The Chicago Sun-Times really pulled a whopper in their March 26th piece about a tax on bottled water that the Chicago City Council passed earlier this year. Chicago levied a 5 cent a bottle tax on each unit of bottled water sold in the city expecting to raise $875,000 a month on the tax. But somehow this windfall to the city has yet to be realized with the tax booty so far only amounting to $554,000. Because of this "below expected" revenue the Sun-Times claimed that this shortfall is "exacerbating a budget crunch" for the city.
I'm sorry Sun-Times but a tax shortfall isn't "exacerbating a budget crunch." The city itself is doing the "exacerbating" not the taxpayers. The City Council created a never before heard of tax and then spent the money it assumed it'd get. But then it didn't get it. How can we blame the taxpayers who avoided the tax -- legally avoided it, I might add -- for any "budget crunch"? The budget crunch is the fault of wild spending by the Chicago City Council, not by the taxpayers not being bled enough.
In fact this new obscenity of a tax reveals a perfect example of human nature in action. The spendthrifts on the Chicago City Council created a new confiscatory tax out of thin air by placing a 5 cent tax on every bottle of water in the city. So, what happened? The suburbs found that, to avoid the tax, Chicago residents streamed into the suburbs and bought their water by the skids full in those neighboring towns.
As the Sun-Times reports:
Are Chicagoans trekking to the suburbs to buy cases of bottled water -- and avoid a new nickel-a-container tax that adds $1.20 to the price of a 24-pack? Or are they making the switch to tap water to save money?
One or the other is happening. Maybe both.
Ah, delicious fate. The City thinks it will raise hundreds of thousands if not millions on a new tax, but taxpayers simply take their business elsewhere, avoiding the tax altogether. Perfect.
Yet, the Sun-Times imagines that this shortfall is somehow causing or making worse a budget shortfall? They blame the taxpayers for not being stupid enough to just bend over, sheep-like, and take this idiotic new tax up the keister?
The fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the Chicago City Council for spending too much, not the taxpayers. The City government caused this "budget crunch," NOT the taxpayers. But leave it to a tax loving paper like the Sun-Times to scold the common man for not allowing himself to be raped by a city government that represents no one but their own bank accounts.
A big thank you for looking out for us should go out to the Chicago City Council and the Chicago Sun-Times. But, I don't want to thank them too loudly lest they decide to tax the "service" as well as the breath it took to relay the sentiment.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Not only...
March 27, 2008 - 19:42 ET by heldmyw...did the good people of Chicago 'vote with their feet' against this new tax, consider the lost revenue to businesses who are no longer selling bottled water at all!
I liken this to the punitive Michigan cigarette tax (2nd highest in the nation), and the shock and amazement that the citizenry is buying out of state, or out of country, all perfectly legally, in order to keep from being screwed.
It costs local businesses, government and creates an environment of rebellion.
Waytogo greed-mongers!
What a shock!
March 27, 2008 - 20:02 ET by c5thenChicago raises the tax on botteld water (only) and the smart residents decide that other beverages are now cheaper so they buy them thus avoiding the tax. This is why the liberal schemes to raise revenue by increasing taxes always falls short and results in a bigger budget problem.
1. Pass a budget that assumes higher revenue from higher taxes
2. Raise the taxes on specific targeted items
3. Spend the money anyway even though the taxes are falling short because taxpayers avoid the tax by purchasing other products.
4. Blame the taxpayer for "cheating" the system.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Every action has ...
March 27, 2008 - 22:13 ET by KC MulvilleFor me, this is classic. They just don't seem to grasp the idea that actions have reactions. Taxes change behavior. Regulation changes behavior.
So what do we think will happen when we tax and regulate any local citizens who are rich enough to invest in local businesses? And while we're doing that, what'll happen if we hold those citizens up for public condemnation for the fact that they're successful? And what will happen to people who are working hard, hoping to become rich enough to be able to make investments? Hmmmm ... wait, it'll come to me ...
By the way, where is Obama from?
BLAME THE TAXPAYER
March 27, 2008 - 20:56 ET by billbHeadline on the front page of the PALM BEACH POST, "Water utilities to raise rates as income drops due to reduced water usage caused by conservation program"
billb
March 27, 2008 - 23:41 ET by DelsaYou took the words right out of my mouth. Cooper City is near Ft Lauderdale and they had all the folks cut back on watering lawns etcetera and usage.
Well the good folks of Cooper City did what was asked of them and guess what? The city lost revenue. What has the city done to correct the problem?
