31 Comments - Pythagoras - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 1:52 pm: And Sen. Nybo is on the Senate Revenue Committee. - Chicago Cynic - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 1:52 pm: Saw that nonsense from Nybo. Glad you’re exposing it…again. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 1:55 pm: Sen. Nybo announces his opposition to things he doesn’t understand. He’s opposed to most things. - Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 2:07 pm: A Republican is either A. Not understanding how something works or B. Is purposefully misrepresenting facts. Is anyone shocked? If Senator Nybo wanted to make an argument that a 13.3% tax rate on those that make over $1,075,000 would lead to quite a few rich people leaving the state, that argument would have some merit. A tax rate that high could increase the brain drain that Illinois is already experiencing thanks to our previous budget hostage crisis. When will Republicans start to make arguments that make any sense to me? I feel like I’ll be waiting awhile. - Johnnie F. - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 2:23 pm: Math is hard!…said Barbie, and apparently Senator Nybo. - windering - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 2:28 pm: The brains in the drain will not be missed.. Rauner.. Griffin….iq average loss insignifcant, ethical average will sky rocket - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 2:36 pm: It’s nice to see a Republican being honest in their opposition to the middle class. - Nagidam - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 2:43 pm: I did the quick math, not accounting for deductions, under this scenario with the California model the person has an effective tax rate of 3.48%. In Illinois we know that would be 4.9%. The problem Republicans highlight is that there is no plan. If the middle class would pay less, like this model, why doesn’t JB put his tax brackets out there? - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 2:44 pm: Ducky. My concern about a progressive rate structure where all the money goes into a common pot is about spending levels. When the majority thinks it can get free services because the minority will pay, there is no check on spending. A surcharge for a dedicated purpose such as K-12 education would work for me. But, there have to be safeguards to prevent the politicians from taking the money out the back door. We saw a that with the Roads Amendment and with the lottery. - Huckleberry Mentat - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 3:05 pm: Lower income workers pay taxes too. $2,000 from a $50,000 income likely has a more significant effect on a basic standard of living than $10,000 from a $500,000 income. Why not make the societal environment in which you live a little better generally rather than complaining your tax burden robs you of one more extravagance? - Nagidam - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 3:41 pm: I looked up Minnesota’s rates. Under this same income level, not accounting for deductions, for a single filer they would have a effective tax rate of 6.61% versus IL at 4.95%. It’s all about the rates people use of course. Probably why JB doesn’t want to show his hand. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 3:50 pm: ===for a single filer=== Yeah, but there are not that many of those at that income level. Try married. Minnesota’s is lower than Illinois. - City Zen - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 3:56 pm: Using Amdor’s calculation, which doesn’t take into account standard deductions, the break-even for a married couple paying less income taxes in CA is $119,000. So is the message every single/family making over $60K/$120K gets a tax hike? If so, spit it out already. As you’re implementing CA tax rates, don’t forget to cut my property taxes in half or more to match CA too. - Sue - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 3:58 pm: I recognize that the example is for discussion purposes but does Nyons really envision the legislature actually doing anything approaching these upper rates. JB keeps saying he wants the wealthy to pay a little more. The 8 and 9 percent numbers hit the upper middle class and the rates above that are simply rediculous - Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:07 pm: ===The 8 and 9 percent numbers hit the upper middle class and the rates above that are simply rediculous=== Thank you, Sue, for acknowledging a blatant GOP scare tactic. - Nagidam - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:11 pm: @ Rich, The lowest tax bracket is 5.35%. So under the married filing jointly scenario the effective rate would be 6.34%. Honestly though I guess a complete picture cannot be made as I don’t have eligible deductions. Once again, JB should give us the rates at the various income levels and then we will be able to tell where we stand. If this is going to be good for the middle class he should show us how he arrives at that statement. - Nagidam - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:11 pm: Source for above: https://www.incometaxpro.net/tax-rates/minnesota.htm - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:20 pm: Thanks Rich for posting this neat calculator. I need to learn my lesson as well, about marginal vs. effective tax rates. I tried $188 million (Rauner’s 2015 income) but the calculator only goes up to $10 million. Assuming the same holds true for $188 million compared with $10 million, Rauner would still pay a higher effective rate in Minnesota, California, Iowa (big drop from marginal rate but higher than Illinois) and Wisconsin. It’s critical that we right-size our tax code to have Rauner and other very high income folks pay more and keep rejecting his goals of slashing the wages, benefits and protections of those who earn so much less. - City Zen - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:26 pm: ==Once again, JB should give us the rates at the various income levels == He doesn’t even have to go that far. Just state the income level, single and married, where you’d start to pay more. - Sue - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:31 pm: Grandson- when CT and N.J. tried this approach people like Rauner simply relocated. CT lost one taxpayer to Florida and it resulted in the loss of nearly 1 percent of the tax base. Hedge Fund managers and other similar people can work from Florida and not move their businesses - Da Big Bad Wolf - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:46 pm: Nice try. https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/05/26/do-high-state-taxes-drive-away-millionaires-not-really/ - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:47 pm: “Grandson- when CT and N.J. tried this approach people like Rauner simply relocated.” A multiyear study shows that millionaires are less likely than anyone else to relocate due to higher taxes. California and Minnesota both report budget surpluses. - City Zen - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:54 pm: ==California and Minnesota both report budget surpluses.== So would Illinois…if we taxed what they taxed… - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 4:57 pm: “So would Illinois…if we taxed what they taxed…” they Don’t know if they tax retirement income but I support taxing it, as long as it’s progressive. - Whatever - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 5:00 pm: Nagidam — Minnesota does have a 5.35% rate on the lowest bracket, but it also bases its tax on an individual’s federal taxable income (with adjustments), which means that you get your federal standard or itemized deduction and (unless you have income in the $186,000 range for a single) the federal exemption amount(s). You have to have a lot more income before you pay a dime to Minnesota than you would for Illinois. - City Zen - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 5:13 pm: ==Don’t know if they tax retirement income but I support taxing it, as long as it’s progressive.== Sure you do. Minnesota is rated as one of the least tax-friendly states for retirees. With our current flat tax, plus the estimates for how much revenue taxing retirement income would generate, we would have a surplus this year. But who needs a surplus, right? ==Minnesota…bases its tax on an individual’s federal taxable income (with adjustments)== And not one candidate or politician has mentioned this. All they do is look at rates. Some don’t know what an effective rate is and others forget the very progressive tax states have significantly lower property taxes. No one here is paying Minnesota or California rates on top of Illinois property taxes. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 7:21 pm: =It’s critical that we right-size our tax code to have Rauner and other very high income folks pay more and keep rejecting his goals of slashing the wages, benefits and protections of those who earn so much less.= Bingo. Add a service tax and retirement tax and we can eventually reduce property taxes. - theCardinal - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 9:41 pm: So if you make over 105K they are essentially doubling your taxes to pay for the spend and tax state. Vote accordingly. - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:36 pm: ==So if you make over 105K they are essentially doubling your taxes to pay for the spend and tax state. Vote accordingly.== I mean, did you not even read the title of the post you are commenting on? - wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 19, 18 @ 10:38 pm: –Grandson- when CT and N.J. tried this approach people like Rauner simply relocated. – Yeah, so simply. Manhattan and Beverly Hills are ghost towns. Sue, you should buy real estate in those places, what’s with everyone moving down to Panama City and Brownsville. - Travel Guy - Thursday, Sep 20, 18 @ 9:19 am: ==So if you make over 105K they are essentially doubling your taxes to pay for the spend and tax state. Vote accordingly.== “I mean, did you not even read the title of the post you are commenting on?” Lol…you expected an idealogue to read something? They’re not really big into facts, just feelings. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.