While the rest of us were popping champagne to celebrate the arrival of 2018, Seattle greeted the New Year with a 1.75 cent per ounce tax on sweetened beverages. It was needed, former Mayor Ed Murray once said, for a host of noble reasons: to reduce sugar consumption; to raise revenue for important projects like a year of “free” community college for all graduating public high school students; and, to subsidize purchases of healthy foods by low-income families. 
 
 Before he resigned in disgrace over multiple allegations of personal misconduct, Murray considered the soda tax one of his greatest accomplishments, a “cutting edge piece of legislation,” with Seattle setting an example for the whole nation. 
 
 Seattle policymakers should have paid more attention to what happened in Cook County, Ill., which repealed its soda tax last year within two months after a tremendous public outcry. Let’s be clear. Soda taxes don’t make people healthier. They don’t raise revenue—they drive it outside city limits. They don’t help ease inequality—they make the poor poorer. Soda taxes don’t unite the city around some vague sense that everyone will be healthier—they unite diverse coalitions in opposition to them: Bernie Sanders and libertarians, labor unions, and businesses all come together to express strong opposition to these regressive, job-killing taxes. 
 
 Seattle’s soda tax is particularly burdensome. A case of Gatorade that cost $15.99 on December 31, 2017 now costs $26.33, an increase of more than 64 percent. 
 
 Fortunately, business managers and customers are not stupid; retailers like Costco have posted signs directing customers to locations outside city limits where shoppers can buy the product without paying the massive tax. Already, there is evidence that people are voting with their feet and buying drinks in the suburbs, depriving Seattle of the revenue it claims to need. The same thing happened to Philadelphia when it implemented a soda tax. 
 
 Seattle’s tax does not apply to sugary drinks that list milk as their primary ingredient, such as many flavored coffee beverages. To their credit, Starbucks rejected their hometown tax. 
 
 The west coast is often ground zero for politicians who pride themselves on social engineering. In fact, a study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University released on January 3, 2018 revealed that three of the top five states with the most paternalistic laws are California, Oregon, and Washington. Nanny staters have looked to Seattle to fulfill their dream of running our lives. The people of the city need to speak up and end this nightmare. ||||| LISTEN: Seattle's sugary drink tax nearly doubles prices at Costco Your browser does not support the audio element. 
 
 Customers are feeling the pinch of Seattle’s new Sweetened Beverage Tax. At Costco, a $15.99 case of Gatorade now costs an additional $10.34 due to the tax. 
 
 A sign alerts Costco customers to the price change and also lets them know that they can go to the company’s Tukwila or Shoreline stores to buy the product without the added charge. 
 
 RELATED: Does Seattle’s new beverage tax target the working class? 
 
 The new tax went into affect on January 1, 2018 and tacks on 1.75 cents per ounce. It affects soda, sports drinks, kombucha, and other sugary beverages that don’t list milk as their first ingredient. 
 
 “If you buy in bulk, you’re going to notice it. If you’re just buying an individual can, you probably won’t blink,” KIRO Radio’s Tom Tangney said on Monday’s edition of Tom and Curley. 
 
 Because so many of Costco’s products are sold in large quantities, customers are seeing more drastic price increases. 
 
 “I gotta say, I like Costco’s approach to this,” KIRO Radio’s Mike Lewis said. “People should know. And they should know and they should be able to make an educated decision.” 
 
 Many Seattle residents are upset about the tax. Some don’t want to pay more for soda and other drinks. Others think the tax is regressive, meaning it disproportionately affects low-income families. And still others question why the tax leaves out sugar-heavy beverages like many of those sold at Starbucks. 
 
 “Make it consistent. Apply it to every sugary drink. Apply it to fast food,” Lewis said. “If you want to actually start talking about health effects, let’s actually have a conversation about that. Let’s not go to what’s the most convenient thing and attack that.” ||||| Daniel Stein estimates Cook County’s sweetened beverage tax has cost his vending machine company about $75,000 so far, a figure that doesn’t even include lost sales. 
 
