DISQUS

Puff · 3 years ago

To start with, I don’t smoke (quit 15 years ago). Counties should not be given the authority to tax cigarettes. I don’t know how much a pack of cigs are now but $2.00 seems excessive for one pack. Why does Cook County have this authority and no other county – that does not seem fair (but what is these days?).

C$ · 3 years ago

If a tax like the one proposed will help one child to keep from starting smoking, then it's worth it. It's about time we think about the children in Illinois. Smoking is an epidemic, the number one cause of preventable deaths. We need the counties to step up and help the fight. And if it happens to help balance the budget, that's just a bonus.

Bill Baar · 3 years ago

I quite in Oct 1986. It's a tax on addicts. Drop it.

Sideliner · 3 years ago

It is an unfair tax mostly paid for by those we can least afford it !!!! Does that include cigars ?

Sideliner · 3 years ago

And a side note why would the Dems want to bailout Bob Schillerstrom when Bob could run against Lisa Madigan in 2010 ?

YNM · 3 years ago

I'd say it's much more fair to force schools and teachers, via their pensions, to balance government budgets.

Sideliner · 3 years ago

Nothing to do with teachers nor pensions has to do with over spending and expansion of government.. Now the county has spent their reserves and after steeling 75 million from another taxing body he needs to save his butt...

Disgusted · 3 years ago

"You are the master of your fate; you are the captain of your soul." If you smoke, it's your business. If I don't like it, it's my own responsiblity to get away from it and remove my children. We have enough government intrusion into our lives. Leave people and their wallets alone, for God's sake. And I have never smoked.

It makes cents · 3 years ago

Increasing cigarette taxes is a WIN, WIN, WIN solution for states - a health win that reduces smoking and saves lives; a fiscal win that raises revenue and reduces health care costs; and a political win that is popular with the public.

It's no wonder that 42 states and the District of Columbia have increased cigarette taxes since January 1, 2002, more than doubling the average state cigarette tax from 43.4 cents to 93.7 cents a pack. The average state cigarette tax will rise even more to 96.1 cents per pack in January 2007 when recently approved tax increases in Hawaii and Texas take effect.

Win #1: Fewer Kids Smoking
Studies, and experience in state after state, show that higher cigarette taxes are one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking among both youth and adults. Every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes will reduce youth smoking by about seven percent and overall cigarette consumption by about four percent.

Win #2: Higher Revenue for States
Every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue, even while reducing smoking. These funds have helped states balance budgets and fund essential services like health care, education and tobacco prevention programs. Contrary to tobacco industry arguments, cigarette tax increases are a reliable source of revenue for states. Read our Fact Sheet: Exposing Tobacco Industry Myths About Cigarette Taxes.

Win #3: Public Support for Tobacco Taxes
In national and state polls across the country, there is overwhelming public support for tobacco tax increases. Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike want elected officials to increase tobacco taxes to help prevent kids from smoking.

Ali bin Hadden · 3 years ago

Here in the border sticks we take great delight in crossing the river to buy gas and smokes in low tax Missouri. It makes one feel good to stick it to the Gov with every purchase so I say tax away, make it $3 per pack. Go Bob Go.

bored now · 3 years ago

policy? geez, isn't it friday??? couldn't we have a question like, what local bands have you seen that you think others will, too? or what illinois band has been slighted by the r-n-r hall of fame (given their recent announcement)? policy??? yuck!

Squideshi · 3 years ago

A different way to ask this question might be, should county government involve itself in discouraging people from using addictive and harmful drugs, which create a public health problem. Since smoking is optional, and no one is forced to pay this tax, this is fine with me.

PJF · 3 years ago

In my humble opinion, all the governmental entities in Illinois need LESS powers, especially in the area of patronage and ANYTHING to do with money.

http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com

Fan of the Game · 3 years ago

So many issues, so little brain power. But, alas, I will endeavor to give a reasonably intelligent answer.

1) If one county in the state has that authority all counties in the state should have that authority.

2) I don't smoke, so the tax could hike to $5 a pack, and it wouldn't affect me.

3) If people are really concerned about children smoking and the detrimental effect smoking has on healthcare costs and insurance, they should push the state to outlaw the manufacture, sale, and use of cigarettes statewide.

