|
Pritzker refuses to say how much new revenue he’ll need from tax hike, so here’s my initial guesstimate
Thursday, Aug 23, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller * As I told you earlier today, I’ve finally given up on asking JB Pritkzer to detail his preferred graduated income tax rates because he has always stuck firmly to this script forever…
* So, I asked this question…
* And I just received this answer…
So, not only won’t Pritzker tell us which income levels should be protected from higher tax rates, now he won’t say how much money he has to raise to pay for his new programs. And that leaves me no choice but to speculate. * First, there’s a $1 billion or so structural operating deficit to deal with. And then there’s his plan to accelerate pension payments. It sounds to me like he’s basing his idea on the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability’s reamortization plan, which proposes borrowing $11.2 billion over eight years. With interest, that’s about $1.7 billion a year. The bill backlog stands today at $7.8 billion. Of that, you’d have to get rid of at least $4 billion to return to a “normal” payment cycle. Let’s say you bond out $4 billion over five years and you wind up with about $900 million in annual payments. And let’s figure $1 billion for his new programs, just because it sounds like a nice round number and they won’t say what they want to spend so I have to just throw it out there. I could be low-balling, I just don’t know. Pritzker also wants to do a big capital program. Let’s put that cost at $1 billion a year, because he’s mentioned that in the past as a baseline. He said again yesterday that he wants to pump more money into local schools in order to lower property taxes, because that tax is really what’s driving people out of state. A five percent cut in local school property taxes (which ain’t much) would cost about $1 billion. I’m figuring he won’t go even that high. Does $500 million sound about right, particularly if you cheat a bit by including in that number the extra $300 million mandated every year by the new education funding reform plan? So, you’re looking at $6.1 billion in revenue needs. But then there’s all the natural spending growth in programs like Medicaid. I don’t know what that could be, so let’s just say natural revenue growth takes care of it - even though it probably won’t. Subtract out about $500 million gained from legalizing marijuana and sports betting and you’re at $5.6 billion (although that pot estimate is probably too, um, high). If they expand gaming in a big way, some say that could bring in $1 billion more a year, but I really doubt it. To put all that into perspective, the last income tax hike in 2017 produced about $5.7 billion in new net revenues its first year, according to COGFA. Am I missing anything? I’ll update if I am.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
- Ok - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:02 pm:
GRT! GRT! GRT!
- DarkDante - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:05 pm:
I enjoy the guesswork here-the fact is that the state needs billions of new revenues to close the current structural deficit as well as cover mandated pensions increases. To this end, I want to push the idea of expanding the sales tax to a wider variety of services. The (left-leaning) CTBA estimated that this could bring in another $2B per year.
- El Conquistador - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:09 pm:
Where is Rauner’s plan? Where are his revenue estimates and realistic budget after 4 years of staggering ineptitude?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:09 pm:
Here’s what I know.
The messaging with Pritzker…
… they’re way over their head in understanding policy, or trying to explain policy.
If you want soap sold, maybe a cereal, coffee… they can sell it.
Can’t explain how the income tax will “be”, no clear answer on what kind of revenue needs to be generated.
Maybe they got an new version of the Rauner Word Jumble?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:12 pm:
===Where is Rauner’s plan?===
He recently signed it into law.
- My Button is Broke... - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:13 pm:
The press should ask Pritkzer questions like this. While he does not give a straight answer, I do prefer his non-answer response over a candidate that says he will pay for all these new programs by getting rid
of waste, fraud, and abuse. Politically, I can see why so many people say that, it is harder for reporters to follow up and voters like the answer…
- BlueDogDem - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:14 pm:
What has ever happened to the states responsibility of picking up their share of Medicaid expansion? Isn’t that supposed to kick in soon? Isn’t Illinois’ share about an extra $million. Why isn’t anyone talking about that.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:15 pm:
===Where is Rauner’s plan?===
The original plan, after Rich got it from them, worked out to a 1.4% growth, and $500+ million in alleged savings.
