* From the Illinois Policy Institute’s former news service…
Do Illinoisans support the idea of higher earners paying more taxes? It seems to depend on how the question is asked.
A poll by the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University showed nearly three-quarters of those asked support a tax that “would be lower for lower-income taxpayers and higher for upper income taxpayers.”
When asked if they would support a tax that “would result in single filers earning over $17,300 to pay more in taxes,” support drops to 14 percent. The Illinois Policy Institute asked that question in a poll in late March and early April.
Jim Long, director of legislative relations for the Chicago-based think tank, said nearly everyone would support a progressive tax without the reality of math.
“It’s like asking a kid if they want ice cream for dinner. Everybody’s going to go for that,” he said. “We put [our poll] through the grinder of economics.”
The institute’s poll used figures based on State Rep. Robert Martwick’s stalled progressive income tax bill. The institute said Illinoisans would see taxes increase from the current 4.95 percent – raised from 3.75 percent last summer – based on a progressive rate of 5.84 percent kicking in at $7,500 in annual earnings.
The Institute loves to pick on Martwick’s bill and only rarely talks about the stuff about lowering property taxes, etc. The bill is dead. He couldn’t even get a single co-sponsor before tabling it last week. It’s not gonna be law.
But the new CTBA graduated tax proposal purports to cut taxes for 98 percent of taxpayers, which I’m betting polls better.
* Even so…
Federal vs. state, but still a decent point.
- LakeviewJ - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:35 pm:
The CTBA plan, in addition to failing to provide meaningful tax relief, doesn’t even fill the budget hole. You’ve got to adopt their plan to short then pensions to get all the way.
- Ok - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:43 pm:
But families weren’t getting $1,000 plus from federal tax reform.
And, lowering taxes while still spending the same amount isn’t actually lowering taxes. It is deferring taxes.
Shifting tax rates and getting the same revenue is re-allocation.
- Truthteller - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:45 pm:
The $1000 is crumbs compared to the oversized slices the GOP handed on the silver platter to their rich friends.
If the rich pay more for state taxes, and lower income folks get a break, that’s a good thing, but I understand that the IPI and their rich donors wouldn’t like it
- Anonymous - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:48 pm:
Democrats always conveniently forget that they are also hammering businesses with this tax hike. Especially small and medium sized companies that also get socked with the 1.5 percent corporate personal property tax.
- Perrid - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:53 pm:
When you are shoveling hundreds of thousands, millions to the 1%, then yes, $1,000 for a family of 4 is crumbs, clearly an afterthought. Compare that to the CTBA plan. It would be a tax break to the poor and middle class, while asking those who are already raking it in to pay more. If the difference between the two situations (channeling money to millionaires and corporations, and throwing some money at the majority of constituents to wash it down easier, versus giving the majority of your constituents a small tax break while going to the millionaires for money to help fix the deficit) is not apparent to you you need glasses.
- Who else - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:56 pm:
At the risk of Rich telling me to get my own blog, I disagree with the idea that Demmer makes a decent point. I think Demmer is mixing apples and oranges on purpose.
Federal tax “reform” did not raise revenue or demand that the wealthy pay their fair share– something a progressive income tax can achieve. Arguably, it did the opposite of both of those things. Individuals also pay a lot more in federal taxes, so obviously a cut in state income taxes for low and middle-income people is going to be a smaller dollar amount.
- walker - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:06 pm:
All of this fighting and outright lying about potential tax structures, when the only thing on the table is whether or not we should even be allowed to consider alternatives.
- JerryB - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:14 pm:
For all the whining by the Illinois Policy Institute and Republicans about the progressive tax proposals, here is Minnesota’s progressive tax set up
For single taxpayers:
5.35% on the first $25,070 of taxable income.
7.05% on taxable income between $25,071 and $82,360.
7.85% on taxable income between $82,361 and $154,950.
9.85% on taxable income of $154,951 and above.
Seems to be much worse than Martwick’s bill. So for all the people whining about property taxes (some justifiably so) here is a chance to balance the scales a bit. Even Wisconsin has a progressive income tax as do 33 other states.
- City Zen - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:29 pm:
Here’s the polling questions they need to ask:
Would you support a progressive income tax if it meant you paid more taxes but someone making more than you paid more taxes than you?
If you support a progressive income tax, at what income level should people pay more taxes under such a plan?
- City Zen - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:31 pm:
JerryB - Apply those rates to retirement income. Still in favor of those tax rates?
- Dave in Chicago - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:38 pm:
If you want to list tax rates from Minnesota, you need to acknowledge that Minnesota allows the same itemized deductions as federal taxes. You can deduct:
Local income and property taxes
Mortgage interest
Charitable contributions
Medical expenses (> 7.5% Of AGI)
Several other misc deductions and credits
All resulting in the folks in Minnesota paying less in taxes than we do in Illinois
- Yup! - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:39 pm:
If I moved to Minnesota, keeping the same salary and home value I would save almost $1,000 in taxes. Illinois might have a lower income tax, but our property taxes are through the roof. Illinois does not need to raise taxes, we already pay some of the highest rates. Property taxes cannot be ignored in this conversation.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:42 pm:
===Property taxes cannot be ignored in this conversation===
A huge reason your property taxes are so high is the state hasn’t historically held up its end on school funding.
