100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Chicago-area sweetened beverage tax | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Judge allows Chicago-area sweetened beverage tax to begin CHICAGO (AP) — A lawsuit challenging a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages sold in the Chicago area was dismissed Friday by a judge who also dissolved a temporary restraining order that had stopped it from being implemented. July 29, 2017 The tax originally was to take effect July 1 but the Illinois Retail Merchants Association sued, arguing the tax is unconstitutional and too vague. It is now is scheduled to go into effect Wednesday, according to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. "We applaud today's decision by Judge (Daniel) Kubasiak granting our motion to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit challenging the sweetened beverage tax," Preckwinkle said in a statement after the ruling. "We believed all along that our ordinance was carefully drafted and met pertinent constitutional tests." Cook County projected collecting about $67.5 million in revenue from the tax this year and more than $200 million for fiscal year 2018. Its delay resulted in layoff notices being sent to hundreds of county workers. Illinois Retail Merchants Association president Rob Karr said his organization would consider its legal options, which include filing an appeal or an amended complaint. "We are disappointed by today's ruling," he said. "I can only imagine the outrage that is being felt by consumers throughout Cook County who may soon have to pay this tax." The tax covers carbonated soft drinks, whether sweetened with sugar or a substitute such as aspartame, sports drinks and energy drinks. Fruit drinks also will be taxed, but 100 percent fruit juice is exempt. On-demand, custom-sweetened beverages, such as those mixed by a server or barista, or a hand-made Frappuccino, aren't subject to the tax. Also exempt are purchases made with federal food stamp benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which are exempt from state and local sales taxes under federal law. The burden of the tax would fall heavily on consumers. However, if retailers don't include it in purchases, they could be subject to a fine of $1,000 for the first offense, and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense. Philadelphia approved a sugary beverages tax last year. Voters in San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, California, and Boulder, Colorado, approved similar taxes in November. A great solution to insolvency 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge allows Chicago-area sweetened beverage tax to begin CHICAGO (AP) — A lawsuit challenging a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages sold in the Chicago area was dismissed Friday by a judge who also dissolved a temporary restraining order that had stopped it from being implemented. July 29, 2017 The tax originally was to take effect July 1 but the Illinois Retail Merchants Association sued, arguing the tax is unconstitutional and too vague. It is now is scheduled to go into effect Wednesday, according to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. "We applaud today's decision by Judge (Daniel) Kubasiak granting our motion to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit challenging the sweetened beverage tax," Preckwinkle said in a statement after the ruling. "We believed all along that our ordinance was carefully drafted and met pertinent constitutional tests." Cook County projected collecting about $67.5 million in revenue from the tax this year and more than $200 million for fiscal year 2018. Its delay resulted in layoff notices being sent to hundreds of county workers. Illinois Retail Merchants Association president Rob Karr said his organization would consider its legal options, which include filing an appeal or an amended complaint. "We are disappointed by today's ruling," he said. "I can only imagine the outrage that is being felt by consumers throughout Cook County who may soon have to pay this tax." The tax covers carbonated soft drinks, whether sweetened with sugar or a substitute such as aspartame, sports drinks and energy drinks. Fruit drinks also will be taxed, but 100 percent fruit juice is exempt. On-demand, custom-sweetened beverages, such as those mixed by a server or barista, or a hand-made Frappuccino, aren't subject to the tax. Also exempt are purchases made with federal food stamp benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which are exempt from state and local sales taxes under federal law. The burden of the tax would fall heavily on consumers. However, if retailers don't include it in purchases, they could be subject to a fine of $1,000 for the first offense, and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense. Philadelphia approved a sugary beverages tax last year. Voters in San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, California, and Boulder, Colorado, approved similar taxes in November. A great solution to insolvency
