REVISED BEVERAGE-TAX PROPOSAL: Here’s what’s in the mayor’s plan now

Two months after the mayor first proposed a beverage tax, the plan has been revised – in terms of cost and scope – as announced today:

*1.75 cents per ounce (down from the originally proposed two cents)

*Proposal now would include “naturally and artificially sweetened drinks including soda, energy drinks, juice, and sweetened teas” (more details on this “fact sheet”)

As for what the tax will pay for, Mayor Murray’s announcement today specifies that an expected $18 million to be raised by the tax each year (after $23 million the first year) would go toward:

… education and healthy food programs, including nearly $10 million for the Education Action Plan, a series of programs aimed at eliminating the opportunity gap between white students and African American/Black and other students of color. An additional $5.7 million will fund increased support for children from birth-to-five years old and their caregivers, such as prenatal care. And $3.2 million will fund expanded food access including the Fresh Bucks program, which provides low-income households vouchers for fresh fruits and vegetables at local farmers markets.

.
That’s from today’s news release, which you can read in full here. The ordinance that would enact the tax has been sent to the City Council; see it here.

AmandaK(H) April 27, 2017 (12:18 pm)

Absolutely ridiculous. If they don’t include Starbucks and other companies drinks in this, it’s ANOTHER tax on poor people. And then proposing the tax pay for programs for poor people?! Only rich people think up scams like this.

Swede. April 27, 2017 (12:37 pm)

Good point. Some of those have the syrups in them and should definitely be taxed it it goes thru.
newnative April 27, 2017 (1:25 pm)

Where does it say that these aren’t included?
- WSB April 27, 2017 (1:35 pm)
  
  By “ready to drink” coffee beverages – which were in the previous version – they mean for example the bottled stuff you can buy at a store. Not the “walk in and order a double tall whatever” at coffee shops.
  - Mike April 27, 2017 (9:54 pm)
    
    there’s more sugary drinks served made to order by Starbucks’ in Seattle, not to mention every other coffee shop, than soda and bottled tea. Could you imagine the backlash the mayor would get trying to add a tax onto Starbucks drinks…bwahahahaha.
AMD April 27, 2017 (6:40 pm)

Isn’t coffee at Starbucks already taxed at a higher rate than beverages you buy in a store? They have the food and beverage tax applied on top of retail sales tax where coffee in the store is just retail sales tax.
TheKing April 28, 2017 (4:54 am)

I won’t be able to go fishing and kick back in my boat with a Pepsi because my vehicle tabs, drivers license, fishing license, soda tax, gas tax and my any other kind of license I might not know about are too expensive .

123456 April 27, 2017 (12:33 pm)

Is the tax $1.75 or $.0175 per ounce?

WSB April 27, 2017 (12:36 pm)

What I wrote above – 1.75 cents per ounce. As in one and three-quarters cents per ounce.
- Matt April 27, 2017 (1:06 pm)
  
  You are writing one dollar seventy-five cents $1.75. 123456 has it right. This is one cent: $0.01, this would be one and three-quarters cents: $0.0175
  - WSB April 27, 2017 (1:36 pm)
    
    Hi, no, trust me, as an editor of 40 years’ standing. Without a dollar sign, and with the word “cents” immediately following, it’s accurate. If I had put a dollar sign before it, it would have needed the point zero. Thank you – TR
    - Matt May 8, 2017 (10:12 am)
      
      No need to be snarky. When I saw it you had a dollar sign in there that has been since removed. You more than likely don’t know how to create a cents sign, and that’s okay, its not obvious. Here is how: open the source code editor ‘<>’ and type ‘¢’ as shown here: https://jsfiddle.net/4Lf0vcgm/ Using cents sign will be way less confusing than this syntax: $0.0175
    - WSB May 8, 2017 (10:30 am)
      
      Thank you, but for the record, NO, nothing has been removed or even edited in this story, not a dollar sign nor anything else. What you see above is what I originally published at 12:03 pm April 27th (WordPress shows revisions and if you could look over my shoulder at the back-end page, this story has none).

Mark32 April 27, 2017 (12:43 pm)

Is it just me or is there another tax proposal every week?

WSB April 27, 2017 (12:47 pm)

As noted above, this one was originally mentioned in the mayor’s State of the City address two months ago. (See link) So this isn’t new – it’s the official announcement. And it’s changed, a bit less per ounce, but more beverages affected.
Mike April 27, 2017 (9:56 pm)

Somebody has to pay for Pronto… I’m so glad we bailed out the head of SDOT’s old company so we could just can it all afterwards.

