MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Seattle Soda Tax Prompts Price Increases, Small Business Pain

Similar taxes in other cities have led to lost jobs and without bringing in the expected revenue.

Cans of cokeJuan Moyano/Dreamstime.comWhen Seattle's soda tax passed in July of last year, its proponents promised that it would accomplish all good things.

Tacking on just 1.75 cents per ounce to sweetened beverages, said then-mayor Ed Murray, would not only encourage healthier consumption habits, but also generate enough revenue to subsidize trips to the farmers market, to pay for free community college, and even to roll back "white-privileged, institutional racism."

On January 1, the tax went into full-effect, and while all those vaunted progressive goals no doubt are just over the horizon, Seattle shoppers are starting to see a more immediate effect of the tax: massive price increases.

The cost of a typical can of coke is now 20 cents higher. That adds up fast: A typical 36-can case of soft drink is now $7.56 more expensive, nearly doubling the price at many retail outlets. Stores are only too willing to let customers know who is responsible for the cost increases.

Local Seattle press and social media have been filled with images of Costco price tags that now bear a "City of Seattle Sweetened Beverage Recovery Fee" to make up for the new tax, along with an inscription that reads "this item is also available at our Tukwila and Shoreline locations without the City of Seattle Beverage Tax."

"We feel an obligation to let people know what [the tax] is, and let people know it's only in Seattle. Our real intent was to educate members," John McKay, chief operating officer for Costco's Northern Division, told the Seattle Times.

Many cost-conscious shoppers will no doubt follow the prompt and make their bulk purchases of soda and sports drink outside city limits.

That will help Costco—and other large retailers with locations both in and around Seattle—weather the tax's effects. Smaller businesses located exclusively within the city will not be so lucky. These owners can either up prices and risk losing customers or accept a lower return on the drinks they do sell. Either way, their profits are going down.

"My soda is like $2.49. If I double it, that's like $5. That's like the price of the burger," the owner of 206 Burger, which has two locations in the city, told a local NBC affiliate.

Small business owners were among the most vocal opponents of the tax as it worked its way through the city council, with many warning of possible store closures and job losses.

But proponents are standing firm, claiming that the tax won't hurt business. It'll just change consumers' preferences, they say. Victor Coleman of the pro-tax Healthy Choices Coalition told Seattle's Fox affiliate that people in other cities with soda taxes "are simply choosing to purchase other grocery items."

The evidence suggests otherwise. Philadelphia implemented a 1.5-cent tax on soda in January of last year. By March, Pepsi had decided to discontinue the sale of 12-packs and 2-liter bottles in the city. It also opted to lay off some 80–100 of its workers. By August, the marketing firm Catalania found a 55 percent decline in the sale of carbonated soft drinks within the city limits—and a 38 percent jump in stores just outside of Philadelphia.

Revenue from Philidephia's soda tax has also proven disappointing, coming in at $7 million below projections for fiscal year 2017.

Such results were enough to get Cook County, Illinois—which contains Chicago—to repeal its highly unpopular soda tax.

So far Seattle is sticking by its soda tax, which it is counting on to bring in $15 million in its first year. That revenue is intended to pay for a grab bag of progressive goodies, including more educational services, $2 million for subsidies to farmers market shoppers, $1.4 million in community college tuition assistance, and $500,000 to retrain beverage industry workers who lose their jobs.

Should revenue prove as disappointing in Seattle as in Philadelphia, those soon-to-be unemployed beverage workers might be out of luck entirely.

Photo Credit: Juan Moyano/Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Cyto||

    Should revenue prove as disappointing in Seattle as in Philadelphia, those soon-to-be unemployed beverage workers might be out of luck entirely.

    But that farmer's market subsidy..... that will get paid out first thing, count on it!

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    What? You selling black market soda out of your garage? Flippin' sweet!

  • Cyto||

    hilarious.... and on topic. Well played.

  • Flaco||

    Yes, they're going to end racism by subsidizing farmer's markets, the most white event in every city that has one.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Tacking on just 1.75 cents per ounce to sweetened beverages, said then-mayor and noted pederast Ed Murray,

    Let's try to maintain the guiding light of #MeToo.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    $500,000 to retrain beverage industry workers who lose their jobs.

