I think either of those two options work. I have bashed Blago many times, but I have to give credit where credit is due. Employers who do not provide health insurance make the rest of us pay for the health care of their employees.
And any time the State wants to make things more painful for cigarette smokers, I'm for it. If Blago would add a provision make it a felony to toss a cigarette lighter or a cigarette butt on the sidewalk, I would work for Blago's re-election.
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
Prefer the business tax. It's not just a fundraiser - it levels the playing field for those businesses that DO provide health insurance for employees. Otherwise, the ones who don't get a free ride, and the ones who do would be smart to drop it.
Ernest T Bass
· 2 years ago
Not only does Blago look like Herb Tarlek from WKRP, he is acting like him and shares the same disturbing ideas.
cermak_rd
· 2 years ago
My concern about the cigarette tax is if it gets too high you will create a black market for untaxed cigarettes--either purchased in lower tax states and transported to IL or purchased as bulk tobacco then rolled. And that black market will undoubtedly be controlled by the Outfit.
This Guy
· 2 years ago
Wanna make some real money real fast? Why not up the booze tax too?
Sure, people might start making their own like before (Prohibition era), but home breweries are quite legal now. People also roll their own smokes.
Tax the packaged hooch and cigs. That ought to generate some serious moolah.
Little Egypt
· 2 years ago
All of this overtime and special session and still no budget because Elvis wants his universal healthcare - and he will get it. The lily-livered house and senate will give it to him no matter what the cost to the Illinois taxpayers, whether it's a tax on cigs or anything else. We have gone through all of this squabble for the end result to be the same. They will all cave into Blago. And he will get lots of play time from this fiasco when it comes election time. MMadigan, I feel that you are about to be outfoxed.
Ghost
· 2 years ago
I say do both. Increase the cig tax AND put the 3% tax on a business that decides not to provide health insurance. FOlks will buy fewer cigarrettes with the new tax, so revenue should be adjusted downward. The Buisness tax is fair IMHO and needed to keep the program viable long term
Anon from BB
· 2 years ago
I don't know if I would tag something like healthcare to cigarette taxes. Raising the tax a dollar a pack statewide is going to push more people to quit (a good thing) or send them across the borders into neighboring states to get their cigarettes cheaper.
I have no idea where to look for any info, but when a unit of government raises the tax on such items, isn't there a short term spike, and then a gradual decline in revenue to a point where you need to make up the decline with revenue from a different source?
Jaded
· 2 years ago
No. Cigarette tax revenues are a declining revenue source, and every increase is an increase at a decreasing rate.
Another buck a pack will convince more smokers its time to quit Add in the policy change of not being able to smoke in restaurants, bars, and bowling alleys anymore and more and more people will quit the filthy habit. What this means is that in the out years, new programs that rely solely on cigarette tax revenue will need to be propped up with other funding sources creating more budget problems down the road.
Wumpus
· 2 years ago
Ciggie tax, I don't care as I don't smoke. People will simply have them imported from IN/WI and that would create a nice little cottage industry. It would affect the poor who smoke as well. Perhaps, they could get a waiver? Raise the taxes on alcohol and the lottery as well.
As for the business tax, no. Perhaps they could tax companies that do not pay the "living wage" an extra x% as well, then tax companies whose employee base is not meeting some kind of arbitrary standard.
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
===Tax the packaged hooch and cigs. That ought to generate some serious moolah.====
Yeah, for blog ads. lol.
schroedk
· 2 years ago
The biggest detriment to the cigarette tax increase is it's difficult to meet long-term revenue goals. Typically long-term revenue estimates are based on current statistics, but if you increase the tax, how many people will quit buying cigarettes or get them out of state? Then, if the state "anticipates" $500 million in revenue from this tax and spends that amount, what happens if 20% of smokers stop buying cigarettes and the actual revenue is $400 million? We dig ourselves even deeper into programs that have inadequate funding.
I do believe that smokers should pay more for health care due to their lifestyle choices that are known to cause many health problems, but at the same time, a targeted tax on a finite population to fund a wider-reaching social program hardly strikes me as being fair.
As a conservative, I never thought I'd say this, but given the Illinois politicians' lust for expanding social programs, revenue needs to be increased NOW by increasing taxes across the board, i.e. a sales tax increase that affects every Illinois citizen. The opportunity for revenue enhancement via tax cuts, as enjoyed federally and by many states, seems to have passed Illinois by. So either cut programs (fat chance), or find a fair way to pay them, even if it means breaking a campaign promise (hey, he's already broken a lot of them, why not this one?).
Highland Online
· 2 years ago
QOTD suggestion - Will this be the most entertaining State Fair in history if the budget talks are not finished?
BLAH
· 2 years ago
Cigarette revenues decline over time. There is the other thing - poor people buy cigarettes, thus you are taxing those hard working poor people of Illinois even more. I thought the admin was against that?
Tom
· 2 years ago
Cigarette taxes as revenue enhancers are the last refuge for the intellectually lazy. I quit smoking so I won't pay. However I'm tired of one segment of society continually being kicked around because legislators refuse to make difficult spending and taxation decisions.
Cassandra
· 2 years ago
I'm fine with a cigarette and booze tax. I don't smoke. I don't drink. Much better than an income tax for me.
But I agree with Jaded on the ciggies. Surely, Americans' use of cigarettes is declining. Is it wise to rely on a declining funding source (which will decline further as prices rise) to fund all-important health care. Isn't it kicking the can down the road...putting in an important program based on shaky revenue sources, knowing that eventually the taxpayers will have to pony up some other way. A bit, well, deceptive, wouldn't you say. Of course, the Dems are all about deception. For our own good.
A Citizen
· 2 years ago
The time has come for the FAT Tax! We have maxed out on tobacco, time to tap a new, much broader based population. It's definitely a health related concern.
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
Somebody tried the Tiwnky tax in the 90s. It was a tax on junk food. Not sure whatever happened to that.
so-called "Austin Mayor"
· 2 years ago
Tax the smokes.
With regard to sub-taxed items, how much revenue would the state rake in if Illinois taxed the purchase of newspapers? I've asked before, but no one seems to have the answer...
-- SCAM
Capitalist Pig
· 2 years ago
I smell more business leaving this state. I'm not even a little bit suprised....A diatribe on the economic ramifications of higher taxes seems to be a useless effort at this point. People are too ignorant and convinced of their own righteousness to ever look that far ahead. Do we even want to admit that today's budget issues are a result of past socialist ineptitude? Can we atleast agree that all the social spending is why we are in this situation now? Will we ever understand that raising taxes has a negative effect on revenues? No. No. No. Baaaaaaaaah
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
Highland, it would be tough to top the '06 Governor's Day, but this year's version could definitely give it a run for its money.
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
SCAM, I think the answer is $0 because it's a 1st Amendment issue.
Captain America
· 2 years ago
I personally despise cigarettes and smoking, but not smokers. Cigarette taxes are already very high, but I have no objection to a sin tax increase,given that smoking is such a tremendous health hazard and creates billions in health costs. I guess liquor taxes should be increased too.
Some financial penalty seems appropriate for busnesses who do not provide health insurance to their employees. It would also make sense to create larger risk pools so that smaller businesses could get better health insurance rates. Really small businesses should be exempted from a new tax. I don't know what the the exemption threshold should be. I wonder if this tax can be passed by the required supermajority. Small businesses will really raise "heck", and I can't say that I would blame for doing so.
The state has a structural deficit and needs a larger revenue stream on a long-term basis. I see these tax proposals as stopgap measures before an inevibale income tax increase. It's going to happen sooner or later.
Personally, I would demand that the Governor accept the 1/4% sales tax increase to fund mass transit in the Chicago metropolitan area as part of any compromise.
Bill Baar
· 2 years ago
Tax smokers but not drinkers or those given to supersizing their Big Macs? They're desperate.
OK, no
· 2 years ago
How about a tax on high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated soybean oil, two of the most harmful ingredients in junk food?
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
The tax on cigarettes is a good idea, and it would also be a good idea to place an excise tax on fatty foods such as McDonald's and Little Debbie cakes. I don't care if people think I'm advocating another tax or wanting a "nanny" state; cigarettes and fatty foods lead to many of our nation's health problems. Childhood obesity is a real issue, and diabetes and heart disease are two growing problems of the middle class and the middle-aged.
3% is too high. I believe a 1% tax on businesses, coupled with higher taxes on my aforementioned preferences and a requirement for each participating citizen to pay a small premium, would be a much better solution than merely try to pass the GRT as well as a 3% health tax and more excise taxes. You simply cannot allow people making decent money to have "free" health care because then the state would be too much on the hook for their premiums. And we all know what the state does with Medicaid payments...
Illinois has a law on the books against bringing - and don't quote me on this - more than 10 cartons of cigarettes in from outside of the state. Of course, that because difficult to monitor.
Oddly enough, though, I actually worked with a guy one summer who tried to bring back about 20 cartons from Missouri one weekend. He had been running a "smuggling" business for people at work and was making a couple of bucks from each person. He got pulled over for speeding and the cop found all of the cartons in his backseat. So maybe the "black market" is somewhat enforceable.
