But I believe users have been dissuaded. There are fewer smokers today and more fuel efficient cars on the road than ever before.

If the implication is accurate that consumers will not feel the pain, that underscores the reality that this is simply another revenue generating tax with no intended quality of life benefits.

And developed by another bunch of politicians who think voters are stupid. Off with their heads!

Sooner or later all costs get passed along to the consumer, especially due to the fact that the overwhelming majority voted for it. Why would the companies absorb the added cost of doing business in Berkeley?

The reason the beverage industry is so worried is because these initiatives have been popping up around the nation in the past few years. And the fact that this Berkeley initiative succeeded indicates there could be a domino effect.

Starting over ten years ago, I was calling for making it revenue neutral. In other words, put a tax on sugary beverages while removing the tax on some necessity like bathroom paper. (Don't tell me it's a $hitty idea.;)) If communities around the country would do that, that initiative would pass easily.

Huh?

Interesting that the proponents could have written this so that the proceeds would be directed to specific uses, such as diabetes research, health/nutrition education, or some other means to affect reduction in the consumption of sugary drinks. But that would have required the measure pass with 2/3 majority. Instead they elected to draft the measure so that the proceeds go into the general fund without targeting their use because that would only require a simple majority for passage.

The measure also requires a nine person committee to study ways to reduce consumption. And specifies the qualifications for the members. I would expect the costs for this committee would far exceed the revenue generated, thus becoming a drain on the city's resources.

And there are exemptions for distribution to smaller stores (<100K gross).

I expect we will see in a year or so that there has been negligible effect on consumption of these drinks in Berkeley. That is, if the measure withstands the almost certain court challenge.

Where and when hasn't it always been that way? And do you feel the same way about the young subsidizing social security for the old?

In my case I can assure you that my children, or any one else, are not subsidizing my social security. If I had in a 401(k) what I paid in SS I'd be very happy right now. SS is just another redistribution of wealth by the Feds.

High cigarette taxes have reduced the consumption of cigarettes. Taxes on sugary drinks may or may not reduce the consumption of sugary drinks

The trick is to figure out how high the tax needs to be. :)

If more people could demonstrate the ability to save for their old age, we wouldn't need social security. But most people can't (or won't) and whatever people can't do for themselves the government usually ends up doing it for them.