Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Soda Tax
Replies
-
These lawsuits were obviously planned in advance. I suspect the motives are either to cash in or to cause disruption/negative news to keep hyping the problem to try to force a repeal. Don't be fooled for a second that these lawsuits are in response to any true unethical dealings by the companies. I suspect they will be dismissed rather quickly. This is one of those issues IMO where everybody on both sides is lying and they all suck.4
-
czmiles926 wrote: »Soft drinks are luxury items.
No one needs to buy them!
Except erm.....Type 1 diabetics.
Energy drinks are the quickest way to get sugar into someone having a hypo.1 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »More lawsuits...yesterday was Walgreens, now today McDonald's and 7-11 as well:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-mcdonalds-walgreens-soda-tax-lawsuits-0809-biz-20170808-story.html
I don't envy the retailers trying to deal with this. What a poorly thought out mess!
From my limited understanding they are trying to tax fountain drinks. Would be much easier just to tax the mix to the retailer and the retailer includes it in the cost of the drink. Draft beer sure has a tax on it, but they don't call it out on any sort of receipt the customer sees.
I'm guessing they didn't go the beer route because they wanted to make the tax amount very clear.1 -
These lawsuits were obviously planned in advance. I suspect the motives are either to cash in or to cause disruption/negative news to keep hyping the problem to try to force a repeal. Don't be fooled for a second that these lawsuits are in response to any true unethical dealings by the companies. I suspect they will be dismissed rather quickly. This is one of those issues IMO where everybody on both sides is lying and they all suck.
Oh, for sure. But, it does call to attention what happens when a poorly planned tax goes poorly.0 -
girlinahat wrote: »czmiles926 wrote: »Soft drinks are luxury items.
No one needs to buy them!
Except erm.....Type 1 diabetics.
Energy drinks are the quickest way to get sugar into someone having a hypo.
Also if your electrolytes are low. Post op mine were low and in addition to potassium iv and magnesium pills the surgeon told me to drink coke zero (or any dark pop) for the phosphoric acid instead of the phosphorus tabs you put in water.1 -
A friend passed this along. 2 tallboys of Bud are less than 2 20 oz Cokes in Chicago.
4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »A friend passed this along. 2 tallboys of Bud are less than 2 20 oz Cokes in Chicago.
So the city of Chicago is encouraging beer consumption?4 -
And now they are in trouble with the Feds and may lose food stamp funding over the tax:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-preckwinkle-0811-biz-20170810-story.html
0 -
The fact that Starbucks is not included is the biggest joke I've ever heard. I contribute most of my weight gain prior to this year to mochas and lattes from Sugarbucks4
-
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »And now they are in trouble with the Feds and may lose food stamp funding over the tax:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-preckwinkle-0811-biz-20170810-story.html
Just my opinion, but soda should not be allowed to be purchased with food stamps in the first place.4 -
GemstoneofHeart wrote: »The fact that Starbucks is not included is the biggest joke I've ever heard. I contribute most of my weight gain prior to this year to mochas and lattes from Sugarbucks
Being we're talking about Chicago/Cook County it wouldn't shock me if there was a "donation" from Starbucks to make sure they weren't included.2 -
Starbucks cans and so on are included, drinks that you can add sugar to yourself are not, and I guess the lattes and so on are considered more like that although they add the sugar, etc.
Whatever.0 -
Illinois' Liquor Tax is Beer 23.1¢/gal.; Wine $1.39/gal.; Spirits $8.55/gal.
As I figure it, there's about 128 oz in a gallon, so the soda tax is $1.28/gal.
Beer is the deal, taxwise.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Starbucks cans and so on are included, drinks that you can add sugar to yourself are not, and I guess the lattes and so on are considered more like that although they add the sugar, etc.
Whatever.
Good point. I suppose you could get a latte made with agave or liquid stevia or something which alters things a bit. I guess it's better to give the benefit of the doubt. Glad to hear cans are included!1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Cigarette taxes have reduced teen smoking. That's a fact.
If it works for one of the most addictive substances on the planet, I don't know why anyone wouldn't expect it to work on sweetened drinks too.
Partly because the taxes work differently. Federal and state cigarette taxes are taxed at the manufacturing level (meaning the manufacturer pays the tax before he can sell to distributors. These "soda" taxes are taxed at the register by the consumer.
Why is this such a big difference? Because we can "see" the cigarette tax in the increased cost of a pack of cigarettes. Because most people will not bother with the math of how much tax they owe at check out, taxing at the register does little to effect behavior because we don't know it's there. Consumers price shop at the shelves, so it was easy to see the tax of smoking because we witnessed the drastic increase in the price tag on the shelf. But if the shelf price of a bottle of water is nearly the same as the shelf price of a bottle of soda, people will still select what they prefer because they don't mentally register the difference in tax rates.
7 -
Just chiming in to say Cook County & Chicago are a joke.
Hopping county's when you live in Cook County isn't really a viable option either, unless you live close to the border.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »A friend passed this along. 2 tallboys of Bud are less than 2 20 oz Cokes in Chicago.
Why is sales tax lower for alcohol?!1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »A friend passed this along. 2 tallboys of Bud are less than 2 20 oz Cokes in Chicago.
Why is sales tax lower for alcohol?!
