Mayor probably thinks that if there are too many cases of soda that Philadelphia might tip over from the weight.

(01-13-2017 02:35 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Why the hell not?

Why even have the agreement then, if they can just arbitrarily increase the cost if the wind blows that day??


I doubt highly it's so easy as you want it to be.


That's always the market lover's fantasy: make it so prices can be perfectly flexible, to entirely, perfect shield against any taxes. Doesn't work, bub.

(01-13-2017 01:45 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:38 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Who is making someone buy something they don't want?

Nowhere in that article did I see anything of the sort.

The fast food joints. If they don't want tea (or any other non-soda beverage), then you're forcing them to buy something they don't want. That is asking for people to stop buying the product they (ff joints) are selling. Which I presume is what you and other "non-partisans" want.

I hope I quoted these correctly....

That's only true if you want the 'meal'. Nobody is forcing you to do so. Often they encourage you to do so by pricing it advantageously... but it is rarely 'cheaper' to buy the meal with a drink than it is to buy the meal alone... and nobody is stopping you from throwing out or giving away the things you don't want.

If you mean by pricing soda at $2 and tea at $1, that still isn't forcing them. Encouraging maybe... but not forcing.

Exactly. Us poor folks rarely buy drinks unless we are going to dine in. Usually, we just by the food and go home and drink Kool aid.

Which is not...wait for it...tea.

(01-13-2017 01:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  increased cost of doing business because of government regulation being passed on to the consumer through a price increase

Good point, I forgot that consumers accept any price increase, for any reason, and continue right on buying the product at 100% exactly the same sales rate.


Then I woke up.

This is another point I was going to make.

Any fast food joint that thinks they are going to stay in business by doubling their cost of soda isn't going to stay in business very long.

The mayor should simply let things play out and see what happens.

And yet that was the point you were attempting to make. So which is it, your first point? Or this one?

(01-13-2017 02:35 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  They can't, though. At least not instantaneously.

These things are done via pre-agreed prices, stipulated in contracts. It's not like buying stocks.

Wrong... Sure they can.

As I said, Taxes are rarely part of any contract between a buyer and seller.

When you buy something at the store, they tell you it's 9.99. That's your contract and you agree to it. THEN they hand you a bill for $10.08, charging you the tax. Why would a wholesale contract be legally any different?

Same when you buy a car. They advertise it as $25,999 and you agree. That is your contract. THEN they charge you taxes and registration.

If you're suggesting a specific tax on syrup producers alone... That's even easier to avoid.... and would never happen anyway. Again, see gas taxes and cigarette taxes etc. I find it hard to believe that we're going to be harsher on Pepsi than we are on Phillip Morris or XOM.... and these are 'local' taxes, not Federal. They'll just move out of state.

(01-13-2017 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  When you buy something at the store, they tell you it's 9.99. That's your contract and you agree to it. THEN they hand you a bill for $10.08, charging you the tax. Why would a wholesale contract be legally any different?

... what's your point?? The money for the taxes doesn't go to PepsiCo, obviously.


All you're doing is trying to find a better sounding wrapper around "PepsiCo's wholesale contract allows us to increase your price, for any reason, at any time" which is horses___ and hopefully is a fantasy.



What I'm saying is that PepsiCo collects X dollars from its wholesale contracts, with a range of product prices in the contracts. If the federal govt comes along and takes Y Billion dollars from the top ... PepsiCo can't just increase those wholesale prices instantaneously.

(01-13-2017 02:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  When you buy something at the store, they tell you it's 9.99. That's your contract and you agree to it. THEN they hand you a bill for $10.08, charging you the tax. Why would a wholesale contract be legally any different?

... what's your point?? The money for the taxes doesn't go to PepsiCo, obviously.


All you're doing is trying to find a better sounding wrapper around "PepsiCo's wholesale contract allows us to increase your price, for any reason, at any time" which is horses___ and hopefully is a fantasy.



What I'm saying is that PepsiCo collects X dollars from its wholesale contracts, with a range of product prices in the contracts. If the federal govt comes along and takes Y Billion dollars from the top ... PepsiCo can't just increase those wholesale prices instantaneously.

