Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Philadelphia

Outrage in Philadelphia as New Soda Tax Doubles Drink Prices

That won't stop other cities and states from trying to duplicate the dubious policy.

Eric Boehm | 1.5.2017 10:35 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

A new tax on soda and other sugary drinks that took effect in New Year's Day in Philadelphia is already generating outrage from some residents and businesses in the city.

Meanwhile, in New York and elsewhere, lobbyists and public officials are looking to duplicate the dubious policy.

When it was passed last year, Philadelphia became the largest city in the nation to create a specific tax for soda and sugary beverages, a policy that had previously been contained to progressive enclaves like Berkeley, California. The tax is levied at a rate of 1.5 cents per ounce, which makes it 24 times more expensive than Pennsylvania's taxes on beer.

Practically, that means that some drinks end up being nearly twice as expensive after the tax is applied, turning $2 sodas into $4 sodas.

That's causing quite a stir in the city, as social media posts this week have revealed. In one photo that went viral after being posted to Facebook, a receipt shows more than $3 in tax added to the cost of a $5.99 12-pack of Propel, an energy drink.

From a Facebook post, the Philadelphia sugary drink tax implemented today damn, between that & Pennsylvania gas tax no wonder folk revolted pic.twitter.com/ZUtmufCyQn

— SalenaZito (@SalenaZito) January 2, 2017

The Tax Foundation posted photos from inside grocery stores in Philadelphia and confirmed the ridiculously high taxes on products like Propel and other sports drinks. With the tax added, the 12 pack of Propel ends up costing more than a 12-pack of cheap beer, the organization noted.

City officials told KYW-3 that the tax was intended to hit distributors of sugary drinks. In a shocking twist, the TV station reported on Wednesday night that the tax "is being passed onto the customer."

After the tax was passed, some economists suggested that it would hurt businesses in the city by giving customers a good incentive to buy beverages outside city limits. Small businesses interviewed by Reason in October expressed similar concerns, since the tax is applied not only to cans and bottles of soda, but to soda fountains (like the ones found in many pizza places and cheesesteak joints across Philadelphia) too.

Already, those predictions seem to be coming true, at least anecdotally.

@ctemp153 @MeosoFunny @GayPatriot @ChrisLoesch @liars_never_win @chadfelixg @ChrisStigall Weekend grocery shopping trips. pic.twitter.com/vVl1QLk5dz

— Gay Penn Patriot (@GayPennPatriot) January 2, 2017

Congrats, @PhiladelphiaGov. You've made sure my grocery shopping will be done outside the city with this ridiculous #sodatax.

— Dan Baker (@Nadrekab) January 3, 2017

Finks Hoagies in Northeast Phila is outraged with unfair soda tax and posted a nasty note. Hope more outrage 2 follow pic.twitter.com/T0xKWcOiOq

— Howard Eskin (@howardeskin) January 5, 2017

Rather than nudging people to make heather decisions about what they drink—as the tax is supposed to, even though the health benefits of soda taxes are overrated—it might just nudge Philadelphians to shop outside the city whenever possible.

Businesses in the city might suffer from the tax, but they also get to deal with more paperwork too.

Marisa Waxman, Philadelphia's first deputy revenue commissioner, tells WHYY that city retailers need to keep their bills to show their compliance, since there won't be a tax stamp or sticker on the beverages.

"Even if you are compliant," said Waxman, "make sure you are hanging on to all your invoices and records so if we show up at your establishment you can show us yep I am doing what I need to be doing."

The city will be hiring additional tax collectors to make sure everything is paid up, WHYY reports.

About the only people happy with the new tax are, predictably, the city officials who will have an estimated $90 million in new annual revenue to spend. Officials in Philadelphia sold the soda tax by promising to use the revenue to fund a new pre-K program for the city's youngest schoolchildren. As Baylen Linnekin noted in July, "spending tens of millions of dollars to expand pre-K in a city where even the most optimistic reports show city schools already fail to educate children and are routinely broke may not be the best idea."

That's really only half the story, though. Fifty-one percent of the soda tax revenue will be spent on other things, including the city's parks, economic development programs and disability benefits for city employees, among other things. By the third year the tax is in place, about 30 percent of the revenue would flow to the city's fund balance, meaning it could be used for almost anything.

Even with the outrage over Philadelphia's new soda tax, some special interests in New York State are already calling for a similar, statewide, measure there.

The New York Daily News reports that the head of a hospital lobby wants the state to impose a soda tax, with the revenue raised dedicated to help fund health care.

According to sources who spoke with the Daily News, the president of the Greater New York Hospital Association told his board that a soda tax could help ameliorate the financial hit the state's health care system faces with the potential repeal of Obamacare under a Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress.

Michael Bloomberg has voiced support for more sugary drink taxes along the line of what Philadelphia has adopted. Four cities—Boulder, Colorado, and three California cities: San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany—approved soda taxes in November via ballot initiative and the Board of Commissioners in Cook County, Illinois, passed a soda tax in November too.

Expect more stories of sticker shock—and incredulous reporting about how taxes end up being paid by consumer even though they are targeted at distributors—as soda taxes continue to expand.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Inside Mississippi's Asset Forfeiture Extortion Racket

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

PhiladelphiaSoda TaxesTaxes
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (201)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. timbo   8 years ago

    We can't have all these fatasses throwing the obamacare models out of whack.

    1. Texasmotiv   8 years ago

      This has been my primary objection to state healthcare. The fear in me of the slippery slope. Once they are in charge of paying for your doctor bills, they are in charge of making sure you are healthy.

      1. Hamster of Doom   8 years ago

        Also, killing you off through withheld care when you stop being of use to your masters.

      2. C. S. P. Schofield   8 years ago

        Ah, but they have wanted to be in charge of how you live essentially forever. All these self-slcted elites are the same. The Social Darwinists of the late 19th century were all for coercing the 'common man' into chastity, sobriety, or whatever other bee they had in their bonnent. The Progressives are no different. It's clear from their actual treatment of animals that PETA isn't about animal welfare, it's about hectoring people into lifestyle changes. This is no goddamned different. The unwashed have decided that thin is out. The fashionable,profile is shifting, and the Beautiful People are having a hissy fit.