Rauner won, beating a failed incumbent with a policy plan that rattled around a premise of “Bringing Back and Shaking Up”
Again, you can’t play “here’s my tax policy, based on this structure” and leave every numeric part as a value of X… especially on accident.
Also, you can’t have a menu of spending with no clear cost attached, or how it will get financed… and call your messaging “policy clarification”
Skyhook with Rauner was a vague, empty, policy discussion.
So is Skyhook, in reverse?
- Occam - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:18 pm:
If the last tax increase of 32% generated about $5.7 billion, and your quick analysis shows that we need at least the same increase, if not more, than we’re looking at another 33% increase or so, to a rate of 6.65% from 4.99%.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:18 pm:
BlueDogDem, try using the Google.
- City Zen - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:22 pm:
I would ignore the CTBA pension acceleration plan. It reduces the funding target from 90% to 70%, a percentage no actuary on the right side of the sanity curve would advocate. The actual cost would be much greater otherwise. Best to assume pension payments as-is.
- the Patriot - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:26 pm:
The problem is no one defines middle class.
The Median IL household income is about $76,000.
That puts two teachers in year 25 making 65k each at $130k. Do you think they feel upper class enough for a tax hike? More importantly will they vote for JB knowing he will raise their taxes?
The easy question is where is your Veto line? At what combined family income would you veto any tax hike because you consider people below that line in the middle class you vow to protect.
- RNUG - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:28 pm:
JB needs to go big on the property tax relief. Nobody will give him credit for a 2% or 3% reduction. As has been previously noted, expanded service tax is about $2B and a partial tax on currently exempt retiree income could bring another $1B - $1.5B depending on the exemption level.
Another $2B -$2.5B thrown at property tax relief would be enough to be noticed.
And the other $0.5B needs to be targeted at restoring staffing at social service agencies like DHS, DFS, and CFS. They are woefully short of investigators, auditors, and compliance personnel.
- Anon - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:30 pm:
The federal capping of the SALT deduction will act as a huge tax increase on the very people JB wants to tax again.
The political appetite for another tax hike is not going to be there next year when people realize how much their taxes have gone up because of the capping of SALT.
It is receiving no coverage now, but it is absolutely going to be an issue.
At least until 2021 the IRS is not going to allow any of these work arounds we have seen proposed, so people will be paying the bill.
It is just wishful thinking to think that a huge new progressive tax is going to added to the already large tax increase capping SALT will have caused to the very same group JB wants to go after.
- RNUG - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:32 pm:
BTW … I know I am ridiculously high on the social services number I threw out … but with bennies and support it will be a non-trivial expense and I would rather be high than low
- BlueDogDem - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:33 pm:
Rich. Google expert I am not. But I can’t find squadoosh. Last time I thought I read a 10% surcharge on new enrollees and admin costs. Preliminary a few years back was that Illinois could see up to a $billion/yr.
- Red Ranger - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:33 pm:
2 things; JB has also said we wants to spare some of the lower income people the brunt of an increase, so given the flat tax constitutional mandate and adjusting the earned income tax credit (or other tax tool????) to accomplish this, would the actual rate have to be higher? Second, would federal funds offset some of these figures, the infrastructure plan for example? Either way the % increase will be a very scary number, especially for the newly elected crop of suburban Dem lawmakers.
- Nitpicking - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:35 pm:
It seems a bit unfair to characterize the 6.1 billion as “how much revenue [Pritzger] will need” when the first few categories (pensions, structural deficit, bill backlog) are problems any governor would have to deal with.
It seems more accurate to say “Illinois needs 3.6 billion in new revenue regardless and Pritzger will probably need 2.5 billion more on top of that, though voters will get 500 million of that back in the form of local tax cuts.”
But I’m glad someone is providing at least a guess at these numbers — thanks!
- don the legend - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:40 pm:
JB could say that his first action will be working with GA to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2020. First things first.
