60 Comments - Chris Widger - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 8:56 am: Really nice article, Hannah. “Our concern when this comes up… is not to solve the state’s fiscal problems on the backs of one group of individuals, who basically did not create this problem in the first place…” That’s a wild standard. Whom would the AARP propose taxing instead? When we think about taxation, I don’t think we normally think of taxing those who have caused deficits. - H. L. Mencken - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:00 am: As a beneficiary of an Illinois pension I totally agree with one small caveat. Once the amount received exceeds the amount paid in, the income tax should kick in. You have already paid income tax on the amount taken from your salary over the years. But the excess should be taxed just as any other income you receive. - HistProf - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:04 am: I get the politics of not wanting to go after retirement income. And I’d concede that marginally a few more retirees might leave the state. But I’d ask my Baby Boom friends to consider what it took to get a college education in 1960. Not much! Why? Because the top marginal rate was pushing 90% and universities were being built for you with public money. In other words, the “greatest generation” not only died for you on the battlefield, they paid for your education. And now you don’t want to pay it forward? Nice. It really was “me” generation. - City Zen - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:10 am: 90% of the American Association of Young Persons also believe they should not pay income taxes. - Perrid - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:12 am: Does the AARP want to tax lawmakers? They would be the closest one could get to someone who created the problem. And I’ve never understood the whole fixed income argument. Most people have a fixed income, if it was that simple to get a new job and make more money, most people would do so. Pick a number, say $70,000 per person, and don’t tax anything under that and tax everything above at the same 4.95%. In that scenario someone with a retirement income of $100,000 a year, who I am not inclined to feel sympathy for, would pay something like $1,500, or 1.5% of their income. You can even set the bar higher for the first several years and slowly lower it to give people time to plan, like make the limit $100,000 the first year, $95,000 the second, etc. Whatever, you can find ways that don’t send grandma into the poorhouse, so please spare me the hand wringing. - RNUG - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:24 am: Question: has anyone studied the demographics of the people moving out of state? It would be interesting to know if it is old folks moving to the sun belt, young people moving for jobs, or some combination. That data might help guide a decision on taxing retirement income. - the Patriot - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:26 am: You will see a dramatic drop in population with the retirement tax. It is the only reason many are staying. I oppose any new taxes and would rather see the state operate efficiently, but to assert retirees did not contribute to this problem is a false. The biggest burdens right now are pensions. They are out of control because unions allowed the state for decades to not fund them in exchange for better raises and benefits. They took their money on the check, instead of funding their pensions. Now the current union workers are not only footing the bill, they are taking the blame as union employees for a problem that that started when they were in Jr. High. - Pundent - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:29 am: The problem is that neither the GA or any of our Governors had the courage to address these decades long issues decades ago. If you don’t match revenue with expenditures over long the long term this is where you’ll end up. The issue will only become more “poisonous” the longer it’s ignored. I actually think that Rauner might have taken steps to address this. But he demanded a hostage (dismantling of public unions) in return. And when he couldn’t get that he lost all interest in the basic responsibilities of governing. - City Zen - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:29 am: ==if it was that simple to get a new job and make more money, most people would do so== Worse yet, some people take a new job at a lower salary. I’ve known a few people who got promoted over the years, then downsized, then couldn’t make a parallel move elsewhere. - kimocat - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:32 am: Just anecdotal, but as a State of Illinois baby-boom retiree living in another state, I can tell you this. My decision had nothing to do with the tax situation in Illinois. It was a weather decision — not something you can do much about. - Anonymous - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:33 am: Count my wife and I as among the “few more retirees might [no, will] leave the state. - notsosure - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:34 am: But HL, you didn’t pay tax on that income when it was taken from your salary–401K, IRA, pension, social security–it isn’t taxed as part of your paycheck. Other states and the IRS tax it later when you actually get the $. We don’t tax it coming or going. - RNUG - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:35 am: == someone with a retirement income of $100,000 a year, == You might find they aren’t living that high on the hog because they are helping out retired parents