Question of the day
Thursday, Oct 13, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle on Thursday pitched her proposed penny-an-ounce tax on sweetened beverages like pop, lemonade and sports drinks as a way to avoid drastic staffing cuts at the state’s attorney’s office, sheriff’s department and public health system.
“I could put forth a proposal that would significantly impair our criminal justice system over the next three years and undermine the progress we are making in public health,” she told commissioners. “It would mean at least 1,000 fewer positions in our criminal justice system, including prosecutors, public defenders, sheriff’s deputies and critical support staff, programs and services.
“Instead of focusing on becoming more fair and effective, we would be focusing on just getting by,” she added. “This budget, instead, calls not only for dedication to criminal justice reform, but a significant investment on public safety.”
Preckwinkle pointed to a proposal to double the amount spent on anti-violence programs to about $6.4 million, as well as an effort to create what she’s calling a community triage center in the Roseland neighborhood, where early intervention services will be provided to people with substance abuse or mental health issues who are at risk of ending up in the county jail or at the publicly funded Stroger Hospital.
* More…
Governments should use tax policy to increase the price of sugary drinks like sodas, sport drinks and even 100 per cent fruit juices as a way to fight obesity, diabetes and tooth decay, the World Health Organisation says.
A 20 per cent price increase could reduce consumption of sweet drinks by the same proportion, the WHO said in Fiscal Policies for Diet and Prevention of Noncommunicable Diseases, a report issued on World Obesity Day.
Drinking fewer calorific sweet drinks is the best way to curb excessive weight and prevent chronic diseases such as diabetes, although fat and salt in processed foods are also at fault, WHO officials said.
In the 36-page report, the WHO also cited “strong evidence” that subsidies to reduce prices for fresh fruits and vegetables can help improve diets.
* But…
* The Question: Do you support the concept of a special surtax on sweetened beverages? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
surveys & polls
- PawneeMan - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:33 pm:
Leslie Knope?
- AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:33 pm:
Voted yes. It taxes a non-necessity at a reasonable rate.
- frisbee - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:35 pm:
voted yes, sugar is the new tobacco
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:38 pm:
Yes. Not only zero nutritional value, but sugar’s poison.
There are two more episodes:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2cxvfg_hd-the-men-who-made-us-fat-part-1-of-3_school
- A guy - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:39 pm:
Even in their best intentions, they are actually hoping for a policy that inspires diminishing returns like any vice tax does. It’s just that the vices we’ve taken up (soda) instead of the vices we’ve given up (liquor) get added to the ever increasing list of things we tax cause it’s no good for you. Crazy way to run a rodeo. If you decide to buy soda anyway, for heaven’s sake, turn down the grocery bag.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:40 pm:
Generally speaking, it is best to tax things you want less of in society. In this case, the goal is fewer cases of Type 2 Diabetes.
And Kristin, if the “we” in your question refers to your colleagues at the Tronc, the answer is almost certainly “very.”
- i aint paying no 50 cents for no coke - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:41 pm:
So she gives out huge raises (above the cola), raises the sales tax’s and now this to cover them?
What a joke?
She threatens jobs in the criminal justice system, but not the hospital system?
More interesting is if she had left the sales tax alone her revenue might’ve been close to the same, instead now all of cook county now has to venture to the burbs for food, diapers, and Pepsi.
- Ray del Camino - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:42 pm:
Surtaxes on alcohol and tobacco not so controversial anymore. Maybe it’s time for the Mountain Dew tax.
- LessAnon? - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:43 pm:
No. Just Big brother acting smarter than the general public. When they can consistently pass balanced budgets, they can claim to be smarter than me.
- Who Else - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:43 pm:
It’s regressive and therefore not ideal, like other sales taxes, but local governments don’t have the authority to tax income with a progressive rate structure, so regressive taxes are the only tools we’ve got.
- Downstate GOP Faithless - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:44 pm:
Generally I am supportive of these moves, but in this case it does seem like a Cola tax is the result of her own inability to keep pay raises at or below COLA
- Ghost - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:44 pm:
I dont like these sin type taxes.
as an aside, some new research is questioning whether the sugar free drinks may be a bigger favtor in obseity then the sugary drinks.
- Slippin' Jimmy - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:45 pm:
Vote yes, sugar can cause diabetes, poor oral hygiene which both are bad for our children.