Commit to keeping the current rate of 4.95% or lower for those with taxable income below X. (X being the current bottom 80%, 90% income or some defensible number). The highest earners will pay progressively more but not to exceed 7.5, 8.0% or some defensible rate.
Set your flag and be bold. Voters will respect a proposal if you believe in it and challenge your critics to improve it or shut up.
- Perrid - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:45 pm:
@BlueDogDem, I’ll help you out even more than Rich did with his Google comment. If you go here (https://www.illinois.gov/hfs/info/factsfigures/Pages/CurrentBudget.aspx) you’ll find HFS’ proposed FY19 budget overview. Look at pages 9-11 they talk about the ACA liability, and the declining Federal match rate. It estimates the State’s cost will change from $142.4 million to $162.2 million, mostly due to the Feds matching 94% instead of 95%.
Just for fun, $162.2 million spread across 600,000 recipients would, ballpark, mean the state spends $270 per person in the Medicaid expansion. That’s a pretty good bang for your buck.
- BlueDogDem - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:50 pm:
Perrid. Thanks. Is 2020 a bigger hit?
- Moby - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:53 pm:
Illinois is in dire straights, and it’s going to be painful getting out of that. Any honest candidate for Governor who puts all the cards on the table is probably going to be punished by the electorate and may not even win the election because of it. I think JB is just trying to get elected first, and then maybe will attempt to face the music, financially, once he’s elected.
- City Zen - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:57 pm:
==we’re looking at another 33% increase or so, to a rate of 6.65% from 4.99%.==
I think the short-hand estimate is that every quarter point increase in the flat rate brings in $1 billion in additional revenue. So you’re right, with JB’s plan we’re probably in the mid-6% range.
As a point of reference, for someone making $80,000, an effective tax rate of 6.5%, Illinois would have the 8th highest tax rate in the country. And we’re already #1 or 2 in property tax. Not good.
- Silicon Prairie - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:01 pm:
Good news he admits people are leaving the state because of property taxes. Same thing the Gov says. The question is how to get Madigan to the table for reforms
- Back to the Future - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:04 pm:
That is a big number that is just not going
to happen.
I think a more likely course of action
would be to add more state mandated but
unfunded responsibilities to local governments
and increase the amount employees are required to put into their pension systems by increasing payroll deductions for benefits.
A little misleading information about the “unfairness” of the current tax rate and a hike in individual tax rates “ to make things equal” is much more likely.
Legislators are not going to pass that big a tax increase.
- SuburbanRepublican - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:08 pm:
@ The Patriot
There will be no veto line for a Governor Pritzker. Just like Quinn signing a 2 point increase in 2011 after saying he’d only support a 1 point increase, JB will sign whatever amount is sent to him.
- Anon - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:16 pm:
So — he should shoot for a 12 billion dollar increase, going for 2% of GDP.
The surplus from the revenue can be directed to K-12 through the new funding formula which would allow for local governments to actually lower their property taxes.
It would also create room to allow for the state to address structural issues, like needing to expand certain services, hire certain employees, and maintain state properties and assets.
The legislature can also pass a law changing the pension ramp to something that doesn’t look like a predatory mortgage, as well.
The thing a lot of folks forget is that the structural gap between revenues and spending is forecast to expand, too.
Things can be done to use the current system to reduce the burden on lower incomes, as well.
And folks like City Zen should pay attention to — effective — rates vs just the rate.
- Responsa - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:34 pm:
When the debates happen JB’s going to have to come up with something a little more tangible about his plan for taxes and revenue. Right? The media interlocutors will insist, Right?
- Robert the Bruce - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:35 pm:
Next Rauner ad: “According to an estimate by respected journalist Rich Miller, Pritzker plans to raise your taxes by $5.6 billion.”
- Anon - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:41 pm:
===Next Rauner ad: “According to an estimate by respected journalist Rich Miller, Pritzker plans to raise your taxes by $5.6 billion.”===
Eh, the next Pritzker ad could just be “Rauner plans to save money by killing more veterans.”