It's just because of the ADDITIONAL tax that they just put on sweetened beverages.1 -
I think the tax is all about publicity (see how we care for people's health!) along with another excuse to collect more money to waste (since I don't think for a new york minute the money goes to healthy eating education). What's so disingenuous is taxing just the soda. If you're buying into the sugar makes people fat hype, why aren't you taxing candy bars and cookies as well, and putting some effort into coming up with standards that levy tax on anything that's more than x% sigar?3
-
I think the tax is all about publicity (see how we care for people's health!) along with another excuse to collect more money to waste (since I don't think for a new york minute the money goes to healthy eating education). What's so disingenuous is taxing just the soda. If you're buying into the sugar makes people fat hype, why aren't you taxing candy bars and cookies as well, and putting some effort into coming up with standards that levy tax on anything that's more than x% sigar?
And why tax artificially sweetened beverages that have no sugar or calories?3 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »I think the tax is all about publicity (see how we care for people's health!) along with another excuse to collect more money to waste (since I don't think for a new york minute the money goes to healthy eating education). What's so disingenuous is taxing just the soda. If you're buying into the sugar makes people fat hype, why aren't you taxing candy bars and cookies as well, and putting some effort into coming up with standards that levy tax on anything that's more than x% sigar?
And why tax artificially sweetened beverages that have no sugar or calories?
Exactly!2 -
-
2
-
It's always been the case here that drinking alcohol in a bar tends to be about the same price as drinking soda. So why not?0
-
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »A friend passed this along. 2 tallboys of Bud are less than 2 20 oz Cokes in Chicago.
Why is sales tax lower for alcohol?!
It's just because of the ADDITIONAL tax that they just put on sweetened beverages.
The tax rate for booze is 3% less than the tax rate for soda, so the additional tax for the soda doesn't change that aspect of it (although you're now paying sales tax on top of a sugar tax - wth?!).
You may be on to something about the chemikillz
. 1 -
I think the tax is all about publicity (see how we care for people's health!) along with another excuse to collect more money to waste (since I don't think for a new york minute the money goes to healthy eating education). What's so disingenuous is taxing just the soda. If you're buying into the sugar makes people fat hype, why aren't you taxing candy bars and cookies as well, and putting some effort into coming up with standards that levy tax on anything that's more than x% sigar?
Stay tuned, will be coming to selected areas near you soon.
Mexico has a tax on junk food.
https://www.eater.com/2016/7/6/12107050/mexico-junk-food-tax-success
This is what is taxed:
In 2014, Mexico instituted an 8 percent tax on processed foods that had more than 275 calories per 100 grams, in an attempt to reduce junk food purchases, the Associated Press reported.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »A friend passed this along. 2 tallboys of Bud are less than 2 20 oz Cokes in Chicago.
Why is sales tax lower for alcohol?!
Good catch. Looks like they charged it double or something.
I need to go buy some soda tomorrow, to see the receipt. (Heh, it's encouraging soda purchases!)1 -
I think the tax is all about publicity (see how we care for people's health!) along with another excuse to collect more money to waste (since I don't think for a new york minute the money goes to healthy eating education). What's so disingenuous is taxing just the soda. If you're buying into the sugar makes people fat hype, why aren't you taxing candy bars and cookies as well, and putting some effort into coming up with standards that levy tax on anything that's more than x% sigar?
It's a money raising effort. One that they could get passed, as it's currently difficult to raise other taxes (Chicago already has crazy high sales tax, this is the county, but the state's budgeting is incredibly dysfunctional too).2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »A friend passed this along. 2 tallboys of Bud are less than 2 20 oz Cokes in Chicago.
Why is sales tax lower for alcohol?!
I bought 2 20-oz diet cokes from a 7-11 in Chicago, and can now explain the receipts shown/answer the question. (Although the tax under discussion is all Cook County, the receipts packerjohn posted are from a Walgreens in Chicago.)
My receipt says:
Subtotal $3.00 (cost of the 2 sodas -- note the variation, which outweighs the tax, and this is from a convenience store)
Sales Tax (standard Chicago rate) = 10.25% or 31 cents
SD Tax = 3% or 9 cents
Cook County Sweetened Beverage Tax (on 20 oz) = 1 cent/oz or 40 cents
Total=$3.80, vs. the pre new tax rate of $3.40.
I think this is consistent with the receipt above, which was
Subtotal $4.00
CCSB Tax $.40
Sales Tax=13.25% or 53 cents (this is on the $4, not the $4.40, or it would be $.58, so it is the same)
Total = 4.98
So what's the additional 3%? That's the pre-existing Chicago soda tax, which is 3% (and has been around since 2015, I think). As I think I said before, Chicago's sales tax is both super high and super confusing because it's a standard 10.25%, 2.25% for food (not soda or candy or prepared food, they get the standard higher rate), but has a variety of weird additional taxes, such as (these are just a few):
Amusement tax (5 percent or 9 percent of charges for amusement)
Bottled-water tax (5 cents per bottle)
Restaurant tax (0.25 percent of retail price in addition to sales tax)
Soft-drink tax (3 percent of price)
As an aside, one of these is a very high parking tax, a huge park of parking costs which are really high in some parts of town (and probably really high anywhere compared to what people in most parts of the US are used to). The high cost of parking (which, granted, is to some extent just the value of the land that could be used for other things, as well as the awful parking meter deal) is related to why I think people are likely to drive less often here. Which itself is arguably related to encouraging certain kinds of behaviors vs. others.
It's interesting that the Chicago tax got very little comment comparatively, but I think it's because it's just one of these various taxes and because the amount is substantially less, especially when levied on a purchase of a case (which would otherwise tend to be much cheaper than the by the bottle purchases, where people expect a high, marked up kind of price -- anyone paying $4 for 2 20-oz bottles isn't really after a deal, after all).
I'm not particularly invested in any policy choice here, I mostly find the debates interesting and want to make sure the facts presented are accurate.1 -
Thank you for the detailed explanation!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions