"-bwg" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 28, 10:48 am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> Now the Chicago city idiots have seen a reason to tax these bottles.
> $.05 a bottle. Rather that implement a better recycling program they
> just want to make the extra 10.5 million per year in revenue. If they
> made a deposit on them litter would be eliminated. But that would
> make too much sense.

By the way, can municipalities require deposits on bottles?

And, why deposits only on water bottles? And why not both deposits and
taxes on the bottles?

Taxing bottled water does more than just discourage littering or
encourage recycling (how does it encourage recycling, anyway? you pay
the tax whether you recycle the botle or not.) It discourages people
from using bottled water, thus encouraging them to use municipally
sourced water. Why encourage the use of municipally sourced water?

-bwg


+++++++++++=


To get them to wake up and realize that in SOME LOCALES, the municipal water
if as good as if not better than bottled water, in terms of taste and/or
safety.

It's not difficult for consumers to find out what's in their local water.