Capitalist Pig
· 2 years ago
"Some financial penalty seems appropriate for busnesses who do not provide health insurance to their employees."
Darn, I still can't seem to find that ammendment that changed the constitution. "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness, and Cradle-to-Grave government provided health care." Can someone help me out?
ChicagoM
· 2 years ago
The health care burden associated with smoking in 1998 was $3 billion. This tax is a small price to pay to help cover the burden.
This will also discourage youth from taking up smoking.
Moderate Repub
· 2 years ago
- Tuesday, Jul 17, 07 @ 10:11 am:
No. Cigarette tax revenues are a declining revenue source, and every increase is an increase at a decreasing rate.
EXACTLY!!!!!!
the Patriot
· 2 years ago
This is another short sided headline scam. Fact 1: If you tax cigs, you are going to send more people over state lines to buy them. This lowers revenue in all areas of commerce, convenience stores are hardest hit. I bet people in our 5 neighboring states love the idea.
FACT 2: MOST employers who don't offer health insurance it is because they can't afford it. It is not because they want to screw employees and keep them disgruntled. You make them pay 3% more then they are either going to close their doors or pay 3% less to the employee. IT WILL NOT WORK!!!
When will democrats learn, you can't tax business without sending them out of your state and punishing the blue collar worker employed by them?
Big Red
· 2 years ago
How is raising the cigarette tax to pay for anything this state does new? This isn't shocking, nor newsworthy.
Any update on whether Rod will sign into law that bill banning smoking in bars/restaurants?
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
I should also mention that cigarettes will always be used and will always be bought. It doesn't matter how expensive they are; people will find a way to pay for them. Raising the tax on cigs and banning smoking in bars and restaurants will NOT lower the overall revenue.
I would bet that as more states become smoke free, and as some states jack up cig taxes, bigger tobacco companies will begin releasing cheaper brands/types of their more popular and more expensive counterparts. Beermakers already do this, and supermarket chains realize this potential as well. It won't be long before RJ Reynolds comes out with their own "Stag Light" version of their top sellers.
Latham Place
· 2 years ago
Yep! I think taxes on cigs & booze should be raised and I even think lottery tickets/scratch offs/casinos should be taxed more if they're not already. Don't get my wrong I'm a drinker, former smoker and an occassional gambler, but I think they're luxery things that only a certain percent of society participates in and that's more fair than taxing everyone in general.
Latham Place
· 2 years ago
Twinky tax...now that's funny!!!
publius
· 2 years ago
both taxes are needed
Bill
· 2 years ago
Skeeter, Done. see you in 2010!
Skeeter
· 2 years ago
Capitalist Pig:
It has to do with "letting people die for lack of health care is considered uncivilized."
Bill,
Fine, but it has to be a felony. There is no room for compromise on that issue. Do we have a deal?
Justice
· 2 years ago
Seems to me that our legislators are always looking for an easy way out. I don't like smoking but as someone said, I do like many folks who smoke. Once again we hit the poor. If we must tax, tax casinos, booze, as well as cigarette's. What we really need to be doing is cleaning up some of the entitlement programs. Lots of waste there.
Bill
· 2 years ago
Isn't the state fair subsidized by the state? If there is no budget there will be no fair. By the way,YES to both taxes and anything else you can come up with to pump some much needed revenue into the state coffers.
Bill
· 2 years ago
Skeeter, Whatever you say, but no MOU!
Tom
· 2 years ago
So Bill, would you like the Gov to go along with a sales or income tax increase? That would raise revenue, no?
pickles!!
· 2 years ago
I'm not a smoker, so it doesn't really bother me. But why is it they always pick on cigarettes or alcohol whenever they need money?
And once again, Blago tries to stick the business community with more taxes. After the GRT mess, you'd think he'd learn YOU CAN'T BEAT BIG BUSINESS.
Esteban
· 2 years ago
Smokers have already become addicted due to the efforts and deceptions of the tobacco industry......they created an entire nation of addicts and now some folks want to make it more difficult for smokers.
Janet
· 2 years ago
Raising the cigarette tax is a logical step to take in Illinois. Illinois is in the bottom half of country when it comes to our cigarette tax. Raising teh tax would not only bring in revenue, but it reduces smoking in children and adults.
It is a misleading and totally inaccurate, especially if you study the research data, to say that cigarette tax increases are not a reliable source of new revenue. Depsite fewer packs sold, the total price goes up. And yes, eventually there is a decline, but this is gradual and totally predictable as you follow the smoking rates.
Another benefit, is that the decline in smokers also reduces the state's financial burden of paying for the effects of smoking related diseases - which means ultimately reductions in health care costs especially the $1.5 billion annually spent on smoking related Medicaid costs.
What was missing from the report on an increase in the tobacco tax is a proposal to earmark 25% for tobacco control porgrams at the state and community level.
Raising the tobacco tax is an excellent idea and should be fully embraced by anyone who cares about the health of others.
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
capitalist pig - I don't find the words capitalism OR socialism in the constitution. It's not a constitutional matter - if it's neither required by nor forbidden by the constitution, the legislature can decide to offer any social benefit that a majority decide is meritworthy and fund it by similar process (or supermajority, when the goofballs can't get it done by May 30!).
Rebel13
· 2 years ago
How about we actually live within our means???????????
Lula May
· 2 years ago
People who smoke have an addiction. Most are low income and they are going to smoke no matter what you charge. This will just mean less food on the table for children. It reminds me of gambling and the lottery. The people with lower incomes pay for the lottery and always less food on the table for the children. It really is disgusting how politicians always justify this. I prefer the fat tax in England. If you are serious about bringing down the cost of healthcare the fat tax would be the solution. In fact the insurance companies should offer lower rates for anyone at the proper weight for age and height.
South Side Mike
· 2 years ago
One problem about the 3% tax- For some small businesses who do provide health insurance, 3% of profits may be a heck of a lot cheaper than the premiums they already pay. They might drop the health insurance in favor of the tax! Not exactly the behavior you want to encourage.
Captain America
· 2 years ago
Capitalist Pig
Nothing personal, but its the 21st century,not the 19th. Social Darwinism and "compassionate convservatism" are dead, in case you aren't reading the polls. Affordable health care ranks really high on the scale of public concerns.
"Cradle-to-grave government health insurance" was the mantra used to oppose Medicare 40 years ago.It's a little outdated.
The free market has been unable to effectively address the increasing problem of the many millions of uninsured Amrericans, which is getting progressively worse each year. Something definitely needs to be done about it!
I"m not a constitutional scholar, but I can help you out. The preamble explictly states that one of the purposes of the Constitution is to "promote the general Welfare." Making affordable heatkh insurance available to millions of Americans, when the free market is unable to do so, seems to me to be entirely consistent with the aforemtioned constitutional principle.
By the way, the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence.
Lula May
· 2 years ago
Another thing you probably need to ask old man Stroger how that $2.00 tax worked for Cook County. Revenue declined. No one buys cigarettes in Cook County.
Moline Maleman
· 2 years ago
Iowa just raised their cig tax by a buck and the "Lost Cost Cig" signs moved from there to here. Let's move them back! How about cutting state expenditures? What a novel idea. The price of gas causes most of us to cut something beside our hair!
plutocrat03
· 2 years ago
The merry-go-around continues.
There is always a proposal for a 'palatable' tax for a noble purpose. Note there is never a review to see if a program is producing the promised results to see if can be discontinued.
Looks like we are running out of 'palatable' taxes.
If you are going to screw the public anyway, give them a small carrot from time to time. If you were to break the nonsensical liquor distribution laws of the state i.e. Wirtz law, there would be a real reduction in the cost of liquor in Illinois. Apply a new liquor tax in an amount proportional to the saving and we have a traditional win-win situation. More money for the state and a return of the free enterprise system in the liquor industry for the citizens.
There are other protected monopolies in the state. Break them up and split the proceeds with the public. You still have to go through the state to look for cost savings, but the liquor reform would give a big revenue boost to the state.
bored now
· 2 years ago
rich, i do believe i have been to a state/city that taxes newspapers. although my wife smokes, i don't see a problem with increased taxes on cigarettes. it's win-win, since it should reduce smoking (which has a health benefit and reduces our health care costs) and those who smoke get to pay more towards their health care, which is more costlier for those who smoke. no problem with higher taxes on alcohol either...
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
I could be wrong, but I think we've had a ruling on this from the IL Supreme Court.
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
South side Mike - they could drop it now, without penalty. with a 3% tax, they actually would have a disincentive to dropping it.
Jerry
· 2 years ago
Raising the tax will put cigarettes in Chicago at as much as $10 a pack. That will cause many people to quit smoking, or drive to indiana and buy in bulk. At $40 for a carton in Indiana, vs $100 in Chicago, what do you think people will do.
Furthermore, the generic patch runs around $2 a day.
The cost of smoking drove me to quit. It will drive others to do the same.
As a result, anything funded by cigarette taxes will see their funding dry up. If the objective is to tax cigarettes into oblivion, then that's fine. If the objective is to balance the budget, terrible idea.