- Deft Wing - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:45 pm:
Terrible policy initiative.
Is there a worse County for taxpayers than Cook County?
- Ron - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:45 pm:
Yes, but only if the 1% sales tax increase is repealed.
- Huh? - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:47 pm:
Voted no. It will only boost sales at stores over the county line.
- Gone, but not forgotten - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:47 pm:
Just another thing that I will have to pay for, to benefit those who don’t, i.e., those on LINK cards or food stamps or whatever they call that entitled benefit that we don’t receive (fortunately). I may be wrong, but I’ve heard that if using that method to purchase, you do not pay tax. So, how is this a fair and equitable way to treat all residents in Cook County?
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:47 pm:
No
We are voting on a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to ensure gas taxes are going to be used for their intended purpose. I would truly fear that the money raised from this excise tax would easily be diverted.
Tiny Dancer - others do not make us “fat”. Genetics and our own actions do that to ourselves.
I was svelte before I had kids. I finally broke those bad eating and lazy habits and look much better. No one forced me to eat poorly and binge on Netflix shows.
- Almost the Weekend - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:48 pm:
This hurts UFCW, Teamsters but helps AFSCME. Once again the public sector unions best interests are being put forth before their brother and sisters in the private sector. If Rauner only went after AFSCME or any other competent Republican in Cook County was a threat. No way Preckwinkle would even attempt to try and pass this.
- IllinoisBoi - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:48 pm:
Lemonade tax. That doesn’t go over well.
- Big brother? Oh brother - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:50 pm:
The reality of today’s sugary beverage consumption is that it has been thoroughly documented to lead to health problems like obesity and diabetes. The government, through medical assistance aid programs, pays massive amounts of tax-payer dollars towards treating the people who have made Dr. Pepper their primary physician. If the United States, and Chicago (consistently rated at one of the most obese cities) were responsible enough to limit their consumption to healthy levels, this issue wouldn’t even be on the table. I say tax away! Let the government recuperate some of that money is wastes.
- bb - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:50 pm:
Rather than taxing sugary beverages, the government should stop subsidizing the production of corn, that makes adding corn syrup to everything so ridiculously cheap (and therefore prevalent). Sugar consumption is a legit health issue, but manufacturers should be held accountable, not just consumers.
- pool boy - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:50 pm:
Voted no. I have coached a lot of kids that needed more than water after playing 3 plus hours of soccer in one day and I have had babies that needed pedialyte. Let’s tax the real problem, carbohydrates.
- DuPage - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:53 pm:
@2:41===So she gives out huge raises (above the cola), raises the sales tax’s and now this to cover them?
What a joke?===
Not only higher wages, but higher pensions. Cook County retirement goes by an employees rate of pay on their last day before retiring. Most of the other public pensions go by an average of several years.
- Been There - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:54 pm:
===New tax on sugary beverages from @ToniPreckwinkle because it’s for our own good. How dumb do they think we are? Extremely.===
Last time I looked the county had a health care budget of well over a billion dollars. A lot of that is for free services. I’m not sure how much consumption will go down but you would think there would be some correlation to a decrease in health problems.
- Earnest - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:56 pm:
I voted “yes.” It will decrease consumption a little and over time reduce related health costs.
Also, agree or disagree, one of our elected officials just acknowledged that we’ll have to cut something or increase revenue, and said exactly which one she wanted to do. When has that happened over the last two state budgets?
- Doug - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:58 pm:
Exactly the amount needed for raises this year…..where will the money come from NEXT year?
- JCollord - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 2:59 pm:
Yes: This is solid public health policy with the additional benefit of helping the County balance a budget. I attended a budget briefing in which County made it clear their priority was they other way around - raising funds with added benefit of good public health policy.
- @ dupage - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:01 pm:
not true, its highest 4 years of last ten.
- New Slang - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:04 pm:
No. slippery slope to me.
- blue dog dem - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:06 pm:
Kind of reminds me of the dramatic reduction in smoking when cigs first got taxed. Then more people quit smoking when cig taxes were increased. I think…..
- Cassandra - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:07 pm:
The way to reduce the costs of the criminal justice system is to reduce the number of individuals entering the system in the first place. This could be achieved to a significant degree by reducing racial disproportionality, and there are other means as well. Preckwinkle, to her credit, has actually tried ot make some progress on this issue.
