Be a better neighbor. Sign up for EveryBlock to follow and discuss neighborhood news.

Sign up for free →

Added Sep 14 2017

When she was 4th Ward Alderman from 1991-2010, Alderman Joe Moore was politically aligned with Preckwinkle. I wonder what his perspective is on this assinine tax?

    Hidden treasures in Toni Taxwinkle's idiotic pop tax
    Taxpayers are rightfully angry about Toni Taxwinkle's costly and idiotic soda pop tax, though there are some hidden gems in it, too. But angry taxpayers jamming the county boardroom on Wednesday weren't looking for treasure. They were looking for vengeance on Taxwinkle for her ravenous penny-per-ounce soda pop tax.
  • Pedrito I offer you the RED PILL, that's all.

    Great post. I agree.
    This is not about your health.

  • Jeffrey Littleton Paint/Ceramic/Glass

    Pay up your penny people.

  • Tired of Liars Sick and Tired of Self Serving Lying Politicians

    "Penny" in Crook County, Soda pop is now more expensive than premium gasoline. Preckwinkle must go

  • Tired of Liars Sick and Tired of Self Serving Lying Politicians

    If the Cook County Commissioners are so worried about saving our health, then why doesn't this UNFAIR TAX apply equally to LINKS, WIKS, and other SNAP purchases? WHY: because they are disingenuous liars who merely want to TAX and Spend at the expense of the working middle class.

  • Tired of Liars Sick and Tired of Self Serving Lying Politicians

    Isn't it ironic, or should I say paradoxical, that Toni Preckwinkle got elected Chairman of the Cook County Board of Commissioners almost solely on the promise of repealing the excessive Stroger Cook County Sales Tax, and then quickly replaced it with her own inordinate Soda Sales Tax?

  • Rob

    I love your 2am rants.

  • Toni Preckwinkle is the single most honest, capable and straightforward politician we have in Cook County. Get rid of her, and you're left just with the inferior ones.

    Jury's still out as to how this sugar tax will affect her future prospects, but we would all lose out if she wasn't around.

  • They're going overdrive in the campaign for "the children" trying to push this.
    Firstly, it's the corn syrup in things.
    Also, this tax taxes sweetened drinks that have NO SUGAR, NO CALORIES, NO FAT.
    So to be concerned about the children whose parents could give a .... is ridiculous.
    And lets be clear; this is touted as a penny but in reality its a HUGE tax.
    My $9.99 flavored ARTIFICIALLY sweetened NO calorie, no fat WATER has a $4.80 tax.
    That's a near 50% tax on the item.
    This craziness about "the children" is just that.

  • why on earth are you paying even $5 for an artificially sweetened drink?

    But more to the point, the only way you're paying a $4.80 sugar tax on a beverage is if it's 480 ounces. That's 15 quarts, my friend!! Do you buy 15-quart bottles of artificially flavored drink? The tax is only one penny per ounce, remember?

  • YakovBok In the RP since 1996

    Don't forget, the money in "support" of the tax the tax is coming from Michael Bloomberg in NY. If it wasn't for outside money, the tax and spend crowd couldn't get their message out.

  • Pedrito I offer you the RED PILL, that's all.

    Yes. Yakov. Bloomberg is an elitist who thinks he knows what's best for you.

  • Jeffrey Littleton Paint/Ceramic/Glass

    I am very happy to not be at all upset about this

  • Omar, The TOTAL ounces is a case of what we drink (NO sugar BTW) is 480 OUNCES.
    .01x480= $4.80
    24 @ 20 ounce bottles
    That's a 48% tax on a $9.99 case cost.

    This is a penny PER ounce.

  • Oh...
    That's NOT including sales tax.

  • well you sure weren't originally willing to say that it was TWENTY BOTTLES you were talking about! LOL. Of course the tax is going to be high when you buy a lot of stuff. You pay a lot more gasoline tax to fill a semi truck, too.

    Each of your 20-oz bottles is levied a 20 cent tax. Sounds like a lot less money when it's put that way, right?
    And 20 ounces of sweet drink is way too much for one person in one day. So if you drink a nice full glass of ten ounces, you are only paying a dime extra for your drink. Just a dime.
    In any case, I think you should switch drinks. Or put some stevia in a glass and squeeze a lemon into it.

