Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: IllinoisGO floats mega deal
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
*** UPDATE 1 *** From a Republican member of the working group…
“These represent items that a bipartisan, bicameral group of independent legislators said ‘Here are some things to get the conversation started.’”
So, just to be clear, not everybody in the working group agrees with all of these things, and as I told subscribers weeks ago, the governor and some Republicans wanted more reforms before agreeing to any new revenues.
*** UPDATE 2 *** OK, so from what I’m told, the Democrats presented the Republicans with these items, but they were rejected by the governor and the GOP as being “not enough reform” for the amount of revenue involved.
* As I told you in the previous post, the IllinoisGO “mega deal” list looked very similar to me as the proposals from a bipartisan group of legislators which ended up going nowhere when the governor turned thumbs down. Here is that list…
Spending and budget reforms
1. $36B FY16 spending level – below the General Assembly budget passed in May – with reductions in group health, transfers & discretionary spending this year and over $900m additional operational reductions in FY17
2. Pay off bill backlog over 5 years
3. Make full pension payments
4. Ensure childcare, community care and other social service programs are funded
5. Provide stability and certainty for at least 5 years
6. Enact an emergency reserve fund
7. Eliminate future rolling of billsRevenue
1. Pass a revenue plan that provides $3B in FY16 and grows to $5B
2. Broaden sales tax base to cover services similar to Wisconsin
3. Tax retirement income over $50,000
4. Increase personal income tax rate to 4.5%
5. Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 50%
6. Raise corporate income tax rate to 6.75%
7. Eliminate 3 corp. tax credits (domestic production, noncombination rule and offshore drilling) & make R&D credit permanent
8. Eliminate corp. franchise tax and lower LLC fees
9. Recouple inheritance tax with the federal government
10. Repeal E-10 subsidy (ethanol)Capital Plan
1. Develop a capital program to fund much needed water, sewer, road, public transit, school and other public infrastructure needs.
2. Create a vehicle miles travelled pilot
3. Apply any road portion to local roads as well as state roads w/criteria for accessing state dollarsSubstantive Reforms
Local control
1. Allow (but not require) all school districts to bargain over 3rd party contracting, layoffs, class size, school year & technology (like CPS)
2. Enable school districts to enter into 3rd party contracts
3. Modify arbitration selection process
4. Make contracts subject to appropriation
5. Enable a “reset” for healthcare & prohibit employers from awarding plans that would impose the “Cadillac tax”
6. Broaden local preference for Project Labor Agreements and ensure PLAs apply to construction only (not maintenance) projects
7. Set $150,000 threshold for prevailing wage (PW), enabling diversity in participation, and clarify homes in TIF districts are not subject to PW
8. Allow municipalities to form health care co-ops
9. Create disincentive for schools to pickup employee share of pension costsProperty tax freeze/education funding reform
1. Enact a 2 year property tax freeze excluding public safety
2. Establish pension parity for CPS w/sunset & alter CPS pension ramp
3. Sunset General State Aid formula 6/1/17 and create a stakeholder committee to propose new formula by 12/31/16 and identify needed $ to prevent any district from losing.Business/regulatory reforms
1. Implement substantive Workers compensation reforms
2. Modify Unemployment insurance to alter the def’n of misconduct, eliminate the social security offset, & extend “speed bumps”
3. Raise the minimum wage to $11 over time (Lightford bill)
4. Mandate reporting from contractors on minority workforce participationPension reform
1. Establish a tier 3 cash balance plan
2. Fix Tier 2 to link salary cap to social security wage base
3. Address pension spiking
4. Modify police and fire pension ramp schedules
Keep in mind that this was a bipartisan working group. Some Democrats are obviously willing to go much further with labor union-related reforms than House Speaker Michael Madigan will admit.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:38 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: IllinoisGO floats mega deal
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
What always strikes me is how nearly every detailed, comprehensive plan to deal with Illinois’ budget woes starts with the screamingly obvious: We need to increase taxes (particularly the income tax) to produce badly needed bucks, and we should do so as fairly as possible by also increasing the EITC.
