Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quinn campaign releases new Internet video
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* From a press release
House Speaker Michael J. Madigan on Thursday laid out a plan to increase funding for schools across the state by $1 billion a year with dollars generated by imposing a tax surcharge on millionaires.
“Over the last several years, every area of Illinois has experienced school closures, teacher layoffs and classroom cuts due to reduced education funding that has been forced by a crowding out of state revenues,” Madigan said. “This is not a complete solution to our education funding issues, but it is a fair and equitable way to reverse a decline brought on by the national economic problems and will help address a number of spending pressures that vary among school districts.”
Under Madigan’s proposal, individual income up to $1 million would continue to be taxed at the current personal rate. Any income over $1 million would be charged an additional 3 percent. The additional funding raised for Illinois schools would be distributed on a per pupil basis to every school district. Funding would be based on 2014 income tax liability and distributed to schools in 2015.
“This plan brings long overdue fairness to the state tax structure and provides a needed boost to education funding to help give our children more of the resources they need to succeed,” Madigan said. “Some districts may see a need to use these resources for capital construction, while others will want to offer local property tax relief. Illinois is not a one-size-fits-all state and this increase on millionaires recognizes the need for school districts to set their own priorities when spending state dollars.”
In recent days, the Speaker has briefed legislators on the proposed amendment. He hopes to present his amendment before a committee in the coming days and gain full House and Senate approval in time to place the question on the November general election ballot. Constitutional amendment questions must pass by May 5 in order to be placed on the fall ballot.
Even with the increase, the state tax rate on millionaires would not be out of line with tax rates in surrounding states
I wonder what Americans for Prosperity and Bruce Rauner will think of that idea?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:22 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quinn campaign releases new Internet video
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Maybe Rauner will move to another State
Comment by Nonplussed Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:24 pm
Awesome
Comment by Dan Johnson Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:26 pm
. . . distributed on a per pupil basis to every school district . . .
Does this imply that all school districts would share and share alike?
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:29 pm
“Robin Hood” surcharge?
All kids reap from this surcharge.
Interesting tact, especially given the timing of the political calendar.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:33 pm
“I wonder what Americans for Prosperity and Bruce Rauner will think of that idea?”
I hope they come out guns blazing against this idea, over and over. More ammo please…
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:33 pm
=== and Bruce Rauner will think of that idea?====
Considering that it would have cost him $1,560,000 if this was in effect last year, my guess he would be opposed. Then again maybe he might reconsider his statement that he will not take a salary to make up the difference.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:34 pm
I can’t wait to see Downstate oppose this tax hike. Majority of millionaires live in Cook County and this will be disbursed evenly throughout each school district. The irony of this is just great.
Comment by Almost the Weekend Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:36 pm
Simple, to the point.
Is Rauner for school funding, or not?
Does Quinn know about this, or is MJM trying to help from the sidelines?
Comment by Walker Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:37 pm
2/3 of the way to paying for the Speaker’s proposed corporate income tax rate cut.
Comment by SAP Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:38 pm
Over/under on how long before Rauner mentions “socialism”, “driving away job creators”, “punishing success” or “class warfare” in response to this proposal….
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:38 pm
It would be a lot of fun to see Rauner and some of his ultra wealthy backers come out and support this. That would kinda pfffft burst Quinn’s campaign strategy and force similarly wealthy Dems and Dem contributors to come out of the woodwork and take a stand too.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:38 pm
The political brilliance of this idea is slowly seeping into my brain.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:39 pm
Dear Bruce: And you say????
Comment by I B Strapped Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:39 pm
Key note: this would bring us more into line with mythical “low tax” surrounding states.
Comment by Walker Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:40 pm
An excellent way for Illinois to address its revenue problem. Especially considering it will likely not be long for the the courts to chuck the recently enacted pension reforms into the trash bin. This would at least secure a separate line of funding for education.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:42 pm
Once again, Madigan is the FOX!! Great idea! LOL
Comment by Here we go... Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:45 pm
Curious how much new revenue this would result…
In 2011 (the last time the numbers are available on the IDOR website) there were 42,579 returns with AGI above 500,000 is all of that was income above 1,000,000 (it isn’t obviously) it would raise about 1.8 Billion..
So lets assume everyone of these folks made more than 1 Million (not reality, but you work with what you have)
So you take 42,579 * 500,000 and get 21,289,500,000 (that is income not subject to the 3% surcharge)
So there is 40,432,573,813 in income subject to the tax (likely a low number, but it is a guestimate) you end up with
$1,212,977,214.39
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:46 pm
BRILLIANT!!
Comment by anon Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:48 pm
But I will have to say it is an interesting move…
What happens if Bruce says “Let the voters decide”..
What happens if he comes out in favor of it.
Doubt the second is going to happen, I see a chance of the first one happening.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:49 pm
Well done, Mr. Speaker.
Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:50 pm
“It would be a lot of fun to see Rauner and some of his ultra wealthy backers come out and support this.”
Rauner might or might not support this, but his wealthy donors and supporters? They have been screaming bloody murder over taxes. A tax increase on millionaires is heresy of the highest order to them.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:51 pm
If a single surcharge for every dollar over your first million would pass muster, then a flat state income tax with graduated surcharges that make our state tax structure comparable to that Republican nirvana to the north would be perfect.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:51 pm
Clever. Separate from the current income tax, in fact, not a “tax,” a “surcharge.” Not in conflict with the constitution, therefore? Oh, my, my, my. This is going to be fun.
Comment by PolPal56 Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:52 pm
If Madigan fills the referendum slots with his referendums, then where will that leave Bruce and his term limits schtick?
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:56 pm
And I was being facetious about the “tax” vs. “surcharge” - would a rose (or pile of dung, depending on your perspective) by any other name, smell as (again, depends on perspective…)
Comment by PolPal56 Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:58 pm
=== Clever. Separate from the current income tax, in fact, not a “tax,” a “surcharge.” Not in conflict with the constitution, therefore? Oh, my, my, my. This is going to be fun. ===
As a proposed constitutional amendment it cannot conflict with the current constitution. And the voters get to vote directly on whether to surcharge incomes over $1 million, or not.