    Interesting that they stuck this in while claiming it wouldn't cost any jobs.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Since when do lefty socialists care about lying.

    Their fundamental political and economic model is the same that Stalin and Hitler used. Incremental totalitarianism.

  • Spartacus||

    To be fair, in their world $500K is about 1.5 jobs.

  • buddhastalin||

    The only job created by that $500k is the retrainer's and his secretary's.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "But proponents are standing firm, claiming that the tax won't hurt business. It'll just change consumers' preferences, they say."
    Just what good commies are told the narrative is.

  • Zeb||

    And since when do changing consumer preferences not hurt certain businesses? It's just ridiculous to say that this law will effectively change people's behaviors and at the same time to say that it won't affect businesses.

  • Eric Bana||

    They were probably referring to corner store type of businesses, thinking that rather than buying a can of Mountain Dew, people will buy some other type of supposedly healthier beverage at the store, meaning the store doesn't really take a hit.

  • Longtobefree||

    Or, they were just lying.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Capitol Hill hipster-yuppie soda maker Rachel's Ginger Beer bitched that the soda tax would hurt her business. To accommodate Rachel and her elite clientele, city officials inserted phrasing in the law (specifically for her) that says drink manufacturers who make between $2 - 5 million a year only have to pay 1 cent per ounce instead of 1.75 cents per ounce. Guess who Rachel's customers are. Now think about who's walking into the corner store down the street to buy a 20 oz. bottle of Coke.

    Don't ever let a prog tell you that taxes are to make things "fair" for the poor and minorities.

    And LOL none of these nanny-snob soda taxes has ever "reduced obesity." Ever.

  • Cyto||

    What I find interesting about most folks and their views of politics, is they rarely ask "by what right?" Which is of course the libertarian's first premise.

    So the progressive says "wouldn't it be great if?" and they are off and running. Saving people from being fat by taxing soda.... chips up next!

    And the socon says "wouldn't it be great if?" and they are off to battle in the drug war, locking people up to save them from getting high.

    And everyone on team blue simply asks, "what does my team say?" and they are all-in! Ditto for team red.

    And libertarians ask "by what right does the government..?" and then spend the next three days quibbling over whether the government doesn't have the right to do something because it is a natural right, or because it violates the NAP, or because Ayn Rand wasn't really a libertarian..... and then we all agree that the other guy isn't libertarian enough...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Your body their choice.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Team Left. Duplicitous twats.

  • MJBinAL||

    Just because I am tired of this line, and the other one "my body. my choice"...

    I am curious, when the government regulates who you can donate an organ to ... are you offended and proclam it is your body and you can do as you please? When the government regulates who may treat you medically, and what treatments you may receive, do you protest that it is your body and your choice?

    For some reason, liberals are perfectly happy to have every single aspect of their bodies, heath care, and treatment dictated by the government EXCEPT abortion. Abortion must not be regulated like other outpatient surgeries. Abortion must not be limited like other medical treatments. And abortion clinics and providers should always be completely immune to the certificate of need process that frustrates new outpatient clinics from opening all over the country.

    Understand, I believe abortion is immoral. However, I also believe that it should not be illegal because the conflict between the rights of the mother and the unborn child should be the responsibility of the mother in whose body the baby resides.

    All that said, the two faced, hypocritical, moral preening of liberals on this topic make me want to reach for my long rifle .... just to make the irritating noise stop.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hey! You can't have well reasoned and logical discussions about AbOrtIoN and compare that legal reasoning to what government does to people's other choices about their bodies.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I am curious, when the government regulates who you can donate an organ to ... are you offended and proclam it is your body and you can do as you please?

    Yes.

    Also, medical science dictates to whom you can donate an organ.

  • BYODB||

    If I ever need a reminder that being a highly visible political actor gets you preferential treatment, I just recall that Cheney got a new heart at age 71. Nut punch?

  • Cyto||

    Yeah, medical science might dictate who you can't donate an organ to - at least not successfully. But politics, regulation and bureaucracy decide who a donated organ goes to in most cases.

