My Budget's Got a Hole in It, Let's Plug It With Some Water

Make it a $100 per bottle tax. Let the spoiled yuppies drink from the tap like normal people!

"This is just an attempt to punish those of us who can afford bottled water and look fabulous drinking it."

Oh my god. If there was any argument for the tax, that was it.

Since I've heard of the problems with drinking bottled water, I've bought a couple of Nalgene bottles and switched back to tap. Lake Michigan water is delicious, presuming you get it out of a plumbing system that isn't antiquated (that's what makes it taste bad). My PUR filter pitcher made my home drinking water my favorite beverage. I think the tax is a great idea since it won't be regressive in practice (rich people like Mandy who are above tap bearing the brunt of it) and it responds to an important crisis. Now we just have to make sure BP doesn't get their way at Whiting.

I used to think I looked cool drinking Evian back in the day. Then I realized that paying more for water, ounce for ounce, than gasoline makes you look nothing more than terribly foolish.

why not tax soda? I hear that's very popular. Oh wait. let's tax coffee too. Wait wait. Let's tax the tea. Yeah, let's put some big taxes on tea. And then we can watch the revolution as people dump tea in the harbor and have a Boston Tea Party.

I think Democrats come out of the womb saying "tax."

Let's tax it.

If you are stupid enough to pay $5+ for a case of bottled aquafina or $1.50 for a bottle of it, then you should be taxed.

If you are stupid enough to think that drinking bottled water makes you look like anything but a moron, you should be taxed.

Bottled water is a huge scam perpetrated on very dumb people. The only appropriate places for bottled water are at the gym, when you're outside exercising, or when its super hot out and you're wandering about. And even then, they do sell hard plastic water bottles that last for a long time.

Aquafina and dasani and pretty much every other form of bottled water is nothing but Chicago tap water run through a giant brita filter.

Perhaps Richie should withdraw the Olympic bid, which would certainly save money. Likewise, he could get his police in line, so we don't have to pay the judgments and settlements the result from police shootings and beatings. Further, since the only place we ever see Streets and Sanitation employees is in front of polling places on election day, Richie could get rid of some of them. Then, he could get control over costs of the airport expansion, instead of giving away the store to his buddies.

If none of these things work, then tax bottled water.

Man Daley and his croonies are putting Chicago in the tank.

I used be a Daley supporter but I can't figure out what he is thinking.

Too many taxes businesses and people will move.

This town I have called home for 7 years is becoming a big joke.

Detroit/Cleveland just might be better.

What's he going to tax next or what plan is he going to come up when he can't even run the CTA or Building Department.

Most people don't realize what this city is until you own vs. rent and have to deal with City Hall and Daley shitty developers.

Kevin Robinson is looking more right all the time.

you guys have to remember that this is just a proposed idea by an alderman. They propose crazy shit all the time, and a tiny fraction of them ever become an ordinance. So relax...you won't be paying more for your bottle of Polish Springs anytime soon.

I couldn't agree with you more, Ferdy. Daley needs to manage this city better. The TIF allocations need to be used appropriately, for what they were designed for, not for the CBOT or CME. He needs to withdraw the Olympic bid. It's criminal what goes on in this city.

If the soft drink tax was not in the books already, I may not have the same opinion.
But, it does seem practical that we could also tax bottled water, as it is in line with the soft drink tax already established in this city for at least 5 years.

If they really want to solve the "landfill problem" why not make it a deposit instead of a tax? I don't drink bottled water, unless they are going to tax 2L bottles of Selzer too, but that way at least those people who want to drink bottled water will be encouraged to recycle the bottles. If they've already paid an extra $.25, but can't get it back in any way, they are still going to throw those bottles in the trash.

The Olympic bid is a good thing. It could put Chicago on a global stage, bring state and federal money to the city that would not come otherwise, increase long-term tourism and increase long-term business investment. You don't believe me? Ask Barcelona and Atlanta what they thought of their Olympics and then get back to me.

If the soft drink tax is on the books, I don't understand how water got an exception to begin with. I think the only problem could be that the soft drink tax applies to fountain drinks, not actual bottles from the store. Actually, I'm almost positive that that is it.

I have no problem with the bottled water tax (and I do enjoy bottled water as much as the next guy), because:

A) Lake Michigan water is some of the best-tasting water in the country.

B) All of that plastic waste really does present a growing environmental problem.

Better to raise revenues through a tax on bottled water, than the current system of making legal parking confusing at best, and impossible at worst, and then raising revenues by unfairly and aggressively ticketing, booting and towing residents' vehicles (and I don't even own a car)...

The Olympic bid is a horrible thing. It will plunge this city into even more debt.

Ask Barcelona and Atlanta.

Of the last seven host-cities Barcelona was the most "successful" in that it only was left with $1.4 billion in debt.

http://www.alternet.org/story/56128/

So where do you perform, Mandy? I want to make sure to avoid it.

Everyone knows Lake Michigan water tastes great---because that is what is being served to you in those pretty little bottles. Coke and Pepsi use Northwest Indiana municipal water (Hobart and another town) to make Dasani, Ice Mountain, and three other of the top water brands... Wake up, you are being used by a greedy industry. I am all for the tax and just wish it had been suggested for the right reasons, not just to plug a budget hole.