After every member of the General Assembly is called upon to vote.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:58 pm
Ok, this isn’t going to happen but lets play a little what if..
Mr. Speaker, I agree with you that education funding has been lacking in Illinois for far too long, and we need to reach for creative solutions.
But the people of Illinois have heard this before, that funds are going to schools, be it the lottery or whatever and too often in Springfield that has just led funds that used to be spent on schools to be spent on pet projects of Springfield.
So might I suggest there be a guarantee that funding for education from the general fund not be reduced one cent, our kids are too important.
Might I also suggest our fine state universities and community colleges be included in this so we can better prepare a 21st century workforce.
Finally, let these funds be portable within the K-12 range, funds a student can use at a charter school or a private school.
It isn’t gonna happen, but it would interesting if it did.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 2:59 pm
Also going to sound silly, but I am guessing it isn’t indexed to inflation?
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:02 pm
I’m curious how this will affect voter turnout. This sort of referendum is often meant to impact just that.
Comment by tjb Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:03 pm
What if Mr. Rauner promptly said, “yes” BUT on the condition that it is tied to something the Speaker has been opposed to (or refused to call the bill) that likewise impacts revenue. That the Speaker could act on RIGHT NOW in this session. Effectively put the ball right back in the hands of the Speaker, and show more leadership than Gov. Quinn.
Comment by anonymoose Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:04 pm
Would this pass constitutional scrutiny ? Would this violate the constitutional ban on a graduated tax ? I would love to hear from one our lawyers on this.
To the issue: I think I would rather see the financial transaction tax over this. Millionaires always find ways to shield their income from taxation. A flat tax on every transaction would make dodging a lot harder. Also we all pay taxes on most purchases we make. Why should financial transactions be different ?
The state clearly needs revenue to dig out of the mess its in. I am reluctant to support this surtax if it was solely for educational purposes. The state has many other obligations that aren’t being properly addressed. The state financial mess needs to be addressed as a whole package not piecemeal.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:11 pm
Maybe they ought to spend some of the new money on an exterminator for the Thompson Center. Apparently someone in the Dept. of Financial/Professional Regulation has been working day and night on something and has managed to bring bed bugs to the office.
Ew.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:13 pm
@AFSCME
It is being presented as a constitutional amendment and needs to be approved by the voters via referendum in November
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:13 pm
how many CAs can be on the ballot? two?
do CAs by popular petition come before, or after, those generated in the GA?
in other words, is the speaker trying to take up one of two ballot slots, to sidetrack independent redistricting, or term limits?
if GA generated CAs can box out those by popular petition, might we see a second one coming along soon?
this likely has a lot of popular appeal, but it does NOT do anything to help the off kilter state revenue structure. since it is per capita, it sends a lot of money to chicago, that a future GA cant touch.
what does this say to andy manar, and those folks working to revamp the overall education funding structure? hmmm. house knows best.
Comment by langhorne Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:17 pm
“It is being presented as a constitutional amendment and needs to be approved by the voters via referendum in November”
Whoops I missed that.
Comment by AFSCME Steward Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:19 pm
LOL. I guess now we know why Brucey is running. This is equivalent to Armageddon in the minds of him and his ilk.
Comment by Jimbo Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:21 pm
Give them a slight tax break if they have all their employees making at least $10.10 an hour
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:22 pm
Ironic that he’ll spend way more on this campaign for Governor than this tax would ever cost him. It’s not about the money, he just doesn’t want the government to have it. If he has to spend it on a vanity campaign (well not really, he could win), then so be it, but heaven’s no, it can’t go to the kids.
Comment by Jimbo Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:23 pm
Wow, This PR should have been addressed to Rauner personally and closed with “With kindest personal regards, I remain”
Comment by Jimbo Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:26 pm
How about if this passes and it doesnt raise the amount of money Madigan says it will he has to retire. Madigan will throw out made up projections that will never be meet but he gets a populist message. sounds like If you like you Insurance you can keep your insurance” & “I will veto any tax increase over 4%” Lies told to the taxpayers
Comment by fed up Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:27 pm
To those with questions on number of amendments on the ballot…
The legislature can put amendments on the ballot for up to three articles - note, not up to three amendments. So there could, in theory, be several amendments that all amended the same article.
The citizen initiated amendments (which are very limited in scope) have no limit.
Comment by dave Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:35 pm
Arne Duncan’s phone will be ringing off the hook. Also, this money would go towards charter schools because charter schools are public schools.
Comment by Buzzie Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:37 pm
Isn’t DeBlasio proposing something similar to fund universal prek in NYC. I think the governor is trying to block it by attaching state funding to the prek effort. Anyway, taxing the wealthy seems to the the policy initiative du jour. I’m hardly going to object, but I suspect there are legitimate objections. One concern, to me, would be which schools get the money, and how can we be sure the money will really get to the schools, or wherever it’s supposed to go–given the continuing presence of shifting in state government finance.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:40 pm
Still rubbing my eyes….did I really read this right? Can it be? Asking people who actually have money to spare to pay a few dollars more? I thought the only way to generate revenue in this state to hack at old peoples’ income and low income earners, which includes public servant jobs. I still can’t believe I read this. It somehow doesn’t seem right that anyone would ask wealthy folks to pay more. What a novel idea! Did I read this right?
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:42 pm
Didn’t Quinn push this or some variation of it a while back. I seem to recall some sort of referendum thing (non-binding)
Back 2003, but is was on income above $250,000
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/tax-the-rich/Content?oid=913736
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:44 pm
==Lies told to the taxpayers==
Man, you really need to grow up and stop with this constant whining you do about this stuff. Are you new to politics?
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:49 pm
If this is enacted, why would any millionaire remain a citizen of Illinois who’s not required to be here because of a corporate position? Especially if you’re retired or semi-retired, there’s a lot of nice states (think Florida) with no income tax at all. And you can skip our winters, which seem to last the six months of residency time you need there.
Comment by Illinois taxpayer Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 3:55 pm
Well played Mr. Madigan. There’s a reason you have run this state for decades.
