Thanks for mentioning what this tax funds. It funds a crucial program in the state of Washington called Medicaid Therapeutic Childcare (MTCC) - programs that deliver therapy to children who have been abused and neglected. This tax is the main funding so those programs, helping children who don't have a choice what kind of home they are brought up in (every child deserves a mother and a father - right dan?) -- so those programs don't lose funding and have to cut services to over 150 children.

It's serious business - keeping families healthy, and allowing children who need social services to continue receiving their therapy. Childhaven, right there on First Hill, is funded through this tax.

Maybe it's about more than just 'food', or 'candy and soda' but about 'at risk children'.

Cheers.

Sigh, Why do you guys even Eli around when you have Dominic hitting everything out of the park.

Love you Dom, Do porn next.

It's interesting that the candy makers don't seem to be contributing to the tax-repeal effort, though on the surface they would seem to reap substantial benefits if the repeal is accomplished.

Obviously the purveyors of taxed products object to taxes because it gives them less headroom to raise prices to that point in the curve where revenues begin to fall. It occurs to me that beverages have traditionally been sold pretty much always in the same sizes (mainly 12, 20, 32, and 64 ounces). Candy and snack makers, on the other hand, have always monkeyed around with sizes, to their benefit. A candy bar will cruise along for a year or two at some arbitrary size like 1.67 ounces, and then one day the size is suddenly 1.24 ounces for awhile--at the same price. Few if any people notice, though it represents a 35% price increase. Then, down the road, both the price and the size go up, with some starburst graphic on the wrapper that says "New! Giant Size!" or some such crap. The price increase and the snack are happily swallowed because, hey, you're getting more, right? And you were getting tired of having to buy two of the 1.24 ounce bars anyway. This has always driven me crazy. I don't object to a reasonable occasional price increase for a satisfying quantity--but don't try to sell me 1.5 ounces of potato chips as a "Big Grab!"

So it seems to me that the beverage makers know their ability to manipulate pricing is less, because sizes are more standardized, and they're okay with the candy (and all the other groceries, not incidentally) coming along for the ride.

@1 It still sucks that we have to resort to more regressive taxes to prop up vital social programs. Time to fix the damn tax structure already.

Encouraging children to switch from soda to fruit juice will likely do absolutely nothing to curb childhood obesity; in fact, it may actually have the opposite effect. Fruit juice typically contains more sugar per ounce than sodas, and more of that sugar is in the form of fructose.

Fructose was once considered the "healthier" sugar because it didn't raise blood glucose levels. It is now known, however, that fructose stimulates fat synthesis in the liver, a process that contributes to the development of obesity, hypercholesterolemia, and type II diabetes.

Granted, some (though not all) fruit juices actually contain natural vitamins. I suppose that someone eating a profoundly unhealthy diet might actually benefit nutritionally by switching from soda to fruit juice, assuming the fructose doesn't turn her liver into foie gras. But there are other foods which provide these same nutrients with far less sugar.

@6 Furcifer's point is that if SODA is NOT FOOD based solely upon its HFCS content, then JUICE COCKTAILS should also be NOT FOOD based solely on its FRUCTOSE content.

Having a tax based upon what is the "Health Demon of the NAO" is not only stupid, it also is extremely regressive. $0.02 per bottle/bar is not much to the extremely rich, but to the poor it is a lot.

Not only is this article biased against poor people because of its support of regressive tax structures, it also wants you to believe that it supports the people because the Big Evil Corporations are supporting the anti-tax bills.

But, let's not forget that poor people are poor and less capable of funding the bill themselves. I mean, if money talks in this society, who better to have on the people's side than the company's who will also benefit from the repeal.

So, YEAH. FUCK THE POOR. SUPPORT THE RICH. Let them not pay taxes and put the burden on the poor. Because, you know what would be a better article right about now? A breakdown of the Federal tax breaks that are coming up for renewal. But, that won't run...ever. Tax breaks for the rich don't put the burden on the people who need the most help by getting fucked by companies and government alike: the poor.

