When the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy looked at every state with an income tax, guess who they said was the most unfair?
That’s right. It’s Illinois.
It’s time for that to change. As governor, I’ll fight to pass a progressive income tax. It will make the wealthy pay more, provide support for priorities like education and reduce the tax burden on middle class families.
Let’s make our tax system fair and bring real change to Illinois.
*** UPDATE 1 *** There’s a problem with Pritzker’s analysis.
If you look at ITEP’s Illinois analysis [click here], you’ll see that the share of family income going to the state’s personal income tax is actually quite a bit less for the lowest 20 percent of earners than it is for the highest earners. That’s likely because of the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The real culprits are sales and property taxes. The bottom 20 percent pay 7.1 percent of their family income to the sales tax, compared to 0.8 percent for the top 1 percent. And the bottom 20 percent spend 4.9 percent of household income on property taxes, compared to 1.8 percent for the top 1 percent.
So, while he’s right that our tax system is unfair, his solution won’t do anything about the really regressive taxes.
The study, Who Pays?, provides insight into the drivers behind the unfairness encoded into Illinois’ existing tax system. Illinois relies heavily on taxes that are not based on ability to pay, but rather on a flat rate. Further, unlike most other states, Illinois does not have an income tax where taxpayers with higher incomes pay a higher rate and taxpayers with lower incomes pay a lower rate. As a result, the income tax doesn’t bring more balance to the overall tax system by offsetting the higher share of income that poorer taxpayers pay in sales and property taxes.
One positive aspect of Illinois’ tax system is the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit, which lets low- and moderate-income working families keep more of their earnings to help pay for things that help them keep working, such as child care and transportation. To improve tax fairness in Illinois, lawmakers should increase the value of the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit.
*** UPDATE 2 *** From the ILGOP…
J.B. Pritzker supported the income tax hike without reform, engineered a property tax scam that saved him over $230,000, and is partnering with Mike Madigan, who profits from Illinois’ broken property tax system. Pritzker pretending to care about fair taxes is just his latest scam.
While JB is fighting to change the IL constition to allow progressive income taxes, will he fight to end the completely unfair pension protection scheme?
If he has to change the Illinois constitution to do this should state employees be worried that at the same time it could remove their pension protections?
- lake county democrat - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:29 pm:
Wow. It’s a great idea. And no, it doesn’t *have* to mean raising taxes - arguably it could be revenue neutral - but since taxes do indeed need to be raised if we ever hope to really build the state and reverse it’s decline - this is by far the best way to do it.
Missed opportunity in the ad though: he could have pointed out his plan would hurt people like himself and Rauner but that’s ok - we’ll be fine - it’s you who is being hurt by the current system.
The simple ad parts are seen, a problem is pointed out, a vague solution is then presented, and Pritzker says he will push for his solution.
For a :30 second ad, it does exactly what its suppose to do.
The reason its a low “B” is this progressive income tax plan, easy or hard to understand will be difficult to pass.
You want to make it an A?
“Working together with you, we can finally get an income tax that is fair and bring real change to Illinois.”
This is a “promise the moon” type ad to the governing reality, (so far), when more can be gotten in a :30 second ad that asks to work together for this to happen.
Voters invest in you, or the tax, or both, the task is tough, getting others to invest in you and “it” is a better angle.
Of course no specifics on new rates or a pledge to reinstall the toilets in his spare mansion so at least one of the 15 billinoiairea in Illinois will pay their fair share of taxes
A retired Federal judge told me because of the wording of ours (the statement that it is a contract) that contact law protects it Plus, that was through bankruptcy which states can’t do
Of course, it’s a tax hike … duh. It’s what Democrats do.
And JB could walk-the-talk by 1) Voluntarily paying more at some progressive rate, and 2) Paying his fair share of real estate taxes.
This guy is a real piece of work. It’s almost as if some Democrats want a Pritzker v Rauner matchup; giving Rauner his only chance at re-election.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:39 pm:
Perfect. Short and to the point. I rate it an A.
