Cigarette Tax Increase: Illinois Prices Could Go Up $1 A Pack To Pay For Capital Bill

In the summer of 2009, Illinois governor Pat Quinn cobbled together bipartisan support for a $31 billion capital spending bill. The ambitious legislation provided funding for construction projects around the state, and created funding sources for the bill by opening the door to video poker and raising taxes on candy and alcohol.

So ambitious was the bill, in fact, that it was ruled unconstitutional late this January. A decision by the Appellate Court dealt a stunning blow to Quinn and the legislature by ruling that the law violated the state constitution by dealing with too many things at once. The "single-subject" rule in the Illinois Constitution (section 8(d)) forbids bills to deal with multiple issues that have no logical connection.

The state is scrambling to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, though, construction season is about to start, and some lawmakers are concerned about the possibility of missing the season for lack of funding.

So, Illinois Senate President John Cullerton is proposing a new revenue stream to pay for this year's projects: an increase in the cigarette tax.

“The construction program is too important to risk delays,” Cullerton spokesman John Patterson said, according to the Chicago Tribune. He's hoping that revenues from the tax increase on smokers will pay for this year's construction projects while the courts and legislature sort out the broader funding picture for the bill.

A similar measure passed in the Senate earlier this year, intended to provide funding for public schools, but it was voted down in the House by a 51-66 margin, the Sun-Times reports.

Illinois's current tax of $0.98 per pack places makes it the 32nd-highest in the nation. If it were to be increased to $1.98 a pack, as WGN reports Cullerton is proposing, it would move up to 15th in the nation, passing neighbors Indiana ($0.995 a pack) and Iowa ($1.36) but still taxing less than Wisconsin ($2.52 a pack, the 7th-highest rate in the nation).

But Chicago already has the second-highest combined state-local tax burden on cigarettes in the nation: $3.66 is tacked on to every pack between state and city taxes, thanks mostly to Cook County's $2-a-pack tax. Evanston comes in third in the nation at $3.48 for the same reason.

New York state ($4.35) and New York City ($5.85 total) have the highest rates nationally, according to data from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Comments

[sushi27]

05:34 AM on 03/19/2011

Everyone seems to have forgotten, life in FREE society requires tolerance of activities that have little or no effect on others even those we don't personally approve of (Already banned second-han­d cigarette smoke in all public places because "it is deadly at any level".). Is tyranny of the majority, the classic danger of democracy that Alexis de Tocqueville warned about? Instead, we should ask, what is an equitable division of the tax burden?

(quote from PalaceOfWisdom)

When the tax man came for the smokers, I said nothing.
When he came for the drinkers, I said nothing.
When he came for the soda drinkers..­...

[Emma Parker]

11:11 AM on 03/17/2011

Being a smoker I wanna say: "Please, get off smokers back!!!" We regularly pay our health insurance, we pay extremely high excise tax on cigarettes. I wonder how long smokers will be a cash-cow for our government! It seems like all this hubbub around smoking harm was exaggerated with the main purpose to get as high tax revenue from smokers as possible! But high taxes and menthol cigarette ban just create a fertile ground for black market. I'm fed up of spending a fortune on cigarettes in this country. Cigarettes from Eastern Europe are not worse, but they are 3 times cheaper even with the delivery expenses. There are some websites which sell cigarettes online. A carton of Marlboro at http://www.smokin4free.com costs me just $20,40 plus shipping.

[rockdewd]

03:19 PM on 03/16/2011

I say tax something that everybody uses so that no single group is singled out.

Put your tax on TOILET PAPER. That'll get a fair share from everyone. Ha!

[Clifford Zugay]

01:35 PM on 03/16/2011

So now that the state increased income and business taxes, it finds that it isn't going to receive more income from doing so. Instead, businesses have indeed left. Then he came after sales taxes on Amazon, and they left too. Now he is back to smokers. Easily separated from the herd, and no one there to defend them. So tax them since the other taxes backfired, and there is nothing left to tax so he can pay off the public unions that elected him. How else do you explain his winning only 3 of 102 counties to gain office?

