Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Progress?

Posted in:

Illinois

* From the Illinois Policy Institute’s Facebook page…

A new bill in the Illinois Senate is taking aim at soda drinkers.
The Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Act, introduced by State Senator Toi Hutchinson, would place a penny-per-ounce tax on bottled sugar-sweetened beverages, syrups or powders. The new tax would supposedly raise an estimated $560 million annually for Illinois.

But the law would raise this money on the backs of poor Illinoisans.

Like sales taxes, a tax on soda is regressive. It would place a larger share of the tax burden on residents least capable of paying it. On top of that, many residents from Hutchinson’s district would be hit the hardest.

So, that means the “Institute” now wants progressive taxes?

Cool.

Maybe they’ll help pass petitions to put a progressive income tax on the ballot.

* Related…

* A new tax on sodas, sugary drinks? It might be part of Illinois budget deal

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:56 am

Comments

But low-income people are most impacted by the diseases linked to sugary drink consumption (type 2 diabetes, heart disease, obesity, etc.). What the Senate should do is invest some of the revenues back into communities hardest hit by those diseases to promote wellness and health.

Comment by Chicago J Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 11:59 am
Progress? Naw, more like perfidy! Hat tip to Honeybear.

Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:08 pm
Big brother needs to stay out of my refrigerator and bedroom. Just sayin…

Comment by Blue dog dem Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:08 pm
==But low-income people are most impacted by the diseases linked to sugary drink consumption ==

Then it shouldn’t be eligible food item under SNAP benefits.

Yesterday, the guy from Pepsi was against the tax, but he didn’t mention why his product is eligible for food stamps. Seems like the beverage industry wants to have their Mountain Dew and drink it too.

Comment by City Zen Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:12 pm
=== What the Senate should do is invest some of the revenues back into communities hardest hit by those diseases to promote wellness and health. ===

Sure, like we did with the Tobacco settlement.

Does this tax apply to maple syrup? Asking on behalf of Funks Grove.

Comment by Free Set of Steak Knives Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:14 pm
Potential to affect tourism and small crafters, too!

http://craftsodafestival.com/
http://www.homersodafestival.com/

Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:32 pm
–So, that means the “Institute” now wants progressive taxes?–

LOL, they’re not so good at the concern-trolling, are they?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:34 pm
When this topic last came up, I picked up a sense that no one really knows whether higher taxes on (sugary) soft drinks actually reduces consumption on a level that actually makes a difference. The state of Arkansas was identified as one that has had such a tax for an extended period. But, the question as to whether obesity had declined, vis-a-vis per capita consumption, went unanswered. So, it strikes this observer that “progressive” versus “regressive” is less important than the bigger question as to whether the proposed legislation actually does anything other than raise taxes. If that question has no answer then the legislation is really just an experiment.

Comment by Keyser Soze Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:35 pm
Free Set of Steak Knives- Are they selling any maple sirup(not a misspelling, folks) flavored soda? Didn’t see it on their website. Not being snarky. There is a company in Vermont that does. If so, then, yes, it appears that soda would be taxable.

Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:39 pm
=== But the law would raise this money on the backs of poor Illinoisans. ===

Illinois has one of the most regressive state and local tax systems in the nation. If the IPI genuinely opposes soaking the poor, then welcome to the effort to make our tax system less regressive.

Comment by Anon Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:47 pm
Skinnies vs Fats round 1

Seriously, if and when the USA moves to a more universal healthcare system we’ll need a ton more bills like this to pay for additional services for the 2/3 of Americans who are overweight and 1/3 who are obese

Comment by BlackHawk Boone Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:47 pm
The poor and working class of Illinois are sure lucky to have IPI on their side. I can feel to love and compassion just oozing out of their gold-crusted pores.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 12:56 pm
So will the Real sugar beverages be included? Those drinks are usually more expensive already. Corn syrup is the preeminent sweetener used in scads of products, these days, not real cane sugar. So this is a tax hit the ADMs and a shot at agriculture and the State our number one export(besides college students) corn.

Comment by NorthsideNoMore Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:02 pm
Not to stir the pot here but it looks like now the bill is only taxing drinks with SUGAR. This would not include diet soda and other no-calorie sweetened drinks. Right? Couldn’t find text of the bill.

Comment by BK Bro Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:03 pm
BK Bro- Nope. Bill states “caloric sweetners” as taxable. http://tinyurl.com/znxy85x

Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:23 pm
BlackHawk Boone–

If 2/3 of Americans are overweight and 1/3 are obese, where does that leave me, at 135 pounds?

Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:32 pm
With the Starbucks lines 20 minutes deep on a slow morning, slinging $5 sugar & coffee, I don’t see the sugar tax crippling soda consumption.

Comment by Fairness and Fairness Only Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:38 pm
@Streator Curmudgeon: I believe the obese are part of the overweight. i.e. 2/3 are overweight and half of that group is obese.

===Big brother needs to stay out of my refrigerator and bedroom===

Yeah! Keep your nosy building safety regulations away. If I want to die of carbon monoxide, that is my right!

===whether obesity had declined, vis-a-vis per capita consumption…the legislation is really just an experiment===

Economics would suggest that it should have an impact but you are correct, someone has to experiment in the real world if we are to evaluate the efficacy of a laboratory-tested policy.

===Maybe they’ll help pass petitions to put a progressive income tax on the ballot.===

Better yet, lobby the lawmakers to put it on the ballot.

Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:58 pm
Streator -

That leaves you paying for the gastric bypasses and insulin and hospital stays for the Fats ..

Comment by BlackHawk Boone Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 1:58 pm
Look out Cook County shoppers looking for your 4 12-packs for $10 deal at da Jewels. Between this tax and Toni Preckwinkle’s identical one, that will be 4 12-packs for $21.50.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 2:01 pm
== that will be 4 12-packs for $21.50.==

That’s still less than a pack of cigarettes.

Comment by My New Handle Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 3:00 pm
==* A new tax on sodas, sugary drinks? It might be part of Illinois budget deal==

I think they should tax diet soda too because it is just as bad if not worse for you than drinks with sugar. Since IL needs a lot of revenue, tax the energy drinks too. Those drinks are not healthy either.

Comment by Mama Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 4:08 pm
Any IPI donors soft drink distributors?

Comment by Mike D. Thursday, Jan 19, 17 @ 8:00 pm
I don’t wear gold chains because I can’t afford them if the poor can’t afford soda they shouldn’t drink it get it so Everytime there’s a new tax it should only be for the middle class

Comment by Frank Friday, Jan 20, 17 @ 7:04 am