Five Years Later, Philadelphia's Soda Tax Is Falling Flat
The city wanted to bring in more money, in part for early childhood education. But such taxes are disproportionately paid by the poor.

Want a soda? You'll pay more for one in Philadelphia, because five years ago, local politicians decided to tax it.
They're "protecting" people, they said. The tax would "reduce obesity" and "lower diabetes rates."
But their main goal was to bring in more money, which they said would "fund early childhood education" and "help a lot of families."
I reported on this five years ago, right after the tax went into effect.
My new video updates what happened.
Store owners hated the new tax.
"Bad tax!" said Melvin Robinson, who runs Bruno's Pizza. He says few customers now buy soda from him.
One of his customers told me, "I refuse to buy soda in Philadelphia."
"Twenty-ounce soda, almost $3!" complained another.
Bruno's is located right on the outer edge of Philadelphia, so his customers can cross the street and buy untaxed soda.
But they still go back to Bruno's for pizza. "Best slice in town!" gushed one.
I confronted then–City Councilman William Greenlee with the store owners' complaints.
"Nothing else that we could come up with could raise that kind of funding," he said.
Soda taxes are disproportionately paid by poor people. Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) said, "You don't have to fund child care on the backs of the poorest people!… That's a regressive way."
"It hits the poor most," I repeat to Greenlee.
"I didn't know Bernie opposed it," he laughed. "We're raising enough money to put 2,700 kids in pre-K and to open 11 community schools!"
"Preschool?!?" snarled a Bruno's customer. "I doubt that."
As with most taxes, the soda tax had an unintended consequence: Alcohol sales rose 5 percent.
"People buy more liquor," I shout at Greenlee. "Less Coke, more liquor!"
Greenlee laughs and says, "We have a liquor tax, too!"
Politicians do like their "sin" taxes.
Denmark passed one on saturated fat but quickly repealed it when Danes crossed the border to shop in other countries.
But Philadelphia isn't repealing anything.
People who live there already pay 44 taxes, including a higher income tax than other cities impose.
"You should be rolling in money," I say to Greenlee.
"I don't know about that," he replies. "There's a lot to do out there."
Politicians like to do "a lot" with other people's money. Philadelphia spent $4 million of the soda tax money on an office of arts and culture, and hip-hop dance instruction that teaches "youth empowerment."
When I scoffed at that, Greenlee said, "The office of arts and culture does a very good job."
Bruno's customers aren't convinced. "Like we need that!" exclaims Robinson, sarcastically. "People are trying to live!"
I told him that the politicians said they need more money.
"Stop stealing!" he responds.
I don't know that Philadelphia politicians steal, but councilmembers make $121,000 a year, three times the local median income.
"I don't think that's terribly unusual for elected officials," Greenlee says.
Sadly, he's right.
Five years later, Greenlee is no longer in government. Restaurant owner Robinson still sells pizza. He survived the soda tax.
Philadelphia did use some of the soda tax money to open preschools. Whether the schools are well-run—or just waste—I don't know.
Most of the tax money did not go for education. Most was just dumped into the city's general fund.
Now the politicians spend it on whatever they want.
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
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.
Please
to post comments
Remy should do a Dukes of Hazard parody, except instead of being moonshiners, the old timers like Uncle Jessie would be sneaking in untaxed root beer.
Mayor of Philidelphia right now would make a good Boss Hogg if you put a big hat on him. Police Commissioner is actually named Outlaw, too. She'd make a good black Roscoe.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Even if coke [sic] in all forms (DP, 7-Up, Fizzy-Whizzy) is not taxed especially, I have for years eschewed having with my meal a beverage of sugar, water, color, and some flavoring, sold in non-taxed amounts that range from $1.75 to $2.25. I get along just fine with water, and I have not yet found many places where water, free, is not available (I do know of one in Tyler, Texas, where a request for water with the meal will get you a $9.00 bottle of carbonated French “spring water”). One visit to a clip joint like that is all it takes – I am educable. I have heard it described as a “place for the S-class crowd" to eat and be seen.
" bottle of carbonated French “spring water”
Evian spelled backwards is naive.
Oh my, you are so smart and educated and...an arrogant bore. I think your real name must be Caren (with a hard "C").
Idiot
I only drink water and coffee and an occasional fruit juice.And not while I'm eating,my momma told me to chew my food.
"[We]'re STEALING enough of your money to indoctrinate your kids!!!!"
There; fixed that deceptive BS statement from Greenlee.
