* Press release…
Last night, Daniel Biss was asked on WTTW whether he would favor raising taxes immediately.
His response – tax hikes are “needed” and he would raise taxes across the board without reform.
“We can’t afford to wait…We have to be willing to make some compromises, we have to be willing to sit down and put everything on the table and do what’s needed,” said Biss about his tax hike plan.
Watch here.
Biss joins J.B. Pritzker and Mike Madigan in calling for an immediate tax hike without reform.
* His full comment…
We can’t afford to wait a minute more than we have to to get a balanced budget that properly funds our priorities. And so, on the road to amending the Constitution enabling us to have a fairer tax system that will finally allow us to ask the richest Illinois residents to pay their share, we have to be willing to make some compromises. We have to be willing to sit down and put everything on the table and do what’s needed to get a balanced budget. But in the long-term, the only way to make sure that our budget is still balanced, and fair and working for the people in 10, 20 and 30 years is to fix the Constitution and enable fair taxation.
He also touted his support for term limits on legislative leaders and lowering property taxes.
*** UPDATE *** From the Biss campaign…
“Daniel Biss is interested in actually doing something about Illinois’ problems, not just buying millions of dollars of TV commercials complaining about them. It’s an honest and pragmatic approach. So, it’s not surprising that the Governor and his party machinery aren’t familiar with it.”
- I'mDone - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 12:15 pm:
Typical cut and paste by Aaron DeGroot et. al. to distort or outright lie about a candidate’s position.
- 360 Degree TurnAround - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 12:17 pm:
#WEAK
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 12:32 pm:
Great idea! Reforms and compromise are needed but let’s just raise taxes now and we will work out the reforms and compromise details later!
What could possibly go wrong?
- Pundent - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 12:52 pm:
The problem with these so-called reforms is that the term has been rendered completely meaningless. Much of this is due to the shifting positions that Rauner continues to take on what constitutes “reforms”. It also underscores why I don’t think that Rauner has any desire to have a budget this term. Whether or not any candidate “favors” increasing taxes is non-negotiable. It has to be done. The only question is at what level. Rauner can’t continue to attack democrats and then have his name attached to the tax increase as he seeks re-election. The fact that the “reforms” that he’s insisting on have no quantifiable financial benefits only makes matters worse. He certainly can’t say the trade-off for a tax hike is term limits or workers’ compensation reform. And the longer he stretches this out the higher the tax increase will need to be and the more meaningless his reforms will be seen as.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 1:00 pm:
== The fact that the “reforms” that he’s insisting on have no quantifiable financial benefits only makes matters worse.==
The other option is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results. I know where that got us. I also know what that’s called.
- Keyrock - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 1:04 pm:
It’s much more appropriate to link Rauner with Madigan on raising taxes. They are the two men most responsible for the end of the temporary income tax which — as a matter of math — has made the eventual tax hike inevitable.
- Cubs in '16 - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 1:05 pm:
===The other option is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.===
There’s a third option. ‘Reforms’ that have a quantifiable ROI greater than 1.4%
- HistProf - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 1:05 pm:
Come on Lucky P. Rauner has not been clear about what “reforms” he actually wants; and nobody, not even you, has successfully demonstrated that his T.A. items would actually help the state economically by citing real economic research.
You would have a point were Rauner administering tough medicine that we lax liberals were, in our moral lassitude, unable to swallow. But what he says he favors, however inconsistently and sporadically, are a combination of placebos (best case) and actual poison to the economy. He knows we need a tax increase; he has said as much. He has not cuts he is willing to stick his neck out for.
Give it up!
Don’t respond unless you can cite an economic study of the probable impact of an actual BVR T.A. proposal.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 1:08 pm:
That’s kind of a tendentious link, just that they support the same policy (and they kinda don’t, but it’s close enough for political press releases). Not sure it’ll mean much; voters already expect Democrats to be OK with tax hikes.
- Cassandra - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 1:10 pm:
Yes, it’s a problem. Once the flat tax is raised and the money (a big chunk of it from the state’s middle class) starts rolling in, our political masters will be on to other things-why bother annoying sections of the electorate with cuts or progressive taxation. Especially, why annoy the wealthy who would resist progressive taxation.
If there is a tax increase, it will be a flat tax increase. The cuts will be cosmetic, if any. Spending will rev up again, not all of it for
worthy causes like education and social services.
The rich will get richer. Change is hard, and it appears to be particularly hard in Illinois.
- Mike Cirrincione - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 1:41 pm:
Even the current Governor/TV Commercial Star has figured out that taxes need to go up.