        (Civil War General-worthy beards are also making a comeback)

        We the People really need to start telling these buttinskis to go piss up a,rope,and stand under it while it dries.

        1. Citizen X   8 years ago

          The defining characteristic of progressivism is the idea that government's job is to make people be better. This is not only anti-liberal, it's actually a pre-liberal idea, going back to Hobbes.

          1. BYODB   8 years ago

            *clears throat*

            Fuck Hobbes.

          2. C. S. P. Schofield   8 years ago

            The defining EXCUSE of Progressivism is the idea that it is the job of the State to make people be better. That was also the defining excuse of the Medieval Kings. In both cases it really boiled down to "do as you are told by your betters, you stupid peasants".

            It isn't a Progressive trope, it's an elitist trope.

      3. Rufus The Monocled   8 years ago

        Pretty much. Get ready for the 'you cost or put too much strain on the system' to justify onerous or macabre health decisions.

        You belong to the state.

        Not sure what it's gonna take for NORTH AMERICANS to understand this.

        1. BigT   8 years ago

          D..d..d...death panels??

          Who woulda thunk it!

      4. Domestic Dissident   8 years ago

        It's really fucking stupid too, because people living healthy lifestyles doesn't save any money on health care costs. At best it simply delays the costs for a while. The overwhelming majority of health care spending for most people comes near the end of their life when they get old, get sick, and then die.

        No matter how healthy a lifestyle you live, eventually you're going to get sick and die. And it's not as if most people stop going in for routine checkups because they live a healthy lifestyle.

        1. Rufus The Monocled   8 years ago

          Routine check ups will be put under strain.

          Watch.

        2. Fuck You - Cut Spending   8 years ago

          Routine checkups should be covered by insurance.

          That's like saying all routine maintenance of your car should be paid for by the manufacturer forever. Your Chevrolet Cruze would be sticker priced for $78,000 then.

          1. Fuck You - Cut Spending   8 years ago

            Dammit! Routine checkups should NOT be covered by insurance.

            1. BigT   8 years ago

              You seem to have mixed feelings on this.

              1. timbo   8 years ago

                Seems to me that the smartest thing for big brother to do is encourage people to eat and drink terrible things.

                Letting people rot seems to work well in Cuba and Venezuela.

                If we are broke, why do we need all of these people living so long?

                1. Zeb   8 years ago

                  And encourage people to smoke. Weren't there some studies that showed that smokers overall have lower lifetime health care costs than non-smokers?

                  1. steedamike   8 years ago

                    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti.....3a35713c21

                    lol, very interesting.

                    1. Zeb   8 years ago

                      And of course they were quickly swept under the rug. No need to air the uglier side of utilitarian calculus.

            2. Zeb   8 years ago

              Well, should not be required to be covered by insurance. If insurance companies deem it to be a good idea, then they should cover it.

          2. BYODB   8 years ago

            It is a truism, one might even call it an iron law, that you can not insure against a sure thing. At that point, it's an installment plan before the fact.

            Retards don't understand any single thing about insurance. It's a magic word to them. Now, they are required to purchase a product they literally do not understand and we somehow expect things to get better.

            Thanks, Obama.

        3. Trainer   8 years ago

          You're not very old, are you? The costs racked up by an unhealthy person go on for years and years before they reach the dying stage and then they tend to die slowly.

          I'm not the healthiest person but I do work hard to stay off meds and at 55, I don't take any daily meds and have reduced my inhaler use to about 6 times a year. I have friends my age who have been on 2 or 3 daily meds since 40 as well as the drs. visits, tests etc that go along with that. And because the meds take care of the symptoms, they don't do anything to stay healthy so they get sicker and sicker requiring more care.

        4. Bubba Jones   8 years ago

          A friend of mine in the tobacco industry had data showing that smokers actually cost less because they die of heart attacks before they collect social security and medicare.

          They weren't allowed to use that line of argument in the US, but it was levied elsewhere.

      5. Holger da Dane   8 years ago

        This has been my primary objection to state healthcare. The fear in me of the slippery slope. Once they are in charge of paying for your doctor bills, they are in charge of making sure you are healthy.

        Exactly the official excuse used to tax sugar, fat, snacks, etc. in places like Denmark.

      6. Old Monkey   8 years ago

        No the government is executing you, putting you down is a medical procedure.

    2. MoreFreedom   8 years ago

      Then why tax Propel, a drink that has no sugar and isn't carbonated either?

      I expect this tax will eventually be repealed because it will result in people shopping outside Philly; thus, denying the city tax revenue from other products that will be bought outside the city when shoppers go elsewhere thanks to the high soda tax. Driving outside the city will save $6 for purchasing a 24 pack of propel, plus probably money for other drinks. Sounds like a good reason to start shopping in a grocer outside the city. It will reduce tax revenues.

      1. And you believe that why?   8 years ago

        For some people leaving the city to shop is an option. For people reliant on public transportation it isn't always possible. Basically what we have is a tax on people who are too poor to have their own car.

      2. Galane   8 years ago

        They'll raise the fuel taxes in order to try and make it cost more than the tax to drive out of the city to buy soda.

      3. KerryB   8 years ago

        Highly doubt it will be repealed. They instituted a draconian cigarette tax in Philly a few years back. I don't know anyone who buys cigarettes in the city anymore. Although it has generated only a fraction of the promised revenue, there are no initiatives to repeal it. I suspect the same will play out with this one as well

  2. brokencycle   8 years ago

    Fifty-one percent of the soda tax revenue will be spent on other things, including the city's parks, economic development programs and [b] disability benefits for city employees [/b], among other things.

    Drink soda to help those city employees retire early.

    1. Fuck You - Cut Spending   8 years ago

      Why not tax donuts then? When the fat pig walks in for a free donut, the clerk can charge him the tax. No tax payment, no donut.

      1. Sevo   8 years ago

        "Why not tax donuts then?"

        Cops would demand a raise.