You guessed it. The RAISED THE PRICE OF WATER!!
We have a deep well and our water is free. For now .
Bottled water taxes
March 28, 2008 - 13:43 ET by merlin61The politicians are outsmarting themselves.
People are rebelling and will continue rebelling
against higher taxes. Gonna be more of them
voted out of office if this nonsense continues.
The global warming alarmists are the next to cause
rising taxes and repercussions from their
"green" idiocy.
I wonder if the shortfall would still have occured
March 28, 2008 - 06:04 ET by fastfoodI wonder if the shortfall would still have occured if city government had instead opted to be satisfied with simply collecting the usual sales tax on the bottled water sales that didn't occur, as well as the sales tax that would have been collected from sales generated by the vendors who would have had more money to spend. And of course the next teir of retailers would have had more money to spend thus generating even more sales tax, and on and on and on, et. etc. etc. And I wonder if they considered how the addtional tax may have effected jobs, so folks could afford to pay property taxes to the city.
All things are relative. But still, they just don't get it! I guess perhaps the real problem is they just don't have enough sence to get it.
It's just part of the
March 27, 2008 - 21:04 ET by Jack BauerIt's just part of the liberal progressive leftists mania to blame the victim and sympathize with the criminal.
It's like a disease.
I shudder
March 27, 2008 - 21:06 ET by zoro7957..........to think how much it costs to add a shot of bourbon to that water.........
I read the article, and it
March 27, 2008 - 21:18 ET by balboaI read the article, and it doesn't appear that the paper is assessing blame per se as much as just providing a potential answer. The tax hasn't raised what they thought it would, so the paper is looking at why.
I don't see the finger-pointing.
The Sun-Times said that the
March 27, 2008 - 21:25 ET by Warner Todd HustonThe Sun-Times said that the shortfall was "exacerbating a budget crunch." This clearly places the blame on those not paying enough tax as opposed to the spending being too high. Hence it is the taxpayer's fault and not the City Council's.
I wouldn't say "clearly."
March 27, 2008 - 21:32 ET by balboaI wouldn't say "clearly." The Sun-Times said the shortfall was "exacerbating a budget crunch," not people avoiding the tax. You could easily take that to mean that the idea of the tax by the city council was a flawed plan.
They even talk to a spokeswoman from the budget office to explain the lack of money, not a consumer who says "I drive out of town to avoid the tax."
bal
March 28, 2008 - 00:14 ET by candanceI gotta say I'm with WTH on this one. It's standard practice for the government to spend money based on assumptions and then go on about a budget crisis when the money doesn't really show up.
Our goverment, on all levels, is like a shopaholic. The more money they get, they just keep finding new ways to spend it and then demand even more.
"Are Chicagoans trekking to
March 28, 2008 - 08:10 ET by voodoodaddy"Are Chicagoans trekking to the suburbs to buy cases of bottled water -- and avoid a new nickel-a-container tax that adds $1.20 to the price of a 24-pack? Or are they making the switch to tap water to save money?"
I don't know what Bal was reading but the article I read started blaming the taxpayor from word one. And yes Bal, they did say "avoid".
Up until now I have avoided
March 27, 2008 - 21:33 ET by FranksamUp until now I have avoided commenting about Balboa's critical thinking skills, just because others have hammered on him (her?) so eloquently. I read the article, too. If one does not perceive that blame for revenue shortfall is placed on water drinkers after reading the piece, then one needs some remedial education.
Send me a message, Bal, I'll try to come up with names of a few private tutors in your area.
Golly, do you? I'll get
March 27, 2008 - 21:36 ET by balboaGolly, do you? I'll get RIGHT on that!
And your interpretation is just as biased as the supposed slant of this article. There is no blame being given. There is cause, not blame. I don't see any finger pointing.
"Golly, do you? I'll get
March 27, 2008 - 21:39 ET by Warner Todd HustonWell, have to admit that made me laugh.
You may not see any finger pointing...
March 28, 2008 - 05:18 ET by sarcasmoBut for many of us, the cause/blame/whatever is government overspending, and not some sort of tax shortage. The bias is in how the news media puts it, and as Warner says, they don't blame the overspending. The news media never seem to think that any government spending program should ever be decreased, much less ended entirely. In this case, consumers are being blamed by a pro-big-government biased media for being thrifty, while government gets off scot-free despite years of profligate spending/waste. Some of us see a media pattern here.
