Sign of ‘soda tax’ resistance at South Delridge’s Boss Drive-In

We spotted this sign this afternoon at Boss Drive-In (formerly Burger Boss) while checking out something unrelated in South Delridge. The “soda tax” refers to the “sugary beverages tax” proposed by Mayor Murray in his State of the City speech, as reported here one month ago.

The two-cents-per-ounce tax, to be charged to distributors, would not just be on sodas, as defined: “The ordinance defines sugary drinks to include liquids with a specified amount of caloric sweetener, syrups and powders that are used to prepare sugary beverages,” including fruit drinks, energy drinks, sweetened teas, and ready-to-drink coffee drinks (in bottles/cans/etc., not mixed and served at a coffee shop), as further explained here. The ordinance creating the tax has not yet been introduced so far as we can tell; if approved, the mayor says, it is expected to raise $16 million a year for programs meant to close the educational opportunity gap, “based on recommendations from the Education Summit Advisory Group,” which are detailed in this 150+-page report.

FACT-CHECKING: As for whether it would create $5 sodas – depends on how you crunch the numbers. One way to have a $5 soda would be a base price of $3 for 100 ounces – that’s 12 1/2 cups of soda – and $2 in tax (2 cents an ounce). Since it would be charged to distributors, depends on how they would pass it along.

58 Replies to "Sign of 'soda tax' resistance at South Delridge's Boss Drive-In"

  • RJY March 26, 2017 (4:37 pm)

    I hope that $16 million year math is much better than their $300-500K gun sales tax prediction.

  • flimflam March 26, 2017 (4:59 pm)

    the mayor obviously tackling the really big issues of this city. oy vey

    • Katie March 27, 2017 (8:13 am)

      Raising revenue seems like a big issue. If the state had been willing to have a soda tax, college tuition wouldn’t be so expensive now. 

  • Matt G March 26, 2017 (5:51 pm)

    2.5 Gallon Box of Coke is $50 (according to Sam’s Club) and makes 1840 ounces of Coke.

    The next part is how the tax is going to calculated:

    If it is just the syrup: 2.5 gallons = 360oz x .02 = $7.20

    If it is the finished drink: 1840oz x .02 = 36.80

    total price would be 86.80 if it is the later and that would be a price increase of 57% on the box of syrup.  If pop is 3.50 and apply the 57% increase would be $5.50

    • Consumer March 26, 2017 (7:51 pm)

      You’re cost for a box of syrup goes up by $36.50(in the worst case) and you’d raise your price $2/cup?  If the box yields 1840 oz of soda /16 oz=115 drinks x $2=$230 increase in revenue per box(less $36tax) which would increases your profits by $194.  Seems to me that if you take the $36 increase and divide it up by 115 drinks you could cover the increased cost  by raising your price by $.32 per cup which is about an 11% increase for the consumer- still a pretty big. hit if the tax is applied to the finished product but shouldn’t raise our prices by 57% imo. 

      • @MattGilblezy March 26, 2017 (10:06 pm)

        Okay Consumer, how about this:

        Pop is on sale at the grocery store for 4/$11.  $2.75 for 12 cans

        12 cans x 12oz = 144oz x .02 = $2.88 in tax! That is over 100%! Not to mention the 27 cents in Sales tax as well.  So that 12 pack (on sale) is $5.90.

        Do those numbers “pop” for ya?

        • Stuck between Gatewood and Fauntleroy March 27, 2017 (1:21 pm)

          Using your math, that works out to 49 cents per can of cola. Is really worth any outrage? 49 cents is still less than I spent on a can of coke from the vending machine at my high school, many many moons ago. Move it along, nothing to see here. 

    • Gatewood March 26, 2017 (9:19 pm)

      Most restaurants use 5 gallon bag in box and the cost is closer to $76.  That being said the tax on the box will be double what you estimated.

  • David March 26, 2017 (5:52 pm)

    Hey Mr. Boss, I’ll be getting my burgers from Coastline.

    • Your mother March 27, 2017 (11:15 am)

      Are you really that easily offended?

  • Mark March 26, 2017 (5:53 pm)

    The proposal needs to include taxes on diet soda too.  The revenue should be used to reduce other taxes, not grow government.

    There is little to no nutrition value in soda, and they are linking soda to diabetes and Alzheimer disease.  It is time to tax it like other sin taxes!

  • JHC March 26, 2017 (6:04 pm)

    Just drink water. It’s better for you than carbonated sugar water, and it’s free*!

  • seaopgal March 26, 2017 (6:18 pm)

    $.02 an ounce is not going to kill anyone, and it might actually stop you from killing yourself. Bring it on!