        1. Fuck You - Cut Spending   8 years ago

          Fine, pay for it with a higher donut tax. It would be nice to turn cops and aldermen into centrifuges.

      2. Kurmudgeonly Kristen   8 years ago

        Wondering what a tax donut tastes like. Probably cardboard & rage.

        1. wagnert in atlanta   8 years ago

          "cardboard & rage." Bravissimo. Le mot juste.

    2. Long Woodchippers   8 years ago

      The extra $90m is likely already budgeted to be spent. When they only get $50m they'll have to raise the tax again

  3. thom   8 years ago

    One way they could prevent this kind of stuff is for the people who create and pass these ordinances to have to stand for election and only assume office with the voter's consent. Rational voters would never elect the kind of people who enact ordinances like this. It's fundamentally unfair that Philadelphians have to endure being governed by an unaccountable council more concerned with tax revenue than with the lives of citizens.

    1. Hamster of Doom   8 years ago

      Rational voters would never elect the kind of people who enact ordinances like this.

      That's the trouble with rational. We don't actually appear to be.

      1. Citizen X   8 years ago

        Who is "we," kemosabe?

        1. Hamster of Doom   8 years ago

          Humans. You may, in fact, be an as-yet unclassified species. The barbed penis ought to have been our first clue.

          1. Citizen X   8 years ago

            I get no complaints from the ladies. What's a hamster doing speaking for the whole human race, anyway?

            1. Hamster of Doom   8 years ago

              WHATEVER I LIKE, BABY, YEAH.

            2. Fizban   8 years ago

              Barbed penis, huh?

              *gets out nail file*

    2. Texasmotiv   8 years ago

      People seem more than happy to vote things like this in on the ballot initiative.

      This is what cheeses me off about the "libertarians who don't vote" crowd. Looking at you KMW. 🙂

    3. Marc St. Stephen   8 years ago

      Ha! Yeah, because this sort of outrage works so well in unseating local politicians, like all those who unabashedly support steep increases in tobacco taxes. Dollars to soda cans, the media will be completely mum on the subject during the next election cycle, while they completely fail to announce the start of whatever short registration period there is to sign up for a local election, then only briefly mention it once the period is closed, and spend little time afterward covering those candidates - no probing questions, just allowing each candidate to give a feel-good but meaningless blurb on why they're running.

  4. creech   8 years ago

    Thanks Shop-Rite for showing the tax separately. Too many taxes end up being obscured in the price and do nothing to "hit home" the issue to the buyer/voter. That said, 85% of the community in Phila. hardest hit by this tax will continue to support the Democrat Party machine that has controlled Phila. since 1960.

    1. sloopyinTEXAS   8 years ago

      "Grape soda drinkers hardest hit!"

      Is that what you're saying?

      1. Not a True MJG   8 years ago

        Grape drink chuggers

        1. BYODB   8 years ago

          That's Grape Drank to you MJG.

    2. Number 2   8 years ago

      This worked in New Jersey in the early 1990s when the Democrats increased the sales tax and expanded the categories of products subject to the sales tax. Vendors posted signs letting consumers know that price increases were due to the increased tax and made a point of listing taxes separately. The backlash led to the Republicans taking control of the State Legislature for most of the decade and the repeal of the tax increase.

      Legislators like excise taxes like the soda tax because consumers usually perceive the tax as a price increase that they blame on the vendor. That is why the stores in Philly are doing what they are doing. It is also why, for years, federal law banned airlines from listing federal taxes on flight tickets as a separate line item when billing a purchaser.

      1. Fuck You - Cut Spending   8 years ago

        People don't realize that before the federal income tax, excise taxes were the main source of revenue. When you're writing up a receipt manually, or entering the amounts in the manual cash registers, entering all the excise taxes as separate items is a huge waste of time and effort.

        So rolling the taxes into the item price back then was practical and the obfuscation benefited the cocksuckers who legislated the taxes. But thanks to computers the only drawback to listing each tax separately nowadays is the register tape runs out sooner.

      2. ant1sthenes   8 years ago

        It is also why, for years, federal law banned airlines from listing federal taxes on flight tickets as a separate line item when billing a purchaser.

        That... sounds like a violation of freedom of speech. I mean, you could make the argument with pro-consumer disclosure requirement, or a security-related non-disclosure requirement, but mandated non-disclosure of true, relevant consumer information should be way on the other side of the line.

        1. R C Dean   8 years ago

          I think some states prohibit itemizing the gas tax on reciepts. I had the same reaction you do.

          1. Bubba Jones   8 years ago

            Texas posts the gas taxes on the pumps.

            Or, I should say the gas stations in Texas do.

            1. Long Woodchippers   8 years ago

              Pa increased our gas tax by 8 cents on Jan 1, for a total of 27 cents over the last 4 years - from 31 to 58. I don't believe that's posted on the pump. I had to read it from Salena Zito.

        2. BYODB   8 years ago

          It's a clear conflict of interest regardless, and clearly a bad practice as well as unethical. You know, standard government operating procedure.

      3. Tankboy   8 years ago

        Yeah, I was amazed at the breakdown of the cost of a $760 flight I just booked - half the total was Taxes and Fees.

        1. Bubba Jones   8 years ago

          Europe is ridiculous about this. $99 fare on Ryan Air was like $350 after taxes.

    3. thom   8 years ago

      Cue whiny European tourists complaining about taxes not being included in stated prices.

      1. Zeb   8 years ago

        Coming from a no sales tax state, I was always annoyed by that too.

        Ideally, I'd like to see the total I'm going to pay and how much of that is tax on a price tag.

        1. Bubba Jones   8 years ago

          The problem is that sales tax can be different in every zip code. You can't advertise a price across a whole city/state if the final price is a few cents different in every shop.

  5. kV   8 years ago

    Up next: municipal use taxes because fytw

  6. Hamster of Doom   8 years ago

    In a shocking twist, the TV station reported on Wednesday night that the tax "is being passed onto the customer."

    SHOCKING.

    You know, Washington did this with booze and it was really stupid, but I think more people drink pop and this might not end well.