4) Number 3 will never happen because all governmental entities see tobacco as a revenue source, and since people villify tobacco, those entities feel they can tax it at much higher rates than other products.

5) Follow the money.

Budget Watcher · 3 years ago

Additional county taxes on cigarettes actually hurt state revenues as it diminishes in-state cigarette sales. I'm not advocating either way, but simply pointing out that county taxes will result in fewer state revenues due to drops in sales volume. Of course, behavioral modification is the long-term desired effect, but I don't believe that DuPage County's primary motivation.

Michelle Flaherty · 3 years ago

To answer the first question posted: Cook County is a homerule county, so it can pretty much do whatever it wants. If DuPage (or anyone else) could convince voters to make it a homerule county it could do this on its own.

Pink elephant · 3 years ago

This is going to hurt business on the edges of the state, as people hop the border for smokes, then tank up their cars and pick up a few sundries while they are at it.

Its a positive for health policy, would be more positive if the state wasn't taking all their tobacco money that was SUPPOSED to be for health campaigns and put it in general revenue. Don't even try to sell this new hike on the idea any of the money will go towards health improvement, though it should.

Every time the vices get another tax hike, you also stimulate crime: bootlegging, theft of the items, thefts to pay for the items. Something to figure into the equation.

Jake from Elwood · 3 years ago

DuPage County has been in a financial downturn the past couple of years and department heads have been asked to pare back budgets by double digit figures. Smiling Bob is looking for revenue anywhere he can get it and it is no surprise to me that the tobacco tax is another possible revenue vehicle.

Sideliner · 3 years ago

But the county is in this spot because of mismanagment... Early buyout for employees then hiring back under contract millions spent, dept heads geting 10 to 15% salary adjustments while hardworking men and women get two to three percent..., Not leaving property tax level cost millions of millions don't need to increase tax but leave it level... And the list goes on and on

YNM · 3 years ago

Tongue. In. Cheek.
Geez, I thought it was Friday.

Snidely Whiplash · 3 years ago

Ok, hypocrites, let's put your money where your mouths are: take a property tax increase. You gripe about second hand smoke, and ban smoking everywhere, but allow the SALE of cigs because you want the taxes to alleviate your own tax burden.

Caffein is a health risk. Why not tax coffee and soda pop? Same with fast food. Just because you smoke doesn't mean you should be taxed to death.

Personally, the hypocritical governments, so over dependent on cig taxes, should do the right thing and BAN them to save lives. The truth is, they don't care as much about lives as they do about tax dollars. Think about it.

anon · 3 years ago

one does not need to look to far back to see when Chicago/Cook raised taxes it had an effect on state tax revenues. {ie border runs.} making this available to the rest of the counties will further hurt state revenues, probably will then need to raise state taxes on cigarettes to make up the difference. Not a good idea.

one of the 35 · 3 years ago

In time the question may be moot. If many communities adopt non smoking ordinances, ultimately tobacco taxes will decline and not be the revenue source savior that some think it will be.

Just Wonderin' · 3 years ago

First, I don't smoke, and such a tax doesn't directly affect me. However, this move by the counties could be just a tip of the iceberg - we can generate additional revenues by increased cig tax, why not institute a tax on other things to increase revenue. Too much potential for local government to have free rein on taxation. Although a recognized health issue, it seems as though we're beating a dead horse with smoking bans (government intrusion on individual choices), state levies on cig, and now the counties want to cash in on the smoking BANdwagon (pun intended).

Justice · 3 years ago

It’s pretty easy to raise money from the devil and the devil here is tobacco. You can say what you may about justifying the increase to prevent young people from picking up the habit, but the cost will be a minimum factor. We are way, way out spent by a tenacious and relentless tobacco advertising machine. People of all ages will find a way to get a pack of smokes. The real issue, which Rich nails, is does this open the door to taxing other vices such as alcohol and chocolate. Before long, we’ll have a tax anything that is deemed “not a necessity” and a fee on everything else. When you put politicians in charge of the treasury or in charge of raising money, and you open the door to the vault just enough to let them get their toe in the door, you have essentially put the fox in charge of the hen house. Each, in eloquent and somber tones, will tell us how necessary it is, why they personally hesitate to do it, but it is for the good of all. They will graciously save us from ourselves and take our hard earned money to do so. I am so grateful for their genius and kindness that I will run up to the next politician I see and spontaneously hug them….after first hiding my wallet!! I say stop the cig tax now or we will all be coughing from them squeezing where it hurts most.

