I'll just by my beverages in a County other than Cook. I'll eat at restaurants in a County other than Cook. If I happen to be in Cook County - I'll just order unsweetened ice tea as a beverage or drink water.

Just like the paper bag tax we're enduring. I bring my own bags in on every shopping experience now.

There are people that are too lazy and just willing to pay the bag tax - there will be people that will be too lazy to take measures to get around this sugary drink tax. They'll pay the extra money. It will be the retailers and the restaurant owners that will suffer the most - they have a legitimate beef here. The refreshment industry will also suffer in Cook County. They have a substantial lobby and I'm sure that we'll hear from them in the future.

What will happen - is that sometime in the future this tax will be lifted - but the beverage industry and the retailer's will realize that there are people out there willing to pay the tax and what will happen is we'll see an escalation of pricing of the beverages after the tax is lifted.

I think people will drink less soda which is a huge benefit to them and society.

You're right about the soda industry, they are very active and very powerful, and I haven't been following this Chicago story but I'd be very surprised if they haven't been fighting this tooth-and-nail from the start.

The cries of "I'll just go elsewhere" that never materializes.

Most people will never even notice the increase.

As already said it's easy enough for anyone with means to go outside the county and avoid it.

The poor, who tend to consume higher rates of sugary drinks, don't have the luxury of shopping around.

I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but I'm astonished at the assumption that there's no choice of what to drink other than sugared soft drinks. Well, okay, the artificially sweetened ones are also out there.

We went through this a few months ago in Santa Fe, and the proposed tax on sugared beverages was shot down by the voters. I voted for it, but then I won't be affected because I simply never drink soft drinks, sugared or sugar-free.

A tax of this nature will disproportionately affect lower income people. Yes, they can shoose water. But the rich or middle class person who chooses these drinks can drive 5 more minutes to shop and avoid the tax, while the poor person who depends on walking or the bus cannot.

if somehow all soft drinks disappeared from the world?

That's only a slightly facetious question, because it can also be asked as: What in the world did they drink before soft drinks became their most common beverage?

I am honestly astonished when I'm in a grocery store and I see people with four or five of those huge cases of soft drinks in their cart. Really? Even without an added sugar tax, that's a lot more expensive than tap water.

Ths pretty much where the tone of your last paragraph is headed.

Making bad choices is something we're all entitled to do.

Maybe DU needs a forum My Bad Choices. That could be fun.

and it has so far withstood court challenges (although the industry is fighting feverishly), and apparently our law is probably being used for other places.

But the issue that has been brought up is that due to a huge lack of supermarkets in or near many poor neighborhoods, those folks are stuck with a "corner grocery store" that has few "healthy" choices. And in the case here in Philly, the law also covers other "drinks" other than soda including those that contain fruit/vegetables that are < 50% fruit/vegetable component (any containing > 50% fruit/vegetable is exempt) -

http://www.philly.com/philly/infographics/383217911.html

(e.g., ice tea is taxed and something that is 1/2 tea & 1/2 lemonade is taxed)

I know I personally have lost the taste for soda over the years and only get it occasionally if dining out or at a bbq (maybe a couple times a year), where I mainly drink instant coffee, tea, hot chocolate (in winter) or water from my Pur filter.

They just want to tax the poor.

In Berkeley, a fairly well off area, it had the effect of reducing sugary drink sales and increasing the sales of water and low-calorie "good" drinks.

In Philly, where diet drinks are taxed (but high-sugar mostly-fruit-juice drinks aren't) it hasn't had much effect. That seems to be the case in most places.

Even in Berkeley, advocates who yelled "Think about the health benefits" are saying, essentially, "Yeah, not so many health benefits. Maybe over the long haul it'll make a difference, but nobody seriously thought it would." Jaws drop. That's the primary claim most of the public hears. Cut back on the obesity epidemic.

But when people say, "So if it has no real health effects, repeal it" the reply is, "You know all the wonderful programs we fund? How would replace this long-standing source of revenue, funding programs that have given such good results over the years?" Again, jaws drop. The taxes have been in place for maybe 6 months to a year. Even ignoring the hyperbole in my ersatz quotes, the programs aren't well-established. It was additional revenue for some programs, and nobody ever wants to lose revenue. In other cases, it allowed more revenue by funding other programs, and those programs don't want to lose tax money.

It's billed for health; it's defended as "we need the tax revenue." And if there's one thing that government fights for, it's to keep any expansion and find a way to increase. There's always something more that could be done for this worthy group or against that group of bad people, there's always something that could be done better, and the poor workers always should be paid more.

In fact, the "you want to tax the poor" often has the response, "Why do you hate the poor?" Because at least in some cities, the soda tax goes to fund programs for poor kids. The other response is, "How can you speak for the poor and what *they* need?" While that's usually true, most of us can do little more than speak for ourselves, it's disingenuous--those arguing for the tax suffer from the same weakness. They say they're coordinating with this NGO or that NGO, but that assumes the NGOs are the community when they're very often a subsection of it.

Uh yeah they are!

http://www.philly.com/philly/infographics/383217911.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20170104_Philly_finds_new_tax_not_so_sweet.html

Basically, even if a drink is up to 50% fruit/vegetable juice, then it is taxed (>50% fruit/vegetable and it isn't)... Meaning some versions of V8 get hit. Something that is half-lemonade, half-iced tea is taxed and so on.

One of the issues here in PA, which has been a big push from our Democratic governor, is to get a tax on that damn Marcellus shale gas extraction... And because of the budget hole, there is finally some movement on it, although increases on taxes for other utilities is being bundled with that. But part of that revenue will go towards LIHEAP (which is really going to be needed since Drumpf has been threatening to kill off funding for that). The state Senate (which is GOP) has actually offered that although the state House has balked (but they are still working out the proposal).

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/pa-senate-considering-tax-on-natural-gas-drillers-to-balance-the-state-budget-20170727.html

I don't know how much the tax was but I used to live in the gay neighborhood up there and have to say that it would have to be a hell of a tax to make me drive out of Cook County to avoid the tax.

County. It will mostly be people within the city limits that will get stuck paying this tax, and suburban retailers will definitely suffer.

And to be clear, this tax applies to essentially all beverages that are not 100% juice or water, including diet sodas and unsweetened teas, etc. The tax even applies to free refills at restaurants, it's a big joke.

politician's solution to not taxing the rich. Most of our politicians don't have the courage to call for a tax on the rich, which is where the majority of tax revenue should come from so they target a politically correct-hated behavior.

Just tax the fucking rich, people!