Bad for Business
· 2 years ago
Interesting choice. Use a tax on an unhealthy habit to fund healthcare. So what do you do when all the smokers quit or die off? To save healthcare costs, why not just discourage smoking? But maybe raising the price of a pack does that? But what do you do when smoking revenue declines?
grand old partisan
· 2 years ago
No, and I don’t see why a Governor who fancies himself a champion of the working class would support a grossly regressive tax that hits them the hardest.
It is time to implement the Chocolate Tax. The calories and FAT content are huge. This legal product is killing millions daily. And the result of ingestion causes cars to get lower miles per gallon. Diabetes is also skyrocketing and so are the resultant medical costs. This substance is horribly addictive and the costs in tooth decay and oral health, and yes even obesity are quite substantial. Support the Chocolate Tax and help the state out of its bloated financial mess!
Sweet Polly Purebred
· 2 years ago
Just legalize Marijuana and tax its sales. The state will be set for life.
Siyotanka
· 2 years ago
You think our tax is steep...consider this A U.S. Senate version of the bill under consideration today in the Finance Committee sets the maximum tax per cigar at $10.
Fat Tax
· 2 years ago
I'm with "A Citizen" from 11:58. The obesity epidemic, especially with our children is out of control. This leads to higher health care costs as the state has to pay more for treating people's diabetes, high blood pressure, and eventual heart attacks and strokes. Wouldn't it be better to implement a Fat Tax that will pay for health care and balance the budget?
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
With the Fed's proposing a $1 tax, add that to the state wanting to raise the tax by about $1, it equals smokers looking to alternative sources for their tobacco. And they will find a way. That is except for the poor who will bear the brunt of these taxes. Brilliant.
Wumpus
· 2 years ago
Will I buy cigarretes or medicien and be forced to eat dogfood?
cg
· 2 years ago
cig. taxes are great at getting people to quit, but won't generate consistent revenue. IL has a higher tax rate on soda pop now. a snack/ fast food tax might work; there is no evidence that people will curb their soda/ fast food addictions like they are with cigs. Center for Science & the Public Interest out of DC has done work on these issues. I don't think it will generate as much as the GRT.
i d
· 2 years ago
Higher tax on chocolate would be as popular with woman as higher tax on personal products. How about a huge tax on diapers, formula and Cheerios as a means of birth control, thus lowering the need for so much health and education funding.
Bill
· 2 years ago
In Floaida, sales tax is assesed on newspapers. It comes to about two cents on the Orladno Sentinel ( price:.50). Tom, since you asked, yes, I support raising the income tax 1%, extending the sales tax to services and computer sales, and implementing a scaled back form of GRT with a floor of $20-30 million. The new revenue should be restricted to education foundation level funding, a scaled back health insurance plan for all Illinois citizens, and paying down the pension debt. Bonds could then be sold for capital projects. If the wonks can accomplish the same thing with gaming, closing loopholes, and taxing cigs and twinkies, I could support that too.
Skeeter
· 2 years ago
All this talk about snack food and chocolate is a bit ridiculous.
Most snack food can be consumed in moderation. Wnen so consumed, the health impact is minor.
There is no safe level of cigarette consumption though. Further, consuming a bag of chips doesn't cause other people in the room to have health issues. Consuming a cigarette in a room will cause those in the room to have health issues.
Of course, dark chocolate is heart healthy as is red wine.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
A couple of problems: One - we don't need the damn health care plan. Two - we don't need another damn tax.
What's with it with you people? You guys are so comfortable having the schmucks in government telling you what to do and what to pay, you just roll over and let them do it to you? How about growing a pair?
You think it is OK to tax something you don't like because you don't like it? You don't want people to eat chocolate, or McDonald's, or Twinkies, or smoke, or drink alcohol because you don't like fat people, smokers, or boozers? What? You believe that people who indulge in these things are losers that need to be told what to do, so taxing and raising taxes on this stuff will somehow TEACH them a lesson or two, AND make you feel even more superior to them? Just how do you get your heads through doorways?
You don't like people you deem beneath you, do you? So you have no problem seeing taxes raised on the Wal-Mart crowd. Why, I bet there are even a lot of you people who don't even want those people buying at Wal-Mart - do you? So TAX Wal-Mart, or drive them out of business, right?
Face it - all of politics is about "Who pays". You have no problem seeing people you consider beneath you paying for a health care plan that makes you have a nice conscience, even when it doesn't work. You have no problem supporting a governor with 29 federal investigations and few friends because he can soothe your conscience with his latest political gimmicks. You like being lied to because it makes you feel better, right?
I think Blagojevich should just start taxing the voters who vote in the Democratic primaries. This way the people who feel the need to get screwed to soothe their conscience can achieve both.
Garp
· 2 years ago
Taxing smokers has reached the point of diminishing returns. The Cook County tax has actually lost money. Every local bar in the city has a regular-either trucker or salesman that passes through Kentucky or Tennessee and bring back cigs for all. If the state passes a tax-you will have to get in line at the borders to curtail the cottage industries that will spring up with people selling smokes.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
And you people call yourselves "Democrats"? If you claim to represent the common person, you needs to start respecting the common person. Reading through the comments so far makes you people sound more like a clutch of snotty elitist looking down your noses at everyone else.
Frankly, I believe a lot of you people believe in all these nanny state programs because you really do believe that the common person is dumber than they are.
Shame! We didn't get to where we are in history by showing such disrespect to our neighbors!
Skeeter
· 2 years ago
Vanilla:
"Growing a pair." Interesting.
If people lack health insurance, the government -- READ VANILLA MAN -- picks up the tab.
Cigarette smoking creates health problems and as people have pointed out, many of those people lack health insurance. They end up in emergency rooms where THE GOVERNMENT pays the tab.
As such, cigarette smokers are raising YOUR GOVERNMENT SPENDING VM, but you don't want them to pay their share.
Tell us more about "growing a pair" Vanilla, while those smokers walk all over you.
Southern Right
· 2 years ago
ERISA has stated that the 3% tax is illegal. Period.... If by some chance it is approved, every employer will then trade their 8-12% of payroll they pay on benefits for the 3% hit. Illinoiscovered is only charging 2.5% of your income. So 8-12% or 5.5%? The small group insurance business just disappeared. By the way, how are we paying for that gap of 3.5 plus percent? Bad math for next years budget. Taxing smokes will be trade off, as most will go to the state next door. Has anyone here really read Illinoiscovered? I have four times. It won't work as is. It is a slow death to the current insurance plans that 85% of us have. Is there anyone out there that truly beleives our brilliant Governor is smarter than the other 49? Why then would you buy into this plan?
i d
· 2 years ago
Since emasculative, crass, inane, snotty, elitist comments are so disturbing to some of the folks here, let me state unequivocally that I am against any allowing any more taxation.
steve schnorf
· 2 years ago
VM, you badly misjudge me, at least, and I think a lot of other people who believe Illinois needs to increase its revenues. I have consistently said that it is people with high incomes, like me, who should be taxed more. I have consistently said that it is people with high retirement income, like me, who should be taxed. To say that I think that taxes should be raised on those "beneath" me (whatever that means) is not only incorrect, it's plain silly.
steve schnorf
· 2 years ago
Oh, BTW, I'm not a Democrat.
Skeeter
· 2 years ago
Let me get this right:
According to "ID", if poor people can't afford health care, it is their own damn fault for being poor. Let them unequivocally die. Just don't raise ID's cigarette tax. ID's need for a low cost fix is more important than a poor person's need to see a cardiologist or even to get routine check ups so the poor person can avoid trips to the cardiologist.
And ID says that in a way that is in no way emasculative, crass, inane, snotty, or elitist.
Did I properly summarize ID's position?
Dan Vock
· 2 years ago
Of course, the feds (Congress, anyway) are looking at hiking the cigarette tax too (another 61 cents per pack), in order to pay for an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/washington/15...
Illinois might benefit from the money -- and stable funding for S-CHIP, considering it had to wait on $273 million from the feds this year.
But cigarettes could get pretty expensive in Cook County if all these ideas go through.
fatboy
· 2 years ago
Let's have a fat tax. that way I will know what I am not suppose to eat. Better yet for every $1 million in campaign funds raised the candidate is taxed a filing fee of $100,000. Let's hit the Guv and G.A. members in the pocket too.
Dollar USA
· 2 years ago
Giving health insurance to someone for nothing does not promote the general welfare. When you make someone dependent on the government, you may help them in the short run but in the long run they become more dependent. The problem is people are not responsible. Why should I be paying health insurance for a drinker, smoker or someone who enjoys participating in extreme sports. Pay your way or hit the highway.
Rich Miller
· 2 years ago
Dollar USA, the guv's health insurance plan does require monthly payments by almost all of those those who would use it.
FED UP
· 2 years ago
Bill I never thought I would say this but your deas on tax seem almost reasonable. I am not for any new health care plan its cost would be hige and grow every year but education and pensions need to be addressed, I believe a increase in gaming would also help maybe a little belt tightening. cut back on blagos flying and make up maybe let state contracts go out to competitive bid instead of who ever donated to blago and does the state have to hire all of E. Jones family or give them contracts. See a little compramise goes along way but blago has god on his side or at least the ministers so he wont listen.
