Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,535 posts)
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 09:16 AM Jun 2016

Sweetened tea, "energy drinks," sweetened waters.

Not merely "flavored" waters.

The fill-it-yourself places will continue. There's the option of taxing the syrup before it's mixed--heck, you can't take delivery of the syrup without paying the tax, and the distributor collects it from the dealer. The tax would almost certainly be distributed, making the cost just go up for everybody.

The most disturbing bit was where a councilperson said that by imposing the tax they're investing in schools. No, by imposing the tax they're increasing revenue. The actual investment in schools, should it occur, is a year or more away and will require a different legislative act. But since this bill defines "sugar sweetened" as including anything sweetened with aspartame or sucralose or stevia, well, it's obvious they need a dictionary.

I wonder if one of them goes up to his honey and says, "Give me some sugar" she'd hand him an inflatable doll. "Here, synthetic or the real thing, you think both are sugar."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sweetened tea, "energy dr...