Did they also study whether total sugar sales rose in the cities next to Seattle? I can imagine that some price sensitive soda drinkers just drove to the nearest store outside of Seattle to buy their sodas.
This makes zero sense. A gallon of gas is about $4.00, the idea that someone would spend all that gas money to avoid a tax of 1.75 cents/oz just doesn't pass the sniff test.
The tax is 1.75¢ per ounce? That nearly doubles the price of a 12-pack depending on whatever brand is on sale that week. When I buy soda during my shopping trips, I usually get three 12-packs for $9.99. With this tax, the total would be $17.55.
If I still drank sugary soda, I'd go out of my way to avoid this tax.
I find the idea people alter their shopping habits to avoid it totally believable. probably not enough to offset the reduced consumption (or else it'd show up in lower gross receipts at stores within city limits), but it wouldn't be surprising to see increased sales in neighboring towns.
It's far more likely that a consume who is price sensitive to this tax would perform a substitution rather than physically go seek it outside of the city. I'm not saying if they are already out of the city for some reason they wouldn't maybe pick up soda, but I highly doubt any significant number of people are actually leaving the city to go purchase soda. Not only are you not saving money unless you purchase a significant amount, you're also wasting time.
But they don't do it to avoid sales tax on $100 purchase. They go down there to make $1k+ purchases and avoid $100+ in taxes. The cost to get in and out of Seattle to purchase soda just isn't worth it unless you are purchasing a large amount of soda.
“Haha! People wouldn’t bear any meaningful cost to avoid a piddling 1.75 cents/oz tax, that can be dismissed as laughable.”
“I am uncritically accepting a study that says a 1.75 cents/oz tax was successful in changing consumer behavior because the additional burden it added to the cost of soda.”
You can’t have it both ways, claim the tax influenced behavior in terms of reducing consumption but not in terms of circumventing the tax.
? Yes you can. The argument he's making is that the cost of circumventing the tax is larger than the tax. So if the tax is working because people are sensitive to the extra cost, it would make perfect sense that they would not spend 2 cents/oz to avoid the tax and thus loose money.
Now one can certainly make a good argument that people are not fully rational and often do not consider fuel and time costs when looking for the cheapest deal, but that's not what you did.
First, the point was very vague; if you want to convert it into a specific one, that’s a different argument. I was responding to the differential standard of evidence being imposed for the different possible responses. The tax only works if it changes people’s behavior and so it’s inconsistent to claim that it’s a big enough burden for behavior responses you like but any others are ridiculous and not worth considering at all.
Second, if the point was that driving further can’t save money, it’s flat out wrong because the cost of the driving is largely independent of the tax savings. Eg a single trip to stockpile.