Comment by Filmmaker Professor Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:01 pm
If you are retired you wouldn’t pay the surcharge, I would guess, because retirement income (SS, pensions, defined contribution payouts) are not taxed in Illinois.
Of course, that could change too..in the end, I guess, it depends on who Madigan decides is gonna pay up at the sacrifice table.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:01 pm
If I were Rauner, I would ask: I wonder how much more Madigan, Cullerton, Burke, Daley(all of them, Kennedy, Pritker, et al would pay under this 3% tax scheme? He could add, I’ll pay it on a voluntary basis until the voters decide if these wealthy Democrats also pay it on a voluntary basis . Put up or shut up!
Comment by funny guy Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:04 pm
Well funny guy, that’s easy, for every dollar they make over 1,000,000, they will pay 3 cents more. Duh!
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:08 pm
==Majority of millionaires live in Cook County ==
Until this is in place, then a big chunk of those join Oberweis’ wife moving their residence to Florida
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:09 pm
Brilliant! Now all Madigan needs to do is call this the “Limousine Liberal” or “Lakefront Liberal” tax. He’ll probably get every downstate Republican to vote yes on this.
Comment by Angry Republican Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:10 pm
AFSCME Steward, I was so intrigued by the idea I missed the entire “amendment” paragraph, too.
That’s okay, if I’m going to get a reminder to “slow down and read the entire thing!” as my wife says, there are worse ways to be reminded (such as in finding important leftover parts when you thought you had the swingset put together correctly… three hours later…)
Comment by PolPal56 Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:10 pm
For all you taxers out there: what if many of the millionaires no longer declare residency in Illinois??? How will you collect if they have a condo in Florida or a P.O. Box in Texas????
Comment by Steve Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:16 pm
This will sure keep the word “Millionaire” in the headlines for months. Great political move, at the very least…
Comment by W.S. Walcott Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:22 pm
Jim Oberweis is moving to Florida for sure now!!
Comment by Union Man Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:25 pm
Great idea… So when ALL of the small businesses move out of state… The guy who got us in the mess, Madigan, will retire and move on… Then, they can move down to the middle class. The hatred and class warefare that this has already started is just enough for me to be behind Rauner full steam. So a small business owner that has to pay as an individual needs to leave now. Brilliant… Perfect timing with the Illinois economic data that came out…
Comment by Walter Mitty Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:27 pm
For all you “if you tax me I’ll movers” out there, if Florida is such a great place for millionaires, why do we have any now? Answer: people choose where to reside based on many more important factors than how much more taxes they pay on every dollar over 1 million, and if that were a big reason why millionaires chose to live where they live, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco wouldn’t have any now…
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:30 pm
I’m sure millionaires will quit their jobs, move to Texas where the schools aren’t nearly as good as they are along the North Shore, just to save $3k or $15k each year in taxes.
If revenue isn’t increased at the state level, then property taxes will continue to go up to pay for all the services that the North Shore types enjoy. This isn’t a zero sum game.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:32 pm
Rauner should say:
“If the temporary tax increase expires December 31, I think this would be a fine proposal to replace some of that revenue. Most millionaires are paying an extra 2% on ALL revenue right now, so an extra 3% on income over a million going forward sounds like a fair compromise. The temporary income tax hurts the middle and lower income earners and should be allowed to expire.”
Anyway, that is what I would say if I were the Republican candidate for governor in Illinois.
Comment by Jaded Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:39 pm
I’d love for sombebody from the Department of Revenue to either confirm or deny, but I believe they would source income earned in Illinois to Illinois regardless of where the person claims residency. Don’t think you could evade it by moving to Florida, or many people already would have to avoid the current tax.
Comment by SAP Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:43 pm
“How about if this passes and it doesnt raise the amount of money Madigan says it will he has to retire. ……”
I’m pretty sure it will raise the amount of money he predicts. In 2011 the IRS reported 14,692 returns filed from Illinois with income over a $1 million having a total taxable income of about $38 billion. 3% of that will get his money.
Comment by CapnCrunch Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:49 pm
I absolutely love the idea of increasing taxes on millionaires, but Madigan’s numbers simply do not add up. Relatively simple math, illustrated below, shows that even if we assume no one changes their behavior (i.e. moves out of state), the proposal as written will most likely not raise a Billion dollars per year.
According to the Illinois Dept. of Revenue’s Tax Stats (2011 data is latest available), there were 42,579 returns filed with AGI greater than $500,000, and the total taxable income reflected on these returns was approximately $57,659 Million(i.e. $57.659 Billion). Because income tends to be skewed, lets assume 75% of these returns reflect income under $1,000,000 per year (an average of $750,000 per return) and 25% of these returns over $1,000,000. Solving for X in the equation below then provides the average taxable income per millionaire:
(31,394 x 0.75 Million) + 10,645 X = 57,659 Million.
X = 1.958 Million.
However, the first million in income per taxpayer is exempt from the surtax, so the total tax base for it would be 10,645 millionaires times $0.958 Million per average return, or $23,472 Million. 3% of this comes to about $704 Million.
If we assume a larger percentage - say 50% - of the $500,000+ returns are filed by millionaires, then a similar analysis (ironically) shows the surtax raises even less. And we have not even begun to account for the likelyhood that some of the targeted individuals will work less, find ways to defer income, or move out of state.
Comment by Andrew Szakmary Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:50 pm
=== Jim Oberweis is moving to Florida for sure now!! ===
Nuff said. This would be reason enough to vote for the amendment.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:51 pm
Walter Mitty: No business has to file as an individual. They can incorporate and file as a C Corp. In fact, under the Speaker’s recent proposal, that would be advantageous from a tax perspective. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=4479&GAID=12&SessionID=85&LegID=78809.
Comment by SAP Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:52 pm
This proposal is very complex on so many levels and it shows the legislative brilliance of the Speaker. Now the Speaker and Democrats can effectively let the income tax sunset and have an offset to the cuts that would come to k-12 education. It could also be a way for the Speaker to avoid the entire Constitutional Amendment issue relating to the flat tax. Even better if the proposal is found to be unconstitutional because of the flat tax provision then the Speaker can argue with conviction we have no choice but to amend the constitution.
