A View From the Sears Tower's Ledge
Illinois Is Getting Fatter
Mayor Blames Violent Holiday Weekend On Booze, Heat
Kuma's Pats Itself On Back With Block Party
Chicagoan Involved In Mount Rushmore Ruckus
The Illinois Beverage Association is really, really not psyched about the 5-cent tax on bottled water effective January 1. They're teaming with the American Beverage Association, the International Bottled Water Association, the Illinois Retail Merchants Association and the Illinois Food Retailers Association to sue the City once the law goes into effect. Oh, and they've sent out a press release every day for the last week to remind us all how unhappy they are about the tax, how fucked up it, how unfair, etc. Looks like all that hard work paid off because today's Trib has a story that effectively backs the IBA and their co-plaintiffs by taking a completely uncritical look at their claims.
But bottled-water retailers and manufacturers say the tax is nothing but a thinly veiled money grab, which in the end will drive shoppers and vital business out of Chicago.
A thinly veiled money grab...like selling publicly sourced water? And is a 5-cent tax per bottle really enough to drive people away? Get ready to be scared, boys and girls, because guess what's going to happen once all the shoppers are driven away...
If business goes, it will jeopardize the 4,500 jobs and $270 million in wages that goes to Chicagoans working in the bottled water industry, the retailer groups said.
But there's no definition here of "bottled water industry." Is that, say, anyone who works for Pepsi, because Pepsi bottles Aquafina? Are we including people who own convenience stores that sell bottled water? And how much business would have to "go" before those jobs would be at risk? One percent? Ten? Sixty? And is that more or less than the projected loss in revenue? Hey wait a second...what is the projected loss in revenue? Finally, is there any disinterested party who can validate or invalidate those claims?
"State law prohibits the City of Chicago from imposing a tax on a single product like they have done with this bottled water tax," Bramlet said. "If this tax is allowed to go into effect, then what is to preclude the City Council from deciding to tax salad dressing or lawn mowers?"
Except the City already taxes soft drinks, right?
The problem here isn't even being for or against the tax. It's that this story is so lazily reported it might as well be a press release. And trust us, we have enough of those.
Water bottles by shrff14
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
why the city just didn't roll this into the soft drink tax is beyond me.
This seems like a pretty good tax to me. Water bottles fill up landfills (and take oil to make), and we've got a great source of municipal water here, so it's really easy to get around paying this tax, if you don't want to.
While we're at it, don't you hate when take out places give you extra small cups if you ask for water? Just charge me a nickel and give me a big person's cup.
I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about the tax. For example, that "landfill" argument seems OK until you realize that you are letting more egregious landfill-stuffers off the hook.
My gripe is all these secretaries (sorry, ladies, for sounding sexist) and students walking around with water bottles like they are some sort of pacifiers.
Drink tap water, for crying out loud. And save money doing it! If you took someone from 1980 and brought them here in a time machine to show them the bottled water fad, the 1980's person would be perplexed, or at least amused, and rightfully so!
But the 80s person would be wearing Z.Cavariccis or maybe even Zubas. So, we'd be amused. Win-win.
Make it happen!
Bottled water is the pet rock of the new millennium.
Don't hate on people you see with water bottles. That bottle of SmartWater or whatever might have been purchased from the airport Starbucks 3 weeks ago, and is continually refilled.
Or maybe that's just me. ;)
The previous article on this topic that ran in the Trib (back in October ) did mention the soda tax (3 percent of a distributor's gross sales receipts, or 3 cents for a $1 bottle of soda pop), and that the tax was already factored into the vending machine price.
I guess there were phone calls made to certain editors so as not to include this inconvenient detail in the current article.
The previous article on this topic that ran in the Trib (back in October ) did mention the soda tax (3 percent of a distributor's gross sales receipts, or 3 cents for a $1 bottle of soda pop), and that the tax was already factored into the vending machine price.
I guess there were phone calls made to certain editors so as not to include this inconvenient detail in the current article.
Seth: Margaret mentioned the soda tax as an example refuting the beverage lobby's claim that State law prohibits the city from taxing a singular item like bottled water. They're gonna feel the effects of the tax the most. Sparky raises a wonderful point in stating that the bottled water tax could have been rolled into the soda tax, but that probably wouldn't have been copacetic with the beverage lobby. The tax is reactionary, but understandable considering that municipalities are doing most of the heavy lifting by initially purifying the water.
What I'm finding amusing about this is that these lobbies seem to be playing catch-up with their anti-bottled water opponents, who have been much more effective in getting their message across and raising awareness of the knowledge that many bottled water brands come from public sources. This has been evidenced by both the bottled water tax and State facilities no longer buying bottled water using state funds.
"The tax is reactionary, but understandable considering that municipalities are doing most of the heavy lifting by initially purifying the water."
Yes, but it's not as if the bottlers get the water for free -- do they even get any kind of reduced rate compared to the rest of us? So they are already paying for that purification.
It's a pure money grab, plain and simple -- whether it's a justified money grab is up for debate, but I don't have a lot of confidence that our alderman put *any* sort of reasoned thought into it whatsoever. If they wind up being in the right here, it was by pure luck.
"...I don't have a lot of confidence that our alderman put *any* sort of reasoned thought into it whatsoever. If they wind up being in the right here, it was by pure luck..."
I really like that comment! (no sarcasm!)
So is it ok for the beverage companies to gouge the price of water? And if it is illegal to tax one specific product, then why are cigarettes and booze taxed?
If you are willing to pay $1.00 for a 12oz bottle of water (around $11 per gallon!) What's another $0.55 per gallon? Just drink tap. Go to www.epa.gov and check the quality levels yourself and good luck trying to find the quality levels from the beverage companies to compare.
Scott the Jerseyist makes a good point.
The EPA regulates water purity levels across the board. There is no body to monitor bottled water. It's not that I trust the guv'ment totally (I use a Britta filter and a Nagelene bottle) but I just think bottled water is one of the biggest scams ever, and I only drink it when there's nothing else around.
Also, my favorite part of the Tribune article I read was the lady pissing and moaning about how she doesn't like tap because it tastes "gritty" to her. Boo-hoo, what you're drinking IS tap, lady.
Of course, I use a Brita as well! I implied the stats were good, not perfect! However, when tested independently tap is equal to if not better than most bottles.
And either way you have to trust one arm of the gov. vs. another, FDA vs. EPA. One has their findings posted annually, the other has no findings, and if they did, they wouldn't want you to know anyway.
Great points, Scott and spook; bottled water is definitely one of the biggest corporate money grabs yet. Chicago has some of the best tap water on the planet- it's regulated by the EPA, which requires testing multiple times a day. The bottled brands, meanwhile, are controlled by the FDA, which requires NO testing at all after bottling or storage, and regulates only 30%-40% of what's sold across state lines! The biggest brands (hi Aquafina) ARE just repackaged tap water. Tap water costs on average .002 cents a gallon, while bottled water average range from .89 cents to 8.26 per gallon. As Scott said, if you want to learn more about your tap water, you can order your local Consumer Confidence Report from the EPA at www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo/index.html- nowhere do the big bottled water corporations provide that kind of accountability.
Bottom line is, kudos to Chicago- your public tap is better for your health, environment, and pocketbook. More great info, reports, citations, etc on these issues is at www.takebackthetap.org.