73 Comments - Not Rich - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 12:36 pm: That Springfield number sure looks scary Rich!!! LOL - G'Kar - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 12:38 pm: I find it interesting that Peoria isn’t included as an option for calculation. - Maestro - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 12:40 pm: Those numbers look a little high to me but I’m glad someone has started this conversation. Also, wonder where middle class starts and lower class ends. - Sue - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 12:45 pm: Assuming anyone in the Rauner admin reads the WSJ- they should be asking JB to reconcile his progressive tax idea with the work which was done by the 1996 Nobel Prize in economics recipient James Mirrlees who determined imposing a progressive tax scheme-which affords lower income folks a break will generate less revenue then will a flat tax. JB’s program is all smoke and mirrors. Once he is elected assume everyone will be paying a lot more in income tax to pay for his increased spending and increasing pension costs - Doing Human Things - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 12:45 pm: @Maestro Just did a quick check, and for Springfield at least, that line is $47k/$48k. $47k with a family of 4 in Springfield is “lower” and $48k is middle. - Perrid - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 12:46 pm: So for a family with two breadwinners and 2 kids, if each parent makes $70-$75 thousand or more they could have a bigger tax bill. When I tested for a single person in Springfield the mark was also right at $71k. That does not sound unreasonable to me. No one likes a bigger tax bill but these people have more ability to pay. - Angry Republican - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 12:47 pm: Good luck with that tax hike on “the rich”. The actual definition of upper-income is anyone that makes more than me. - njt16 - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 12:54 pm: @Sue so your proposal is a flat tax which raises rates on middle and low income earners? - anon2 - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:04 pm: Let’s keep in mind that the GOP opposes a progressive tax even if one million dollars is where it kicks in. So while they will surely complain about hurting the middleclass, wherever the threshold actually ends up, they aren’t open to negotiating to find the optimum level. It seems to me families of four with less than $135,000 could be held harmless, and there would still be lots of taxpayers above that amount, though most wouldn’t pay that much more assuming the higher rate applies on only the amount beyond the minimum threshold. - Sue - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:06 pm: Hey- it’s not my proposal- bottom line is what JB claims will raise more revenue has been proven not to work. Unless of course JB is smarter then the guy who had a PhD and won the Nobel - RNUG - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:07 pm: Springfield, 2 person household, looks like about $101,000 is where you cross into the upper bracket. - Jibba - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:08 pm: Lots of people don’t know how good they’ve got it, and how little income most people get by on. - Colin O'Scopy - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:10 pm: Wherever I read about what’s coming our way in regards to higher taxes, I think of the Steve Earle song “Someday”. “How far into Memphis, son? Where’s the nearest beer?” - Responsa - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:11 pm: At $155,000 (state avg) it would not look to most families like it’s those dripping in cash wealthy 1%ers who would be the ones called upon to pay a higher tax burden under a graduated income tax structure. - Anonymous - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:13 pm: Sue…after your Mirrlees comment the other day, I found and read his 1971 paper. Not being an economist, I might have missed something, but it did not appear to say what you claim. I am assuming it has been blown out of proportion for political purposes, like the Laffer curve. - Whatever - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:17 pm: == bottom line is what JB claims will raise more revenue has been proven not to work.== Not as some kind of general rule by Mirrlees (or anyone else). His observation was the same idea that later showed up in the Laffer curve — when rates increase, you get less of what you’re taxing until at some point a higher rate gets you less revenue. He was talking about income tax rates over 50% as being where you would reach that point. Even Rauner’s version of JB isn’t going anywhere near that level. - Sue - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:23 pm: Mirrlees work established you lose revenue imposing higher rates on the wealthy while lowering rates on less well off taxpayers. That is the sum and substance of his Nobel. A flat tax for revenue purposes works out better if you want more money - City Zen - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:37 pm: Has anyone proposed brackets based on filing status? Most states have married brackets that are double the single brackets. All proposals up to this point have made no mention of 2 sets of brackets. Even in Martwick’s