It’s hard to be against this tax, consuming sugary soft drinks having become sort of a sin these days. But I wonder about those stats. Seems to me if you like soft drinks, you’d pay the extra, look extra hard for sales, keep drinking the stuff. But I voted yes.
- blue dog dem - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:08 pm:
This bullwinkle gal stole old Blues idea of taxing Oreo cookies.
- anon - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:08 pm:
If this were just a proposal to create the pop tax and didn’t mention what the money would go to exactly, would so many people be upset about this?
- Amalia - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:09 pm:
and if people just stop drinking those drinks, it’s good for them. then what? Let’s tax kale smoothies.
- Joe Schmoe - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:09 pm:
While we’re at it, time to start a tax on Cheetos, Doritos and Twinkies……
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:09 pm:
I voted yes because we don’t drink the stuff, and the state would be a little healthier if we cut down. But I also realize that it is a regressive tax that is bound to hurt consumers in the poorer neighborhoods with grocery stores with few choices and bars on the windows harder than those trendy spendies who shop at Whole Foods.
- HRC2016 - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:09 pm:
@Kristen McQueary : How dumb do they think we are?
As dumb as the person who hoped for a Hurricane Katrina in Chicago.
- Kim Mitchell - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:09 pm:
Police Beat
The Cook County Sherriff’s Office broke up a smuggling ring Saturday night when authorities pulled over a suspicious looking van with the license plates “GO4SODA”.
Kim Mitchell, 64, was arrested by authorities and charged with tax avoidance and resisting arrest. At the end of the ordeal, nobody was hurt, nobody cried, nobody drowned, nobody died.
- Bogey Golfer - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:12 pm:
Voted ‘no’. We’re from the government and we know what’s best for you. Tax on red meat next?
- Think of the children - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:14 pm:
Food security is a huge issue. Over 40 percent of the population struggles to meat a grocery budget. This is an extremely regressive tax. Unfortunately many lower income folks will choose juice for their kids over fresh meat and vegtables.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:19 pm:
I live in DuPage County so it would be good for us because Cook County people would buy more in DuPage.
- Archiesmom - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:24 pm:
Voted yes. Sin taxes are nothing new. I believe that earlier this week the world health organization recommended taxing sugary beverages to decrease consumption. I support it for health reasons, and just hope the revenues are used appropriately.
- A guy - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:42 pm:
A lot more people are going to ask for their drinks “Neat”.
Water for me please.
- Delimma - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:44 pm:
My only concern is that the money is going to the state’s attorney and sheriff, but nothing for the public defenders. At some point, the systemic imbalance will need to be addressed; unfortunately, not many worry about that side of the equation.
- Christopher - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:44 pm:
Voted No, Do they think we’re dumb? We already pay an extra tax on sugary beverages to pay for an Olympics we never got. Where’d all that money go that we paid already, and where is it going now?
- m - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:45 pm:
Surprised that all the dems who constantly complain about our “regressive” state income tax can suddenly support something this much more “regressive.”
Voted no, because this continues the cause of slowly chipping away one more little piece of family’s incomes. The primary role of government is to protect its citizens. I don’t believe that extends to big brother protecting us from our own decisions. Worried about the free healthcare service costs caused by consumption? Then lobby congress to ban sugary drinks from Link card purchases.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:46 pm:
Sugar is the enemy of good health. The health problems caused by the high consumption of sugar in the American diet results in increased health care costs. This is a cost we all must pay even if we consume very little sugar. Those who consume more sugar should bear more of these costs.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:49 pm:
“as a way to avoid drastic staffing cuts at the as a way to avoid drastic staffing cuts at the state’s attorney’s office, sheriff’s department and public health system..”
Rather than 1 cent per oz. of sugar drinks I would support a 1 cent per bullet tax in Cook County. Considering the number of shootings in the City of Chicago would it not be better that those doing the shooting help fund, in part, the state’s attorney’s office, sheriff’s department and the public health system (including Stroger Hospital where many shooting victims are taken)?
