Soda Is About To Get Pricier For Another 5 Million Americans

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cook-county-soda-tax_us_58250427e4b0c4b63b0c0fe4

 

 

Quote

 

Big Soda just had a really tough week.

First, voters in Boulder, Colorado, and in three cities in California approved new local taxes on soda on Election Day. Then, on Thursday, the board of commissioners in Illinois’ Cook County ― which includes Chicago ― moved to approve a tax of 1 cent per ounce on soda and other sugary beverages.

The tax, set to take effect July 1, will affect all 5.2 million residents of Cook County, the largest jurisdiction to pass a soda tax thus far.

Cook County’s move completes a five-for-five sweep for soda tax advocates this week.

Advocates say the taxes will reduce consumption of sugary drinks and slash health care costs associated with heart disease, obesity and diabetes. At the same time, supporters say, the new taxes will raise revenue for struggling municipalities, like Cook County, that need to balance their budgets.

In a statement, Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle said the projected revenue from the soda tax — an estimated $224 million per year — “will allow us to avoid damaging cuts in the funding for public health and public safety” and should play “a positive role in important health issues that impact many of our residents.”

Billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who fought unsuccessfully for a citywide soda “ban” and bankrolled tax proponents’ efforts in other cities, issued a similar statement, calling the vote “a major victory for American public health ― and a very encouraging sign of things to come.”

An analysis released this week from Harvard researchers used a complex, peer-reviewed computer model to estimate that the tax will save $222 million in health care costs over the next 10 years, if Cook County residents shift away from sugary drinks as expected. The model also estimates that by the end of 2025, 37,000 fewer people will be obese as a result of the tax.

Jim Krieger, executive director of the nonprofit group Healthy Foods America, which supported the Harvard research on the Cook County tax, said the evidence is clear that such taxes will be an effective public health tool.

“The bottom line is that the taxes are working exactly as predicted,” Krieger said. “We know we have the facts on our side.”

The American Beverage Association, an industry trade group whose members include Coca-Cola and Pepsi, is skeptical of these claims. The group has spent millions of dollars fighting various soda taxes, such as the one approved by voters in Berkeley, California, in 2014, and another introduced in Philadelphia earlier this year.

Pointing to the minimal existing research on the effects of a soda tax implemented in Mexico in 2014, the ABA argues that such legislation has only a negligible impact on soda consumption levels and has the effect of reducing people’s calorie intake by just six calories per day.

“That’s not even measurable on a bathroom scale,” William Dermody Jr., ABA’s vice president of policy, told The Huffington Post last month.

 

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

So they vote to legalize pot, but drinking soda is bad and therefore they tax it to deter people from drinking it. Makes a lot of sense!!!

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

So they vote to legalize pot, but drinking soda is bad and therefore they tax it to deter people from drinking it. Makes a lot of sense!!!

 

 

You don't think they are going to tax marijuana?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

You don't think they are going to tax marijuana?

Of course they tax marijuana, but it is ironic states (or counties/cities within) that found it ok to legalize pot all of a sudden decide that they must tax soda because it is increasing obesity or whatever is well....I guess California cool. In reality, it is just another way for them to pilfer money to fund corrupt governments by not spending the tax money on what it really needs to be spent on.

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Of course they tax marijuana, but it is ironic states (or counties/cities within) that found it ok to legalize pot all of a sudden decide that they must tax soda because it is increasing obesity or whatever is well....I guess California cool. In reality, it is just another way for them to pilfer money to fund corrupt governments by not spending the tax money on what it really needs to be spent on.

 

Soda is good for you?  You don't think marijuana should be taxed?  Do you have a point?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

6 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Soda is good for you?  You don't think marijuana should be taxed?  Do you have a point?

You must be either dumb as a brick or just trying to stir the pot? I hope it is the latter....

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Just now, wdefromtx said:

You must be either dumb as a brick or just trying to stir the pot? I hope it is the latter....

Watching you be obviously disingenuous and partisan is entertaining.  Again, what is your point?  Simple question.  Very simple.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

10 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Watching you be obviously disingenuous and partisan is entertaining.  Again, what is your point?  Simple question.  Very simple.

First of all point out where I have been completely partisan....I lean conservative, but I have never been against hearing what good points the other side has to offer. Thing that sucks is both sides are almost one in the same these days.