and / or kids who would be classified as working poor. I will say your thresholds seem reasonable and wouldn’t have a major effect of high income retirement. They may have to be a bit lower, though, because $70,000 per person is $140,000 for a married couple. Might want to tie the deduction to the average or median (they are different) income for the State for the previous year. Or set it there to start with and index by the CPI-U. - SAP - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:44 am: The only way I can think of to even have a chance of passing a tax on retirement income would be to couple it with an exemption for the first $100,000 (or some other reasonable amount) and a reduction in the overall rate, even if it is just to 4.5% or 4.75%. - RNUG - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:44 am: == They are out of control because unions allowed the state for decades to not fund them == Not true. The unions did sue the State for full funding of the retirement systems. They lost. See IFT (1975). Once that decision was issued by the IL SC, there was no legal way to require the State to make the contributions. Now if you want to argue the unions should have used their contracts to try to influence the State to make the necessary contributions, you might have a point. But the unions had no way to actually force the State make the payments. - RNUG - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:50 am: == you didn’t pay tax on that income when it was taken from your salary–401K, IRA, pension, social security–it isn’t taxed as part of your paycheck. == I’d have to go back and check my pay stubs, but it seems to me the early Deferred Comp (457) deductions were taxed. I know my Roth IRA contributions were taxed. - City Zen - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:51 am: ==You might find they aren’t living that high on the hog because they are helping out retired parents and / or kids who would be classified as working poor.== How is this any different than Working Joe doing the exact same thing? Why does $100K Working Joe get fully taxed yet $100K Retired Randy gets off tax free? Any sort of retirement exemption should be phased out at a certain level. Call it the 30/60 rule. All retirement income is exempt up to $30,000. For every dollar above $30K, you lose one dollar in exemption. So the retiree with a $40K pension pays taxes on $20K, $50K pension pays $40K, and the $60K pension gets no exemption. This aligns with Illinois’ median income of $60,000. If you’re retirement income exceeds the state average income, you should be able to pay the full freight in state income taxes. - The Captain - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 9:52 am: If Hannah and Whet join forces we’re all going to be smarter, happier and better informed. Strongly endorse. - wordslinger - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:00 am: –Count my wife and I as among the “few more retirees might [no, will] leave the state.– For crying out loud, dude, what’s keeping you? The sweet tax code? That’s so sad. The weather here ranges from partly sh—- to mostly sh—-, about 300 out of 365. If you ain’t here to make a buck, what are you doing? This just in, you ain’t going to live forever. If you can afford to make a move in your golden years, do so. - Anonymous - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:01 am: == Just anecdotal, == -kimocat-, I know two couples who are planning to move when they retire. Like you, it is the weather they are moving for. Both the states they are looking at have higher tax rates than Illinois’. - Interim Retiree - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:02 am: As one who has a pension, I would not be happy to ne taxed. However, I understand where we are in this state. If you exempted the first $40,000 or so of retirement income, then tax after that, I’m willing to sacrifice some of my guilty pleasures. My hope would be that the taxed retirement income would go towards reducing pension debt - but my confidence level it would is low. - Arthur Andersen - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:03 am: As always, RNUG is spot on. Employee contributions, picked up or not, to tax-qualified pension plans, are not taxed as income in the year received. Good article, Hannah. Nice to have another numbers geek around here. - RNUG - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:06 am: == what’s keeping you? == Among other things, probably family. In our case, parents in nursing home and grandkids who literally are just down the street from us and come down most days. - Last Bull Moose - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:09 am: As part of the progressive tax, include retirement income in the calculation for income subject to the surcharge. Say the tax is an additional 2% on all income over $50,000 for singles ($100,000 for couples) then retirement income that pushes the total into the surcharge is taxed at 2%. Say an individual has $30,000 of taxable income and $30,000 of nontaxable retirement income, they would pay 2% on $10,000. This won’t raise as much money as taxing it all, but avoids hitting low and medium income retirees with a large tax increase. - Grandson of Man - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:11 am: Absolutely right. We have to change our income tax structure to model those of our neighbors, where high incomes get taxed at marginal rates much higher than Illinois. As for retirement income, I support taxing it as long as it’s progressive or kicks in at higher incomes. We really need the revenue. But