Canton April 27, 2017 (12:56 pm)

That”s odd. A tax on low income folks on their beverage of choice, so they can apply for vouchers to get fruit and veggies. Places like saars already have inexpensive fruit. Sounds like social engineering.

WSB April 27, 2017 (1:01 pm)

That’s a small part of it. The education programs are most of it.
Ric April 27, 2017 (2:36 pm)

“There is nothing worse than social engineering to create a culture of dependency,an attitude of self righteousness,an expectation of privilege and the dumbing down of society”.
- West Seattle since 1979 April 27, 2017 (3:23 pm)
  
  Who are you quoting?

Tong April 27, 2017 (12:57 pm)

Yes soda is bad for you and that is why soda sales are waning…

Yes it is also bad when some local government worker tries to dictate we rink it or not…

Yet again another Boooooo for Ed…

Just Retire already…Between the homeless camp out debacle, declaring emergency then going out of state right after for his own personal business, massive increase in drug usage in the streets, accusations of pedophilia…come on man…just go away…

Seattlite April 27, 2017 (1:27 pm)

Does anyone in Seattle/KingCounty trust the mayor or city council with their hard earned taxed dollars? I have no faith in Seattle’s/KC’s leadership. Their solution to all of Seattle’s dysfunctionalities and unresolved problems is to ask for more of our dollars. What gives?

TheKing April 27, 2017 (7:42 pm)

This is why everyone wants Seattle to be kicked out of King County.

Justducky April 27, 2017 (1:44 pm)

So are diet sodas included? I typically order unsweetened iced tea [I quit drinking soda] but some places have the dispenser that gives you a choice of unsweetened or sweetened. How is that going to work?

West Seattle since 1979 April 27, 2017 (2:06 pm)

It says “naturally and artificially sweetened drinks”. Diet sodas are artificially sweetened, so I’m assuming they’re included.
WSB April 27, 2017 (2:09 pm)

The ordinance (linked above) talks about syrup starting around page 6 – it’ll be charged to the distributor – so depending on what happens between the distributor and the place where you buy your beverage, the price could be different for sweetened or unsweetened, or they could charge the same thing for a soda regardless of what you order. Anyway, on page 7:

“Syrup” means any liquid or frozen mixture of ingredients that contains a caloric or non-caloric sweetener and is intended to be used in the making, mixing, or compounding of a beverage for human consumption by combining the syrup with water or other liquid.

5.53.030 Tax imposed; rates
A. There is imposed a privilege tax on every person engaging within the City in business as a distributor of sweetened beverages.

1. The amount of tax due shall be equal to the volume of sweetened beverages the distributor distributes in the City, multiplied by the applicable tax rate prescribed in subsection 5.53.030.B.

2. For sweetened beverages that are syrups or powders, the tax shall be calculated using the largest volume of beverage that would typically be produced by the amount of syrup or powder distributed based on the manufacturer’s instructions or industry practice.
- newnative April 27, 2017 (4:08 pm)
  
  Which goes back to the inference that made to order drinks in cafes, restaurants, et al are indeed included in this tax.
  - WSB April 27, 2017 (4:35 pm)
    
    Ordinance page 5:
    
    “Sweetened beverage” means:
    15 A. Any nonalcoholic beverage intended for human consumption that:
    16 1. Contains an added caloric or non-caloric sweetener; and
    17 2. Comes ready-to-consume in any closed or sealed glass, metal, paper, or
    18 plastic container or any other type of closed or sealed container, regardless of the container’s
    19 composition or size or the material or combination of materials used to make the container.
    20 Sweetened beverages include, but are not limited to, soda, pop, cola, soft drinks, juice
    21 with added caloric and non-caloric sweeteners, sports drinks, flavored water, energy drinks, pre-
    22 sweetened coffee or tea, and nonalcoholic mix beverages that may or may not be mixed with
    23 alcohol.
    
    Sorry for the numbered lines – don’t have time to fix the cut and paste this time, another big transportation story to write and a community meeting in less than 2 hours. But again, here’s the full ordinance:
    http://murray.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/mo_sweetened_beverage_tax_ord.pdf
    - sam-c April 27, 2017 (4:43 pm)
      
      Really? flavored water too? Like Talking Rain, Aquafina, etc, which basically is just carbonated water with ‘flavor’ and no calories, sweeteners (fake or real), or anything? what a crock.
    - WSB April 27, 2017 (4:48 pm)
      
      If there’s no sweetener, natural or artificial, there’s no tax, it would seem. I have not yet found a doc that explicitly spells out “what ISN’T involved” but the ordinance does spell out how it defines artificial and natural sweeteners.