 

My point and I will spell it out for you is that I (meaning my personal opinion) think it is funny and ironic that you have a state that wants to take a Schedule I drug and make it legal, but also decide you want to tax soda because you think it is bad for you.

 

I never said pot shouldn't be taxed, and I never said soda wasn't bad for you. But to put a "soda err...sin tax" on it is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. I am guessing the counties in questions were in need of some new revenue streams because they wasted away what they had and do what they do best is add another tax.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

First of all point out where I have been completely partisan....I lean conservative, but I have never been against hearing what good points the other side has to offer. Thing that sucks is both sides are almost one in the same these days.

 

My point and I will spell it out for you is that I (meaning my personal opinion) think it is funny and ironic that you have a state that wants to take a Schedule I drug and make it legal, but also decide you want to tax soda because you think it is bad for you.

 

I never said pot shouldn't be taxed, and I never said soda wasn't bad for you. But to put a "soda err...sin tax" on it is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. I am guessing the counties in questions were in need of some new revenue streams because they wasted away what they had and do what they do best is add another tax.

Then where is the irony?  Are there not social costs associated with both?  Why are they wrong?  Your "guessing" is meaningless.  Shows your true agenda.  Pitiful.  Typical.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

5 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Then where is the irony?  Are there not social costs associated with both?  Why are they wrong?  Your "guessing" is meaningless.  Shows your true agenda.  Pitiful.  Typical.

So by your reasoning you think a Coca Cola and pot should both be Schedule I drugs. Gotcha.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

So by your reasoning you think a Coca Cola and pot should both be Schedule I drugs. Gotcha.

I see.  You have no basis.  You have no argument.  You have a ridiculous statement and, a "guess".   Thanks.  That was enlightening.  Really appreciate that intelligent exchange.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

I see.  You have no basis.  You have no argument.  You have a ridiculous statement and, a "guess".   Thanks.  That was enlightening.  Really appreciate that intelligent exchange.

LOL, You crack me up. 

 

I stated this as my opinion and said where I see the irony. No need to do it again. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

LOL, You crack me up. 

 

I stated this as my opinion and said where I see the irony. No need to do it again. 

No you did not.  You made an idiotic, insincere comment that you can not support.  

Neither pot or soda should be a schedule I drug.  

Neither is harmful in moderation.

Both have social consequences, costs when abused.

Therefore, both have a logical basis for being taxed.

The falling all over yourself in order to make some backhanded political statement about California is obvious.  It is also disingenuous, meaningless, based in partisanship/ideology, stupid.  The pitiful effort to continue to defend is futile.  But PLEASE, keep trying.  You are the smart one.  Can't wait to see your next ploy.

Will it be another stupid statement, a guess?  Show me how smart you are.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

43 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No you did not.  You made an idiotic, insincere comment that you can not support.  

Neither pot or soda should be a schedule I drug.  

Neither is harmful in moderation.

Both have social consequences, costs when abused.

Therefore, both have a logical basis for being taxed.

The falling all over yourself in order to make some backhanded political statement about California is obvious.  It is also disingenuous, meaningless, based in partisanship/ideology, stupid.  The pitiful effort to continue to defend is futile.  But PLEASE, keep trying.  You are the smart one.  Can't wait to see your next ploy.

Will it be another stupid statement, a guess?  Show me how smart you are.

So tell me how my personal belief is idiotic for thinking that there is some irony that a state decided to legalize, what is still a Schedule I drug by the federal government (Whether or not it should be is a different discussion) while at the same time putting  a sin tax on sodas because they think it is harmful for you. 

I am not arguing that both shouldn't be taxed, perhaps that is where you are misunderstanding me. It is taking one seemingly and in all reality more dangerous item and saying it is not so bad we should legalize it and at the same time saying we need to up taxes on a more innocuous item because it is bad for you. You might as well go and add a sin tax almost every other item in the grocery store. Because if you look at the ingredients in most everything nowadays a soda is the least of our worries.

Also, for the record I am in favor of the sin tax, provided that the government actually spend that money on worthwhile programs that they said they it would be used for (say fighting obesity, resources for alcoholics, etc.) . Problem is, that they don't. It seems they create these false ploys to increase taxes, but then they waste away these revenues on backroom deals. California is one example of this, but it is at every level. 

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

So tell me how my personal belief is idiotic for thinking that there is some irony that a state decided to legalize, what is still a Schedule I drug by the federal government (Whether or not it should be is a different discussion) while at the same time putting  a sin tax on sodas because they think it is harmful for you. 

