So, tax revenue falls and they need new taxes....
Tammany Hall by the Bay.
It never goes where they say it’s going to go.
So, San Francisco wants people to drink lots of Big Gulps but New York’s Bloomberg wants to outlaw them. That’s funny.
The taxes will buy a rubber machine for a Harvey Milk statue.
If this passes, then all it’s going to do is foster a new soda smuggling industry, benefiting organized soda cartels and the surrounding communities where soda can be purchased in bulk tax-free and smuggled into San Fran in car trunks.
Next will be checkpoints to scrutinize all vehicles entering SF. When that fails to work, there will be a hue and outcry that the tax should be imposed on their neighbors whose lack of soda taxation is clearly the real cause of the all the soda crime in SF.
In the mean time, SF will assure that the underprivileged and the “underserved” will receive free pot, you know, to assure “economic justice”. And not just free Mexican Brick Weed either, but the good stuff like Purple Kush and the like.
Hahahaha, taxing soda by the ounce, haaaaahahaha sucker every min.
As a native San Franciscan, normally I would try to provide counterbalance against stereotyped rants against SF, that it’s not as bad as portrayed. However, your statement has truth. SF does dump a lot of money into those items, it’s a fact. Homeless shelters (lots of them around the City) where they provide free telephone use, recreational games like ping-pong, baths, laundry services with plenty of free detergent, needles and condoms, etc. Millions go towards this stuff.