And the Dims Wonder Why They Lost ?

[Hagar]

Why did the Democrat cross the road?  To fubar something on the other side.  Below you'll read how the Dims running Philadelphia decided to regulate, via taxes, what folks in that city could consume (Food Police).  Then you'll see the result.  Hard working folks losing their jobs.  What a bunch of losers.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

Looks like Philadelphia, like so many other cities, needs more Republicans.

 

[Hagar]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Looks like Philadelphia, like so many other cities, needs more Republicans.

 

Heaven knows, how anyone could vote for ANY politician that wants to regulate our food or drink, via taxation, is beyond me.  And it's coming.  Thank goodness I'm old & probably won't see it, but it's coming.

[stevenash]

Here is another consideration.  When they decided to tax ( as an example) carbonated drinks, they assume that will provide a certain amount of revenue.  Then the tax causes those carbonated drink sales to drop 20% or 30% and those revenues aren't what they expected ( and of course, they already had those revenues earmarked for a "compassionate" cause)  That same drop in carbonated drink sales causes a number of folks in that industry to lose their jobs and the unemployment line becomes a little longer and a little more expensive.  In looking at the decreased revenues and increased costs, the next "taxable villain" is found and the system repeats itself.

[PhatMack19]

2 hours ago, stevenash said:

Here is another consideration.  When they decided to tax ( as an example) carbonated drinks, they assume that will provide a certain amount of revenue.  Then the tax causes those carbonated drink sales to drop 20% or 30% and those revenues aren't what they expected ( and of course, they already had those revenues earmarked for a "compassionate" cause)  That same drop in carbonated drink sales causes a number of folks in that industry to lose their jobs and the unemployment line becomes a little longer and a little more expensive.  In looking at the decreased revenues and increased costs, the next "taxable villain" is found and the system repeats itself.

More jobs lost.  I bet the stores right outside the city limits are doing great.

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Quote:

A newly imposed tax on sugary drinks sold within 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 likely earned a fraction of the revenue its advocates had expected, city officials said Tuesday.

Philly had hoped that the 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax on sodas and other sweetened drinks would reap about $7.6 million each month for City Hall upon taking effect Jan. 1. According to preliminary data, however, the levy earned the city a measly $2.3 million during its first month on the books, or only 30 percent of what was expected, local media reported Tuesday.

Grocery stores and wholesalers alike now say they're weighing potential layoffs to make up for lost profits attributed on the excise.

 

Quote:

Jeff Brown, the owner of six ShopRite grocery stores within city limits, said beverage sales slipped 50 percent from Jan. 1 to Feb. 17 over the previous year's figures, and cited a 15 percent overall dip in sales at city stores. As a result, according to Mr. Brown, he's already eliminated about 280 jobs and is eyeing additional layoffs in the coming months.

"In 30 years of business, there's never been a circumstance in which we've ever had a sales decline of any significant amount," Mr. Brown 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 Bloomberg recently. "I would describe the impact as nothing less than devastating."

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, stevenash said:

Here is another consideration.  When they decided to tax ( as an example) carbonated drinks, they assume that will provide a certain amount of revenue.  Then the tax causes those carbonated drink sales to drop 20% or 30% and those revenues aren't what they expected ( and of course, they already had those revenues earmarked for a "compassionate" cause)  That same drop in carbonated drink sales causes a number of folks in that industry to lose their jobs and the unemployment line becomes a little longer and a little more expensive.  In looking at the decreased revenues and increased costs, the next "taxable villain" is found and the system repeats itself.

Remember, good intentions are what's important...not results.

[stevenash]

A loss of 5 million in anticipated revenue per month for the city and hundreds of jobs eliminated.   Does the left NOT UNDERSTAND that these measures are overtly counterproductive?  Do you lefties think this is good business?  Exactly who benefits from this new law?  We haven't even factored in the lost tax revenue the city , state, Feds had before those folks lost their jobs.

[baddog]

27 minutes ago, stevenash said:

A loss of 5 million in anticipated revenue per month for the city and hundreds of jobs eliminated.   Does the left NOT UNDERSTAND that these measures are overtly counterproductive?  Do you lefties think this is good business?  Exactly who benefits from this new law?  We haven't even factored in the lost tax revenue the city , state, Feds had before those folks lost their jobs.

Does anyone on here, and I mean anyone, believe that the government tax was to deter sugar consumption for the health and welfare of all Americans?

[stevenash]

Big GIrl, PamFam, Newtobie,Bluedove, Remmus- your thoughts please?

[Hagar]

As understand it, a six pack of beer is cheaper that some colas and energy drinks.  

[nappyroots]

I would take george w or bill c at this time. Minus dick c