 The Dec. 1 repeal of the penny-per-ounce tax on sugar and artificially sweetened beverages likely will cost him more before it’s all over. He’ll again have to send technicians to his 850 or so vending machines in Cook County to adjust the price of products. But Stein feels only happiness and relief that the tax that’s consumed his life for months will soon go away. 
 
 “I don’t want to sound judgy but this whole thing has been kind of unfortunate. I’m just glad it’s almost over. … Closure is good,” said Stein, owner of Northbrook-based Mark Vend. 
 
 Wednesday’s repeal vote was a resounding victory for the beverage industry, powered by giant corporations like the Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo, that spent millions fighting the unpopular tax. But Cook County retailers and restaurants, many of whom joined forces with Big Soda in opposition, also celebrated the win after seeing sales dwindle and customers stray across county lines since the tax was implemented Aug. 2. 
 
 “Obviously, our members are very pleased,” said Rob Karr, president and CEO of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association. “Now the hard work for retailers begins — to win back shoppers who took their business elsewhere across county lines.” 
 
 The short-term impact of the tax was felt by stores both big and small. 
 
 Costco’s nine Cook County locations saw a 34 percent decline in sales of beverages affected by the tax, said John McKay, chief operating officer of Costco’s northern division. 
 
 The chain saw a corresponding increase of 38 percent in sales of sweetened beverages in its nine stores just outside Cook County, McKay said. 
 
 “You’re displacing shopping from one area, you’re creating congestion in another and it’s just counterproductive,” McKay said. 
 
 At Fairplay Foods in suburban Worth, sweetened beverage sales were down about 47 percent, said Rosie Regas, co-owner of the independent chain. Fairplay’s three Chicago stores saw a smaller but still significant drop in sweetened drink sales of around 27 percent. 
 
 Regas said she didn’t blame customers for shopping elsewhere; she did the same, driving from her home in Orland Park into Will County to avoid the tax. 
 
 “This was a nightmare. I get it — the county needs money. But find another way,” Regas said. 
 
 And the hospitality industry already has been feeling the cumulative burden of various taxes, said Sam Toia, CEO of the Illinois Restaurant Association. The sweetened beverage tax did nothing but further diminish already thin profit margins, he said. 
 
 There are similar sweetened beverage taxes in other jurisdictions in the U.S. — such as Philadelphia and Berkeley, Calif. — but Cook County’s tax was unique in how mired in controversy it was leading up to and during its implementation, said John Cawley, professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University. 
 
 At one point, the county said the the tax would apply to purchases made with federal food stamp benefits, then reversed course after receiving further guidance from the state, Cawley noted. Such administrative gaffes created genuine confusion and the well-funded opposition benefited, he said. 
 
 “There were constant challenges that may have contributed to this fatigue. It’s not just on the county government. Millions were spent by the beverage industry and the Can the Tax Coalition to engineer this result,” Cawley said. 
 
 The sweetened beverage tax also triggered numerous lawsuits, some of which are still playing out in court. The Illinois Retail Merchants Association sued the county to get the tax thrown out days before it was to take effect. The court granted a restraining order to keep the tax from being imposed. Later, however, the court allowed the tax to move forward. The merchants appealed that decision. 
 
 “The appeal of the circuit court judge’s dismissal is still pending,” said lawyer David Ruskin, who is representing the merchants. 
 
 Several retailers have been sued for allegedly misapplying the tax. A Schaumburg man is suing Walgreens for allegedly wrongly charging the tax on unsweetened sparkling water. The case, which seeks class-action status, is still pending, said Elizabeth Fegan, the lawyer for Vincent De Leon. 
 
 “Walgreens has filed a motion to dismiss, which we plan to oppose,” Fegan said. 
 
 Cawley, the Cornell professor, said there is a legitimate policy argument for taxing sugary food and beverages linked to obesity and diabetes because those conditions drive up health care costs for all. 
 