Shelbyville · 3 years ago

I do not smoke, but I say no. Why not keep taxing booze? - at least it might keep someone from getting drunk amd driving.

Lovie's Leather · 3 years ago

I think it is funny that people on this blog whom I would identify as pro-choice, are talking about how it would be healthy to have higher taxes on cigarettes... Hey, its my body and none of your business....

zatoichi · 3 years ago

Don't smoke, don't really care what it costs smokers. Still I see the option of Elliot Ness cracking down on under the table tobacco sales and people border hopping will become very real. My concern is once this starts the iceberg gets chipped away. Provena Hospital already got their non-profit property tax removed. Local news says Carle Hospital is next. As bucks get tighter more local taxing bodies will look at tother options to pay the bills.

On a better note: Cheap Trick's "Rockford". Great CD for the weekend and good road trip music. Sounds like they are back at Ted's Warehouse in Charleston when they were doing the local bar scene. Love these guys!

Sideliner · 3 years ago

I know Rich wants to be deep in policy here but politically Bob Schillerstrom promised Tom Cross he would have 100% of the DuPage Legislators on board... I got pretty good info he not there yet... He says he is but !!!

HoosierDaddy · 3 years ago

Great way to raise revenue for Indiana. All the smokers in my county will hop in their pickup trucks and drive over to Terre Haute or St. Bertucky to get their smokes.

Squideshi · 3 years ago

"You gripe about second hand smoke, and ban smoking everywhere, but allow the SALE of cigs because you want the taxes to alleviate your own tax burden."

I support a public smoking ban.

Tom · 3 years ago

Raising cigarette taxes is the lazy politician's way out. Instead of cutting spending or raising a broad-based tax so everyone shares the burden, they pick on those predominantly in the lower and middle classes. Tax hikes in Illinois will encourage more people near the border to cross state lines. While across they will also purchase gasoline and other items depriving Illinois of revenue. Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky, and Iowa will do a happy dance if this passes.

Cappy · 3 years ago

I do smoke! Raising the tax on a pack of butts just might be the tipping point for me. My wife hates it, my kids hate it, society hates it. Ban all cigarettes.

Instead, lets start taxing fat people... eh hem... excuse me, "calorically enhanced people". These waddlers are the next health epidemic. Type 2 diabetes, needed handicapped spaces to park, and all the other perks they get so their rights aren't offended. We could have a Chief Weight Officer drive around towns with a digital scale. When they see a full moon, they can whip out a badge, put the scale on a level surface and do a weigh in. Make the tax on a sliding scale (pun intended). 10% over the AMA's guide to obesity $20 per pound, 20% over $30 per pound and so on.

Speaking of parking, they could enfore the "Walk For Your Health" rule. If your morbidly obese, you have to walk everywhere. If your the size of Olive Oil, you get to park inside. Go Government! We need help to protect us from us!!!

Beggars can't be choosers · 3 years ago

You people have managed to plunge Illinois into the worst financial state in our history. Until you pony up the political capital and adopt a progressive (and higher) income tax, we've got to get revenue from wherever we can find it.

As long as we sponsor the state lottery (about the lowest form of state-sponsored fraud and victimization that there is), I don't see anything wrong with imposing a high tax that raises revenue, helps public health, and lowers the state's medical bills all at the same time.

So what if it is a tax on addicts? It makes expensive recovery programs a good bit more affordable.

So what if people go to Indiana to buy their tobacco? Let their blood be on Indiana's hands, not on ours. We are, or at least should be, above that sort of thing.

Also, to buy cigarettes you have to show a state ID. That means it might be possible to track out-of-state purchases of cigarettes and apply a use tax to make up the difference between our taxes on tobacco and Indiana's taxes on tobacco.

Frank Booth · 3 years ago

WOW, with 100 percent of the DuPage delegation on board they'll be unstoppable.

Oh wait. It's 2006, not 1996.

Tom · 3 years ago

Very rarely have I seen convenience store or gas station clerks card someone for cigarettes. Indiana and other border states have absolutely no reason to force their stores to record the IDs of all Illinois cigarette purchasers. To do so would stop the flow of Illinoisans into their stores.