Tax fairness is a critical issue and should hopefully campaign well. It’s a perfect contrast to Rauner’s reforms, which would strip the protections and lower the wages and benefits of millions in the working class, over time.
Next time, use a study that’s 1) Current and 2) Takes into account the total tax burden. Progressive tax in Illinois will be a classic bait and switch. Just need to look at neighboring states to see the creep, creep, creep down the income tax bracket of those ’soak the rich’ rates …
Yes, we should all be happy because once we get back to having a Dem in the governors chair we can finally focus on taking more money from everyone to pay for state government, income tax, gas tax, property tax, maybe even the sugar tax. And for this increased transfer of wealth we’ll have a much more efficient and effective state government. J.B. promises it. Be careful what you wish for Dems , it just might come back to bite you.
To the update, if you had graduated income tax rates, you wouldn’t need to overrely on sales and property taxes. You could raise revenue from rich folks’s fat incomes and cut sales/property taxes for the rest.
B+ Message straightforward, and very clear to likely primary voters. My problem is with the up close and personal approach. Some issues require a little more serious and concerned tone, rather than the nice guy from next door persona.
Overall JB is hitting the right buttons with his ads.
It is a very good ad, clear and to the point. Remember the audience, it should not be too specific. And it smartly does not point to a Constitutional Amendment, which will be difficult. Smart policy expertys know there are ways to introduce much more fairness under the current limitations.
Sorry, Ron, the pensions must be paid. And, Illinois is nowhere near the bankrupt status of Detroit, even if law allowed states to go bankrupt. There are many successful states with graduated state income taxes, from right-wing Iowa next door (top rate near 9%) to left-wing California (top rate 12.3%). And, I think we can change the IL Constitution to allow a graduated income tax without fear of changing the pension protection language since we just changed the Constitution to protect Road Funds without impacting the pension language.
===So, while he’s right that our tax system is unfair, his solution won’t do anything about the really regressive taxes.===
A :30 second ad that relies on a possibly flawed analysis is more about getting people to hear what they want to hear not to trying to sell a real solution(?)
@Reality
How does a graduated state income tax have an impact on how counties and municipalities levy property taxes?
Unless you also start using those income tax funds to increase state funding for education and allowing school districts to rely less on local property taxes.
Tier 1 has to be paid. Even without the Pension Clause, both State and Federal Contract Law will require the Tier 1 pensions be paid. Heck, even the IPI has finally said this.
===And it smartly does not point to a Constitutional Amendment, which will be difficult.===
… because you want Pritzker to look foolish that this isn’t going to be as easy as it seems?
===Smart policy expertys know there are ways to introduce much more fairness under the current limitations.===
Really?
What are those?
‘Cause, right now, that pesky constitution is the whole ball of whacks, and if there is something in an income tax fix that doesn’t need that constitution fix, you should enlighten us, many smart policy people are waiting I’m guessing, lol
@ Deft Wing - “Voluntarily paying more at some progressive rate” Not really, at least not as simply as you seem to imply. He could have his accountants not take all the deductions he is allowed, and pay more that way, but I don’t think the State can just accept a check for no reason.
I earned that pension in public service, sacrificing what could have been more lucrative options elsewhere. I gave to this state, its only fair I get my fair share.
I don’t care if there is no K-12 education funding.
I don’t care if there is no Medicaid funding.
I don’t care if the state police shut down and the prisons close.
You. Will. Pay. My. Pension. Even if it’s the last dollar out of the GRF.
===To the update, if you had graduated income tax rates, you wouldn’t need to overrely on sales and property taxes. You could raise revenue from rich folks’s fat incomes and cut sales/property taxes for the rest.===
Do you honestly think that the sales and property taxes would go down? If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge I want to sell you…
From a purely political standpoint it’s a smart ad and a smart move to very publicly support a progressive income tax before his opponents can own the issue. A billionaire wants to raise taxes on himself? Boom.