- JerryB - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:52 pm:
City Zen-No I would not use the same structure on retirement income. I would keep the top two rates on retirement income but reduce or eliminate the low two tiers.
Also some thoughts on property taxes. Just spitballing here but my view has been the when a house is paid off and has no mortgage the property taxes should be lower maybe depending on the overall wealth of the property owner and this only applies to homes. And if a house/property is inherited the property taxes are lowered as well. I do no think children should be forced to sell an inherited home just because they cannot pay high property taxes. Again a broader tax system i.e. progressive income tax, no more corporate tax deals, financial trades tax, etc. can take the burden off homeowners.
- Dave in Chicago - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:52 pm:
If you want to move to Minnesota, you’ll also save on your property taxes. Checking tax-rates.org, their take on property taxes in Minnesota:
The median property tax in Minnesota is $2,098.00 per year for a home worth the median value of $200,400.00. Counties in Minnesota collect an average of 1.05% of a property’s assesed fair market value as property tax per year,
For Illinois, they say:
The median property tax in Illinois is $3,507.00 per year for a home worth the median value of $202,200.00. Counties in Illinois collect an average of 1.73% of a property’s assesed fair market value as property tax per year.
- Anon - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 3:18 pm:
The capping of the state and local deduction will represent a massive tax increase on many of our residents. The IRS is unlikely to allow any of the work around schemes discussed.
That new reality is going to take a huge bite out of the enthusiasm for a progressive tax, because taxes are going up again next year based on what happened at the federal level.
That is not the state’s fault, but it can’t be ignored as if it isn’t happening.
The idea that we are then going to load a progressive tax in on top of that and keep raising property taxes at some point is going to break the camel’s back.
God forbid we have a rescession of some sorts, because the state will find itself in a crisis the likes of which many don’t grasp.
The ramp is happening, and we haven’t been able to balance our budget despite a near record expansion.
History tells us within the next year or 2 we should expect a recession, yet all we are hearing about is more spending and higher taxes at the same time the ramp is kicking in big time.
It feels like an alternate universe living here sometimes.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 3:21 pm:
Seems like alderman Pawar’s new group could give this method of “journalism” a shot.
Do Illinoisans support the idea of spending tens of millions of tax dollars for a computer system that kicks 40,000 people off the Medicaid rolls every 7 months? It seems to depend on how the question is asked.
Do Illinoisans support the idea of slashing funding for autism on World Autism Day? It seems to depend on how the question is asked.
Do Illinoisans support the idea of waiting 6 days to inform the public of a contagious disease outbreak at state facilities? It seems to depend on how the question is asked.
Endless possibilities here, alderman.
- Perrid - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 3:54 pm:
Some of you guys have to be purposefully misinterpreting what a progressive income tax is. It turns a sledgehammer into a scalpel, that’s it. Heck, if we wanted to we could get rid of the flat tax in the constitution but still keep only one bracket. It’d be a waste of time but we could do it. It just gives the GA more options. Options that could very well result in a tax break for the majority of people. You can use the slippery slope fallacy all you want, and cry and scream about a hypothetical tax increase before you have seen the brackets, but you are simply jumping at shadows. And even if it was an increase, on everybody which is absolutely not for certain, math will tell you we are spending more than we are taking in. If these Reps are going to cut off even the potential of increasing spending, if we are going to continue to hold the middle class hostage to protect the 1%, then I want them to come up with a balanced budget first. Make the cuts and take the consequences. I’m sure I’ll hate that too, but at least that would be logical. I won’t hold my breath.
- RNUG - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 4:10 pm:
== Also some thoughts on property taxes. Just spitballing here but my view …==
Sounds like you are advocating for something similar to Prop 10 in California that passed overwhelmingly.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 4:37 pm:
He should know one never passes a tax bill during an election year.
Did he tell people that this tax bill would be better for 98% of IL taxpayers?
- Ron - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 4:38 pm:
Missouri highest progressive tax rate kicks in at $9700 income.
- ZC - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 4:41 pm:
Governments have to go, ultimately, where the income is. That’s especially the case if we expect government in the 21st century to take a major role caring for the nation’s growing elderly population. It’s not shrinkin’ anytime soon, in other words.
You can’t ignore taxation on the middle class and poor, but more and more of the cash out there is concentrated at the tippy-top.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 5:06 pm:
==Democrats always conveniently forget they are also hammering businesses with this tax hike.==
Some people always conveniently forget that when poor people get larger tax refunds they spend more money at local businesses. These small businesses will get hammered alright, with more sales, and more profit.
- Ron - Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 12:00 am:
So, illinois has the fifth highest state and local tax burden in the nation right now, how high do folks here want it to be?