FED UP
· 2 years ago
I think health care reform needs to be handled at the national level. Its to big and costly to be done by the state.
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
the increased cigs tax in cook co is doing very poorly. Cook Co is bringing in much less revenue than before and way below estimates, maybe some people quit but most just get there cigs somewhere else.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
The reason taxes are doubled what they were 50 years ago is because we have had a few generations that have voted themselves rich. They have created social programs to benefit themselves. They did this under the guise of helping others. Fr
We are bankrupting our children's future because we are afraid of being without our current lifestyles. We vote in politicians who promise a social nirvana, regardless of reality. Those of us who believe someone somewhere is getting a "free ride" need to look no further than their bathroom mirror to see the schmuck who has allowed this to happen.
Common sense says that smokers cost us more than non-smokers when it comes to health costs. But the truth is they die so fast, they actually cost us all less. So, claiming that raising the cigarette taxes is justified because smokers cost us so much hasn't any facts to back it up.
Steve - not only did I not misjudge you, you proved my point. You want yourself and others like you to be taxed more? Why? How about just allowing yourself and others like you to do the ethical thing and give your money to whomever you wish? That way, you can actually be doing something ethical because it is voluntary. How is it ethical to create a rule whereby forcing you and others like you to allow a government to take your money or face jail?
I have noted that YDD makes this claim now and then. Being a Christian nation doesn't mean using ethics to force taxes on our society. Taxes never make an ethical society. You have no choice here. You pay taxes or go to jail. Thats not giving, it is being blackmailed. When you meet St. Peter, do you really think he is more impressed with an overtaxed Swede over an undertaxed Mississippian?
I believe ID was being silly. What wasn't silly was his warped belief that those of us who have children should somehow be taxed more. ID doesn't recognize the basic fact that you cannot have a socialist government without taxpayers. ID depends on me and other normal people to have more than 2.1 children in order to keep our communities functioning.
We don't need birth control. We need more taxpayers. The bills Blagojevich is saddling future generations with will require a lot more of them to pay for what we have voted for ourselves to enjoy today - because we are so selfish, but claim we are doing it to help the unfortunate.
What has been upsetting has been the number of postings from people who sound more like French aristocracy than Democrats. You can't claim to be for the common person and mock them too. Diversity is not different looking people agreeing with one another.
It is too easy to point fingers at one another, and justify the other person paying more taxes. But honestly, when it comes to these kinds of arguments, the only thing we should be agreeing with is the fact that we are OUT of money because we have spent all our money.
We don't need more taxes, or new taxes. We don't need to close "loopholes", (even the term smacks of a claim that someone is getting something for nothing at our expense).
We need to stop pretending that we can just vote ourselves rich at other people's expense and hide our greed by claiming we are doing it for others less fortunate.
I'm calling your bluff, Democrats.
cermak_rd
· 2 years ago
I don't support a fat tax as in a tax on fat people. Many people suffer from medical conditions that cause them to be fat, and non-fat people who don't eat properly and exercise sufficiently have the very same health problems. What I would support is a tax on food that is high in fat and/or sugar and has no other nutritive value like donuts, Little Debbie snack cakes, cookies, and candy. Whereas items like ice cream (dairy), cheese (dairy), and meats (protein & B vitamins) would not be taxed because although high in fat, they do have additional nutritive benefits.
If the goal is to get people into better health and avoid the scourge of type 2 diabetes, then we need to find a way to tax people who don't exercise for at least 30 minutes a day higher because that is the best predictor of these health concerns.
i d
· 2 years ago
What I believe is that if the state and federal governments would stop spending money on unnecessary, unjustified and unwarranted concerns, there would be enough money to pay for the programs that are already in place to care for those in need. I'm retired and I do whatever it takes to keep my own costs down to a minimum and still give to the local food pantries. So I'm done here. i d will be seen no more. Buh-Bye.
Garp
· 2 years ago
Springfield needs to allow Chicago to build a world class casino near McCormick place. This would generate tons of money mostly from out of state tourists and conventioneers. It would help us compete against Las vegas and Orlando who are stealing business with there fabulous amenities. The generated money should be used to shore up our deteriorating transportation and expand convenient public transportation to the metro area.
I wish our democratic leaders would start leading instead of planning each others demise.
Pipe Smoker
· 2 years ago
What, discussion of tobacco taxes and not one inquiry into the opinion of the most popular cigarette fiend, Senator Obama?
Bill
· 2 years ago
Don't go away mad i d. Just ignore VanMan like the rest of us. He can't help himself. It is funny that he brings up Walmart. Walmart is the worst offender in recent memory in that they refuse to pay a living wage to their hard working employees and then prevent them from working the required # of hours to qualify for their putrid health insurance plan. Guess who pays when a Wal Mart employee needs health care? VanMan and all the rest of us through higher taxes and increased medical care costs. He is correct, though, that I don't want anyone to shop at Walmart. I would love to see them leave our state and clear the way for responsible businesses that care about their employees and the communities where they make their profits. Why should the state subsidize a morally corrupt giant corporation as they chip away at the American way of life.
orlkon
· 2 years ago
OK...but what happened to those "billions" received from the tobacco settlement--one would think that those funds would have been used to develop the universal health care plan. I guess it's a day late and a dollar spent!
Bill
· 2 years ago
VanMan 1:28 "A couple of problems: One - we don’t need the damn health care plan." I think he means HE doesn't need the damn health care plan. He must have health insurance. as usual, he cares nothing about anyone else. Not all Right Wing idealogues are selfish and greedy. He's definitly in the minority. No more birth control! No more abortion!... but no state help for children who need it. He will force you to have them but he certainly deosn't want the state to help support them.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
Nonsense bill. Children are our future. So are families. It is just that you and I don't agree with the solutions to get us there. You think money grows on trees. You think we are taxed too much. I know we are overtaxed. I know money is the stuff I earn, but you think Rod Blagojevich has a right to take from me.
Me, normal. You, nuts.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
Self reliance shouldn't be a crime. Under Rod Blagojevich your right to go without health insurance would be a criminal act.
You think women should be able to kill their unborn children, but you would make it a crime to go without health insurance.
Me, normal. You, nuts.
Capitalist Pig
· 2 years ago
How much of the socialized healthcare cost is attributable to illegal aliens? Just a question.
Skeeter
· 2 years ago
Nice platitude VM, but you don't address the question.
If a pregnant woman does not have health insurance, should the government pick up the tab for her prenatal care?
Can't we all calm down for a little bit! What is people's problems today? Simmer, please.
I think we all need to have a Cap Fax pinata party where we knock the crap out of an pinata that is made out of articles about controversial figures. At least then things would be fun. We're starting to act like the elected officials that run this state.
Winston
· 2 years ago
I can smoke 20 cigarettes in a row, go get behind the wheel of my car and drive to wherever and know those cigarettes aren’t going to influence my driving to the point where I might kill someone else on the road. Alcohol on the other hand will.
I say quit picking on us smokers and instead bring in a WEALTH of income by taxing alcohol. Let’s pick on someone else for a change.
And you’re right, cigarettes are an addiction, which is why I can’t quit. And you’re all also right that smokers will go elsewhere. For the last two years I’ve gotten all my cigarettes from Missouri ($18/carton) and will continue to do so, as will many, many others.
What WILL our legislature do when less than 1% of the smokers by their cigarettes here?
A Citizen
· 2 years ago
I figure a $5.00 per pound tax on chocolate plus the sales tax would help the children and go a long way toward providing healthcare! We must do something to cut down on the obesity epidemic in this state. It is causing untold illness and death at all age levels, sexes, ethnic groups etc. We might exempt sugarless candies but they would need to be certified. If this plan does not provide the essential funding then Phase 2 would move on to taxing the fat content of both prepared foods as well as those purchased from grocery stores as cooking ingredients. The well of income from tobacco is almost dry - time to act now! Tax chocolate and save lives, especially the children's.
Jeff Trigg
· 2 years ago
Illinois has the HIGHEST CIGARETTE TAXES IN THE US already. Chicago has the highest cigarette tax. Evanston is 2, Cicero is 3, New York City is 4, and tied for 5th is every other city in Cook County.
Nicotine slows the progression of Parkinson's Disease, so sure, kick a man when he's down.
State of Illinois cigarette tax revenue in 2004 for $760 million. In 2006, $640 million. The state went straight after the non-smokers for make up for that $120 million decline in tax revenue, which is $10 for every individual in the state per year.
Anyone that believes raising the state cigarette tax by $1 will bring in $450 million more in revenue, is stupid or lying and thus certainly can not be trusted with even more of the taxpayers money.
Then what if th feds raise there's next week from $.31 to $1 per pack, as the Democrats are trying to pass in Congress? Blagojevich, Madigan, and Jones will certainly spend an additional $450 million, but it will quickly turn into breaking even and the non-smokers will pay.
This idea is soooooooooo bad it has to be Blago's.
ANON5:58
· 2 years ago
Smokers are the easiest and most politically correct people to pick on these days. I bet Madigan and Blago will shake hands and claim the budget crisis is solved by taxing the heck out of smokes. Then when another budget crisis develops next year, they'll just blame it on the smokers not picking up their fair share of the tab again and increase cig taxes some more. All the while, neighboring states will be rolling in Illinois dough. Face it, you cannot legislate morality and personal choices. Prohibition taught us that.