What happened to equal treatment? When I worked for the State, I was subject to rules and regulations that did not apply to the private sector, had to pass both IBI and FBI background checks due to the sensitive information I had access to, was paid much less than I could have earned in the private sector, had my salary disclosed (something the private sector strictly guards), had to surrender some of my political free speech rights due to Federal funding rules, etc.
The only thing that had kept this State running are people who believe in public service in spite of the restrictions.
“public workers should not have protections those in the private sector don’t. what happened to equal protection?”
and
“all we get for that is a coddled public workforce”
Ron, I don’t think words mean what you think they mean. Equal protection does not mean all employees get treated the same. It just doesn’t. At all. That’s kind of like communism.
As for “coddled public workforce,” yea, those cops, firemen and teachers are just so ridiculously coddled. Your talking points need work.
While a progressive income tax alone wouldn’t automatically raise revenues, it could be used to offset reductions in property taxes, thereby making the overall distribution of tax burden more fair.
It’s not sufficient for a more equitable tax structure, but I think it is necessary.
I would rate it a D. Anytime a politician is talking taxes, the public isn’t buying it. Why is this necessary? If he wants to talk about taxes, why doesn’t he simply state, I want the rich to pay more. If I’m half paying attention to my TV, this isn’t something that would endear me to him.
==There are many successful states with graduated state income taxes, from right-wing Iowa next door (top rate near 9%) to left-wing California (top rate 12.3%).==
Iowa and California tax retirement income.
There are states doing well with no state income tax (TN)
And others are doing well with a flat income tax (CO)
Yet others with progressive state income taxes higher than ours are floundering (CT, NJ)
There is no cure-all tax plan, otherwise every state would adopt it.
I give it B. It was a little vague on the details but then again, it’s an introductory ad regarding the issue. Plus, it should appeal to people who think it’s only fair that the rich pay more taxes while the middle class pays less.
=admits he’s going to tax retirement income=
When did he say that?
==Missed opportunity in the ad though: he could have pointed out his plan would hurt people like himself and Rauner but that’s ok - we’ll be fine - it’s you who is being hurt by the current system.==
It’s odd, because he’s actually used the phrase, “Raise my taxes, not yours” in his stump speech. But maybe he doesn’t want to unnecessarily remind people of his wealth.
OW - JB said he wanted a progressive income tax. His study cites all other states with progressive income tax, all of which tax retirement income. He specifically cites that the wealthy pay more, and considering the quickly retiring Boomers are the wealthiest generation, he’s obviously targeting the folks with money. And generally speaking, progressive taxation is built on ability to pay, no age or employment status.
Um, have you ever heard of an annuity? If not, go talk to an insurance agent. They have to pay per the up front, agreed-upon terms. A pension is basically the same thing.
==Um, have you ever heard of an annuity? If not, go talk to an insurance agent. They have to pay per the up front, agreed-upon terms. A pension is basically the same thing.==
If I bought an annuity, I’d have to pay for AAI upfront or any increases to AAI. The insurance agency wouldn’t double my AAI rate and change its calculation from simple to compounding for nothing.
It would be great if it would reduce local real estate taxes. Of course that will never happen. During periods of time when school districts were receiving 7% increases in state funding and big bumps in the new constructions levy they still levied the max. All that happened was an increase in salary and benefits for the NEA along with the abusive 20% end of career bumps. Without a freeze at the state level you will just get higher taxes. One overlooked reality for those above the amt limits is that real estate tax deductions at the federal level disappear which would make it federally progressive.
==Guess what? AAI _was_bought by an additional half-point increase in employee contributions.==
What was bought was 1.5% simple interest, not 3% compounded AAI. Please provide the cost increase from the original “additional half-point increase in employee contributions” you cited.
OW - The thing is, JB doesn’t have to change the constitution to implement a progressive income tax. He could simply play with the EITC levels or personal tax exemptions and raise the overall flat tax rate to compensate. It would have a similar effect.
