91 Comments - Anonymous - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 10:55 am: Fake news! - Team America - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 10:56 am: Because… math - Nony - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 10:57 am: Wow. Bets on how long this stays up? - Curl of the Burl - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 10:57 am: See my comment on the Jeanne Ives post in reference to Chris Welch’s social media, ahem, tendencies. He is just as much of a bomb thrower as anyone. - Deft Wing - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 10:57 am: Heh. Proving yet again the Dems are really bad at basic math. But by all means, let’s believe their budget is balanced & all is now well. - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 10:58 am: Must have had one of them unionized math teachers. - Flapdoodle - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 10:58 am: Thanks, Rich — Was wondering when someone would finally provide this lesson in elementary arithmetic. - don the legend - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 10:59 am: Unfortunately most people have no idea how to calculate the increase for themselves. I bet 50%+ would pick Welch’s answer. - Anonymous - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 10:59 am: Daniel, which is it? - Amalia - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 10:59 am: How to lie with statistics. jeez, Rep. Welch, arithmetic much?!? - Ajjacksson - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:00 am: Yes, you are correct, it is an increase of 1.2 percentage POINTS. However, the use of “32% is intentionally misleading. Suppose our state tax was 1.8%, and we decided to raise it to 3%. That’s a 67% increase in taxes–BUT IT’S THE SAME 1.2 PERCENTAGE POINTS!!!! I’m a statistics teacher. I teach my students this–any time someone uses a “percent increase” or “percent decrease,” they are generally trying to hide something or deceive you into thinking something that’s not exactly true. It’s an increase of $12 in tax for every $1000 extra someone makes. For the hole we are in, that’s not unreasonable. - Southwestsider - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:00 am: Feel embarrassed for this Rep. Back to math class. - Truth Squad - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:01 am: Does Rep. Welch think we’re dumb? - Grand Avenue - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:02 am: Does he think people believe the state income tax went from 3.75% to 35.75%? - Archiesmom - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:02 am: What brings it into reality is when you translate those percentages in points into actual dollars. I’m not seeing a whole lot of people telling what the actual impact is on the average family. I was at a picnic last night and one person said the impact on her would be four dollars per paycheck, which she was happy to pay. - Ajjacksson - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:03 am: The point this representative is making is that Mr. Rauner intends to deceive. I believe the representative is correct. - RNUG - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:03 am: Math is hard … especially for poly-sci majors. /s - Curl of the Burl - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:03 am: Truth - um, duh! Have you ever heard him “debate” on the House floor?! Yikes. He is a smart dude and a very capable legislator but he has turned into an over-the-top, hyper-partisan person. - dlapine - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:04 am: It’s also about perception. It’s less than the state income tax we were paying when Rauner took office, and the world wasn’t ending then. For me it’s maybe $200 a month more, and given that we’re $14B in debt, I can live with that. - A guy - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:04 am: ==Does Rep. Welch think we’re dumb?== No. I don’t believe so. But, I do think he believes he is really smart. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:04 am: ===BUT IT’S THE SAME 1.2 PERCENTAGE POINTS!!!!=== Try not using all caps from now on. Thanks. And you’re absolutely right. But you can’t say somebody is wrong when they’re not and then say it’s something else when it isn’t. - Jacob Greene - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:04 am: If any of you who are complaining abut Rep. Welch’s tweet *really* think it is a 32% increase, feel free to send that extra 30% to my bank account next April. Thanks. - Just Me - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:05 am: No wonder Illinois has money issues if this is the math they use… - Ducky LaMoore - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:05 am: Unforced silliness, Rep Welch. - Curl of the Burl - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:05 am: Archiesmom - conversely when I added it up the difference for my family will be what it costs for to put my kids in aftercare every month. That is a huge hole for us. - Worth It - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:05 am: Ajjacksosson, we will be paying 32% more than we were last year. Numbers have power to be persuasive and can be put in different lights, but to act as if 32% is not accurate or misleading is ridiculous. If you are teaching your kids that using percentage increases or decreases means you are trying to hide something then you are doing a disservice to your students. It is the language that all people with budget experience, cost accounting, and business management need to use everyday…it is not propaganda. - Curl of the Burl - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:06 am: A Guy - excellent post! - Anonymous - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:07 am: ==Suppose our state tax was 1.8%, and we decided to raise it to 3%. That’s a 67% increase in taxes–BUT IT’S THE SAME 1.2 PERCENTAGE POINTS!!!!