- Responsa - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:52 pm:
Anybody who thinks that an extra penny tax on “bad stuff” is going to raise awareness or change behaviors is either delusional, lying, or stupid. While I certainly don’t “support” it, I have no real problem with the tax itself if a penny on total estimated sales of those products is what mathematically gets Toni to where she needs to be financially. But the “trust us, we’re really actually doing you all a big favor here because we need to discourage you from buying what you prefer—and you’re too fat— and anyway you will get diabetes from these drinks” narrative is insulting and beneath her.
- Touré's Latte - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:56 pm:
I voted no. Looks like a pay raise tax to me.
- @ Dilemma - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:56 pm:
Funny you mention that, this does go to the pd’s (who are in a union, afscme) that traditionally gets much higher pay and raises than the state’s attorney’s (for less work at least on a volume number).
This should be the Kim Foxx Pop tax, as I can conceive of no other reason why Toni would’ve given the unions such hefty raises. The sad fact is Kim really didn’t need the union support or cash (Anita was destroyed and Soros and Co. ponied up as much as they could’ve spent), but Toni had to be sure.
- Big Muddy - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 3:59 pm:
NO. This is all about pay raises and nothing more.
- lake county democrat - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:04 pm:
No, for two reasons:
1) It’s regressive, funding a budget more on the backs of the poor. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-soda-tax-is-fundamentally-regressive-what-if-its-philadelphias-best-hope-for-progressive-change/
2) It helps Rauner. The public would be far more willing to accept tax hikes in one (or two) big whacks than this endless drip-drip-drip (some of the drips pretty good). The GOP if smart will say “It never ends with them - we’re you’re only hope” and many will agree (and many who don’t agree will still be far less enthusiastic Dem voters).
- Liberty - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:14 pm:
No - What sense does it make to tax a heavily subsidized industry?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:16 pm:
Yes, there’s been taxes on booze and tobacco since the crust cooled. They’re not necessities, just like Big Gulps are not. Somehow the country survived.
– How dumb do they think we are? Extremely–
Tell us who “we” are and you could probably get a reasonable answer to the daily hysterical tantrum question.
And then explain the good public policy issues of the state giving $33 million a year in “newsprint ink” tax exemptions when newsprint is going the way of buggy whips and whale oil.
- Grand Avenue - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:20 pm:
Tax on marijuana - people would be happy to pay
- Springfield Since '77 - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:34 pm:
Thank Goodness government is here to protect us all. God bless them… everyone…
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:42 pm:
It’s a ridiculous tax. There’s no nexus between the tax and the programs that it will be used to fund. In addition, if the tax has the intended effect - drive down consumption - it won’t be a reliable source of revenue for the future. It will also encourage more people to purchase their beverages outside of Cook County, particularly in the border areas.
Finally, if it’s only “sugary” drinks, then why are diet soft drinks included? For the same reason the County Board does most of what they do - because they can.
- BBG Watch - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:43 pm:
== Rather than taxing sugary beverages, the government should stop subsidizing the production of corn, that makes adding corn syrup to everything so ridiculously cheap (and therefore prevalent). Sugar consumption is a legit health issue, but manufacturers should be held accountable, not just consumers. ==
BINGO! How many more taxes can they keep laying on people? I don’t drink the stuff, but these taxes are hurting. So far there is food, medicine, cigs, alcohol, bag, bottled water and now sugary beverage drinks? Jeez … into DuPage County for me!
- Anon - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:44 pm:
Sugary drinks lead to obesity. Obesity leads to health issues that cost taxpayers money. Taxing those who consume these drinks will raise funds necessary to cover their health care costs and, hopefully cause fewer people to consume these drinks and become obese. Everybody wins.
- Belle - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:54 pm:
Yes. Maybe it will help people think twice before buying it. It is really not good for you plus now the diet-versions have High Fructose Corn Syrup in them instead of sugar which was marginally less toxic.
- blue dog dem - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:55 pm:
Anon. I thought we already one with Obamacare.?
- blue dog dem - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 4:56 pm:
Won…
- James - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 5:00 pm:
Kristin McCleary! You can buy your soda in Indiana, and stay there if that’s your economic paradise.
I respect the criminal justice reform that Toni Preckwinkle has initiated and now wants to pay for: replacement of Alvarez, persuading the IL Supreme Court to call a meeting of all stakeholders including the recalcitrant chief judge and the sheriff who could have initiated the same discussion, but didn’t.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 5:14 pm:
All of you who voted No; isn’t a consumption tax the hallmark of GOP fiscal policy?
