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

Options
1…468910

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited August 2017
    Options
    mitch16 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    KatieHall77 wrote: »
    Is the new tax on sweetened beverage being used to benefit the poor and working class? Does it pay for free public access to healthcare or gym/ fitness center?

    It's paying for the budget of Cook County. A lot of the money goes for services or expenses that benefit the poor, yes. It's a general budget. Is the overall tax collected by the county unfairly on lower vs. upper income people vs. services given? I don't actually think so, but that's a broader political question not limited to that kind of tax.

    The reason I don't really mind this tax is (1) I'm good with experimentation, that's why we don't have complete central control, let's see what it does, (2) we need more tax money, and if they want to pass a tax that I can choose to pay or not based on what I buy, cool, and (3) seems like a win-win (as with the plastic bags, which I find personally annoying but did not oppose) -- either it changes behavior or we get more tax money that we need.

    I would not support the tax, exactly, I think it's largely unlikely to work for obesity in that people will continue to buy soda or spend money on other high cal things just as much, and I do think it falls disproportionately on poorer people. It does not fit my preferred model of how taxation should work. But it doesn't bother me at all.

    I don't live in Cook County and I don't drink/buy many sweetened drinks so it doesn't really affect me... The thing that seems really duplicitous about this is that on one side you have the politicians taking money from the sugar lobby to be able to put sugar in practically everything, and then on the other side you have them taking taxes on said sugar... Yay for big government! :sarcasm:

    Well, I don't think the Cook County budget gets a cut of "sugar lobby" money or that they have much to do with sugar in everything.

    I think you mean the corn lobby (really just BigAg), and ag subsidies which include corn. Sugar is not a particularly supported crop in the US, since we don't grow a lot of it. HFCS is dirt cheap, but corn has tons of other uses too.

    Lots of corn grown in IL, but not so much in Cook County.
  • HardcoreP0rk
    HardcoreP0rk Posts: 936 Member
    Options
    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 don't buy these beverages, so I can't speak to it influencing my habits. I will say, however, that I think incentives work better than penalties when it comes to things like this. I am also encouraged by the fact that soda consumption is in decline and we are moving to healthier options as a nation.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    gearhead426hemi wrote: »
    Taxing something like drinks that typically lower income to middle income families consume makes no sense.

    It does if the idea is to discourage consumption and because it's voluntary. It's a little ethically icky, I agree, but in precisely the same way the lottery is, IMO.
    A family receiving food stamps from the government then gets charged a higher tax on the food they consume isn't that double dipping?

    The tax isn't charged on soda bought with SNAP: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-exemption-0610-biz-20170609-story.html
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    We've had a soda tax for years where I live. All soda, regardless of type of sweetener.

    How high? I thought this kind of soda tax was somewhat new in the US (they have one in Berkeley, perhaps, I don't remember). But I haven't really been following it until recently with Philadelphia doing it and now Cook County (after talking about it for what seems forever), so I'm not claiming I would know, just interested.

    We have had a soda tax for ages in the sense that we have a high sales tax and most food is exempted and gets a far lower sales tax, but soda and candy is not, but this is beyond that.

    To supplement my own question, here's a pretty good summary of the different jurisdictions that have done this:
    http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/aug/07/illinois-policy-institute/chicago-soda-tax-throws-batting-practice-fastball-/

    Before the current tax:

    "Chicago already charged a 3 percent soft drink sales tax, and that was on top of a 10.25 percent sales tax that includes state and local portions and is the highest of any major city in the United States.

    For a 12-pack of 12-ounce cans or bottles of any sweetened soft drink, regular or diet, the sweetened beverage tax adds another $1.44. Thus, a 12-pack priced at $4 costs $5.97 at the register. The new tax adds 67 cents to a two-liter bottle. If marked on the shelf at $2.49, the new tax means you’ll pay 40 percent more at checkout.

    That’s how it works in Chicago, where the total price figures to be slightly higher than in the rest of Cook County even though the soda tax applies in the suburbs as well....

