By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pokoko on 24 June 2017
Edit Thread
Teeqoz said:
pokoko said:

Stop making things up.  I said "poor job", not "no effect".  Surrounding areas are likely to see around a 20% increase in soda sales with an unknown spike in general sales.  And, yes, I think the politicians behind this are doing it for the tax revenue.  Otherwise, why not make the tax so high that no one would buy it at all?

Ouch, you got me there,  that completely changes my argument. I mean, if a few people pay the tax, instead of no one,  then that really does lead to a substantial difference in tax revenue, which much overcomes the economic disadvantage of retail sale leakage to other counties, so it will definitely lead to an increase in tax revenue for the district, but will still do a poor job at reducing soda sales. (for the record, this is sarcasm, I'm not "making things up" in this paragraph.)

No seriously, I didn't intentionally misquote you. In fact I didn't quote you at all. I didn't claim you said precisely that, it's just that it didn't matter for the sake of my argument. Didn't realise it would matter to you. Either the district really won't get any money out of it, or it will have a substantial effect. You can't have it both ways. That was my point.

And as for your last question, I believe it is because the politicians don't want to completely ban soda for people, just reduce consumption somewhat? But that's just what I think, I may be wrong.

Yeah, you probably are wrong and I don't care about "for the sake of your argument".  Don't quote my post just because you want to be snarky.  You aren't making much sense, either.  This isn't 100% one way OR 100% the other way.  We already have a model for this.  People with cars will go outside the district, hurting local retail.  Poor people will assume the burden of the tax, just like with tobacco.