Chris Cowman April 27, 2017 (2:27 pm)

Not a new week goes by without another tax being offered up. The low to middle class are being told thru taxes to leave Seattle.

West Seattle since 1979 April 27, 2017 (3:25 pm)

But whenever we complain about rents being too high, someone on here always tells us that we can’t expect to live in an upscale neighborhood if we don’t make upscale wages, and some places are always going to be unaffordable to some people. I didn’t think that was a good thing to apply to an entire city (neighborhoods, sure, but not all of Seattle) , but people keep telling me how wrong and naive I am when I say this. And rents are a more important part of our lives than sodas.

Otherwise i agree with you, and I trust you aren’t one of the ones who say we should just suck it up and move out of Seattle if we can’t afford it.

kg April 27, 2017 (2:34 pm)

Office setting

Phone rings

“This is Mr Ed”

Sicilian accented voice “Starbux won’t be paying the tax, you get me?”

Dial tone.

Stuttering voice “uh, ok boss, whatever you say”

Swede. April 27, 2017 (2:34 pm)

So this whole thing is leaning on a false claim of trying to help people being healthy. Why else would they include ‘diet’ drinks and others with artificial sweetners (yes, they are worse for you in many other ways, but that’s beside the point here.) ..?

And i have to agree with previous points of distrust in KC management. That was pretty clear to me after there ‘rainy day fund’ account was found with money they channeled out of Metro (several hundred millions…) and then said there was no money for pay increse or not even COLA with a straight face!

Heartless? April 27, 2017 (2:34 pm)

Yeah they obviously want to tax the diet drinks also. Shuts the people up claiming unfairness.

Community Member April 27, 2017 (2:40 pm)

So Lou Mager’s famous $1 root beer floats at Kenyon Hall will now have an added 21cent tax and would cost $1.21?

Frank Booth April 27, 2017 (3:20 pm)

Looks like I’ll be shopping for Soda in White Center!

Jon April 27, 2017 (8:51 pm)

Which is exactly what happened with the idiotic bullet tax found in I-594. It drove business to surrounding cities (which was likely the plan, honestly) and has yet to make the city any substantial amount of money.

If you make something expensive within the city limits, people will simply buy it elsewhere to save themselves a considerable amount of money.

Ridiculous government overreach. Seems to be time that we all for a clean slate this election.

Steve April 27, 2017 (3:31 pm)

Can’t wait for Eddie to appoint a tax czar to stay on top of all these taxes! Apparently Eddie hasn’t met a tax he doesn’t like!

T Rex April 27, 2017 (3:35 pm)

“There is nothing worse than social engineering to create a culture of dependency, an attitude of self righteousness, an expectation of privilege and the dumbing down of society”.

AKA as socialism.

Our city government is beyond a joke, we have a mayor who keeps stepping all over himself with his current scandal, he says he has no assets or money, yet he makes pretty darn good money with the salary WE are paying him and the title to his house has him and his husbands name on it yet he claims it does not. He has made himself to be the victim in all of this and his obvious desire to take the attention away from the scandal is so obvious I feel like I am watching a 10 year old claim to not know how the house caught on fire while he has matches in his pocket.

Please resign and take that crazy woman Sawant with you!

Brenda April 27, 2017 (4:19 pm)

Ha! Awesome 👏 I
Double Dub Resident April 28, 2017 (4:52 am)

That’s why this mayor is an absolute hypocritical moron.

A couple of months ago he was on the news making statements that it is ridiculous that people think that taxes in Seattle are what is making it more and more unaffordable, then he turns around crying victim of this sexual scandal claiming he has no assets!

Really Mr. Mayor?!! You make well over $100,000 a year and you have nothing to show for it?! We’ll if that’s true then how do you expect households making far less than that a year to get by, especially with all the taxes being proposed over and over and over again?!

And yes take that over paid cop hating wannabe activist Sawant with you in your way out. Our over paid (2nd or 3rd highest paid city council members in the entire nation) city council needs to go also.

Mike April 27, 2017 (4:02 pm)

I don’t understand the argument that this is a discriminatory tax aimed at lower classes, poor people, and minorities. That is a ridiculous argument to make against the tax, and a ridiculous reason not to institute the tax. There is nothing forcing anyone to drink soda. Poor people will not be missing out on needed calories or other necessities if they have to go without soda. Maybe this tax will help them realize that this is not a drink they should be consuming in the first place. And if it does not, then that is on them. Are people really going to argue that if you are not poor you do not drink soda? And if people are going to continue to go with the poor person argument, then maybe this tax will actually be a way that poor people can contribute to the services that the tax is supposed to be funding in the first place.