Cassandra
· 2 years ago
The fact is that anyone who is pushing an increase in the income tax in Illinois is advocating a system that favors the wealthy.
A flat tax means the wealthy pay a fraction of their income in taxes, an insignificant fraction in most scenarios, while the middle class has to give up money they badly need to pay for housing, schooling, education, and so forth.
Anyone who is advocating an increase in the current flat income tax in Illinois is advocating for a system which favors the wealthy over the middle class. The poor, of course, ride free in Illinois.
A Citizen
· 2 years ago
Emerging science has shown that smoking cessation propels individuals to augmented levels of caloric intake. Increased ingestion of chocolate coupled with huge servings of fast food e.g. SuperSized, Quarter Pounders, Whoppers, All U Can Eat buffets, etc. have created a young and middle age population of morbidly obese citizens. This pandemic cries out for a solution. Making these "foods" more costly through taxation can and will save lives and families. More people and families and children are negatively affected by these products than previously known. We can start by taxing chocolate then fast/fatty foods if necessary. Ethics and morality demands action NOW!!! Not to mention the added level of good health in our communities.
Tyler
· 2 years ago
Cigarettes are too expensive as it is. Roll back those taxes.
As far as health insurance, where in the Illinois Constitution does it say that the state government has to provide health insurance for its citizens?
Anonymous
· 2 years ago
hey cassandra a flat tax means everyone pays the same fraction of there income in tax. If you think it is insignificant thats up to you. 3% is 3%. Yes the wealthy pay more taxes because they work hard and make more money, I do agree the poor ride free.
A Citizen
· 2 years ago
Through curtailing purchases of Fast Foods, Fatty Foods, and Chocolate enough money can be saved to purchase the average family's needed health insurance. Their improved health status would be an added benefit to themselves as well as the citizens of Illinois! Plus they would be self sufficient and lessen the burden on society.
Jeff Trigg
· 2 years ago
The poor, unfortunately, do not ride free. Taxes make them poorer. Many of them are hit by the various income taxes, and no, the EITC doesn't cover them all. Then there's sales taxes, electricity taxes (can be 15% in Chicago), phone taxes, cable taxes, street cleaning parking ticket scam taxes, gas taxes, corruption taxes, time away from work, friends and family dealing with the government taxes, and on and on.
The poor do not ride free. Government is creating more of them. Look at the stats on poverty in Illinois this decade. Taxes just like this cigarette tax are largely responsible for the growth in poverty under complete Democrat control. And I'll blame Bush too if in helps.
Lainer
· 2 years ago
I think some of us have to learn to recognize the use of hyperbole and sarcasm to make a point when we see it and not overreact to it. The comments about taxing baby products and taxing fast food are examples of this. They are simply trying to demonstrate what might happen if you take the idea behind the cigarette tax (making the people who generate greater demand for services pay the tax for it) too far. It does seem to me that a cigarette tax would be self-defeating in the end, since we want fewer people to smoke but that would in turn decrease the tax revenue.
A Citizen
· 2 years ago
-Lanier- There are a huge number of health impaired obese people - more than there are smokers. If you really want to have a positive impact on the populations' health the target offending substance is fatty food, not tobacco. The "do gooders" seem to be able to go after one small population rather than the real greater good. Lazy and misguided plus fewer voters "offended". Sooner or later, however, they WILL get to chocolate, fast food, and high fat content foods.
Tired of this session
· 2 years ago
No, not because I care about taxing cigarettes but because I strongly oppose the whole idea of IL Covered. It's just not something in which the government should involve itself. Health insurance is a benefit not an entitlement.
Skeeter
· 2 years ago
A Citizen, I think I understand the heart of your problem. You are simply uninformed.
Dark chocolate is a heart healthy food. In contrast, cigarettes kill people.
Now that we have that cleared up, I assume you will revise your position.
Skeeter
· 2 years ago
Trigg,
Are you really saying that cigarette taxes CAUSE poverty?
With arguments like that, it looks like Trigg may have missed a few doctor appointments himself.
A Citizen
· 2 years ago
- Skeeter - Nope! Too much of a good thing is never enough. Now I'm going to have too much dark chocolate, too much red wine, and a few cigarettes and go to bed. Enjoy!
Skeeter
· 2 years ago
A, That is the difference. TOO MUCH of certain foods may be a problem.
ONE cigarette is a problem.
Skeeter
· 2 years ago
Tired of this Session:
Prenatal care is not the government's business?
"Preventing people from dying" is something that should not be a concern for government?
Heck, while we are at it, let's just get rid of the police and the Army. If you can't protect yourself, you really shouldn't expect THE GOVERNMENT to step in and the do the job for you.
A Citizen
· 2 years ago
Skeeter - you seem to find great comfort in your chosen absolutes. I will leave you to them.
Tired of this session
· 2 years ago
Well, Skeeter, I believe in a limited government and police are to keep the peace and the Army is to protect us from foreign invaders. That's totally different than the government taxing to provide services that should be obtained privately (either with private dollars or charity)like healthcare.
tom
· 2 years ago
The cig tax in Chicago will be $6.43 per pack if this increase goes through. The average household income od smokers in Illnois is $35,000. And the governor keeps saying he doesnt want to tax working families. My god Rod. You are hurting those who can least afford it. Tax the rich.
A Citizen
· 2 years ago
- tom - Tax the Fat Cats, reduce obesity, and beautify Illinois! I'm with you.
Little Egypt
· 2 years ago
I sure wish this blog would be mandatory reading for Elvis, his staff, MMadigan, his staff & Tickle Me Emil, and his staff. Even though many of us are at odds with each other, there is more good arguing, communication, and dialogue here than there ever will be between Blago, the House and the Senate. Perhaps we should all vote ourselves into the legislature and solve the problems of this state. Way to go Rich. You're sitting on a gold mine with this blog.
AFP-IL
· 2 years ago
AFP-IL: Let's review the facts courtesy of Americans for Prosperity:
The Effect of a $1/pack Cigarette Tax Hike on Illinois Retailers
· Tobacco Sales are Important to Illinois Retailers – Illinois stores sold 657 million packs of cigarettes in FY 2006, with a gross retail value of nearly $3.2 billion. Illinois merchants earned nearly $560 million in gross profits on these sales.
· Tobacco Sales Support Illinois Jobs - It is estimated that nearly 8,000 Illinois retailer and wholesaler jobs were supported by in-state tobacco sales (based on estimated gross profits).
· Tobacco Sales Magnified Impact on C-Stores – Over 63% of all tobacco sales occur in the nation’s 140,655 C-Stores, according to a 2006 National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) study. The average C-store sells about $412,000 worth of cigarettes and other tobacco products each year.
· Illinois C-Stores – Illinois’ 4,378 C- Stores sold nearly $2 billion worth of cigarettes, with gross profits of roughly $360 million in FY 2006.
· Tax Increases Threaten Retail Sales – Cigarette tax hikes are causing consumers to turn to low-tax states and the Internet. Cigarette tax hikes cause consumers to go Online, where they can often avoid their own states’ tax. According to NACS about $5 billion of cigarette sales took place over the Internet in 2005 up from $750 million in 2001. Illinois increased its cigarette tax by 40¢ in July of 2002 from 58¢ to 98¢. Cook County has also increased its local cigarette tax by $1.82¢/pack (from 18¢ to $2/pack) over the past three years. If this were not enough the City of Chicago increased its cigarette tax to 68¢/pack in 2006. Cigarette excise taxes in the City of Chicago are now a whopping $3.66/pack (98¢ state tax, $2 county tax and 68¢ city tax). If the Illinois tax is increased by $1, the Chicago cigarette tax (state and local combined) would be a staggering $4.66/pack. In Cook County the tax would be $3.98. This is more than the tax in New York City where tax-paid volume has plummeted by 55% since it raised its tax to $3.00 per pack. In Cook County it is estimated that cigarette tax-paid sales have plunged by a boggling 60% since 2001. And, Illinois state tax-paid sales have plunged by about 22% since 2001.
Commercial Losses Due to A $1/packIllinois Cigarette Tax Hike
· In spite of large recent tax increases of the Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago cigarette taxes, some are proposing an Illinois cigarette tax hike of $1/pack. This would raise the Illinois state tax to $1.98 per pack. Illinois residents outside of Cook County could save $18.10/carton in Missouri, $16.80 in Kentucky and $9.85 in Indiana. In Chicago the total state and local cigarette tax would be $4.66/pack. A Chicago resident could save over $44.90/carton in Missouri or over $36/carton in Indiana. A van-load of cigarettes from Missouri would have a profit potential of nearly $255,000. Such bootlegger incentives could create a situation reminiscent of the days of Al Capone.
· Loss in Cigarette Sales Volume – Cigarette volume is estimated to fall by nearly 25% on an annualized basis or by 164 million packs due to the proposed $1 tax hike in FY 2008.