  • Yoda Jedi Master

    "Also, this tax taxes sweetened drinks that have NO SUGAR, NO CALORIES, NO FAT."
    Good to know this is.

  • Jeffrey Littleton Paint/Ceramic/Glass

    Artificial sweeteners have no sugar, fat, or calories.

    Its a penny an ounce.

  • Omar,
    Perhaps you can give me a dime an hour just during the business week (5 days).
    It's just 1 (one) dime an hour and not even for the entire week! Just 5 days? It's only $2.40/day! It's not much. Less then a coffee really and only for 5 days. That's only $12/week!
    20 days a month. Not even the full month! That's only $48/month!
    It's a bargain when you think that it's only $576/year!
    And it's only a single dime per hour not even for a week.
    A bargain when you consider you're willing to part with much more because of this tax.

  • Michael Archangel Donald Trump - An irredeemable moral failure

    @Orange - Can you explain the dime an hour comparison you are trying to make? Are you saying that you drink a sugary beverage one an hour? What are you saying?

  • Michael Archangel Donald Trump - An irredeemable moral failure

    @Tired of Liars - This entire quote of yours is factually incorrect, "Isn't it ironic, or should I say paradoxical, that Toni Preckwinkle got elected Chairman of the Cook County Board of Commissioners almost solely on the promise of repealing the excessive Stroger Cook County Sales Tax, and then quickly replaced it with her own inordinate Soda Sales Tax?

    Ms. Preckwinkle is President of the Cook County Board. Ms. Peckwinkle was elected to that office in 2010.

  • Tired of Liars Sick and Tired of Self Serving Lying Politicians

    Perhaps You have a problem with my adverb quickly? Everything else is 100% TRUE.

  • Helen NoH North of Howard for 55 + years

    President/Chairman, and no, she wasn't elected "almost solely" on the promise to repeal the extra sales tax. Yes, 7 years, including a re-election, is hardly quickly.

  • Michael Archangel Donald Trump - An irredeemable moral failure

    @Tired for Liars - As Helen NoH points out, your argument fails because it is without basis in fact.

    See, those pesky facts...they seem to get you every time.

  • Preclwinkle is a rarity. An honest politician who admits that revenue has to be raised to provide essential services e.g. Health Care. The answer is simple. If you don't like the tax, don't buy pop.

  • Michael,
    I do have a 20 oz artificially sweetened drink once every 2 hours (about).
    That's the dime an hour scenario. I also didn't include anything for the weekend so my example is spot on.
    I'm saying that a dime so seemingly small adds up.
    I'm astonished people are so easily parted with their money no matter how small.
    Omar thinks a dime in the scheme of things (at least to him) really doesn't matter.
    My point is that I'll gladly take a yearly check from anyone for $576 if they're willing to overlook the "worthless" dime.
    In the case (no pun intended) of my NO sugared waters, the tax is half the cost of the case (48%). I'm not the type of person who has nothing to drink in the house and will run out to buy, by the bottle, something to drink.
    No matter how one puts it, it's a 48% tax.
    A fool and his money are soon parted and I'm astonished how many fools there seemingly are.
    If people are so concerned about "the children" are they willing to stop a parent in the street of some obese kid guzzling a soda? Something that has corn syrup btw.
    What about the real sugar?
    Ice cream

    All else aside, soda is already taxed at 3% extra on top of the 10.25% tax.

    I'll be glad to take that penny turned into a dime turned into a dollar turned into a mortgage payment.

    It adds up.
    If a penny is so beneath someone to be concerned about pass it here. They're reckless and irresponsible with money.

  • An artificial drink every two hours, wow.
    I'm sorry, but it's a little hard to feel compassion for your situation. You just shouldn't be drinking so much of that stuff, dude.

    But no matter how you try to put it, it's not a 48% tax. It's a one penny per ounce tax. The percentage will vary wildly, depending on how cheap or expensive your drink is:

    Buy a 12 oz. coke for $2, you pay 12 cents tax on it. That's 6% on a 12-oz. coke, not 48%.

