Alderman seeks to raise city sticker price for all gas cars (Chicago: home, calculated)

[jwaiter]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

you mean a tax for high fructose corn syrup? good luck finding actual sugar in your food these days.

that takes us into the world of insane Big Ag (Cargill, ADM) subsidies that most urban yokels think go to quaint regular folk working the land.

They had no problem going after the Tobacco companies, they *should* go after the "Big Ag" for pushing unhealthy food. I don't see where it's any different.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

LOFL. dude, you really need to get a job and get away from the Internet - you just said absolutely nothing... what would you like to "contribute" next, that not all alderman see eye-to-eye? that we have three branches of government at the Federal level? that CDOT and IDOT are often somewhat at odds?

Clearly, some people require the obvious be pointed out to them. Meanwhile, I could type the first 20 versus of Exodus backwards and it would still be more substantive and on-point than your last several posts. People who contribute nothing probably ought not whine about the contributions of others. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by aragx6

If you come at the argument thinking that all taxes (or fees) are bad, then there's essentially no way to have a real discussion about the issue.

You can argue that right now is not the correct time to raise this tax.

Right now is as good as any to raise this tax -- in fact it probably should have been indexed to inflation and incrementally raised accordingly. I just want to see what they're doing with the money they're already collecting before they run out and ask for more, because to look out at the streetscape the answer often seems like "nothing."

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by jwaiter

They had no problem going after the Tobacco companies, they *should* go after the "Big Ag" for pushing unhealthy food. I don't see where it's any different.

well, the govt has been more complicit with subsidizing corn.

but probably more to the point, it's not necessarily that corn syrup can be definitively/medically isolated as a problem - the problem is that it's ubiquitous due to its cost/subsidized form.

basically, I agree with you, but I think Big Ag would be tough to hold accountable.

Tobacco companies actually covered up studies linking their product to cancer, but I think the public all basically knows that sugar/corn syrup will make you fat.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

Clearly, some people require the obvious be pointed out to them. Meanwhile, I could type the first 20 versus of Exodus backwards and it would still be more substantive and on-point than your last several posts. People who contribute nothing probably ought not whine about the contributions of others. Just a thought.

I'd hardly call that a thought - a brain fart is more like it. You have a real problem just dealing with not being some sort of all-knowing being on City Data, don't you?

Topic cops are the same all over the Internet - insecurity wrapped up in a trollish persona.

Either way, you're just wrong. I'm 100% correct that the City currently sends a mixed-message about heavy vehicles (hence the LSD tie in) as far as their wear and tear.

Deal with it, son. Or get a life.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

Right now is as good as any to raise this tax -- in fact it probably should have been indexed to inflation and incrementally raised accordingly. I just want to see what they're doing with the money they're already collecting before they run out and ask for more, because to look out at the streetscape the answer often seems like "nothing."

This insipid answer is why you need to read more, and comment less.

Money collected by the City goes in a giant pot.

Revenues don't all come in earmarked to offset specific expenses - don't make me laugh.

Or perhaps you can show me exactly which revenue offsets the streetscaping as opposed to the potholes as opposed to the traffic light maintenance as opposed to the other 100,000 line items in a $6 billion dollar budget.

[sunnyandcloudydays]

Originally Posted by jwaiter

The US probably leads the world in OBESITY, so where's the g.d. sugar tax?

Yeah I hear you !

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I'd hardly call that a thought - a brain fart is more like it. You have a real problem just dealing with not being some sort of all-knowing being on City Data, don't you?

Topic cops are the same all over the Internet - insecurity wrapped up in a trollish persona.

Either way, you're just wrong. I'm 100% correct that the City currently sends a mixed-message about heavy vehicles (hence the LSD tie in) as far as their wear and tear.

Deal with it, son. Or get a life.

Another beautifully substantive post from Mister Substance. Well done, sir!

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

This insipid answer is why you need to read more, and comment less.

And responses like this is why you should work on passing that kidney stone.

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Money collected by the City goes in a giant pot.

Revenues don't all come in earmarked to offset specific expenses - don't make me laugh.

Or perhaps you can show me exactly which revenue offsets the streetscaping as opposed to the potholes as opposed to the traffic light maintenance as opposed to the other 100,000 line items in a $6 billion dollar budget.

Except that the wheel tax is collected for a specifically stated purpose. So I don't think it's too much to ask for an accounting as to whether the money is going toward that purpose before they ask for more money for that specifically stated purpose. If paying a higher wheel tax is going to actually improve the roads and that's what it takes to do it, I'll pay it with little complaint. If paying a higher wheel tax means Miguel De Valle's pension is more secure, well, I'm not so sure I want to pay more.

[sunnyandcloudydays]

Originally Posted by aragx6

If you come at the argument thinking that all taxes (or fees) are bad, then there's essentially no way to have a real discussion about the issue.

You can argue that right now is not the correct time to raise this tax.

Yeah I believe your right, its just troublesome to hear any thing going up right now>

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Or perhaps you can show me exactly which revenue offsets the streetscaping as opposed to the potholes as opposed to the traffic light maintenance as opposed to the other 100,000 line items in a $6 billion dollar budget.

Way to wildly miss his point.

And Drover I think it's a totally valid one.

There are posters here to whom every tax is a bad tax. I don't know enough about this one to say for sure, but given how long its been at its current price, there's certainly, if not an argument for doing it, at least less argument for not doing it.