[Hursh Esquirts]

01:10 PM on 03/16/2011

its not about health at all, they just want to rape smokers. taking advantage that smoking is addictive. if they want to rape, they should rape their spouses or mates, not the smokers.

[Hursh Esquirts]

01:07 PM on 03/16/2011

they will raise the price of cigarettes, then their will be less smokers... then they will need to find other things to tax... THEY ARE SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT! i said it years ago, and look at it now. this is rape of cigarette smokers... after they are done and killed of the revenue from smokers, they will move onto something else to put the tax revenue on.

[Kevin Zielke]

07:59 AM on 03/16/2011

This is wrong. The taxes on cigarettes are high enough as it is. If they need to bring in more tax revenue then tax something that's cheaper. If people are really worried about the health argument then we can tax fast food because that kills more people than cigarettes.
And i'm sick of seeing so many self righteous people acting like they have a right to control everyone else's lives. I've read so many comments that just say that they don't like it themselves or they think it's gross so it should be illegal. You know what you can do that is the adult decision? Go somewhere else. If they bring back smoking in bars and restaurants, go to one that doesn't have smoking in it.
If you really just care about the money issue tax churches. That alone will bring in a ton of money.

[greenie 61]

04:36 AM on 03/16/2011

Man, the self-righteousness displayed on this thread reeks far worse than any cigarette. Yikes!

[whatisrightisright]

03:26 AM on 03/16/2011

Sock it to those rich corporate smokers. Democrats always looking out for the middle class, just as long as they don't smoke!!!

[sushi27]

10:20 PM on 03/15/2011

Okay, here's a deal - you give smokers back the right to have our own "smokers allowed" bars and restaurants and we'll gladly pay your extra tax - you know, exercise "free market" principles. As it stands, we are being taxed for no services. Just remember folks, today it's smokers, tomorrow it will be you.

[monstermash9]

11:15 PM on 03/15/2011

No deal. As far as I'm concerned you guys should be paying at least $10.00 a pack in taxes to compensate for the terrible burden you lay on taxpayers who are smart enough not to take up a ignorant habit in the first place.

[greenie 61]

04:18 AM on 03/16/2011

Funny, I feel exactly the same way about booze, why not tax that once in awhile?

[Beatnik59]

10:23 AM on 03/16/2011

The problem is, your talking points are simply untrue, given the disposition of smokers today.

I pay over $2000 in extra taxes today than ten years ago. That's way more than an insurance policy monetizes the difference between smokers and non-smokers in their actuary tables. So, if anything, I'm not a "taxpayer burden" as much as non-smokers are my "taxpayer burden."


But, of course, the anti-smoking lobby isn't going to acknowledge that. Instead, they'll keep on repeating how much we are a "taxpayer burden" in the thought that it'll become true if they repeat it enough.

Same thing with the notion that we are a "public health risk." But seeing as how we are no longer allowed in public venues, we are not in a position to cause a public health risk. But you'll never see the anti-smoking zealots acknowledge that. They'll keep on saying "public health risk" to justify shifting the tax burden, hoping that if they say it enough, it will stick.

So I propose that we call this proposed tax increase what it is: an effort by the majority to shift the tax burden to a significant minority for no other reason than they will reap all the benefits and pay none of the cost. Let's not confuse ourselves here. It's not about justice. It's not about equity. Those might have been valid reasons at one time, but not this time. Today, it's about bullying the minority, simply because you can.

[PalaceOfWisdom]

11:01 AM on 03/16/2011

We just have to tweak the old story:

When the tax man came for the smokers, I said nothing.
When he came for the drinkers, I said nothing.
When he came for the soda drinkers...

[sushi27]

06:24 AM on 03/17/2011

Exactly!