seems they have never heard of the Chi-Town Sugarparty of 2017! Lake Michigan will be one hell of a sweet Lake!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge allows Chicago-area sweetened beverage tax to begin CHICAGO (AP) — A lawsuit challenging a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages sold in the Chicago area was dismissed Friday by a judge who also dissolved a temporary restraining order that had stopped it from being implemented. July 29, 2017 The tax originally was to take effect July 1 but the Illinois Retail Merchants Association sued, arguing the tax is unconstitutional and too vague. It is now is scheduled to go into effect Wednesday, according to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. "We applaud today's decision by Judge (Daniel) Kubasiak granting our motion to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit challenging the sweetened beverage tax," Preckwinkle said in a statement after the ruling. "We believed all along that our ordinance was carefully drafted and met pertinent constitutional tests." Cook County projected collecting about $67.5 million in revenue from the tax this year and more than $200 million for fiscal year 2018. Its delay resulted in layoff notices being sent to hundreds of county workers. Illinois Retail Merchants Association president Rob Karr said his organization would consider its legal options, which include filing an appeal or an amended complaint. "We are disappointed by today's ruling," he said. "I can only imagine the outrage that is being felt by consumers throughout Cook County who may soon have to pay this tax." The tax covers carbonated soft drinks, whether sweetened with sugar or a substitute such as aspartame, sports drinks and energy drinks. Fruit drinks also will be taxed, but 100 percent fruit juice is exempt. On-demand, custom-sweetened beverages, such as those mixed by a server or barista, or a hand-made Frappuccino, aren't subject to the tax. Also exempt are purchases made with federal food stamp benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which are exempt from state and local sales taxes under federal law. The burden of the tax would fall heavily on consumers. However, if retailers don't include it in purchases, they could be subject to a fine of $1,000 for the first offense, and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense. Philadelphia approved a sugary beverages tax last year. Voters in San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, California, and Boulder, Colorado, approved similar taxes in November. A great solution to insolvency
depending upon how large a tax it is, it actually is a good way to raise money, being that so many people nowadays are having far more sugary drinks than is good for their health,,,,as if any sugary drink is really 'good' for our health,,lol and people do not in any way HAVE to have them,, so,,like cigarettes, tax away,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alleoops
on
Sun 07/30/17 07:56 AM
|
|
Agree, too much sugar is not good for anyone, except for those on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program? Maybe they are resistant to sugars harmful effects? The tax would add $2.88 to the price of a 24pk.of drinks. I would do my grocery shopping elsewhere. Tax away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sweetened beaver taxs....
Hold the phone Batman... Now I've heard everything... Ohhhhh... wait a minute!!!.. beverage taxs..opps....lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agree, too much sugar is not good for anyone, except for those on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program? Maybe they are resistant to sugars harmful effects? The tax would add $2.88 to the price of a 24pk.of drinks. I would do my grocery shopping elsewhere. Tax away.
I did not notice the op mentioning how much the tax is. IF the tax is 2.88 on 24 pack,, that is equivalent to 1.44 for 12 so considering a 12 pack is roughly 4 or 5 bucks,, that tax would be a roughly 30% sales tax, which would in my opinion be a tax that qualified as too 'large' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discrimination nothing more ..and of course some may take the stance that sugar isn't good for us but..neither are t.v dinners have you seen all the crap that goes into most of the garbage we now call food..whats next now that they gain a foot hold.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discrimination nothing more ..and of course some may take the stance that sugar isn't good for us but..neither are t.v dinners have you seen all the crap that goes into most of the garbage we now call food..whats next now that they gain a foot hold..
whom is it discriminating against? People from all backgrounds drink soda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agree, too much sugar is not good for anyone, except for those on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program? Maybe they are resistant to sugars harmful effects? The tax would add $2.88 to the price of a 24pk.of drinks. I would do my grocery shopping elsewhere. Tax away.
I did not notice the op mentioning how much the tax is. IF the tax is 2.88 on 24 pack,, that is equivalent to 1.44 for 12 so considering a 12 pack is roughly 4 or 5 bucks,, that tax would be a roughly 30% sales tax, which would in my opinion be a tax that qualified as too 'large' It is a penny per ounce tax, 12oz.can would be .12 cent on each can. Snap participants are exempt, they don't suffer the ravages of sugar I guess. http://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois/articles/2017-07-28/judge-expected-to-rule-in-cook-county-soda-tax-lawsuit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agree, too much sugar is not good for anyone, except for those on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program? Maybe they are resistant to sugars harmful effects? The tax would add $2.88 to the price of a 24pk.of drinks. I would do my grocery shopping elsewhere. Tax away.
