 |
| People will soon have to start taking tax into account |
That
tax was supposed to take effect July 1, and county board President Toni
Preckwinkle said that Cook County lost some $17 million for not being able to
charge the one cent per ounce tax on pop and othered sugared drinks.
COUNTY
OFFICIALS HAD said that if the tax were not eventually implemented, county
government’s finances would come up short this year and next – and some 1,100
people would have to lose their jobs. As things went, some 300 people were
given layoff notices earlier this month.
So
does this mean with Judge Daniel Kubasiak ruling that the tax can take effect
and cannot be construed as being too confusing for people to comprehend that
county government workers jobs’ are safe?
Not
so fast!
As
Preckwinkle put it, “until we are able to fully implement and collect revenue
from this tax, we will continue to review our financial position and make
adjustments accordingly.”
COUNTY
OFFICIALS HAD said the tax would raise some $67.5 million through Dec. 1, and
some $200 million during the county’s 2018 fiscal year. Will it be just a
matter of subtracting the $17 million loss – or will other factors come into
play?
Who’s
to say just how long it will take before things stabilize. Or if it turns out
that the tax shortfall will turn out to be merely an excuse, and if some people
on the county government payroll will wind up losing their jobs regardless?
Personally,
I found it interesting the way various groups were ready to rant with their
pre-formed statements of praise or outrage. It makes me think what would have
been most interesting is if someone had inadvertently hit the wrong button on
the computer and sent out the statement that was intended to express themselves
in the event the “pop tax” had withered away for good.
For
what it’s worth, the Illinois Retail Merchants Association says it’s “disappointed,”
and they’re “exploring all legal options.”
WHILE
THE ILLINOIS Public Health Institute says it is “gratified” to see the tax take
effect – but for quite the back-handed reason. They hope that adding about 20
cents to the cost of a single-serve plastic pop bottle, and about 65 cents to
the cost of a 2-liter bottle, causes people to think in terms of consuming less
in the way of carbonated beverages.
“The
sooner people stop drinking sweetened beverages, the sooner we expect to see a
decline in the chronic diseases caused by too much sugar,” institute officials
said, in a prepared statement.
Which
I suppose makes sense in theory – I know I have tried during the past year or
so to reduce the amount of carbonated drink I consume (although I still enjoy
the occasional can of Coca-Cola).
But
I also note the number of times I have waited in line at a cashier to purchase
that can of pop – only to have people ahead of me making their purchases of
cigarette packages.
WHICH
ALSO FACE many significant taxes that are supposed to discourage people from
smoking, but instead just create intense levels of grumbling about how much a
pack of “smokes” costs these days.
That
might also make the ultimate beneficiary a business I remember from when I was
a kid living near the Illinois/Indiana border – they sold cheap pop, cartons of
cigarettes and fireworks. It was right on the state line – making it alluring
to those who felt compelled to have such items.
 |
| Will 'cheap pop' attract more people to these border businesses? |
But
if it turns out that the surrounding counties claim some sort of financial
benefit from the Cook tax, I’d have to say they can have that form of “economic
development” if it means we can reach some sort of higher purpose.
-30-
EDITOR’S
NOTE: Just a thought – the kind of people who enjoy a “soda” with their hot dog
are the same kinds who are probably eager to rush out to the grocery store and
start buying Heinz-brand “Chicago Dog Sauce.” And we all remember what “Dirty”
Harry Callahan thinks about people who put ketchup on their hot dogs.
No comments:
Post a Comment