As everyone has already noted the bill sort of sticks it to Rauner. No doubt Rauner is calling the Speaker saying I thought we could work together for Illinois and then you do this. The Speaker responds I have no idea what you are talking about at all Bruce, good luck with your campaign.
The Master strikes!
Comment by Rod Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:53 pm
Oh, heck, let’s just all move, okay? Pick the state that you think is so much better than Illinois, and just move.
Land of Lincoln National Park: 57,918 sq. miles of wildlife habitat and ghost towns.
(I have a bad headache, and I’m tired of the “going to move” BS, even from me. I think that pretty much EVERYONE has an issue that they are “going to move” over. And very, very, very, very, very few people do. It’s silly.)
Comment by PolPal56 Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:55 pm
Oops, slight error in my previous post. The final estimate of $704 Million is correct, but X (the average income per millionaire taxpayer) is actually $3.205 Million, and the tax base would thus be 10,645 millionaires times $2.205 Million or $23,472 Million. 3% of that is $704 Million.
Comment by Andrew Szakmary Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 4:56 pm
SAP, most small businesses are S Corps. These millionaires have a lot of income from out of state business. Moving residency to a lower income tax State would be a no-brainer if this happens. It’s also a dumb move if you want to keep major corporate headquarters from leaving.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:06 pm
==As everyone has already noted the bill sort of sticks it to Rauner. No doubt Rauner is calling the Speaker saying I thought we could work together for Illinois and then you do this. The Speaker responds I have no idea what you are talking about at all Bruce, good luck with your campaign.The Master strikes!==
Rod, I think you may be missing a few of the nuances of the speaker’s plan, if you think he is doing it just to “stick it to Rauner”.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:07 pm
SAP, you are correct. Illinois source income is still taxed here, which is probably why Oberweis’ wife is a Florida resident, but he is not.
Comment by 32nd Ward Roscoe Village Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:09 pm
Is this constitutional?
Comment by an innocent observer Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:14 pm
Responsa I think there was a full paragraph before the part you quoted. What in addition to the possibilities I raised are you suggesting?
Comment by Rod Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:22 pm
Let’s not forget - -this will be an incredibly popular ballot initiative amongst the 99 percent. Which means it will bring lots and lots of Democratic voters to the polls, even if they are not particularly enthusiastic about everyone on the D ticket.
Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:26 pm
Illinois is already losing people to our new, higher state income tax Gov. Quinn and the Democrats gave us a couple of years ago.
Case in point: A dentist friend from Bloomington moved to Texas this year. He says the savings in state income tax pays most of his mortgage payment on his new house down there.
New York has assessed a similar tax and is seeing well-healed folks walk as well.
Do we really want to go down that route?
Or do we want to attract successful people?
John
Comment by John Boch Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:33 pm
I’m curious what Reverend James Meeks’ reaction to this will be, especially if Rauner comes out against this proposal.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:33 pm
This is called,
“Buliding a pubic policy debate, and making it part of a narrative, and election issue, that has legs through election day and is on the ballot.”
If this is how its going to be with Governor Rauner and Speaker Madigan, I can’t wait to see/hear how Rauner is going to take it to Madigan.
Fun.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:34 pm
I second Jaded’s comments above..
Comment by an innocent observer Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:35 pm
–If I were Rauner, I would ask: I wonder how much more Madigan, Cullerton, Burke, Daley(all of them, Kennedy, Pritker, et al would pay under this 3% tax scheme? –
Um, the same as other millionaires. Is that too complicated for you?
I don’t think Rauner is going to be asking you for advice anytime soon.
–He could add, I’ll pay it on a voluntary basis until the voters decide if these wealthy Democrats also pay it on a voluntary basis .–
There have been some dumb bunnies posting here over the years, but you are the dumbest and bunniest of them all. God, you’re dumb. Don’t drive a car; you’re a menace.
To MJM, the old man got some game!
First, cut the corporate tax rate (which no one pays, anyway) and then increase the personal on millionaires.
What say you, Bruce?
Pat? Who’s your friend? Who’s your buddy? It’s MJM, isn’t it?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:45 pm
=== Anon - It’s also a dumb move if you want to keep major corporate headquarters from leaving. ===
The Speaker has already thought of this. He’ll offer an exemption the execs of certain corps in particular categories. (Those that donate to his favorite causes.)
Comment by Anon7 Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:48 pm
=== A dentist friend from Bloomington moved to Texas this year. ===
Do his patients fly to Texas for treatment?
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:59 pm
Wordslinger one could spend hours thinking about what all the angles on this amendment are. Who was it on this blog that first called the Speaker the Jedi Master, never so true. The new proposed amendment certainly dwarfs term limits issue doesn’t it.
Comment by Rod Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 6:00 pm
Rauner will counter with: “Reduce pay of all state employees by 15%, and you’ll get the same amount of money. We don’t need a surcharge on the rich. employees are bad — and this is why I’m running.”
Plus, state employees won’t move. They’ll stay and accept the cuts.
Comment by Anonymouse Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 6:08 pm
- Anonymouse -,
Is that snark?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 6:24 pm
Rauner’s MO — and his obligation now given the bizarre plutocrats who jumped on his campaign today — will be to always, always deflect to the state employees.
Come on — I’ve yet to talk with anyone, anyone who thinks Rauner’s not full of it. The way he talks, the weird look in his eyes during his speech the other night: he’s out for blood. And the folks that will be bled are the state employees. There’s no doubt in my mind: everything will be geared to making sure whatever the unions have achieved for public employees is *reversed*. 30, 35 years of labor victories — down the tubes. This is his mission. This is why he idolizes Daniels, Walker. It’s all about a slow, calculating removal of organized labor through the traditionally blue states.
And the only ones — truly, the only ones — who will suffer are the public servants. They’re the target. Rauner can’t say it now, but if he beats Quinn, this will be his mission. Nevermind the BS he’s spewing about the truck drivers or the workers from Sprouts restaurant in Quincy: Rauner’s post-victory mission will be to make sure all public employees suffer. They’ll either take it — or quit. He doesn’t care. He could care less if agencies are understaffed or morale is at an all-time low. His mission — for the first year, maybe two — is two extract all he can from the state employee paychecks. This will protect his “democrat and independent” base — and will make sure that the wealthy can sit back, rake in the cash, and not worry.