How about you don't steal our money and you don't indoctrinate our kids????
"Philadelphia did use some of the soda tax money to open preschools. Whether the schools are well-run—or just waste—I don't know."
Well, John, the rest of us know - - - - - - - -
Well, Mr. Smartypants, have you considered that they could be well-run *and* a waste, hmmmm?
Well, Mr. Smartypants, have you considered that they are run by the government?
Pre schools run by the government are brainwashing for babies.
"Philadelphia spent $4 million of the soda tax money on an office of arts and culture, and hip-hop dance instruction that teaches "youth empowerment."
And in Philly, that's essential.
I'm glad I live in Atlanta.
Stossel,
Sugar is an addictive substance and reducing consumption with taxes is the same as taxing cigarettes and alcohol. It would be best if the government did not subsidize healthcare which encourages people to be unhealthy. However, if the government is going to pay for healthcare then everyone benefits by people being more healthy (less sugar.)
Taxes on addictive substances are not regressive. You are using the language of the left. They are also not progressive. They are perfectly even - the person that uses the addictive substance is the one that pays the tax. It is a very fair way to tax.
Government spending is a completely unrelated and different issue and of course waste should be eliminated.
Fuck off.
That is incoherent. Probably because it starts with a falsehood. Sugar is not addictive. Restart your analysis from there and see where you get.
Enjoying something stimulates a dopamine response in your brain, and that can become addictive. So clearly the government needs to tax anything that makes you feel good in order to cure you of your addiction to feeling good.
A porn tax should be a no-brainer then.
Eliminate government spending enough and you don't need any taxes.
Stossel misses the main issue with this tax, as does Fred. How much of a burden is this to some mom and pop store? They need to determine 'what is soda vs. juice, soda water, zero sugar soda, ad infinitum.' Then they have to separate those purchases and add a different sales tax to them than other transactions, or the transaction itself.
You now need an accountant and high end software to to run a little store or pizza place. It's an undue burden for very little City income and someone should sue it off the books.
Shoppers went to Wawa outside the city limits. It hurts the distributors in Philly since no-one will take their pro
Let's ban everything. People can live on cruel.
Peasants don't know what's good for them so I'm here to tell you. You are allowed to eat grass but only organic grass.
We don't need to ban anything as long as healthcare and disability insurance are fully private and free market.
When they are not, you can't make a principled libertarian argument against such taxes or bans.
I like the soda tax,it may have prevented kids from getting hooked on soda pop and even saved a few from obesity.
And in turn is making people more drunk. What a plan!
why's he flipping us off?
Ha! I wonder if he realizes that. I ran the video to see the context and it's the very first shot. He's opening the can one-handed to demonstrate how cool he is.
So a tax designed to alter behaviour works so well that it doesn't raise revenue? And this is it _not_ working? Fuck off, you traitorous lying cunts.
Well genius, it's not working. People still get their soda, just outside Philly.
What don't you look up how much Philly said they would bring in to the actually number. Not even close. Oh, and why is diet soda taxed if sugar is bad?
Sugar substitutes are carcinogens - if you feed lab rats the equivalent of living off sugar substitute sandwiches washed down by 10 gallons of diet soda a day
"Soda taxes are disproportionately paid by poor people."
BUT THAT'S ONLY LOGICAL FOR AT LEAST TWO REASONS
1. If a government in trying to reduce the epidemic of obesity by nudging people to purchase fewer sugar-laden sodas, those most likely to modify their behavior because of such a tax are the poor.
People with plenty of disposable income are unlikely to give up what they might like to save only a small amount of money - but the poor are.
2. The poor are more likely to impose their huge health (and related) costs on taxpayers (including those taxpayers who responsibly maintain a healthful weight) than the poor, since the medical, treatment, drug, and other costs of the poor are likely to be covered by Medicaid and other government welfare programs.
Why pay taxes on sugary drinks when Stossel's saccharine soundbites are free?
i thought this article was supposed to be about an assessment of the soda tax in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, the only comment about the current state of the tax is this: "Most of the tax money did not go for education. Most was just dumped into the city's general fund." Instead of regurgitating old outrage, I would have preferred to hear actual facts and numbers.
Eighteen words. This should have been a tweet, not an article.
In a free market, health and disability insurers would impose high premiums on consumers of soda and on obese people. So, arguments that such taxes disproportionately fall on the poor are irrelevant to a libertarian because the same would be true in a libertarian society.
HERE HERE!