 Groups like the American Heart Association, the Illinois Public Health Institute, the World Health Organization and the Center for Science in the Public Interest have touted the public health benefit of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. 
 
 But that argument was watered down in Cook County, where the tax also included artificially sweetened beverages and also didn’t apply to food stamp purchases. 
 
 "(Taxpayers) will continue to cover the rising costs of treating the chronic diseases caused by drinking too many sugary beverages while also seeing cuts to health care services for our most vulnerable communities," Elissa Bassler, CEO of the Illinois Public Health Institute, said in a statement. 
 
 gtrotter@chicagotribune.com 
 
 byerak@chicagotribune.com 
 
 Twitter @GregTrotterTrib 
 
 Twitter @beckyyerak 
 
 ​​​​​​​ ||||| SPOKANE, Wash. - Seattle is trying to discourage people from sipping on soda through a sugary drink tax, and now a bill is being re-introduced to bring that tax statewide. 
 
 The tax adds nearly two cents to every ounce of a sugary drink sold. The bill was first read in February of last year and re-introduced Monday. 
 
 Local representative Marcus Riccelli co-sponsored the bill originally, and said he doesn't believe the bill will go anywhere this year or be brought up for a committee vote. 
 
 But after seeing the effects of the tax in Seattle, some are worried about the tax coming to Spokane. 
 
 Pictures from a Seattle-area Costco have sparked outrage and controversy online. The images show a case of Coke costing an extra nearly $8, and a case of Gatorade going from $16 to more than $26. 
 
 Some are worried that if that tax were to come to the rest of the state, it would be bad for local businesses. 
 
 "I understand the reasoning behind it. It just seems like for a business like us, it's just another cost that we're trying to overcome," said Heather Baldwin, the lead bartender at King's Bar & Grill. 
 
 Baldwin says their business relies heavily on soda. "The majority of our drinks are made with soda mix. And then we do have a lot of non-alcoholic drinking people and that's what they choose to drink." 
 
 If the tax were passed statewide, it would also include a tax on syrups and powders which restaurants use to make the soda in their machines. 
 
 "It's going to be sent downhill to us, via the retailers upping their prices and then we're going to have to up our prices," Baldwin said. 
 
 Seattle leaders say the tax is a good way to discourage people from drinking soda, which can lead to an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and hypertension. Some here in Spokane agree that's a good thing. 
 
 "It's a great idea, honestly. Sugar is actually one of the worst things that we can put in our body. And so, I think it's a great idea, incorporating the same tax as alcohol," said Spokane resident Jason Prettyman. 
 
 Seattle is expected to make $15 million this year from the tax. It will be using part of the money to help fund a program that provides healthy meals for low-income families. ||||| Men of the West! The day may come when state or municipal governments impose a tax on sweetened beverages which functions perfectly as intended. But it is not this day! 
 
 Another year, another soda tax. This one was shoved through in the city of Seattle by the municipal government. As usual, its purported intent was to improve the health and lives of residents by “modifying their behavior” and having them drink fewer sugary beverages. And it’s definitely a muscular incentive for new behavior to be sure. The price of soda has nearly doubled overnight. Seattle residents must be feeling healthier already! (CW33) 
 
 Soda lovers are crying carbonated tears! Turns out, a soda tax went into affect in Seattle and people are not drinking the Kool-Aid on this one. Mega-chain Costco isn’t feeling the surge either and put in big black numbers how much the new tax is costing their customers. Not only that, they’re putting signs next to the price display that tells shoppers where they can get their fizz fix outside the city! 
 
 As noted in the article, in one of the more creative and admirable moves by a retail chain in recent memory, Costco took to changing their price signs, showing how much the beverages should cost, and then tacking on the new tax as a separate line item. 
 
 The city government appears to have been caught totally off guard by the visceral response from consumers. The majority opinion out on the streets seems to be that shoppers will be heading outside the city to shop. And considering the fact that a case of soda has now increased in price by enough to more than pay for the gas, perhaps they’ll just do all of their shopping there. Talk about behavioral modification! 
 