I know this. I know this.
Comment by Anonymouse Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 6:38 pm
Tax hike six months before an election? And I thought the captain of the Titanic was optimistic ! Quinn better start reading the “want Ads”.
Comment by Donkey Dem Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 6:52 pm
===Rauner’s MO — and his obligation now given the bizarre plutocrats who jumped on his campaign today — will be to always, always deflect to the state employees.===
Not disagreeing, or making a point of disagreement.
Why I asked, and your response, is why MJM is “genius”.
Forcing Rauner to make that his platfrom to “own” against this proposal throws all the “.01%” in real time policy and action.
Rauner is walking into a card game, looking at the Four Tops, Union Bosses, “Special Interests”, all his opponents, looking for the pigeon, but in reality, Rauner is getting ready to be made … the pigeon. Even by “1/3 of the corrupt GOP GA”.
The brilliance of Madigan is walking his opponents down roads they don’t really want to go, but find themselves halfway down before they know it. Edgar and Geo. Ryan knew better. Thompson knew better. Rod and Quinn, and especially Rod, not so much.
MJM has seen all the movies before, written most of the scripts. Both Rauners may want to start thinking about re-writes before previews …
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 6:57 pm
Two State Agencies that need massive cuts are HFS led by none other than Julie Hamos. And Department of Public Health. Both agencies have massive numbers of expendable employees. Two to four hours a day is a typical workday in both agencies.
Comment by Wholly Mamouth Republican Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:00 pm
That didn’t take long. From the Tribune:
“The Rauner campaign released a statement saying the candidate opposes the Madigan tax hike ballot question.
“Bruce is happy to pay more to support education - in fact he’s been doing that personally for decades, but he doesn’t support what looks like a first step towards empowering Mike Madigan and Pat Quinn to raise taxes on the middle class, small businesses and family farms,” said Rauner campaign manager Chip Englander. “The last time they raised taxes, they hit every Illinoisan with a 67% increase, and they still turned around and cut funding for education. We need to grow our economy and create jobs, so we can fund education at levels far above what we’ve seen under Pat Quinn.”
CITE: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-speaker-madigan-proposes-asking-voters-to-raise-taxes-on-wealthy-20140320,0,659160.story
Comment by ZC Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:12 pm
=== A dentist friend from Bloomington moved to Texas this year. ===
And another dentist is making great coin on his former Illinois business. I’d wager there’s more teeth per capita in Illinois over Texas, anyway.
Businesses that do their business in Illinois either pay the corporate or personal income tax. They pull the load, because their business is here.
The Civvie types — the Abbotts, Deere, McDonalds, ITW, CAT, etc., — pay oogats in state corporate income taxes because the great majority of their sales are out of state. Their annual reports are easily accessible online. Look. It. Up.
But their execs certainly don’t want to pay top graduated personal rates like they would in Wisconsin or Iowa, where allegedly all the jobs are going, like Big Brain Kass tells us.
Dig this: Laissez-Faire-Uihlein takes corporate welfare to move some jobs from Waukegan to Kenosha, but he hangs his hat in Lake Forest.
Why? The corporate tax hit in Wisconsin for his business is more than Illinois.
But the state and local personal tax hit for himself, personally, in Lake Forest, is a lot less.
I love the Brat Stop, but I’ll take Lake Forest over Kenosha any day, especially for less taxes.
The Civvies fear of a graduated personal income tax is not mysterious. Their businesses would still pay nothing, but they, personally would pay more.
And before you say Florida or Texas, if it made business sense, they woulda if they coulda, moved a long time ago.
Geez, this ain’t a heavy lift.
But if you can’t spot the chump the first time the deal goes round, you’re it.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:13 pm
–“Bruce is happy to pay more to support education - in fact he’s been doing that personally for decades, but he doesn’t support what looks like a first step towards empowering Mike Madigan and Pat Quinn to raise taxes on the middle class, small businesses and family farms,” said Rauner campaign manager Chip Englander–
Can we have a show of hands of all the middle-class folks, small businesses and family farms, that are banking one million in state taxable income a year?
Chip, talk with Shrimp. It ain’t The Other 3 anymore.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:21 pm
===…but he doesn’t support what looks like a first step towards empowering Mike Madigan and Pat Quinn to raise taxes on the middle class, small businesses and family farms,”===
Seen this movie. Thinking that making it about the “farmer, small business owner” retort will bring people back from hearing that millionaires shouldn’t pay more has already lost at the ballot box.
Two mistakes are being made;
Replaying the Romney Class counter-offensive, against Pat Quinn.
Underestimating Madigan giving “left-handed” help to Quinn to aid in his Wealth Narrative.
“Oberweis/Rauner”, “Oberweis/Rauner” - “One has a spouse seeking tax breaks and not an Illinois Resident, and the other making sure his ‘.01%’ Friends don’t pay to help education for all…”
All that is missing is the retort from Chip about Walker, …or even Indiana.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:29 pm
When you’re so far up, it’s hard to find the middle. What if we have no-Rauner and a somewhat progressive tax by the end of the year?
This is going to be a pretty good year if liberals get out and vote.
Comment by Timmeh Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:36 pm
Yellow Dog Democrat responds to Bruce Rauner campaign:
“Bruce Rauner thinks the voters ought to get to decide whether or not gay couples can marry, but not whether or not millionaires ought to pay their fair share to fund schools.”
“Bruce Rauner believes every option ought to be on the table, including taxing the retirements of middle class seniors, but not asking millionaires to pay a little bit more.”
Welcome to the big leagues, Chip.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:36 pm
We shouldn’t there. 3% for education. 2% for pensions. 1% for free senior bus rides. 1% for public safety. Its only 7 pennies of every dollar over a million dollars. That is reasonable.