While I haven't been involved in any corporate contracts I have been involved in the governmental budget process for contracting for a commodity with variable pricing, specifically fuel. The way our contract was written specified that the rate that we pay for bulk fuel delivered to our fuel points would be X above the wholesale price paid by the distributor to their supplier. It wasn't written to say that we would pay $2.89 a gallon for blended diesel fuel. I would assume that corporate contracts are written in much the same way.

(01-13-2017 02:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Sue them. The California AG, for instance, can sue PepsiCo, CocaCola, Cargill, etc. for poisoning the people of Calif.

Get a judgment of 11.7 Billion (I just made that number up).

Wow. The lengths you'll go to relieve people from personal responsibility is impressive.

Good luck with that. That's not the subject of the conversation.

Quote:They wouldn't be able to just perfectly recoup all losses the next day by increasing all prices exactly. It doesn't work like that.

Not saying they wouldn't eventually try to make the money back, but they'd feel some pain. Some is better than none.

With taxes, absolutely they do. I recall an increase in the gas tax one year and a reporter camping out at a 24 hour gas station. At 11:59:59, the price went up by the amount of the new tax. That's how it works. That's also precisely what we saw here in Philadelphia. Can there be some fluff? Of course... but it can also go against you. You were at 49 cents before... a 49 cent tax takes you to 98 cents, but you probably don't lose anyone at 99 cents.

(01-13-2017 02:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  ... what's your point?? The money for the taxes doesn't go to PepsiCo, obviously.

As a tax on the consumer, no. It goes to the retailer who then pays it to the government.

You suggested a tax on Pepsi. Pepsi would pass that tax to their wholesalers and actually WOULD then collect that money (it WOULD therefore go to Pepsi) to earn interest on at least until they paid their quarterly estimated tax bill.

For your local retailer, the tax receipts don't amount to much... but to Pepsi, they'd probably be in the millions.

Quote:All you're doing is trying to find a better sounding wrapper around "PepsiCo's wholesale contract allows us to increase your price, for any reason, at any time" which is horses___ and hopefully is a fantasy.

That IS a fantasy and i never said anything like that. We're talking about taxes. Taxes are RARELY part of contracts for the very reasons you stipulate. Usually when a company enters into a contract to sell something, they do so having engaged in similar contracts to buy things. No, it's not 100%, but taxes are something that would either be included as 'plus applicable taxes' and thus if the tax goes up, the price goes up, or they would be handled outside the contract as in most cases.

For the very reasons you mention.

Unless you're saying that PepsiCo has been in business for 120 years and never saw a tax increase?

Quote:What I'm saying is that PepsiCo collects X dollars from its wholesale contracts, with a range of product prices in the contracts. If the federal govt comes along and takes Y Billion dollars from the top ... PepsiCo can't just increase those wholesale prices instantaneously.

They can't just take money off the top. That isn't a power that the government has. The government has the power to Tax. That's not 'off the top'. The government also has the power to fine... but in order to fine, they must show a broken law... and no ex-post-facto laws.

You need to learn more about business and taxes before you engage in these flights of fancy where you just arbitrarily can take money from companies and they have no recourse.

(01-13-2017 01:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We all understand that restaurants etc often barely break even on many items and then cover all of their expenses on things like $2.00 sodas... but SOME people simply look at that and say, that's $1.50 (or whatever) in egregious profit... ignoring that they likely lose $1 on your burger.

The point is to reduce the consumption of sugar drinks, so as to massively save in health care costs associated with metabolic disease.

And that is correct.

And your war on, and naked hatred of, the less fortunate amongst us continues.

Why do you have such disdain for the poor?

Why do you want the poor to have metabolic disease??

(01-13-2017 03:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why do you want the poor to have metabolic disease??

You are saying the poor aren't smart enough to manage their diet appropriately.

Ahh, the bigotry of low expectations so common in liberals.............

(01-13-2017 01:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  increased cost of doing business because of government regulation being passed on to the consumer through a price increase

Good point, I forgot that consumers accept any price increase, for any reason, and continue right on buying the product at 100% exactly the same sales rate.


Then I woke up.

This is another point I was going to make.

Any fast food joint that thinks they are going to stay in business by doubling their cost of soda isn't going to stay in business very long.

The mayor should simply let things play out and see what happens.