    Don't believe it's true? Try posting your kidney for sale on Craig's List and see how that goes for you.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive Left makes an exception for abortion, because doing so allows them to persue a policy of eugenic clensing of undesirables (brown people) without admiting that they are every bit as racist and momstrous as a certain despicable Austrian.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    ^^^THIS.

  • crufus||

    By what right? Ultima Ratio Regum

  • Arizona_Guy||

    "by what right?"

    FYTW

  • Jerryskids||

    Local Seattle press and social media have been filled with images of Costco price tags that now bear a "City of Seattle Sweetened Beverage Recovery Fee" to make up for the new tax, along with an inscription that reads "this item is also available at our Tukwila and Shoreline locations without the City of Seattle Beverage Tax."

    And some people scoff at the idea that we need government to step in and ban fake news and hate speech on the innerwebs. The tax was never meant to be passed on to the consumer, it's those greedy bastards at Costco who are raising prices to unconscionable levels and then blaming the price increase on our benevolent masters.

    Oh, and: Tacking on just 1.75 cents per ounce to sweetened beverages, said then-mayor Ed Murray, would not only encourage healthier consumption habits, but also generate enough revenue to subsidize trips to the farmers market, to pay for free community college, and even to roll back "white-privileged, institutional racism." They always argue that raising the price of something somehow both does and doesn't result in less of that something.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    You say that out of humor, but this accusation was actually made by Philly's mayor when soda prices spiked after the tax.

  • Texasmotiv||

    This was also the catalyst for a 3 hour long debate with my (DR of psychology) brother in law about economics.

    His claim was that the beverage producers 'could' and therefore 'should' eat the tax because 'corporations'.

    He didn't seem to buy my explaination of how things actually seem to shake out in the real world. How things like small businesses and distributors (with much thinner margins) would really be the ones eating it because the soda company can just stop selling to that market instead of take a hit on each sale there.

    The discussion naturally went to all sorts of places like Upton Sinclair, Apple, and Oil companies. Stayed completely civil the whole time though, he didn't have a strong stake in it, he just liked to debate.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Sounds like your BIL got his doctorate without any math classes.

    Really. Too many people function completely in a qualitative world. There, things can more simply be good or bad, and the only links or trade-offs are conceptual. Understanding and accepting things like profit margins (and any true economic or financial analyses) requires quantitative thinking skills.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I've also seen it argued that the tax is directed at the soda producer, not the retailer or consumer. Raising prices for the consumer is unfair and unintended.

    But also it will stop consumers from guzzling gallons of sugar water, and bring in millions in revenue. It's one of the most effective, multi-faceted laws ever written.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Except for the fact that business passes on all taxes and costs of government social engineering to consumers in the form of higher prices.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Well now, if progtards understood economics they wouldn't be progtards, now would they?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    True.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Many do understand economics. They just don't believe that the laws of economics should apply to them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefty "economists" are a conundrum.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Iowahawk's take: (paraphrase) "Watching a communist trying to figure out economics is like watching a dog try to figure out a doorknob."

  • p3orion||

    Economic civil disobedience?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But also it will stop consumers from choosing what they want to buy, and confiscate millions in revenue. It's one of the most socialist laws ever written.

    FIFY

  • Paper Wasp||

    But also it will stop consumers from guzzling gallons of sugar water

    1. No, they'll just buy it outside of town.
    2. Not the government's business.

    It's one of the most effective, multi-faceted laws ever written.

    Effective at what? Making people drive longer distances to buy soda? Making sure poor people can't enjoy one of the few indulgent pleasures they could afford to enjoy? None of these soda tax laws has ever led to measurable improved health outcomes or reduced obesity.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "That revenue is intended to pay for a grab bag of progressive goodies, including more educational services, $2 million for subsidies to farmers market shoppers, $1.4 million in community college tuition assistance, and $500,000 to retrain beverage industry workers who lose their jobs."

    So it actually has nothing to do with health and is just more theft by leftist politicians who can never get enough of other people's money.