- City Zen - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:41 pm:
==And folks like City Zen should pay attention to — effective — rates vs just the rate.==
My calculation above is indeed based on the effective tax rates across all states at that income level, not including personal exemptions. Impressed yet?
== he should shoot for a 12 billion dollar increase==
The CTBA plan, with extremely higher rates on the somewhat well-off and up, only generated $2 billion more. Good luck finding the extra $10B.
==The legislature can also pass a law changing the pension ramp==
As long as the 2045 end date and 90% target remain the same. Anything else is theft from future generations.
- Anon - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:45 pm:
The backpay owed to newer state workers? One-track kind here thanks to crushing personal debt.
- Anon - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:45 pm:
Should be -mind- above.
- Sue - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:50 pm:
We all should be wary of the promise to reduce property taxes in exchange for higher income taxes. The reality is that following the Dems taking complete control both property taxes and income taxes will go up. The appetite for new spending and dealing with existing debt will require so much new revenue that with the exception of low income types who may get new exemptions- the rest of us will see significantly higher taxes
- Regular democrat - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:57 pm:
Using govt math i believe u need to round that off to 10 billion. And that might be low. I guess qhen u are up by give or take 15 points u dont have to get specific
- Anonymous - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:03 pm:
Plan on JB, if elected being a one term governor. Madigan put him in the race to eliminate Rauner and then do the dirty work raise taxes big time. JB gets free property tax appeals as his reward, and can go back to managing his business in 4 years. While Illinois loses tax payers, business, and jobs.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:06 pm:
==We all should be wary of the promise to reduce property taxes in exchange for higher income taxes.==
It’s been done before. We’re not inventing the wheel.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:11 pm:
==The Median IL household income is about $76,000.
That puts two teachers in year 25 making 65k each at $130k==
So are the teachers are married to each other, making them one household with double the state median, or are they friends with two separate households?
- Precinct Captain - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:12 pm:
Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:12 pm
The Rauner Tax Hike
- Just A Dude - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:14 pm:
Sue at 4:50.
So be it. If that’s what it takes to move forward and pay the bills. We have went backwards in high gear since 2015 until the budget was finally passed last year.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:24 pm:
Back to the Future and others so inclined, the State (or any pension plan sponsor) can’t raise employee contributions without raising benefits an equivalent amount. Federal law.
We probably would have done that a long time ago absent that restriction.
- Sue - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:26 pm:
Just a dude- Rauner didn’t create the pension deficits nor the structural deficit. Every effort he made to cut state spending was thwarted by Madigan and the public sector unions. Rauner was a failure - I give you that. BUT its total BS to hang the State’s financial position and lagging housing values and employment issues on Rauner
- Jocko - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:38 pm:
==Every effort he made to cut state spending was thwarted by Madigan and the public sector unions.==
Here we go again. Rauner placed his marker in Decatur and no one (except for those he bought and paid for) followed him. In addition to sandbagging Radogno, do you notice that none of the “Brave 15″ are not seeking re-election?
- Back to the Future - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:38 pm:
Arthur
Did not know that. Thanks for the info.
I did not think Federal Laws like Erisa covered
public pensions.
Actually don’t want any employees salary to
be reduced.
Back
- Cadillac - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:45 pm:
Don’t worry. After the election, JB and the GA will again pass a huge income tax increase - but it will only be temporary and sunset back to 3.75% in 2022, because we wont need it anymore by then. /S
Cowards.
- RNUG - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:49 pm:
== . BUT its total BS to hang the State’s financial position and lagging housing values and employment issues on Rauner ==
Rauner is clearly responsible for about $12B of it …
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 5:58 pm:
==. Every effort he made to cut state spending was thwarted by Madigan and the public sector unions.==
You sure about that?
http://www.sj-r.com/news/20170309/democrats-no-answers-from-state-agencies-on-where-to-make-cuts
- anonymous - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 6:07 pm:
Well, that was a fun read. An additional $5.6billion? Annually? Yikes. Some how, it doesn’t seem likely that services would improve by the same proportion.
