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

I can accept a nationwide 2 to 4 cents per drink. But a penny per ounce is too much and will backfire.

    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

Around the Network
NanakiXI said:
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.

I agree.  Many people do not realize what it means to be poor.  I have associates who are worries about raises because they will be over the limit for food stamps.  Maybe over for health care as well.  Being poor means you are always worried that you cannot pay something. 

For soda,  people who have not had it since kids do not realize what a hold it and sugar in general has on you.  Nearly as bad as tobacco. 

    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

Arminillo said:
NanakiXI said:

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.


First off your critical thinking and reading skills seem to be lacking. If your going to read what I post and turn it into your own skewed view then don't bother responding. If you want to have an educational debate then I'm all for that.


btw me stating "water should be free for all" is an opinion and I believe should be a basic human right. Just cause I'm arguing on one subject about taxes and maybe bottle water should be taxed, should not be seen as related directly to my free water statement. The world is not black and white, most things fall somewhere in the middle. And just because taxes don't work on a universal bases (they actually do somewhat in a lot of cases), doesn't mean that they shouldn't. I don't have all the answers but only through debate can things be worked out, on the other hand you don't have the right answers  either.


*edit* sorry if my original response came of rather harsh. I will not delete or edit the original text as I still think the point stands. Also I'm a person of my word and will not hide behind what I said by editing it out.

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."

spurgeonryan said:



Currently it is only for Cook county, which is mostly Chicago and it's suburbs. The tax includes drinks with less that 50 percent milk, Soda, mixes that have sugar in them, juice, etc.

To go further the tax is not just a few cents per drink, it is a penny per ounce! How is that fair to anyone? This is not the same as sin tax which we have on tobacco and alcohol or the tax that is on ammunition. Those items are not something that everyone buys. You want a bad habit, then that is what you pay.

The sweetened beverage tax attacks everyone, including businesses in Cook county. It will cause such a large migration of shoppers that Cook county will lose more in sales tax than they will gain from suckers who are stuck paying this fee. By the way, the poor, whome I feel this tax should have been aimed at to help better their life, are not affected. Food stamps do not have sales tax.

Time will tell what the actual goal of this horrible tax. For now families across Illinois will have to suffer.



I can see the arguement on both side but I would have to agree with the side of sales tax. It is one thing to be taxed for sugar, it is another to "suffer".

God, it must be awesome to not be awake to the corruption of government and just take whatever tax or poor reason for that tax up the ass, pretending that is all for the common good. And someone said the politicians don't see a significant amount of taxpayer money? Bwahahahaha!! Maybe not directly, but guess who does. Their buddies and/or companies that bribe politicians to rule on things that benefit those people. How the Hell do you think politicians go in making 10s, or maybe 100s, of thousands of dollars, but come out mulit-millionaires? It also helps that politicians have made themselves immune to insider trading.

Around the Network


If you want to put in your signature.

    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter


Should be nationwide to really work and let people not just get it from the next town. People would be healthier on average and way more productive because of it. That average dude who drinks a gallon soda per day and who has diabetes does surely not help the society much and rather destroy it financially.

The guy who buys a soda once a week won't really suffer much from 30 cent or whatever more for a can per week.

Maybe they would at least stop to give their kids some litres of coke per day and fuck them up for the rest of their life with that because we all know that those who were already fat as kids will mostly never get slim again.

Let people feel bad financially when they buy too much per week with a lot of sugar or fat and the society will be in a much better condition overall over some years or decades.

I see this tax is quite heavy, more than the name 'penny-per-ounce' suggests.
As one example, a 2-liter bottle, which usually costs about $1, will incur a 67-cent soda tax.

Bigger news is that Illinois may be insolvent soon, so expect more tax raises.

numberwang said:

Not really surprising, most thin people look out for their body and don't drink everything else just because it has no sugar in it.

Besides that, some sugar alternatives make you hungy so that you eat more when you drink that stuff.