@7) Agreed, the regressive tax structure in Washington sucks (and we've criticized it repeatedly in these pages and lambasted the cowardice lawmakers have shown in fixing it). But political realities dictate that the legislature basically can't fix it anytime soon. Lt. Gov. Brad Owen, who presides over the state senate, insists an income tax requires a constitutional amendment and thus needs a two-thirds majority to pass. That majority isn't there.

If a progressive tax will be implemented, it will be done by initiative. The measure we have on hand now is I-1098 (which would impose an income tax on the highest wage earners). However, the state's Office of Financial Management says it is "estimated to generate a net increase in state revenue of $11.16 billion over five calendar years to be used exclusively for education and health services." But none of that money goes to the state general fund.

So yes, temporary regressive taxes suck, but they are the only thing holding key services of the state budget afloat for the next few years. If we strike the soda tax, where else do we get that money? And don't just holler "income tax," because that is impossible.

@8 Translation: the current system is set up to fuck the poor in times of need.

The system can't be changed without the consent of the people in charge, who are both not poor and supported by people who aren't poor.

The system can be changed by initiative...but, if your article is to be believed (and, this fact I agree with) whichever side spends the most money, wins...thus, empowering the people willing to spend money to keep money instead of paying taxes.

So, because the system won't be changed by anybody but the rich, the poor get fucked by their government when the money stops coming in.

And, you support fucking the poor over because it's what the system demands. The system is fucked, but it ain't broke. It won't get remedied until it breaks, or the screws start getting stick in. But, with the Tea Party being nutjobs, the Republicans liking the preservation of the rich, and the Democrats loving regressive taxation...the poor are just SOL. And, this article shows your support of that.

P.S. There have been no articles against the beer taxation...and how expensive microbrews are exempt. Which is a worse taxation because it is specifically unequal and against the poor.

@7: Let's talk about the poor! 5930 plans are living off a cobbled-together mix of funds scraped from other services, agency raises and other general fund expenditures. The reason a temporary tax like 1107 was selected was because it could be sunset out fairly easily when the economy improved or a separate funding mechanism was identified.

Currently, over 125,000 low-income citizens receive care under 5930 plans like Basic Health and Apple Health.

The benefit to a temporarily increased excise on a luxury like soda (if you've ever been poor, you know that it is unquestionably a luxury) is well worth the bit of blood extracted from wallets.

And yet, folks are fine with defunding 5930 plans so people can have pepsi on the cheap?

Fuck the poor, indeed.

(All this ignores that you're aggressively against the homeless, advocating the shutdown of shelters and for the panhandling bill; you're also for taxes if you personally and directly benefit, as with sin taxes related to liquor)

@10: AYFKM? "Set up to fuck the poor"? So they have to choose between health care and a can of pop?

Right, buddy, right.

I'm aggressively against the homeless?! I'm aggressively for the panhandling bill?! Who the hell do you think I am? Who are you confusing me with?

I'm fine with bucking the system...I'm fine with taxes that are for things that are applied to things I could not afford when poor...such as liquor. I don't even care if that money gets transferred over to social programs. Soda, bottled water, candy, cheap beer...none of these should be considered taxable. Clothing over $100 an item, gas, hard liquor (esp not bottom shelf varieties), leather goods...these are all items that could be taxed and it would not hit the pockets of the poor.

I dunno where you're getting assumptions about my motivations, Mr Cat, but you're completely wrong.

What hasn't come up in this debate is while the initiative repeals the tax on candy, it does not repeal the TAX BREAK that was provided to the candy industry to offset the impact to in-state candy manufacturers. The backers of 1107 just gall me.

@14 You raise a good issue. The tax break should be repealed with the tax. And, if we repeal the tax, the first thing a responsible legislation (HA!) should do is repeal the tax break.

Piling more regressive taxes on the poor "sucks"? It sucks?

No. Attack of the Clones sucks, Dominic. Taking money out of the pockets of people who aren't even getting by because the rich and middle class are too lazy to deal with the real problem does not suck. It's a fucking crime.

It's funny how whenever there's a crisis, an "emergency" it's the bottom of society that has to "temporarily" take one for the team. Ever notice it's not the rich who are asked to make sacrifices any more?

