32 Comments - fed up - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 10:51 am: well I think most people understand the populist tax on Millionaires has nothing to do with revenue and everything to do with helping Quinn on election day. Hell, keep the tax and skip the silly rebate if the state is really so broke - A guy... - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 10:52 am: In short; Yes. - Walker - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 10:54 am: ===Hell, keep the tax and skip the silly rebate if the state is really so broke.=== I’m with that. The state really is that broke, and this tax is not that out of line compared to many other states. But could it pass? - Raymond - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 10:55 am: Pardon me if you’ve addressed this in a previous post, and slightly off topic, but whose signature would appear on the $500 check to each household? JBT’s? That’s quite the gift to the Republican comptroller, if so. Or could the GA direct, as part of the legislation, that PQ’s signature appear on each check? Wouldn’t that be something. - Roadiepig - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 10:56 am: Wasn’t it written the other day that the $500 rebate would cause homeowners with higher tax evaluations to loose money (because they were getting a larger credit under the old system)? So wouldn’t that make it not quite a complete loss of $500, as far as state revenue goes? Not justifying the election year pandering by Quinn, but if the wealthier home owners have to pay more in taxes, doesn’t it helps pacify Quinn’s base supporters ,and ends up costing the state less in lost revenue in the long run? I am asking, because I’m not sure and I think there are wise folks here that can explain it better for us simple folk - Try-4-Truth - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 10:56 am: Yes, if there is a corresponding decrease in everyone’s property taxes by the same amount. - Try-4-Truth - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 10:56 am: Yes, if there is a corresponding decrease in everyone’s property taxes by the same amount. - just asking - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 10:59 am: is the millionaire thing a 3% tax or a surtax of 3% on the regular amount. Also does it apply to a millionaires entire income or only the amount over 1 million? - JSlim - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 10:59 am: Then, there would be no check for voters to get this summer - Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 11:00 am: just asking, go to the General Assembly’s website and search for the proposal. It’s easy. The comment isn’t meant to be your own Google. - WhoKnew - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 11:02 am: Yes, only 1.4 million Home Owners would miss out on a reason to Vote “Quinnocchio”!! - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 11:07 am: ===Couldn’t they just give schools another $700 million and forgo creating a top state income tax rate of 8 percent?=== Oh, they could, but why not use the power of incumbency and create a divisive issue to use to gin up voter turnout and/ or happy feelings for the Administrstion? The answer should be “yes”, but the politics and the wanted optics make that idea untenable. - Chi - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 11:15 am: No- it’s a matter of who pays the taxes- those that can afford it and have benefited from Illinois’ regulatory and business environment, or those that have not. - Goonhammer - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 11:19 am: So….does all these new taxes and “rebates” cancel out Harmon’s progressive tax proposal? - Johnny Q. Suburban - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 11:24 am: I wonder if Rauner won’t ask PQ the same question. “You say the state needs revenue and yet…” - OneMan - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 11:26 am: Wealth redistribution indeed…. Even if JBT signed the checks I am sure they will contain a letter from the governor that contains the words to the effect of. This check is for you Illinois taxpayer, good and true. - Steve - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 11:38 am: It would be too bad for Illinois voters if after they vote for a millionaires tax: Wisconsin cut their top rate way below Illinois’ and raises their sales tax to make up the revenue. Anyone thinking this idle speculation , isn’t watching what’s going on in Wisconsin. - a drop in - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 11:39 am: Yes, it’s political. As political as running around saying we can cut taxes and spending and give more to education. At the same time. - MOON - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 12:08 pm: RICH. I question your math. If they raise one billion dollars with the new tax and the cost of the rebate is 700 million dollars the State will net 300 million dollars. Without the new tax if there was a rebate, including the cost to do so, the State would be out 700 million dollars. Assuming your numbers are correct this plan does not seem to be a good idea. - Kerfuffle - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 12:14 pm: But then there would be no smoke and mirrors! - A guy... - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 12:25 pm: -====Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 11:00 am: just asking, go to the General Assembly’s website and search for the proposal. It’s easy. The comment isn’t meant to be your own Google.==== Please permit me to quote you….often. - Jack Handy - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 12:31 pm: Plan of action … Start the tax, start the rebate, dwindle the tax to zero over X number of years, keep the tax, profit. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 12:51 pm: You know what your problem is, Rich? You make too much sense. Way too much sense. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 1:03 pm: === Approximate projected net revenues from House Speaker Michael Madigan’s 3 percent tax surcharge on income over a million dollars, which is all earmarked for education: $1 billion. === Previously: === Madigan wants $1.5 billion corporate income tax cut === That’s interesting. I thought the Speaker’s “millionaire tax surcharge” and his “corporate income tax cut” were supposed to sort of balance each other out. He takes $1 billion from the 1% but gives $1.5 billion back to the corporations they own. Add in the cost of those tax rebate checks, and now the math really becomes screwy. $2.2 billion going out and only $1 billion coming in. - Johnnie F. - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 1:22 pm: Why not have a 1% surcharge for our 1/2 millionaires, a 2% surcharge on our 3/4 millionaires and the 3% surcharge on our millionaires? - Anon. - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 3:16 pm: No way. Number of millionaires who will be upset with you for supporting the surcharge: thousands. Number of property owners who will be thrilled to receive a $500 check just before the election: millions. 1 Sam. 18:7 - Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 3:41 pm: ==Couldn’t they just give schools another $700 million and forgo creating a top state income tax rate of 8 percent?== I don’t believe so - they’d be out $1 billion million (no new tax revenue with $700 million in spending vs. Quinn’s proposal ($1 billion in tax revenue less $700 million in property tax cut). But if you scrap the property tax cut, and don’t add any more education revenue, you only need to raise the highest bracket income tax to 6%, rather than 8%, to end up +$300 million. But that wouldn’t help as much on election day. If you really want to have fun with math, and still help both education and property taxes, ban TIFs. - Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 3:41 pm: $1 billion, not $1 billion million. - Soccermom - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 4:30 pm: Rich, you know that this is not a Math 101 question. It’s a Poli Sci 101 question. - Archimedes - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 6:43 pm: Like soccermom said, political solutions for math/finance problems. Like the pensions, the temporary tax, the millionare tax, and on and on. The political solutions are intended to address the problems in a way to retain power - but never actually solving problems in the most logical, fair, ethical, and effective way. - Just The Way It Is One - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 7:02 pm: That was meant to read above (toward the end), “…to see that THEY have to give back that spit in their Bucket of Wealth…!” - just asking - Thursday, Apr 3, 14 @ 10:10 pm: sorry, I won’t ask anymore Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.