Beggars can't be choosers · 3 years ago

States have all sorts of things they would like each other to do. I'm sure we could link this with something else they wanted from us.

Or, for all we know, they might jump on the bandwagon and raise their own taxes too, just because they could be a couple of points lower than us and still be attractive.

That still accomplishes our primary goal of encouraging public health. If we lose a little tax money on the margins, then it's a small price to pay.

Or we could wait for the federal government to step in and save us all.

But Rich specifically asked about counties' right to raise taxes, so why would smokers have to drive all the way to Indiana if they could just drive across the county line? Would we really lose THAT much revenue from border rats?

So Blue Democrat · 3 years ago

I do not like to see one group to continue to receive tax increases. This tax is very regressive. All segments of the population need to contribute to the need for additional tax revenues. The only positive is that it will force more people to quit smoking. I then wonder if it will raise significant revenues.

MM · 3 years ago

This does not force anyone to raise taxes. It only gives the counties the authority to do what Cook can already do.

The counties bear much of the health care burden caused by tobacco. They should be able to offset those expenses.

anon · 3 years ago

Dear MM,
do you really think that anyone who votes for this would not be tagged as voting for a tax increase when the next set of campaign ads rolls around in 2008?

Somehow I don't think this explanation would help. Lawmaker X: I didn't vote for a tax increase. I voted to let your county officials raise your taxes. My hands are clean.

tough guy · 3 years ago

Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me as long as the counties could use it in their general revenue fund. It is strictly up to the county to decide, so if they don't want to do it they don't have to. Hopefully it will cause more people to quit and save money on the healthcare side. This will drive the tobacco lobby crazy (a goog thing) trying to put these brush fires out all over the state.

cermak_rd · 3 years ago

County government is much closer to the people than state government. I don't see why counties can't tax whatever they want as long as they can get it approved via referendum. The county is also in the best position to determine if that is going to hurt their businesses. Of course can't they get these rights by convincing their voters to make them home rule counties?

Angie · 3 years ago

As someone who smoked a few years and then totally quit (successfully, too), just don't give them anything to tax, folks. Just quit smoking. It is a no-win situation, as you'll end up paying $10 a pack as the fascist smoking police continue to attempt to make it impossible for you to smoke anyways.

Personally, I don't think it is anyone's business to tax these things, because people do all sorts of things that aren't healthy, but if they're gonna tax you puffers, how about sticking it to them and quitting. No source of taxation revenue if you don't smoke, right?

Just Saying · 3 years ago

Nobody's driving from DuPage County to Indiana for smokes.

And Lovie, the difference is that tobacco use is everyone else's problem, because the state and feds pay for health care for a lot of old and poor folks who've got cancer cuz they smoked a whole lot.

And then there's this... http://www.mlive.com/news/statewide/index.ssf?/...

I wouldn't be surprised to see that approach in Illinois soon.

Tom · 3 years ago

The power to tax cigarettes should be extended to all counties or given to none.

I still think extreme cigarette taxation as witnessed in Cook is folly. It gives politicians an easy copout to avoid making difficult fiscal decisions. Despite their high-minded claims of trying to get people to quit that's not what they want. Cigarette taxes are first and foremost for revenue generation. Smokers have been hammered enough. No need to kick them while they're down.

doubtful · 3 years ago

Smoking is an unpopular habit and therefore and easy target, however, for those saying that it doesn't affect them, you're wrong.

Even if you don't smoke, you pay higher medical premiums because of the health complications incurred by smokers. They're eating up more than their fair sure of the medical insurance they paid for.

I personally think a better solution would be higher medical insurance rates for smokers, but where does that stop? Obesity? Racial variation? High-risk lifestyles?

I'm not sure we need another taxing body to complicate the system, and once the foot is in the door it will likely swing wide open, so no, I don't think counties should be given this authority.

Is it fair that smokers balance the budget? Probably not. Do I care? Nope. It's a vice, so it's optional. Don't like the tax, don't buy it.

Joannie · 3 years ago

If the whole country would legalize drugs and have a high tax on it at each governmental level, then we would have enough money for all out needs and the crime rate would go down.

