the official blog of the evergreen freedom foundation

Bottled Water, Water Everywhere and Not a Drop Untaxed

In what must surely be part of an ambitious plan to tax everything under the sun (never let a budget crisis go to waste), lawmakers have introduced HB 3120 in the legislature. The bill, if passed, would impose an in-state wholesale tax of 0.00296 dollars per ounce of bottled water to fund public health services. Naturally, wholesalers would pass this on to retailers, who in turn would pass the increased costs to their water-swilling customers.

And where exactly would the money from this new tax go? According to the text of the bill, proceeds would flow to “funding local health jurisdictions to conduct core public health functions of statewide significance, as defined in RCW 43.70.514.”

 

Rather than flood taxpayers with new and/or higher taxes to pay for core government functions, why not prioritize and cut wasteful spending—of which there is a lot, so don’t let the governor and lawmakers tell you otherwise—to balance the state budget within existing revenues? I know, I know, I’m throwing cold water on the legislature’s plans to take more money from our wallets, instead of making the fundamental, difficult changes necessary to get the state budget under control.

 

There’s no word yet on whether the legislature will come up with new taxes on the remaining elements: earth, air and fire.

 

Thoughts?   Add Comment -

Randy said on Feb 01 2010 at 9:30am
I think you're missing a couple of zeroes in that rate. It should be .00296 rather than .296, which would be almost 30 cents per ounce.

Brett said on Feb 01 2010 at 10:43am
Randy, I went ahead and put in the actual language of the rate as stated in the bill to avoid any further confusion. I originally wrote it as .296 CENTS--in other words, a fraction of a cent, not .296 of a dollar, which, as you point out, would be nearly 30 cents per ounce. Anyway, like I said, I put in the original language.

Allison said on Feb 01 2010 at 1:15pm
I would hope that residents of Washington State realize that they have an alternative to drinking bottled water – tap water, and WE pay for this infrastructure to our homes. Tap water costs about $0.002 per gallon compared to the $0.89 to $8.26 per gallon charge for bottled water. If the water we use at home cost what even the cheapest bottled water costs, our average monthly family water bills would run $9000. When cities and states use taxpayer dollars to buy bottled water for offices, meetings, and events at hundreds to thousands of times the cost of tap water it signals to the public that something must be wrong with the quality of tap water. This bill sound fiscally sound to me.

Pam said on Feb 01 2010 at 1:36pm
The proliferation of plastic bottles caused by the campaign to sell water is a prime example of wastefullness. Similarly, sugary drinks that provide no nutrition but contribute to the obesity plague in this country are an unnecessary blight. Regardless of the need to raise revenue, government, as voice and guardian of the rights of the people to good quality of life, ought to tax unhealthy, environmentally disasterous business practices that negatively impact our lives.

Brett said on Feb 01 2010 at 2:21pm
Thanks, Allison and Pam. I seem to recall reading about some studies from several years back that bottled water, generally speaking, is no different than tap water. You know, except for the higher cost.

Amber Gunn said on Feb 01 2010 at 4:31pm
Pam and Allison,

Yes, drinking bottled water is wasteful. That's why it's so expensive relative to tap water. Apparently, however, some individuals believe spending 1000% more for bottled water as opposed to tap water is worth the trade off. (I would agree with your point Allison, that govt events and employees at work shouldn't have this luxury since it isn't their money). Individuals are already paying for this waste with their hard-earned cash. It's not the kind of thing I would spend my money on, but then again, there's no accounting for taste.

Apparently, however, some people believe there IS accounting for taste and that it should be taxed or banned out of existence. Last I checked this was America, and it's still the freest nation on the planet. If people want to spend millions of dollars on wasteful bottled water, that's their prerogative (life, liberty and the pursuit...).

And Pam, if you're going to start picking on sugary drinks, then why not add candy bars into the mix? Or for that matter, cheesecake, milkshakes, creme brulee, or sour patch kids? The moral case for taxing or banning sugary drinks as opposed to anything else that is bad for humans is morally bankrupt. People consume bad foods and drinks all the time. And thank God we still have the freedom to do so.

As G.K. Chesterton wrote:
The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.

I don't know about you, but I choose freedom. There are plenty of other countries where people choose otherwise, but please leave this one to its roots.