    1. $park? is totally a Swifty   8 years ago

      Can you believe it?

      /Joe Castiglione

    2. The Last American Hero   8 years ago

      Seattle tried a latte tax several years ago. It lasted about a month.

    3. (((Renegade)))   8 years ago

      Pop? That's the stupid word they use in Chicago. I thought that in your part of the world, all soda was called Coke?

      1. Hamster of Doom   8 years ago

        I wasn't born in this part of the world. I was born in a pop-drinking part of the world.

        Every time someone at the grocery store says "buggy", I giggle.

        1. Long Woodchippers   8 years ago

          You must live in my neighborhood. My grocery store even has "Pop" on the sign hanging above the aisle so you can get your buggy to the right spot

  7. AddictionMyth   8 years ago

    It's anudda Shoah.

    1. Juvenile Bluster   8 years ago

      Oh, so now you're adding anti-Semitism to your normal trolling bullshit? Swell.

      1. ant1sthenes   8 years ago

        Adding?

  8. Crusty Juggler   8 years ago

    Hoagies & grinders, hoagies & grinders
    Hoagies & grinders, hoagies & grinders
    Navy beans, navy beans, navy beans
    Hoagies & grinders, hoagies & grinders
    Navy beans, navy beans
    Meatloaf sandwich
    sloppy joe, slop, sloppy joe
    sloppy joe, slop, sloppy joe
    sloppy joe, slop, sloppy joe
    sloppy joe, slop, sloppy joe

    1. Holger da Dane   8 years ago

      Crusty, You're a wiz-wit.

  9. SugarFree   8 years ago

    They might take a little longer to get around to it, but Philadelphia eventually gets around to the terrible ideas you find in larger cities. So don't feel like you are missing out, Philly.

    1. $park? is totally a Swifty   8 years ago

      This is all your doing isn't it? If you can't have sugar then nobody can? Is that it?

      1. SugarFree   8 years ago

        The tax is on artificially sweetened sodas as well.

        1. Rich   8 years ago

          Serious question: And on "MiO"?

          1. SugarFree   8 years ago

            Reading the law, I think so, but I'm not sure.

            It would be the cheapest option even if taxed, since it would be 2.4 cent tax on the entire 1.6 oz Mio and zero taxes on the water, reducing the taxes to .0125 cents per ounce for 192 ounces of water flavored by the Mio.

            1. BigT   8 years ago

              Exactly. And this could be a dodge for other drinks - Coke syrup is a thing - although the carbonation would be missing unless you sprang for those home soda machines. Maybe those guys are behind this tax!

        2. Don'tTreadOnMeChipper   8 years ago

          "Gateway" drink....

  10. AddictionMyth   8 years ago

    "Unless a person is mean and cruel in a genocidal way," Rabbi Hier, an executive at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told The Daily Caller in an interview, "I think making that comparison detracts and takes away from the cruelty of Hitler."

    The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a global human rights organization based in Los Angeles that studies and teaches the Holocaust and anti-Semitism in a contemporary context to confront hared towards Jews.

    Rabbi Hier says that drawing analogies between Nazi Germany and other genocidal mass-murders is valid and understandable, but to compare Hitler to GOP presidential candidates shows not only gross insensitivity to Jews, it also shows a lack of common sense.

    I never doubted for a second that the Holocaust was real. Then I read this guy is giving the benediction at Trump's inauguration. Honestly I don't know what to believe any more.

    1. Domestic Dissident   8 years ago

      If you just give in to your endless misery and kill yourself you won't have to spend any more time agonizing over these kinds of brainbusters, Weigel.

      1. BigT   8 years ago

        And think of the effect on CO2 production!

  11. RaymondhW   8 years ago

    I wish sin taxes were unconstitutional. I find them to be restricting my freedom of expression. I'm not really joking either. I think Facebook and instagram feeds being filled with pictures of food illustrates this. I express myself by mixing drinks, there is an art to the perfectly crafted mai tai. But if someone wants to indulge in a soda, fast food, booze, cigarettes or whatever other unhealthy habit they have it is a integral part of expressing who they are. By taxing them you are infringing on this.

    1. BigT   8 years ago

      Any tax infringes on something. What's your point?

  12. Lurk Diggler   8 years ago

    My class in business ethics is apparently just a class in communist idiocy of common good with no understanding of how economics works so I've been having fun fucking with them.

    Like the Soda tax we had to discuss if McDonalds was unethical for serving high calorie food. And by discuss I mean agree. So I brought up the demographics of McDonalds being preferred by blacks, the poor and the less educated and Starbucks serving junk but not getting attacked. Then I suggested they were all a bunch of racists for attacking what blacks liked but not the junk whites liked. The reactions were pretty funny.

    1. Rufus The Monocled   8 years ago

      Good for you. It's time these assholes are challenged.

      Plus they need to be reminded of the 'unseen' consequences of their stupid retardation in social engineering.

    2. Longtobefree   8 years ago

      So where do you work now that you have been expelled?

      1. Lurk Diggler   8 years ago

        I have a job, getting my degree part time. Often I'm the oldest person in these classes.

    3. GroundTruth   8 years ago

      Most people until recently would give just about anything to have access to the cheap, high calorie food provided by McD's etc. I'd think they ought to get a prize for alleviating hunger, not a whipping for creating fat people.

    4. Fuck You - Cut Spending   8 years ago

      Like I said the other day, progressives created "grocery deserts" in poor sections of cities, but they won't stop until all the convenience stores and short order restaurants vanish too.

      At some point thought it is kinda karmic, as the poorest residents seem to vote for the evilest progressives. This is something Bailey forgot to mention in his "Stuck" article.

    5. Conchfritters   8 years ago

      Tell them that you support the soda tax, and it is about time that the poor start paying their fair share.

    6. Diane Merriam   8 years ago

      I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that one 🙂

      WTG!!!

    7. Berserkerscientist   8 years ago

      McDonalds at least has portion control. Eat a meal at a sit-down restaurant, and you're eating 2000 calories.