Tom · 3 years ago

Smokers do pay higher premiums on health insurance unless if they work at a company that does not check if they smoke. Smokers also die younger which saves money for Social Security and Medicare. Macabre, but true.

annoyed all the time · 3 years ago

DuPage does not have the authority to raise any other revenue. They are not allowed by law. They are growing in massive numbers and many of such are those needing county services such as health care and also are feeding into the jail. They have problems as do many. Have they been mismanaged in the past? Possibly. Are people tired of smoking taxes? Seems so. But what legal right does Cook County have to tax and not allow ther counties to tax, especially those that are growning at high rates as well? I know people who drive to DuPage just to buy smokes. People will react differently. Knowingalso the revenue generated may shrink, let'shope those people quit smoking or else don't start (kids) so that they don't need health services for their own bad behavior. And those who say go for liquor etc I mean get real. Smoking related lung cancers is one of the top killers of peole in the US. Not sure drinking is up there.

Sideliner · 3 years ago

Legalize and tax prositution they pass laws to protect the prositutes lets get some money back for helping them....

Skeeter · 3 years ago

Why do smokers think that non-smokers give a rat's behind about them?

Smoke all you want. Lung cancer (or esophagus or any of the other cancers you may get) is a nasty way to go, but that is your own business. Go ahead and smoke. It thins the herd.

All that non-smokers care about is that you don't impose your carcinogens on us.

As a believer in local government, I believe that the local government should make that decision on the tax. If they want to raise the tax, let them. I don't see why the State of Illinois should tell Du Page County what it can and cannot tax. If people in Du Page don't like it, they can vote the bums out or move.

Jeff Trigg · 3 years ago

Every county in Illinois has the opportunity to give their county government the power to tax cigarettes right now. This measure would by-pass the voters. If a county wants home rule authority they should go to the voters and ask for it, not their cronies in Springfield. It is perfectly legal right now for every county to tax cigarettes if the voters give them that power. The State of Illinois is not telling DuPage what it can and can't tax, DuPage voters are, and that is exactly how it should be.

Angie · 3 years ago

[I still think extreme cigarette taxation as witnessed in Cook is folly. It gives politicians an easy copout to avoid making difficult fiscal decisions. Despite their high-minded claims of trying to get people to quit that’s not what they want. Cigarette taxes are first and foremost for revenue generation.]

Call me odd, but I seriously think it is absurd to count on tax revenue from a variable that might fluctuate so much (how many people can you count on to keep smoking instead of quitting?).

Perhaps the real goal is to just tax them now for the healthcare costs that will accrue later (most likely a big part of it), but again, there are soooo many other things that people do that could land them in the hospital (reckless driving, eating themselves to death, drinking themselves a bad liver, etc.).

If they are trying to be the health police, then there's probably a method to the madness, but if you're going to COUNT ON the fact that X amount of people will smoke, and so therefore, this is a source of revenue to fund something else, then that's called GAMBLING.

Then again, the state needs revenue. It is pull-the-bunny-out-of-a-hat time in Illinois and the Improv Show at the national level.

Perhaps they need all the help and gambling they can dream up?

Anyways, I'm glad I quit smoking. Got stress? Listen to a heavy metal band instead. Great stress reliever.

Jeff Trigg · 3 years ago

Smoking is bad so put higher taxes on it so fewer people do it. Abortion is bad so put high taxes on it so fewer people do it. That is exactly why using taxation for social engineering is wrong and dangerous. Smoking is legal and abortion is legal. What will people start thinking about this when counties are given the power to tax abortion procedures? Why not put a $500 tax on the morning after pill? Why not put a $100 tax on birth control pills and $20 taxes on each condom? We've already started down that road and it's time to turn around.

Jeff Trigg · 3 years ago

I found the numbers from Comptroller's office. State cigarette revenues declined $31 million from FY 2005 to FY 2006, a 4.8% decrease. This is due to consumers going elsewhere, especially in Cook County. When even more counties catch up with Cook's cigarette tax, the state's revenue will decline even more.

The argument that smokers need to pay more to "society" to offset the alleged higher costs to "society" is blown out of the water when the state is bringing in LESS revenue.

Does anyone have Cook or Chicago revenue stats? I would think theirs has probably gone down also.

