* Is tripling the state’s income tax exemption really necessary? We’ve already got a pretty darned low income tax, and it would still be somewhat low after the proposed increase. And then there’s this…
Gov. Pat Quinn’s plan to raise the personal income tax exemption to $6,000 from $2,000 per person would make Illinois’ exemption one of the most generous in the nation. Only Connecticut’s $13,000 exemption is more generous. But Connecticut does not apply its exemption to dependents. In addition, Connecticut’s exemption decreases as income increases. Illinois’ is static for all incomes. Therefore, Illinois’ $6,000 per person exemption would top Connecticut’s for a three-person household. A taxpayer does not pay tax on exempted income.
* Sen. James Meeks told Mark Brown what several other legislators were saying yesterday, or at least part of it. Not everybody says that the tax hike is too small, but the exemptions are very contentious…
“The tax increase is too small,” Meeks said. “The exemption is too great.”
Increasing the personal exemption to $6,000 from $2,000, as Quinn proposes, “has not been on anybody’s radar screen,” Meeks complained. “It has no allies.”
He’s right that nobody in the GA has ever really talked about the exemption increase. It’s just way too new to be digested quickly. More…
A partial solution, Meeks says, would be for the state to pass legislation committing itself to use the new income tax revenues for schools by the third year after it takes effect — allowing two years to clear up the deficit.
That might not be a bad compromise, especially if there was something in the law about reducing property taxes, or even sales taxes.
* Quinn’s defense of the increased exemptions and a challenge to his critics…
“It is a principal as old as the bible,” Quinn said. “Taxes should be based on ability to pay.”
Acknowledging growing opposition to his tax hike plans, Quinn warned his foes that they need to come up with better solutions to the state’s damaging shortfall.
“You must tell the people of Illinois what you will do instead,” Quinn said to cheers from lawmakers, adding later, “Saying ‘No’ is not enough unless you are willing to speak the truth and offer real alternatives.”
* The Rockford Register Star is unimpressed…
Quinn has tried to soften the blow by raising the income tax exemption to $6,000 from the current $2,000.
While that would mean a family of four making $25,000 would see a dramatic reduction in state income tax, a single person making $20,000 would see a big increase.
* Neither does the PJ Star…
Not to rain on anybody’s parade, but if 5 million Illinois citizens will come out ahead in this budget, as Quinn contends, that means another 8 million won’t. Arguably Quinn’s proposals will put less money in the pockets of most Illinois citizens in a high-anxiety job climate, which means they’ll be less likely to spend it and get the economy humming again.
We fail to see how these tax increases will convince Caterpillar to hire back the 24,000 workers it has let go in this downturn. Government may have a role where short-term job creation is concerned, but where most of us live, the private sector is the place we look for long-term, steady employment. “If you’re able-bodied and you’re breathing, we want you working in Illinois,” said Quinn. Yes, but will this budget accomplish that?
* The SJ-R likes it…
We favor a graduated income tax instead of Illinois’ flat tax; Quinn’s increased personal exemption proposal would cut taxes for families but leave single people making as little as $20,000 paying higher income taxes. A constitutional amendment allowing a truly progressive tax structure should be on next year’s agenda.
…Adding… Tom Cross…
“(Quinn’s) shifting the bulk of the burden of this tax increase to what I think is truly middle-class,” said House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego.
* Let’s keep this focused on the exemptions, not the tax hike. We’ll talk about that subject in another post.
- How Ironic - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 10:13 am:
Seeing as I have 3 kids and I am married, I would get my first 30K for free.
As much as I hate paying taxes, that seems a bit rich. Perhaps $5,000 would be more reasonable.
I was also thinking that the new tax rate should be 5% with specific language to target lowering property tax rates. I pay out the nose for those. And I live in Springfield, not Chicago.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 10:29 am:
–Increasing the personal exemption to $6,000 from $2,000, as Quinn proposes, “has not been on anybody’s radar screen,” Meeks complained. “It has no allies.”–
If Quinn plays his cards right, he’ll have plenty of allies — anyone with kids.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 10:31 am:
Do you want to keep families in Illinois? Then you better create an environment that makes it possible for those raising the next generation of taxpayers, consumers and leaders to keep them here.
Who will pay for your social programs if this government squeezes families out of the state?
What we are seeing in Western Europe is that their social nanny states are collapsing because selfishly, their population refused to grow up enough to raise a new generation of taxpayers to keep their Ponzi scheme afloat.
Same here. We cannot have a future without families. You don’t tax them!