And The Stranger is right there on the dead wrong side, once again. I can only explain it as a nihilistic romanticization of poverty, slums, and urban decay. You think suffering is cool and that glorifying some phony TV version of NYC slums circa 1975 is the "New Urbanism". It's not.

I just have to chime in here.

First off, I have to say that I'm poor. I make $16,000 annually-- WELL below the median for the area. I question whether or not anyone in the above comments can claim the same. I have lived in my car. I have had to choose between eating and electricity. I am lucky now that I am living with 5 other adults who scrape together every month to pay for the luxuries we enjoy, internet, cable, alcohol, soda...

We don't need these things, but we like them. We need breaks on things like vegetables, meat, bread, and dairy products. We don't need processed frozen foods that are high in sodium and fat, and have very little nutritional value. We don't need tax breaks on things that will inevitably keep us unhealthy. We need access to social programs like Basic Health. We need our children to be well educated so that they will not have to experience the same hardships that we have.

Soda is not food. Candy is not food. Cheap beer? Give me a fucking break. Will it affect me if they raise the taxes on my 12pk of diet Dr. Pepper by 24 cents? It may, but it will hardly break the bank.

I think about how much different life would be if I had to pay an extra quarter for soda, but my mother would not have to pay $1200/month for her state-provided health care.

As far as additional taxes on gas? Fuck you right in your ear. You want to talk about something that poor people can't afford? Do you think we have the luxury of living within walking or bussing distance of where we work? Un-fucking-likely. I drive 18 miles one way to work. It's nearly that far to get to school. On a day that I have to do both, I'm driving 70 miles. I drive a fuel efficient car, but I still have to fill up once per week, for nearly $40, with the cheapest shit gas I can find.

Passing this initiative does not even come CLOSE to benefitting the poor. Pass it and watch with amazement as we stay sick, overweight, and desperately poor.

18 just took you all to SCHOOL.

@the misanthrope.

If the end result of this tax is in fact the continuation of funding for programs like Basic Health, then is it not the case that we are keeping a regressive tax that will affect (albeit disproportionately) both low income customers and the rest of the soda/candy buyers in exchange for being able to support a government program aimed directly at those with low incomes? Sure, regressive taxes are nobody's favorite, but this initiative is in effect advocating for cheaper soda (for all, mind you) at the cost of cheaper health insurance.

And i'm sorry but if you could explain: "I mean, if money talks in this society, who better to have on the people's side than the company's who will also benefit from the repeal."

I wouldn't want to confuse "the (poor) people" and the soda industry being aligned on an issue with the soda industry advocating for the people. That industry advocates for its own ability to sell to the people. That is why its lobby exists, that is how it profits, and it could give a flying fuck about the burden on the poor so long as they will still walk away with their 6 packs of pepsi.

@18 You can afford a car?! And, you can afford to fill up every week (in effect costing you $120/mth, or almost 10% of your pre-tax income)?

In my poor days, I didn't have a car...couldn't afford it. But, I'm not trying to get a who's poorer than who situation here. I'm saying, WTF is up with your situation?! I guess everybody has different priorities when they're poor. I know many who would rather have a cheap beer than a car. And, can afford to do it.

But, that wasn't my point either. My point was that the burden weighs more heavily on you/the people who don't make much money, without asking for help from the people who can afford to give more, but don't. Our tax system is BROKE, but not enough people in power is willing to sacrifice their own money nor their supporters' money to fix it.

Think about how different your life would be if you could pay half the sales tax you do now, AND your mother could either not pay for her medicare or at least pay a reduced amount. But, nobody's willing to invert the system.

@20 Oh, I'm not saying that the soda companies are advocating for the people. I am saying that the soda companies and the rest of society's desires are aligning.

I'm saying that we, as a state, can do better than this solution.

Misanthrope- I also think that WA should adopt an income tax and do away with its sales tax structure.

However, this would only be a good point if the tax at hand here were on something other than soda and candy, which nobody (rich or poor) should be putting into their bodies.

I think that WA should adopt a progressive income tax, drop the sales tax on things like food and clothes, and KEEP the tax on soda, candy, cigarettes, and alcohol (including cheap alcohol). Things that are unnecessary at best (and I say this as a guy who loves my whiskey).