I am not arguing that both shouldn't be taxed, perhaps that is where you are misunderstanding me. It is taking one seemingly and in all reality more dangerous item and saying it is not so bad we should legalize it and at the same time saying we need to up taxes on a more innocuous item because it is bad for you. You might as well go and add a sin tax almost every other item in the grocery store. Because if you look at the ingredients in most everything nowadays a soda is the least of our worries.

Also, for the record I am in favor of the sin tax, provided that the government actually spend that money on worthwhile programs that they said they it would be used for (say fighting obesity, resources for alcoholics, etc.) . Problem is, that they don't. It seems they create these false ploys to increase taxes, but then they waste away these revenues on backroom deals. California is one example of this, but it is at every level. 

 

 

First, I was civil to begin with.  You introduced, "you must be dumb as a brick.  So, stop being disingenuous.

Second, if you suddenly agree, there is no irony, there was never a need for argument, there is no "false ploy".  So, stop being disingenuous.

Third, you are right back to the effort of attempting to paint California as some sort of taxation pariah.  You might want to check which states contribute more to the country than they take.  California is one of the few "givers".  So, stop being disingenuous.

 

You were insincere, disingenuous, partisan.  You contributed nothing other than insults, guesses, baseless opinion.  We can go on with this if you care to.  However, based on how long it took you to produce this last post, I think it would be wise to gracefully retire from this discussion.

[AuburnNTexas 7,124]

I predict a booming bootleg business from surrounding counties bringing in cheaper soda. Just like we have a booming bootleg business on cigarettes from states with low taxes to states with high taxes.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

14 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I predict a booming bootleg business from surrounding counties bringing in cheaper soda. Just like we have a booming bootleg business on cigarettes from states with low taxes to states with high taxes.

That is what happens when a tax is more about prohibition than offsetting social costs.  For cigarettes, maybe a good idea?  Maybe cigarettes are that bad and, the social costs are that high?  Are cigarettes being systematically removed from society?  Due to how addictive they are, can they be used in moderation?  In reality, are they a good comparison?

[AuburnNTexas 7,124]

13 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

That is what happens when a tax is more about prohibition than offsetting social costs.  For cigarettes, maybe a good idea?  Maybe cigarettes are that bad and, the social costs are that high?  Are cigarettes being systematically removed from society?  Due to how addictive they are, can they be used in moderation?  In reality, are they a good comparison?

Only comparison is price people like cheaper and if they can get it they will. May not be right and everybody won't do it because they know it is wrong but it will happen.  That may be a cynical sad commentary on our society but I think it is true.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

10 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Only comparison is price people like cheaper and if they can get it they will. May not be right and everybody won't do it because they know it is wrong but it will happen.  That may be a cynical sad commentary on our society but I think it is true.

I disagree with that being the only comparison.  There are inherent social costs.  I think the questions I posed are valid considerations.

I would tend to look at alcohol as a comparison.  I think cigarettes may fall into a different category.  

[AuburnNTexas 7,124]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

I disagree with that being the only comparison.  There are inherent social costs.  I think the questions I posed are valid considerations.

I would tend to look at alcohol as a comparison.  I think cigarettes may fall into a different category.  

I am not disagreeing with you. Your comparison is accurate on the social side of the equation all I am saying is I believe that a bootleg market will occur because of price. Alcohol is bad for you we tried prohibition it didn't work, Cigarettes are bad for you depending on the state we are taxing the heck out of them it has helped but a black market has appeared in the states with the highest taxes. Soda is bad for you as bad as alcohol or cigarettes I don't think so but when one county has high taxes and the next door county doesn't a black market will appear. Many will be honest and pay the higher taxes but there will be a sizeable number that will cheat.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I am not disagreeing with you. Your comparison is accurate on the social side of the equation all I am saying is I believe that a bootleg market will occur because of price. Alcohol is bad for you we tried prohibition it didn't work, Cigarettes are bad for you depending on the state we are taxing the heck out of them it has helped but a black market has appeared in the states with the highest taxes. Soda is bad for you as bad as alcohol or cigarettes I don't think so but when one county has high taxes and the next door county doesn't a black market will appear. Many will be honest and pay the higher taxes but there will be a sizeable number that will cheat.

