Quantcast
Illinois sweetened beverage tax goes into effect July 1st 2017-moved to the 12th now

Forums - Politics Discussion - Illinois sweetened beverage tax goes into effect July 1st 2017-moved to the 12th now

Wouldn't it not be better to just force the companies to lower the amount of sugar in the drinks in the first place. I suppose the tax is to encourage that and discourage people from buying them, but there are other methods more effective.



Around the Network
pokoko said:
Teeqoz said:

You didn't say that, I just think it's silly to point out that local taxes are about money. Or any taxes for that matter. Of course they are.

It's not because there are people who believe that a sugar tax, for instance, is to combat obesity.  That's an excuse to tax.  The problem with local taxes in particular, is that they do a poor job of stopping something because it's relatively easy for many people to go outside the district.  Therefore the only major benefit is tax revenue.  That's why I said it and it's certainly isn't a silly point. 

Do you seriously think it has nothing to do with being an attempt to combat obesity? Why would they choose to tax this then, instead of some other random shit? Or just a general sales tax? Of course you adjust the general tax level to meet your expenses, but that doesn't mean the specific taxes that are imposed can't have other goals than just getting the extra money.

Furthermore, if you think it will have no effect, because people will just tax dodge instead of buying less soda, how does the distric get more tax revenue? I mean, no one will pay the tax because they will just go somewhere else to buy soda. So no extra tax revenue.



shikamaru317 said:
palou said:

These ARE habits that you take as a child, though, wouldn't it be fair to deincentivise families from preparing their children to an unhealthy life?

Responsible parents already limit their children's sugar and fat intake. Sure there are plenty of irresponsible parents out there, but it's not really the government's job to try to force them to be responsible, at least in this regard. It's one thing for the government to intervene in the case of abuse or neglect, but I'd hardly call letting your kids have large sugared drinks either abuse or neglect. Irresponsible? Yes? Neglectful? No. 

My opinion differs there quite a bit, I guess...

 

I believe that children are, and should be considered as people (and citizens) with their own full rights; simply with the inability to act independantly. I consequently don't believe that parents can have ownership of any sort over their children, as a person cannot be owned. Their rights on the life of the child, to me, thus only extend as far as they act in the interest of the child. As citizens, in spite of the lack of representation, I believe that the government has the repsonsibility of acting in the best interest of children - more directly so than adults, as they do not act independantly, and there is thus no liberty to impede. 



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

pokoko said:
Teeqoz said:

You didn't say that, I just think it's silly to point out that local taxes are about money. Or any taxes for that matter. Of course they are.

It's not because there are people who believe that a sugar tax, for instance, is to combat obesity.  

What they beilieve is inconsequential - only the result. It is a fact that targeted taxes do reduce consumption of specific products - in the case of sugar, that's a good thing.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Teeqoz said:
pokoko said:

It's not because there are people who believe that a sugar tax, for instance, is to combat obesity.  That's an excuse to tax.  The problem with local taxes in particular, is that they do a poor job of stopping something because it's relatively easy for many people to go outside the district.  Therefore the only major benefit is tax revenue.  That's why I said it and it's certainly isn't a silly point. 

Do you seriously think it has nothing to do with being an attempt to combat obesity? Why would they choose to tax this then, instead of some other random shit? Or just a general sales tax? Of course you adjust the general tax level to meet your expenses, but that doesn't mean the specific taxes that are imposed can't have other goals than just getting the extra money.

Furthermore, if you think it will have no effect, because people will just tax dodge instead of buying less soda, how does the distric get more tax revenue? I mean, no one will pay the tax because they will just go somewhere else to buy soda. So no extra tax revenue.

Stop making things up.  I said "poor job", not "no effect".  Surrounding areas are likely to see around a 20% increase in soda sales with an unknown spike in general sales.  And, yes, I think the politicians behind this are doing it for the tax revenue.  Otherwise, why not make the tax so high that no one would buy it at all?



Around the Network
pokoko said:
Teeqoz said:

Do you seriously think it has nothing to do with being an attempt to combat obesity? Why would they choose to tax this then, instead of some other random shit? Or just a general sales tax? Of course you adjust the general tax level to meet your expenses, but that doesn't mean the specific taxes that are imposed can't have other goals than just getting the extra money.

Furthermore, if you think it will have no effect, because people will just tax dodge instead of buying less soda, how does the distric get more tax revenue? I mean, no one will pay the tax because they will just go somewhere else to buy soda. So no extra tax revenue.

Stop making things up.  I said "poor job", not "no effect".  Surrounding areas are likely to see around a 20% increase in soda sales with an unknown spike in general sales.  And, yes, I think the politicians behind this are doing it for the tax revenue.  Otherwise, why not make the tax so high that no one would buy it at all?

Ouch, you got me there,  that completely changes my argument. I mean, if a few people pay the tax, instead of no one,  then that really does lead to a substantial difference in tax revenue, which much overcomes the economic disadvantage of retail sale leakage to other counties, so it will definitely lead to an increase in tax revenue for the district, but will still do a poor job at reducing soda sales. (for the record, this is sarcasm, I'm not "making things up" in this paragraph.)

