Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Madigan’s legacy and other stuff
Next Post: Just when you think you’ve seen it all…
Posted in:
* The Tribune tackles the state’s new law to tax candy in a cutesy way. Entitled: “Candy or food? Confusion grows as new tax looms,” the article seems to be looking for a problem that probably doesn’t exist.
But as often happens with stories like this, the author editorializes throughout, goes through a whole hand-wringing rigamarole over what is and what isn’t candy, claims the General Assembly “carved out gaping exceptions” to what is and what isn’t candy, then finally reveals near the bottom of the story why the Legislature drafted the language the way it did…
Illinois is hardly the first state to take on the “if it’s got flour, it’s not candy” conundrum. The language was copied straight from a model law drafted by a multi-state organization called the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board, which aims to makes sales-tax rules more uniform across the nation.
Scott Peterson, executive director of the Nashville-based group, said the organization struggled over how to define candy for tax purposes because many products that some states saw as cookies, other states saw as candy bars. “It finally came to us throwing up our hands and saying, ‘What in the world can we use as a definition that would be relatively straightforward and easy for a retailer to discern?’” Peterson said.
So, uh, this wasn’t a special “carve-out” done by goofy Illinois legislators after all? Then why were we subjected to the rest of that story?
* And after a whole lot of “this is gonna hurt retailers” stuff, we discover…
But Dave Vite, president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, said his trade group covets inter-state uniformity in tax laws and pushed lawmakers to adopt the compact’s definitions of candy and soft drinks when the tax issue was up for debate a few months ago.
So the retailers’ own Statehouse lobbying group pushed the idea.
This is the law’s actual language…
For purposes of this Section, “candy” means a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial
sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or
pieces. “Candy” does not include any preparation that contains flour or requires refrigeration.
So, bars, drops or pieces that have flour or require refrigeration - not candy. Seems reasonably straight-forward. And other states do it this way as well, so I’m not sure there’s a big deal here.
* And this part of the Tribune story baffles me…
To make things more complicated, outside Chicago the tax will vary from town to town and county to county. Interpreting the new rules may not be a big deal for giant chains such as Wal-Mart or Walgreens, which have large staffs of legal and product experts on the payroll. It’s a different story for small grocers and mom-and-pop convenience shops.
I would hope that local grocery store owners already know their local sales tax laws backwards and forwards since they have to abide by them every day. But unless local governments have exempted food from their own sales taxes, then it won’t matter at all.
* Yes, there will be some confusion. No doubt. But is paying an extra 5.25 cents for a dollar candy bar really worth this sort of silly journamalism?
* Related…
* Gov. Quinn carts purple and navy tie around state: Since becoming governor, Quinn has worn the ties, on average, two to three times apiece each month. In April, May, June and July, he’s worn them in the same week.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 9:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Madigan’s legacy and other stuff
Next Post: Just when you think you’ve seen it all…
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Where the Buckingham Fountains
The Big Rock Candy Mountain - VanillaMan
As the Stimulus failed and the TV pundits were burning
Down the hall came Obama and he said boys I’m not turning
I’m headin for my home that’s far away where the Buckingham fountains
So come with me we’ll go and see where the taxes are as high as mountains
Where the Buckinham fountains, there’s geese whose eggs are bright
Where the handouts grow on bushes and you can do whatever feels right
Where the churches are empty on every wedding day.
Tax the beer and whiskeys and the cigarette trees
Where the casinos rings where the unions sings
Where the taxes are as high as mountains.
Where the Buckingham fountains, the GOP hasn’t any chance
And the ethics all have rubber teeth and we live like were from France
Disenfranchised voters fill the booths and Democrats win Election Day
Oh, I’m bound to go where there ain’t no growth
Where the gas tax is pumped, the uninsured are dumped
Where the taxes are as high as mountains
Where the Buchingham fountains, you never change your Speaker
And the huge streams of campaign cash come a-trickling without a whisper
The policemen have to tip their hats and the election judges are blind
There’s Lake Michigan for you and Willis Tower too
You won’t get arrested for smokin a doobie or two
Where the taxes are as high as mountains.
Where the Buckingham fountains, the jails are all Downstate
Where you can meet our Governors, and hear them say they’re great.