    Buy a two-liter bottle of orange fizzy stuff on sale for $1, pay 64 cents. That's a 64% tax! (But hey, can you really complain when you were only paying a dollar?)

    Buy a six pack of 12-ounce cokes for $6, pay 72 cents tax on it. That's 12%.

    Buy a 14 oz. bottle of Teavana Pineapple Berry Blue Herbal Tea for $4, pay 14 cents. That's only 3.5%! Wow, the Chicago beverage tax is only 3.5% What's all the fuss about?!

  • I'm not at all bothered at all about this tax, I just stopped drinking sweetened drinks and can't say that it's had any impact on my lifestyle. If we should be angry about anything it's the under-reported findings that the property tax assessors were inflating tax rates for the poorer home owners in Cook County.
    On a side note - artificial sweeteners are probably worse for you than sugar and do nothing to combat obesity. That's why they are included. If it means my corner store starts carrying real juice and other healthy options that's okay with me.

  • bottom line, we can't complain about rising health insurance and medical costs and then refuse to do anything about things like obesity.

  • I suppose a sugary drink is much more of a problem then the cookies, cakes, ice cream, and every processed food would be.
    Fighting obesity....
    I find the people concerned with this exceptionally hypocritical since everything listed above EXCEPT the drinks are of no concern.
    I guess a penny an ounce tax is the way some feel like they actually DID something about the problem without moving from their T.V.'s.

  • Michael Archangel Donald Trump - An irredeemable moral failure

    @Orange - I appreciate your passion on the topic (similar to the passion you expressed over the plastic bag tax) but I see no hypocrisy on this topic. The focus on sugary drinks is based upon identifying the primary offending agent. As the CDC has posted on their site regarding the issue: "Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) or sugary drinks are leading sources of added sugars in the American diet. Frequently drinking sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with weight gain/obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney diseases, non-alcoholic liver disease, tooth decay and cavities, and gout, a type of arthritis"

    Unfortunately we are not a nation of readers and the US population is not especially focused on science-based evidence. As was learned from anti-smoking campaigns, one effective method for modifying behavior is a financial penalty.

    I know you did not solicit this but after reading your reply to me, I am actually concerned about your health. Do you realize you are consuming more than 2,000 calories/day in sugar if your numbers accurately reflect your behavior? You are actually drinking 100% of your recommended calorie intake! That is simply not healthy and something you should discuss with your health care provider.

  • Jeffrey Littleton Paint/Ceramic/Glass

    No more free refills now.

  • Tired of Liars Sick and Tired of Self Serving Lying Politicians

    This tax is almost as disingenuous as the FAILED) "Fois Gras" Ban. Should have been a man and answered and this wouldn't have come up. Then again, bec oming a man rather than a forked tongue panderer is you have yet to accomplish!

  • Why isn't my Sugary Goodness at Starbucks taxed? This tax is aimed at a demographic that has to pay and has no other alternative. The Poor have LINK no tax, The Rich can go out of County and those in the middle well you just pay and gaslight yourselves with the supposed health benefits...

  • Michael Archangel Donald Trump - An irredeemable moral failure

    @Tired for Liars - Did you have a few drinks before writing this because it seems to lack a focus?

    "This tax is almost as disingenuous as the FAILED) "Fois Gras" Ban. Should have been a man and answered and this wouldn't have come up. Then again, bec oming a man rather than a forked tongue panderer is you have yet to accomplish!"

    Perhaps you would like to make another attempt to make this a bit more understandable?

  • Helen NoH North of Howard for 55 + years

    Michael, while sloppily put, it's really not that hard to understand--it's a personal attack on our alderman. Go back and read the O.P.

  • Yoda Jedi Master

    Funny it was when Mayor Daley called him, Alderman Joe, Foie Gras, Moore

  • Michael Archangel Donald Trump - An irredeemable moral failure

    @Helen NoH - Thanks, I was so focused on trying to decipher it I did not realized it was connected back to the original comment. After all, how many of these threads tie back to the OP?

  • Gabriel Resident of PRRP

    I wanted to like Preclwinkle but she has done nothing to change the hiring policies of the county to open it up to Latinos/as. This is an old problem that also occurs elsewhere where patronage is still practiced. She's a dissapointment.