[Bude]

09:33 PM on 03/15/2011

Taxed out? Email the democrat taxmaster himself John Cullertion at: [e-mail]

[monstermash9]

11:16 PM on 03/15/2011

Emailed him to thank him and encourage him to keep up the great work. Thanks!

[corwin]

07:08 AM on 03/16/2011

I suspect you're either in the employ of a governor of a neighboring state or a corporation such as U Haul renting moving vans.

[sushi27]

08:49 PM on 03/15/2011

They treat cigarette smokers like second-class citizens, but want us to pay for roads???? What state services am I getting in return? The automobile owners should be paying for the roads, period. What country is this again?

[Kelly Jade]

09:45 PM on 03/15/2011

Sorry for not wanting the smell of smoke to ruin my time at a restaurant, not want cancer, not have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get to work
Your choice, you make sacrifices for your choices.
I don't eat meat but that doesn't mean that I go to a steakhouse and whine that I'm a second class citizen for my choice. I don't whine that most restaurants do not have an extensive vegetarian friendly menu. And I don't whine when I get a disgusted look from meat-eaters. My choice affects my everyday life and yes I could quit but I am okay with the restrictions that my choice put on me. I make my life work with that choice.
This is the trend. Smoking WILL get more expensive. It has been for the past 20 years at least. It has become less common and therefore people and business are less accommodating to it as it is a smaller customer base--it's good business as the demand for more smoke free areas grow. So quit or be okay with the premium price you pay. You CAN quit--and between the health risks and the expense there are plenty of reasons to do so

And your fixation on roads is really tiring.

[Kelly Jade]

09:50 PM on 03/15/2011

BTW: Not eating meat also reduces emissions.

[cresudek]

09:54 PM on 03/15/2011

When has your not eating meat been taxed or banned?

[corwin]

07:09 AM on 03/16/2011

Democratia,where it's always someone else's turn to pay

[Beatnik59]

06:39 PM on 03/15/2011

The tobacco taxes in Illinois hurt...bad.

In some ways, cigarettes are expensive. In other ways, I'm actually saving more money because I'm a smoker. For example, I used to go out to bars, resturants and coffee houses a lot. I don't anymore. So while I spend a lot more on my cigarettes, I also save a lot more because I spend my weekends and evenings at home.


Frankly, I'd be willing to cut a deal. Paying more in tax for my last, favorite, and personally non-negotiable vice is a hard thing to swallow, but I'd be willing to do it if I had access to venues again.

So let's make a deal here, people. Tax me more, but give me something in exchange for it. Give me some bars, coffee houses, resturants and clubs I can go to.

Sound fair?

[corwin]

06:47 PM on 03/15/2011

DIffidently, I ask what services the state provides you in exchange for the cigarette taxes?

[RMinIL]

07:54 PM on 03/15/2011

Here's what's fair. If you want to smoke and you want it to be cheap then go to a different state. Smokers are gross and they are the only ones who don't seem to know it.

[sushi27]

08:40 PM on 03/15/2011

Exactly! That's why the casinos and bars are fighting to bring back smoking. They are losing revenue. They allow smoking in the casinos in Las Vegas (just not the restaurants), but the ventilation system is so superior it doesn't appear to have hurt their business. The Illinois state laws appear to just be a personal attack on smokers - why wouldn't you allow people to have smoker only bars/restaurants - let the people choose - oh, that's right, because the ones that banned smoking before the law were going out of business!

[peanut2005]

06:30 PM on 03/15/2011

Good.

[Bude]

06:20 PM on 03/15/2011

Last week he wanted to tax retirement benefits, this week it's cigarettes, again. Email Cullerton and tell him what you think about his tax mania at:

[e-mail]

[RMinIL]

07:50 PM on 03/15/2011

Thanks for addy. I emailed him with my support!

[Bude]

09:30 PM on 03/15/2011

Good for you.

[monstermash9]

11:21 PM on 03/15/2011

Same here. About time someone stood up to addicts that are nothing but a burden to society.