Paul Sassone

Perhaps because of revelations that GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump is a tax dodger as well as a demagogue, misogynist and bigot we may be more sensitive than usual to the idea that the rest of us should pay even more in taxes.

But, that’s what Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle is proposing.

Her budget proposal for 2017 calls for a penny an ounce tax on soft drinks, including soda, lemonade, sports drinks and other sweetened beverages.

And the hit on consumers’ wallets would be more than a gentle tap. The tax would add, for example, $2.88 cents to the cost of a case of 24, 12-ounce cans of soda.

But, Preckwinkle says, the tax is for our own good.

Sugary soft drinks can cause obesity, tooth decay, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Taxing soft drinks would, she seems to assume, cause people to consume less soda. And this, in turn, would reduce health-care costs related to obesity, tooth decay, cardiovascular disease and obesity.

And not just the liberated consumers of soft drinks would benefit.

When soft drink users become ill, treatment costs must be paid by insurance companies that then raise rates for everyone. And, some soft drink users may not be able to afford health care when they become ill. So, all taxpayers must pay the cost of their treatment.

The World Health Organization concurs and urges that governments initiate a tax on soft drinks.

Not mentioned, of course, by supporters of soft drink taxation is that such a tax is regressive. That is, the tax most hurts poor and middle-class people. Wealthy Winnetka residents don’t spend much time worrying about how to pay for their next Coke. The rest of us soon

will, if Preckwinkle has her way.

Elected officials spend a lot of their time figuring out how minimize increases in property tax or income tax because raising those taxes would tick off the wealthy, as well as regular folks. Instead elected officials come up with fees and penalties — red-light cameras and soft-drink taxes, for instance. The less money someone has, the more these kinds of taxes hurt.

And public officials salve their conscience by saying no one is forced to roll through a red light or buy a can of soda. These taxes are volitional. Don’t want to pay a soda tax? Don’t drink soda.

The proposed soft drink tax would be a bonanza for county government.

If passed, the tax would go into effect next July and raise an expected $74 million. In full years thereafter, the tax would raise $150 million a year. I guess soda-tax supporters really aren’t counting on people giving up soft drinks and becoming rosy pictures of health.

But, hey, if we are going to start taxing harmful behavior that could hurt the rest of us and cost us money, how about a tax on people who are issued moving violations? Let’s force bad drivers to pay so much in tax for each ticket they receive. Then costs would go down for accident-related medical care, insurance costs and even law-enforcement costs because everyone would start obeying all traffic laws and drive with courtesy and patience.

You know, we also could impose a tax on restaurant patrons. They would have to pay a tax on every meal they ordered that did not include a salad.

This tax is for diners’ own good because everyone should eat healthier.

Who could object?

–County tax not so sweet a deal–