Full Text of HR0148 100th General Assembly
HR0148 100TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY |
| | HR0148 | | LRB100 11518 MST 22034 r |
|
| 1 | | HOUSE RESOLUTION
| 2 | | WHEREAS, A proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages to | 3 | | generate revenue to balance the State's
budget has been | 4 | | contemplated by some policymakers; and
| 5 | | WHEREAS, Adding an additional tax on sugar-sweetened | 6 | | beverages will raise grocery costs for Illinois
hardworking | 7 | | families and kill Illinois jobs; and
| 8 | | WHEREAS, Studies have concluded that any obesity-related | 9 | | benefit of decreased sugar-sweetened
beverage consumption that | 10 | | comes from a tax is negligible or offset by individual | 11 | | circumstances and
environments; for instance, West Virginia | 12 | | has had a sugar-sweetened beverage tax since 1951 and has
the | 13 | | second highest obesity rate in the United States at 35.6%; | 14 | | since 1990, the diabetes rate in West
Virginia has more than | 15 | | doubled from 6.7% to 14.5%; Arkansas has had a sugar-sweetened
| 16 | | beverage tax since 1992; during this time, obesity rates have | 17 | | doubled from 17% to 34.5%, ranking it the
sixth-highest rate in | 18 | | the United States; additionally, the diabetes rate has doubled | 19 | | from 5.8% to 12.6%; and | 20 | | WHEREAS, If the sugar-sweetened beverage tax will reduce | 21 | | consumption as the advocates claim, then it
will in turn | 22 | | negatively impact bottlers, manufacturers, agricultural |
| | | HR0148 | - 2 - | LRB100 11518 MST 22034 r |
|
| 1 | | suppliers, distributors, retailers, and
labor; with more than | 2 | | 100,000 Illinois residents directly and indirectly employed by | 3 | | the beverage
industry, the vast beverage industry could face | 4 | | layoffs if the sugar-sweetened beverage tax is signed
into law; | 5 | | and | 6 | | WHEREAS, Beverage-related jobs create $654 million in | 7 | | wages in Illinois, with an additional $702 million
in wages for | 8 | | occupations that rely on beverage sales; passing this soda | 9 | | beverage tax would decrease
sales resulting in a decrease in | 10 | | local and State revenue at a time when governments across | 11 | | Illinois are
facing declining revenue; and
| 12 | | WHEREAS, A soda tax will provide additional incentive to | 13 | | the two-thirds of Illinois residents who live within a
| 14 | | 40-minute drive of a neighboring state to shop in that | 15 | | neighboring state and therefore further weaken
tax receipts and | 16 | | cripple local businesses; specifically, Illinois retailers | 17 | | which border other states will be
put at an even greater | 18 | | competitive disadvantage with out-of-state retailers; and
| 19 | | WHEREAS, A recent proposal would impose an unreasonable new | 20 | | State
penny-per-ounce tax that would result in 68 cents in new | 21 | | taxes on a
typical 99-cent, two-liter bottle of soda; and
| 22 | | WHEREAS, An additional tax on sugar-sweetened beverages |
| | | HR0148 | - 3 - | LRB100 11518 MST 22034 r |
|
| 1 | | goes against the pro-business, pro-jobs,
pro-growth policies | 2 | | that should be under careful consideration as Illinois seeks to | 3 | | regain sound financial
footing; therefore, be it
| 4 | | RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE | 5 | | HUNDREDTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we | 6 | | fully support our hardworking citizens and oppose all efforts, | 7 | | on the State or local
level, to impose new taxes on beverages | 8 | | and food; and be it further
| 9 | | RESOLVED, That we state our firm opposition to any | 10 | | additional taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.
|
|