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

NanakiXI said:
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.

because water should be cheap. Yes some water brands can cost 1.50 + a bottle but the majority of the market are smaller (local) brands that come much cheaper like a 12 pack for 3.99. Making water harder to attain is always bad.



Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda!!!!


Around the Network

It's bullshit that their taxing diet drinks too ...

I can understand limiting sugar consumption since the United States has one of the highest rates of diabetes but I see no rational in targeting artificial sweeteners when their perfectly safe and healthy for consumption so I guess the officials behind Illinois will learn this the hard way ...



NanakiXI said:
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.

Apparently they got less revenue than expected because soda sales fell more than expected. That's a huge success imo



Arminillo said:
NanakiXI said:
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.

because water should be cheap. Yes some water brands can cost 1.50 + a bottle but the majority of the market are smaller (local) brands that come much cheaper like a 12 pack for 3.99. Making water harder to attain is always bad.

Of coarse it should be cheap, but it shouldn't be void of this tax either (no beverage should). Your taking a side note of mine with no real bases and spinning it, while also missing the point about better water filtration and distributions (which means cleaner and cheaper water for everyone). I'm not going to go into detail but something like taxing individual bottles or premium brands. Irregardless this would also be bad, as taxes like these never help who they are actually supposed to help and punish those who don't have a choice or don't understand how to budget and spend. Also water should not be hard to attain and free for all, wether your a millionaire or the poorest person in Flint, Michigan.



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."

Teeqoz said:
NanakiXI said:
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.

Apparently they got less revenue than expected because soda sales fell more than expected. That's a huge success imo

You seem to be under the assumption that they are trying to make people healthy. They are doing this for pre-k and if it flops because of less consumption, then this program fails for education and hurts the exact people they are trying to help.

 

*Edit* - just to add, this most likely hasn't cut consumption. Just causes more people to drive further and use more gas. Which last I checked is not good for our environment.



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."

Around the Network
NanakiXI said:
Arminillo said:

because water should be cheap. Yes some water brands can cost 1.50 + a bottle but the majority of the market are smaller (local) brands that come much cheaper like a 12 pack for 3.99. Making water harder to attain is always bad.

Of coarse it should be cheap, but it shouldn't be void of this tax either (no beverage should). Your taking a side note of mine with no real bases and spinning it, while also missing the point about better water filtration and distributions (which means cleaner and cheaper water for everyone). I'm not going to go into detail but something like taxing individual bottles or premium brands. Irregardless this would also be bad, as taxes like these never help who they are actually supposed to help and punish those who don't have a choice or don't understand how to budget and spend. Also water should not be hard to attain and free for all, wether your a millionaire or the poorest person in Flint, Michigan.

"Water should be free for all" yet taxing it isnt going in the reverse of that? You said yourself that water should be obtainable even for the poorest person in Flint, and you know what they needed to drink due to the problems with their water supply? Bottled water.

All im trying to say is that taxing water bottles would only harm people. The fact of life is that water isnt free, and that bottled water is not a luxury. On a final note, taxes dont work on universal basis, if a tax doesnt include something, it doesnt include something, thats how it works.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/252408/market-share-of-bottled-still-water-in-the-us-by-brand/



Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda!!!!


NanakiXI said:
Teeqoz said:

Apparently they got less revenue than expected because soda sales fell more than expected. That's a huge success imo

You seem to be under the assumption that they are trying to make people healthy. They are doing this for pre-k and if it flops because of less consumption, then this program fails for education and hurts the exact people they are trying to help.

 

*Edit* - just to add, this most likely hasn't cut consumption. Just causes more people to drive further and use more gas. Which last I checked is not good for our environment.

You think people are driving out of the county to buy a 32 ounce Dr. Pepper from Kum and Go? I think you are highly underestimating the value of conveinence for the common man.



Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda!!!!


This would have to be nationwide for this to properly work. I'm not totally opposed to the tax but the drinks that escape the tax, the fact that those who are on food benefits who do not pay the tax and yuppies who can afford all natural healthy and good tasting drinks who also aren't paying into these taxes. Some people seem to believe it's just easy least to break bad habits just because you don't do it.

I started smoking 4 years ago at 24 and I wish I never started (never thought I would). It's an expensive and nasty habit that is hard to quite and sometimes I feel like I can't live without. I also get to pay out the Ass on tobacco taxes for a terrible choice I made that I can't break. I live amongst the working poor and I wish it was just as simple as giving something up.



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."

Arminillo said:
NanakiXI said:

You seem to be under the assumption that they are trying to make people healthy. They are doing this for pre-k and if it flops because of less consumption, then this program fails for education and hurts the exact people they are trying to help.

 

*Edit* - just to add, this most likely hasn't cut consumption. Just causes more people to drive further and use more gas. Which last I checked is not good for our environment.

You think people are driving out of the county to buy a 32 ounce Dr. Pepper from Kum and Go? I think you are highly underestimating the value of conveinence for the common man.

Are you crazy?! No I don't think they are driving out of county for one beverage. But some do if it's close enough to boarders and others buy in bulk and in some cases increase consumption due to having the item so easily obtainable in your house. Also Kum and Go (Shell or BP would've been a better example) is not a national brand and only know about it during a my travels around the States.



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."

NanakiXI said:
Teeqoz said:

Apparently they got less revenue than expected because soda sales fell more than expected. That's a huge success imo

You seem to be under the assumption that they are trying to make people healthy. They are doing this for pre-k and if it flops because of less consumption, then this program fails for education and hurts the exact people they are trying to help.

 

*Edit* - just to add, this most likely hasn't cut consumption. Just causes more people to drive further and use more gas. Which last I checked is not good for our environment.

To be honest, it doesn't matter too much to me if they actually care about the health of people (which I think they do, at least to some degree), as long as what they are doing could potentially improve health. If the reduced consumption means they don't get enough revenue from that tax to meet its goals, which in turn leads to worse public services, then that is a problem, but that doesn't mean that the soda tax itself is a problem. If they removed it, they would get no additional revenue. It also has the potential beneficial side effect of better health, which is good for both the people and the economy.

Now, as I've said in this thread before, it would have a much bigger effect if it was a statewide (or even nationwide) tax, but baby steps... Slowly, more and more places are imposing a sugary soft beverage tax.