    As it stands today, Cook County is one of only eight U.S. locations to impose or plan to impose a per-ounce tax on sweetened drinks. The other seven are cities and, with a population of 5.2 million, Cook County is by far the largest jurisdiction to adopt such a tax....

    At one cent per ounce, Cook County is on the lower end of the soda tax scale. In Boulder, Colo., that two-liter soda will cost an extra $1.35 and a 12-pack will be $2.88 more. Cook County is also one of the three jurisdictions in which voters did not voluntarily adopt the tax by referendum. (Illinois has no provision for such referenda.)"

    The other jurisdictions listed here are: Albany, CA; Berkeley, CA; Boulder, CO; Oakland, CA; Philadelphia; San Francisco; Seattle. However, "Cook County and the city of Philadelphia are the only places where drinks sweetened with non-caloric sweeteners also are subject to the tax."

    We pay tax on non-calorically sweetened drinks. I just bought a Vitamin Water Zero and paid tax. Then I bought a store brand of the same thing (sweetened with stevia) and it was also taxed. It was 5%, or $.30 on 60 ounces (10% of the sales price)...but I have no idea how that is figured. First soft drinks I've bought in a long time.

    So I guess the article is referring to this new tax..(?)

    Just to be clear, are you saying you pay an additional tax on soda beyond the standard sales tax? For example, not just something like the following, which is what my state as a whole has: "There is also a sales tax on general merchandise that applies to tangible items except food and drugs but including alcoholic beverages, soft drinks and food prepared for immediate consumption, for example in a restaurant." Instead, a specific tax beyond the standard sales tax that is added on soda?

    I'm just curious, since it keeps being reported as if this is some weird new thing, and if it's actually already common I'd like to know that (and be more annoyed with the reporting).

    Ours is above and beyond food tax, because we have no food tax (except for luxury food items).

    That sounds like what we also have:

    10.25% on non food items, and 2.25% (I think) on food, BUT candy and alcohol and soda and prepared foods did not get the food exemption.

    I think of that as just sales tax, not a soda and candy tax.

    We don't have a tax on candy. Apparently here only drinks are luxuries. Candy is good food. ;)
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    gearhead426hemi wrote: »
    Taxing something like drinks that typically lower income to middle income families consume makes no sense.

    It does if the idea is to discourage consumption and because it's voluntary. It's a little ethically icky, I agree, but in precisely the same way the lottery is, IMO.
    A family receiving food stamps from the government then gets charged a higher tax on the food they consume isn't that double dipping?

    The tax isn't charged on soda bought with SNAP: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-exemption-0610-biz-20170609-story.html

    LOL so now SNAP recipients can flip soda for a profit. I can see a booming business opportunity.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    gearhead426hemi wrote: »
    Taxing something like drinks that typically lower income to middle income families consume makes no sense.

    It does if the idea is to discourage consumption and because it's voluntary. It's a little ethically icky, I agree, but in precisely the same way the lottery is, IMO.
    A family receiving food stamps from the government then gets charged a higher tax on the food they consume isn't that double dipping?

    The tax isn't charged on soda bought with SNAP: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-exemption-0610-biz-20170609-story.html

    LOL so now SNAP recipients can flip soda for a profit. I can see a booming business opportunity.

    Encouraging entrepreneurship.
  • czmiles926
    czmiles926 Posts: 130 Member
    Options
    Taxing something like drinks that typically lower income to middle income families consume makes no sense.

    Soft
  • czmiles926
    czmiles926 Posts: 130 Member
    Options
    Soft drinks are luxury items.
    No one needs to buy them!
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    gearhead426hemi wrote: »
    Taxing something like drinks that typically lower income to middle income families consume makes no sense.

    It does if the idea is to discourage consumption and because it's voluntary. It's a little ethically icky, I agree, but in precisely the same way the lottery is, IMO.
    A family receiving food stamps from the government then gets charged a higher tax on the food they consume isn't that double dipping?

    The tax isn't charged on soda bought with SNAP: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-exemption-0610-biz-20170609-story.html

    LOL so now SNAP recipients can flip soda for a profit. I can see a booming business opportunity.

    There is more money in meat.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    czmiles926 wrote: »
    Soft drinks are luxury items.
    No one needs to buy them!