See also: Civic Federation; common sense.
Comment by Linus Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:46 pm
===1. Establish a tier 3 cash balance plan===
… So, like, are we just giving up on recruiting the best and brightest come work for the state? Or were we just going to make it so the only people who apply to the work are the kind of people who used to be willing to buy tickets to fund raisers to get jobs?
Comment by Anon Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:53 pm
The governor bricked this, why wouldn’t he brick the GO proposal? Is it because this one was legislators and the GO proposal is his millionaire and billionaire financier friends?
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:57 pm
Linus-politicians always start by raising taxes. It’s the easy way out, even for republicans.
Comment by Blue dog dem Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 1:58 pm
The two plans are a Hobson’s choice.
The sales tax expansion to services is strongly opposed by some small contractors I know. They sometimes make money on a job, sometimes not. The state already collects tax on the material, and makes income tax on any labor. If they have to charge a state tax on the labor, it is the state getting an extra tax even on jobs where the contractor loses money. It drives up bids, making it more expensive for the customer, and more paperwork and recordkeeping for the contractor.
Comment by DuPage Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:06 pm
GO doesn’t have a capital bill as part of their plan. No deal gets done without a capital plan.
Comment by phocion Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:12 pm
This actually looks pretty reasonable. Those on the far right/left will dislike it of course but something in here for everyone.
Comment by Very Fed Up Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:17 pm
This plan will drive the more wealthy retirees, who have saved for retirement, to move out of state!
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:17 pm
Yeah Rich and there are a lot of Democrats who will not go this far on labor-union stuff. Whenever you write “take away pension pick up” just say decrease teacher pay. At least be honest about it.
Comment by Obamas Puppy Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:19 pm
==Tax retirement income over $50,000==
Again, they fail to address the differences between SS benefits and pension/401k payouts. Unlike pension/401k contributions, folks have already paid taxes on Social Security benefits. So a “flat” exemption isn’t equal. For example…
Retiree A with a $50K state pension will pay zero taxes on that income, both pre and post retirement. On the other hand, Retiree B with $20K in SS Benefits and $30K in 401k distributions will have already paid taxes on $20K (40%) of his retirement benefits.
Unless you exempt SS benefits and have a flat exemption, only then will both retirements be treated equally.
Comment by nixit71 Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:20 pm
Linus and Blue Dog Dem, if you have specific ideas on how Illinois can solve its budget problems without raising taxes, please share them with us.
Comment by Joe M Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:21 pm
Edit: Unless you exempt SS benefits and have a flat exemption on 401k/pension income, only then will both retirements be treated equally.
Comment by nixit71 Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:25 pm
stick with tier 2, it is part of the solution.
Comment by Facts are Stubborn Things Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:29 pm
Many will move out of state when retirement income is taxed.
Comment by skeptical Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:41 pm
Glad to see the GOIL dumped the cash balance retirement — that only benefits the financial industry, not the retirees. But how come no mention of minority hiring with the unions? Guess that didn’t make the grade? Wonder who missed the meeting.
Comment by Not quite a majority Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:45 pm
Some of the more responsible legislators have been trying to solve this impasse, regardless of what stances the Leaders and Governor have taken. It represents progress toward defining a solution, if not the final steps.
Comment by walker Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:50 pm
Both plans seem to be amalgamations the Civic Federation budget proposal, Cullerton’s property tax omnibus bill, Eric Madair’s pension “consideration” concept, and Jack Frank’s corporate loophole bill. (Notice the lack of Madigan authorship there? What’s that do for its chances?)
The bigger question is: why did Goldner go public as the face of compromise?
Comment by Phil Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 2:57 pm
“Sunset General State Aid formula 6/1/17 and create a stakeholder committee to propose new formula by 12/31/16 and identify needed $ to prevent any district from losing.”
Any deal needs to include more than just identifying the dollars needed to prevent any district from losing money, it needs to include taxation that will allow for that at the State level. All the Manar proposals identified the losses to some districts and gains for other districts that isn’t hard. Finding the will to increase taxes is the hard part. There should be no sunset without an actual plan being presented to replace it, the SB 318 concept is lame.