  13. NoVaNick   8 years ago

    Who do you think drinks the most soda? Certainly not the latte and merlot sipping progs who come up with these tax ideas. Ditto for cigarette taxes. Seattle tried to pass a tax on coffee drinks about 15 years ago to pay for pre-K and it was voted down by a 2-1 margin. Most of the low income kids that the Philly tax is meant to help are probably already eligible for Head Start and other programs anyway, so what we have here is the poor subsidizing child care and other services for rich white urban progs-Robin Hood in reverse.

    1. The Last American Hero   8 years ago

      The funny thing about the coffee tax was that it was really a tax on steamed milk. Coffee wasn't subject to it, even if you added milk or cream. Chai lattes were subject to it, although they don't contain coffee. Somehow the act of steaming milk created the sin that required taxation.

      1. Bubba Jones   8 years ago

        What about steamed milk itself?

        Could I order a cup of steamed milk with espresso on the side?

  14. LoneWaco   8 years ago

    How about a bottle of carbonated water and a small half ounce flavor packet sold separately? you could call it FYTW-Cola.

    1. LoneWaco   8 years ago

      or Dr. Fucktaxes.

    2. Kurmudgeonly Kristen   8 years ago

      Or a shot of soda stream syrup for "free".

    3. Longtobefree   8 years ago

      Anything sold in a half-ounce packet MUST be illegal!

      1. BigT   8 years ago

        Dude, you know how much an oz goes for these days? Who's got f you money?

    4. SparktheRevolt   8 years ago

      This is inherently what a fountain soda does. The syrup is subject to taxation.

  15. PBR Streetgang   8 years ago

    As a resident living just a little bit on the MontCo side of the City line, I'd like to say "Thanks" to Philadelphia for sending its beverage sales our way.

  16. Colossal Douchebag   8 years ago

    Been a few years since we saw a good old-fashioned tax revolt. I remember Calif. Prop 13, and I remember senior citizens chasing Rostenkowski down the street over a health insurance surtax. Come on, Philadelphians! Grab the torches and pitchforks!

    1. NoVaNick   8 years ago

      Philadelphians (and NYers) will gladly pay any tax for the privileges of urban living /sarc

      1. BestUsedCarSales   8 years ago

        If they didn't live in a city, how would they know they are better?

    2. Fuck You - Cut Spending   8 years ago

      Every time I'm reminded of that piece of shit Rostenkowski, I wonder if I should cut Hitler a little slack.

      1. Bman   8 years ago

        You most certainly should! Hitler did the world a favor by killing Hitler. Rostenkowski should do the same thing.

  17. commodious just wasting time   8 years ago

    Submitted once again for your consideration, the Philly tax applies not only to sugary beverage but their sugar-free counterparts as well. Mull that over for a moment, and when you're done straining your eyes up toward the ceiling, consider a few of the reasons given to support taxing calorie-free drinks: a) artificial sweeteners are bad, because chemicals! (submitted by a nutritionist), and b) taxing sugarless drinks ensures that wealthier people who tend to drink them are hit with the same penalty as poorer people who tend to consume sugary drinks (this was advanced by the city council itself).

    There is no pit of derp so deep these morons won't try to excavate even deeper.

    1. SugarFree   8 years ago

      They wanted a 3 cent tax per ounce on just sugared drinks, but compromised with a 1.5 cent tax extended to diet drinks as well.

      No, I'm not kidding.

    2. NoVaNick   8 years ago

      "taxing sugarless drinks ensures that wealthier people who tend to drink them are hit with the same penalty as poorer people who tend to consume sugary drinks (this was advanced by the city council itself)."

      Actually, there was a recent study that claimed diet drinks cause weight gain by tricking the body into thinking it just had sugar and releasing insulin (in rats at least). Or they cause overweight people to compensate for the diet drink by ordering a triple cheeseburger and super size fries with their diet coke. Take your pick, of course they always have "science" to justify any tax they want.

      1. Acosmist   8 years ago

        That study sounds like complete bullshit. If you don't eat more calories, you will not gain more weight.

        Diet drinks are pretty useful things.

        1. commodious just wasting time   8 years ago

          Well, the concerns are relevant to the idea that weight gain is mediated by insulin response, primarily to carbohydrates. So it's interesting if there's a phantom response to artificial sweeteners spiking insulin release. I don't know the state of research on the subject, but my thinking is that even if artificial sweeteners spike insulin production, better that then spiking insulin and consuming a ton of sucrose in the process. It's probably more important for people with the diabetus or high insulin resistance.

        2. The Last American Hero   8 years ago

          I do know that most low-carb diets say no-no on the fake sugar substitutes, and they seem to be effective.

          1. Acosmist   8 years ago

            Affirming the consequent would be required to make that refute my point.

            Diet drinks are great. Very useful for losing weight. If they do make someone too hungry to limit his calorie consumption, then as a practical matter, that person should indeed stop them. But ceteris paribus, a Coke Zero substituting for a regular Coke will inherently limit calories and thus weight gain.

            1. kbolino   8 years ago

              ceteris paribus

              Therein lies the rub. A diligent person can make effective use of a diet drink. Someone whose only dietetic behavior is to switch from sugary to diet drinks is not inherently keeping all else equal.

            2. jack sprat   8 years ago

              ceteris paribus

              Yer sher gots a purty mouth

        3. kbolino   8 years ago

          The problem, besides the unrelated fact that not all calories are equal, is that most people do not seriously "count calories". Swapping out your sugary drinks for artificially sweetened ones might seem to reduce your caloric intake but if you're not actually controlling your other sources of calories, then that end result could be no net change or even an increase in caloric intake.

          1. thrakkorzog   8 years ago

            Speaking from personal experience, it's a lot easier to stick with a diet if it requires making a few minor changes at a time, and switching to diet soda is an easy way to cut out a couple of hundred calories per day.

            1. Mr. Flanders   8 years ago

              Switching to water only is even more effective!

              1. Zeb   8 years ago

                And has the extra benefit of not tasting terrible.

        4. Voros McCracken   8 years ago

          The study is almost certainly bullshit: it was entirely done on rats, does not directly measure insulin response in any way (which even if it did would not necessarily apply to humans) and has yet to be replicated.

