Some Maryland lawmakers want to tax sugary beverages. Businesses aren't so sweet on it
BALTIMORE — In an effort to address Maryland's growing budget deficit, two Democratic lawmakers are considering a tax on sugary beverage distributors — a proposal that has sparked controversy among Republicans and retailers.
House Bill 1469, sponsored by Montgomery County Delegate Emily Shetty and Delegate Joseline Peña-Melnyk, who represents Prince George's and Anne Arundel counties, would add a 2-cent-per-ounce excise tax on the distributors of sugary beverages, powders or syrups.
Revenue from the proposed sugary beverage distributor tax is projected to generate $500 million in fiscal 2027, nearly half of which would be distributed to funds for healthy school meals and child care scholarships. Most of the remaining portion would go to the state's general fund, though a new amendment could provide a health equity fund with about $15 million.
'This bill is a public health bill,' Shetty said at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Thursday. 'It will decrease consumption of sweetened beverages while investing in universal school meals for children, boosting our child care scholarship program and making a sizable dent in our structural budget deficit.'
Under the bill, a sugary beverage is defined as a drink that contains added sugars or artificial sweeteners. It does not include natural fruit or vegetable juices, milk, infant formula, beverages for medical use or alcoholic beverages.
At the bill's hearing, House Republicans raised numerous questions about the proposed tax. However, they have also balked at additional tax proposals as a whole.
In a statement Thursday, House Republicans called the bill a 'Slush Tax.'
'The Democratic leadership feels morally justified to move forward with sweeping tax increases, and unfortunately, Maryland's families and small businesses will not know what hit them,' said House Minority Whip Jesse Pippy, who represents Carroll and Frederick counties.
Distributors or retailers would not have to pass the entire 2-cents-per-ounce tax on to consumers, Shetty said.
'But if they do pass it on, it will give that opportunity for that point of reflection in the consumer aisle, or by the consumer, rather, that will say, is this a treat or is this something that I need for daily consumption?' she said.
Proponents pointed to the health benefits of reducing sugar consumption, which could include lower rates of childhood obesity and heart disease, among other things.
Ricarra Jones, political action chair for the Maryland State Conference of the NAACP, said the legislation also could have a positive impact on communities of color, which have long been targeted by sugary drink advertising and plagued with resulting health issues.
'I believe that this is intentional,' she said of the targeted promotions. 'There is a deliberate lack of healthy options in our corner stores and our grocery stores. Our kids and our families deserve to walk in a store just like any other family in this state and be able to choose water and other healthy drinks.'
Maryland would be the first state to levy such a tax, though some cities, including Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Seattle, already have taxes on sweetened beverages.
Marisa Waxman served as Philadelphia's first deputy revenue commissioner when the city implemented its sweetened beverage tax in 2017. From the outset, she said, concerns were raised about the tax being difficult to implement, causing job losses or failing to generate adequate revenue. Those concerns did not materialize though.
'From a fiscal standpoint, all taxes have some impact on underlying activity, and new taxes can be difficult to predict. Even with these challenges, the Philadelphia beverage tax has been a reliable source of revenue,' she said.
The city's tax generated about $78 million in its first full year and has remained 'relatively stable' since then, Waxman added, saying it's one of Philadelphia's 'most accurately predicted revenue streams.'
Opponents, however, argued that the proposed tax was anti-business and could prompt some Marylanders to drive to different jurisdictions to purchase sugary beverages instead.
Sarah Price, vice president of communications and government affairs for the Maryland Retailers Alliance, said the sugary beverage distributor tax, as well as other bills up for deliberation by the legislature, don't present Maryland as an 'economically viable option for expansion.'
'This bill would not only incentivize customers to leave the state to shop but also disincentivizes businesses from investing here when they know that they can make more and save more money by locating directly across the border in our neighboring states,' she said.
Marshall Klein, president of Klein ShopRite of Maryland, which owns and operates nine grocery stores in Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Harford County, said Shetty's legislation was not a soda bill — it's a tax on people who don't have other options.
'This is a group of progressive legislators trying to get a revenue option and tell people what they should and what they shouldn't drink and how they should and how they shouldn't live,' he said. 'And what that's going to do is take money out of the mouths of these families and impact their ability to continue to shop and provide for their families by purchasing other healthy foods.'