    Exactly. If you are hurting for money you shouldn't be wasting money on soda.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    edited August 2017
    Options
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    gearhead426hemi wrote: »
    Taxing something like drinks that typically lower income to middle income families consume makes no sense.

    It does if the idea is to discourage consumption and because it's voluntary. It's a little ethically icky, I agree, but in precisely the same way the lottery is, IMO.
    A family receiving food stamps from the government then gets charged a higher tax on the food they consume isn't that double dipping?

    The tax isn't charged on soda bought with SNAP: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-exemption-0610-biz-20170609-story.html

    LOL so now SNAP recipients can flip soda for a profit. I can see a booming business opportunity.

    There is more money in meat.

    Perhaps, but Sodas are less perishable, and thus lower risk... I may be an entrepreneur as a part time job.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    gearhead426hemi wrote: »
    Taxing something like drinks that typically lower income to middle income families consume makes no sense.

    It does if the idea is to discourage consumption and because it's voluntary. It's a little ethically icky, I agree, but in precisely the same way the lottery is, IMO.
    A family receiving food stamps from the government then gets charged a higher tax on the food they consume isn't that double dipping?

    The tax isn't charged on soda bought with SNAP: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-soda-tax-food-stamps-exemption-0610-biz-20170609-story.html

    LOL so now SNAP recipients can flip soda for a profit. I can see a booming business opportunity.

    There is more money in meat.

    Perhaps, but Sodas are less perishable, and thus lower risk... I may be an entrepreneur as a part time job.

    I'm not sure those who resale food purchased by the state care about risk. Maybe people do resell soda but I've never heard of it. It's not hard to find someone reselling meat. At least not around here.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited August 2017
    Options
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    czmiles926 wrote: »
    However if large amounts of sugar is consumed frequently enough, the insulin receptors on the cells no longer respond to the presence of insulin and blood glucose levels remain too high for too long. This is type 2 diabetes.

    Sounds good in theory, but...

    "Sugar consumption will not directly cause diabetes. However, excess sugar consumption can cause weight gain. Obesity increases the risk of diabetes."
    medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317246.php

    Myth: Sugar Causes Diabetes
    https://diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/

    Might as well tax brown rice, fruit, and whole wheat bread, since those can cause obesity & diabetes when eaten in excess.

    Soda was a common beverage for decades before obesity became an epidemic around the 1980s. Soda consumption has actually dropped to almost the level it was in the 80s. The tax isn't based on statistics and science, it's about government officials trying to appear useful, while acquiring money to pay for their wasteful spending habits.

    This is true, but I can also tell you as a kid in the '60s soda was maybe once every couple weeks. At a gas station it was a 10 oz bottle. If at home you split a 16 oz.

    Look at the buckets of soda the convenient stores sell now.

    I agree the Cook County tax is an attempt to help the budget by put a something the size of a wine cork in a 20 ft opening.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    czmiles926 wrote: »
    However if large amounts of sugar is consumed frequently enough, the insulin receptors on the cells no longer respond to the presence of insulin and blood glucose levels remain too high for too long. This is type 2 diabetes.

    Sounds good in theory, but...

    "Sugar consumption will not directly cause diabetes. However, excess sugar consumption can cause weight gain. Obesity increases the risk of diabetes."
    medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317246.php

    Myth: Sugar Causes Diabetes
    https://diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/

    Might as well tax brown rice, fruit, and whole wheat bread, since those can cause obesity & diabetes when eaten in excess.

    Soda was a common beverage for decades before obesity became an epidemic around the 1980s. Soda consumption has actually dropped to almost the level it was in the 80s. The tax isn't based on statistics and science, it's about government officials trying to appear useful, while acquiring money to pay for their wasteful spending habits.