===JB doesn’t have to change the constitution to implement a progressive income tax. He could simply play with the EITC levels or personal tax exemptions and raise the overall flat tax rate to compensate===
I may have some those details off re the exact particulars of the AAI - have to research again.
But my point was in response to the wailing about “guaranteed” returns in a pension vs “market returns” in a plan where no choice was made to include an annuity.
JB has the typical response to Illinois problems- just give me more revenue. And when Amazon passes on Illinois- it will be one more factoid in the conclusion that we are is dire need of improving the business climate.
City Zen I don’t agree, the Constitution is very clear: “A tax on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate. At any one time there may be no more than one such tax imposed by the State for State purposes on individuals and one such tax so imposed on corporations.”
This is why the campaign for a fair tax which failed was all about a constitutional amendment. See http://www.citizenaction-il.org/fair-taxes-and-economic-justice The Senate passed the constitutional amendment bill in the spring of 2016 allowing for a graduated income tax to be placed on the fall ballot. Speaker Madigan and his leading Democrats didn’t call it for a vote in the House. Not even a vote.
There is no reason to believe JB will do much better, but lets wait and see.
–Punish success - great move - watch even more folks hit the exits –
Yeah, they’re just poring out of Manhattan, Boston, Beverly Hills, Marin County…..all 34 states that have a progressive income tax. And the United States, too.
Do you have a book of vapid talking points or something?
CZ, most State pension system members receiving the AAI (TRS and SURS) pay 1.0% as an AAI contribution. SERS members, less than 25% of the total, pay 0.5% because their pension multiplier is lower and because they receive Social Security.
- blue dog dem - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:22 pm:
Does ‘reduce the tax burden on the middle class’ mean lower it?
- Ugh - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:23 pm:
If you want to vote for someone who is buying the election, vote JBP.
- Downstate Illinois - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:24 pm:
Nope. It means raising taxes.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:24 pm:
I do not like this
A Single person making 60,000 will pay more and we are not Rich in Chicago
- Ron - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:26 pm:
While JB is fighting to change the IL constition to allow progressive income taxes, will he fight to end the completely unfair pension protection scheme?
- Seats - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:29 pm:
If he has to change the Illinois constitution to do this should state employees be worried that at the same time it could remove their pension protections?
- lake county democrat - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:29 pm:
Wow. It’s a great idea. And no, it doesn’t *have* to mean raising taxes - arguably it could be revenue neutral - but since taxes do indeed need to be raised if we ever hope to really build the state and reverse it’s decline - this is by far the best way to do it.
Missed opportunity in the ad though: he could have pointed out his plan would hurt people like himself and Rauner but that’s ok - we’ll be fine - it’s you who is being hurt by the current system.
- iidoc - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:29 pm:
If the clause was removed tomorrow, state and federal contract law would not allow changes for current employees
- John Rawlssss - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:31 pm:
To the average voter, this screams “I will raise your taxes”
- Ron - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:31 pm:
“should state employees be worried that at the same time it could remove their pension protections?”
Hopefully
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:32 pm:
Its a “B-”
“Why?”
The simple ad parts are seen, a problem is pointed out, a vague solution is then presented, and Pritzker says he will push for his solution.
For a :30 second ad, it does exactly what its suppose to do.
The reason its a low “B” is this progressive income tax plan, easy or hard to understand will be difficult to pass.
You want to make it an A?
“Working together with you, we can finally get an income tax that is fair and bring real change to Illinois.”
This is a “promise the moon” type ad to the governing reality, (so far), when more can be gotten in a :30 second ad that asks to work together for this to happen.
Voters invest in you, or the tax, or both, the task is tough, getting others to invest in you and “it” is a better angle.
