CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

It makes cents — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:13:46 -0000

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...
BTW I trust the World Bank more than Illinois' creative budgeting process.

Re: Question of the day

Jeff Trigg — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:16:45 -0000

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?

Re: Question of the day

CCMcCall — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:30:13 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

kent — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:22:19 -0000

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

Re: Question of the day

HRH Weezer — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:38:23 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Beggars can't be choosers — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:27:35 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

It makes cents — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:09:32 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Tom — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:26:02 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Jeff Trigg — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:01:21 -0000

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue,Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â

-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.

Re: Question of the day

It makes cents — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:00:14 -0000

Mr Trigg,

Read the studies at this website

http://www.tobaccofreekids....

Then let's discuss the "facts"

Re: Question of the day

Jeff Trigg — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:37:32 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:11:30 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Jeff Trigg — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:52:32 -0000

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?

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:39:03 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Lovie's Leather — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:17:25 -0000

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!!!

Re: Question of the day

Jeff Trigg — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:06:57 -0000

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

Ã¢â‚¬Å“It makes centsÃ¢â‚¬Â 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.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue,Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â

That isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t true and now you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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 canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s already happened and will happen more. If you support this measure you -may be helping- terrorists.

And when counties are given this Ã¢â‚¬Å“home ruleÃ¢â‚¬Â power, everyone will start seeing their water bills and electric bills and gas bills and phone bills and Ã¢â‚¬Â¦. 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 CookÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.

Re: Question of the day

Calypso — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:56:39 -0000

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?

Re: Question of the day

Jeff Trigg — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:51:58 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Jeff Trigg — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:45:54 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Angie — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:27:09 -0000

[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 thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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.

Re: Question of the day

Jeff Trigg — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:18:54 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:08:20 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Sideliner — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:42:26 -0000

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

Re: Question of the day

annoyed all the time — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:38:33 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Tom — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:29:07 -0000

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.