If the far left/progressive faction of the Democratic Party gets any more of a foothold in Illinois, this thought experiment will become a reality.
At some point the housing prices should collapse and we can all get re-assessed to the lower collapsed value, so there’s that. /s
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 6:08 pm:
==As long as the 2045 end date and 90% target remain the same. Anything else is theft from future generations.==
Funny, you didn’t have these concerns about theft when we were discussing Roskam’s tax scam bill.
- Blackhawk - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 6:14 pm:
Pritzker needs to say that he doesn’t know how much will be needed. After he takes office, he will eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse of the Rauner administration. After determining how much he can save from eliminating the waste fraud and abuse, he may not need any additional revenue to provide for his proposals.
- Responsa - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 6:30 pm:
==Pritzker needs to say that he doesn’t know how much will be needed…..After determining how much he can save from eliminating the waste fraud and abuse, he may not need any additional revenue to provide for his proposals.==
Are you new?
- JS Mill - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 6:45 pm:
=90% target= CZ, this target is not necessary. 70% to 80% is healthy and sustainable.
The current 40% has been about the same for going on 50 years. Yes, it needs to be much better, but outside of 2008-2009 investment returns have kept the state from having to dip into the principle to pay pensioners.
at 70% of liabilities, investment returns would likely be enough to allow the pensions to build equity.
Clearly I am no pension expert and generally look to AA and RNUG for these things but I think the ide is reasonable.
And of course, taxing retirement income over $75,000 could be an additional source of revenue.
=(left leaning) CTBA=
Spare me. Try fiscally responsible.
- Sue - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 6:47 pm:
Jocks- AFSMCE went without a contract for 4 years on the assumption it was better to wait for Rauner to be gone. The gamble worked but there is just one example of efforts to cut spending were thwarted and with Madigan’s help at every twist and turn
- Southside Markie - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 7:08 pm:
IMHO, expansion of gambling will not generate all that much more in new revenues unless Chicago is turned into a gambling destination for out-of-towners. Otherwise, expansion will only cannibalize exiting gaming because (hopefully) there is not plan to expand the number of gamblers living in Illinois.
- Johnny Begood - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 7:36 pm:
A quick google shows that the median household income in 2016 (most recent data) was $59,196, far less than the $76,000 quoted above.
Let’s keep the standards high on this site, peoples.
- City Zen - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 7:38 pm:
==Funny, you didn’t have these concerns about theft when we were discussing Roskam’s tax scam bill.==
So you admit it’s theft then. Acceptance is part of the healing process.
==70% to 80% is healthy and sustainable.==
The concept of 70% or 80% funding being healthy only applies when the pension system uses a discount rate less than the expected rate of return. The closer those two rates get, the greater the required percentage to be considered healthy. Guess what rates the state pension systems use? Equal percentages. Guess what that means? 100% funding is required.
We can use 70 or 80% as target rates. We’d just have to reduce the discount rate. I don’t think you’ll be pleased with the results, but at least it’ll be an honest accounting.
==The current 40% has been about the same for going on 50 years. ==
That just proves that a 2nd tier of benefits should have been created 50 years ago and we keep pawning off debt to future generations. I suppose we can keep on keeping on if ethics and morals are not a concern.
- BlueDogDem - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 9:27 pm:
Dude. I agree there will be a revenue increase with pot legal. But what is California’s with 35 million people.
- Huckleberry Mentat - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 9:40 pm:
Thanks for asking the question. It needs discussed. My opinion, tax retirement income and include a non refundable tax credit to protect lower-income tax payers. I don’t think it’s healthy to have my entire inter generational transfer to go to my kids. Helping to lift their entire generation may be a better approach to making Illinois a better place for them to live and grow a family
- cannon649 - Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 10:29 pm:
JB is one mass of buzz words - he has no plan - he will spent any thing new before he gets it - state will worse off than with Bruce.