Its a “B-”
- Ron - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:32 pm:
iidoc, wrong, look at Detroit’s BK. Pensioners took haircuts even though the constitution “protected” them.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:34 pm:
Of course no specifics on new rates or a pledge to reinstall the toilets in his spare mansion so at least one of the 15 billinoiairea in Illinois will pay their fair share of taxes
- illdoc - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:35 pm:
A retired Federal judge told me because of the wording of ours (the statement that it is a contract) that contact law protects it Plus, that was through bankruptcy which states can’t do
- Deft Wing - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:35 pm:
Of course, it’s a tax hike … duh. It’s what Democrats do.
And JB could walk-the-talk by 1) Voluntarily paying more at some progressive rate, and 2) Paying his fair share of real estate taxes.
This guy is a real piece of work. It’s almost as if some Democrats want a Pritzker v Rauner matchup; giving Rauner his only chance at re-election.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:39 pm:
Perfect. Short and to the point. I rate it an A.
Tax fairness is a critical issue and should hopefully campaign well. It’s a perfect contrast to Rauner’s reforms, which would strip the protections and lower the wages and benefits of millions in the working class, over time.
- Keyser Soze - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:42 pm:
Fix the pension mess first.
- Texas Red - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:43 pm:
Punish success - great move - watch even more folks hit the exits
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:43 pm:
Next time, use a study that’s 1) Current and 2) Takes into account the total tax burden. Progressive tax in Illinois will be a classic bait and switch. Just need to look at neighboring states to see the creep, creep, creep down the income tax bracket of those ’soak the rich’ rates …
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:43 pm:
Yes, we should all be happy because once we get back to having a Dem in the governors chair we can finally focus on taking more money from everyone to pay for state government, income tax, gas tax, property tax, maybe even the sugar tax. And for this increased transfer of wealth we’ll have a much more efficient and effective state government. J.B. promises it. Be careful what you wish for Dems , it just might come back to bite you.
- Reality Check - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:45 pm:
To the update, if you had graduated income tax rates, you wouldn’t need to overrely on sales and property taxes. You could raise revenue from rich folks’s fat incomes and cut sales/property taxes for the rest.
- walker - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:47 pm:
B+ Message straightforward, and very clear to likely primary voters. My problem is with the up close and personal approach. Some issues require a little more serious and concerned tone, rather than the nice guy from next door persona.
Overall JB is hitting the right buttons with his ads.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:47 pm:
===…we’ll have a much more efficient and effective state government===
Rauner has been neither efficient or effective, unless you count destroying Illinois, then Rauner has been passively successful.
Rauner is trying to tear down Illinois, so any hope of that destroying this state would be a welcomed change.
Does this ad do anything to make that case? I gave it a “B-” so, I think the message could be much better
- formerpro - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:48 pm:
It is a very good ad, clear and to the point. Remember the audience, it should not be too specific. And it smartly does not point to a Constitutional Amendment, which will be difficult. Smart policy expertys know there are ways to introduce much more fairness under the current limitations.
- Grandpa2 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:48 pm:
Sorry, Ron, the pensions must be paid. And, Illinois is nowhere near the bankrupt status of Detroit, even if law allowed states to go bankrupt. There are many successful states with graduated state income taxes, from right-wing Iowa next door (top rate near 9%) to left-wing California (top rate 12.3%). And, I think we can change the IL Constitution to allow a graduated income tax without fear of changing the pension protection language since we just changed the Constitution to protect Road Funds without impacting the pension language.
- blue dog dem - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:49 pm:
RealityCheCk. That is the promise I want to hear.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:50 pm:
===So, while he’s right that our tax system is unfair, his solution won’t do anything about the really regressive taxes.===
A :30 second ad that relies on a possibly flawed analysis is more about getting people to hear what they want to hear not to trying to sell a real solution(?)
- MissingG - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:50 pm:
“I’m JB Pritzker, and I approve Daniel Biss’s message”
- Anonish - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:51 pm:
@Reality
How does a graduated state income tax have an impact on how counties and municipalities levy property taxes?
