City
Taxing Water and Other Harebrained Schemes
So the City of Toronto is thinking about taxing bottled water. Well, it was, until it realised that the vast number of retailers selling bottled water would make the tax nearly impossible to collect. And, oh yeah, the tax would also likely be illegal. The City of Toronto Act does allow the city to impose its own taxes, but it prohibits sales taxes outside of alcohol, cigarettes, and entertainment. So what is the city thinking?
Yes, Toronto is faced with a severe budget shortfall but taxing WATER? I understand that many people feel bottled water is unnecessary. Some even call the bottled water trend dangerous and irresponsible. Point taken. However, I really don't see people filling up bottles at home and carrying them around with them. What happens when those bottles run empty? I don't know about you, but I don't see too many public drinking fountains on the streets of Toronto. Would we have to resort to sticking bottles in the Dundas Square fountains?
Besides, even if you were planning on only drinking tap water, the city plans to raise the price on doing that too!
If the city is really thinking of adding on a (possibly illegal) tax, why not tax pop? People need water to properly hydrate themselves, especially on hot days, but Coke or Pepsi are hardly necessities. A tax on pop may even lead people to drink more water, since it would be cheaper than its evil carbonated big brother. And while we're at it there are some "Super Value Menus" that could use a few extra taxes. Again, tax products that aren't necessary and can lead to illness. Isn't that why alcohol and cigarettes are taxed higher than other goods?
Clearly taxing water is not the solution. But what is?
Discussion
33 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
That said, I think this tax is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. Aside from being practically impossible to implement and largely illegal, I think there are plenty of other tax options within the City of Toronto Act which makes a lot more sense.
E.G., I'd be happy to pay more (up to maybe $0.25 or $0.50) for a pint of beer at a bar/restaurant/etc. It's a negligable amount to me but I expect it would raise a fair amount of money for the city.
The oft referenced levy for driving downtown would be great, especially since it would serve the dual purpose of raising revenue and reducing congestion and car usage. Of course, I would only want to see this if the money was earmarked from the start for the TTC.
It's really not that hard. I've been carrying all the water I need with me wherever I go for years. I have a few different bottles so I can choose whatever meets the needs of a given situation.
If they can get away with it I say tax it!
http://www.bartleby.com/61/43/H0064300.html
plus, with the increase in consumption of bottled water, where are all the bottles going? Perhaps they need the extra tax money to fund recycling... or perhaps, they're just crooks.
Yes, people can survive without bottled water, but the point was that there are better (and more unnecessary) things to tax than water.
Where are there water fountains in the downtown area?
As Dear Old Dad Often Said "You Ain't Seen Nothin Yet Kid.."
Is The City Of Tornto Act Working For You ?
I believe that Dundas Square has one at the South-West corner. There is one in Trinity - Belwoods adjacent to the Northern baseball diamond. Bickford park has one at the North end as well.
Obviously the streets aren't lined with the things though.
Adjacent to the washroom in every office tower or retail area (i.e. PATH & the Eaton Centre).
We could certainly do with more fountains on the streets too, but it's not exactly hard to find one as it is now.
^^ toxins leak into the water even when you drink that trusted brand of water initially in there .. bet on it.. however, a thorough rinsing of the bottle before re-use fixed this problem.
"Don't forget the Heat Alert Days QWhen The City Will Hand Out Free Bottled Water To Seniors"
^^ Everyone gets free water when they are handed out .. the problem is that they are usually expired and taste like plastic.. made me kind of pissed this summer.
This comment actually made me blurt out "Is this guy serious?".
Some readers already touched on this: it behooves of us to realize how much energy and waste it goes into making and drinking bottled water. The sight of empty plastic bottles stuffed in a waste bin is enough for any "harebrained" environmentalist to flip out and cry about the state of wanton human consumption. Slamming on SUVs but deriding bottled water taxation is a contradiction blogto might be wise to clear up on.
If you really want to compare costs, just know that the major companies generally make profits upwards of 200% on each bottle. Almost all of the cost in producing the bottled water goes to the packaging and marketing.
"But that's the mechanics of a free market system in motion, GeeBee." you argue. "Supply and demand!"
Well, think about it this way: if you choose to get your recommended eight glasses a day from bottled water, you could spend up to $1,400 annually. The same amount of tap water would cost about 49 cents.
That's the meat of your problem with the taxation, isn't it? To call out a proposal that's trying to check a largely unregulated and superficial industry as flippant and undeserving of thought? Yes, it's complicated and nigh impractical to take stock of all the retailers selling bottled water. Yes, it might be a little inconvenient to carry a water container and have it refilled everytime it runs out as opposed to just forking out a loonie and change for a bottle of water. Yes, it might possibly be illegal (the taxes). But to actually dismiss this initiative as just another case of overzealous politicians getting worked up over budget shortfalls?
You can criticize the finer points of this proposal and that's fine. But you don't. Instead we have you wondering "oh dear god, I just ran out of water in my container. Oh where, just where shall I find a place to refill my precious container in a city filled with cafes, restos, bars, washrooms and (ostentatiously sparse) drinking fountains, with people more than happy to fill it up from their sink? Truly, this is an impasse with no recourse."