          And if you like anecdotal evidence: I lost 200+ pounds drinking a whole shit ton of diet soda.

          1. Citizen X   8 years ago

            Two consecutive wives left you 'cause you couldn't kick your soda habit?

            1. Trshmnstr, Grump Apprentice   8 years ago

              *applause*

            2. kbolino   8 years ago

              He got those divorces on the cheap, too, at only ?100 apiece.

              1. commodious just wasting time   8 years ago

                Was that before or after Brexit devalued the pound to Bolivar levels?

        5. Zeb   8 years ago

          You know what's even better than diet drinks? Water.

      2. Fuck You - Cut Spending   8 years ago

        So you order a water and a quadruple cheeseburger then.

    3. some guy   8 years ago

      Back when this was being debated didn't a city official basically admit that the tax was purely about revenue and not about public health at all?

      1. SparktheRevolt   8 years ago

        Yes, the frankness was stunning. They are so brazen about their thievery anymore they don't try to hide it.

    4. Zero Sum Game   8 years ago

      a) artificial sweeteners are bad, because chemicals! (submitted by a nutritionist)

      A comprehensive overview of chemical-free consumer products. Read it so you can protect yourself. Don't be misinformed!

      1. commodious just wasting time   8 years ago

        *bookmarked*

      2. BigT   8 years ago

        I didn't see Reason on the list.

    5. SRVolunteer   8 years ago

      http://reason.com/blog/2012/06.....-bad-budge

      Matty Y, 4.5 years ago:

      The more interesting question is the long-term one. I'll gladly pay $3 for my Diet Pepsi because I'm already a diet soda junkie. But if all Diet Pepsies everywhere were this expensive, would I have taken it up in the first place? Very possibly not.

  18. Rufus The Monocled   8 years ago

    That note by Finks was perfect.

    People need to be made aware.

  19. GILMORE?   8 years ago

    Philadelphia became the largest city in the nation to create a specific tax for soda and sugary beverages, a policy that had previously been contained to progressive enclaves like Berkeley, California

    It has also already passed in San Francisco, Boulder CO, is on the table in Chicago, and has been repeatedly proposed in NYC and NYS at different times over the last 8 years.

    it was never really that "contained".

    1. Fuck You - Cut Spending   8 years ago

      Just pointing out that it is the COUNTY, not just Chicago. What the hell, we know Hellinois will be just as stupid and Indiana will benefit yet again.

  20. aelhues   8 years ago

    I know it's preaching to the choir, but sin taxes are terrible. The whole idea of government charging me for items or services not provided by them, for my own good, stinks. Let me make my own damn mind up about what I should, or should not eat/drink/do...

    1. Rich   8 years ago

      The whole idea of government charging me for items or services not provided by them, for my own good, stinks.

      "Oh, very well. It's *not* for your own good."

    2. The Last American Hero   8 years ago

      My body, my choice.

      1. Fuck You - Cut Spending   8 years ago

        Your body, our revenue.

  21. GILMORE?   8 years ago

    Officials ... sold the soda tax by promising to use the revenue to fund a new pre-K program for the city's youngest schoolchildren.

    Yeah, about that...?

    ....In November 1998, the tobacco industry and 46 states reached what is known as the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (four states reached separate settlements). This group deal exempted the industry from legal liability for the harm caused by tobacco use. In return, the tobacco companies agreed to make annual payments, in perpetuity, to the states to fund anti-smoking campaigns and public health programs. The industry guaranteed a minimum of $206 billion over the first 25 years.

    While a requirement that the states use these funds as intended was not written into the agreement, it was anticipated that they would do so.

    They haven't.

    what follows is the explanation of how any of these feel-good health measures end up simply padding the crony-union pension funds and general spending of any municipality suddenly granted a new source of revenue.

    1. Acosmist   8 years ago

      Even if they used it for pre-K, it's been demonstrated pre-K has no lasting beneficial effect on kids' education. It's daycare and precisely nothing else.

      1. kbolino   8 years ago

        precisely nothing else

        It's also a jobs program.

        1. GILMORE?   8 years ago

          which is also just a "new captured voters" program for crony pols. Anything that expands the Teacher's unions is good for business.

          i think it would be interesting if a third party collected data on, "how many residents in each city work for the city" (either directly or indirectly by contract), and mapped out who they were and how much $ they suck up. It would possibly be enlightening for voters.

          1. kbolino   8 years ago

            I don't know much about Philadelphia, but in Baltimore's case, much (most?) of the personal income comes from government at one level or another, directly or indirectly. There are a few large companies left, and some factories, but many (most?) of the employees live outside the city.

        2. commodious just wasting time   8 years ago

          Another in a long line of programs designed to transfer wealth from taxpayers to a reliable bloc of Democrat voters.

    2. Half-Virtue, Half-Vice   8 years ago

      Ugh. It all seems to hopeless today. Just put me in my matrix tube already Uncle Sam.

  22. Longtobefree   8 years ago

    How about a 200% tax on contributions to liberal/democratic politicians? Use it to fund healthcare centers.

    1. Rich   8 years ago

      Hmm. Wonder if The Donald will be open to good ideas like Obama was?

  23. GroundTruth   8 years ago

    The crazy thing is, this is really about being in against inexpensive food and drink. The "terrible" sugar content (120 g / liter) is just about the same as, or perhaps even a bit lower than the average sugar content in natural fresh pressed apple "cider" ("juice" outside of the USA).

    The penaltax is not only foolish, but sloppy.

    1. kbolino   8 years ago

      That is part of it, no doubt, but also the popular belief that soda is "artificial" and "full of chemicals" whereas juice is "natural" and "healthy". It's interesting to me that, while the vast majority of people would never consider themselves adherents of "new age" religions, a good many of them nevertheless embrace the new age naturalistic fallacy.

    2. Zero Sum Game   8 years ago

      It's also a lot of fructose. No, not that, anything but that!

      1. BigT   8 years ago

        Semen contains fructose. Are they collecting tax on that?

  24. AlmightyJB   8 years ago

    More black market jobs!