Unless you also start using those income tax funds to increase state funding for education and allowing school districts to rely less on local property taxes.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:53 pm:
== Fix the pension mess first. ==
It’s been fixed. See Tier 2.
Tier 1 has to be paid. Even without the Pension Clause, both State and Federal Contract Law will require the Tier 1 pensions be paid. Heck, even the IPI has finally said this.
This explained multiple times.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:54 pm:
Oh boy…
===And it smartly does not point to a Constitutional Amendment, which will be difficult.===
… because you want Pritzker to look foolish that this isn’t going to be as easy as it seems?
===Smart policy expertys know there are ways to introduce much more fairness under the current limitations.===
Really?
What are those?
‘Cause, right now, that pesky constitution is the whole ball of whacks, and if there is something in an income tax fix that doesn’t need that constitution fix, you should enlighten us, many smart policy people are waiting I’m guessing, lol
- Perrid - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:54 pm:
@ Deft Wing - “Voluntarily paying more at some progressive rate” Not really, at least not as simply as you seem to imply. He could have his accountants not take all the deductions he is allowed, and pay more that way, but I don’t think the State can just accept a check for no reason.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:55 pm:
At least JB is being honest about what needs to be done. Be interesting to see exactly what rates he is proposing.
- Pensioner - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:56 pm:
I earned that pension in public service, sacrificing what could have been more lucrative options elsewhere. I gave to this state, its only fair I get my fair share.
I don’t care if there is no K-12 education funding.
I don’t care if there is no Medicaid funding.
I don’t care if the state police shut down and the prisons close.
You. Will. Pay. My. Pension. Even if it’s the last dollar out of the GRF.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:56 pm:
And there is nothing to say you couldn’t retain the EITC with a progressive income tax.
- Ron - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:57 pm:
public workers should not have protections those in the private sector don’t. what happened to equal protection?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:57 pm:
===Of course, it’s a tax hike … duh. It’s what Democrats do===
lol, Rauner’s phony proposed budgets required tax hikes, so theres that.
You should keep up with what goes on - Deft Wing -
- Ron - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 2:58 pm:
Illinois has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation and basically all we get for that is a coddled public workforce
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:01 pm:
- Ron -
What about the ad?
Focus.
- Pensioner -
Don’t let - Ron - get to you, he’s tone deaf
- MacombMike - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:04 pm:
===To the update, if you had graduated income tax rates, you wouldn’t need to overrely on sales and property taxes. You could raise revenue from rich folks’s fat incomes and cut sales/property taxes for the rest.===
Do you honestly think that the sales and property taxes would go down? If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge I want to sell you…
- Shytown - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:05 pm:
From a purely political standpoint it’s a smart ad and a smart move to very publicly support a progressive income tax before his opponents can own the issue. A billionaire wants to raise taxes on himself? Boom.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:07 pm:
== what happened to equal protection? ==
What happened to equal treatment? When I worked for the State, I was subject to rules and regulations that did not apply to the private sector, had to pass both IBI and FBI background checks due to the sensitive information I had access to, was paid much less than I could have earned in the private sector, had my salary disclosed (something the private sector strictly guards), had to surrender some of my political free speech rights due to Federal funding rules, etc.
The only thing that had kept this State running are people who believe in public service in spite of the restrictions.
/Rant off
- Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:09 pm:
“public workers should not have protections those in the private sector don’t. what happened to equal protection?”
and
“all we get for that is a coddled public workforce”
Ron, I don’t think words mean what you think they mean. Equal protection does not mean all employees get treated the same. It just doesn’t. At all. That’s kind of like communism.
As for “coddled public workforce,” yea, those cops, firemen and teachers are just so ridiculously coddled. Your talking points need work.
- Actual Red - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:16 pm:
While a progressive income tax alone wouldn’t automatically raise revenues, it could be used to offset reductions in property taxes, thereby making the overall distribution of tax burden more fair.
It’s not sufficient for a more equitable tax structure, but I think it is necessary.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:17 pm:
Finally, JB admits he’s going to tax retirement income.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:19 pm:
===…admits he’s going to tax retirement income===
Really? Where?
