Hundreds of employees from soft drink companies showed up at the Statehouse on Wednesday morning to show their opposition to a proposed soda tax on sugar.
Topeka — A Senate committee Wednesday was holding a hearing on a proposal to impose a new tax on sugar in soft drinks.
Under Senate Bill 567, the tax would be a penny for every teaspoon of sugar, increasing the cost of a 12-ounce can of soda by 10 cents. An alternative bill would assess a quarter-cent per teaspoon tax.
Legislators are searching for ways to close a nearly $500 million budget shortfall.
Kansas Chamber of Commerce officials said 400 employees of soft drink companies showed up at the Capitol to voice their displeasure wih the tax proposals.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
"Hundreds of employees from soft drink companies showed up at the Statehouse on Wednesday morning to show their opposition to a proposed soda tax on sugar."
.....and maybe they were just a bunch who got cold waiting for the St. Pats parade to begin.
puddleglum (anonymous) says…
are there dog sleds?
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
Still not enough it is not a fair representative sample of tax payers. Tax soda!!
jadkansas (anonymous) says…
Rallying against a soda tax, huh. Some of those in the photo could do without a few sodas.
Maybe once soda reaches the banning stage everyone will realize what smokers have been complaining about since day one.
Then again...
none2 (anonymous) says…
Tax Coffee!
acg (anonymous) says…
The smokers are laughing at the soda junkies right now, thinking to themselves, how does it feel when its your vice? People who smoke and drink a lot of soda are just screwed. Ya'll will need a second job to pay for your habits. Might as well switch to cocaine or something. Street drugs will be cheaper in the long run, just watch!
jbiegs (anonymous) says…
Tax it! And quit allowing vision card ( food stamps) to purchase junk food. Nothing irritates me more than to be behind someone at the gas station who has $20 in beef jerky, candy, and soda on the counter and runs their vision card. Oh and then throws a case of beer up and pays cash!
ladyoneill (anonymous) says…
Well, this is about the stupidest thing ever. Why not just tax everything with sugar? Why single out pop?!
Guess I should be even more glad I drink diet coke.
BMI (anonymous) says…
Oh I agree, if they are going to tax soda, tax coffee and tea too. It's only fair. I say this because I think it's all ridiculous, I come from a state that didn't tax food items so when I arrived in KS, I was felt the citizens were being penalized for existing. Still do.
AlfVenison (Alf Venison) says…
I wonder if "sugar" includes high fructose corn syrup? Most sodas contain no sugar as such. And as for the Vision card whiner, that program is first and foremost an agricultural subsidy and thus its designers very much approve its use for the purchase of items containing high fructose corn syrup, which has been subsidized since the era of Earl "Loose Shoes" Butz.
jbiegs (anonymous) says…
Alf, am I to assume you are one of the people paying for this crap with your vision card and then using your own money to buy beer and cigs? Your missing the point!
AlfVenison (Alf Venison) says…
jbiegs, I wouldn't know a vision card if I saw one, and I don't smoke, You should stop blaming people for using the vision card for the purposes for which it was intended, i.e., to subsidize big agriculture. By the way, I think you meant "you're missing the point." I know you can do better.
JayhawkAlum03 (Julie Gasper) says…
I personally am against this. I believe it would begin a very slippery slope where every food that someone deems "unhealthy" becomes a target. At what point does that stop? Does this include Monster and other "energy" drinks? Orange juice has similar amounts of sugar as regular cola. Should that be taxed, too, since we are only looking at the sugar content here?
I am neither smoker nor a non-diet soft drink consumer, but believe in person choice...and personal responsibility. Just don't think this is the right way to go about solving the obesity problem. That clearly isn't the goal here...just revenue.
Phillbert (anonymous) says…
Forget taxing sodas. Just yank the federal subsidies for sugar and corn and watch what happens to the price of sugary/corn syrupy foods. The beloved free market will take care of itself.
honeychild (Mel Briscoe) says…
dr. pepper and mr. pibb led the angry mob thru the streets.
pooter (anonymous) says…
10-2-4
*
georgiahawk (anonymous) says…
I am curious because I don't believe there are any liberals in the Kansas legislature, was this a conservative initiative?
ShePrecedes (anonymous) says…
jeez, and i was so for the tax. i would never have had to pay it.
i think they should institute tax on aspartame consumption too, unless there is a medical reason for using it. there are certainly medical reasons not to use it.
jaycat (anonymous) says…
If it is 10% or less juice, then it is taxed. Yes high fructose corn crap is in the bill also. It is actually taxed at the manufacturer, which is then passed down to the consumer. Just like tobacco.
pagano (anonymous) says…
Paulette2,
You have no clue what your talking about.
was_freashpowder2 (Alexander Neighbors) says…
what about the hearing on Medical Marijuana Act in Kansas HB2610 which was also today
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
I wonder if there were any hypocrits in the crowd who were all for increasing taxes on tobacco.
tomatogrower (anonymous) says…
I drink diet soda, and would pay more for it, if it went to education. People aren't going to give up drinking pop if it costs a little more. People don't smoke less, because of the tax. If this will raise money for our kids, so be it.
chasmo (anonymous) says…
I am really sick of the social engineering by way of taxes. Why can't people be responsible for themselves? Drink too much soda get fat. drink too much soda get sick. Run up med bills pay them. It is all just a ploy to get more money for our legislators to pi$$ away.
GardenMomma (anonymous) says…
I'm with you tomatogrower.
Hop2It (anonymous) says…
400 employees? Sometimes less is more.
dudedog12 (anonymous) says…
How can they impose more tax when unemployment is at a high,. Go ahead, put more people out of work. It is a snowball effect. They need to focus on creating more value added jobs within the economy. They can only squeeze so much blood ouf of a turnip. id say they are at the edge.
dudedog12 (anonymous) says…
O.K. how about this, impose a tax on all poloticians . Tax all of their perks, extra time off, dinners, anything beyond their regular salary. ect. right up front with no exceptions. Let them try that on for size. makes about as much sense as taxing sugar in soda pop.