Its really not a big deal.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 1:42 pm:
==Once the flat tax is raised and the money (a big chunk of it from the state’s middle class)==
According to IPI, 23% of the tax returns filed by the middle class ($50-100K) accounts for 22% of the individual state income tax revenue. The 18% who make over $100K account for 63%. Any “big chunks” money coming in from a tax hike will be primarily from the $100K+ crowd.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-state-income-taxes-who-really-pays/
Otherwise, I agree. The state is not interested in substantive change.
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:04 pm:
History Prof you most certainly missed the math curriculum.
Only an academic with no concept of running a business and employing people would argue there no tangible benefits to freezing our highest in the nation property taxes, lowering workers comp, consolidating the record 7,000 units of local government, reforming our pension system that is 130 billion dollars on debt up from 70 or 80 billion less than 8 years ago.
Those sore of problems never seem to make it into the faculty lounge
- Rocky Rosi - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:04 pm:
Why are some people afraid of term limits? Second taxes are way too high for what we get in services from the state. If there is no true reform meaning addressing taxes and the pension system the state will become the poster child of how not to run state government. People with resources can leave the state anytime they want and go to greener pastures. It’s the little guy that is hurting. We are better than this. Let’s work together, pass a budget and live within our means.
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:07 pm:
Of course the bigs chunks of money coming in from the tax hike will come from the 100K plus crowd who are frequently dual income and not the millionaires and billionaires.
As Senator Biss has laid out very clearly, single earner households with children and mortgage deductions pay virtually no income tax
- walker - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:17 pm:
Wow LP. Biss must really worry you guys!
- Trapped in the 'burbs - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:29 pm:
Instead of billionaires and millionaires, we have a smart, somewhat nerdy wonk stating the obvious. The state needs more money. Every rational observer understands that the state has to raise revenue (taxes) and cut spending. Cuts alone can’t get it done. I don’t need two years of commercials to choose among the mega-wealthy in 2018, I’ll take somebody telling the truth who actually has a plan. Don’t tell me what your goals are, tell me what your plans to achieve them are.
- Inside Job - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:36 pm:
Lucky Pierre you may think you bested history prof as an academic. But an academic might have an advantage over you in running a REMI economic analysis. Your boys tried to run it and the results showed only a 1.4% improvement
remember that?
They recently ran another REMI analysis on the property tax freeze. The short term showed promise but extend it out only a few years and you get total unmitigated disaster on all local communities. I mean revenue/funding apocalypse.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:45 pm:
If a Republican challenges Rauner next year, they’ll tie the challenger to Madigan. Wait and see. It’s all they’ve got.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 2:48 pm:
==Of course the bigs chunks of money coming in from the tax hike will come from the 100K plus crowd who are frequently dual income and not the millionaires and billionaires.==
And that’s my problem with the graduated tax rhetoric. Most households in that $100K wheelhouse had to incur a lot of school debt to get to that point and pay higher than average property taxes. They are no more awash in cash at the end of the month than their $50K brothers and sisters. Yet the candidates will undoubtedly target this group in any progressive tax hike proposal.
No one should tout a progressive tax structure until they can also communicate the rates within the structure.
- Living In Reality - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:18 pm:
The last iteration of a progressive income tax that I saw(which would have to come into effect years from now after the constitutional amendment) was SB 518 of the 99th GA. I know the bill was just for show at the time but the brackets for joint filers were
0-200k = 3.5%
200.1k-750k = 3.5%
750.1k-1.5million = 8.75%
1.5 mil and up = 9.75%
I.E. a tax cut for all of the middle class.
If a progressive tax were ever passed, I would argue that most middle class people’s taxes would be cut due to large portions of there income being taxed at a lesser rate that the flat 3.75% that we have now.
- Living In Reality - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 3:19 pm:
whoops meant
200.1k - 750k -3.75%!!
- filmmaker prof - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 5:03 pm:
Lucky - would love to hear how you are going to erase the pension debt. I skipped math, but I did go to law classes.
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 5:40 pm:
Growing the economy would create more taxpayers and revenue as well as slow outmigration.
A concept completely lost on democrats who have zero economic development proposals since Rauner was elected. Not many successes during the past 12 years to hang on their wall either.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Apr 19, 17 @ 8:50 pm:
Film Prof, I may have skipped a little math and law, but I never missed FILM 104.
- Chicago Barb - Thursday, Apr 20, 17 @ 9:45 am:
The last politician to try and tie an income tax increase and a property tax cut was Dawn Clark Netsch, and we (who are old enough to remember Dawn) know what happened to her. If Rauner were really serious, he would be pushing hard for a constitutional amendment for a progressive income tax. Under the current structure, a property tax freeze is a recipe for disaster.