- Tom - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:21 pm:
I would rate it a D. Anytime a politician is talking taxes, the public isn’t buying it. Why is this necessary? If he wants to talk about taxes, why doesn’t he simply state, I want the rich to pay more. If I’m half paying attention to my TV, this isn’t something that would endear me to him.
- Deadbeat Conservative - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:21 pm:
=will he fight to end the completely unfair pension protection scheme?=
What’s the “unfair scheme”?
It seems more like efforts to rip-off employees in both the public and private sectors unfair schemes.
- Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:21 pm:
–The real culprits are sales and property taxes.–
Yeah, but he’s not in a great position right now to argue for ending property tax breaks for the rich and powerful, so income tax it is.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:26 pm:
==There are many successful states with graduated state income taxes, from right-wing Iowa next door (top rate near 9%) to left-wing California (top rate 12.3%).==
Iowa and California tax retirement income.
There are states doing well with no state income tax (TN)
And others are doing well with a flat income tax (CO)
Yet others with progressive state income taxes higher than ours are floundering (CT, NJ)
There is no cure-all tax plan, otherwise every state would adopt it.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:27 pm:
Nope, taxpayers are on the hook for returns of pensioners no matter what the market does. It’s completely against basic economic laws.
- The Muse - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:29 pm:
I give it B. It was a little vague on the details but then again, it’s an introductory ad regarding the issue. Plus, it should appeal to people who think it’s only fair that the rich pay more taxes while the middle class pays less.
=admits he’s going to tax retirement income=
When did he say that?
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:34 pm:
==Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy looked at every state with an income tax==
Before I start my study, let’s remove 18% of the test subjects…
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:37 pm:
==Missed opportunity in the ad though: he could have pointed out his plan would hurt people like himself and Rauner but that’s ok - we’ll be fine - it’s you who is being hurt by the current system.==
It’s odd, because he’s actually used the phrase, “Raise my taxes, not yours” in his stump speech. But maybe he doesn’t want to unnecessarily remind people of his wealth.
ILGOP’s response seems pretty phoned-in.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:41 pm:
OW - JB said he wanted a progressive income tax. His study cites all other states with progressive income tax, all of which tax retirement income. He specifically cites that the wealthy pay more, and considering the quickly retiring Boomers are the wealthiest generation, he’s obviously targeting the folks with money. And generally speaking, progressive taxation is built on ability to pay, no age or employment status.
All progressive signs point to retirees.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:43 pm:
===…All progressive signs point to…===
Yeah.
But he didn’t say it.
Did he?
- Hieronymus - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:49 pm:
@ Anonymous 3:27
Um, have you ever heard of an annuity? If not, go talk to an insurance agent. They have to pay per the up front, agreed-upon terms. A pension is basically the same thing.
- Hieronymus - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:54 pm:
@Chicago Cynic 3:09pm
At times, it appears as though Ron only has two words in his vocabulary: Coddled & Outrageous.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:58 pm:
“All progressive signs point to retirees”
Would that require an additional amendment?
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 3:59 pm:
==Um, have you ever heard of an annuity? If not, go talk to an insurance agent. They have to pay per the up front, agreed-upon terms. A pension is basically the same thing.==
If I bought an annuity, I’d have to pay for AAI upfront or any increases to AAI. The insurance agency wouldn’t double my AAI rate and change its calculation from simple to compounding for nothing.
So it’s not really the same thing.
- CivilSpk - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:06 pm:
It would be great if it would reduce local real estate taxes. Of course that will never happen. During periods of time when school districts were receiving 7% increases in state funding and big bumps in the new constructions levy they still levied the max. All that happened was an increase in salary and benefits for the NEA along with the abusive 20% end of career bumps. Without a freeze at the state level you will just get higher taxes. One overlooked reality for those above the amt limits is that real estate tax deductions at the federal level disappear which would make it federally progressive.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:07 pm:
==Would that require an additional amendment?==
Article IX, SECTION 3. LIMITATIONS ON INCOME TAXATION: A tax on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate…
No mention of retirement income.