  • Erithan - grumpy March 26, 2017 (6:29 pm)

    Did they ever fix all the marijuana taxes so they could be used for the city? (Forget specifics)

  • West Seattle Hipster March 26, 2017 (6:34 pm)

    Hey Mr. Boss, RIGHT ON!  Nice to see someone calling out poor leadership.

  • sunnyday March 26, 2017 (6:49 pm)

    I agree with seaopgal, they should tax it, just like cigarettes. It’s all bad, what’s our country’s obesity rate?  

    • TheKing March 26, 2017 (10:41 pm)

      Funny you should mention the obesity rate. The mayor has also taxed physical fitness services. Seems the mayor wants us all so poor we’re eating dogfood. 

      • Katie March 27, 2017 (8:15 am)

        If soda is making you poor, you can always drink Seattle’s fabulous and healthy water. It’s even free at a lot of restaurants!

        • TheKing March 27, 2017 (12:47 pm)

          Soda isn’t making me poor, The ‘I know what’s best for you’ taxes are though. The I’m going to save you from yourself attitude is too much. Leave us alone. 

  • MrsT March 26, 2017 (6:57 pm)

    I am all for it. Soda is a privilege.

  • dsa March 26, 2017 (7:26 pm)

    I see the non soda drinkers are for it.

  • Chemist March 26, 2017 (7:47 pm)

    Fact checking 2 – A 12 pk of soda is usually 144 oz, so $2.88 in sugary soda taxes for that 12 pk that often sells for under $3.  Not that the drive in sells 12 pks.

    A 2L that often is on sale for $0.99 would have $1.37 in soda tax, by volume, if passed through to the consumer 1:1.

  • Mark March 26, 2017 (8:09 pm)

    Non smokers also are ok with taxing cigarettes, non drinkers are ok taxing alcohol.  These are choices to consume or not.  

    My mom consumed 5 cans of diet pop a day and now has late stage dementia, the data is showing a link like smoking to lung cancer, alcohol to liver disease.  This taxing pop is very appropriate.  But I would use the revenue to cut other taxes or put the money in a rainy day fund.

    The City needs to stop growing spending!

  • West Seattle Hipster March 26, 2017 (8:29 pm)

    Add a tax to coffee (not very healthy) and see how much revenue we can raise.

    • testy March 27, 2017 (12:20 pm)

      Umm, better check your research there, WSH. Unless you have a heart condition, coffee (black) is one of the healthiest things you can consume in moderation. Now, those 500 calorie, 50 grams of sugar, dessert-masquerading-as-coffee drinks are another story…

  • Kelly March 26, 2017 (8:42 pm)

    I just saw this sign today.  $5 absolutely seemed like a ridiculous figure so I appreciate the folks who tried to do the math.  Even if the tax was significant, I’m all for it.  

  • kg March 26, 2017 (8:53 pm)

    not mixed and served at a coffee shop”

    Me thinks the Starbucks lobby said no.

    Sweeteners added to coffee = good?

    Sweeteners added to soda = bad?

    What if soda manufacturers start using the same sweeteners as the coffee shops?

  • AMD March 26, 2017 (8:54 pm)

    The prices charged for soda is already SO inflated over what the syrup and CO2 cost the seller, it’s hard for me to justify outrage over the price hike.

    Basically, if I’m already willing to pay $1.50 for 15 cents’ worth of soda, another 20 cents isn’t going to deter me from buying it.  Don’t worry, soda-sellers.  People are not going to stop buying soda because of a new tax.  

    • HParkRes March 27, 2017 (8:32 am)

      Exactly.  Having worked in restaurants for many years, I know that soda is one of the most profitable items they sell.  It costs pennies a cup and most establishments sell it for $2 or more.  Which is why refills are free a so many places and McD’s can afford to sell it for $1 regardless of size.  No food service business is going to suffer any huge loss of revenue from this tax.   They’ll raise the price to the consumer–they’re already gouging them for soda, if you consider their costs.

    • Paul March 27, 2017 (12:18 pm)

      Actually they will.   A similar tax was recently implemented in Philidelphia, and local soda distributors have had to lay off several hundred workers as the demand for soda inside the city has dried up to almost nothing.   If this is the goal, so be it, but reality is that people are just leaving the city to make their purchases.

  • Molly March 26, 2017 (8:58 pm)

    I wish this would be used to provide universal preschool to all kids, like they used the tax for in philly. 

  • Jim March 26, 2017 (9:13 pm)

    It seems like such a little thing — a tax on something we all agree is not the healthiest choice for a drink. But for me, it calls to mind the saying, “Never let the nose of a camel in your tent.” Why not, you ask? Because you will soon find the entire camel in your tent! Except for us, it will be the mayor in our “tent,” deciding how we should live our lives and taxing all of our “poor choices.”  P.S. Note that the the proposed tax would not go to fund any programs related to obesity – the ostensible basis for the tax.  P.S.S. I just came back from the gym. That was my choice  

    • Consumer March 26, 2017 (9:52 pm)

      Right on Jim.  Do you have any ideas on how to pay for public education without a state income tax?  