- Ghost - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 10:32 am:
The exemptions are an attempt to work around the progressive tax limitations in the consitution. It is an imperfect fit. For the present it is a good workaround given the alternatives, but long term we should look more towards a progressive tax.
- clearly - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 10:35 am:
Those exemption are a slap to the face for singles or married couples without children. Under Quinn’s plan, a single person making MINIMUM WAGE would see a tax increase. In what world is that fair?
- jobs not cuts - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 10:36 am:
Tripling the exemption makes little sense in the long run. Quinn’s trying to bridge the structural deficit with a scaled back version of the usual smoke and mirrors - but it’s still smoke and mirrors. If you need revenue to balance the budget go ahead and raise my taxes - with or without raising the exemption it is still the fairest way to do it. Perhaps double the exemption and propose raising it over three years while at the same time work on amending the constitution to get rid of the ridiculous prohibition on a progressive tax structure.
- the Other Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 10:40 am:
Increasing the exemption would not be necessary if Illinois did not have a flat tax — a tax that, in practice, ends up being a regressive tax. There are proposals to make changes to the constitution to allow a progressive tax, and this is the better solution. Absent this constitutional change, the only way to make the tax hike palatable to middle class voters is by increasing the exemption, even with all the quirks it produces.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 10:56 am:
Remember, Con Con failed by a landslide, It could have been the vehicle to fix all the structural issues being brought up here. The people spoke, so any structural fix requiring fundamental change will need a better sales job than what we have seen so far.
- Sacks Romana - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 11:01 am:
To use their own example, a single person making 20K would see (guessing at federal AGI) a $35-50 annual tax increase. That’s not exactly fair, but it’s also not what I would call a big increase. On the other hand the exemption really helps out working families with children. I agree with the other comments to fix the constitutional flat tax (and the unholy marriage of personal income tax to corporate income tax), but I really think this is a pretty decent solution given our nightmare scenario, and a short time frame. A constitutional ammendment isn’t happening overnight.
I would also definitely support an extra .5% increase (up to 5%) and/or an expansion of the sales tax to include services, if it meant real property tax relief, and a committment a few years down the road to equitably funding education.
I also agree with Quinn that a lot of people are throwing fire without proposing any constructive alternatives. Not to get too tangental, but I’ll be upset if Madigan beats Quinn in the primary by bashing him for making the tough decisions to fix Illinois after the Blagojevich era. The same tough decisions that she would probably make if she were to immediately follow Blagojevich.
- George - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 11:26 am:
Poking around on Wonkish’s site, they have a graph that compares the tax plan to current taxes pretty well.
The most interesting thing I found when looking at it (and hasn’t been talked about yet) was how this family of four will actually be getting a credit back (negative tax) at a much higher income then they would have previously.
Quinn tax reform proposal graph
- Skirmisher - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 11:32 am:
Proposing a general income tax increase was a long overdue and necessary thing, but proposing these huge increases in exemptions negates a great deal of the beneift, especially in the long run, and shoves the burden towards business, where it should not go. Quinn’s populist instincts got the better of his good sense and statemanship, a tendency that haa always been his greatest weakness as a political leader.
- George - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 11:33 am:
“Those exemption are a slap to the face for singles or married couples without children.”
Hold on - everyone always complains that our flat rate tax structure currently hurts families with children because it doesn’t take into account their ability to pay (the extra kids and family members).
I think a straight “progressive” tax structure that has different rates for different incomes is flawed, because it doesn’t take into account family size and need. That’s why you always see folks at the federal level pushing Child Tax Credits, and Child Dependent Care tax credits (Democrats and Republicans), because then our taxes take into account our family size.
Do I think a family of 4 making $30k should pay the same in taxes as a single person making $30k? No. Doing so puts a greater burden on the family.
- Pat Collins - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 12:04 pm:
Those exemption are a slap to the face for singles or married couples without children
Actually, the people with children are paying way too much as it is. They pay Social Sec tax, AND they pay to raise the next set of citizens who will pay it.
You can make an argument that 6K is not only right, but given how un-helpful Fed tax rates are, not enough.
This (6K per person) is the sort of thing Bush SHOULD have done.
- Secret Square - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 12:11 pm:
VM has it right when it comes to the additional tax exemptions for families. It’s not a case of being “unfair” to single people, but of easing the burden on people who are doing a job that is critical to the future of the state and of society — i.e. raising children. We provide tax breaks for other important business and social endeavors; why not this one?
No one I know of gets married or has children solely to obtain tax exemptions. The tax break doesn’t cover the entire cost of supporting a family anyway, so it’s not as if you make a “profit” at the expense of single people.