    What we need in illinois are taxes on the business elite. When there is no political will to that, the majority get taxed and others get blamed for city, state and county shortfalls.

  • Helen NoH North of Howard for 55 + years

    So much for Bloomberg as the only financial support in favor of the tax. I got a postcard from the American Heart Association today. It reads (in part): "FACT: a 20-oz soda contains more sugar than 6 donuts." Few people would consume 6 donuts in a day, but far too many drink the equivalent in sugar day after day.

  • Michael Archangel Donald Trump - An irredeemable moral failure

    @Helen NoH - I received a mailing from the "Can The Tax" movement, sponsored by the American Beverage Institute. Of course, they make an appeal on behalf of the "hard working taxpayer" and claim the tax is all about politics and not health. The mailer quotes a 6/30/2017 Sun-Times editorial which stated that the tax was aimed at the wallet and not the waistline and argues this is a lie because diet soda is also included.

    Interestingly enough, this comment appeared in the Wall Street Journal the same day I received the mailer:

  • Citizen Pain Citizen Pain

    "Eyyy! Somebodys gotta pay deeze pensions eer !"

  • My artificially sweetened waters have zero calories but are LOADED with vitamins (BTW theyre called VITARAINS).

  • This is a quality of life issue for me.
    Adding insult to injury I think this tax is a sham and as another poster put it "a money grab" because the city is poorly run.
    This tax is being "pushed" by using kids. A deplorable tactic in itself.

  • ...and people keep voting for the same people.

  • Michael Archangel Donald Trump - An irredeemable moral failure

    @Orange - You wrote: "This tax is being "pushed" by using kids. A deplorable tactic in itself."

    Well, you are certainly entitled to your POV on this. I simply disagree with you that focusing on children in the debate is wrong or as you state "deplorable". From a public health perspective, that is exactly the target group you want to impact. Far too many children with health problems that a decade or two ago were very rare. Certainly there are others factors besides sugary drinks to blame for the increase in childhood obesity and non-insulin dependent diabetes but the sugary drinks are obvious. What I think is deplorable are the number of children with BMIs >30.

    Do you not think it deplorable that the American Beverage Association has a lobbying group that attempts to exploit middle class Americans by giving the illusion that they care for the middle class when, in fact, they are blatantly attempting to protect their market?

    Seems this is a matter of perspective, is it not?

  • Gabriel Resident of PRRP

    The reason why I think it's disengenous to tax under the banner of "protect the children," the Emanuel refrain used when he is doing an end around unions, kids, and quality education, is because the tax affects the most vulnerable. It is the parents of poor and working class kids who will have more money taken out of their already shallow pockets.

    If the tax was really about kids and health, we would have expected to see a major educational campaign. A health project based in schools and a push to remove subsidies from unhealthy corn syrup based products. But that would mean going against corporate interests so better to target those at the lower end of the economic hierarchy to bring in more cash. That's what typically happens. Then we have the goons complaining about pensions. Ach!

  • So I take it you are against cigarette taxes as well, under the same logic that they mostly target the poor? Because they do.

    If some people find the tax a burden, they can just reduce their intake of the beverages in question. Their health will improve and their pocketbooks will be unaffected. If they really, really want fizzy sweet drinks, they can buy unsweetened soda water and mix koolaid into it, untaxed.

    Politically, however, I suspect this tax will be too hard for Preckwinkle to maintain. I just hope her political future is not doomed, because she is one of a very few decent, effective politicians in the state of Illinois.

    In the end, people are essentially stupid. They say nothing when their politicians steal money, reward criminals and bad behavior, wage expensive and unjust wars, take away their freedoms, hand their power over to large corporations and generally make fools of voters. They don't say much when their homes are taxed an additional $500 more per year. But tax them a few pennies on their sweet drinks and the people turn into a raging political force.

    But even if this particular tax fails, it joins a series of measures elsewhere and powerfully reminds people of the poison they are drinking. Eventually the concept will come to be accepted.

  • steven beckerman Lifelong resident of the Rogers Park neighborhood.