      • Ex-Westwood Resident March 27, 2017 (11:07 am)

        EASIEST way to raise the funds available to education is to look where the GREATEST increase in costs have come from…the ADMINISTRATIVE side of it.

        In the late 70’s the ratio of “Administrator” to “Student” was about 50 (Students) to 1 (Administrator). Today that ratio is about 16 to 1. 

        Look at the cost to print EVERY item in the 20+ languages. Think of the savings, not only in paper, but to the environment (by using LESS paper).

        Notice when they talk about “Cuts in education” they ALWAYS talk about cuts in Education services and NOT the Administrative side of the house.

        The WHOLE system needs an audit and reform. Allowing the dismissal of “poor” teachers and reward of “good” teachers, would be a good start.

        In times of “feast” it is nice to be able to have positions like (sarcasm) “Pencil Sharpener Chairman” but when the times dictate cutting…Admin positions NEED to be looked at FIRST for cutting…NOT front-line education areas!!!

        • Craig March 27, 2017 (12:52 pm)

          16 students to 1 administrator? What is your source?

    • Katie March 27, 2017 (8:19 am)

      Taxing someone optional (like soda) seems preferable to me since, if it is too expensive for you, you can stop drinking soda. 

  • Gatewood March 26, 2017 (9:17 pm)

    There is also a tax being proposed in on the state level for this.  So if both are approved it will drive up the price off all beverages you pay for.   Don’t think retailers won’t spread the cost of it over the entire category.  Bottled water, Kampuchea, tea and milk will increase to keep customers from seeing the increase needed to maintain profits.  The state level bill goes after any sweetened beverage, including stevia and splenda sweetners too which I don’t get.  At some point aren’t people accountable for their own health choices?

    • Katie March 27, 2017 (8:21 am)

      We live in a society so our choices affect others. So long as the city continues to provide us with clean water from the tap, they can tax beverages to the hilt as far as I’m concerned. 

  • Jaylaw March 26, 2017 (9:27 pm)

     So the mayor wants to increase educational funding and needs $16 million eh?  How’d he get to $16m? Or that matter $254m?   Curious, why a “Soda Tax” but not a candy bar, potato chip or ice cream tax?  Maybe that’s in the works, but I digress.

    Hmm, let’s see… I can just hear “Hizoner” now…”well, I can’t swindle property owners because I’m already trying to soak them for a quarter of $1 billion for a homeless tax; I can’t swindle car drivers because their car fee tabs are going through the roof; I can’t soak pot smokers or gun owner or even booze drinkers because we’re already taxing their “sins” so where or where can I get the money for this?  Yup, another tax on poor people, let’s get their diet dr. Pepper!” 

    You see that,  right Seattle?  He’s not taxing your $7 mocha cappuccino, double shot, extra hot, no foam syrupy drink – you know, the ones they serve at the Coffee shop inside City Hall and the ones with more sugar than a 7-11 Big Gulp.  He’s wanting to tax poor people who shop at Value Save or who can only afford to eat 3 squares a day off of the  Value Menu at Micky D’s and all the while he’s telling you he’s doing this “for the children!”  

    When by god (or whatever power you choose to believe in) will some of you sheeple wake up?  There’s only so long you can believe it when someone can be spitting in your ear and telling you it’s raining!!

    When will some of you open your window and scream you’re mad as hell and are going to take the incessant taxes, homelessness, terrible roads, underfunded schools, heroin dens, rainbow crosswalks, Pronto Bike Share debacle, Micro-housing explosion and its related war on cars, and finally the refusal for a privately funded SODO Arena AND gifted Lander Street bridge all while this political grandstanding takes place trying to save an outdated and inconvenient arena?  When.  Will.  You.  Wake.  Up?

    We don’t need D’s or R’s (or S’s!) we need real leadership in this town and this mayor and city council have long forgotten what it’s like to struggle to make ends meet, put a meal on the table, roof over their head or fill up a gas tank.  They are piranhas, they don’t kill you all at once but take little bites out of you so you don’t really notice (or care) …until there is nothing left to save.

    Rant over (for now).

    Have a great week W. Seattle!

    • TheKing March 26, 2017 (10:43 pm)

      Couldnt agree more. Glad to see I’m not on an island with these thoughts

    • anonymous March 27, 2017 (1:27 am)

      Amen! Especially to paragraph five.

    • Katie March 27, 2017 (8:23 am)

      I’d definitely support a tax on sweetened drinks of all kinds. Optional taxes are the best kind. 