If anything about this were different: if the tax were on actual food, or if the tax dollars went to something that didn't directly benefit the poor more than enough to make up for the disproportionate nature of the tax, or if the tax were more hefty to an individual consumer than 2 cents per 12 oz, you would have a point.

@22 Now you're taxing morality again. Sin taxes. But, if we're talking about taxing things that shouldn't be put into your body, we should tax most soy products. At least all the ones made with hexane, which is a large amount of them. You shouldn't be putting that shit into your body.

Let's tax red meat as well, because that leads to fat and heart attacks, and the vegetarians would be happy as all hell about it.

While we're at it, let's tax MSG. That's been a demonized food additive before. It should be taxed too.

Preservatives are shit to put in our body, so let's tax anything that has a preservative.

Taxing based on the health demon of the NAO is just stupid, as I said before. Its a slippery slope. And, it's wrong. You are so full of hubris that you think people need to be taxed into submission.

Show me where I advocated taxing all but the most optimal of foods like you suggest. There is a difference between this, and advocating taxing only luxury goods. A huge difference. It doesn't take some genius philosopher to see this. "Food" can be considered a luxury good or not depending on whether it has more than just theoretical nutritive value. Where the line gets drawn can be debated, but it's just plain stupid to assume that red meat and cigarettes would all get lumped into the "not nutritionally optimal" category with no distinction.

If you're argument depends on putting words in my mouth, morphing my argument to its most extreme logical conclusion, and then arguing against that extreme viewpoint, then I guess you've already lost. It's a tired argument tactic that has been dismissed so many times already.

I can be just as disingenuous and accuse you of being a teabagger or an anarchist who believes that nobody should pay any taxes whatsoever and government should cease to exist and poor or disabled people should be left to rot on the streets. After all, if we tax one thing, that means that we'll tax everything! Unless we can get some sort of system where people vote on written codes of law in place to define reasonable limits to government policies. Hmmm...

When you're ready to argue against the system that I actually proposed, then you can post. I'm not going to sit here defending straw man arguments.

@24 You wrote: However, this would only be a good point if the tax at hand here were on something other than soda and candy, which nobody (rich or poor) should be putting into their bodies.

Specifically put, what you deem worthy of being taxable for the specific reason of not being healthy is not what everybody would deem worthy of being taxable for not being healthy.

I don't think I put any words in your mouth. Nor, did I take anything to ridiculous extremes. Instead, I took things just a little bit farther than you. I said that taxing things made with poisons should be allowed because "nobody should be putting [it] into their bodies."

And, many people would agree with me on most of the objects I listed. I find it humorous that you find that your own personal limitations to what should be acceptable, while finding other's limitations to be "its most extreme logical conclusion."

Also, if you're going to disagree with me on hexane products, you should look into it first. That shit wrecks havoc on your system, is an air pollutant, and has caused workers to develop chronic diseases.

So you stopped after my first paragraph, neglecting to read my further clarification, dwelling on my chosen word choice in one sentence.

Good to know.

And the differentiation between meat and cigarettes is not just a personal quirk. There is a logic behind this differentiation that policy makers and voters can get behind. Nutritional experts can be consulted about the specifics of what is and isn't taxable. If you don't believe that I should be one of those nutritional experts, fine.

And banning meat, etc is not just taking it "a bit further." It's taking it "a LOT further." In other words, to a logical extreme.

You're not convincing anyone that there is no logical distinction between meat and cigarettes. There is a very clear one. I just happen to believe that candy and soda, on this nutritive gradient, lie way closer to cigarettes and alcohol than they do towards meat, grains, etc (even meat and grains with high fat content).

Most nutrition experts would agree with me. This isn't based on my personal distaste in these things, as you keep baselessly insisting (as I said, I love my whiskey). It would be based on objective nutritive value. If it were based on personal preference, I would ban a tax on bourbon and beer and propose a tax on flan and cauliflower.