the real key is for people like Bruce Rauner and JB Pritzker to pay more, and the majority if not large majority to pay less. I’m glad to see Pritzker agreeing and supporting this. Bruce Rauner profited for decades because of Democrats, liberals, progressives, unions, etc., the people he calls corrupt and wants to politically bust apart. He paid a low state income tax and made a lot of money off of the unionized public sector. He has to pay a higher tax. Legalizing marijuana would be great also for the state and local governments to collect more revenue. - Nanker Phelge - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:13 am: Retirement income should be taxed, but at a lower rate than other income. Thus, a constitutional amendment is needed. This would give the General Assembly cover, as it would ultimately be the people making the decision. The General Assembly just needs to give the people the opportunity to make the decision. - OldIllini - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:13 am: I retired at age 69, having worked 30 years in private industry and 26 years with the UI, receive both social security and a SURS pension, and pay no Illinois tax. My college-age son, who earned $3000 as a lifeguard last summer, pays Illinois tax but no federal tax. Something is wrong with that. I am in favor of taxing retirees, provided it is properly phased in or grandfathered in some way. I am also in favor of service taxes. As for retirees moving out of state, more SURS retirees move to neighboring states, where they are taxed, than move to Florida, where they are not taxed. - supplied_demand - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:14 am: ==My hope would be that the taxed retirement income would go towards reducing pension debt - but my confidence level it would is low. == This is the key. Much like Rahm earmarked specific tax increases for specific pension holes, this would need to be tied directly to pensions. Sales tax increases could be directed towards lowering property taxes. - A Jack - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:22 am: I would think a retirement income tax with a much larger property tax exemption for retirees might be workable. I would imagine it sticks in many retirees craws the amount of property taxes they pay when they don’t have any school age children. I will likely move when I retire not because of any couple percent tax on retirement, but because I realistically know that I don’t want to keep paying my current property tax burden. And if I am going to go to all the trouble of moving, I may as well move someplace that has a nicer climate. But I would prefer staying in Illinois if my property tax burden were less. - Ron - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:24 am: Illinois already has the fifth highest state and local tax burden in the nation. You want to be #1? - Thoughts Matter - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:25 am: As a state employee who will retire in a few years, I’m good with all forms of income being taxed above a threshold. My pension won’t be very much because I won’t have more than about 14 years in When I retire. My 401k, IRA, and other investments from my years working in the private sector will actually generate more income using the 4% withdrawal figure. I will also get Social Security as inhave always paid intoit. As long as all 3 are added together and then a threshold exemption applies, I’m ok with the idea. However, I am not good with anything that attempts to exempt private sector stuff and lay all the pain at the door of the state workers as if state workers aren’t equal.to the private sector. If I leave the state, it won’t be due to taxes. It will be for weather or family. - Nick - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:26 am: As a future Illinois pensioner. I will be leaving the state because of the weather and because I’m sick and tired of being blamed for the mismanagement of others and being told I don’t deserve what I have worked for. I will be spending my pension elsewhere - Stand Tall - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:27 am: More taxes that will surely grow the Illinois economy,not, less money available to spend for goods and services will mean less goods purchased and services rendered and taxed. Let’s try to fix what is wrong with Illinois and grow the economy to increase revenue to the State. - Thoughts Matter - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:30 am: A jack- who do you think you will be interacting with when you retire? Your school age children? Only people who were educated when your children were? No, you will be interacting with people who were educated at different times. Lawyers, doctors, nurses, bankers, store clerks, etc. it’s in your best interests for those people to be educated, just as it was on the best interests of retirees to lay taxes so your children could be educated at the time. - Thoughts Matter - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:33 am: I apologize for my typos. It’s the small screen on my phone and my eyes. I actually do know how to spell. - JS Mill - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:48 am: =“Our concern when this comes up… is not to solve the state’s fiscal problems on the backs of one group of individuals, who basically did not create this problem in the first place,= The $130 billion pension funding shortfall didn’t happen last week. I understand that we have paid our required payments but it happened on their watch as well. =Illinois already has the fifth highest state and local tax burden in the nation. You want to be #1?