Comment by Jack Handy Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:40 pm
Over half of the commentators on here comment that this is a brilliant POLITICAL MOVE by Madigan and barely address the merits of the proposal. And that’s the problem in Illinois. How about more real life solutions and a whole lot less political ones?
Comment by DuPage Moderate Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:41 pm
Rauner vs. Madigan? Thats a mismatch.
I would bet that Mike has his own prize waiting for our term limiting buddy Bruce, and he won’t find it in the top drawer of Pat Quinn’s desk, unless its 2019.
That Rauner fella brought a knife to a gunfight!
Comment by A Madison, not a Madigan Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:42 pm
==Can we have a show of hands of all the middle-class folks, small businesses and family farms, that are banking one million in state taxable income a year?==
Crickets…
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:47 pm
Why stop at 1,000,000? I mean those making $500,000+ can afford a few more dollars right? For that matter what about those making $100,000 to $500,000? They could spare a few more bucks too. Successful people who have worked hard to get to where they are at really need to start contributing. All the income, sales and property taxes they have paid really is not sufficient.
Comment by Generation X Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:50 pm
I’d bet Willie Nelson and Neil Young could school “farmer” Bruce on real farms and the issues folks face in Quincy and Ursa and Marblehead.
For chrissake — Rauner pulls this stuff out of a hat. Farms now?
Comment by Anonymouse Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:52 pm
Generation X—that sounds like a plan for a graduated income tax.
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 7:52 pm
DuPage Moderate: The reason why I haven’t debated the merits of the proposal is because I’m so happy that it’s finally being done.
Whether the “other tax hike” is temporary or permanent or semi-permanent or whether Madigan threw out the 3% figure is negotiable doesn’t matter. What matters is that we’re going to have some form of a progressive tax on the ballot.
3 months ago, I was wondering whether I should pull a Republican ballot and vote for Rutherford, and go on to vote for Rutherford in the general. The logic being that if Rutherford won, Illinois might have a more competent governor, but that a progressive tax might not happen in that time. As much as I don’t like Quinn, there’s all sort of ideas that a Republican governor just won’t go for. So I was probably going to end up voting for Quinn.
But now, a progressive tax is coming. If MJM is proposing it, it’s likely going to pass the GA. And it’s going to be on the ballot. And it might happen in this environment. Hell, everyone is complaining about Quinn, and yet here we are. Gay marriage and a progressive tax passing THIS YEAR? This is fantastic. From my point of view, this is progress. Quinn doesn’t deserve any of the credit for the progressive tax, but he’s in the right chair at the right time. I had no interest in voting for Rauner. But I’m definitely showing up on election day to vote for a progressive tax and no for term limits (and sure, Quinn can keep the mansion). Let Madigan stay in 4 more years; I want to see if he’ll push something else I like to spite the next buffoon the Republicans nominate.
I already know the merits and the arguments on each side. Now is a time to be happy for a bit. The numbers can wait for tomorrow.
Comment by Timmeh Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 8:09 pm
@DuPage Moderate:
It is good government and good politics.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 8:10 pm
Two things to consider:
1) Anyone who really believes this will being even a 1/3 of expected income is living in a dream.
2)The real prize for the Democrats here is once they fool voters into thinking this will only affect the millionaires - will quickly find out the hard way that once the constitutional flat tax is repealed the dem’s will be able to raise taxes at any time in the future with simple majority votes. Think about that one for awhile!
Comment by Allen Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 8:33 pm
Well, look at the big brain on Allen! Tell me professor, what is stopping the Democrats from raising taxes right now?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 8:36 pm
Allen, please explain how a surcharge proposal is a repeal of the regressive flat tax that this state has?
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 8:39 pm
Rauner camp just told MJM NO! Good,I agree - we pay too much now. MJM will learn not get into a fight with a man that collects cash by the hundred wt.
Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:10 pm
“Think about that one for awhile!”
Think about this for a while. This is a way to bring out Democratic voters for a popular issue. There will be a campaign, signs, slogans. Save our schools. Save our children. Save our property taxes.
They may not love Quinn, but they love their children and schools, and they love taking pressure off of their property taxes. Quinn will support the tax. Who will they vote for?
Think about that for a while. A long while.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:11 pm
Who is going to want to come and play for the Cubs, Sox, Bears, Bulls…..you get the idea?
Comment by What is to be done? Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:17 pm
Most, if not all on this thread with the “if this happens people will move” rant were the same ones who were going to leave when then ACA was passed, then again if the USSC found it constitutional. Where, I don’t know, but by God they were a goin! These are the same people who would complain if there was free ice cream and Mondays were cancelled. It is the intellect of the coward, braggart, and otherwise dullard. They are to be ignored as they will never go anywhere, nor do anything, but simply rant.
Comment by efudd Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:20 pm
Who would want to play for the Brewers, or Colts, or Yankees or Dodgers? Their taxes are much higher than Illinois.
The stupid is really out in force tonight.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:24 pm
===Who is going to want to come and play for the Cubs, Sox, Bears, Bulls…..you get the idea?===
Whew!
I was afraid no one would use the poor pro athlete defense tonight.
Check that box…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:26 pm
Thanks Willy and 47th Ward -
Because given a choice between paying the lowest income tax rate in the nation and having a shot at winning a World Series, all the top prospects are just begging to play for the Cubs.
The good news is, although we do such a lousy job of funding public education in Illinois, every kid can count the number of Cubs World Championships in the last 100 years.
But hey, who cares if we aren’t giving our kids the world class education they deserve. They can always get a job selling peanuts in the giant beer garden at Clark and Addison.
Great argument though, Chip.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:43 pm
BTW — are the same people moving out of the state the people that claimed that Obamacare was gonna cost the country millions and billions of jobs?
I say: go. Leave. Move. For chrissake. Get it over with. Universal health care and a tax on millionaires?
The horror, the horror.
Move, please. Leave.
Comment by Anonymouse Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:44 pm
To the Tribune Update,
As a Republican, but as someone looking at the MJM move and the Rauner response the the vision of politics, and politics only.
I may completely disagree with the proposal. I may even think that the reality of why MJM wants this is farce.