Wisconsin proposal, he picked one of the states where married brackets were not double. - RNUG - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:40 pm: Since we are playing guess the rates, I took a look at the State’s median income, $59K, and 80th percentile income, $118K (numbers rounded). Then I assumed 3 ranges: $0-$50K, $50K-$125K, and above $125K. No attempt to adjust for any kind of deductions. I assumed 3 rates: 3%, 6%, and 9%. Obviously, the $50K and under at 3% would pay less than today. So you could safely say those taxpayers (slnost half) would pay less (since $59K is the state median). Made a quick back of the napkin calculation at the top end of the middle range. Household earning $125K would have an effective rate of 4.8% or just a few dollars less than today. Since the 80% percentile is $118, that means a bit less than 80% of the taxpayers would still be paying a few dollars less (about $180 in my example) than today. With the 9% rate kicking in at $125K, a bit under 20% of the taxpayers would be paying more than today. I did not go the next step and try to model if these rates would be negative, neutral, or positive in comparison to the current flat income tax. While I could SWAG it, that is better left to either the IDOR or CTBA people that have the expertise. CTBA has previously published shed some examples. - @misterjayem - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:41 pm: Maybe the people who’ve researched your claims and found them wanting would be convinced if you put “sum and substance” in all caps. – MrJM - JS Mill - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:48 pm: @Sue- Mirrlees apparently never studied Minnesota. - Honeybear - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:49 pm: Nice logical fallacy Sue Appeal to Authority Is a new one for you. - City Zen - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:50 pm: Do these numbers include income generated from selling blood plasma? - Mountain Dew - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:54 pm: I’m one of the rich “upper class” being discussed on this forum. My wife and I earn $160k gross. We also pay $39k a year for childcare (3 kids), and $22k a year in student loans. For 4/5 of those daycare and student loan payments we pay State and federal income taxes. And we pay 2.7% of our homes value in property taxes each year, while not receiving a viable public school option. We buy our furniture and appliances on Craigslist, our kids get consignment clothing, and drive used cars (15 yrs old and 10 years old). Despite shopping at Aldi, rarely eating out, and going w/o cable tv, we still live fairly close to paycheck to paycheck. If you want to tax me to pay for government services that we’re rendered 20 years ago, and fund Florida retirees, that fine. Families like mine probably won’t stick around. Sincerely, a lifelong liberal Democrat - City Zen - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 1:57 pm: ==Mirrlees apparently never studied Minnesota.== Or Tennessee. - Anonymous - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:02 pm: –Of course, the people who enact the new rates could always use different logic.– If logic is used… - Jibba - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:05 pm: MDew…you just made the case for a social democracy in the US. Daycare and college cost you $61k per year, which is provided using tax revenues. Add your health care in there, too and you approach 50% of your gross. But sticking to state issues, wouldn’t it be nice to have education funded well enough you could send your kids to public school, and not have had to take out gigantic college loans? Would save you $50k. - Sue - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:09 pm: Hey RNUG- if the rates you suggest are even close to what JB thinks is possible- he will not even last 4 years. 9 percent for folks at 150k would make Illinois lose 100s of thousands of residents on top of the 100’s of thousands who have left due to high property taxes - Thomas Paine - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:10 pm: Mirrlees has been dead less than a month, and people already are attempting to misrepresent his work. “We’ve learned more since then, and if you use a more realistic view, most of the tax systems you come up with are u-shaped. You have higher marginal tax rates for low incomes and higher marginal tax rates for high incomes, but lower ones in the middle.” - Sir James Mirrlees That was back in 1996. One assumes that his theories on optimal income taxation with respect to assymmetric information are due for a refresher given the wide abundance of information now available both to governments and to taxpayers. As for his co-laurreate, Vickrey was a Keynesian and harsh critic of the Chicago School of Economics and its emphasis on balanced budgets, so you will find no refuge there either, @Sue. To the post: 80 percent of the public self-identifies as middle class, ignoring the artifiical classifications laid out by demographers and economists. It’s unlikely that those folks in the top 11%-20% who largely identify “as middle class” even though they make close to $200K a year are gonna see a tax hike. Also Keep in mind there is a big difference between income and taxable income in Illinois too. - Last Bull Moose - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:16 