We agree in principle.  Still, cigarettes IMHO, are different.  They are being systematically removed from society (education, restriction, taxation).  My point is, the economics of a black market don't necessarily apply equally and, neither do the social costs and consequences.  All vices aren't equal.

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-cook-county-law-enforcement-layoffs-met-20170714-story.html

 

Quote

 

More than 300 Cook County employees have been laid off after a proposed county soda tax was indefinitely stalled by a lawsuit, county officials said Friday.

Each county department had to cut 10 percent of its budget to meet the shortfall, according to a statement from County Board President Toni Preckwinkle.

In addition to the layoffs, more than 600 vacant positions will go unfilled, she said.

"I regret that these actions are necessary — and I deeply regret the impact they have on individual employees," wrote Preckwinkle, noting that she proposed the soda tax in part to avoid such significant budget cuts.

 

Cutbacks to vital offices in the county's criminal justice system could have a significant impact, authorities said.

The state's attorney's office announced that 17 prosecutors will be laid off, plus 22 other staffers. In addition, non-union staffers, prosecutors included, will be required to take two unpaid furlough days, according to spokeswoman Tandra Simonton.

Simonton declined to comment on the impact of losing nearly 20 prosecutors, but earlier this summer officials told the Chicago Tribune that the office was already understaffed as violence continued to spike at levels unseen in two decades. As a result, the office has made policy shifts, including a plan to stop prosecuting certain traffic offenses altogether.

The public defender's office, which represents indigent clients who cannot afford a private lawyer, laid off 69 employees, the bulk of them lawyers, said Public Defender Amy Campanelli. The effect will be "devastating," she said.

 

"This will delay trials and the resolution of cases," Campanelli said. "We already suffered cuts last year. I have no excess to spare at all."

Staffing shortages could even lead the public defender's office to stop taking on new clients, said Campanelli, who added that her attorneys' workloads are already above the maximum recommended by experts.

 

If the public defender's office cannot represent a client, the county must appoint private counsel at a far greater cost over the long run, Campanelli said.

"I am a constitutionally mandated office, therefore I have to be funded," she said. "I have to provide legal representation pursuant to the Sixth Amendment. …Everybody has a right to counsel, no matter how poor."

The 300 layoffs do not include cuts yet to come from the sheriff's office.

Those cuts have not yet been finalized, said Cara Smith, chief policy officer, who declined to say how many layoffs are anticipated.

"I can tell you that we're going through every aspect of the office to look for places we can cut," Smith said.

Among other obligations, the sheriff's office runs the Cook County Jail, operates the sheriff's police and provides security at county courthouses.

"Cuts and adjustments in those divisions will have an impact throughout the criminal justice system," Smith said.

The tax on soda and other sweetened beverages was supposed to go into effect July 1. But a judge issued a temporary restraining order June 30 after the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and several grocers filed a lawsuit against the county Department of Revenue seeking to block the tax as unconstitutional and too vague.

Circuit Judge Daniel Kubasiak is scheduled to take up the county's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Friday, but he isn't expected to announce his decision until a week later, according to Frank Shuftan, Preckwinkle's spokesman.

"We can't predict what the judge may or may not do, how long the court case may last, and, as such, have to proceed with the holdback," Shuftan wrote in an email to the Tribune.

Cook County had projected collecting about $67.5 million in revenue from the tax this year and more than $200 million for fiscal year 2018.

 

[homersapien 11,337]

On 11/15/2016 at 10:47 AM, wdefromtx said:

So they vote to legalize pot, but drinking soda is bad and therefore they tax it to deter people from drinking it. Makes a lot of sense!!!

Drinking soda is worse for you than using Cannibis.  So, actually, it does make sense.

https://authoritynutrition.com/13-ways-sugary-soda-is-bad-for-you/

Hopefully, salt will be next.

[TitanTiger 20,460]

On 11/13/2016 at 4:54 PM, Auburn85 said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cook-county-soda-tax_us_58250427e4b0c4b63b0c0fe4

 

A whole 1%?!?!?!?!

You mean someone might have to pay another 2 cents in sales tax on a $1.49 beverage that's terrible for them?  How are we going to pay for food and medicine with this obscene gouging?

Someone alert patriots everywhere.  Meet at Boston Harbor at midnight to dump all the Coke and Pepsi products into the sea!

[Mims44 1,863]

I don't think 1 cent per ounce is gonna fix any obesity problem.