- Hieronymus - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:09 pm:
@ CZ 3:59pm
Guess what? AAI _was_bought by an additional half-point increase in employee contributions. RNUG for details?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:11 pm:
===No mention of retirement income.===
You want a constitutional, graduated, income tax and taxing retirement income done in one GA?
Doing one will be Herculean.
- Nick - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:14 pm:
Well said pensioner I agree 100%
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:14 pm:
==Guess what? AAI _was_bought by an additional half-point increase in employee contributions.==
What was bought was 1.5% simple interest, not 3% compounded AAI. Please provide the cost increase from the original “additional half-point increase in employee contributions” you cited.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:20 pm:
OW - The thing is, JB doesn’t have to change the constitution to implement a progressive income tax. He could simply play with the EITC levels or personal tax exemptions and raise the overall flat tax rate to compensate. It would have a similar effect.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:28 pm:
===JB doesn’t have to change the constitution to implement a progressive income tax. He could simply play with the EITC levels or personal tax exemptions and raise the overall flat tax rate to compensate===
If true, political cover would not be possible.
Why would Prizker go alone on this?
He wouldn’t
- Hieronymus - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:29 pm:
I may have some those details off re the exact particulars of the AAI - have to research again.
But my point was in response to the wailing about “guaranteed” returns in a pension vs “market returns” in a plan where no choice was made to include an annuity.
- Sue - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:32 pm:
JB has the typical response to Illinois problems- just give me more revenue. And when Amazon passes on Illinois- it will be one more factoid in the conclusion that we are is dire need of improving the business climate.
- Rod - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 4:48 pm:
City Zen I don’t agree, the Constitution is very clear: “A tax on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate. At any one time there may be no more than one such tax imposed by the State for State purposes on individuals and one such tax so imposed on corporations.”
This is why the campaign for a fair tax which failed was all about a constitutional amendment. See http://www.citizenaction-il.org/fair-taxes-and-economic-justice The Senate passed the constitutional amendment bill in the spring of 2016 allowing for a graduated income tax to be placed on the fall ballot. Speaker Madigan and his leading Democrats didn’t call it for a vote in the House. Not even a vote.
There is no reason to believe JB will do much better, but lets wait and see.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 5:30 pm:
–Punish success - great move - watch even more folks hit the exits –
Yeah, they’re just poring out of Manhattan, Boston, Beverly Hills, Marin County…..all 34 states that have a progressive income tax. And the United States, too.
Do you have a book of vapid talking points or something?
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 6:14 pm:
==they’re just poring out of Manhattan, Boston, Beverly Hills, Marin County==
Good to know white enclaves are save.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 9:56 pm:
CZ, what’s with your snide race card? It doesn’t make sense.
TR claimed the rich would flee Illinois because of a progressive income tax. I pointed out those weathy areas have progressive income taxes.
I also noted that 34 states and the United States have a progressive income tax. Are they “white enclaves.”
Are you of the opinion that poor people of color would pay more in taxes under a progressive system than a flat tax? Do you have an example?
Pace yourself. It’s only Tuesday.
- Ron - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:00 pm:
Eleminate Constitutional pension protection and pensions. Then let’s talk progressive income taxes
- ComeTogether - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:07 pm:
Ron, quit being a parrot. You’ve been told repeatedly that’s not an option. Please get over it, your redundancy is annoying.
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Sep 26, 17 @ 10:30 pm:
CZ, most State pension system members receiving the AAI (TRS and SURS) pay 1.0% as an AAI contribution. SERS members, less than 25% of the total, pay 0.5% because their pension multiplier is lower and because they receive Social Security.
- Ron - Wednesday, Sep 27, 17 @ 8:42 am:
Everything is an option. It would just anger public workers.