No seriously, I didn't intentionally misquote you. In fact I didn't quote you at all. I didn't claim you said precisely that, it's just that it didn't matter for the sake of my argument. Didn't realise it would matter to you. Either the district really won't get any money out of it, or it will have a substantial effect. You can't have it both ways. That was my point.

And as for your last question, I believe it is because the politicians don't want to completely ban soda for people, just reduce consumption somewhat? But that's just what I think, I may be wrong.



Teeqoz said:
pokoko said:

Stop making things up.  I said "poor job", not "no effect".  Surrounding areas are likely to see around a 20% increase in soda sales with an unknown spike in general sales.  And, yes, I think the politicians behind this are doing it for the tax revenue.  Otherwise, why not make the tax so high that no one would buy it at all?

Ouch, you got me there,  that completely changes my argument. I mean, if a few people pay the tax, instead of no one,  then that really does lead to a substantial difference in tax revenue, which much overcomes the economic disadvantage of retail sale leakage to other counties, so it will definitely lead to an increase in tax revenue for the district, but will still do a poor job at reducing soda sales. (for the record, this is sarcasm, I'm not "making things up" in this paragraph.)

No seriously, I didn't intentionally misquote you. In fact I didn't quote you at all. I didn't claim you said precisely that, it's just that it didn't matter for the sake of my argument. Didn't realise it would matter to you. Either the district really won't get any money out of it, or it will have a substantial effect. You can't have it both ways. That was my point.

And as for your last question, I believe it is because the politicians don't want to completely ban soda for people, just reduce consumption somewhat? But that's just what I think, I may be wrong.

Yeah, you probably are wrong and I don't care about "for the sake of your argument".  Don't quote my post just because you want to be snarky.  You aren't making much sense, either.  This isn't 100% one way OR 100% the other way.  We already have a model for this.  People with cars will go outside the district, hurting local retail.  Poor people will assume the burden of the tax, just like with tobacco.



pokoko said:
Teeqoz said:

Ouch, you got me there,  that completely changes my argument. I mean, if a few people pay the tax, instead of no one,  then that really does lead to a substantial difference in tax revenue, which much overcomes the economic disadvantage of retail sale leakage to other counties, so it will definitely lead to an increase in tax revenue for the district, but will still do a poor job at reducing soda sales. (for the record, this is sarcasm, I'm not "making things up" in this paragraph.)

No seriously, I didn't intentionally misquote you. In fact I didn't quote you at all. I didn't claim you said precisely that, it's just that it didn't matter for the sake of my argument. Didn't realise it would matter to you. Either the district really won't get any money out of it, or it will have a substantial effect. You can't have it both ways. That was my point.

And as for your last question, I believe it is because the politicians don't want to completely ban soda for people, just reduce consumption somewhat? But that's just what I think, I may be wrong.

Yeah, you probably are wrong and I don't care about "for the sake of your argument".  Don't quote my post just because you want to be snarky.  You aren't making much sense, either.  This isn't 100% one way OR 100% the other way.  We already have a model for this.  People with cars will go outside the district, hurting local retail.  Poor people will assume the burden of the tax, just like with tobacco.

You were the one accusing me of making things up lol. But okay, if you want to get so hung up on the precise words I used then go ahead. I didn't mean to imply that you used the exact same words as I did in my post, but if you interpretted it that way I guess I should've been more careful when posting

It doesn't have to be 100% one way or the other. The effects it has on tax revenue will be matched by the effects it has on the peoples purchasing habits, regardless of how big those effects are. The same groups pushing for the tax in Cook County alone have also pushed for it to be implemented statewide in Illinois, that would make tax dodging a little harder I guess we'll both have to hope that is implemented then



I really can't believe how delusional and disconnected some of you are. And to think some of you just think it's a couple of pennies. A case of Gatorade or Coke doubles in price nearly from this tax. Diet drinks (while still complete shit for you) are affected as well since artificial sugars and stevia are also in this bracket. I don't consume much sugary beverages and drink mostly water. But if I want a fricken soda, energy drink or whatever, then I don't want to be taxed for my beverage choice. This is just going to shut down small grocery stores and convenience stores and cause more people to go to Indiana or neighboring counties.

Just remember, it's 1.5 cents for every ounce. And over 1,000 plus beverage products fit into this category. So a 20oz beverage will cost 30 cents more. Maybe I could get behind it if they can stop my neighborhood from crumbling apart and going to shit in Chicago.



FootballFan - "GT has never been bigger than Halo. Now do a comparison between the two attach ratios and watch GT get stomped by Halo. Reach will sell 5 million more than GT5. Quote me on it."

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2017/06/13/soda-tax-revenue-philadelphia/

Looks like this will be a failure for Philly.

And I can't understand for the life of me why bottled water isn't taxed. It's a luxury for most and could go towards building better filtration and water distributions.



FootballFan - "GT has never been bigger than Halo. Now do a comparison between the two attach ratios and watch GT get stomped by Halo. Reach will sell 5 million more than GT5. Quote me on it."