== When someone see’s their check, they’re not going to see a reduction by 1.2 points, they’re going to see their State is taking 32% more than they were before. ==I’m a statistics teacher.== Welch must’ve been one of your students - Red Pen - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:08 am: Yes. I was just cringing at his post. The Rauner formulation is obviously designed to manipulate the reaction, too…but at least it’s mathematically correct. It seems like the fairest way to report on this would be to refer to raising the rate from 3.75% to 4.95%…but I don’t expect to see that from many of our elected officials (or the IPI). For what it’s worth, I also enjoyed the fact that Ives was unable to use a comma properly in her tweet about failing teachers. We might not want to think that these folks truly represent us, but, collectively, they really do. - hangdog - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:10 am: it is, in fact, a 1.2% tax increase. It is also a 32% increase in the tax RATE. I don’t believe Rauner’s statement correctly used that language. Words matter. - Dublin - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:10 am: Had to convince someone this morning that their tax was not going to be 32%. - redraider - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:10 am: And for the lowest earners in the State it is still 50% less that you would pay if you lived in Wisconsin or Iowa - Arsenal - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:10 am: That being said, using the 32% number is one of those “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” things. You’re not going to see 32% of your paycheck go away now. - Grand Avenue - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:10 am: Maybe he should have said that since it starts July 1, the 2017 tax hike is only 16%. Then the 2018 tax hike is only 14% (we go from 3.75 in 2016, to an average of 4.35 in 2017 to 4.95 in 2018). - Steve - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:11 am: This means Mike Madigan couldn’t cut 1.2% of his budget.Anyway ,percentages are a comparison. Rich Miller is right on what he said at the end of the blog entry on the numbers. - OurMagician - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:11 am: Write it in cursive and Rep. Welch would be all over it. - TinyDancer(FKAsue) - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:12 am: ==…any time someone uses a “percent increase” or “percent decrease,” they are generally trying to hide something or deceive you into thinking something that’s not exactly true.== Exactly. Pharmaceutical companies play the same game with “relative risk” as opposed to “absolute risk.” - Mean Gene - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:13 am: The Governor is using the “32%” to make it sound like a much larger increase than what it is. No different than when companies say they are the fastest growing company in America when they say they’ve “doubled” their customer base (in reality, they went from 2 customers to 4 customers). The fact is the increase is $1.20 per $100.00 taxed. So if you make $50,000, you’ll pay an additional $600.00 in a year. You can then double that as needed to figure out how much extra someone will pay. - My button is broke... - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:14 am: To the point that people are saying this is the largest tax increase in Illinois’ history, I imagine they get this as it’ll generate $5 billion a year or so forever, whereas the last increase generated $7 billion or so but only for four year, so around $30 billion. I still feel like the initial income tax creation would have been a larger tax increase, but whatever. Both sides are having lots of fun with numbers. - Anonymous - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:14 am: It’s the Democrat talking point because Rep. Kifowitt is peddling the same. Trying to obfuscate the issue and tamp down the oppositions. Math matters. - Curl of the Burl - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:15 am: Maigician - or if you fail to write it in cursive then Rep. Welch would have to use one of his super-nice pocket squares to mop his furrowed brow. - Hawkeye - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:18 am: I blame common core. - Three-Finger Brown - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:18 am: Typically, percentages of percentages aren’t cited, because they can be misleading. If the tax rate went from 1% to 2%, one could claim 100% increase, but that would be silly. Of course Rauner knows this. There are people who legitimately believe that their new tax rate will be 32% (check some of the comments in Profit articles). So, yes, he is technically correct, but it isn’t really in the spirit of honest dialogue. - Rep. Welch - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:18 am: Rich, we are talking about the tax rate. The tax rate increased 1.2 percentage points. Rauner wants people to think our tax rate is 32 percent. You know exactly what he’s trying to do. - Keyser Soze - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:19 am: “The guy can’t do math” says the guy who can’t do math. This may actually explain why Illinois is in the shape it’s in. - lake county democrat - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:19 am: Archiesmom: great point, but that woman isn’t a good example. The median household income in IL is $60K - 1.2% of that