What I know for sure is that the genius of getting Rauner to respond, and seeing the “Rauner play” is a sidestep MJM and Quinn know the counter to.
Chess and Checkers, played at the highest levels, showing off almost, making effortless movements that make the Crew who want “shakes”, to seem to quake, backwards, towards a road they may want to go on, but fund their feet walking across already.
The Rauner response is music to MJM and Quinn. It’s one of a few sandboxes the Dems can win the day, and use Oberweis and Rauner together to push an easy narrative.
The rest is the worry of pro athletes, and math, and the folly of cheap watches and/or purple ties.
Chip’s little response has played out. It lost before. Even if you shake it up, it’s spoiled milk. Ask Oberweis, the Dems will.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:46 pm
Rauner thinks he’s a big boy. He thinks he’s a community leader now.
Well, his response to Madigan is pathetic.
More, Mike. The more Rauner talks, the meeker he sounds.
Comment by Anonymouse Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:48 pm
Madigan with do laps around Rauner. Rauner can not play with Madigan
Comment by Southwest Side guy Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:51 pm
“The stupid is really out in force tonight.”
Whenever there is talk about raising taxes on the wealthy to help take pressure off of the poor and middle class, the trolls will come out. Count on it.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:52 pm
If they are happy with their company in Illinois, I’d guess the real top company CEO’s will just make sure they get a raise or bonus well in excess of their new tax liability …
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:55 pm
BTW … the IPI is already out with a “bait and switch” response opposing the idea
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 9:59 pm
“Bruce Rauner made $53 million dollars a year and doesn’t want to help pay for struggling schools.
Bruce Rauner. Bad for schools. Bad for kids. Bad for Illinois.”
The ads just write themselves.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 10:00 pm
I think everyone knows Madigan is lying about how much money this will raise. Oh well I bet Madigans buddies Derrick Smith and little Berrios will do what their told and vote yes.
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 10:08 pm
Lying? What world do you live in? The information on the tax base is available to all the elected officials. There isn’t any need to lie. It’d just get called out once someone did the math. The lie would achieve nothing good for him.
Comment by Timmeh Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 10:15 pm
This is only day 2! We’re going to have a blast for the next several months.
Illinois has more teeth per capita than Texas? Seriously, where else are you going to find that kind of awesomeness?
Buckle up, campers, and keep your hands and feet inside the car until the ride comes to a complete stop.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 10:24 pm
There is pretty solid research that shifts in marginal tax rates do not result in migration.
Willy is pretty spot on.
Other than jamming up Rauner, Madigan is also offering an olive branch to the teacher’s unions, who have been trying to get this tax hike for 20 years. Well, not this specific one…they would probably like a billion more, but the perfect is the enemy of the good!
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 10:30 pm
I will do a Write In ballot for Keith Farnham for governor!
Comment by election Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 10:34 pm
Madigan is just poking a stick in Billion Dollar Bruce’s eye. Madigan used to make well over a million a year in doing tax assessment case for Business properties. This may go nowhere but make billion dollar Bruce have to dance for a few weeks.
Comment by Rollo Tomasi Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 10:36 pm
Not wise for Rauner to be against this idea. Score one for the Dems. And by Dem. I mean Quinn, not the Democrat running as a Republican.
Comment by whoELSE Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 10:38 pm
If I’m Rauner, I respond with “Speaker Madigan has overseen the fiscal mess we currently find ourselves in. 92% of African American teens in Illinois remain unemployed. Maybe listening to Mike Madigan isn’t what is best for Illinois.”
Comment by Generation X Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 10:46 pm
Dear mr corporation please raise my pay enough to make up the taxes that I would have to pay. Corporation says ok besides you will pay 3% on the income over 1,000,000 and I will get an increased deduction for the additional amount and save 9% (the corporate in Illinois)
Of course Madigan knows this and needs an issue to save Quinn’s butt.
Comment by JEff Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 10:46 pm
Let the voters decide.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 11:00 pm
Madigan is smarter than your average bear Boo-Boo. In one swift motion Mike Madigan completely took the legs out from underneath the coalition that is attempting to get a Progressive income tax on the ballot. It will be very interesting to see the response from his Left flank which I am sure is none too happy with his proposal.
Comment by Labordude Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 12:40 am
Really, how can the Super-DUper Wealthy whine about paying 3 measly cents on the dollar over the FIRST Million? Sounds fair to me–say some guy makes 2 Million–for the sake of educating our kids, a lousy 30 Grand less in his pocket is just “a spit in the bucket”, as the old saying goes.
Plus, I’m SURE Brucie is just tickled silly about this latest MJM Proposal…NOT!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:39 am
why wasn’t this done 5-10 years ago?
Comment by ejhickey Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 2:48 am
I agree the Speaker’s proposal hurt if not destroyed the graduated income tax proposal. It also provides nothing for human services. But I just can’t imagine the fair tax coalition opposing the Speaker’s proposal.
Comment by Rod Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 6:28 am
“Under Madigan’s proposal, individual income up to $1 million would continue to be taxed at the current personal rate. Any income over $1 million would be charged an additional 3 percent.”
From what I gather, under Madigan’s proposal, everyone will be taxed at the current rate of 5%, while millionaires will be taxed at 8%. This is a type of progressive income tax.
Rauner already staked a position against this tax, and from his campaign statement, he’s a clumsy defender of the 1%. The tax will hurt the middle class, farmers and small businesses? The Rauner campaign couldn’t say that it will anger his base, so it made up some goofy stuff.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 7:47 am
Soooo saweeet!
Comment by Pensioner Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 8:21 am
- Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 20, 14 @ 5:06 pm:
SAP, most small businesses are S Corps. These millionaires have a lot of income from out of state business. Moving residency to a lower income tax State would be a no-brainer if this happens. It’s also a dumb move if you want to keep major corporate headquarters from leaving.
I realize that most small businesses are S Corps and the reason is because the tax rate is much lower. The Millionaire Surtax combined with the Speaker’s Corp Tax rate reduction would encourage many S-corps to switch to C Corps. Your point about encouraging CEOs who make $53 Million/year to move their Corporate HQs to IL is well taken.
