Alderman Wants To Tax Your Soda Instead Of Your Trash

By Rachel Cromidas in News on Sep 9, 2015 4:05PM

via Getty Images

Taxing sugary soft drinks a penny-an-ounce could bring Chicago $134 million a year in additional tax revenue—and an alderman is making the case for this new tax over other tax measures on the table to mend city budget problems.

Those figures make the tax a better bet than taxing garbage packing, Ald. George Cardenas (12th), the Health Committee Chairman and chief sponsor of the soda tax proposal told the Sun-Times. The committee is meeting Wednesday morning to hold a hearing on the controversial proposal to tax soda sales in the city, but the vote will come at a later date. As Cardenas told reporters:

“Both [tax proposals] raise about the same amount. But the sugar tax helps combat a huge problem we have in the city. It combats diabetes and obesity.”

As Chicago struggles to fill its budget and pension gaps amid a statewide budget crisis, proponents of the soda tax say it's a no brainer to follow in the footsteps of Berkeley, Calif. which passed a soda tax last year. Some New York City lawmakers tried and failed to get a similar tax on the books in 2013.

But proponents of a Chicago soft drink tax could face some steep opposition. Several influential Chicagoans are lobbyists for industries that benefit from soft drink sales, including Mike Kasper, the attorney who helped Mayor Rahm Emanuel's fight the residency challenge to his 2011 mayoral election bid. Cardenas told the Sun-Times he believes Emanuel is supportive of the tax and the plan to hold hearings today. But mayoral aids were noncommittal in their talks with reporters.

Coca-Cola has donated millions of dollars to various city programs that promote health and wellness in a carrot-or-the-stick approach aimed at avoiding a soda tax.

But with a $500 million property tax hike now on the table to boost the beleaguered budget and a tax on smokeless tobacco products, among other new taxes, Cardenas is hoping to capture the support of other city officials who want to save some taxpayers money while creating a disincentive for people to buy a product that has been linked to serious health problems including diabetes and heart disease.