is $620. It’s got to be done, but the voters should have got more in return (everyone here hates Drury, but I bet if he had an alternate budget it would be far better than what was negotiated here). - Anonymous - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:20 am: “People can come up with statistics to prove anything… Forty percent of all people know that.” - Homer J. Simpson - Lucky Pierre - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:21 am: This from the party that supposedly is protecting hard working middle class families from Rauner’s extreme right wing agenda of property tax, pension, workers comp, government consolidation reforms. Illinois now will have without a doubt the highest tax burden in America on middle class families when income tax, property tax and sales taxes are combined. No doubt this tax increase is a band aid but it will not cure the patient. There will be more band aids in the future because the drivers of our debt like pensions are ignored. So much for the false narrative of the Rauner tax increases. Democrats will have to defend record property taxes and a permanent income tax increase without any reforms of our government or business environment. - Annonin' - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:22 am: Here is another way to look at amount raised for every dollar earner is just over One Penny - Grand Avenue - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:23 am: If Rauner is dishonest saying it’s a 32% increase then Welch is dishonest calling it a 1.2% increase, because that implies the tax rate will only go from 3.75 to 3.795. It’s fine to have competing language and talking points. The Dems should say they raised the income tax by 1.2%, which is true. And Rauner should say this is a 32% increase, which is also true. It’s like when Dems call SB9 a revenue bill and GOPs call it a tax hike - both are true and it’s fine to use your terminology but that doesn’t mean the other side is lying when they use their also true terminology. - Eight Zero - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:24 am: Reminds me of a hilarious quote from a convicted, former regional superintendent…”I’m an educator, not an accountant.” - Huh? - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:24 am: “So if you make $50,000, you’ll pay an additional $600.00 in a year.” So you are saying this is going to cut into the Casey’s coffee and do it budget? - NoEnd - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:24 am: Percentages don’t buy milk. Ther percentage coming out of someones paycheck translated into dollars is what people really care about. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:24 am: I just ask my complaing friends if it was too high in 2014, and a few forgot it was 5% then. Those that did, I’d ask them what they did with the saving when it dropped to 3.75%, and they couldn’t come up with an answer. But by the time I asked them what the savings were, they realizsd that they were looking like cheap quibblers and just waved me off. The upset citizen has been conditioned to see nothing but bad government value over the past 20 years of bad governance. They don’t believe our government will get better. Naturally they don’t want to pay more. We need to show our citizens value for their tax dollars. - Ras - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:24 am: So, in other words: there will be a 32% increase in what I already give to the state of IL? Or, I will lose 1.2% more of my money? I think I am saying it correctly. Yes, a 32% increase certainly would evoke a sense of anger from many who heard it. - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:26 am: So, if our tax rate was 0.5% and we raised it to 1.0%, that would be 100% increase, but it’s a very low tax rate. That’s where the deception comes in - the “percent increase” is a tool to manipulate public opinion and arouse unfounded anger. - weary - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:27 am: You can bet that if he was REDUCING taxes, he would have done the math correctly! I know politicians love to spin things, but when it comes to math, you can’t spin it by just doing it wrong. But it could have been worse. For example if he initially wanted a 50% increase but then only got 32%, he would then be calling it a tax CUT! - Roman - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:29 am: Welch is wrong. So are the many Republicans, including the governor, who were calling this the “largest tax increase in state history” last night. If I was a House member who voted yes, I’d say something like “I voted to return the rate to where it was in 2014.” - Macbeth - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:32 am: So what? Who cares about the semantics? It’s necessary. It’s been necessary. Rauner, ironically, has made the situation so bad that’s it’s *more* necessary now than it was three years ago. It’s bizarre. Totally bizarre. A Governor who, literally, has no idea what he’s doing. - Shemp - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:32 am: ===- redraider - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:10 am: And for the lowest earners in the State it is still 50% less that you would pay if you lived in Wisconsin or Iowa=== And if you lived in those states, your property taxes would be halved. Not to mention, you can see in their infrastructure your dollars go farther. - Grand Avenue - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:33 am: Looks like the post came down. The Cap Fax Mathlete brigade wins the day! - Anonymous - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:35 am: Archie’s Mom - “I’m not seeing a whole lot of