Comment by Rod Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:06 pm
I’ll say this - do I like everything in these proposals?! No. But try finding someone who does (or would). I believe this is called “compromise”. Both sides would need to eat a crap sandwich and move on.
Comment by Team Sleep Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:10 pm
Being that the 5% personal income tax expired more than 10 months ago and the rate has been 3.75% this year, the 4.50% suggested rate will not be sufficient.
Comment by The Dude Abides Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:11 pm
Sounds reasonable as a compromise.
Comment by Downstate Hack Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:16 pm
I don’t think that Rauner would agree to this plan - it doesn’t seem to have as many anti-union poison pills as the Governor is calling for?
Comment by Joe M Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:30 pm
===Again, they fail to address the differences between SS benefits and pension/401k payouts.===
The tax code is pretty simple in Illinois. To address that difference, you’d need to add a line to the return and change the definition of retirement income.
===Unlike pension/401k contributions, folks have already paid taxes on Social Security benefits.===
If you mean benefits, then you’re wrong. Do you mean contributions? Why do you think the state should operate with the premise that %100 of contributions towards retirement income should not be taxed by the State of Illinois? Non-taxed contributions IRAs are capped, so are tax deferred contribution to IRAs.
===So a “flat” exemption isn’t equal.===
The goal isn’t to be equal. Equality would be taxing 100% of the federally taxed retirement income.
===Retiree […] will have already paid taxes on $20K (40%) of his retirement benefits.===
You use this word “benefits” again. Folks pay taxes on their income, some retirement savings are excluded from a taxpayer’s gross and adjusted income. When the income is received later on, it’s taxed unless it’s a qualified Roth IRA, or the social security income fails to meet a certain threshold.
Your “double taxing the benefits” premise is a fallacy.
===only then will both retirements be treated equally.===
Look, Brah — last year it cost the state 2.2 billion dollars to not tax retirement. You haven’t that it’s in the state’s best interests to have zero income taxes on contributions to non-qualified retirement plans.
Social security isn’t a voluntary retirement program, Brah. The reason why IRAs, 401ks, etc, are excluded from the AGI of a taxpayer is because the government is trying to encourage additional savings. I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make, or why you should be trying to make it. IRAs, 401ks, etc, are the government “helping” people save for retirement. Social Security is the government providing for your retirement savings.
Comment by Anon Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:54 pm
But Rauner assured us no tax increase was needed. That’s why he was elected and Quinn thrown out. Must be a mistake here.
Comment by ottawa otter Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:58 pm
===Unless you exempt SS benefits and have a flat exemption on 401k/pension income, only then will both retirements be treated equally.===
This also doesn’t make any sense. The State of Illinois starts with the Federal AGI to calculate the Illinois Base Income. All federally taxed retirement income is allowed to be subtracted on Line 5 from the AGI. This means that zero retirement income is taxed by the State of Illinois.
Certain income from social security, IRAs, etc, may not be federally taxed. Those amounts simply are not taxed federally, and because they’re not in the AGI, they’re not taxed by the state.
What you’re saying doesn’t really make any sense. Not everyone in the state earns an equal retirement income. I don’t know why you think there should be any extra subtraction for certain kinds of retirement income, you never made that case.
But hey, I’m a guy who thinks there should be no subtraction for retirement income in this state because it’s time for folks who benefited from the services the state provided to pay for them.
Comment by Anon Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 3:59 pm
As Rep. Lou Lang stated, blowing up the school funding formula on a date certain does NOT mean it will be replaced. Can you imagine how difficult it will be to come to agreement on very complex school funding, property tax (a statewide one?), and stable sources of new funding for schools. Could be a receipe for disaster. Cullerton’s spokesperson stated if necessary money might be turned over to State Board of Education for it to distribute. Who knows what Meeks and company would do with the money?