M April 27, 2017 (4:38 pm)

I’m totally in favor of this tax. However if anything should be taxed it should be spray paint. I’m so sick off all the graffiti around town. Tax the spray can to fund a clean city.

HelperMonkey April 27, 2017 (4:42 pm)

tax the soda. un-tax the tampons and diapers!

ImmaMom April 27, 2017 (4:49 pm)

Yes!
Maggie April 27, 2017 (5:37 pm)

Another vote for yes!
Jon April 27, 2017 (8:48 pm)

Then don’t tax bullets, condoms, or razors.

Equality, after all! <3
- HelperMonkey April 28, 2017 (9:01 am)
  
  That’s not exactly apples to apples, Jon. I’ll say no tax on the condoms, yes – but men don’t NEED bullets or razors. Women NEED tampons and babies NEED diapers. Your examples are negotiable. These are needs.
  - Double Dub Resident April 28, 2017 (12:35 pm)
    
    Why are you saying men? Women don’t don’t use razors?
    - HelperMonkey April 28, 2017 (1:42 pm)
      
      Are razors a necessity? No. Tampons/pads are. Diapers are. That’s the crux of this argument. These things are non-negotiable necessities and should not be subject to tax. Women and men CHOOSE to use razors. Babies NEED to go somewhere. Women NEED sanitary supplies. I was responding to Jon who said “bullets and razors, it’s all about equality!” like this is about gender. it’s not.

WSeattleite April 27, 2017 (4:46 pm)

Is the $$/oz based on the amount of sweetener or the total volume of the drink it comes in? Some drinks are very lightly sweetened while some others are heavily sweetened. Is the Hershey syrup to make chocolate milk taxed the same as lightly sweetened ice tea based on the size of the container they come in even though one represents many many drinks and the other represents one?

WSB April 27, 2017 (4:53 pm)

From page 7:

5.53.030 Tax imposed; rates
5 A. There is imposed a privilege tax on every person engaging within the City in
6 business as a distributor of sweetened beverages.
7 1. The amount of tax due shall be equal to the volume of sweetened
8 beverages the distributor distributes in the City, multiplied by the applicable tax rate prescribed
9 in subsection 5.53.030.B.
10 2. For sweetened beverages that are syrups or powders, the tax shall be
11 calculated using the largest volume of beverage that would typically be produced by the amount
12 of syrup or powder distributed based on the manufacturer’s instructions or industry practice.
chemist April 28, 2017 (9:58 am)

Curiously, I think chocolate milk, which usually has enough sugar added that it’s got as much carbs as a Coke, qualifies as untaxed because it’s a “milk product” but the Hershey’s syrup would be taxed because there’s no milk in it and it’s a sugar-sweetened syrup used to make a beverage.

ImmaMom April 27, 2017 (4:49 pm)

Great! We already pay sin taxes on beer and wine, why not pop? In many ways its equally bad for you- or worse.

WSNeighbor April 27, 2017 (4:50 pm)

If this passes I propose an initiative to tax wine too, let the elites know how the less advantaged feel about having their luxury beverages taxed.

ImmaMom April 27, 2017 (7:35 pm)

Wine (as well as beer, and all types of alcohol) ARE taxed- heavily:

$9.24/gal. on-premise; 20.5% retail sales tax, 13.7% sales tax to on-premise

Throughout our state and cities soda is considered a grocery and therefore not taxed at all. You pay tax on the pre-prepared groceries however- like cut fruit and deli salads from Safeway, BUT NOT soda! And for that matter, not candy either- is considered a grocery. So let’s keep our prespective here. It’s soda, not a life-sustaining beverage!
- WSNeighbor April 28, 2017 (8:54 am)
  
  ImmaMom, wine is not taxed by the City yet! Let the council pass taxes on products they consume instead of sticking it to products used by lower income.

gina April 27, 2017 (5:42 pm)

Safeway on Roxbury will need to double the size of their beverage aisle.

gh April 27, 2017 (6:11 pm)

Just another one of his stupid, money grubbing ideas. It’s not the government’s business what I drink… or smoke….or wear.

anonyme April 27, 2017 (6:12 pm)

The tax is fine with me, if not for health reasons, environmental ones. Millions and millions of plastic bottles, very few actually recyclable.

