Table 4.
Estimated aggregate amount of tax paid by lower and higher income populations compared to amount of tax revenue targeted towards each population in each city.
| Tax Paid | Tax Revenue Allocations | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | E | G | H | |
| Average tax paid per capita | Population (N) | Estimated aggregate total paid on taxes for purchases included in panel data (A*B)1 | Proportion of estimated aggregate total paid2 (Cincomei/Ctotal) | Total revenue collected (total) and scaled-up estimated tax paid by income3 (by income: D*total revenue) | Dollars allocated to programs, total and by income (%of total revenues)4,5 | Net transfer (aggregate amount paid minus amount allocated)6 (G-E) | |
| Philadelphia | 1,532,157 | $45,351,452 | 1.00 | $75,122,000 | $72,796,314 (97%) | ||
| Lowest income | $31.0 | 700,196 | $21,726,799 | 0.48 | $35,989,158 | $52,413,346 (70%) | $16,424,188 |
| Higher income | $28.4 | 831,961 | $23,624,653 | 0.52 | $39,132,842 | $20,382,968 (27%) | |
| Seattle | 744,949 | $10,095,739 | 1.00 | $22,254,000 | $15,627,717 (70%) | ||
| Lowest income | $19.0 | 146,755 | $2,785,854 | 0.28 | $6,140,847 | $12,502,174 (56%) | $6,361,327 |
| Higher income | $12.2 | 598,194 | $7,309,885 | 0.72 | $16,113,153 | $3,125,543 (14%) | |
| San Francisco | 883,305 | $7,016,276 | 1.00 | $13,181,608 | $10,530,336 (80%) | ||
| Lowest income | $5.5 | 189,911 | $1,036,652 | 0.15 | $1,947,578 | $7,265,932 (55%) | $5,318,354 |
| Higher income | $8.5 | 702,227 | $5,979,624 | 0.85 | $11,234,030 | $3,264,404 (25%) | |
Source/Notes: Authors’ calculations from American Community Survey data, Nielsen’s Homescan, Numerator’s OmniPanel, administrative documents of revenues collected and program allocations from all three cities.
We used the weighted mean per capita spending on the tax in a dichotomous version of income groups (<200% FPL vs ≥200% FPL) and multiplied this by the number of people in each city (from the American Community Survey) in each income group to approximate total aggregate amount paid in beverage tax for each income group.
We calculated the proportion of the total taxes paid on purchases captured by the panel data according to income.
We then use this proportion to scale up to the predicted amount of tax contributed by each income group to the actual total tax revenue collected.
We did not include revenues allocated for administration, evaluation, or unspent funds in the calculation of revenues targeted towards lower income populations. The difference between the total allocated and total revenues is administrative, evaluation, or unspent: Philadelphia: $ 2,325,686; Seattle: $6,626,283; San Francisco: $3,141,608.
Philadelphia and San Francisco allocated more funds than total revenue in the first year.
To calculate the net transfer of funds between lower- and higher-income populations, we subtracted the aggregate predicted amount spent on the tax by the lower-income population from the amount of tax revenues spent on programs targeting lower-income populations. If this number is positive, it indicates an aggregate transfer from higher-income groups to lower-income groups and vice versa if it is negative.