    I don't know what the actual stats are, but it's weird how I've been hearing reports for a few years now how soda sales are declining rapidly (people are replacing it with bottled water), yet I can't remember hearing any reports suggesting obesity rates are declining. (At least among adults, I think I might have heard there has been a slight easing of the childhood obesity rates) Considering so many people are switching off of soda and SUGAR DETOX is all anyone can talk about, you'd think the obesity rates would be obviously declining, right?
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    edited August 2017
    Options
    singingflutelady wrote: »
    2 take out pizzas for $10? You can't even get 1 here for that cost.
    I can definitely prepare a meal for 4 with less than $25 you just don't know how to shop properly. I spend about $100 a month on groceries.

    Why chicken breast? Thighs are much cheaper. How many cobs of corn is that? You can buy it now for dirt cheap, way cheaper than $5. Frozen corn is cheaper too. Lots of vegetables you can get for less than $5 for 4 servings. Why do you need olive oil and flour or even corn bread?

    $100 a month on Groceries?? I spend quite a bit more than that per WEEK for two of us. We eat well, but not like kings.

    ETA: 1 Large pizza (regular supreme), 8 slices, so 4 slices each for me and hubby is $17 delivered. Normal sized slices, not American size.
  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,984 Member
    Options
    Aaaand...here come the lawsuits:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-cook-county-soda-pop-tax-walgreens-lawsuit-0808-biz-20170807-story.html
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    czmiles926 wrote: »
    However if large amounts of sugar is consumed frequently enough, the insulin receptors on the cells no longer respond to the presence of insulin and blood glucose levels remain too high for too long. This is type 2 diabetes.

    Sounds good in theory, but...

    "Sugar consumption will not directly cause diabetes. However, excess sugar consumption can cause weight gain. Obesity increases the risk of diabetes."
    medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317246.php

    Myth: Sugar Causes Diabetes
    https://diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/Enjoy-food/Eating-with-diabetes/Diabetes-food-myths/Myth-sugar-causes-diabetes/

    Might as well tax brown rice, fruit, and whole wheat bread, since those can cause obesity & diabetes when eaten in excess.

    Soda was a common beverage for decades before obesity became an epidemic around the 1980s. Soda consumption has actually dropped to almost the level it was in the 80s. The tax isn't based on statistics and science, it's about government officials trying to appear useful, while acquiring money to pay for their wasteful spending habits.

    This is true, but I can also tell you as a kid in the '60s soda was maybe once every couple weeks. At a gas station it was a 10 oz bottle. If at home you split a 16 oz.

    It's hard to compare, because families are different, different customs in different social circles, but this is consistent with what I recall from even a bit later.

    In the 1970s I was less than 10, and we almost never had soda, period (which could be a function of age). My mom had diet (Tab, I think) occasionally. I only recall having it at McD's or the like, and it was a small. I think we got cans when I was out with my cousins a time or two, and they were the half cans, which were considered what kids should have, but I think that was possibly early '80s.

    In the '80s, when I was in high school (and before), I recall having soda occasionally, but nothing more than a can or a normal sized fountain drink (maybe medium), and the latter only if we were at a fast food place or restaurant. Not routinely after school, not at school, and not at meals, where I was expected to have milk or water.

    In college I'd have soda somewhat more (diet by that time), but those huge tubs were still not normal and I'd basically get one at the snack bar or maybe get one from the vending machine when studying.

    I drank a ton of diet for a while in my 20s, since it was freely available at work.

    It seems to me that drinking a lot, at least as a kid, is much more common now (or since I've been an adult) than it was in the '80s or '70s, but could this be a "kids, get off my lawn" thing? It could be.

    I also see HUGE differences in social groups, as generally speaking I don't think it's a regularly drink a whole lot kind of thing for my friends' kids, either (they also eat vegetables or at least their parents serve them vegetables, so). It's something you get at a restaurant or as a treat. Do kids in high school buy them commonly with their own money? Probably (I live near a high school and a 7-11, so see that), but I don't think that's wildly different than it was. There are cultural changes, probably, but not across the board.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    For what it's worth, here is a Business Insider article showing declining soda sales:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-drinking-less-soda-2016-3

    Soda peaked in 1998 and is now lower than it was in the 1980's.

    Soda was a treat in our house growing up in the 80's but was rather common at my grandparents. I started drinking it more regularly when I went away to college in 94 until about a year ago when I switched to diet.

Categories