Raye April 27, 2017 (6:12 pm)

Why is there an assumption that poor people are more likely than middle- and upper-income people to consume this crap? Both sugar-sweetened sodas and diet sodas are unhealthy. I’ll buy a quality ginger ale once every month or two, but that’s about it.
FINALLY, Mayor Murray has a good idea.

Mark April 27, 2017 (6:43 pm)

Sin taxes are choices, this is way better than property tax. The City should use the receipt of the proposed sin tax to lower property taxes.

Ps soda pop is being linked to many health issues, Alzheimer disease is one, diabetes is another. Thus taxing this product is appropriate.

D Del Rio April 27, 2017 (6:57 pm)

Thankfully I live near the city limit boundary. I can go to Safeway on Roxbury to buy my pop. I only drink it once a week, but Seattle will not get a penny from me. If this part of unincorporated King County becomes part of Seattle, I will shop in Burien.

PW April 27, 2017 (7:04 pm)

Mayor Ed needs to spend what he already has received from us, the tax payers and appears he should go on a money diet. He is trying every avenue to find a tax on anything. Regardless of all the opinions he has enough of our taxes to address whatever he needs. Quit hiring consultants that do nothing.

Please someone replace this Mayor in the upcoming election.

Seattlite April 27, 2017 (9:02 pm)

That is what the hard left does best…collect taxes and have nothing to show for the collected tax dollars. And, then ask for more tax dollars…It’s a toxic, vicious cycle that needs stop. Remember this when you next vote. I would like to see all of the city council members replaced along with the mayor with people who actually want to lead by using common sense and doing the right thing for Seattle, its voters.

rob April 27, 2017 (7:51 pm)

MARK it sounds like your new to this city. We are so far off to the left here we are off the cliff. We have a city conciel member in sighting a closer of the freeway and a riot in our streets and she is not under arest for civil disobedenits and in sighting a riot and all is well

MrsT April 27, 2017 (8:47 pm)

I am still all for it. Tax luxury items (soda is a luxury item). Tax churches. Taxes pay for our roads and bus lines and schools and cops and firefighters. Taxes pay for metal health services. These things aren’t free.

2 Much Whine April 27, 2017 (9:09 pm)

Somehow I get the feeling that all the folks that say they are going to be shopping in White Center are the same ones that said that the bag tax of five cents would cause everyone to use filthy bags brought from home and we’d all die of e coli and they’d never shop in the city again. Same folks so probably no real impact. I’m not crazy about this tax but at least it gives me a choice. INCOME TAX does NOT give anyone a choice AND visitors and guests DON’t have to pay it – only residents. Sates income tax sucks! I’d rather have a soda tax than an income tax. . . . .

Canton April 27, 2017 (9:14 pm)

In this country, it is “supposed” to be the land of the free. You should be able to make any life decision you want, as long as it abides to the laws of the land. If you want to drink soda, so what? We make everyday decisions that affect our life. Every persons body is different on how it absorbs what is injested. Some folks have diabetes, some don’t. Some have food intolerances, some don’t. You can’t paint the whole city with one brush. The city is not our collective “parents”, nor are folks with opinions that want to run other people’s lives. Live, and let live. You do what you do, I consume what I do.

Smitty April 28, 2017 (7:23 am)

Sin taxes are great until they come for yours. ‘First they came for………….”

Cb April 28, 2017 (8:07 am)

Bring on the tax! All of these drinks are definitely luxuries and most are so unhealthy. Can’t afford the tax? Drink water! Your body, mind and wallet will thank you! I mean, look at what the tax is to be used for. So much good has potential to come out of this for the community.

firstworldproblems April 28, 2017 (8:28 am)

Not my La Croix!

Kimberley April 28, 2017 (8:48 am)

It boggles the mind that the state doesn’t simply adopt a bottle deposit like Michigan and much of New England. Surely they’d make a killing off of those 5 cent deposits, especially when many cans/bottles aren’t returned.

blbl April 28, 2017 (9:52 am)

Mayor Murray, you lose all credibility when you propose to tax zero calorie sparkling water but not the Unicorn Frappuccino.

JanS April 28, 2017 (10:22 am)

let me simplify this for all you naysayers. If you don’t want to pay the tax, don’t buy the product (need sugar? buy a donut). Simple. Learn the difference between want and need.Your health will be better, as well as your wallet. Drink water. Drink beer. Don’t drink coke. Simple.

Heartless? April 28, 2017 (12:00 pm)

Enough already with this “we know whats best for you” attitude. its not the mayor I’m angry with, it’s all you busybodies who can’t live and let live.