Yeah, Chicago Democrats are Republicans all right. Both Daleys exude GOP from every orifice, whether rigging an election for JFK or placing taxes to cover programs for poor people

Chicagoist: When you're 35+, alone, and with a shitty job, but need a place to prove you are still cool and also superior to other people you don't know.

I always get a kick out of those who argue high taxes will kill Chicago. Almost across the board, America's largest cities have the highest taxes, which makes sense as a large city is expensive to keep functioning. Low-tax communities also tend to be the least successful economically. Compare Chicago's economy with Charleston, W.VA., or with any other red state city. Who has the highest taxes, and who has the strongest economy?

What's more likely to kill a city is a low tax base that prevents investment in infrastructure, making cities unlivable. Chicago is in far more danger of losing business and residents by going cheap on CTA than by raising taxes.

I think there should be a blog tax.

Answer to Guest #36: Hillbillies in those red states have a lot of children -- more out of "wedlock" than blue states. That helps explain the population... And I'd guess the job growth consists of lawyers to handle the significantly higher divorce rate than that of blue states and psychologists to help people deal with the crippling guilt that comes along with being two-faced morality hypocrites.

Anywho, I'm not about to get all up-in-arms just yet about this tax... I can see some kind of tax being assessed on bottled water as the bottles are an increasing source of waste -- trash hauling and landfills cost money. But anything more than a nickel seems a little out of whack.

#38 and I thought conservatives were supposed to be anti-pc. Except when they're being joked about I suppose. Yuck yuck yuck. Minus the hillbilly talk #37's point is still sound. Look up the stats #37

#38: 36 here. Folks who have illegitimate children and divorce at a much, much higher rate and turn around and elect "values" candidates who attempt to force their fraudulent "morals" on the rest of us... Well, calling them only "hillbillies" is practically a compliment.

Tax the hell outta the bottled water!
Extra taxes on SUVs and Hummer-type cars!
Double taxes on Blackberry!

Sounds cool to me, just leave the booze tax alone...please?

@ 42: The point is that a lot of red voting red staters are a buncha two-faced morality hypocrites. But maybe it should be now that Republicans apparently can't take a bit of a joke to illustrate facts they don't like.

I pointed out that red states experience faster growth, and they have lower taxes. You said job growth was in red states was due to divorce attorneys and psychologists. Do you really think those are the main drivers? Perhaps the red states have faster job growth due to their lower taxes and more business-friendly environment.

As for population growth, they might have a higher birth rate but for at least a generation there has been significant interstate migration from north to south. Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Texas, etc.: All adding congressional seats due to their growth while northern states are hoping not to lose them.

Before we tax, tax, tax we must have a sound reason to raise taxes, not just for the funding of a bloated, broken machine. More frivolous taxes will drive businesses, jobs, and people away.

#36, and a few other numbers: There are two factors affecting population growth in sunbelt states like Texas, Florida, Arizona, et. al. One is foreign immigration (and yes, I mean the legal variety). The other is boomer retirees who are more apt to move due to climate than tax burden. The latter group may affect tax base, but niether group is likely to affect economic growth. For every statistic you show me concerning job growth in the sunbelt, I can show you a statistic concerning declining per capita income.

A more telling statistic is where new college graduates are more likely to locate. As #48 pointed out, it's not Kansas City.

I would be less skeptical about Mayor Daley’s endorsement of a tax on bottled water if he had plainly stated that the City needs the revenue to fill a budget gap. Instead, he tries to cloak this assault on the taxpayers by saying the tax "Money-wise, it's a good idea. Environmental-wise, it's a good idea, too....There's so much plastic in our lives. It's amazing. Every time you look, there's plastic all over."

What kind of double-speak is this ? Good for the environment ? Does that mean the desired effect of the tax is reduce the amount of plastic bottles by making the tax so onerous that people will drink less bottled water ? If that happens, then there will not be enough revenue for his budget problem. Sort of like higher cigarette “sin taxes” are supposed to lessen the use of that product. We have seen what the result of that has been - not lessened use, but instead lesser purchases in the City of Chicago, with smokers going to the suburbs and Indiana for their cigarettes.

Or will these “Water Taxes” be held in a special fund solely for the purpose of addressing “green” or environmental issues as they effect the City ? If that is the case, then the Mayor’s revenue problem is still not addressed. And if past is prologue, we have seen, via the Illinois Lottery (which was supposed to fund Education, but instead simply diverted General State Revenue funds from Education) what can happen when additional revenues come to a governmental entity, the original intention often falls by the wayside.

At .25 ¢ per bottle (or $6.00 tax for a case of 24) one thing is for certain - with the proliferation of Wal-Marts, Sam’s Clubs, Costcos, Targets, Big K-Marts, Dominicks’ and Jewel Food Stores ringing the City in the suburbs, look for many vehicles with a City of Chicago Vehicle Sticker on their windows in their parking lots filling up with water.

I'm not sure how Republicans got dragged into this thread anyway. Cardenas, a Democrat, was used as a front by Daley, another Democrat, to propose this tax. Thus when the tax is ridiculed, rejected, or ruled unconstitutional Daley has a fall guy ready to take the blame.