Sometimes environmental issues are exacerbated by environmentalists. The use of disposable/recyclable water bottles is one such issue. It's time environmentalists -- the ones driving hybrid cars, using alternative energy like solar energy, recycling their trash, buying organic cotton and other natural fiber sheets and towels, and eating organic meat and produce -- stop buying and consuming individually packaged bottled water. It's time they dispense filtered water into a reusable -- preferably stainless steel -- water bottles to get their minimum daily water quota.
They're often called "recycling surcharges" just to avoid hurting the feelings of health-conscious voters, but we know that taxes added specifically to sales of bottled water are "sin taxes", just like those on alcohol and tobacco. They might also be called luxury taxes or, more bluntly, excessive-consumption fines.
We have discussed the follies of bottled water elsewhere on this site. It's profligately energy expensive to purify water by reverse osmosis, the most common method in the bottled water industry. Reverse osmosis also wastes three gallons of water for every one it produces. The petrochemicals used in plastic bottles increase our oil-dependency and air pollution. More petroleum is wasted and air polluted by trucking bottled water cross-country to people who have perfectly good local water on pollution-free tap. Finally, it is self-delusion to think that it’s healthier or safer to drink water from a completely unregulated supplier than to drink from a centrally and tightly monitored local supply.
Minnesota does not tax bottles of water larger than 1/2 gallon, but regular sales tax applies to smaller, patently wasteful bottles. The point is made by the fact that smaller bottles of fruit juice or milk are not taxed. San Francisco, in trendy California, was one of the first major cities to impose a timid tax on bottled water -- a mere five cents per stupidly-sinful-containers. Chicago is considering a 10-25 cent per bottle tax. Several states, including Indiana, Michigan, and even the U. S. Territory of American Samoa, are now considering such taxes. New York City, where voters really have their politicians properly terrorized, is only able to muster a voluntary program. Swear to forego bottled water, and the city will give you a nice, ecologically responsible stainless steel bottle for its high-quality tap water.
Of course, no politician wants to alienate bottled water voters. So the bottled water tax is always couched in a way with which it is hard to argue. The money is represented as a boon for recycling efforts, clean-water projects, parks and recreation facilities, and anything except what it is -- a tax on the sin of buying bottled water.
Few things rise to the status of taxable sins. A commodity must be popular and almost, if not actually, addictive. Otherwise, people will simply stop buying it and the cost to collect the tax exceeds its revenues. Gasoline, booze, tobacco, and now bottled water make good candidates. Luxury items can be taxed at very high rates that make collection worthwhile even on low sales volumes. Jewelry, luxury cars, and some real estate fall into this category.
Bottled water is not addictive, like tobacco and, for many, alcohol. The sin tax on bottled water will never amount to much per bottle. It is unlikely that the bottled water sin tax will remain a significant revenue generator for governments. But if a tax reduces bottled water consumption, society will actually benefit from a sin tax for a change. Now stop choking and pony up the extra quarter for your obscene extravagance.