= Like a piano that has only one key working. Yes, I can live with #1 if we pay our bills. I am in the 50 plus range and will have a pension and I support a tax on retirement income above $50,000. If your pension is $60 k you would pay on the last $10 k and so on. I also support a tax on services, why should they be exempt? - Skirmisher - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 10:54 am: As a pensioner, I think it is an outrageous that my children and grandchildren are taxed and I am not. They get in return very substandard state services. At least Illinois should set a limit on untaxable income, as Iowa does (Say, $60,000 for a married couple) and tax the rest. It is vastly more fair to tax my income than to drive me out of my home with crushing property taxes. - City Zen - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 11:10 am: ==At least Illinois should set a limit on untaxable income, as Iowa does (Say, $60,000 for a married couple) and tax the rest.== Iowa’s exemption is $12,000 for married couples. Like most states, Iowa exempts Social Security on top of that. - Anonymous - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 11:11 am: What about a “processing fee” of 5% to any state issued pension that is mailed/deposited to an out of state pensioner. - Anonymous - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 11:18 am: My pension will be so low 5% won’t be that much. And lower property taxes will more than make up for it - Annonin' - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 11:20 am: Hannah probably did not realize that Chicago Magazine goes largely unread — unless you fall asleep on your coffee table. maybe it can be accomplished when the progressive tax is adopted — upper income retirement cash - jdcolombo - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 11:22 am: Re: taxes. Amounts withheld from a paycheck for contributions to a defined benefit plan (e.g., the state retirement systems), a regular 401(k), or a 403(b) or 457(b) plan are NOT taxed at the time they are withheld. A Roth IRA is different - in that case, you pay tax on the Roth contribution, but then the earnings on the contributions over time and later distributions after age 59 1/2 are tax free. Except for the Roth IRA, no one pays taxes on pension contributions at the time they are made; they are pre-tax. If no tax is collected on a pension, then that money is wholly tax-free, which is ridiculous. A pension is a form of compensation for work; at some point, that compensation should be subject to taxation. If one wants to set up a generous exemption (e.g., for the first $50,000 or whatever), fine - but that exemption logically also ought to apply to any wages earned. Why should the wage-earner making $50,000 a year pay tax but the pensioner making the same amount not pay, particularly when the money contribution to the pension has never been subject to taxation. - Joe M - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 11:25 am: As someone who will be retiring with a public pension in a year, I’m debating whether to remain in Illinois or move to the Missouri side of the St. Louis area. Both locations will give me good access to children and grand-children. Concerning taxes, it currently kind of a toss-up out. In retirement in Missouri, I’ll pay about $1700 more in state income taxes. But I’d probably save that much in real estate taxes. https://smartasset.com/retirement/retirement-taxes has a nifty retirement state income tax calculator where one can plug in their figures and get an estimate of state income taxes. I can’t verify how up-to-date or accurate it is. But it at least give one some basic information to start with. - Jibba - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 11:27 am: I will be a state pensioner someday and fully support taxing my pension at reasonable levels, with reasonable exemptions. And broadening our tax base is the best way to accomplish additional taxation, including broadened sales taxes. No one will be leaving Illinois if they have to pay $500 or $1000 in additional income taxes per year, unless you have an axe to grind or were planning to leave anyway. - wondering - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 11:39 am: Tax retirement? Get rid of the flat rate income tax, then we can talk about it. First things first. You folks going for the senior citizen exemption? If not, why not? - walker - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 11:54 am: “”You will see a dramatic drop in population with the retirement tax. It is the only reason many are staying.”" Is this a religious statement of some sort? There’s no evidence to back it up. - Earnest - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 11:55 am: I think we may have all this backwards. Instead of having a progressive tax, have a flat tax where wealthier people will pay less. With the lower taxes, we’ll see a huge influx of people move into the state and come out ahead because there will be more people to pay the taxes. If we can manage an income tax rate of, say, less than 4%, for a period of time, we should make out like bandits. Plus, we’ll have hard evidence that the lower tax rate has a huge impact on in and out migration in the state and can use that information in making our future decisions about tax rates. /s, and yes, it’s been a long week - Earnest - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 11:58 am: Adding: if we eliminate all taxes on retirement income and build in generous rate reductions on property taxes for seniors, we will see a huge in-migration of retirees to Illinois and make out like a bandit on their consumer purchasing in the state. - Short Term - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 12:03 pm: If pensions are taxed we will move to Tennessee. There are opportunities to save millions that would not truly hurt anyone. Look at the money being spent on the State’s GATA program ironically in the name of efficiency. Until we see a willingness to get serious about eliminating programs that do nothing for our State why would anyone support more tax? - Thoughts Matter - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 12:07 pm: ==What about a “processing fee” of 5% to any state issued pension that is mailed/deposited to an out of state pensioner.