Soda Tax

KeepRunningFatboy

I would not favor such a tax. I don't think it's right to single out sweetened beverages.

TR0berts

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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.

Works for me.

DamieBird

lemurcat12 wrote: »

DamieBird 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?!

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.

Wow, those are very confusing taxes. I'm guessing that the local government/ department who suggests and passes these additional taxes is betting that the average consumer won't be savvy enough to pick up on all of the little extra fees. While reading you explanation, those low cost airlines that charge for every small amenity came to mind.

Also, it seems wrong that you're now charged a sweetened beverage tax ON TOP OF a soft-drink tax, in addition to whatever state and local sales taxes exist. Was this increase ever put to on a ballot for local citizens to vote on?

richardgavel

@DamieBird: The taxes are from different governments. The preexisting tax was city of Chicago. The new one is county (Cook). Plus sales taxes at state level.

My gym tried to charge me this tax for a protein shake!

lemurcat12

DamieBird wrote: »

Also, it seems wrong that you're now charged a sweetened beverage tax ON TOP OF a soft-drink tax, in addition to whatever state and local sales taxes exist. Was this increase ever put to on a ballot for local citizens to vote on?

Yes, as richardgavel said, city and state both tax us. No direct vote on it. The sales tax we pay (food aside) is made up of IL (6.25%), Cook County (additional 1.75%), and the city (additional 1.25%), and then the various add ons.

CSARdiver

SuzySunshine99 wrote: »

My county just implemented a tax on all "sweetened beverages", including those with artificial sweeteners. They say it is to combat obesity and encourage people to select "healthier" beverages. They said that there are "conflicting reports" on the health effects of artificial sweeteners. Whatever...obviously, the real reason is to increase revenue for the county. That is not up for debate. But, do you think a tax like this, despite the real reason behind it, really could have an effect of people's health? Will they really select a bottle of water instead of a Coke to avoid the tax? I'm thinking no.

Here's the details of the tax...it is one penny per ounce and applies to:
-Regular and diet sodas, sweetened teas, bottled sweetened coffee, sports drinks, energy drinks, any sweetened dairy beverage that is less than 50% milk, and juice products that are not 100% juice.
-This applies to all retailers, restaurants, bars, and vending machines, including fountain drinks in those establishments.

It does NOT apply to:
-100% fruit/vegetable juice
-Weight reduction/meal replacement beverages
-Made to order coffee drinks (Starbucks)
-Sparkling water
-Milk substitutes (almond, soy, etc.)

A penny per ounce can add up...I usually buy the 35 can case of Coke Zero at Costco. The tax will add $4.20 to the price (35 x 12oz). This is IN ADDITION to our regular 10% sales tax. I will be visiting a Costco in the next county over for my Coke Zero.

Would this tax discourage you from buying these beverages?

I made it simple and defected over a decade ago from that county...and that state.

samcockrell

I don't believe in tax as a means of coercion. Tax is designed to benefit everyone in the society. Even with cigarettes being taxed people still smoke. Any time you have a specific tax on goods it always effects the poorest the most. Also if the goal is to get people to stop doing something the way about it is not coercion away from an item. The most important thing that a government can do if they want to get people healthier is to show the truth about how bad something is and let the individual make the choice. If a society is a free society they should have the opportunity to make an informed decision about what they want I their life. Maybe showing someone that one 20oz soda a day equals over 4 pounds of sugar a month is a better way, not taxing them into oblivion. We should always choose to endow individuals with knowledge over pressing the purse.

sgt1372

The tax is regressive and there's no proof that it will actually reduce the consumption of sodas.

Poor people may not have the means to travel to another county to avoid the tax and will have to pay more but sales may still drop (falsely indicating a drop in consumption) due to people who can travel buying their sodas out of county.

Packerjohn

samcockrell wrote: »

I don't believe in tax as a means of coercion. Tax is designed to benefit everyone in the society. Even with cigarettes being taxed people still smoke. Any time you have a specific tax on goods it always effects the poorest the most. Also if the goal is to get people to stop doing something the way about it is not coercion away from an item. The most important thing that a government can do if they want to get people healthier is to show the truth about how bad something is and let the individual make the choice. If a society is a free society they should have the opportunity to make an informed decision about what they want I their life. Maybe showing someone that one 20oz soda a day equals over 4 pounds of sugar a month is a better way, not taxing them into oblivion. We should always choose to endow individuals with knowledge over pressing the purse.

I wonder if they will ever get the nerve to have an anti-pop commercial like the anti-smoking like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zWB4dLYChM

Would a double amputee explaining how they lost their legs due to complications from excess weight be effective?

lemurcat12

sgt1372 wrote: »

The tax is regressive and there's no proof that it will actually reduce the consumption of sodas.

Poor people may not have the means to travel to another county to avoid the tax and will have to pay more but sales may still drop (falsely indicating a drop in consumption) due to people who can travel buying their sodas out of county.

To research how these things work you need to compare consumption in neighboring counties. The bigger issue is that soda consumption is falling already, so you need a control, falling doesn't mean falling due to the tax (as has been uncritically reported re Berkeley's tax).

Packerjohn

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sgt1372 wrote: »

The tax is regressive and there's no proof that it will actually reduce the consumption of sodas.

Poor people may not have the means to travel to another county to avoid the tax and will have to pay more but sales may still drop (falsely indicating a drop in consumption) due to people who can travel buying their sodas out of county.

To research how these things work you need to compare consumption in neighboring counties. The bigger issue is that soda consumption is falling already, so you need a control, falling doesn't mean falling due to the tax (as has been uncritically reported re Berkeley's tax).

Soda consumption is falling but it's being at least partially offset by the rise of sugared energy and coffee drinks that really weren't a "thing" before soda started to drop off.

Just makes any sort of comparison more complicated.

lemurcat12

Packerjohn wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

sgt1372 wrote: »

The tax is regressive and there's no proof that it will actually reduce the consumption of sodas.

Poor people may not have the means to travel to another county to avoid the tax and will have to pay more but sales may still drop (falsely indicating a drop in consumption) due to people who can travel buying their sodas out of county.

To research how these things work you need to compare consumption in neighboring counties. The bigger issue is that soda consumption is falling already, so you need a control, falling doesn't mean falling due to the tax (as has been uncritically reported re Berkeley's tax).

Soda consumption is falling but it's being at least partially offset by the rise of sugared energy and coffee drinks that really weren't a "thing" before soda started to drop off.

Yes, I am reasonably certain that I already made a similar point earlier in the thread (I think the drop off was AFTER those kinds of drinks got popular but is offset by an increase in them somewhat, and also at least a significant portion of the drop off is from diet drinks), but thanks.

Agree it makes the comparison more complicated.

Azdak

Mikey Bloomberg has stepped in and is dropping $12 million in ads to support the tax. If you recall, when he was NYC mayor he tried to ban all sugary drinks > 16 oz. The ads are about as stoopid as you would expect.

This is a dilemma for me since I despise Bloomberg as much as I do tax whiners. For a silly issue like this, I need a cartoon white hat and black hat. Since I now have neither, I feel morally constipated.