  • Libertarian||

    ""My soda is like $2.49. If I double it, that's like $5. That's like the price of the burger," the owner of 206 Burger, which has two locations in the city, told a local NBC affiliate."

    Like, whoa . . .

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    His serving size is 140 ounces?

    $2.50 for a soda is why my kids drink water when we eat out.

  • Shockerengr||

    The tax is probably structured so they are paying it on any refills too.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its a tax on the syrup, so yeah refills would cost a business more.

  • ||

    Not to mention that you're inverting the product model.

    If I gave you a razor and charged you a dollar a blade, it seems like a good deal. If the government said I have to charge you $2 per blade, not only am I not going to be able to sell as many blades, I'm not going to be able to (necessarily) eat the cost of the razors anymore either.

  • DiegoF||

    A tax on syrup? Let them just try that shit in Houston, motherfucker!

  • Juice||

    $5? For a milkshake? You don't put bourbon in it or anything?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Don't be a ----------
    [ ]
    ----------

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Supposed to be a square. Lame HTML.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I miss my old 1 gallon Monster Gulp cup from 7 Eleven...

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The solution for eateries is to make the establishment BYOB and charge for a set up.

  • DiegoF||

    BYO soda would be fucking awesome if only as a headline-grabbing gesture of political theater. One of the very few times I wish I ran a restaurant.

  • ||

    Sure. Whatever you say Victor Coleman.

    I've no more energy to argue with these ignoramuses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You need to. Otherwise they think their ideas are supported by the masses.

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    You mean they're not?

  • Juice||

    That's why they win. The people with the worst ideas tend to be the most tenacious in implementing them.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I am borrowing this.

  • ||

    "But proponents are standing firm, claiming that the tax won't hurt business."

    This is a classic progressive stance. "Oh come now. We know your business and other businesses than you and others do even though we never owned a business or know how to read an income statement. Why do you have to be so difficult? Now be and doll and just flip that gas switch for us, m'kay?'

    Another derivative of this notion is: It doesn't matter our stupid, phony laws put out a business. If it can't withstand our envy-laws for the children then it wasn't a good business to begin with. Some other person will take over the locale.

    I heard a bureaucrat say this to someone. 'It doesn't matter. Some other business will take over the spot.'

    This is how they think. No skin off their backs - BUT DON'T TOUCH THEIR PENSIONS. DON'T TOUCH JIMMY.

  • Finrod||

    And then they wonder why Main Street is a ghost town.

  • Hank Rearden||

    Wasn't the owner of Costco a primetime speaker at the Democratic Convention in 2016? This seems to contradict his politics.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Costco realizes lefty politics does not keep you business competitive.
    Jim Sinegal

    Costco going GOP
    Its all lefty fun and games until your company struggles under repressive government legislation.

  • Rhywun||

    City council members say the tax serves two purposes: 1. Discouraging people from consuming sugar, which is linked to diabetes and heart disease, and 2. Creating a funding stream for programs aimed at closing the achievement gap between students of color and white students.

    That is some grade-A flapdoodle right there. I can just imagine the city poobahs getting together and asking themselves what proggie nonsense can we attach to this in order to get the rubes to go all in.

  • p3orion||

    We HAVE to tax sodas, because racism!

  • Eric Bana||

    Hopefully people will become healthy and buy juice, which has just as much sugar as soda.

  • Jen G.||

    But only 100% juice because any drink that contains less than that is subject to the tax.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Well, they can buy some locally-made, small-batch hipster organic endangered squirrel piss scented with lavender and featuring a simple syrup made from yuzu honey obtained from well-compensated, fair-trade bees. Because that shit is taxed at only 1 cent an ounce. Because the people who buy it aren't fatassed negroes oppressed minorities who have limited access to nutritional education.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    No one ever died from a nudge.

  • Juice||

    Not even a little nudge to the throat over a teeny weeny tax on bad, old, dirty cigarettes?

  • DiegoF||

    NYPD scandalously deficient in its officers' improv training; they really blew their setup by not replying to Garner (preferably turning to the camera), "See what cigarettes'll do to you?"

  • axiomata||

    Nudge everyone 6 inches west and there will be someone on the margins who will fall off a cliff or get clipped by a passing car.

  • Rockabilly||

    Why is only soda taxed?

    Why not other sugary treats like donuts, ice cream, etc?

    After all the progressive communists know what's best for you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tax coffee in Seattle like soda and watch the lefties flip-the-fuck-out.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    They talked about doing a that. It was shot down rather quickly

  • Paper Wasp||

    Several years ago, there was a 10-cent tax on coffee on the ballot. They were again going to divert this cash to "early childhood education". Voted down so fast it caught fire on the way to the floor.

  • Juice||

    Just skip the coke and go for a Venti Caramel Mochachino. It's made with milk, which is good for you.

  • Jen G.||

    It isn't just soda, it's anything with sugar added that isn't milk-based or made of 100% fruit juice (and a bunch of other exceptions). They pedophile ex-mayor wanted to include diet soda because of white privilege. I swear this city is it's own farcical performance art at this point...

  • Spartacus||

    ...people in other cities with soda taxes "are simply choosing to purchase other grocery items."

    That is exactly what's happening. And the "other grocery items" are "cans of the same soda in other stores outside of town".

  • Ron||

    don't worry Seatle will just have check points at city entrances to check for illegal soda

  • ByteRot||

    It's job creation, too! Sign up to become a Seattle checkpoint soda inspection agent today! $30/hr and a government pension!

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Ya know .... if I truly believed that my family carried genes for serial killing or violent mayhem, I'd at least get a vasectomy, and also maybe get someone to check up on me once in a while to make sure I wasn't turning into the Unabomber.

    So what is it with white politicians who run for office over and over again while saying crap like

    even to roll back "white-privileged, institutional racism.


    And if I were a voter who actually believed that same shit, why would I vote for incumbent white politicians over and over again? Why aren't all these entitled white snowflakes voting for mis-gendered people of color? Why in fact do they think their vote is moral in the first place? Isn't it just a core part of institutional white racism?

  • Paper Wasp||

    Cognitive dissonance should be painful. It really should.

    The very definition of "institutional racism" is satisfied by this tax. It's racist, elitist bullshit.

    White privilege, if it exists at all, is whites getting to decide what's "healthy" enough for poor brown families to drink -- families who might not be able to afford to shop for cheaper alternatives outside of town.

  • 10percenter||

    Someone actually said that the tax will help end institutional racism? On record? Seriously?

    That is the worst case of putting unrealistic hopes and dreams on something that cannot possibly deliver under the best of circumstances. Even my parents didn't go that far when they were pushing me to major in something marketable in college.

  • ||

    That is the worst case of putting unrealistic hopes and dreams on something that cannot possibly deliver under the best of circumstances.

    It's even more detached than that. The assumption is that you aren't originally taxing black people disparately and that, once implemented, black people aren't intrinsically less capable of avoiding the tax. The only way it could get more absurd is if they associated brown, sugar-laden beverages with brown people and made a carve out for them.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Smaller businesses located exclusively within the city will not be so lucky. These owners can either up prices and risk losing customers or accept a lower return on the drinks they do sell. Either way, their profits are going down.

    No, no they can't suck suck it up and "lower profits". The tax is as much as the cost itself. If they were to suck it up, they would not just lose profits, they would lose more than they pay for the soft drink.

  • See.More||

    So far Seattle is sticking by its soda tax, which it is counting on to bring in $15 million in its first year.

    1.) Introduce a tax to get consumers to buy less of something.
    2.) Project new tax's revenue based on historical average sales of that something multiplied by the tax.
    3.) Act surprised when consumers buy less of something and the projected funds do not appear.


    Rinse and repeat.

  • BBridge||

    Studies are showing a high correlation between diet pop and metabolic syndrome yet they didn't tax diet pop. Sacramento is now the biggest dealer of plastic bags in the US with taxpayers footing the bill. The majority of voters are morons and tax hungry politicians know it.

  • See.More||

    And, it is interesting that they [politicians] realize that raising the price of something (i.e. soda via tax) causes people to buy less of it, but they'll swear up and down that raising the price of something (i.e. labor via minimum wage) won't cause people to buy less of it.

  • Headache||

    Prog replies, "What are you implying?"

  • WoodChipperBob||

    I don't know where you're getting your soda, but wherever it is, they aren't giving you 'typical' cases of soda if you're getting cases with 36 cans. A 'typical' case of soda is 24 cans.

  • Ron||

    I've seen cases of 30 and 36 they keep playing with what a case is

  • flyfishnevada||

    "But proponents are standing firm, claiming that the tax won't hurt business. It'll just change consumers' preferences, they say."

    That's what they always say. They ignore proven and sound economics in favor of some kind of fantasy that you can change people's behavior and that change in predictable. It's not. Sure, people might cross the city line to buy soda but that's not the change they want.

    Not to mention, these morons are constantly promising these taxes pay for all manner of amazing programs but the taxes are designed to stop some behavior. You can't tax something out of existence and expect that tax to pay for anything. Then again, logic isn't these folk's strong suit.

  • Headache||

    Their strong suit is well stitched control.

  • Sigivald||

    "But proponents are standing firm, claiming that the tax won't hurt business. It'll just change consumers' preferences, they say"

    Spoken like a true politician, who has no idea what a "margin" is, or a "profit center".

    Seattle is getting what it asks for, good and hard.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Yeah, but they will steer that (Boeing) airplane straight into the mountain.

    Even if/when businesses flee Seattle in significant numbers the lefties will celebrate, cuz money/work/profit be bad.

  • Karl B.||

    Which are they hoping for, changing consumer preferences or raising revenue? Those goals are in direct conflict. Can't have it both ways.

  • Longtobefree||

    You can if you are a democrat/progressive/communist. To say it is so is to make it so. Doublethink takes years of training, but it always works.

  • vek||

    First thought: I wonder if the Costco north up the Aurora is past the Shoreline city limits, can't remember the cross street.

    Question answered in the article! LOL I just paid my first dollar and change of this bullshit tax at Safeway the other night to buy a half gallon of juice. The ridiculous thing is that some budget brands of juice now cost MORE than other more expensive brands of juice, because they get around the law because no added sugar or whatever.

    It's completely ridiculous. I LOVE LOVE LOVE that Safeway, Costco, and hopefully every other retailer put these tags out. Hopefully it will piss people off enough when buying soda and juice for the family to rage at the commie politicians around here and have at least this one tax repealed.

    I REALLY need to step up my moving out of Seattle plan. I've been thinking in the next 2-3 years, but this kind of insanity just keeps getting worse and worse. I think I might lose my shit if I'm still here in 3 years.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Rejoice! That Costco is well outside the city limits. The city limits are at 145th, and that Costco is at 200th.

    Also, as a native who moved outside Seattle more than 20 years ago, I can say with confidence that literally EVERY WEEK brings some bit of news that makes me say, "JFC, I'm glad I don't live in that pretentious whiny hipster shithole anymore." You could not pay me to move back there.

  • vek||

    Yeah, I was 99% sure it was beyond 145th and in Shoreline, but I couldn't remember the exact cross street!

    Seriously though. I've been here almost 13 years, and 13 years ago in Ballard it was libtarded in a lot of ways... But pretty awesome in others. The recession hit and put the brakes on a lot of the stupid, but the last 6-7 years it has just got crazy. You can't even recognize half the city anymore, everything I liked is mostly gone, replaced by stuff I hate, it's insanely overpriced, and still getting worse.

    I've always been a conservative leaning libertarian, and I'm planning on moving to a solid "red" area of some sort. I know I will have issues with those people too on some stuff, but so help me god I know I'm going to like it a lot more than around here. And the taxes will be lower :)

  • p3orion||

    I look forward to seeing how Seattle retaliates against Costco's outrageous gall in honestly informing its customers of exactly why their sodas are so expensive. I'm thinking they'll go the route of "hate speech" somehow...

  • tlapp||

    I love the signage. Politicians like to hide the tax in the cost of goods and then blame the "greedy" businesses for higher prices.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online