Comment by blow up school funding Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 4:00 pm
==I’m a guy who thinks there should be no subtraction for retirement income in this state because it’s time for folks who benefited from the services the state provided to pay for them===
Folks who benefited from the services the state provided to pay for them………I assume then, that you have NO problem paying higher taxes to replace the money stolen from public employees’ pension funds. You benefited from money that wasn’t yours to have in the way of services. You should be happy to pay in arrears for what you got.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 4:05 pm
to Joe M: There IS no way to solve our budget problems without a significant injection of new revenue, which is why I called that component “screamingly obvious.”
That’s also why I labeled it “common sense.” Capiche?
Comment by Linus Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 4:27 pm
===but they were rejected by the governor and the GOP as being “not enough reform” for the amount of revenue involved.===
Oh, well. Never mind then.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 4:32 pm
Unless the Speaker has been part of either one of these solutions, I don’t see either moving. It’s nice pie in the sky but until you have the ok from the big man nothing moves.
There is still a “brick” on Moylan’s bill and that had huge support from both sides of the GA.
Comment by DuPage Bard Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 4:33 pm
==I don’t know why you think there should be any extra subtraction for certain kinds of retirement income, you never made that case.==
The only reason I make the distinction is because taxes on Social Security contributions are paid while working, whereas taxes are deferred on 401k/pension contributions until retirement.
Look, I think we’re in agreement on taxing retirement income in general. But over half the states that tax retirement income exempt Social Security from taxation. That is the model I am proposing.
Comment by nixit71 Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 5:01 pm
I don’t think seniors will flee b/c those making over 50 g a year will be taxed, especially if there is some property tax relief. I believe the majority of states tax retirement money so your choices on where to relocate would be limited.
Comment by burbanite Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 5:12 pm
Apparently, it is not widely known that teacher pensions are fully taxable at the federal level.
Comment by Enviro Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 5:38 pm
Teacher pension contributions are also fully taxable at the federal level.
Comment by Enviro Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 5:40 pm
== 1. Establish a tier 3 cash balance plan
… So, like, are we just giving up on recruiting the best and brightest come work for the state? Or were we just going to make it so the only people who apply to the work are the kind of people who used to be willing to buy tickets to fund raisers to get jobs? ==
Actually, this will only attract resume stampers and people acquiring training at State expense so they can move on after a few years and be able to take their cash with them … and if they structure it like a 457 plan (current Deferred Comp), then the “superstars” can cash out their pension positions at any age without penalty when they leave government service. It will turn top state jobs into a revolving door … much more so than today.
The bit of good news is that this pension proposal would be constitutional if only applied to new hires or made part of a fully voluntary “consideration” deal.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 6:16 pm
The Gov’s prizes in this proposal are:
the capitol plan = local pork for votes
school 3rd party contracting = privatizing schools
health insurance reset = bronze / tin plans
local zones & PW @ $150K = right to work for less
contract approps non-fund out = loophole to cancel
Comment by RNUG Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 6:24 pm
== Look, I think we’re in agreement on taxing retirement income in general. But over half the states that tax retirement income exempt Social Security from taxation. That is the model I am proposing. ==
Better chance of a straight flat exemption amount being constitutional when it comes to the Pension Clause. If you go exempting SSI, then some classes of government employees who are not allowed to participate in SS would possibly have a case on unequal treatment because they did not have a choice about being part of Social Security. Not sure the retirees would win the case but, from where I sit, they would have decent odds.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 6:33 pm
Good luck with that school funding formula. No one has ever tried changing that before!
Comment by DuPage Dave Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 7:25 pm
I’m against rewarding the governor’s months of hostage-taking that has caused so much fiscal and economic damage by giving him the anti-union stuff.
He didn’t campaign on it (in fact, he claimed it wasn’t something he planned to do) and he’s never articulated a tangible benefit for it other than buzz words.
Fix the sabotage of FY16 — that’s a pretty big job.
Then, spend that $20 million selling the “reforms” out in the open on the campaign trail in 2016.
Have the courage of your convictions, rather than trying to sneak your schemes in the back door by causing harm across the state.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 16, 15 @ 8:00 pm
Word, Word.
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Nov 17, 15 @ 7:04 am