pm: The arguments about whether a flat tax or a progressive tax will raise more money are meaningless until specific rates are set. Even then the calculations are tricky. How do you count for lost sales taxes when someone in the higher brackets leaves? When I lived in Connecticut the had no income tax bill n earned income, a 10% tax on unearned income, and fairly high sales taxes. Many retirees in my church became snowbirds, spending 6 months and a day in Florida. The state lost 6 months of sales taxes on them. I am more concerned about whether a progressive tax increases spending. When a majority thinks it can make a minority pay for services, where is the check on spending? - Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:20 pm: ==We also pay $39k a year for childcare (3 kids),== Daycare is expensive. I paid 18k for one child last year. Fortunately kids don’t need daycare forever. - 37B - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:27 pm: Taking RNUG’s calculations a step farther, if your household AGI is $200K, you’d pay (exemptions not taken into account): 3% on first $50K = $1,500 6% on next $75K = $4,500 (4.8% on $125K) 9% on next $75K = $6,750 (6.375% on $200K) People with $200K AGI currently pay 4.95% on $200K, or $9,900. The increase would be $2,850/yr, or 28.7%, or 3.7 days of your pay. Purely out of self interest I’d like to see 7.5% for AGI between $125 and $200K, with 9% kicking in after that. I could live with it as postulated if it got Illinois’ finances on track. I wouldn’t like it though. - Demoralized - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:30 pm: ==would make Illinois lose 100s of thousands of residents on top of the 100’s of thousands who have left due to high property taxes== Hundreds of thousands huh? You might want to check your source again. Yes, we’ve lost population in the past few years. Hundreds of thousands? I don’t think so. And, I’m glad you seem to know why each and every resident left the state. Every one of them left because of property taxes? Again, that’s just hyperbole. And your estimates of hundreds of thousands more? Please. You can’t even get your actual facts straight let alone get your Kreskin on. - Sue - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:35 pm: Mr Paine- if taxpayers at the 200K level are unlikely to see an increase- your words not mine- then you must think the rates are to really be limited to the upper 5 percent - keep in mind the highest incomes are the most mobile. When CT and NJ imposed high rates at the top a lot of residents simply left leaving the tax burden on the remaining taxpayers. In one case in CT a single tax payer moved costing CT more then one percent of all tax revenue - Arthur Andersen - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:37 pm: RNUG, interesting calculations. Thanks. Clearly, a lot more ciphering has to be done, but I just don’t see how JB’s $10 billion wish list can be funded by the top 20 (or thereabouts) percent at a single-digit top rate. - Sue - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:37 pm: Demoralized- we must be looking at different numbers but Illinois did lose nearly 200 thousand residents over the last decade. You think we keep losing congressional seats because we are growing - ETown60120 - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:40 pm: I pay $25,500 a year for childcare (2 kids) o well…….. - Not a Billionaire - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:44 pm: About 250 billion of Illinois agi of 450 billion is in that upper limit. So the 9 percent should bring in another 10 to 20 billion. - Demoralized - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:45 pm: I didn’t say we were growing. I was pointing out the hyperbole in your “hundreds of thousands” statements. And in the “it’s all about property taxes” statements. A lot of people are moving south. I’m sure property taxes are one in a long line of reasons people move. - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:47 pm: Fear not, the Porcelain Prince has been crystal clear on taxes. Only Governor Rauner and JB will pay more under his plan - Perrid - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:51 pm: @Sue, we are losing House seats because other states are growing faster than we are, not because we are losing net residents. So IL’s population as a percentage of the entire USA has been dropping, again not our actual residency. - City Zen - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:52 pm: Sue - For Illinois’ tax base to shrink, residents don’t have to leave the state. Simply retire. - BenFolds5 - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 2:53 pm: The reality is on that list is it costs a lot of money to raise a family in the Chicago suburbs compared to much further south. The price of homes in Naperville are exponentially higher than Springfield. The reality is though, with a family none of those rates are “rich”… I don’t want to leave, I probably will gut it out because this is home. All I am saying is, we all deserve better than this. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 3:14 pm: 2010 US Census, Illinois 12.84 million, 2017 US Census estimate, Illinois 12.77 million, or a difference of 70,000 or a loss of 1% in 7 years. - Hieronymus - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 3:35 pm: Using your numbers, it’s closer to one-half of one percent (.55%) rather than 1%. - Perrid - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 3:36 pm: Da Big Bad wolf, where did you get those numbers? These numbers https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/il do show a decrease from 2010 to 2017, I was using outdated data and was wrong, but the difference is 29,000, not 70,000. And if you pull the actual tables you’ll see IL was growing up to 2014, where the growth was slightly negative for the first time. - City Zen - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 3:45 pm: ==2010 US Census…== But persons over 65 went from 12.5% to 15.2% (estimated). Assuming most of those folks are retired, that’s 300,000 less state income tax payers in less than a decade. So while our population is stagnant, our tax base is shrinking and the largest growth sector of the population is exempt from taxes. It’s going to be hard to increase revenue until that changes. - Demoralized - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 4:02 pm: City Zen You’re wasting a lot of space continually arguing for a tax on retirement income. It isn’t going to happen. Period. Stop beating that dead horse. That was the problem with Rauner’s Turnaround Agenda. He kept pushing proposals that had no chance of passing. It’s a waste of everyone’s time. - City Zen - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 4:14 pm: ==Stop beating that dead horse== Does its spouse collect survivor benefits? - Last Bull Moose - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 4:30 pm: I think the AGI numbers we have been discussing include retirement income not taxed in Illinois. One way to backdoor a tax on retirement income would be to include it in the calculation for tax brackets while not taxing it directly. If properly designed the progressive rate would only apply to that income hit by a surcharge. For example, assume their is a 2% surcharge on all income over $120,000. For paying tha surcharge, retirement income is included. A person making $100,000 of taxable Illinois income and another $30,000 in non taxable retirement income would pay a 2% rate on $10,000. - The Mythical Middle - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 4:32 pm: What if we taxed retirement income for out of state retirees? Essentially penalize retired state employees for leaving the state and rewarding those who stay. I have no idea if it would pass the legal challenge but it should be an easy sell to the public. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 4:34 pm: ==but the difference is 29,000, not 70,000.== You’re right. I got the Illinois population number for 2017 from the World Population Review (I’ve never heard of them before).Haste makes waste. The US Census number estimate for Illinois 2017 is 41,000 people more. - Responsa - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 4:38 pm: ==But persons over 65 went from 12.5% to 15.2% (estimated). Assuming most of those folks are retired, that’s 300,000 less state income tax payers in less than a decade. So while our population is stagnant, our tax base is shrinking and the largest growth sector of the population is exempt from taxes. It’s going to be hard to increase revenue until that changes.== Sometimes in reading comments like these I wonder if they are just lazy talking points or if there is an actual misunderstanding about “retirees” and taxes. Yes, the state of Illinois has full deductions for Social Security, pension income and income from retirement savings account distributions. However, if a retiree/senior citizen is still earning income via a part time job, from rental income from (for example) a four flat or from some farm land, or income from eBay sales etc. that is not exempt income and the reported tax can be substantial. Not every senior has a nice pension or a big IRA account to fall back on that is tax exempt. If they don’t, they have to find other ways, taxable ways, to supplement their household monthly Social Security check. - Sue - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 4:46 pm: All of you contesting the state population migration out of state are focusing on the net number. 200 thousand plus left but the number is offset by people moving here. No matter what Illinois has had more people leave then any other State - Sue - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 4:49 pm: Mythical Middle- while your at it- why not just tax everyone who ever flee thru OHare - Demoralized - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 4:52 pm: ==focusing on the net number== Why shouldn’t we. Isn’t it just as important that there are people moving to the state? - City Zen - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 5:00 pm: ==What if we taxed retirement income for out of state retirees?