    • Mat March 27, 2017 (12:38 pm)

      If I had a nickel for every time someone persuaded me to change my mind while using the term ‘sheeple’ I would have exactly $0 with which to pay for this soda tax. lol. *sips soda*

  • Rob March 26, 2017 (9:50 pm)

    Just go to the Safeway across Roxbury and get your soda and plastic bags!

  • Eric1 March 26, 2017 (9:53 pm)

    I don’t drink soda but I am really tired of these targeted taxes that supposedly goes to “good causes” to get you to vote for them. It is just social engineering by the do-goody clowncil and the head bozo mayor. Would you vote for the taxes if they said “general fund”?  You know they will reduce the funding of the receiving department(s) next year because they get all that money from soda taxes.  Yep more $$$ to fund the homeless or any other pet project most people don’t want to fund. 

    .

    Given the funding that we dedicate to roads, is anybody happy with the road conditions?  Was it third world before and those dedicated taxes moved us up to the crap we have now?  No, the city just moved road repair money somewhere else while we happily pay for crappy pothole repairs. Dedicated parks district funds?  Yep, I never see anything wrong with the parks.  No backlog of repairs there either…. Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice…  

  • seares March 26, 2017 (11:41 pm)

    Hey! Taxes are bad for you, lets start taxing them.
    I don’t drink sodas, but I am against the tax.
    We don’t any new taxes,  we need more accountability on all the taxes we have now.
    Time to start shopping outside the city.

  • politicallyfedup March 27, 2017 (5:36 am)

    Right on Jaylaw!!

  • CJ March 27, 2017 (9:24 am)

    If you don’t like the taxes in your city….go to one where you do like the taxes. Somebody told me to do this once if I didn’t like the country I lived in, so I figured I would see how this logic worked.

  • dawsonct March 27, 2017 (9:54 am)

    As long as we listen to our oligarchic overlords and avoid instituting an income tax in our state, our elected representatives will need to nickel-and-dime us (primarily those of lower income levels) with further sales taxes.
    Washington has the least fair tax equity in our Nation. By a long shot.

    http://www.itep.org/whopays/full_report.php

    • newnative March 27, 2017 (10:10 am)

      Yes, this needs to happen.  Fair taxing made simpler, with better accounting of our $$.  This city, county stuff is not working!

  • Ron Swanson March 27, 2017 (10:45 am)

    Amen, boss.  Side note: this tax suffers from the same problem as the often-brought-up bicycle license/tax idea: the cost of administering it will be a significant fraction of the proceeds.

  • jp March 27, 2017 (11:05 am)

    Aw man, I really liked Burger Boss. They were always our go-to when we were looking for a cheap, fast burger. Guess we’ll have to find another place nearby.

  • skeeter March 27, 2017 (1:09 pm)

    Since the tax applies to regular soda but not diet soda I’m curious if restaurants will adjust their pricing model.

     Large coke:  $1.75

    Large diet coke: $1.45

     Large Sprite: $1.75

    Large Sprite Zero: $1.45

     

     

  • Jort Sandwich March 27, 2017 (3:39 pm)

    Well, you could certainly make your point opposing the soda tax without having to resort to lying about how much the tax would cost an average cup of soda from the burger stand. 

    If you’re getting charged $5 for a glass of soda, don’t blame the tax, blame the lying business proprietor who absurdly raised their prices and then looked for an easy scapegoat.

    Hopefully some of the soda tax revenue would go toward education, so that people would be able to see how obviously they’re being duped by this kind of histrionic exaggeration. 

  • Dereck March 27, 2017 (7:32 pm)

    Check out Pennsylvania they have a soda tax. Guess what happened then? People stoped drinking soda cause of tax. That lead to soda companies in the area had to start laying workers off.

  • Brandon March 27, 2017 (9:52 pm)

    Don’t leave Burger Boss. Just don’t buy a soda.  But the catch is, that’s the profit line, not that customers won’t buy burgers.  But still, these “targeted” taxes,, why not chips, cold cereal, candy, gum, lattes (yeah, why not!), and why not double down on bottled water to get rid of that environmental nightmare.  Ahh, not enough political capital in those items.

  • Canton March 28, 2017 (9:37 pm)

    It seems like a contest between municipalities on who can find a way to create more taxes. Seems the only work our elected officials do is look at other cities, states, on what they do to create more tax revenue. Oh, San Fran. Does this… NYC does this… An income tax would not negate all the other taxes currently going. Look at income tax structures in other states, the wealthy pay a small percentage more. How about a luxury tax on those with expendable incomes? Designer handbags, jewelry, $100 jeans, things that those with tight budgets don’t have the luxury of buying.

Sorry, comment time is over.