people telling what the actual impact is on the average family.” It’s just a tad less than what they were paying in income taxes when Quinn was Governor. - Norseman - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:41 am: === Math is hard … especially for poly-sci majors. === Only for the Bachelor of Arts folks. - Amalia - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:45 am: Dear Statistics Teacher: as I hit my head to my desk, no, the percentage which Rauner states is correct. (and I write that as someone who loathes his leadership style.) anyone who plays in the political sandbox knows that with each push for news that includes numbers, one decides what makes the best argument and decides accordingly. sometimes that is a pure number, number difference, sometimes that is a percentage, percentage increase or decrease. and the same is true of those answering the issue/#s. it is not incorrect to state that there is a percentage increase. it’s not like this is a misleading weird graph (read the book recently out, A Field Guide to Lies, for some good examples). I’d say a better response is how many cents it goes up. that seems like a low number. It’s not like this is the Toni drink tax (1 cent for each ounce, jeez). each political operation should have at least one person who is not afraid to crunch percentages, numbers. people get scared of these things because they think they must be able to venture into probability, regression analysis, which is nice but in my experience rarely the daily numbers need. everyone should be able to do simple percentage scenarios and compare with raw number scenarios. - #dissolve the GA - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:45 am: He obviously went to a CPS school. Math not taught in their schools or to their school board. - wordslinger - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:46 am: I have no idea if Welch is trying to pull a fast one, but the mistaken use of “percent” when “percentage point” is correct certainly is common in newspapers. You see the mistake all the time in financial and election stories. - weary - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:46 am: Ajjacksson and TinyDancer, would you please stop saying this was an attempt to deceive? The math is clear. And going from 0.5 to 1.0 really is a 100% increase. That is just how math works. The real attempt to deceive is when Welch tried to call it a 1.2% increase, as if it was so small that nobody would miss it. Ajjacksson, you should turn in your math teacher card. I’m guessing your math tests have questions like “Suzie has 5 apples and Billy takes 3, how do you think that made Suzie feel?” - James Knell - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:46 am: It’s the end of the world as we know it, NOT. High Five to VanillaMan for his Socratic education. For your average person, it’s a decent carryout dinner per month. Or for that poor tightwad posting the other day, his beloved landline. All to avoid a widespread suffering and end to public education, or even worse Scott Walker’s Wisconsin. (I hate you. You hate me. We are a dysfunctional country). I’m serious, Dems & GOPer don’t even watch Packer games together anymore. - The one - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:48 am: True, but we just had a 25% tax cut in 2015. You win some you lose some. - Ras - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:49 am: Wow, many of your just like to troll. I though this place was for a legit debate. Clarifying points and asking questions. I love the site, but I don’t think I will view the discussion again. - RNUG - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:54 am: == I still feel like the initial income tax creation would have been a larger tax increase, == Yes, it went from 0% - Anonymous - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:54 am: Ok, allow me to bring it down to the most basic terms. This WHOLE argument is over 1.2 CENTS on each “taxable” dollar. Sheesh. - RNUG - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:55 am: Yes, in 1969 it went from 0% to 2.5% … an increase to infinity and beyond! - Arock - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 11:59 am: The last temporary tax increase took in close to $32 billion dollars and only paid off half of the $9 billion debt while the pension debt continued to rise. This will not be the last of the tax increases at every level of government. In my area property taxes went up for schools, utility tax instituted to pay for road and sewer improvement, sales tax increased to pay for new school building and other building improvement. So each little tax at every level adds up to quite a dent in the wallet. Ask Chicagoan’s about all their recent tax increases that this will also add too. And the pension debt will continue to rise at all levels of government. - Mike Royko - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 12:11 pm: I used to live in Illinois now in Colorado. Between property and income taxes I would pay $15,000 more per year in Illinois. I have a nice house so property tax is the issue. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 12:11 pm: ===This WHOLE argument is over 1.2 CENTS on each “taxable” dollar=== The other way to look at is by days in a work year. Figure 260 (52 x 5) and you’re looking at 3 days’ pay. - Chicago 20 - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 12:12 pm: - “we just had a 25% tax cut in 2015″ And what happened then? Did the tax cut “grow the economy” in Illinois? After the tax cut, why then did people leave the state in droves? These widely held perceptions which has been repeatedly drilled into our subconscious of causes and their alleged effects just aren’t factual but serve their real purpose as dog whistles. - cannon649 - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 12:14 pm: As a finance person - you look for exact dollar implication of the action being propsoed. You have to Listen to what is being said. Not difficult, just take the effort and a bit of discipline. I guess would be if they had to live on a 32% more/less versus 1.2% they would figure it out. The bigger issue this is an another in long line of the kick efforts. - Anonymous - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 12:34 pm: ==I’d say a better response is how many cents it goes up. that seems like a low number.== Yes, make the argument to someone making $50,000/year that paying $600 more really is a low number. That’s sure to be a winning argument. - Amalia - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 12:35 pm: the picture that perfectly sums up the attitude, is that of Gov. Christie in a facility which is closed to the public (probably signs on that to juxtapose to careless christie). that should be a poster of Republican thoughts useful for Dems everywhere. - Dublin - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 12:46 pm: Mike: Colorado taxes retirement, weed, and a whole lot of other things that IL does not. Colorado actually spends ~$2000 more per capita than IL. - Anonymous - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 12:55 pm: Ok, Rich. $2.31 per day. Worth tanking the state? - EVanstonian - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 1:00 pm: Democratic messaging fails again. Use real dollars, don’t argue about the difference between tax increase and tax rate increase. Say Hey if you make $65 grand, here’s the expanded EITC and here’s what you’re paying extra. When someone realizes that they’re paying an extra dollar for roughly every $85 they’re taking in above a certain income, they will be closer to understanding. - Last Bull Moose - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 1:00 pm: Rough calculation is that taxes in total went up about 16%, from $32 billion to $37 billion. At least for those who itemize, there is some offset in federal taxes. There would be no offset for sales tax increases. Paying past due bills would generate additional revenue as the payments generate taxable income. Even if the payment is to non-profits, it will flow through to taxable wages. - lake county democrat - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 2:10 pm: To VM’s point: Two responses. 1) Just because people were paying the higher tax before doesn’t mean it wasn’t causing pain (and as I often stress, it’s a flat tax - the households making less money (I presume) than the typical commenter here pay the same rate). The GOP was recently mocked for suggesting health care reform might mean some people should give up their I-Phones - well, a $50/month cell phone plan is about the cost of this increase. Of course, that’s a necessity and surely a lot of people have some fat on the bone, but they will be going without things more serious than a daily latte. 2) Since that time, these households have likely been hit with other tax increases. Wages have stagnated but the cost of living has gone up, property taxes have gone up, and all sorts of new fees sprout up every day (from bag surcharges to tollway hikes to red light cameras). So the landscape has changed - not so much that people won’t bear it, but it will hurt more. - Ajjacksson - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 2:25 pm: I stand by my math. I never said 32% was incorrect; I said it was misleading, and I believe, intentionally so. Percentages of percentages lend themselves to that. As I said before, a person will pay $12 extra in state tax for each $1000 earned. And that $12 is tax deductible at the federal level. It’s not a huge increase, in my opinion. - JS Mill - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 2:45 pm: =When someone see’s their check, they’re not going to see a reduction by 1.2 points, they’re going to see their State is taking 32% more than they were before.= No, I see it as $100 out of my pay to help dig the state out of the disaster Rauner created. - Blagos Jailguard - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 3:25 pm: “I see it as $100 out of my pay to help dig the state out of the disaster Rauner created” I think you mean Blago & Quinn. Rauner inherited those bozos mess. - ToVetoOrNotToVeto - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 4:04 pm: “A person will pay $12 extra in state tax for each $1000 earned. And that $12 is tax deductible at the federal level. It’s not a huge increase, in my opinion.” I agree this is not a big tax increase. - A guy - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 4:19 pm: I guess I just don’t understand why they don’t argue that this is not “unprecedented” more. The fact that this is lower than what it was only 2 years ago is a strong fact on their side. smh. - Mike Royko - Monday, Jul 3, 17 @ 5:54 pm: Hi Dublin, Thank you for your response. Not retired. And I don’t smoke weed. So I think the delta in what I would pay in taxes colorado vs Illinois is probably close. I take your word that Colorado spends more per capita than Illinois. I know it has been reported that Illinois is not a high spending state. It is hard to see how that is possible given the troubles it is in. In any case my sister and her husband moved to Colorado a year ago from st Charles. Her husband works aerospace. Bought a nicer bigger house and property tax is a fraction. They wish they had moved years ago. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.