 CATO highlighted a Twitter thread from Scott Drenkard of the Tax Foundation, calling on these anti-sugar warriors to at least make some effort to get their story straight. 
 
 “First they interview people at the Costco who are rightfully shocked at how high prices on soda and sports drinks are now (they are almost doubled).” 
 
 “Then they interview a public health advocate who says ‘that’s right! We want these prices to change people’s behavior and slow sales!’” 
 
 “Then they talk to the consumer, ‘think you’ll change your behavior, maybe even shop somewhere else?’ And she’s like, ‘ya the Tukwila store is close enough.’ Then they ask a city council member if this will hurt local biz, who says ‘there is no data’ suggesting that.” 
 
 “Then the SAME public health advocate says that people won’t respond to price increases, shopping elsewhere because it isn’t ‘worth their while.’” 
 
 “You can’t have it both ways people! The tax is either big enough to elicit behavior change, which would slow sales and hurt local biz and potentially reduce calories, or it isn’t. Get your stories straight!” 
 
 This is yet another example of the theory of the frog in a boiling pot of water. People are used to having their taxes increased if they live in cities run by Democrats. It’s just a fact of life. And if you increase the tax slowly over time, let’s say by twenty cents per year, many of them will adapt to it. (That’s how they did it with tobacco in most places.) But if you literally double the price overnight, that horse is going to buck. 
 
 Seattle hasn’t run into the same constitutional issues that the Chicago soda tax was brought down by, but the level of failure here is just as massive. The original, stated goal was to have people drink less soda, thereby improving their health. But your average consumer doesn’t enjoy being treated like a mouse in a laboratory experiment. Provide them with enough information to make an informed choice and you might achieve the desired result. But raising the price of something they want to the point where only the wealthy can afford it isn’t going to elicit any cooperation. 
 
 Of course, the underlying reason for the tax is to raise more money for the city’s coffers. Now, with shoppers heading out of town to buy soda (and probably a lot of other groceries as well), Seattle is seeing what Chicago experienced in the early days of their short-lived soda tax. People are still drinking soda, so there’s no health improvement. But they’re not buying it in the city so the hoped-for revenue surge doesn’t happen. Plus, grocery stores begin losing business, so their tax revenue contribution goes down and some of them may even have to begin laying off workers. 
 
 It’s a win-win for liberalism! But sadly, not so much for everyone else.
– "That new soda tax in Seattle is working out about as well as Chicago's," proclaims a headline at Hot Air. It's not a compliment. The tax, which went into effect Jan. 1, slaps an additional 1.75 cents on each fluid ounce of sugar-sweetened drinks, a group that includes soda, sports drinks, and kombucha. That's nearly double the one-cent levy the Chicago-encompassing Cook County tried, a tax it repealed after about two months. The Chicago Tribune reported at the time that Costco's nine affected locations saw their sales of beverages impacted by the tax fall 34%, while sales jumped 38% at locations just beyond the county line. And Costco is again at the fore of what's happening: Because bulk purchases contain significantly more ounces than an individual one, the impact is starker, as KIRO discovered when it spotted an updated Costco sign for Gatorade in Seattle. The sign details Costco's price for the 35-pack of 16-ounce bottles—$15.99—and separately lists the city's $10.34 tax, for a new total of $26.33. But that's not all the sign says: It also directs consumers to nearby locations that are outside city limits and exempt from the tax. The tax is meant to fight obesity and raise funds for worthy expenditures, but the blog for Citizens Against Government Waste sees the ends quite differently: "Let’s be clear. Soda taxes don’t make people healthier. They don't raise revenue—they drive it outside city limits. They don’t help ease inequality—they make the poor poorer." But some in government seemingly remain hopeful: KXLY reports a bill was reintroduced Monday that would push the tax statewide. (Speaking of Seattle and beverages, the world's largest Starbucks is no longer located there.)