· Loss in Sundry Product Sales - Sundry product sales, or products normally bought in conjunction with tobacco products, could fall by nearly $140 million due to the $1 tax hike.
· Loss in Illinois Gross Profits (value added) - Gross profits lost to Illinois retailers and wholesalers are estimated at approximately $116 million due the proposed $1 tax hike.
· Convenience Store Losses - Cigarette sales at C-stores would fall by 100 million packs due to the $1 tax hike. Gross profit losses could average about $15,000 per store
· Revenue Impact - It is estimated that Illinois will gain about $320 million from the $1 tax hike.
Commercial Losses Due to A $1/packIllinois Cigarette Tax Hike And A Federal Cigarette Tax Increase of 61cents/pack
· Loss in Cigarette Sales Volume – Cigarette volume is estimated to fall by nearly 30% on an annualized basis or by 195 million packs due to the proposed $1 tax hike in FY 2008 and 61 cent federal tax hike.
· Loss in Sundry Product Sales - Sundry product sales, or products normally bought in conjunction with tobacco products, could fall by nearly $165 million due to the $1 tax hike and 61¢ federal tax hike..
· Loss in Illinois Gross Profits (value added) - Gross profits lost to Illinois retailers and wholesalers are estimated at approximately $133 million due the proposed $1 tax hike.
· Convenience Store Losses - Cigarette sales at C-stores would fall by 122 million packs due to the $1 tax hike. Gross profit losses could average about $18,000 per store.
· Revenue Impact - It is estimated that Illinois will gain about $310 million from the $1 tax hike with a 61 cent federal tax included.
Taxes Per Pack In Chicago After a $1 IL Tax Hike and 61 cent Federal Tax Hike
Federal Tax/ Pack $1 State Tax/Pack $1.98 Cook County Tax/Pack $2.00 Chicago Tax/Pack .68 State, County, Local Sales Tax .77
Grand Total $6.43
Lula May
· 2 years ago
Skeeter why do I suspect you might have a weight problem and love your snacks ? Obesity is the worst health problem this nation faces. People having children and stuffing them with junk food because they are too lazy to cook or don't have time. I consider this child abuse. Many, many more problems due to obesity compared to smoking. Of course both are very bad habits. But your chances of suviving past 60 are better with cigs than your heart carry 100 extra lb. Looking at the general public I'd say 50% of the population fit that description. People need to get off their fat a**'*, eat right, exercise and stop making excuses.
All Comments
And any time the State wants to make things more painful for cigarette smokers, I'm for it. If Blago would add a provision make it a felony to toss a cigarette lighter or a cigarette butt on the sidewalk, I would work for Blago's re-election.
Sure, people might start making their own like before (Prohibition era), but home breweries are quite legal now. People also roll their own smokes.
Tax the packaged hooch and cigs. That ought to generate some serious moolah.
I have no idea where to look for any info, but when a unit of government raises the tax on such items, isn't there a short term spike, and then a gradual decline in revenue to a point where you need to make up the decline with revenue from a different source?
Another buck a pack will convince more smokers its time to quit Add in the policy change of not being able to smoke in restaurants, bars, and bowling alleys anymore and more and more people will quit the filthy habit. What this means is that in the out years, new programs that rely solely on cigarette tax revenue will need to be propped up with other funding sources creating more budget problems down the road.
As for the business tax, no. Perhaps they could tax companies that do not pay the "living wage" an extra x% as well, then tax companies whose employee base is not meeting some kind of arbitrary standard.
Yeah, for blog ads. lol.
I do believe that smokers should pay more for health care due to their lifestyle choices that are known to cause many health problems, but at the same time, a targeted tax on a finite population to fund a wider-reaching social program hardly strikes me as being fair.
As a conservative, I never thought I'd say this, but given the Illinois politicians' lust for expanding social programs, revenue needs to be increased NOW by increasing taxes across the board, i.e. a sales tax increase that affects every Illinois citizen. The opportunity for revenue enhancement via tax cuts, as enjoyed federally and by many states, seems to have passed Illinois by. So either cut programs (fat chance), or find a fair way to pay them, even if it means breaking a campaign promise (hey, he's already broken a lot of them, why not this one?).
But I agree with Jaded on the ciggies. Surely, Americans' use of cigarettes is declining. Is it wise to rely on a declining funding source (which will decline further as prices rise) to fund all-important health care. Isn't it kicking the can down the road...putting in an important program based on shaky revenue sources, knowing that eventually the taxpayers will have to pony up
some other way. A bit, well, deceptive, wouldn't you say. Of course, the Dems are all about deception. For our own good.
With regard to sub-taxed items, how much revenue would the state rake in if Illinois taxed the purchase of newspapers? I've asked before, but no one seems to have the answer...
-- SCAM
Some financial penalty seems appropriate for busnesses who do not provide health insurance to their employees. It would also make sense to create larger risk pools so that smaller businesses could get better health insurance rates. Really small businesses should be exempted from a new tax. I don't know what the the exemption threshold should be. I wonder if this tax can be passed by the required supermajority. Small businesses will really raise "heck", and I can't say that I would blame for doing so.
The state has a structural deficit and needs a larger revenue stream on a long-term basis. I see these tax proposals as stopgap measures before an inevibale income tax increase. It's going to happen sooner or later.
Personally, I would demand that the Governor accept the 1/4% sales tax increase to fund mass transit in the Chicago metropolitan area as part of any compromise.
3% is too high. I believe a 1% tax on businesses, coupled with higher taxes on my aforementioned preferences and a requirement for each participating citizen to pay a small premium, would be a much better solution than merely try to pass the GRT as well as a 3% health tax and more excise taxes. You simply cannot allow people making decent money to have "free" health care because then the state would be too much on the hook for their premiums. And we all know what the state does with Medicaid payments...
Illinois has a law on the books against bringing - and don't quote me on this - more than 10 cartons of cigarettes in from outside of the state. Of course, that because difficult to monitor.
Oddly enough, though, I actually worked with a guy one summer who tried to bring back about 20 cartons from Missouri one weekend. He had been running a "smuggling" business for people at work and was making a couple of bucks from each person. He got pulled over for speeding and the cop found all of the cartons in his backseat. So maybe the "black market" is somewhat enforceable.
Darn, I still can't seem to find that ammendment that changed the constitution. "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness, and Cradle-to-Grave government provided health care." Can someone help me out?
This will also discourage youth from taking up smoking.
No. Cigarette tax revenues are a declining revenue source, and every increase is an increase at a decreasing rate.
EXACTLY!!!!!!
FACT 2: MOST employers who don't offer health insurance it is because they can't afford it. It is not because they want to screw employees and keep them disgruntled. You make them pay 3% more then they are either going to close their doors or pay 3% less to the employee. IT WILL NOT WORK!!!
When will democrats learn, you can't tax business without sending them out of your state and punishing the blue collar worker employed by them?
Any update on whether Rod will sign into law that bill banning smoking in bars/restaurants?
I would bet that as more states become smoke free, and as some states jack up cig taxes, bigger tobacco companies will begin releasing cheaper brands/types of their more popular and more expensive counterparts. Beermakers already do this, and supermarket chains realize this potential as well. It won't be long before RJ Reynolds comes out with their own "Stag Light" version of their top sellers.
Done. see you in 2010!
It has to do with "letting people die for lack of health care is considered uncivilized."
Bill,
Fine, but it has to be a felony. There is no room for compromise on that issue. Do we have a deal?
By the way,YES to both taxes and anything else you can come up with to pump some much needed revenue into the state coffers.
Whatever you say, but no MOU!
And once again, Blago tries to stick the business community with more taxes. After the GRT mess, you'd think he'd learn YOU CAN'T BEAT BIG BUSINESS.
the efforts and deceptions of the tobacco
industry......they created an entire nation
of addicts and now some folks want to make it
more difficult for smokers.
It is a misleading and totally inaccurate, especially if you study the research data, to say that cigarette tax increases are not a reliable source of new revenue. Depsite fewer packs sold, the total price goes up. And yes, eventually there is a decline, but this is gradual and totally predictable as you follow the smoking rates.
Another benefit, is that the decline in smokers also reduces the state's financial burden of paying for the effects of smoking related diseases - which means ultimately reductions in health care costs especially the $1.5 billion annually spent on smoking related Medicaid costs.
What was missing from the report on an increase in the tobacco tax is a proposal to earmark 25% for tobacco control porgrams at the state and community level.
Raising the tobacco tax is an excellent idea and should be fully embraced by anyone who cares about the health of others.
This will just mean less food on the table for children.
It reminds me of gambling and the lottery. The people with lower incomes pay for the lottery and always less food on the table for the children.
It really is disgusting how politicians always justify this.
I prefer the fat tax in England. If you are serious about bringing down the cost of healthcare
the fat tax would be the solution. In fact the insurance companies should offer lower rates for anyone at the proper weight for age and height.
Nothing personal, but its the 21st century,not the 19th. Social Darwinism and "compassionate convservatism" are dead, in case you aren't reading the polls. Affordable health care ranks really high on the scale of public concerns.
"Cradle-to-grave government health insurance" was the mantra used to oppose Medicare 40 years ago.It's a little outdated.