  25. Zero Sum Game   8 years ago

    Who didn't see this coming? The only reasonable response (until they repeal it).

  26. Mike Schmidt   8 years ago

    Christ. Just the damn sales tax is 12%.

    1. kbolino   8 years ago

      PA sales tax is 6% and Philadelphia adds another 2%, I wonder where the other 4% comes from? ShopRite is a grocery store, not a restaurant.

      1. Bra Ket   8 years ago

        If they charged tax on the other tax, it works out to 8%. If my mental math is right anyway.

  27. Fuck You - Cut Spending   8 years ago

    Since sugar is such a scourge, maybe we should just kill everybody and their descendants who were ever involved in the manufacturing of sugar.

    (It's my Domino theory.)

  28. SRVolunteer   8 years ago

    Is this a tax on the container size, or is McD's responsible for dinging you again on the tax when you get the 'free' refill?

    If half of my 32-oz drink is ice, am I only responsible for taxes on 16 oz of sugared drink?

    If my drink is low-sugar (Coca-Cola Life) can I get a tax decrease?

    If not, I guess I prefer the most sugar for my money. Can I get a super-sugarized version of Dr Pepper for the same tax hit that everyone else pays for regular Dr Pepper?

    1. BigT   8 years ago

      Most drinks mix a syrup with water in the machine. Only the syrup should be subject to tax, since they give you water for free.

  29. Bra Ket   8 years ago

    City officials told KYW-3 that the tax was intended to hit distributors of sugary drinks. In a shocking twist, the TV station reported on Wednesday night that the tax "is being passed onto the customer."

    They just need a new law which outlaws the passing of taxes onto the consumer.

  30. NorEastern   8 years ago

    Why is this a bad idea? We tax tobacco products because of their adverse effects on people's health costing society huge amounts of money for health care because consumption kills people. Foods with high levels of high fructose corn syrup have been proven to cause obesity and Type II diabetes. Early mortality and massive health care costs are the result of consuming your three cans of coke a day.

    1. Bra Ket   8 years ago

      Aren't you adorable.

      "costing society huge amounts of money for health care"

      ^^^ here's the problem that needs fixing. Stop forcing people to pay for other people's bad decisions.

      1. NorEastern   8 years ago

        Exactly. Why should I pay for some poor slobs Medicare costs for insulin shots, kidney transplants and heart reconstruction after massive heart attacks brought on by being obese, all because he had to have a liter of Coke a day? Seems unfair to me.

        1. Steevie   8 years ago

          So, the government (um, I mean, WE) shouldn't have to pay for the health care of other people, right? That's what you are saying, RIGHT???!?!??

          1. NorEastern   8 years ago

            Absolutely not. Tax to the max products consumed which burden society with health care costs. Tobacco. High fructose corn syrup. Over the course of their lifetimes users will reimburse society for the healthcare costs they are sure to require. That seems fair to me. You?

            1. BYODB   8 years ago

              What happens when people stop using those products, yet the governments spending now relies on those products?

              Oh, wait. I already know the answer. They'll find something else to tax into the ground while learning nothing. If you think this is about health concerns, then sadly you have not been paying attention. The fact they are taxing sugar free drinks should be a red flag, but I can see you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

            2. Zeb   8 years ago

              About those healthcare costs:

              http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti.....b8ffed13c2

    2. lafe.long   8 years ago

      Fuck off slaver

      1. NorEastern   8 years ago

        WTF? Are you consuming two liters of Pepsi a day sitting on your couch collecting the dole and watching soap operas?

        1. Zeb   8 years ago

          I don't think he is. But you seem to also want to take the money of people who drink 8 ounces of Pepsi a day while working hard. Which a lot of libertarianish folks think of as fractional slavery.

        2. NoVaNick   8 years ago

          I rarely drink soda but back to your point-your argument would be valid if taxes for unhealthy products went directly into personal health savings accounts for those who consume them to pay for their lung cancer treatment, heart bypasses, liver transplants, etc. But more than 90% of these taxes go into city and state general funds. Hike the taxes too high and the black market will be all too happy to step in but you will still be left holding the bag to pay for the bureaucrats' salaries.

    3. BYODB   8 years ago

      "We tax tobacco products because of their adverse effects on people's health costing society huge amounts of money for health care..."

      No, we tax them because the government wanted revenue and tobacco was an easy target to shake down. The costs to society are imposed by the very government you seem to think are altruistic.

      Sin taxes are incredibly short sighted tax hikes that are politically easy but don't solve the spending woes they are intended to mask. It's not a coincidence these proposals are coming only from Democrat cities with massive public pension liabilities, you fool.

    4. Bubba Jones   8 years ago

      Cigarette smokers cost less to society because they die before they collect SS and Medicare.

    5. And you believe that why?   8 years ago

      That would work if the taxes actually went to pay for problems. PA's tax on cigarettes isn't going to pay for the healthcare costs of smokers. Instead it goes to whatever Harrisburg feels they want to spend money on today. On the plus side my parents live in VA and buying a couple cartons covers the cost of gas to see them.

  31. Hank Phillips   8 years ago

    Waitaminnit... the teevee tole dem folks to vote for taxes and asset forfeiture, and marijuana prohibition so cops can shoot kids and dogs and take your savings, home and furniture. And the teevee also said that by secret ballot 96% of everyone who showed up voted for exactly those things. Do what's WRONG with a 50% tax on pop? Robbery is recycling, right? I can't wait to see the Carbon Tax!

  32. jdgalt   8 years ago

    I predict plenty of smuggling. Followed by predatory enforcement practices, like what PA already does about out-of-state liquor purchases.

    1. Bubba Jones   8 years ago

      Some poor guy is going to get killed for selling loose cans of coke on a street corner.

  33. albo   8 years ago

    The city will be hiring additional tax collectors to make sure everything is paid up, WHYY reports.

    Union, civil service unfireable, defined benefit pension, full health benefits workers who vote Democratic, by the way.