Rich is correct to get the details now - it will not happen - JB does not have them - Please keep trying -
Rauner failed - JB will be worse
- truthteller - Friday, Aug 24, 18 @ 6:00 am:
I am long time Illinois resident and have watched the mess in Springfield go on for decades. These past 4 years perhaps the worse with Rauner declaring war against those who needs to work with him. I voted for rauner and 6 months after he took office I fully regretted that vote along with many others. Illinois is a mess because we elect legislatures that fear tackling the issues that have caused the problems: too many taxing districts, downstate school districts that dont really pay in for the pensions of their teachers, run away higher education costs. Illinois is the 5th richest state in the country and we are nowhere near the 5th highest taxed state. Fundamental change must happen and will not if people don’t understand there is cost to make it happen. Years of governors and legislatures kicking the problems down the road has brought us here. Solutions are available, they are not free.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Aug 24, 18 @ 6:33 am:
What if JB is about as knowledgable and ideological as the current governor? He’s shown us that he has no ability to discuss our fiscal problems in public, hasn’t he?
He could be Rauner II.
For the past twenty years, I’ve though we couldn’t get a worse governor - but I’ve been wrong. JB is not looking so great.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Friday, Aug 24, 18 @ 6:37 am:
==A quick google shows that the median household income in 2016 (most recent data) was $59,196, far less than the $76,000 quoted above.==
A lot of people mix up median and average. I think the patriot meant average.
July 2018 median household income for Illinois is $61,255 and average household income is $87,010.
https://illinois.hometownlocator.com/census/
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Friday, Aug 24, 18 @ 6:56 am:
==Plan on JB, if elected being a one term governor. Madigan put him in the race to eliminate Rauner and then do the dirty work raise taxes big time.==
I can’t see Madigan raising taxes big time even if we need the additional 5.6 billion. Remember Madigan wanted to let the 2011 5% tax increase sunset in 2015, and he said so in 2014. Only when it became painfully obvious that we couldn’t pay our bills did he push for the current increase. Politicians don’t like to raise taxes, which is why we are in our current mess.
- JS Mill - Friday, Aug 24, 18 @ 7:56 am:
=That just proves that a 2nd tier of benefits should have been created 50 years ago and we keep pawning off debt to future generations. I suppose we can keep on keeping on if ethics and morals are not a concern.=
CZ- that comment is just absurd. Given the time span mentioned it says absolutely nothing about Tier 2 and everything about the pension system to stay viable even through gross mismanagement by Illinois.
The fact that we have 40,000 fewer people (53,000 - 13,000) taking educator licensure exams is surely a statement, in part, on Tier 2.
- Gioco - Friday, Aug 24, 18 @ 8:13 am:
Rich,
Check with COGFA but I think they testified this week that SB 7 amendment 3 the massive Gaming bill with a Casino on every corner would only raise $12 Million
- Dog on Sheffield - Friday, Aug 24, 18 @ 8:16 am:
Legalize it
- Grandson of Man - Friday, Aug 24, 18 @ 8:24 am:
I think a progressive income tax is a fundamental need in Illinois. We need to shift the tax burden more onto the highest incomes. We should be a model state of chronic tax failure, especially now with the astronomic gains of the wealthiest corporations, CEO’s and others.
Bruce Rauner made $279 million in the last two reported years but was taxed at a low state rate, compared with most of our neighbors. While this happened, he unleashed a war on union rights and workers, and a destructive budget crisis for leverage against them.
The unfairness is quite evident. We have to make equitable and proportional sacrifices. The fiscal problems are like the Biblical poor per se, we’ll have those with us for a long time, so a progressive income tax is not a panacea but a fundamental need to do something that will protect those who can be hurt more.
- City Zen - Friday, Aug 24, 18 @ 9:03 am:
JS - A second tier of benefits 50 years ago wouldn’t have looked like Tier 2 today. We should be on Tier
WHile we have 40,000 fewer people taking educator licensure exams might be a statement on Tier 2, although I don’t know many 19 year-olds choosing professions based on pension plans. But it’s also a statement on market opportunities. And it’s a statement on the institutions that taught them.