Faced with a budget shortfall of $ 315 million, the Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle has seriously proposed changes to how county officials are spending taxpayers ' money. He is challenging the public employees Union boss to come to the negotiating table. He aims to harness private sector contractors to keep costs low. These are all steps that are necessary and commendable. Less so are increased taxes that he has proposed: hiking the vehicle tax, county tax raise beer, wine and liquor, and tobacco products (such as cigars and smokeless) are redefining so that may be subject to tax on them.
Last Monday, four members of the Council of the Republic signed off on the increase and give you the increase in income tax.
Politically incorrect product targeting may seem easy, but that doesn't make it right. When You buy a bottle of liquor in Chicago, You've paid taxes eight: 1.25 percent county sales tax, county tax excise $ 2/gallon, 1.25 per cent City sales tax, city tax $ 2.68/gallon state excise, $ 8.55/gallon, 6.25 percent state sales tax, the federal excise tax of $ 13.50/proof gallon tax and transportation of 1 percent. Add these together and it turned out a whopping 58 percent of the average bottle cost went to taxes and fees. One gulp for Uncle Sam, sip one for You.
Now, this increased tax may not make a big dent in your wallet high-flying lawyer out for a night on the town, but it could cost the waiter or the storeowner is expensive. Industry analysts estimate that the tax could liquor up cost from 270 jobs in Cook County, and the changes of tobacco could result in more loss of 85 or retailer and wholesale positions. But never fear, Commissioner John Daley tickled pink that Government jobs will be saved.
Two weeks ago, Preckwinkle was held a press event at Stroger hospital to promote the health benefits of alcohol and tobacco tax. But here's the irony of the argument: on the one hand, the Government told us to stop this "crime." On the other hand, the budget depends on the income according to the definition depends on smokers continued to smoke and drink continuously drinkers. It is not logical, and has little to do with improving our health. In fact, an attempt to increase the cost of the product without smoke can inhibit tobacco damage reduction efforts. And there is no consolation for non-smokers and non-drinker here; If Is decrease in use while expenses continue to rise, a general tax increase would be on the table when the income of the "sin tax" is out of stock.