The fast food joint thought nothing of the sort. This idiot Mayor and dumass city council did. You think the FF owners wanted to price their own consumers out of the market? C'mon Fit, even for you...

And yes, let's let this "play out". Maybe the idiot Mayor and his stoopit co-conspirators can put the evil FF places out of business altogether? Wouldn't that be GREAT?!?

Perhaps they can take away the few jobs that may be available to an unskilled or immobile workforce and deny the people that live there of another source of limited choices to actually get something to eat?!?

Perfect!

Idiots.

There is a problem with these stupid politicians. Doctors do advised or prescribed to drink lemon-lime sodas. If you are sick and throwing, drinking 7-Up or Sprite does help settle your stomach because of the citrus.

Republicans in Kansas and Missouri trying to pass a law that you can't buy steaks and seafood with Food Stamps, or EBT cards.

People who are poor and have diabetes should be able to buy chocolate candy bars in case of emergencies to get their blood sugar up.

(01-13-2017 02:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 02:35 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Why the hell not?

Why even have the agreement then, if they can just arbitrarily increase the cost if the wind blows that day??


I doubt highly it's so easy as you want it to be.


That's always the market lover's fantasy: make it so prices can be perfectly flexible, to entirely, perfect shield against any taxes. Doesn't work, bub.

This is incredible.

First off it isn't "arbitrary" if the government forces the price of a product to go up. In this case they effectively doubled the cost, so yup, that gets passed along. That's how these things work.

Second, you're just wrong. lol

(01-13-2017 03:52 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There is a problem with these stupid politicians. Doctors do advised or prescribed to drink lemon-lime sodas. If you are sick and throwing, drinking 7-Up or Sprite does help settle your stomach because of the citrus.

Republicans in Kansas and Missouri trying to pass a law that you can't buy steaks and seafood with Food Stamps, or EBT cards.

People who are poor and have diabetes should be able to buy chocolate candy bars in case of emergencies to get their blood sugar up.

Some years ago, I was actually 'prescribed' cola syrup to manage altitude sickness. I'm sure someone has since repackaged those ingredients into something called Colarexperchepodrone and is charging $50/oz for it under the patented brand name ColaRex.

http://www.philly.com/philly/infographic...?mobi=true

Check out this comparison before and after tax for popular items

In some cases the tax is causing a 50% markup

(01-13-2017 05:01 PM)solohawks Wrote:  http://www.philly.com/philly/infographic...?mobi=true

Check out this comparison before and after tax for popular items

In some cases the tax is causing a 50% markup

Holy Hell, what a bunch of maroons.

So they are taxing their tax?!? hahahahaha.

The Regressives war on the poor not only continues, but is ramping up to warp speed with ever more regressive taxes.

Good work peoples.

Big time regressive tax

I thought that's why we had high income taxes because high sales taxes were regressive

(01-13-2017 02:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 02:35 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Why the hell not?

Why even have the agreement then, if they can just arbitrarily increase the cost if the wind blows that day??

because, as I said, often distributorship agreements break out different expenses. They are many pages long and meant to protect *both* parties.

Quote:I doubt highly it's so easy as you want it to be.

Did I say it was easy? I said that each side hires a lot of lawyers to work hard for their interest.

Quote:That's always the market lover's fantasy: make it so prices can be perfectly flexible, to entirely, perfect shield against any taxes. Doesn't work, bub.

Strawman, I'm not engaging this..

(01-13-2017 05:30 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 05:01 PM)solohawks Wrote:  http://www.philly.com/philly/infographic...?mobi=true

Check out this comparison before and after tax for popular items

In some cases the tax is causing a 50% markup

Holy Hell, what a bunch of maroons.

So they are taxing their tax?!? hahahahaha.

The Regressives war on the poor not only continues, but is ramping up to warp speed with ever more regressive taxes.

Good work peoples.

Bottom line for liberals/progressives - they will cry for higher tax rates on income at the higher incomes, but yet also champion higher sin taxes which are regressive - guess they are always all in for all tax increases.....but we already knew that - the lefties really haven't met a tax they don't like.

It always floors me that they throw a fit because businesses don't just "eat the tax increase". They never figure out that both people and businesses do what's best for them.........