There ain’t no short handled shovels, no axes saws or picks
I’m a goin to stay where you sleep all day
Where they hung the jerk that invented work
Where the taxes are as high as mountains.
I’ll see you all this Election fall, where they just taxed the Candy Mountains.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 10:27 am
I wonder if Quinn still keeps his 3 ties and his shirts, both clean and almost clean, in the back seat of his beater. He used to change in rest areas between events.
Comment by Bill Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 10:31 am
Dear Media (Main Stream/New/Multi/Digital/Old/Alternative):
I’d like wall to wall coverage of TIE-GATE. Please provide man on the street interviews, designer info, price, where to buy info. Please provide analysis from Tie historians and network senior fashion consultants. Please have the graphics department work up a logo pronto, and start thinking of other promotional tie (ahem) ins. Possible movie of the week, “Tie that Binds”. Possible beer summit with bow tie lovers? Just thinking out loud.
Thank you,
the people
Comment by Scooby Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 10:35 am
Rick, the Trib article is incorrect in the statement below.. All of Illinois will follow the same Rule as to which items are candy, and therefore defined as a “Non=-Food” item as defined by the Illinois Department of Revenue.
To make things more complicated, outside Chicago the tax will vary from town to town and county to county. Interpreting the new rules may not be a big deal for giant chains such as Wal-Mart or Walgreens, which have large staffs of legal and product experts on the payroll. It’s a different story for small grocers and mom-and-pop convenience shops.
Comment by dvite Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 11:42 am
As someone who works with sales taxes everyday, I believe the new candy rules are easier to implement than many of the other provisions of the sales tax codes. There are always difficulties when trying to define something for tax purposes. This definition is about as good as any.
The statement that the tax will vary from town to town is only a half truth. The rate may vary, but the rules will be the same for every retailer in the state. Still, I expect that many retailers will get it wrong because they won’t have the time to evaluate every individual candy SKU to determine if it contains flour. Most likely, they will treat everything in the candy aisle as a high rate item.
Comment by Pelon Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 12:41 pm
I wonder how many candy companies will adding a tiny amount of flour to their recipes
…. You got flower in my peanut butter and chocolate!…..
ahh the 80’s…..
Comment by Ghost Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 12:47 pm
Childhood obesity is a serious thing, no doubt. And the politicos are smart to cross pollinate to raise revenue in the name of health yet. This tax should increase in an effort to cure candy addiction. We should require a child ID and a punch card to limit both amounts of candy and the age at which a child might imbibe. Preventative medicine plans would be provided by the single payer health system
Comment by Truthful James Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 2:05 pm
this candy vs. food debate is very confusing. Twizzlers yes, Chocolate covered macadamia nuts no? which is better for you? the Twizzlers with the flour? if i were a business selling
any of these products this would make me very angry.
Comment by Amy Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 2:07 pm
The candy tax bill has been laying around for how many weeks? Let’s say 8-10 ish. Perhaps if the Trib had not been so busy covering up their ESOP/Wrigley scandals or flogging the UofI admissions non-story they might have been able ot devote some time on this one and avoided the error.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 2:18 pm
Twizzlers have flour?
All this time I have been eating healthy…. cant wait to tell my wife….
Comment by Ghost Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 2:46 pm
“For purposes of this Section, “candy” means a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or
pieces.”
- Wouldn’t this cover many granola bars?
Comment by What Now?! Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 3:21 pm
This is one more ‘nutty’ example of government in action. The “Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board” interestingly is an Inc., so it is not a conventional governmental watchdog. It may be fun to research their financials to see how they get paid.
Anyway, having the government decide to tax stuff at different rates because it is bad for you in some way is quite a repugnant concept. It can lead to all kings of problems. Future taxes which direct consumption from one class of product to another have been discussed in many locations. High calorie soda may be bad for those who are on the heavier side, but why should the pay a higher tax if they do not have the associated health risk? PErhaps we should tax smaller cars because when they crash, the average medical costs are higher than those driving bigger cars.
The days of sneaking in an innocuous tax are long gone. All these stupid ideas are to get more money out of the taxpayers while deflecting criticism.
I think I will get a consulting gig advising all the candy manufacturers to add some flour to their products. Otherwise they will be at a competitive disadvantage.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Aug 3, 09 @ 5:02 pm