Comment by SAP Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 8:23 am
Wow, you lefties are so blinded by your hatred of success that you can’t see this is bad for business.
Comment by countyline Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 8:24 am
I am not a “leftie”, actually a Republican that sees this as a good political counter to Rauner.
Please, how is it bad for business, and explain it so it doesn’t look like class warfare and protecting the wealthy.
See, that is the “rub”. Political optics on government policy move in an election year, is the brilliance.
It’s bad for business. Ok, sell that to those not in the “.01%”…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 8:29 am
=== A dentist friend from Bloomington moved to Texas this year. He says the savings in state income tax pays most of his mortgage payment on his new house down there.===
Great! Say howdy to the t bags and libertarians. As of yet I’ve noticed no shortage of dentists in my area. Think what he will save when TX secedes and he pays NO taxes (snark)
Comment by Pensioner Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 8:36 am
Wow, you Koch-heads are so blinded by ideology that you can’t see that this is good for both the state and the country. Need more koolaid, countyline?
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 8:37 am
Still trying to figure out if the 5% rate continues or is this a bait and switch? Any definitive statements out there clarifying this?
Comment by one of three puppets Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 8:46 am
- PolPal56 - I hear you and you’re right, but for these folks it’s the money that moves, not them. That’s the problem with this proposal.
To the Post: You can indulge in all the class warfare you want and rail against excess, but truth be known there are a lot of modest income workers who depend on their excess to support their families.
Comment by Robo Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 8:54 am
I have not seen any proposals to extend the 5% rate yet.
Comment by SAP Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 8:55 am
–Who is going to want to come and play for the Cubs, Sox, Bears, Bulls…..you get the idea?–
I get your idea. It’s really stupid.
Because the uber-wealthy have abandoned NYC, London, Toyko, LA and San Francisco for……
El Paso? Jacksonville? Tishomingo?
Geez, some of you alleged “conservatives” are like whipped dogs. If you bark loud enough, you think Bruce and crew will throw you a bone? Scratch your belly, maybe?
A millionaire surtax, or a graduated income tax, are hardly radical ideas. Never have been, anywhere or at any time in any civilized society
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 8:58 am
Truth be known Robo, a lot of millionaires depend on their modest income workers for their millions…just sayin.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:01 am
I think you’ve had enough of that yourself, PS. Please tell me how taking money from those that sign the paychecks will benefit the economy. Answer, it won’t, it will only give the government more money to waste, which is just fine for those doing the wasting…Public Servant indeed.
Comment by countyline Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:01 am
But OW, class warfare is exactly what it is…
Comment by countyline Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:04 am
I agree this is good , but why now ? Not 5-10 years ago like someone asked
Something does not seem right about the timing this was the first thing I thought of if.
If i was Rauner I would stress this point
If they really cared this would have done this way earlier
Comment by DoubleDown Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:04 am
Sorry typing on iPad “should have been done way earlier”
Comment by DoubleDown Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:06 am
Something from actually reading the proposed amendment. Both the $1 million and solely for education on a per pupil basis are the language in the amendment. That means all this talk of a bait and switch is bogus. Any changes would have to be done through another constitutional amendment.
Comment by MyTwoCents Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:10 am
Well countyline, the proposal will help the economy by taking 3 cents of every dollar after 1 million in profits. That’s after that millionaire taxpayer has deducted the expenses (payroll being one of them) from his/her taxes, so it will have no effect on those paychecks, and in the very unlikely case that this “over-taxed” millionaire closes up shop because he/she just can’t shoulder the loss of 3 cents on each dollar of profit over 1 MILLION, well, there’ll be another businessman that will be glad to employ those workers and make the profit that that poor “over-taxed” millionaire just gave up.
When you ask questions here bud, expect answers other than your own.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:11 am
===But OW, class warfare is exactly what it is…===
And who won the last election - Dems v. GOP in the class warfare prism.
See? The GOP is at a disadvantage in that prism. Oberweis/Rauner v. Working Class prism?
Sandbox the GOP loses.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:12 am
–Wow, you lefties are so blinded by your hatred of success that you can’t see this is bad for business.–
What business is that, chief? David Koch lives in NYC. So does Michael Bloomberg. They could live anywhere in the world, as could Illinois millionaires.
But the NYC millionaires pay a state personal income tax rate of 8.97% and then a city personal tax rate of 3.6%
Must love that deli.
Understandable. It’s hard to get good deli in Chicago anymore, unless you go to Mannys.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:28 am
- PublicServant - Truth be known Robo, a lot of millionaires depend on their modest income workers for their millions…just sayin.
Absolutely agree. The key to an economy’s success is its ability to recycle money throughout its sectors. Illinois should be striving to become the most efficient money recycler in the nation. When money leaves the recycling stream starts petering out.
Comment by Robo Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:28 am
I miss Meyers Deli soo much, Word…
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:29 am
===The key to an economy’s success is its ability to recycle money throughout its sectors===
Exactly why a flat income tax is so poor. Which marginal dollar earned do you think is more likely on average to recycle in the economy, Robo, the dollar made after the first one million, or the dollar made after the first, say, 30k?
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 9:34 am
@ Generation X - “Successful people who have worked hard to get to where they are at really need to start contributing. All the income, sales and property taxes they have paid really is not sufficient.”
In order to find a funding source to invest in good schools it makes sense to ask those same hard working, successful business owners who are so successful they’re able to pay themselves $1,000,000+ every year.
After all, the success of their business relies on the smart, productive employees those good schools develop.
Comment by Not Five Thirty Eight Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 10:50 am
So after raising taxes 66%, the real problem is the State has a lack of funds? That’s it, we just need more money. More and more. Forget about better management. Just give more money and it will magically solve all.
And all lets marvel at what awesome moves MJM has made, since our State is such great shape right now.
Comment by WalterMitty Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:35 pm
===To the Post: You can indulge in all the class warfare you want and rail against excess, but truth be known there are a lot of modest income workers who depend on their excess to support their families.===
And a lot of 1%s who count on that modest expense for their excess.
Comment by Pensioner Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 2:24 pm