The sugar tax: A sour idea
In his continuing quest to tax anything and everything, in his continuing quest to bail out a woefully underfunded city pension system, Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is proposing a 2-cent-per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.
Under the guise of promoting a healthier lifestyle, a 20-ounce soda would cost an additional 40 cents. A 12-pack of your favorite 12-ounce sugared drink would run you almost $3 more.
Of course, the tax, similar to one being proposed in Philadelphia and which would require state legislative approval, is thick and sticky with dichotomies and hypocrisies.
Mr. Ravenstahl says Pittsburgh "continues to seek policies that encourage our residents to maintain a healthy lifestyle." Well, Mr. Mayor, if you really were concerned about that, you'd stop trying to tax the city back to prosperity.
And how sad it is that a pol would propose a tax supposedly to help people but secretly hope they just keep ponying up the tax to bail out a pension system that, by design, is not sustainable and has been the victim of a string of mayoral administrations' gross derelictions of duty.
Another tax is just another thing to make Pittsburgh, still in state receivership, less attractive to those who do or are considering doing business in Pittsburgh.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.