I did not notice the op mentioning how much the tax is. IF the tax is 2.88 on 24 pack,, that is equivalent to 1.44 for 12 so considering a 12 pack is roughly 4 or 5 bucks,, that tax would be a roughly 30% sales tax, which would in my opinion be a tax that qualified as too 'large' It is a penny per ounce tax, 12oz.can would be .12 cent on each can. Snap participants are exempt, they don't suffer the ravages of sugar I guess. http://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois/articles/2017-07-28/judge-expected-to-rule-in-cook-county-soda-tax-lawsuit I saw nothing on that article about snap participants either. IF they are exempt, I believe that is wrong. If they are exempt, it is probably a consequence of the 'taxpayers' gripes about where they want snap participants to spend 'their' money,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agree, too much sugar is not good for anyone, except for those on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program? Maybe they are resistant to sugars harmful effects? The tax would add $2.88 to the price of a 24pk.of drinks. I would do my grocery shopping elsewhere. Tax away.
I did not notice the op mentioning how much the tax is. IF the tax is 2.88 on 24 pack,, that is equivalent to 1.44 for 12 so considering a 12 pack is roughly 4 or 5 bucks,, that tax would be a roughly 30% sales tax, which would in my opinion be a tax that qualified as too 'large' It is a penny per ounce tax, 12oz.can would be .12 cent on each can. Snap participants are exempt, they don't suffer the ravages of sugar I guess. http://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/illinois/articles/2017-07-28/judge-expected-to-rule-in-cook-county-soda-tax-lawsuit I saw nothing on that article about snap participants either. IF they are exempt, I believe that is wrong. If they are exempt, it is probably a consequence of the 'taxpayers' gripes about where they want snap participants to spend 'their' money,,, "On-demand, custom-sweetened beverages, such as those mixed by a server or barista, or a hand-made Frappuccino, aren’t subject to the tax. Also exempt are purchases made with federal food stamp benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which are exempt from state and local sales taxes under federal law." I think a tax on salt should next. 
http://www.sltrib.com/home/5567240-155/chicago-judge-approves-penny-per-ounce-tax-on |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well there you have it.
ANY state and local taxes are exempted on the snap program. Most likely because it would be like a double taxation, taxing tax money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge allows Chicago-area sweetened beverage tax to begin CHICAGO (AP) — A lawsuit challenging a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages sold in the Chicago area was dismissed Friday by a judge who also dissolved a temporary restraining order that had stopped it from being implemented. July 29, 2017 The tax originally was to take effect July 1 but the Illinois Retail Merchants Association sued, arguing the tax is unconstitutional and too vague. It is now is scheduled to go into effect Wednesday, according to Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle. "We applaud today's decision by Judge (Daniel) Kubasiak granting our motion to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit challenging the sweetened beverage tax," Preckwinkle said in a statement after the ruling. "We believed all along that our ordinance was carefully drafted and met pertinent constitutional tests." Cook County projected collecting about $67.5 million in revenue from the tax this year and more than $200 million for fiscal year 2018. Its delay resulted in layoff notices being sent to hundreds of county workers. Illinois Retail Merchants Association president Rob Karr said his organization would consider its legal options, which include filing an appeal or an amended complaint. "We are disappointed by today's ruling," he said. "I can only imagine the outrage that is being felt by consumers throughout Cook County who may soon have to pay this tax." The tax covers carbonated soft drinks, whether sweetened with sugar or a substitute such as aspartame, sports drinks and energy drinks. Fruit drinks also will be taxed, but 100 percent fruit juice is exempt. On-demand, custom-sweetened beverages, such as those mixed by a server or barista, or a hand-made Frappuccino, aren't subject to the tax. Also exempt are purchases made with federal food stamp benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which are exempt from state and local sales taxes under federal law. The burden of the tax would fall heavily on consumers. However, if retailers don't include it in purchases, they could be subject to a fine of $1,000 for the first offense, and $2,000 for the second and each subsequent offense. Philadelphia approved a sugary beverages tax last year. Voters in San Francisco, Oakland and Albany, California, and Boulder, Colorado, approved similar taxes in November. A great solution to insolvency
Maybe now you can petition something that really seems to matter... Like the murder rate. Just a thought. Nothing stopping you, go ahead. |
|
|
|
|