And the standards for what is useful enough not to be taxed can be pretty low: as I said, I'm not suggesting that only top-tier foods be tax-free (as you keep insisting; this is what I mean by "putting words in my mouth"). I'm suggesting that only the very bottom-tier NONfoods- things with such little nutritive value that they are nothing more than luxury goods, and which would therefore have no serious effect if taxed- be taxed. Not because I want to "tax people into submission," but because social programs that taxes pay for are more important than maximized soda consumption. If I wanted to tax people into submission, I'd propose something other than a 2-cent-per-can soda tax (which won't even render soda unaffordable anyway; a fucking PANHANDLER can scrounge up an extra two cents with no problem).

As far as your argument that taxing one good leads down a slippery slope towards taxing all goods that can be considered slightly related, you have yet to defend this. Slippery slope doesn't apply to gay marriage, nor does it apply to taxes on selected goods. There really is room for logic on what is and isn't taxed, and whether or not something can be considered "food" on more than just theoretical basis is a pretty reasonable place to start.

And the hexane products probably are shitty. We can debate whether or not they would qualify as food after we establish whether or not non-food should be taxed in the first place.

But the summary of my point is that there's a difference between "food that can be bad for you" and "things that are not even food." This is a solid enough distinction to be perfectly defensible. I only propose taxing "things that are not even food." I draw the line before taxing "food that can be bad for you."

Candy, however, doesn't qualify as food that can be bad for you (a nutritionalist can debate what, specifically, does qualify, and maybe he'd prove me wrong about the candy. If one does, then I'll no longer support taxing it, but so far none have). This is why I have no problem with taxing it: it's something that isn't even food. This is what I mean by "shit that shouldn't go into your body." You can replace the phrases if you want

@26/27 I have not been arguing against not taxing cigarettes. In fact, I have never mentioned cigarettes at all in here, until this post. You were the first person in here to mention cigarettes. So, let's get off our high horse and think about who's putting words into who's mouths...

Cigarettes are what's known as a drug. Drugs are different than food. Cigarettes = drug. Red Meat = food. Alcohol = drug. Candy = food. The definition from the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines drug, in part, as (3) a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body.

...

I also haven't suggested you suggested that only top tier foods be taxed. That would be silly of me to suggest. Or to suggest you suggest.

What I did suggest you said was that you wanted to tax "shit that shouldn't be put into your body." And, that THAT list could be modified from person to person depending on their values. And, who's to say that YOUR placing of candy and soda at the bottom is, or should be, everybody's placement? Why are Potato Chips, tortilla chips, Cheetos and other such snack foods off the list? They provide as little nutrition per detriment as candy. Why did anything with flour get excluded?

And, why are we taxing only "things that aren't food" if they're less damaging than "food that is bad for you?" I mean, part of the stated purpose of the legislation is to pay back the damage to the system done by these products. Chronic diseases are immensely damaging, don't you think?

... and I then clarified what "shit that shouldn't be put into your body" is. Yet you continued to argue against taxing things that do not fit that criterion as I specified (they may fit the criterion as YOU specify, but that's your thing).

The fact that this varies from person to person depending on their values is something that I acknowledged already, and is why I proposed in a couple different posts that nutrition experts be consulted rather than schmos like you and me. I suggest the same thing for cheetos and the like: if experts do not qualify it as food beyond the theoretical, then it probably isn't. How can I help it if nutrition experts the world over regard candy as a non-food, even if that expertise has yet to make it through the bowels of the FDA?

It is experts, after all, in the FDA that determine whether something is a food or a drug and make this differentiation that you stand by in the first place. Why not modify the differentiation as we learn more about nutrition and drugs, as we do with every other field of science? If non-food can be taxed, why not update our laws to fit our current knowledge of what is and isn't really food? You can't cite existing policy as an argument against updating said existing policy; it's too circular.

Alcohol is a drug, but there are often sugars from grain in the alcohol as well. Caffeine is a drug, too for that matter; why do the sugars in soda qualify it as food and yet those in alcohol don't? The distinction between these two goods is more of a moral judgment than anything I've made. Why not update policy to recognize where, due to lack of anything but folk wisdom, holes have been made? Why not base it on objective nutritive value rather than the presence or absence of mood-enhancers?

Or would you like to explain to me the specific, vital nutrition that soda can provide and beer cannot?