That being said, I think a $6,000 personal exemption might be a bit high; I could settle for $4,000 right now and have it go up gradually. $2,000 was pathetically low and needed some adjustment for inflation.
- George - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 12:21 pm:
I have heard a lot of talk about phasing in the exemptions, as well (go up to $4,00/pp now, and then gradually go up to $6,000/pp).
I like Quinn’s ultimate go of making all income below the poverty line tax free (for everyone). That is the fairest tax system you could design, I believe. So, I think the end goal is right.
With regard to going to $4,000 currently and then phasing it up to $6,000 -
POSITIVES:
- This would net the state an additional $1.1 billion toward solving next year’s deficit (could be negotiated against the union complaints).
- Or, it could be coupled with a reduction in the tax rate (down to 4% maybe), to make it seem like a compromise.
- People already think the tax increase is “50%” now for everyone, so nobody would really miss this change. Especially the ed boards (*cough* Tribune *cough*) who can’t do math.
NEGATIVES:
- If people are complaining about a big tax increase now, this would make it even bigger.
- It puts the largest burden of the tax increase at the worst time - now during the recession.
- There is always the danger that it doesn’t ever get increased to $6,000, which should be the ultimate goal.
- jerry 101 - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 12:38 pm:
I’m for the exception increase, but the goal should be amending the Constitution to allow for a graduated income tax.
Yeah, I’ll see a big income tax hike. Beats a big sales tax hike, and the State needs the money.
As the economy recovers, any extra funds generated by the income tax increase should be earmarked for getting the pensions fully funded. Just because we can’t possibly afford to fund the pensions in this environment doesn’t give us license to continue to deny workers their retirement funding.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:04 pm:
According to the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, increasing the tax rate to 4.5% (with a parallel increase in the corporate income tax rate) WITHOUT increasing the personal exemption would net $4.5 BILLION for the state (with another $450 million going to municipalities).
That’s $1.7 BILLION more in revenue if the current exemption of $2,000 is left in place.
That revenue could be used to provide targeted and MEANINGFUL tax relief for low and middle income families through the earned income tax credit, as well as restore cuts to programs like homeless youth services and Parents to Soon targeted for cuts by Quinn, and still have money left over.
And why do I say “meaningful”?
Well, Quinn likes to talk about the increase in the personal exemption as a $24,000 tax-break for a family of four.
But in reality, its only a $24000 tax exemption, and the real “tax break” is only 4.5% of that amount, less the 3% tax break their already getting at the current exemption of $8,000 at a 3% tax rate.
That’s a net tax break of $840, or $70 a month.
For a couple with no kids, the net tax break is $35 a month.
For a single individual, its $17.50 a month.
Now, $70 a month might make a difference in the lives of a family of four living at or below the federal poverty level of $21,200 a year.
But Quinn wants to give the exemption “tax break” to a family of four making $200,000 a more a year as well.
I’m sure the Pritzkers and their friends are just salivating.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:08 pm:
=== Do I think a family of 4 making $30k should pay the same in taxes as a single person making $30k? No. Doing so puts a greater burden on the family. ===
Um, welcome to the real world, where having children has consequences: social and economic.
I could easily make the counter argument, that people with children SHOULD pay more in taxes, because their families benefit disproportionally from programs that educate their children and in many cases provide them with child care and health care.
- George - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:14 pm:
YDD -
I disagree. You take that away and put it all into an EITC, and you only exacerbate the howls of folks saying it is an income transfer.
Plus, it hurts your “single person” problem even more. A single person without kids in Illinois can only get up to a maximum $21.90 credit annually. And that even phases out once your income exceeds $7,160.
A family of four can get up to a maximum credit of $241, and that starts to phase out at $15.740.
Even if you double or quadruple the state’ EITC, it still isn’t as good a tax cut as you would get with the raised exemption that Quinn is proposing.
- George - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 1:15 pm:
Let me be clear - I think you can still go and increase the EITC. But I don’t think it is an effective substitute for those at lower incomes.
- Wumpus - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 3:53 pm:
This is great! People who use the services most would pay more into it! Let everyone contribute to our great system!
- Linus - Thursday, Mar 19, 09 @ 8:54 pm:
Here, here for the EITC mentions! Cheaper and slightly more targeted solution to the question of how to provide meaningful tax relief with an income tax hike: increase the exemption by a smaller amt than Quinn proposes - say, $4K - and triple or quadruple the existing EITC that the poorest families get.
That still leaves a substantial amt of $ on the table for committing to deficit reduction than you’d have with current $6K exemption proposal - between $500K and $1 bil more, it would seem.