== There’s no actual cost increase to mail or deposit the money out of state, as I’m sure you know. It’s not as if Chicago retirees drive to Springfield to collect their check. It’s actually cheaper to direct deposit than it is there print and mail a check too. Isn’t it enough that out of state retirees not on Medicare are required to use the non quality Quality Care for their state health insurance? - Al - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 12:11 pm: I thought the two taxes nobody wanted to talk about were the powerful taxpayer subsidized liquor and casino monopolies. Ha ha. - nonBeliever - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 12:20 pm: Always interesting to see how many say they want their retirement income taxes. Never ever do I see those folks say what their tax bill would be and how much they already pay in state income tax. Just ‘high sounding’ rhetoric instead. - Jibba - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 12:29 pm: Sorry to burst your bubble, Nonbeliever. Several have discussed levels of possible exemptions and tax rates here and in previous threads. Convincing yourself that w’re just spouting hot air to make ourselves feel superior might make you feel better about your opinion, but it is not true. And it is a little hard to say how much my increased taxes would be without knowing what the new tax rate would be, if you take my point. - City Zen - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 12:36 pm: ==Tax retirement? Get rid of the flat rate income tax, then we can talk about it. == Try the reverse: A progressive tax is dependent on taxing retirement income as no other state in the country with graduated rates exempts retirement income. ==It’s actually cheaper to direct deposit than it is there print and mail a check too.== It’s also cheaper for Netflix to let you stream content over mailing yet Chicago charges a 9% cloud tax. No one said taxes have to be rational. - Anonymous - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 12:50 pm: What is non quality Quality care. - Thoughts Matter - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 12:59 pm: Quality Care is the only state retiree health plan available thru the State of Illinois insurance plans if you live out of state and you or your dependents aren’t eligible for Medicare yet. I added the descriptive term non-quality because it costs more and covers less than the other plans that are available if you live in state. - non believer - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 1:03 pm: - Jibba - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 12:29 pm: “Sorry to burst your bubble, Nonbeliever. Several have discussed levels of possible exemptions and tax rates here and in previous threads.” If I am wrong in my comment then I apologize. But I have never seen anyone state what there tax bill would be and how much they already pay in state income taxes. Perhaps it has been done and I missed it. Since you seem to know more about this you can provide examples of what I missed. Your response to my comment seems to be a deflection of what I pointed out. I did NOT state that no one has ever discussed “possible exemptions….” As to not knowing the tax rate, as you point out- well precisely. If you are going to support such a tax one should state what that would be and how it would personally effect them or at least how much in real dollars you would be willing to pay. I now hope you can see why your response is not relevant to my comment. So don’t be sorry but Bubble was not broken. - non believer - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 1:06 pm: “Quality Care is the only state retiree health plan available thru the State of Illinois insurance plans if you live out of state and you or your dependents aren’t eligible for Medicare yet.” YET ? In some cases it will be NEVER eligible for Medicare. Many employees hired before April 1, 1986 were not covered by Medicare and will never be eligible. Surprising how many politicians are shocked when you tell them of this reality. - Jibba - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 1:11 pm: Nonbeliever’ then I shall tailor my response. I currently pay several thousand dollars a year in state income taxes. Soon, I will pay zero. I and others are offering to pay more than zero. What a monster I am. And it is entirely unreasonable to expect us to know how much that amount would be. I’m guessing it would be hundreds or perhaps a thousand or more. If having a more specific number is key to your argument, you can argue with someone else. - wondering - Friday, May 25, 18 @ 1:13 pm: city zen, in what way is a progressive income tax dependent on taxing retirement? What other states do, such as most having a progressive tax, hasn’t influenced us, why this? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.