“The Original Soda Taxer”
Wednesday, Jan 16, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Have a look…
From the spot…
In Springfield, Susana Mendoza voted to hit working families with a massive new soda tax.
The ad claims she increased soda taxes by 600 percent.
* Coincidentally, we talked about this same bill from 2009 earlier today. It was part of the Video Gaming Act which funded the capital program. From the statute…
Beginning September 1, 2009, each month the Department shall pay into the Capital Projects Fund an amount that is equal to an amount estimated by the Department to represent 80% of the net revenue realized for the preceding month from the sale of candy, grooming and hygiene products, and soft drinks that had been taxed at a rate of 1% prior to August 1, 2009 but that is now taxed at 6.25%. […]
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, beginning August 1, 2009, “soft drinks” mean non-alcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners. “Soft drinks” do not include beverages that contain milk or milk products, soy, rice or similar milk substitutes, or greater than 50% of vegetable or fruit juice by volume.
By the way, an increase of 1 to 6.25 is actually a 525 percent increase, not 600. But whatevs.
* The legislation also increased the tax rate on candy. Here’s one of my all-time favorite legislative definitions…
For purposes of this Section, “candy” means a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces. “Candy” does not include any preparation that contains flour or requires refrigeration.
* Now, to the point. I’d wager that most people don’t remember these two tax hikes or never even heard about them when they passed.
Why? Because it was an agreed bill. Democrats and Republicans worked together on the drafting and both sides put votes on the legislation and almost nobody voted against it. The Retail Merchants Association also had a hand in crafting the bill and other business groups strongly supported doing an infrastructure program.
Without significant opposition, those tax hikes quickly faded from view.
The difference between now and then, however, is the prevalence of social media. It’s much easier for a small group of anti-taxers to spread their gospel than it was ten years ago.
…Adding… Rebecca Evans at the Susana Mendoza campaign…
“Gery Chico, Ed Burke’s endorsed candidate, is misrepresenting the facts in a desperate attempt to distract voters from his relationship with Ed Burke, whom he lobbied in City Hall. Susana voted for a bipartisan economic stimulus bill, a capitol bill that created 10s of thousands of jobs, putting people to work as the recession was ravaging Illinois. Toni Preckwinkle is the only candidate in this race who proposed a regressive soda tax.”
- SAP - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 11:57 am:
Those tax hikes on soda and candy were part of Illinois’ effort to come into conformity with the definitions adopted by the Streamlined Sale Tax Project.
- Montrose - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 11:58 am:
We are in Chicago. It is pop. A pop tax. Not soda. That is what I find most offensive about the big debate over this tax.
- Been There - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:03 pm:
===Why? Because it was an agreed bill. ====
Also I believe it was paid through the distributors and didn’t show up on your receipt the way the Cook Co tax did. Not 100% sure if that is right but I think the reporting was different
- Fav Human - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:05 pm:
A hit on the pop tax can’t possibly surprise anyone. Unless it’s that it didn’t happen sooner.
- RoyalCrownPop - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:06 pm:
Montrose…..100% correct…..In 60’s Central Illinois, we had a new kid(from Southern IL) in grade school call it “sodie”. Hysterical laughter ensued.
I thought Preckwinkle caught the blame on that Pop Tax.
- 33rd Ward - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:07 pm:
Soda is terrible for you.
It should be taxed higher.
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:14 pm:
Rich, you couldn’t be any more wrong about people not remembering the Pop Tax. Haven’t seen that kind of backlash to a nickel ‘n’ dime tax, maybe ever.
- SaulGoodman - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:15 pm:
**Rich, you couldn’t be any more wrong about people not remembering the Pop Tax.**
You seem confused. Rich isn’t talking about the Preckwinkle Pop Tax. He’s talking about the Mendoza/Springfield Pop Tax.
- steve - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:17 pm:
It’s a good ad but… it’s like it’s in the wrong city. Chicago voters don’t mind high taxes enough to throw politicians out of office. I doubt any of the candidates will be hurt from that ad. Maybe, ties to Ed Burke but not that ad.