  34. one true athena   8 years ago

    Prohibition 2: The Soda War. " A crazy-but-badass ATF agent bravely infiltrates the Soda Smuggling Cartel and uncovers a vast conspiracy stretching from her toddler's preschool to the White House. Will she be able to stop Evil MegaCorporationSodaCola and President Donald Hitler from Poisoning our Youth??". Coming to Netflix in 2020!

    1. NorEastern   8 years ago

      Prohibition is removing a product from sale in a society. Taxing a products sales is completely different.

      1. NoVaNick   8 years ago

        Except when taxes are too high, the product is provided by the black market. 70% of cigarettes smoked in NYC come from out of state.

      2. one true athena   8 years ago

        "Taxing soda into oblivion" isn't as snappy as a fake movie title

  35. Kroneborge   8 years ago

    I'm fine with a tax on sugar period. It's just about one of the worst substances for you, and we are all paying the healthcare costs of it. The money should be used to offset Medicare/Medicaid obesisty costs.

    There's nothing wrong with making people pay for the consequences of their own actions

    1. BYODB   8 years ago

      We're all paying for the costs of it because the government said we had to or else we'd go to jail. So because we're forced to do one activity, we should also be forced to do another activity. Rinse, wash, and repeat until your organs are being harvested for the common good.

      1. Kroneborge   8 years ago

        True enough, but I think the chances of getting government to stop paying for medical care especially for seniors is somewhere around -1000

    2. Zeb   8 years ago

      Or the government could stop telling people that it's better for you than fat.

      By the same reasoning, we should tax people who ride motorcycles or go downhill skiing, or engage in any other risky activity. And anyone who lives past age 70. They are pretty likely to have a long hospitalization at some point.

    3. Bubba Jones   8 years ago

      Fuck off, slaver

      1. DblEagle   8 years ago

        Check your /sarc/ meter.

  36. zombietimeshare   8 years ago

    Well the mayor is a Democrat and the supermajority of the city council is Democrat?14D - 3R. What do you expect? What they can't tax they will regulate or license?or outlaw.

  37. Alan@.4   8 years ago

    When one wonders,will the electorate put the brakes on the misdeeds of their servants, those they elect to public office, strikes me as an all to appropriate question?

  38. KAB   8 years ago

    Why do the leftists constantly tell us that raising income taxes will have no adverse impact on anything and lowering them will have no positive impact on anything. But, then they joyfully invent huge taxes against anything they've decided they don't like so that people stop doing it. soda tax, gas tax, carbon tax, cigarette tax....

  39. Tionico   8 years ago

    About the only people happy with the new tax are, predictably, the city officials who will have an estimated $90 million in new annual revenue to spend. Officials in Philadelphia sold the soda tax by promising to use the revenue to fund a new pre-K program for the city's youngest schoolchildren.

    so soda drinkers will be forced to fund a useless "education" project? Nice....
    Ask these city hooh hahs if they've ever heard of the "Laffer Curve".... the well confirmed theory that when a tax is raised an initial increase in revenue is seen, but as that tax is raised higher folks change their behviour and thus incur lower tax liabilities. In the end, the total revenue drops seriously until the tax is rolled back or repealed. So the city are hiring more tax goons? Fine. When folk adjust and get their sodas elsewhere sans tax, or switch to other beverages, the city's total revenue will drop compared to ante-tax status.
    This is one more ridiculous instance of government-as-god. It won't last long.

  40. Heywood   8 years ago

    Congratulations, Philadelphia - these are the politicians you voted for.

  41. PlaystoomuchHALO   8 years ago

    Smuggling pop - the new growth industry....

  42. Gary T   8 years ago

    Maybe a work around can be instituted by irate soda buyers.
    Order the soda from outside of philly, to be delivered to their local grocery merchant, so that when they are finished buying their other food purchases, they would just pick up the soda at the same time.
    Of such deliveries would have to be free for that pickup.

  43. macsnafu   8 years ago

    Who will they blame when the actual new tax revenue falls far short of the estimated $90 million?

  44. porujeluj   8 years ago

    Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article...
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.homejobs7.com

  45. Galane   8 years ago

    Coke, Pepsi, Monarch Beverages, all the companies who make soft drinks should stand shoulder to shoulder and say they will not ship any products, from any of their company divisions (soft drinks and otherwise) to stores in Philadelphia until that tax is gone.

    If the government idiots want to put high taxes on a food product, let them see what will happen when there's NO FOOD.

    The companies should be ready to sue any media outlet for libel that puts out negative stories about them for this action.

  46. PavePusher   8 years ago

    "Philadelphia's soda tax was meant to target distributors..."

    I cal Bullshit, or someone doesn't understand basic economics.

  47. kajuru   8 years ago

    I bought brand new RED Ferreri by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can't beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived herNow i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out.....

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  48. AmeriBev   8 years ago

    As the local businesses profiled here make clear, soda taxes will indeed be passed onto consumers. Such policy is regressive, arbitrary and won't drive real health behavior change. Education and collaboration can teach balanced lifestyles. America's leading beverage companies are doing their part on this front via the Balance Calories initiative, which aims to reduce beverage calories in the American diet by 20 percent nationally by 2025 by offering more lower- and no-calorie choices and smaller sizes and then finding ways to get people to try them. We also support clear and understandable nutrition facts about foods and beverages and have voluntarily placed clear calorie labels on the front of the bottles and cans we produce. Through these initiatives, and other proactive efforts, beverage companies are helping drive real solutions to public health challenges.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Harvard's Best Protection Is To Get Off the Federal Teat

Autumn Billings | 5.23.2025 6:16 PM

Trump's Mass Cancellation of Student Visas Illustrates the Lawlessness of His Immigration Crackdown

Jacob Sullum | 5.23.2025 5:30 PM

Come July, Keys Will Be De Facto Illegal In Minnesota

Christian Britschgi | 5.23.2025 5:00 PM

Texas Bans Delta-8 THC, Which Is Only Popular Because of Prohibition

Joe Lancaster | 5.23.2025 3:45 PM

The Executive Power Case That Unites Donald Trump and Franklin Roosevelt

Damon Root | 5.23.2025 2:35 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!