That's their bias when it comes to a sea of spending-generated red ink; local, state, or national. Do you wonder what a spending-increase graph over the past decade would look like? I've never seen one for Chicago, but I don't. How come some random libertarian like sarcasmo can reliably guess the exact shape of such government spending graphs over the past decade? I can't say I have great insight, but I know a pattern when I see it.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Agree completely with this
March 28, 2008 - 10:17 ET by SmartypantsAgree completely with this one. I continue to be astounded (and irritated) at the number of smarmy postings I find on blogs that somehow blame Bush's tax cuts for the federal budget deficit, as if tax policy alone causes deficits. We all know there have been record revenues to the Treasury AFTER the tax cuts, and that government revenues increased after Reagan and Kennedy's cuts, too. So, if revenue increases after a tax cut, how exactly did that cut cause a deficit?
City Council, read King Richard
March 27, 2008 - 21:39 ET by SaintGeorgeGentileHaving lived in Chicago for over 50 years, I can tell you that King Richard Daley runs the entire city and the council merely rubberstamps whatever he wants. I retired from the Police Dept. mainly to get away from that despicable bolshevik and his minions.
The Sun-Times might as well be the official house organ of this corrupt, criminal organization.
Classic Liberal Mistake
March 27, 2008 - 22:29 ET by CapeCodScottStatic Analysis of a Dynamic Situation. The Clinton's Era tried this with Luxury tax in the late '90's... I can't say it better than how it was stated below in 2003>> www.ScottOnCapeCod.c...
Inside Politics: A hard-earned lesson
The Washington Times ^ | January 7, 2003 | Greg Pierce
Posted on 01/09/2003 4:44:51 PM PST by NonValueAdded
"Most Americans celebrated as the ball fell in Times Square New Year's Eve. But for auto dealers this new year is especially sweet. January 1 marked the expiration of the federal luxury tax on cars, the last vestige of the destructive luxury tax package in the infamous 1990 budget deal," the Wall Street Journal says.
"Starting in 1991, Washington levied a 10 percent tax on cars valued above $30,000, boats above $100,000, jewelry and furs above $10,000 and private planes above $250,000. Democrats like Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share and privately about convincing President George H.W. Bush to renounce his 'no new taxes' pledge," the newspaper said in an editorial.
"But it wasn't long before even those die-hard class warriors noticed they'd badly missed their mark. The taxes took in $97 million less in their first year than had been projected — for the simple reason that people were buying a lot fewer of these goods. Boat building, a key industry in Messrs. Mitchell and Kennedy's home states of Maine and Massachusetts, was particularly hard hit. Yacht retailers reported a 77 percent drop in sales that year, while boat builders estimated layoffs at 25,000. With bipartisan support, all but the car tax was repealed in 1993, and in 1996 Congress voted to phase that out too. January 1 was disappearance day.
"The end of any federal tax is such a rarity that it's well worth celebrating. And the luxury-tax lesson of economic damage is worth keeping in mind as politicians begin to wail that President Bush's new tax proposals aren't punitive enough on the rich."
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Bottom Line- When the good folks in Chicago changes their behavior to avoid the tax they did not become the problem, they solved one.
554K isn't too bad.
March 27, 2008 - 22:55 ET by Republic1554K isn't too bad. That's a few patronage jobs for Democratic ward leaders to hand out to friends and relatives. I've read that Chicago is one of the most heavily taxed cities in the nation. If the residents want to put an end to this distinction, they could always vote the bums out. Assuming, of course that their votes are accurately counted. I've also read that vote fraud has also been a bit of an issue in the windy city. (This despite the Democratic assertion that Republicans are the only ones who steal elections)
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." -Muhammad
"Eventually
March 28, 2008 - 00:54 ET by gfrrockssocialists will run out of other peoples' money to spend..." Magaret Thatcher. Selah
Taxation is a PRIVILEGE, Not a Right
March 28, 2008 - 03:26 ET by thoridflyGovernment has THE PRIVILEGE to tax us as we the People GRANT our elected officials to do so.
Government has no RIGHT to tax us AT ANY TIME ... EVER.
Every tax on the books is a time-limited PRIVILEGE granted to our DULY ELECTED representatives by WE THE TAXED.
"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard." - Edmund Burke
not much
March 28, 2008 - 10:32 ET by longriderThis b--boa character is a hoot… like
a take off of 'Wayne’s World'. There are those who will say
whatever is necessary to maintain a high level of attention…Poor guy. I will
give the guy credit for accomplishing the fine art of trolling though.
Just disagreeing. Sorry if
March 28, 2008 - 13:04 ET by balboaJust disagreeing. Sorry if you think that's trolling.