- Chicago_Downstater - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 5:19 pm:
Every morning I hear this commercial on the 670 the SCORE paid for by the IL Beverage Association telling us that this tax is going to hurt families.
Seriously?
I’d vote Yes just for the health of our families.
- Deft Wing - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 5:24 pm:
53% against in this space?! That probably bodes poorly for Preckwinkle.
- 13 Warder - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 5:25 pm:
How dumb do you think we are? About as dumb as that editorial board that didn’t endorse either major candidate for President.
- Ratso Rizzo - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 5:31 pm:
Why stop there? Let’s tax everything bad for you. Alcohol. Anything with added sugar. Processed food. It really has nothing to do with health and everything to do with finding new sources of revenue. Can someone please have some political courage and propose a progressive income tax coupled with property tax relief and modest spending cuts? Geez. It’s pretty simple…and this is coming from someone with a GED!
- DuPage - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 5:34 pm:
@ @DuPage 3:01
My mistake, it appears it is average of 4 years for regular employees. The final day amount apparently applies to an “alternate formula” available only to certain people.
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/11/pension_windfal.html
- Past the Rule of 85 - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 5:41 pm:
I would support it ONLY if the revenue went to health related programs. I think we need to stop coming up with “cute” taxes to cover basic functions of government. There’s a huge amount of cognitive dissonance out there about what it costs to run a democracy. Until we get honest about the costs and benefits of government things will only get further removed from reality.
- Mayor Bloomberg - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 6:44 pm:
Memo
To: Toni Preckwinkle
Re: Soft Drink taxes
It has been tried before and the push back was incredible. Imagine yourself being mocked by Sarah Palin as she slurps from a Super Big Gulp.
- @MisterJayEm - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 7:06 pm:
“How dumb do they think we are? Extremely.”
Dumb enough to ::tronc?
– MrJM
- N-T-C - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 7:57 pm:
While discouraging consumption of sugary drinks probably is good policy, and might be acceptable if better health was the motivation behind this proposal, it’s pretty clear that any health benefits are pretext, and this tax is all about the revenue. I don’t drink the stuff, but I still object to narrowly targeted nickel-and-dime taxes because they punish legal behavior, obscure the real cost of government, are usually regressive, and once instituted will never be removed even if the promised policy benefits are not achieved.
- Rough Rider - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 8:09 pm:
Let go of the county workers. With crime down their is no need. We would not have productive citizens in preparation trial detention.
- DuPage Bard - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 8:20 pm:
Voted yes- thank you Madam Preckwinkle.
To the residents of Cook County please be aware that most roads do come to DuPage County. Many grocery stores very close to the border. We just lowered our sales tax by 1/4%. Come on by and set a spell. We’d love to have you. Plus our gas is cheaper too. 😄
- cannon649 - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 8:32 pm:
NO - cut spending first - after this does not work (will generate all expected) it will be expanded - soon it will be all drinks
We keep doing the same thing spent it before we have it
- From the 'Dale to HP - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 8:33 pm:
Member of the Trib Ed Board not understanding how taxes work sums up the current Trib Ed Board perfectly.
- Rabid - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 8:35 pm:
Don’t tax the consumers, tax the makers
- Huh? - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 8:40 pm:
To those of you who voted yes, where is the money going? To the county general revenue fund? Or to the county health system?
Sugar is the new sin tax.
- Ron - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 8:47 pm:
Rabid, taxing makers is the same as taxing the consumers. Prekwinkle = Stroger
- West Side the Best Side - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 9:14 pm:
Ice T - Lemonade. Read the sign.
- Arock - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 10:18 pm:
A new tax that will slowly put more people out of work in the private sector but at least we saved or increased government jobs.
- Yooper in Diaspora - Thursday, Oct 13, 16 @ 11:19 pm:
So I do like the idea of taxing sugary drinks, but if it’s effective in its aim of curbing their consumption, it won’t be a reliable source of revenue.
- For the Kids - Monday, Oct 17, 16 @ 9:05 am:
Yes, anything to help address the health impacts of sugary drinks, especially for kids. Sugary drinks are like the new tobacco- taxes work and the money can go to important services.