* From an Americans for Prosperity Illinois press release…
AFP-Illinois is launching a new ad aimed at educating the public about the perils of Speaker Madigan’s so-called “millionaire tax”.
“This politically-motivated proposal seeks to cynically win votes rather than craft a serious fiscal policy that will help the Illinois economy recover from years of woeful mismanagement and cronyism,” said AFP-Illinois State Director David From.
The ad campaign targets specific members of the General Assembly. It highlights Illinois’ continued economic crisis and high unemployment and encourages their constituents to contact them and express their opposition to the job-killing tax.
“It is no accident that the Speaker made this proposal in advance of the Governor Quinn saying he wants to make his record setting temporary tax increase on all Illinoisans permanent,” said From. “This is the classic bait-and-switch designed to distract voters from the fact that the biggest tax hike being pushed through is going to land squarely on the backs of working families.”
The advertisements are being run online and on cable television with an approximately $120,000 buy funded by AFP-Illinois donors within the state. The ads will run for approximately one week and are part of AFP-Illinois’ effort to educate voters about the highly politicized anti-growth agenda being pushing in the Spring legislative session.
As we’ve already discussed, the group is already running ads against the progressive tax.
* This is the ad targeting Democratic Rep. Jack Franks (D-Marengo). Rate it…
- Jimbo - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 10:06 am:
Craft a serious fiscal policy? Like closing schools and decimating the ISP? Why? So that millionaires can sock a few extra bucks away? AFP is going to have a tough time convincing folks they need crappier schools, or that the middle class, already stretched thin (and mostly eliminated) should pay more so the plutocrats can keep more discretionary income.
- PublicServant - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 10:06 am:
How many small business whose owners make $2,000,000+ (after expenses) would fire ANYONE because they can’t afford to pay an extra $30,000 in state taxes? Seriously. Why would anyone be willing to give up the $920,000 in pure profit on that 2nd $1,000,000 to save that $30,000 in surcharge?
- A guy... - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 10:07 am:
C+. Not too many people ever feel sorry for millionaires. If you make the case it affects average Joes, you get accused of being a “Trickle down” economist. If you discourage the investor and job creator, you discourage the investment and the jobs they create. It’s fairly simple economics.
- Adam Smith - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 10:08 am:
Certainly will keep the public aware of taxapalooza down in Springfield. That can’t be good for Dems.
Of course, like Harry Reid, when you are being pummeled on the issues, just attack the Koch Brothers. That ought to work…
- VanillaMan - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 10:13 am:
This is just good politics. This is an election year. What did you expect? You don’t serve up raw meat, leave it on the table, and not expect the dogs to drool.
Politicians are dogs. This is what they do.
- circularfiringsquad - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 10:32 am:
Hope AFP is spending loads of cash to tell folks someone can’t afford 3 cents on every dollar after the first million which come after all the write offs…that will really go over.
- PublicServant - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 10:40 am:
=== If you discourage the investor and job creator, you discourage the investment and the jobs they create.===
A Guy, consumers are the job creators in this country. An investor/owner, whether he has the money, or not, won’t hire another employee unless that employee’s work product produces a net profit for him on the additional widgets that would be produced, and he won’t produce those extra widgets if the demand isn’t there.
It’s consumer demand that is depressed in this state and country. Putting money into those consumer’s hands should be what we’re targeting here.
It’s fairly simple economics.
- Demoralized - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 10:47 am:
==It’s fairly simple economics==
And that so-called trickle down effect (if you believe in it, which I don’t) can take a long time to create any benefits. When you need revenue now you don’t rely on the so-called trickle down effect.
- Demoralized - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 10:49 am:
@Adam Smith:
Nobody I’ve talked to is concerned about the “Millionaires Tax.” I suppose if they are able to change the argument from “Millionaire” to Small Business then maybe they will change minds. I guess we’ll see.
- rolling meadows - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 10:53 am:
It’s a good ad, however the message won’t fly
- 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 10:55 am:
I don’t get it. Jack Franks was never, ever going to vote for this amendment. Not in a million years. Seems like a waste of money to target Franks since he’s already on the AFP’s side.
- Walker - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 11:03 am:
The shame of the AFP messaging is that it is not “on the backs of small businesses” or a “small business” tax.
Whatever mislabeling sells for them, I guess.
Very few actual small business owners take home and report more than $1 Million in taxable net income from their businesses each year. I don’t have the number, but working with them for years, my guess would be less than 2%. Certainly not enough to label this a “small business tax.”
The same is true for AFP’s previous labeling this as a “middle class” tax, or “family farm” tax.
And the surcharge for those few owners with that high a personal income, is probably not substantial enough to change business practices, since they are not the typical small businesses owners who are operating on the edge. And this is competitive with many other states.
- dave - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 11:13 am:
**Of course, like Harry Reid, when you are being pummeled on the issues, just attack the Koch Brothers. That ought to work…**
Last I checked, Harry Reid won his re-election battle when no one thought he could/would.
**If you discourage the investor and job creator, you discourage the investment and the jobs they create. It’s fairly simple economics.**
Sigh… really? So because someone is going to pay 3% more on income over $1M, they are now no longer going to want to make any more money?
So you’d rather make $0 more, than make, say, $200k but have to pay an additional $6K on that $200K?
That is completely rational. *rolls eyes*
- dave - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 11:16 am:
**I don’t get it. Jack Franks was never, ever going to vote for this amendment. Not in a million years. Seems like a waste of money to target Franks since he’s already on the AFP’s side.**
Jack Franks has actually come out and said that he is open to voting for the millionaire’s tax.
- Bill White - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 11:32 am:
=== It’s consumer demand that is depressed in this state and country. Putting money into those consumer’s hands should be what we’re targeting here. ===
The truth of this is blindingly obvious to a Keynesian. What Illinois small business needs most are customers who have money to spend.
The Austrians, however, continue to believe that allowing billionaires to accumulate even larger piles of idle cash is what will stimulate the economy.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 11:38 am:
Thanks Dave. Obviously I missed that comment.
- PublicServant - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 11:50 am:
I didn’t want to name names, Bill, but yeah.
- Challengerrt - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 12:06 pm:
Millionaires are definitely not small business owners. Small business owners are just a part of the middle class. Ask some of your small business owners about their income and you can bet they won’t tell you they made millions in one year.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 1:30 pm:
The truth of this is blindingly obvious to a Keynesian. What Illinois small business needs most are customers who have money to spend.
The Austrians, however, continue to believe that allowing billionaires to accumulate even larger piles of idle cash is what will stimulate the economy.
Wow - talk about misconstruing economic schools of thought. When did you learn your economics - mid 20th Century? Do you still drive a Studebaker?
- Bill White - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 1:47 pm:
@Vanilla - Are you willing to elaborate?
Please include your assessment of the consequences of being at the zero lower bound in your answer.
- Last Bull Moose - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 2:09 pm:
It would be helpful to know how much of the revenue would come from sub S returns. Also how much from the top 100 and top 500 returns.
How hard is it for these people to legally avoid or minimize the tax. I have known people who changed their legal residence to reduce taxes. Known many who have shifted income around to reduce taxes.
Better facts would help the discussion.
I do not object to the tax on principle. Not sure the net revenue gain is what is projected.
- Walker - Friday, Mar 28, 14 @ 3:30 pm:
VMan: Still like disco?