---------
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs
President Donald Trump and American business leaders this week celebrated a provision in his tax bill that would create and fund investment accounts for babies born in the next few years. The accounts would be allowed to compound and grow tax-deferred, similar to the way some retirement accounts work. 'In addition to the substantial financial benefits of investing early in life, extensive research shows that children with savings accounts are more likely to graduate high school and college, buy a home, start a business and are less likely to be incarcerated,' Trump said. 'Trump accounts will contribute to the lifelong success of millions of newborn babies.' Here's what you should know about these 'baby 401(k)s' and how they compare to other savings plans for children. The so-called Trump accounts are part of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that passed through the House of Representatives last month. Republicans are aiming to get the bill through the Senate and signed by Trump by July 4th. Here's how the accounts would work: The federal government would contribute $1,000 to an investment account for every American baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. An additional $5,000 in after-tax contributions could be made annually to the accounts by parents, employers or other private entities. The money would be invested in index funds that track the overall U.S. stock market. Accounts would be controlled by a child's legal guardians until age 18. Earnings would grow tax-deferred and qualified withdrawals would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. 'The compounded growth of an initial $1,000 investment at the time of birth, at an average annual return of 8 percent, would amount to nearly $4,000 by age 18, more than $10,000 by age 30, and over $148,000 by age 65,' according to Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride. 'The key to achieving this type of growth is leaving the money untouched. As Warren Buffett espouses, 'Never interrupt compounding.'' Several business leaders praised the accounts and said they'd make contributions to their employee's kids' accounts. 'We see … the establishment of these Trump Accounts as a simple yet powerful way to transform lives,' Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell said. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success.' Get started: Match with an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals Trump Accounts have some similarities with 529 savings plans, but there are some notable differences. Funding: Trump accounts would be initially funded by the federal government, while 529 plans are typically funded by parents, grandparents or other relatives. Withdrawals: Withdrawals from 529 plans are tax-free as long as they're used for qualified educational expenses. Withdrawals from Trump accounts would have fewer restrictions on their uses, but are taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Contribution limits: Annual contributions for Trump accounts would be limited to $5,000, while 529 plans allow for much higher limits, from about $235,000 to more than $600,000, depending on the state that sponsors the plan (these are lifetime limits; there's no annual limit for 529s). Many people assume that the maximum 529 plan contribution is $19,000 per child in 2025 — or $38,000 if you file jointly — but that's the maximum amount you can contribute without exceeding the annual gift tax limit. (If you give someone more than that limit in any given year, then you're required to file a gift tax return, though you likely still won't owe taxes on the gift.) Here's what else you should know about using a 529 plan to save for your kids' education. Compare advisors: Bankrate's list of the best financial advisors Custodial Roth IRAs also allow kids to set aside money and have it be invested so it grows over time. Here's how they compare to the proposed Trump accounts. Earned income requirement: Trump accounts would be funded at birth and allow for additional contributions each year, while custodial Roth IRAs require a child to have earned income during the year in order to contribute. Contribution limits: Custodial Roth IRA contributions are limited to $7,000 in 2025, or the total amount of earned income a child has during the year, whichever is less. Trump accounts would allow for annual contributions of $5,000. Taxes on withdrawals: Withdrawals from Roth IRAs during retirement are tax-free, while withdrawals from the proposed Trump accounts would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. Here's more on custodial Roth IRAs. The proposed Trump Accounts would create new investment accounts for every American baby born in the next few years, funded with $1,000 from the federal government. The accounts would be invested in index funds that track the U.S. stock market and could receive additional contributions each year of $5,000 from private entities. The plan is subject to change as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Politico
30 minutes ago
- Politico
Poll shows low-profile New York City comptroller race narrowing in the home stretch