Candy is a food? Really? I'd classify it as a drug. It has no nutritional value, it has behavior altering effects, and it is (arguably) addictive.

@29 I thought I was advocating not taxing beer as well. Liquor yes, beer no.

You keep shoving words into my mouth, and then arguing the counterpoint.

I'm also pretty poor and I don't drink soda. It's a waste of money. When you're on a strict grocery budget, you have to buy where it counts. That means the pop-and-chip aisle gets a miss.

Taxes have to come from somewhere. Better that they come from luxuries rather than necessities. Fruits and vegetables are necessities. Candy, soda and bottled water are luxuries (unless you live in a town with horrible tap water - in places like that bottled water should not be taxed, esp. if you buy it by the gallon.) I don't think such a tax hurts the poor disproportionately because 1, bottled water is also taxed and 2, you can choose to save money by cutting down on candy and soda without adversely affecting your health - whereas you couldn't say the same if fruits and veggies were taxed.

I drink diet soda all the time and do sometimes eat candy, but I'd rather pay tax on those things - things I can easily choose to cut down on if I want to - than to pay tax on fruit, veggies or toilet paper.

How about we all focus on what the real issue here is...our state's budget is 35 BILLION DOLLARS and has INCREASED 43% OVER THE PAST 5 BUDGETS (10 YEARS), OUR POPULATION GREW 11%, INFLATION 19%--why can't our state legislature control their spending? I know in tough economic times like these i have cut my own spending and been careful where i put my money, why can't our state do the same? It's funny how a lot of you say our state's programs will be cut if I 1107 does pass and the taxes are repealed. Does any one actually think the money generated from these taxes actually go to these crucial state programs? NO THEY GO TO THE STATES "GENERAL FUND" FOR MORE OUTRAGEOUS SPENDING. I say vote yes on 1107 and get these fools out of office and spending our hard earned tax money!!!!!!!

Trivial, I know, but since when did people in Seattle start calling pop "soda". We grew up always calling it pop, like in Canada and most of the northern U.S. "Soda" sounds old-fashioned and trite.

@33 "I don't think the tax hurts the poor disproportionately because bottled water is also taxed."

1. Do you realize how asinine that statement is?

2. Do you understand ANYTHING about economics and percentages?

Admittedly, Washington's sales tax system is regressive. However, I am unclear how this fact either supports or negates the taxes in question. An income tax would be great, but it would not eliminate the sales tax. The income tax might (might?) lower the overall sales tax rate, but it will not stop the state legislature from making policy decisions about what should actually be included in the sales tax base. It is also important to note Washington is somewhat influenced on the taxation of product categories by its participation in the multi-state Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.

In any event, I think one can only argue a tax hits the poor disproportionately if the taxable product represents a product that low income people must buy. That is, one must spend $x of each pay check on this item and cannot avoid the tax simply by choosing not to purchase the product or by choosing a non-taxable substitute. I find it somewhat difficult to swallow that candy, soda, or bottled water fits this bill…especially bottled water were a free and untaxed substitute is readily available. I am an unabashed liberal and I personally think a broad-based sales tax increase would have been a better long-term solution for the current budget woes, but the legislature wanted to enact targeted tax increases that would not negatively impact economic recovery and would protect all of us from having to pay more tax on real necessities.

Just gonna throw this out here:

Maybe in this MASSIVE RECESSION we should be trying to do anything to get the big corps to make money and keep hiring.
Pepsi seems to hire people on a regular basis and has some operations here.

What about the families of the people emplyed by these companies who might stand to benefit if their profits increase?

Fucking Oly is a fiscal black hole. There should be many taxes rolled back.

Just so every one knows, when this tax is paid by all of the bottlers and distributors in our state who are creating LOCAL JOBS to keep our states already sky high unemployment rate down, all of the net profits from this tax go into a GENERAL FUND. They don't go to specific projects like EricWMill quoted on his post about Medicaid Therapeutic Childcare (MTCC). If you don't believe me, email any Senator or House of Reps member. The General Fund is what our states elected officials are drawing out of and OVERSPENDING. Let's send a clear message to Olympia to stop raising taxes in the midst of an economic crisis!!!!!