The free market has been unable to effectively address the increasing problem of the many millions of uninsured Amrericans, which is getting progressively worse each year. Something definitely needs to be done about it!
I"m not a constitutional scholar, but I can help you out. The preamble explictly states that one of the purposes of the Constitution is to "promote the general Welfare." Making affordable heatkh insurance available to millions of Americans, when the free market is unable to do so, seems to me to be entirely consistent with the aforemtioned constitutional principle.
By the way, the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence.
Revenue declined. No one buys cigarettes in Cook County.
There is always a proposal for a 'palatable' tax for a noble purpose. Note there is never a review to see if a program is producing the promised results to see if can be discontinued.
Looks like we are running out of 'palatable' taxes.
If you are going to screw the public anyway, give them a small carrot from time to time. If you were to break the nonsensical liquor distribution laws of the state i.e. Wirtz law, there would be a real reduction in the cost of liquor in Illinois. Apply a new liquor tax in an amount proportional to the saving and we have a traditional win-win situation. More money for the state and a return of the free enterprise system in the liquor industry for the citizens.
There are other protected monopolies in the state. Break them up and split the proceeds with the public. You still have to go through the state to look for cost savings, but the liquor reform would give a big revenue boost to the state.
Furthermore, the generic patch runs around $2 a day.
The cost of smoking drove me to quit. It will drive others to do the same.
As a result, anything funded by cigarette taxes will see their funding dry up. If the objective is to tax cigarettes into oblivion, then that's fine. If the objective is to balance the budget, terrible idea.
Illinois ranks 22 in cigarette taxes.
A U.S. Senate version of the bill under consideration today in the Finance Committee sets the maximum tax per cigar at $10.
IL has a higher tax rate on soda pop now. a snack/ fast food tax might work; there is no evidence that people will curb their soda/ fast food addictions like they are with cigs. Center for Science & the Public Interest out of DC has done work on these issues. I don't think it will generate as much as the GRT.
Tom, since you asked, yes, I support raising the income tax 1%, extending the sales tax to services and computer sales, and implementing a scaled back form of GRT with a floor of $20-30 million.
The new revenue should be restricted to education foundation level funding, a scaled back health insurance plan for all Illinois citizens, and paying down the pension debt.
Bonds could then be sold for capital projects.
If the wonks can accomplish the same thing with gaming, closing loopholes, and taxing cigs and twinkies, I could support that too.
Most snack food can be consumed in moderation. Wnen so consumed, the health impact is minor.
There is no safe level of cigarette consumption though. Further, consuming a bag of chips doesn't cause other people in the room to have health issues. Consuming a cigarette in a room will cause those in the room to have health issues.
Of course, dark chocolate is heart healthy as is red wine.
One - we don't need the damn health care plan.
Two - we don't need another damn tax.
What's with it with you people?
You guys are so comfortable having the schmucks in government telling you what to do and what to pay, you just roll over and let them do it to you? How about growing a pair?
You think it is OK to tax something you don't like because you don't like it? You don't want people to eat chocolate, or McDonald's, or Twinkies, or smoke, or drink alcohol because you don't like fat people, smokers, or boozers? What? You believe that people who indulge in these things are losers that need to be told what to do, so taxing and raising taxes on this stuff will somehow TEACH them a lesson or two, AND make you feel even more superior to them? Just how do you get your heads through doorways?
You don't like people you deem beneath you, do you? So you have no problem seeing taxes raised on the Wal-Mart crowd. Why, I bet there are even a lot of you people who don't even want those people buying at Wal-Mart - do you? So TAX Wal-Mart, or drive them out of business, right?
Face it - all of politics is about "Who pays". You have no problem seeing people you consider beneath you paying for a health care plan that makes you have a nice conscience, even when it doesn't work. You have no problem supporting a governor with 29 federal investigations and few friends because he can soothe your conscience with his latest political gimmicks. You like being lied to because it makes you feel better, right?
I think Blagojevich should just start taxing the voters who vote in the Democratic primaries. This way the people who feel the need to get screwed to soothe their conscience can achieve both.
Frankly, I believe a lot of you people believe in all these nanny state programs because you really do believe that the common person is dumber than they are.
Shame! We didn't get to where we are in history by showing such disrespect to our neighbors!
"Growing a pair."
Interesting.
If people lack health insurance, the government -- READ VANILLA MAN -- picks up the tab.
Cigarette smoking creates health problems and as people have pointed out, many of those people lack health insurance. They end up in emergency rooms where THE GOVERNMENT pays the tab.
As such, cigarette smokers are raising YOUR GOVERNMENT SPENDING VM, but you don't want them to pay their share.
Tell us more about "growing a pair" Vanilla, while those smokers walk all over you.
you badly misjudge me, at least, and I think a lot of other people who believe Illinois needs to increase its revenues. I have consistently said that it is people with high incomes, like me, who should be taxed more. I have consistently said that it is people with high retirement income, like me, who should be taxed. To say that I think that taxes should be raised on those "beneath" me (whatever that means) is not only incorrect, it's plain silly.
According to "ID", if poor people can't afford health care, it is their own damn fault for being poor. Let them unequivocally die. Just don't raise ID's cigarette tax. ID's need for a low cost fix is more important than a poor person's need to see a cardiologist or even to get routine check ups so the poor person can avoid trips to the cardiologist.
And ID says that in a way that is in no way emasculative, crass, inane, snotty, or elitist.
Did I properly summarize ID's position?
Illinois might benefit from the money -- and stable funding for S-CHIP, considering it had to wait on $273 million from the feds this year.
But cigarettes could get pretty expensive in Cook County if all these ideas go through.
Better yet for every $1 million in campaign funds raised the candidate is taxed a filing fee of $100,000. Let's hit the Guv and G.A. members in the pocket too.
We are bankrupting our children's future because we are afraid of being without our current lifestyles. We vote in politicians who promise a social nirvana, regardless of reality. Those of us who believe someone somewhere is getting a "free ride" need to look no further than their bathroom mirror to see the schmuck who has allowed this to happen.
Common sense says that smokers cost us more than non-smokers when it comes to health costs. But the truth is they die so fast, they actually cost us all less. So, claiming that raising the cigarette taxes is justified because smokers cost us so much hasn't any facts to back it up.
Steve - not only did I not misjudge you, you proved my point. You want yourself and others like you to be taxed more? Why? How about just allowing yourself and others like you to do the ethical thing and give your money to whomever you wish? That way, you can actually be doing something ethical because it is voluntary. How is it ethical to create a rule whereby forcing you and others like you to allow a government to take your money or face jail?
I have noted that YDD makes this claim now and then. Being a Christian nation doesn't mean using ethics to force taxes on our society. Taxes never make an ethical society. You have no choice here. You pay taxes or go to jail. Thats not giving, it is being blackmailed. When you meet St. Peter, do you really think he is more impressed with an overtaxed Swede over an undertaxed Mississippian?
I believe ID was being silly. What wasn't silly was his warped belief that those of us who have children should somehow be taxed more. ID doesn't recognize the basic fact that you cannot have a socialist government without taxpayers. ID depends on me and other normal people to have more than 2.1 children in order to keep our communities functioning.
We don't need birth control. We need more taxpayers. The bills Blagojevich is saddling future generations with will require a lot more of them to pay for what we have voted for ourselves to enjoy today - because we are so selfish, but claim we are doing it to help the unfortunate.
What has been upsetting has been the number of postings from people who sound more like French aristocracy than Democrats. You can't claim to be for the common person and mock them too. Diversity is not different looking people agreeing with one another.
It is too easy to point fingers at one another, and justify the other person paying more taxes. But honestly, when it comes to these kinds of arguments, the only thing we should be agreeing with is the fact that we are OUT of money because we have spent all our money.
We don't need more taxes, or new taxes. We don't need to close "loopholes", (even the term smacks of a claim that someone is getting something for nothing at our expense).
We need to stop pretending that we can just vote ourselves rich at other people's expense and hide our greed by claiming we are doing it for others less fortunate.
I'm calling your bluff, Democrats.
If the goal is to get people into better health and avoid the scourge of type 2 diabetes, then we need to find a way to tax people who don't exercise for at least 30 minutes a day higher because that is the best predictor of these health concerns.
I wish our democratic leaders would start leading instead of planning each others demise.
It is funny that he brings up Walmart. Walmart is the worst offender in recent memory in that they refuse to pay a living wage to their hard working employees and then prevent them from working the required # of hours to qualify for their putrid health insurance plan. Guess who pays when a Wal Mart employee needs health care? VanMan and all the rest of us through higher taxes and increased medical care costs. He is correct, though, that I don't want anyone to shop at Walmart. I would love to see them leave our state and clear the way for responsible businesses that care about their employees and the communities where they make their profits.
Why should the state subsidize a morally corrupt giant corporation as they chip away at the American way of life.
"A couple of problems:
One - we don’t need the damn health care plan."
I think he means HE doesn't need the damn health care plan. He must have health insurance. as usual, he cares nothing about anyone else.
Not all Right Wing idealogues are selfish and greedy. He's definitly in the minority.
No more birth control! No more abortion!... but no state help for children who need it.