NEW YORK — A new poll shows the race for New York City comptroller tightening, with Justin Brannan narrowing the gap in a contest still led by Mark Levine. And with less than two weeks until the Democratic primary, nearly half of New Yorkers remain undecided in the race to be the city's top fiscal watchdog, according to the poll Brannan's team commissioned and shared in full with POLITICO. It was conducted by Public Policy Polling, and queried 573 likely primary voters between June 6 and 7, with a 4.1 percent margin of error. Levine, the Manhattan borough president, led Brannan — the City Council finance committee chair — 30 percent to 19 percent among likely Democratic voters, according to the poll. That same survey showed state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani leapfrogging Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic mayoral primary. The 11-point gap was smaller than a May 27 survey from Honan Strategy Group that had Levine at 38 percent and Brannan at 13 percent, a shift that left the Brooklyn lawmaker's team feeling bullish. Both surveys found 44 percent of likely voters undecided. 'A race that was once considered locked up is now anything but,' Brannan campaign adviser Alyssa Cass wrote in a campaign memo shared with POLITICO. 'As nearly half the electorate remains undecided, Brannan is the candidate with the most room to grow and the clearest path to an upset.' Brannan's team believes the tides will continue to shift in his favor. They cited the smaller gap that came after 10 days of going on air with a television ad along with a niche stat from their poll: Of voters who had seen Brannan's ads, they preferred him 40 percent to 37 percent. Those viewers, however, made up a small slice of the electorate at 23 percent. And it was unclear how many of those people knew of Levine or his campaign. Levine's camp countered that the polls have consistently shown him ahead of Brannan by double digits. And they touted the endorsement Wednesday night of a major municipal labor group. 'Mark has all the momentum in this race. We just earned the endorsement of the United Federation of Teachers, representing hundreds of thousands of NYC public school educators — adding to the 180-plus elected officials, faith leaders, labor unions and community groups backing our campaign,' Campaign Manager Matt Rubin said in a statement. 'Right now, we're focused on connecting with New Yorkers where they are — on the streets, at subway stops and at their doors.' A person on Levine's team also took issue with the survey methodology, suggesting it over sampled Brannan's home borough of Brooklyn — especially with affluent voters — and under sampled Black voters Levine is doing better with. The Public Policy Polling showed few New Yorkers have barely tuned into the contest: More than half of those surveyed had no opinion about the favorability of the two candidates, and around half of the likely Democratic primary voters had not seen an ad for either. Brannan and Levine were the only two comptroller candidates to qualify for a pair of televised debates, which mainly showcased how little they differ on policy. During their first meeting, they engaged in several back-and-forths over President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, but had a conspicuous aversion to talking about Andrew Cuomo, who at the time had been leading the mayoral Democratic primary in every poll.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hogg forgoes reelection for DNC vice chair
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Vice Chair David Hogg announced Wednesday that he would be forgoing reelection for his spot in the committee after DNC members voted to redo the vice chair election of Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta. 'I came into this role to play a positive role in creating the change our party needs. It is clear that there is a fundamental disagreement about the role of a Vice Chair — and it's okay to have disagreements. What isn't okay is allowing this to remain our focus when there is so much more we need to be focused on,' he said in a statement shared through his Leaders We Deserve group. 'Ultimately, I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters. I need to do this work with Leaders We Deserve, and it is going to remain my number one mission to build the strongest party possible,' he added. Earlier on Wednesday, DNC members voted 294 to 99 to redo the election of both vice chairs after Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free challenged the way the election was conducted in February, alleging in a letter that it unfairly gave the male candidates an advantage over the female vice chair candidates. The challenge was issued far before Hogg announced his group would be getting involved in primarying safe Democratic incumbents. But the two began to run in tandem as Hogg's decision to wade into Democratic contests drew the ire and disapproval from members of the party, including DNC Chair Ken Martin, who believed he shouldn't be doing so as an officer of the national party. Tensions between DNC leadership and Hogg came to a head earlier this week when audio was leaked of a Zoom call with DNC officers that happened last month and was published over the weekend, indicating Martin was frustrated with Hogg. Some members indicated that they were reconsidering how they would vote over whether the DNC should redo its vice chair election in light of the leaked reporting. Martin responded to Hogg's announcement in a statement saying, 'I commend David for his years of activism, organizing, and fighting for his generation, and while I continue to believe he is a powerful voice for this party, I respect his decision to step back from his post as Vice Chair.' 'I have no doubt that he will remain an important advocate for Democrats across the map. I appreciate his service as an officer, his hard work, and his dedication to the party,' Martin added. The DNC is set to hold its vice chair elections this week and next week. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.