Calypso · 3 years ago

I personally don't mind, have been quit for 17 years, but at what point is a black market created, complete with gangs of thugs fighting over territories? Don't we have enough of that with other drugs?

Jeff Trigg · 3 years ago

(Is this version better than the one at 10:07 am?)

“It makes cents” has some facts horribly wrong and that shows their agenda has little to do with helping people, and more to do with controlling people.

Illinois state revenues from cigarette taxes are DOWN $31 million from FY 2005 to FY 2006.

“Every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue,…”

That isn’t true and now you can’t believe any of those other stats either.

For every person who quits because of --evil dictator-like social engineering, five switch to rolling their own without using filters, increasing the particulate inhaled. We are teaching a new generation of children to smoke filterless tobacco. Brilliant.

And if you don’t think cigarette taxes affect you, think again. State revenues are down so where are they making up those revenues. From you. From the gasoline tax and the electricity tax that have gone up and everyone pays.

These anti-smoking crusaders should just come out of the closet and do what they really want done. Go amend the Constitution to ban cigarettes, and if you can’t, leave people alone and deal with it.

Oh yeah, and high cigarette taxes leads to a black market which puts money into the hands of terrorists like Hamas who has already made a profit in the US off black market cigarettes. It’s already happened and will happen more. If you support this measure you -may be helping- terrorists.

And when counties are given this “home rule” power, everyone will start seeing their water bills and electric bills and gas bills and phone bills and …. going up and up as they keep tacking on taxes. Chicago already adds a 13% tax on electricity.

This cigarette tax insanity needs to end. They should take back Cook’s power to tax them instead of giving it to everyone else. State cigarette revenues will decline even more if this goes through and ALL non-smokers will be paying that price and then some.

Lovie's Leather · 3 years ago

I was thinking instead of raising cig taxes, we could go to some form of blog tax. Every comment we post, Illinois can charge us $.50... $.40 will go toward education and $.10 will go to the campaign to elect Rod Blagojevich.... I'm sorry Rich, I had to post this... it was too tempting.... Hopefully he is not actually reading the blog or else we are doomed!!!

Skeeter · 3 years ago

Let me get this right, Trigg.
If activity is legal it shouldn't be taxed?
Is that really your argument?

So much for the property tax.

Jeff Trigg · 3 years ago

No, Skeeter, I didn't say that anywhere, you again are having reading problems. I said taxes shouldn't be used for social engineering to reduce perfectly legal activities that may not be approved of by a majority of the people or socially acceptable or may be morally questionable. We all want fewer smokers and we all want fewer abortions. Why not use taxes to reduce both? Because social engineering through taxation is wrong.

It's better that government doesn't have the power to use taxes for social engineering or people that disagree with you on an issue may use it against you. It's one thing to use a cigarette tax to cover the cost of cigarette regulation, and entirely another thing to use it for social engineering.

So Skeeter, would you support a $2,000 tax on an abortion procedure to reduce the number of abortions?

Skeeter · 3 years ago

No, I would not support that. I think it is too difficult to distinguish abortions for things like rape or incest from abortion used as a means of birth control. I think you would have a problem with creating and enforcing a tax structure for the procedure.

However, your argument about social engineering appears to be deliberate dishonest.

Taxes are INEVITABLY social engineering.

We use the tax system constantly to promote conduct.

The mortgage deduction.

The charitable contribution deduction.

Deductions for medical care.

Do you want to abolish those?

Aren't those social engineering? Aren't those a way to encourage people to buy homes and donate to charity or to give those hard hit with medical bills a break?

Be intelletually honest. You don't mind government promoting home sales or charitable contributions.

You just don't want government messing around with your cigarettes.

Jeff Trigg · 3 years ago

Sure, go ahead and abolish those and spread out the reductions to income tax revenue from those deductions to everyone. Fine with me. The income tax code is too complicated already. Up the standard deduction to 25,000 for everyone while you're at it.

Even better, get rid of the tax on work altogether which will encourage even more people to buy homes and donate to charity and pay medical bills.

Yes, I do mind selective income tax deductions where politicians pick and choose what to reward and not reward. Why not a rent deduction so people can save to buy a home, instead of only giving a break to higher paid people that can afford it? Why not a cigarette tax deduction so they can afford to pay more for health insurance. I'm definitely opposed to complicated income tax codes and selective rewards. Good try though.