    Government is going to be raising taxes in this current environment.....whether we like it or not. When faced with increased property taxes, a la City of Chicago, or increased income taxes, a la State of Illinois, I'll choose a tax on a poison that I should be limiting the intake of anyway, any day. I don't whine when I pay taxes on alcohol, I don't whine when I pay taxes on gasoline, and I don't smoke, so while it makes me drink less soda (or stock up when on a suburban road trip), I'm not gonna whine when paying this tax. I wish they'd tax all luxuries, and stop penalizing me with taxes every time I go to work, or when I make a commitment to my neighborhood by buying a property.
    On another note, I wonder why candy is not taxed in the same way. Last week Walgreens had some candy bars for $0.39!!!

  • Michael Archangel Donald Trump - An irredeemable moral failure

    @steven beckerman - In regard to your comment about candy, you are correct that there are sugar-laden snacks that would seem logical items on which to focus. Why beverages and not candy is a matter of numbers. Both adults and children are consuming more sugary beverages than they were before and the manufacturers have made it more enticing to up size those drinks by keeping the cost to the consumer relatively low. That said, the traditional soft drink market (Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper etc) has been on a steady decline for several year. One age demographic - children ages 2 to 11 years continues to show a 4 to 6% increase in consumption of sugary drinks of all types (source: Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Diet).

    It really comes down to the numbers when attempting to identify a starting point to intervene.

  • Gabriel Resident of PRRP

    Omar, I respect your opinion. I don't reject "sin taxes" or negative incentives to discourage unhealthy behaviors per se. However, I dislike and think it unjust to tax the average person and the poor because it is politically unfeasible or "unpopular" to tax the corporate elite. This implies a balance approach and right now there is none.

    Illinois has a long history of underfunding basic services in support of the corporate elite and borrowed from pensions to make up the difference. Politicians know they can divide and conquer and convince people they are the problem e.g., pensioners, teachers, unionists, food stamp receipients etc.

    So it's easier to tip the balance and pass regressive taxes while allowing the corporate elite to slide free. We allow them to pollute the earth and condemn the future while we get taxed for consuming personally unhealthy trash drinks.

    Yes, and ironically the populace gets angry at one arguable act while letting pass much worse abuses. This is another complex question to be discussed some other time.

    But Preckwinkle has angered many Latinos/as because she has continued the practice of not hiring them. The county remains only an ocasional place where Latinos/as are hired. Patronage often does not include them. Preckwinkle was in the end more a hope than a reality.

  • Gabriel Resident of PRRP

    One can approach this from a personal and/or a social policy level/s. I can afford the taxes and pretty much try to stay away from eating garbage as much as I can. But I don't think it is fair to create taxes that hurt those most vulnerable when the wealthy are given TIF money and subsidized in so many ways.

    Also, it is just a matter of time when taxes begin to affect us. Some who can pay higher property taxes without blinking an eye can also say to others, "Stop whining and if you cannot afford the house you live in, move to a place that you can afford." I've heard someone say in conversation that higher taxes are necessary to make cities more livable.

    We need to not fall for divide and conquer strategies and campaign for fair tax policies, and if we truly are interested in the health of children, look at countries that have been able to reduce child obesity and reinforce better eating habits.

  • Helen NoH North of Howard for 55 + years

    Growing up, I rarely saw a fat child, but then pop was not an everyday--several times a day--drink when I was young. Now, it seems, more kids are overweight than not. Orange seems to take pride in drinking great quantities of an unhealthy beverage, claiming that it's full of vitamins. Sure I believe that--not. I get my vitamins from a healthy diet.

  • Anyone notice that the proponents for this tax are also self-congratulatory in the process?

  • Nick in Irving Park Condo Owner

    No, not really.

  • no, I haven't noticed that either.

  • Bill in Rogers Park Rogers Parker - co-founder of Glenwood Neighbors

    Nope - haven't noticed that.

  • Haven't noticed.

  • Does anyone feel grateful not to be living in the days of ration stamps, at least?

18 neighbors are subscribed to this conversation.

Posted to Rogers Park

This was posted to Rogers Park

What's the news in your neighborhood? Search for your ZIP code:

e.g. 60615