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:17 pm:
Ah, true. But if anything, I think that just proves my point. Sore subject.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:19 pm:
===But if anything, I think that just proves my point===
No, it proves you mistook a 10-year-old tax that’s still on the state books for a recent tax that’s off the local books. Sheesh.
And it also proves my point that nobody remembers that tax hike. They, like you, do remember Preckwinkle’s, however.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:22 pm:
Bigger question - has the money actually been put into the Capital Projects Fund and kept there like it was supposed to?
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:22 pm:
Yes - because it’s totally not possible for your average voter to conflate/associate the two. Which is the entire point of the ad, Rich.
- thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:26 pm:
===an increase of 1 to 6.25 is actually a 525 percent increase===
Correct. If that wanted to stretch it to a bigger sounding number, they could have said it was over 6 times as much. Or, for emphasis:
“She didn’t just double it. She didn’t just triple it. She tripled it and then more than doubled that! Six times as much in taxes! What is next, your property taxes jumping from $10,000 to $60,000? What was she thinking?!”
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:28 pm:
Entire goal*** in relation to the Pop Taxes, to be more precise
- City Zen - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:29 pm:
Grooming and hygiene products were once taxed at only 1%? What was the reason?
- Amaliaa - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:37 pm:
wait, what? this battle for the second spot in the runoff is really heating up.
- Amalia - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:42 pm:
meanwhile, just saw the new Toni ad. first of all “I’m hip” is just so sad. and, it’s true, she took on the old boys, the machine, she took on all of it….and she made them part of her, literally taking them on. waiting for that ad answer. maybe next she will drink a soda on screen and say she would happily pay the tax. what a bunch of goofiness.
- Just Observing - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 12:59 pm:
The last shot in the ad where Chico is hugging a firefighter looks very awkward.
- Shytown - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:18 pm:
I think there’s a distinct difference here. This changed the way some sugary products are classified and therefore putting them in another category altogether, while Preckwinkle’s soda tax was an outright tax increase. Chico can spin it differently, but I think my understanding is a more factual explanation.
- NoGifts - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:19 pm:
City Zen - hygiene and grooming products were only taxed at 1% because we didn’t want to turn into a frumpy state. LOL And the candy tax is why twizzlers aren’t taxed like candy. They have flour in them
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:24 pm:
If you’re explaining, you’re losing. This ad muddies the waters between the two front runners, which helps Preckwinkle on a sore subject. Chico did her a solid.
- WSJ Paywall - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:26 pm:
There’s something odd about the text in this ad like it’s cut off in places. If it’s a stylistic choice, it’s an odd one.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:33 pm:
Or the relentless increases in income, property, sales, and use taxes have pushed people to their breaking points.
- Chris Widger - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 1:37 pm:
==Gery Chico, Ed Burke’s endorsed candidate, is misrepresenting the facts in a desperate attempt to distract voters from his relationship with Ed Burke, whom he lobbied in City Hall.==
Pretty wild thing to say for the woman who was married in Burke’s house.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:38 pm:
Mendoza can solve any problem because she played soccer.
- Shytown - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:47 pm:
Chris Widger, false equivalent between getting married by Anne Burke in their house vs taking Ed Burke’s endorsement for mayor and loads of business work over the years.
- NoGifts - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 2:53 pm:
If I were to create an advertisement against Chico, I’d be pushing the fact that he was board president of cps from 1995 to 2001, and presided over the giant pension holiday.
- Practical Politics - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:14 pm:
Susana is not the right person to throw shade on Ed Burke as her ties to the Alderman and his wife, Justice Anne Burke, are about the same as Chico’s.
- You could say that, I couldn't - Wednesday, Jan 16, 19 @ 5:22 pm:
Been there, because the bill just increased the sales tax you would normally charge it did not have to he listed as a separate tax. The amount was just rolled in to the sales tax. It would have been paid by the retailer, not the distributor.
The Cook County tax was also on the retailer, but not part of the sales tax. The idea was that the retailer would collect it from the customer and pay, but that cost would he hidden in the price. However, because you can’t charge sales tax on a tax, the Illinois Department of Revenue correctly said you had to list the soda (lifelng Chicagoan, always called it soda) tax separately so you don’t pay sales tax on the sida tax. A bit of foresight on Cook County’s part would have avoided this.