Just ask. It's that simple.
Sorry for coming off as a little too snarky, but this was one post of yours that I just HAD to commment on. And be a little snarky.
You do realise blogTO isn't a single person, right? It's made up of several people that have several different opinions.
But you make several good points and I respect that.
I do want to know why the city is a) wasting time on a proposal that will likely be shot down as illegal b) not thinking of taxing things like pop and junk food that have all of the same problems as bottled water with additional health issues and c) not installing more easily available drinking fountains throughout the city so that bottled water would be less necessary.
But thanks for the comment, I appreciate fact-based debate much more than random insults.
a) How is it wasting time to discuss about a proposal? "Discuss" being the key word here. Nothing's being set to stone or carved out here. It's just been discussed, and as such, there are obstacles and pitfalls that need to be addressed to accordingly. We have several acts and regulations that might hinder the fruition of this initiative, but that's just focussing on the pebbles and dismissing the mountain. Namely, the need to curb the rampant infiltration and misinformation of drinking bottled water that costs more per gallon than gasoline. Not to mention the environmental cost of creating and wasting all that plastic that fill up landfills and take thousands of years (if ever) to break down.
b) Pop and junk food are commodities. Water isn't. Let's not compare apples and oranges here. Water is a necessity and we pay annual fees to ensure that the govt. provides us a safe, clean drinking water. From the tap. Why pay more to support an industry that could be just packaging the same water and selling it under a label?
c) You don't really need drinking fountains to fill your water container up. It's the same water. You know the water that flushes your toilet? Same thing. And although I know it's an unsavoury thought to be thinking of water from the toilet as water that you drink, I just want to make the point that you can pretty much go to any cafe or bar and ask to have your container refilled (from the sink, preferably). Again: ask! It's that simple.
I think the issue at hand goes beyond just the technical dilemmas of taxing bottled water to the broader issue of wasteful consumption: how willing are you to find ways to consume less, than more?
Even if that means you might have to ditch that bottle of "sprinkled spring water" from your wholesome, nutritious cycle.
A lot of "food on the go" is packaged in wasteful containers; for example, single-sized Juice bottles. More people should brown bag their food as well.
Take this for example: Let's say I plan to run a short errand (don't take an empty bottle with me), but then I run into an old friend. We go for pizza. He orders a Fruitopia (full of sugar and no nutritional value). With the choices available: pop, juice (usually only orange actually has vitamin C -- grape, cranberry, grapefruit do not), I opt for water. Now why should I have to pay more tax for choosing something that is of better nutritional choice? It's not fair. Most bottled water companies also sell pop. But why wouldn't they be taxed for that instead?
They all waste the same amount of plastic.
Regarding your hypothesis: could you have asked for a cup of water instead of buying bottled water? I do that all the time at cafes, restaurants, and anywhere else that I pay for service. Now you could argue that no, they don't provide any glass of water, and it's true -- places like gas stations, pizzerias, convenience stores etc. don't provide such services. But let's say more and more customers start asking for glasses of water. Pretty soon, store owners will be inclined to hand out glasses of water, or fill water containers, because they see more people demanding it. Again, this is all hypothetical, but it is worth remembering that for a brief moment of a side-errand, you couldn't either ask for a glass of water or wait till you are someplace where you can get access to a glass of water. Convenience, it seems, is a point of diversion whereupon we can deduce the equivalency between a bottle of carbonated beverage and plain water.
It all falls back to a person's own conviction. Knowing that bottled water is a product created purely out of misguided want rather than need, I am willing to ask for a glass of water or try a little harder for a place that can provide me one. You can argue about the fairness of the taxes till the cows come home, but it's based solely on your personal appraisals rather than overall rationality.
Logic dictates that you save more over the long run by drinking water from the tap. Should this taxation be extended to other junk food? Maybe. Is this not permissible under the provincial or federal laws? Maybe. Does drinking bottled water prove the gullibility of consumers under heavy marketing schemes?
Absolutely.
I agree with the environmental aspects as far as what it means to drink bottled water as opposed to tap water. Plastic isn't one of the best materials for the environment anyway, hence the reason it's involved in a recycling program.
The idea of a tax on alcohol could also be stemmed to cigarettes, magazines, or even movie tickets. I wouldn't mind paying a dime more for a movie ticket, if I knew I was contributing to the city. I've got a bunch of dimes in the car I use for coffee money or parking, whatever I might need at the time. I could spare a couple whenever I go to a movie with my wife. There are millions of combinations, combined in small amounts, that could work under alcohol, cigarettes, and entertainment that would help contribute to the budget issues.
I personally think the biggest thing is the city, much like many other cities, sees the bottled water drinking trend we've developed, and looks at the small picture and how much it would mean if they were to collect on every purchase. The big picture might be something they need to look into instead, and remain legal with what they're allowed to tax. There's lots of potential in those three categories.
If I'm super thirsty, I'll just find a fountain or any tap.
Taxing the bottled water is a good idea, cuts down on oil-use, waste, packaging material, etc.