== Then we’d be in violation of the Pension Source Tax Act of 1996 prohibits any state from taxing non-residents for pensions earned within the state. - Anonymous - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 5:08 pm: I love these statistics. This is household income. So two earners within a household meet the higher threshold easily. My wife doesn’t work anymore (kids). That was a big decrease in income. - blue dog dem - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 5:13 pm: I have always defined middle income as what Mrs. blue and myself earn. And define upper-income as $1 more than that amount. - City Zen - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 5:19 pm: Responsa - All those income sources are applicable to working people as well. It’s not just retirees with apartment buildings and ebay stores, except they have all day to manage them. And if the “reported tax can be substantial”, that means their retirement income on top of that is even more substantial. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 5:49 pm: ==I love these statistics. This is household income. So two earners within a household.== More fun with numbers, Median household income is $61,255 but average household income is $87,010. https://illinois.hometownlocator.com/census/ - Dutch 3001 - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 5:58 pm: I am sure I and my wife are upper income ($170K) according to Rich’s formula. It took us a very long time to get there with child care, student loans, college tuition for our daughters, etc., along the way depleting our savings. But now that we are there I am willing to pay more in taxes because I like having good universities and colleges, an educated population, good roads, and fully funded police and fire departments, in the state where I live. There ain’t no free lunch for things like that and never has been although that sure as heck appears to be the belief of most Americans any more. - Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 6:34 pm: ===That was a big decrease in income=== And therefore you no longer live in a high-income household. - Jibba - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 8:07 pm: DBBW…I hope everyone knows why the average is so much higher than the median. The average is affected more by the extremes…in this case, no one earns less than zero, but people can earn a billion dollars, bringing the average up. That is why a median can be a better measure of the central point of data. - Doing Human Things - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 8:17 pm: @Dutch 3001 My wife and I are only at about $89k combined, but I feel the same way. In my area, with our lifestyle (2 kids, one is in private school), $89k is plenty, and while many people who make what we do may not be able to pay a lot more in taxes, I would gladly do so to help improve our state. - Mountain Dew - Monday, Sep 17, 18 @ 9:12 pm: I’m happy to pay more if it goes to something helpful, like helping people and children in need. Much of the time our tax dollars are wasted. Take Springfield for example. - Springfield has more firefighters per capita than most cities in the USA (ie too many firefighters). More than a third of them are captains and earn > $300k a year in salary, overtime, healthcare and pension benefits. - CWLP pays twice the Midwest basin average to buy coal from the Viper mine. CWLP’s costs are three times the cost of natural gas generation. CWLP engineers get paid $180k on salary and more in overtime, pension, and healthcare. Plus they poison our drinking water by storing ash next to Lake Springfield. Because of this waste, the school buildings are dilapidated and teachers are laid off. Roads go unfixed. Property and sales Taxes are too high. The local and state governments need to shape up. This state is a mess. - Thomas Paine - Tuesday, Sep 18, 18 @ 12:42 am: @Sue According to the statistical abstract, the 95th percentile in Illinois starts at $217.5K, and the mean income for the top 5% is $375K. I would not be so quick to make comparisons between the behavior of taxpayers in Illinois and the New York metro area. If what is true for New Jersey is always true for Illinois, why wern’t the rich packing their bags to come here and enjoy one of the lowest income tax rates in the country? Economic forces can be strong, but they are not the only forces. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Sep 18, 18 @ 6:47 am: ==The average is affected more by the extremes.== The median is also affected by extremes. The median is the middle number in a long line of numbers. In the case of income, there are more paperboys then Ken Griffins. - BlueDogDem - Tuesday, Sep 18, 18 @ 7:40 am: The people I know,who left the state because of taxes. Left because of property taxes. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 18, 18 @ 8:35 am: Retirees might not pay taxes but please do not try to diminish the contribution to the state economy they make. They could easily take their business elsewhere. - City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 18, 18 @ 8:42 am: ==They could easily take their business elsewhere.== Same argument can be made for anyone. - Jibba - Tuesday, Sep 18, 18 @ 8:51 am: DBBW, everything is affected by the population of data, but the mean is more affected by the extremes than the median. That is why both mean and median are often presented in studies, because they are different ways of looking at the data. It’s just math. - Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 6:52 am: As far as people moving goes, its been studied. https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/05/26/do-high-state-taxes-drive-away-millionaires-not-really/amp/?__twitter_impression=true Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.