Wait. Let me write this one down. Higher taxes= lower tax revenue. Got it. Would never have thought of such an idea. Someone should ask the outstanding, hard-working city council about these facts. But they are probably too busy figuring out who they will tax next.

 

I think the issue is clearly a "gone to the well one too many times" issue.

 

If you tax something at 1$, and you're tax revenue is 100,000,000 off that single dollar, politicians tend to think short term and say, "Oh, ok...well, if we make it 2$, we will then make 200,000,000, and all of our problems are solved!" This works once or twice, as people adapt and shrug off the increases...but when you hit a tipping point, people say, "4$ just in taxes on a product that costs 1$, seriously?! f*** that, I can order that online, or go to Indiana, or just...well, stop buying that product altogether", and suddenly the revenue stream dries up seemingly overnight.

 

Now they're left without that money, which they relied on, because they effectively taxed people out of the market...so now they have to look elsewhere, where they will rinse/repeat the same mistake all over again.

Edited September 21, 201213 yr by Y2HH

I think the issue is clearly a "gone to the well one too many times" issue.

 

If you tax something at 1$, and you're tax revenue is 100,000,000 off that single dollar, politicians tend to think short term and say, "Oh, ok...well, if we make it 2$, we will then make 200,000,000, and all of our problems are solved!" This works once or twice, as people adapt and shrug off the increases...but when you hit a tipping point, people say, "4$ just in taxes on a product that costs 1$, seriously?! f*** that, I can order that online, or go to Indiana, or just...well, stop buying that product altogether", and suddenly the revenue stream dries up seemingly overnight.

 

Now they're left without that money, which they relied on, because they effectively taxed people out of the market...so now they have to look elsewhere, where they will rinse/repeat the same mistake all over again.

 

Its called diminishing marginal return.

We went to some Magnet schools (essentially charter schools run by the school system) in our district. The turnover was less than you think.

Huge difference. Charter schools are run by a business entity, not the school district - but with district oversight. That difference isn't small, its everything.

 

Anyway, I think I've made my point on this side issue, probably best to let it be now. Making a massive and sudden transfer of all schools to charters for CPS is entirely impractical - it has to be done over time. Which is what they have been doing (though I don't yet know what the new contract says about it going forward).

 

they have raised taxes so high that most people do not buy that particular product in the city anymore. typical dumbass politician move. just wait for the solution to make up for the lack of tax revenue; raise taxes on cigarettes again.

And it's obviously a bad thing that people can't afford to smoke?

And it's obviously a bad thing that people can't afford to smoke?

 

No, the bad part comes from the loss of tax revenue BECAUSE people cannot afford to smoke. Now they'll tax something else...maybe something that's actually good for you...like bottled water. Oh, wait...already doing that, too! It never ends...

No, the bad part comes from the loss of tax revenue BECAUSE people cannot afford to smoke. Now they'll tax something else...maybe something that's actually good for you...like bottled water. Oh, wait...already doing that, too! It never ends...

(Bottled water isn't good for you. At least not when you consider the existence of "The bottle").

(Bottled water isn't good for you. At least not when you consider the existence of "The bottle").

 

(and the draining of local water tables and lakes/rivers/ponds etc. when that water is bottled shipped hundreds/thousands of miles away)

(Bottled water isn't good for you. At least not when you consider the existence of "The bottle").

 

Same bottles used for alternative drink choices, so it's not like it matters in the grand scheme of things.

(and the draining of local water tables and lakes/rivers/ponds etc. when that water is bottled shipped hundreds/thousands of miles away)

 

Most bottled water is local, unless you prefer the 50$ Fiji bottle...because it's square packaging.

Same bottles used for alternative drink choices, so it's not like it matters in the grand scheme of things.

Really? I turn my tap on and very little plastic comes out.l

Really? I turn my tap on and very little plastic comes out.l

 

I mean alternative choices that you'd purchase...

 

Like soda, or juice, or Gatorade...all plastic, too.

 

Of course for those of us at home, I fill my own stainless bottles out of a Britta filter pitcher...but when I'm on the road, that's not as easy to do.

Most bottled water is local, unless you prefer the 50$ Fiji bottle...because it's square packaging.

 

For Illinois, that might hold true thanks to that giant lake we border, but that's part of the problem. Great Lakes water is being bottled and shipped across the country, out of its natural watershed.

For Illinois, that might hold true thanks to that giant lake we border, but that's part of the problem. Great Lakes water is being bottled and shipped across the country, out of its natural watershed.

 

Stop being greedy with our water, you greedy republican that won't share water with other parts of the world that don't have it.

Stop being greedy with our water, you greedy republican that won't share water with other parts of the world that don't have it.

 

WE ARE THE 99% WHO DON'T LIVE NEAR THE GREAT LAKES!

People that get Lake Michigan tap water and still drink bottled water should be drowned.

People that get Lake Michigan tap water and still drink bottled water should be drowned.

 

in Lake Michigan. Naturally.

in Lake Michigan. Naturally.

 

I honestly think it mostly has to do with a whole lot less people smoke nowadays then 6 years ago. Literally no one from the younger generations smoke anymore.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoki...oming-down.aspx

 

 

even with this dropoff in smokers effecting the situation, the tax increase should have still boosted tax revenue on cigarettes. but the revenue dropped off a cliff.

 

another tobacco tax increase will , very likely, drop cigarette tax related revenue even more.

NO COOK COUNTY TAXES

IN!

People that get Lake Michigan tap water and still drink bottled water should be drowned.

 

I'll bet more people died of that this year than accidental peanut buttering...

And it's obviously a bad thing that people can't afford to smoke?

 

they are buying smokes in Indiana or the burbs. the fact is that increasing this certain tax to get more revenue has failed. the city claiming they will cover this budget shortfall with this specific sales tax increase is very dishonest.

 

how about a booze tax? drunks probably won't leave the city to go to the bar.

I assume the water that comes out of the water fountains at my work comes from Lake Michigan and it tastes awful. I get water from the water cooler instead.

 

When we go camping we are forced to use bottled water because all the water at the campground comes out smelling like rotten eggs. We even use a house filter on our trailer and it doesn't help much.

 

they are buying smokes in Indiana or the burbs. the fact is that increasing this certain tax to get more revenue has failed. the city claiming they will cover this budget shortfall with this specific sales tax increase is very dishonest.

 

how about a booze tax? drunks probably won't leave the city to go to the bar.

 

And as a citizen of Indiana, I have to say "thank you" Mr Mayor.

I'll bet more people died of that this year than accidental peanut buttering...

Peanut allergies kill ~150 per year. Drowning kills about 3500 per year. So yes, you are correct.

 

I propose peanut lifeguards in all cafeterias. Obviously you can't deny people the important, first amendment given right to peanut butter, but 150 deaths per year is a lot.