He will force you to have them but he certainly deosn't want the state to help support them.
Children are our future.
So are families.
It is just that you and I don't agree with the solutions to get us there.
You think money grows on trees.
You think we are taxed too much.
I know we are overtaxed.
I know money is the stuff I earn, but you think Rod Blagojevich has a right to take from me.
Me, normal.
You, nuts.
You think women should be able to kill their unborn children, but you would make it a crime to go without health insurance.
Me, normal.
You, nuts.
If a pregnant woman does not have health insurance, should the government pick up the tab for her prenatal care?
Can't we all calm down for a little bit! What is people's problems today? Simmer, please.
I think we all need to have a Cap Fax pinata party where we knock the crap out of an pinata that is made out of articles about controversial figures. At least then things would be fun. We're starting to act like the elected officials that run this state.
I say quit picking on us smokers and instead bring in a WEALTH of income by taxing alcohol. Let’s pick on someone else for a change.
And you’re right, cigarettes are an addiction, which is why I can’t quit. And you’re all also right that smokers will go elsewhere. For the last two years I’ve gotten all my cigarettes from Missouri ($18/carton) and will continue to do so, as will many, many others.
What WILL our legislature do when less than 1% of the smokers by their cigarettes here?
Nicotine slows the progression of Parkinson's Disease, so sure, kick a man when he's down.
State of Illinois cigarette tax revenue in 2004 for $760 million. In 2006, $640 million. The state went straight after the non-smokers for make up for that $120 million decline in tax revenue, which is $10 for every individual in the state per year.
Anyone that believes raising the state cigarette tax by $1 will bring in $450 million more in revenue, is stupid or lying and thus certainly can not be trusted with even more of the taxpayers money.
Then what if th feds raise there's next week from $.31 to $1 per pack, as the Democrats are trying to pass in Congress? Blagojevich, Madigan, and Jones will certainly spend an additional $450 million, but it will quickly turn into breaking even and the non-smokers will pay.
This idea is soooooooooo bad it has to be Blago's.
A flat tax means the wealthy pay a fraction of their income in taxes, an insignificant fraction in most scenarios, while the middle class has to give up money they badly need to pay for housing, schooling, education, and so forth.
Anyone who is advocating an increase in the current flat income tax in Illinois is advocating for a system which favors the wealthy over the middle class. The poor, of course, ride free in Illinois.
As far as health insurance, where in the Illinois Constitution does it say that the state government has to provide health insurance for its citizens?
The poor do not ride free. Government is creating more of them. Look at the stats on poverty in Illinois this decade. Taxes just like this cigarette tax are largely responsible for the growth in poverty under complete Democrat control. And I'll blame Bush too if in helps.
There are a huge number of health impaired obese people - more than there are smokers. If you really want to have a positive impact on the populations' health the target offending substance is fatty food, not tobacco. The "do gooders" seem to be able to go after one small population rather than the real greater good. Lazy and misguided plus fewer voters "offended". Sooner or later, however, they WILL get to chocolate, fast food, and high fat content foods.
I think I understand the heart of your problem. You are simply uninformed.
Dark chocolate is a heart healthy food. In contrast, cigarettes kill people.
Now that we have that cleared up, I assume you will revise your position.
Are you really saying that cigarette taxes CAUSE poverty?
With arguments like that, it looks like Trigg may have missed a few doctor appointments himself.
Nope! Too much of a good thing is never enough. Now I'm going to have too much dark chocolate, too much red wine, and a few cigarettes and go to bed. Enjoy!
That is the difference. TOO MUCH of certain foods may be a problem.
ONE cigarette is a problem.
Prenatal care is not the government's business?
"Preventing people from dying" is something that should not be a concern for government?
Heck, while we are at it, let's just get rid of the police and the Army. If you can't protect yourself, you really shouldn't expect THE GOVERNMENT to step in and the do the job for you.
Tax the Fat Cats, reduce obesity, and beautify Illinois! I'm with you.
The Effect of a $1/pack Cigarette Tax Hike on Illinois Retailers
· Tobacco Sales are Important to Illinois Retailers – Illinois stores sold 657 million packs of cigarettes in FY 2006, with a gross retail value of nearly $3.2 billion. Illinois merchants earned nearly $560 million in gross profits on these sales.
· Tobacco Sales Support Illinois Jobs - It is estimated that nearly 8,000 Illinois retailer and wholesaler jobs were supported by in-state tobacco sales (based on estimated gross profits).
· Tobacco Sales Magnified Impact on C-Stores – Over 63% of all tobacco sales occur in the nation’s 140,655 C-Stores, according to a 2006 National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) study. The average C-store sells about $412,000 worth of cigarettes and other tobacco products each year.
· Illinois C-Stores – Illinois’ 4,378 C- Stores sold nearly $2 billion worth of cigarettes, with gross profits of roughly $360 million in FY 2006.
· Tax Increases Threaten Retail Sales – Cigarette tax hikes are causing consumers to turn to low-tax states and the Internet. Cigarette tax hikes cause consumers to go Online, where they can often avoid their own states’ tax. According to NACS about $5 billion of cigarette sales took place over the Internet in 2005 up from $750 million in 2001. Illinois increased its cigarette tax by 40¢ in July of 2002 from 58¢ to 98¢. Cook County has also increased its local cigarette tax by $1.82¢/pack (from 18¢ to $2/pack) over the past three years. If this were not enough the City of Chicago increased its cigarette tax to 68¢/pack in 2006. Cigarette excise taxes in the City of Chicago are now a whopping $3.66/pack (98¢ state tax, $2 county tax and 68¢ city tax). If the Illinois tax is increased by $1, the Chicago cigarette tax (state and local combined) would be a staggering $4.66/pack. In Cook County the tax would be $3.98. This is more than the tax in New York City where tax-paid volume has plummeted by 55% since it raised its tax to $3.00 per pack. In Cook County it is estimated that cigarette tax-paid sales have plunged by a boggling 60% since 2001. And, Illinois state tax-paid sales have plunged by about 22% since 2001.
Commercial Losses Due to A $1/packIllinois Cigarette Tax Hike
· In spite of large recent tax increases of the Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago cigarette taxes, some are proposing an Illinois cigarette tax hike of $1/pack. This would raise the Illinois state tax to $1.98 per pack. Illinois residents outside of Cook County could save $18.10/carton in Missouri, $16.80 in Kentucky and $9.85 in Indiana. In Chicago the total state and local cigarette tax would be $4.66/pack. A Chicago resident could save over $44.90/carton in Missouri or over $36/carton in Indiana. A van-load of cigarettes from Missouri would have a profit potential of nearly $255,000. Such bootlegger incentives could create a situation reminiscent of the days of Al Capone.
· Loss in Cigarette Sales Volume – Cigarette volume is estimated to fall by nearly 25% on an annualized basis or by 164 million packs due to the proposed $1 tax hike in FY 2008.
· Loss in Sundry Product Sales - Sundry product sales, or products normally bought in conjunction with tobacco products, could fall by nearly $140 million due to the $1 tax hike.
· Loss in Illinois Gross Profits (value added) - Gross profits lost to Illinois retailers and wholesalers are estimated at approximately $116 million due the proposed $1 tax hike.
· Convenience Store Losses - Cigarette sales at C-stores would fall by 100 million packs due to the $1 tax hike. Gross profit losses could average about $15,000 per store
· Revenue Impact - It is estimated that Illinois will gain about $320 million from the $1 tax hike.
Commercial Losses Due to A $1/packIllinois Cigarette Tax Hike And A Federal Cigarette Tax Increase of 61cents/pack
· Loss in Cigarette Sales Volume – Cigarette volume is estimated to fall by nearly 30% on an annualized basis or by 195 million packs due to the proposed $1 tax hike in FY 2008 and 61 cent federal tax hike.
· Loss in Sundry Product Sales - Sundry product sales, or products normally bought in conjunction with tobacco products, could fall by nearly $165 million due to the $1 tax hike and 61¢ federal tax hike..
· Loss in Illinois Gross Profits (value added) - Gross profits lost to Illinois retailers and wholesalers are estimated at approximately $133 million due the proposed $1 tax hike.
· Convenience Store Losses - Cigarette sales at C-stores would fall by 122 million packs due to the $1 tax hike. Gross profit losses could average about $18,000 per store.
· Revenue Impact - It is estimated that Illinois will gain about $310 million from the $1 tax hike with a 61 cent federal tax included.
Taxes Per Pack In Chicago After a $1 IL Tax Hike and 61 cent Federal Tax Hike
Federal Tax/ Pack $1
State Tax/Pack $1.98
Cook County Tax/Pack $2.00
Chicago Tax/Pack .68
State, County, Local Sales Tax .77
Grand Total $6.43
Obesity is the worst health problem this nation faces.
People having children and stuffing them with junk food because they are too lazy to cook or don't have time.
I consider this child abuse.
Many, many more problems due to obesity compared to smoking. Of course both are very bad habits. But your chances of suviving past 60 are better with cigs than your heart carry 100 extra lb. Looking at the general public I'd say 50% of the population fit that description.
People need to get off their fat a**'*, eat right, exercise and stop making excuses.