It makes cents · 3 years ago

Mr Trigg,

Read the studies at this website

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/r...

Then let's discuss the "facts"

Jeff Trigg · 3 years ago

“Every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue,…”

-Illinois state revenues from cigarette taxes are DOWN $31 million from FY 2005 to FY 2006.-

Go ahead and tackle that one on the table first buddy.

Tom · 3 years ago

If cigarette taxes achieved their stated purpose of dramatically reducing smoking our revenue-addicted government would scurry to replace those funds. How many here would like to see higher beer and liquor taxes? Or (gasp!) a caffeine tax? Add an extra $1 to that double shot skim latte no whip cream.

It makes cents · 3 years ago

Mr. Trigg,
According to the World Bank: Myth 6: Governments will lose revenues if they increase cigarette taxes, because people will buy fewer cigarettes.

Reality: Wrong. The evidence is clear: calculations show that even very substantial cigarette tax increases will still reduce consumption and increase tax revenues. This is in part because the proportionate reduction in demand does not match the proportionate size of the tax increase, since addicted consumers respond relatively slowly to price rises. Furthermore, some of the money saved by quitters will be spent on other goods which are also taxed. Historically, raising tobacco taxes, no matter how large the increase, has never once led to a decrease in cigarette tax revenues.

Beggars can't be choosers · 3 years ago

in response to Jeff Trigg ("Why not put $20 taxes on each condom?")

I am sorry to be pedantic in response to someone who knows as much as you purport to know, but that is a ridiculously flimsy argument. Condoms save lives and save taxpayer money. They aren't foolproof (though woe to the poor sod who says so in a sex ed class), but they usually work, and work well. We WANT more condom use, not less.

Smoking kills and costs a whole lot of taxpayer money. There's no comparison here.

Please take your argument and go home. This is the grown-up table.

It's time for the tobacco companies to concede defeat and fade into historical disgrace along slaveholders and lynch mobs.

HRH Weezer · 3 years ago

If it is supposed to be a "sin tax" then why don't they apply the $2 taxation to each gallon of gas for every SUV driver out there? They are doing more to pollute the air than ANY cigarette smoker.

kent · 3 years ago

perhaps we should outlaw all behaviour not directly beneficial to the state and eliminate our social problems once and for all-summary execution for nasty habits or felonies-thinking about such-deportation to a country of choice

CCMcCall · 3 years ago

Unbelieveable. Taxes are going to stop people from smoking? Get a grip! People will still smoke who want to smoke and kids will continue to steal them from somebody or somewhere just as they have always done when they first take up the habit.

It never fails to take me by surprise when certain people believe that making sure someone else lives the way those people think they should via legislation is something to be proud of. I'm old enough it should not surprise me, but it still does. It also leaves me wondering which one of us grew up in another country.

Jeff Trigg · 3 years ago

Beggars, do you know the word facetious? Grown-ups know that word. Grown-ups also know the word analogy. A good chunk of our population think condom use is morally wrong and a sin because it leads to pre-marital and extra-marital sex and sexually transmitted diseases and thus we should reduce the behavior of those who use condoms. I didn't say I believed that, but do you want politicians who do believe that using the same social engineering argument that anti-smoking people use? Using the anti-smokers logic, we should tax the heck out of condoms to reduce promiscuous behavior, right? Got it yet beggars. It's a grown-up concept, I know.

It makes cents still isn't making any sense due to the FACT that Illinois cigarette tax revenue is DOWN $31 million for FY 2006. What's the World Bank have to say about that?

It makes cents · 3 years ago

Mr. Trigg, Where are you getting your numbers from? According to my search of the Comptroller's office numbers, the difference between FY2005 and FY2006 is $17,257,435.67. If you add the Cigarette Use Tax it is actually $17,473,849.28
Seeing how the cigarette excise tax wasn't raised (it is .98 per pack) your argument is a non sequitur. Cigarette smoking is down, could that be the reason? Anyways, looking at two years of data is hardly longitudinal. Check out funds 0049 and 0050 @ http://www.wh1.ioc.state.il.us/Expert/Rev/ERCon...
BTW I trust the World Bank more than Illinois' creative budgeting process.