54 Comments - just me... - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 10:43 am: I wish they would put forward as much energy on expense reductions as they do on tax increases. - Steve - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 10:45 am: It’s actually a smart strategy because they might not want to get drowned out by whatever Trump will do to dominate the news cycle in 2020. But, there is a downside to this, it gives the opposition time to demonize the idea and the targets of the ideas. Illinois is headed for major corruption indictments on several politicians by the time of the 2020 election. Look, for the opponents of the progressive income tax to use this to their advantage. Heck, it might start before May 3 when Justice Anne Burke’s husband is supposed to get indicted. - JS Mill - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 10:48 am: =I wish they would put forward as much energy on expense reductions as they do on tax increases.= You clearly do not understand the issues facing the state budget and the structural deficit that exists. - So_Ill - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 10:48 am: I think this would help democrats downstate and help republicans regain some ground in the suburbs. Interesting trade off. - Commonsense in Illinois - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 10:53 am: Well, on one hand it shows Governor Pritzker to be a “Man of Action” and President Cullerton and Speaker Madigan as his willing followers. However I have to agree with Steve that pushing this out 18 months before the electorate can even vote on the required Constitutional Amendment is a long, long time for something to sit and wait for a decision and give opponents to gin up the ads. But, okay…it was a campaign promise and we might as well see what rates the Governor wants to impose on folks sooner that later. - Commonsense in Illinois - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 10:54 am: Boy do I need more coffee… - Norseman - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 10:55 am: I thought they’d spend this year building support for a implementation proposal to use as a selling point for the amendment. The downside is that it gives specifics for people to focus their opposition. JB has decided that it’s politically best to sell the general and get it out of the GA before the election cycle hits. - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 10:56 am: =I wish they would put forward as much energy on expense reductions as they do on tax increases.= Bruce Rauner and his agency heads had four years to do just that, and all they could come up with one thing to cut. It’s why they spent his entire term talking about things like term limits - Lester Holt’s Mustache - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 10:57 am: Sorry, meant to say they couldn’t come up with one thing to cut - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 10:59 am: Looks like JB wants to put the progressive tax plan out there early and try to use the extra time to hammer it down the voter’s throat. - Generic Drone - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:01 am: Good. Lets fet the ball rolling. We have had enough inaction in the last 4 years. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:06 am: The sooner they think they can pass it, the more time to campaign touting the “Progressive Tax” referendum for 2020. The real trick will be found in the details; The tiers, the percentages. 17 months or 17 years, the hardest part would be blindly trying to advocate for… “We want a progressive tax structure, we are unsure how the tiers and percentages shake out, but the tiers will allow greater flexibility to a progressive income tax to find the best breakouts” Um… ok… - Grandson of Man - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:10 am: Madigan has supported progressive taxation in the past, and it’s great to see both GA leaders on board. Good on Pritzker for wanting to get this done right away. It’s a reason why he was elected. What are people afraid of in passing the CA? Put this to the voters and let them decide. If it loses, it was given a fair shot - wordslinger - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:11 am: No reason to wait if you have the votes. - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:12 am: Can not wait to see what he is going to consider as income levels, for increasing taxes. Also if retirement income and pensions would be counted in figuring of the taxing rates, of retires, non retirement income. Bet it would be. - RNUG - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:24 am: == Bet it would be. == Bet it won’t. Opponents would hammer it as taxing grandma’s Social Security. Would generate too many no votes and cause the CA to fail. If you are going to tax retirement income, better politically to do it after a progressive income tax is in place. - Grandson of Man - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:31 am: “I wish they would put forward as much energy on expense reductions as they do on tax increases.” Let’s see the proposals and the votes to back them up. There were cuts, such as Tier II pension reform, but those making a half-million dollars or more a year have been taxed at the same rates as everyone else. Why should this continue, where those making much less money have to be trotted out for cuts, like the previous governor tried to do? Democrats, Pritzker and other proponents will have to come up with rates and won’t be able to dodge anymore, which is how it should be. If they stink, they likely won’t pass either in the GA or with voters. - Honeybear - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:37 am: From an Oompa Loompa standpoint it makes sense to get the rates/policy set as early as possible. So many agencies are going to have to work like crazy to even implement it in the window provided. If it’s locked in by May (even without being approved yet by the voters) Then the Oompa Loompas know what they’ve got to get set up and ready in the interim. A lift that big takes an incredible amount of time to execute and implement. It’s like changing your main product line from Wonka bars to Fizzy lifting drinks - A Jack - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:38 am: Pritzker does have a pretty strong mandate. So its better to get the tax amendment bill passed before other distractions hit and his mandate fades. If the rates are out as well it will be hard for the disinformation campaigns to attack the proposal. - don the legend - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:43 am: Let’s remember this: “I’m not naïve about what it will take to do this. All who enter a discussion about our state’s budget and a fair tax system in good faith will be welcomed to the table. But if you lead with partisanship and scare tactics you will be met with considerable political will.” - Honeybear - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:44 am: JB Hire more Oompa Loompas, and expedite the new labor contract(s). Do you really want a labor conflicts while you’re trying to pull off this agenda? Tell Laner Muchin To make it happen. - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:44 am: =In the past, Democratic legislative leaders have insisted they would not consider constitutional amendments in odd-numbered years when no statewide election is held.= Are they worried about turnout or expense or both? They should do it this year, as soon as they have the numbers nailed down. Have a single issue referendum. Whatever it costs, it can’t be more than the interest on the debt. - PublicServant - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:46 am: There won’t be any details regarding rates until after the progressive tax is passed. They want people voting on the concept. Providing details would just provide ammunition to the opponents. - Anonymous - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 11:57 am: RNUG My statement was not about taxing retirement income, it was about using retirement income, to be added to your non retirement income, to raise you into a higher tax tier, and thus tax your non retirement income at the higher tax tier. Not talking about taxing retirement income. Hope this clears this up. - Stuntman Bob's Brother - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:04 pm: ==There won’t be any details regarding rates until after the progressive tax is passed. They want people voting on the concept. Providing details would just provide ammunition to the opponents.== Disagree strongly. That would be another “You can read the bill after you pass it” fiasco, which did more harm to Affordable Care Act credibility than anything else. We need honesty, transparency, and expediency on this if it is to happen. RNUG’s suggestion to not muddy the waters with talk about taxing retirement income seems valid. On the other hand, you may get more support from the Average Joe if he knew that those with six-figure pensions will also be required to “pay their fair share”. - City Zen - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:05 pm: ==If the rates are out as well it will be hard for the disinformation campaigns to attack the proposal.== Not really. How long are the rates guaranteed not to increase? If no guarantee is offered, opponents will counter that rates will double year 2. Pretty easy to paint as bait and switch without guarantees. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:10 pm: ===How long are the rates guaranteed not to increase? If no guarantee is offered=== Yeah, this is true of anything. If voters are paranoid to the point they won’t vote yes because “you never know”, odds are they ain’t voting for it anyway. - Rod - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:13 pm: I agree with OW that the critical issue is the tax brackets. The concern I have is for the in the lowest 40% of non-retired household incomes in our state going up to $38,000. How much will the actual rate decline for this group? For years supporters of a fair tax in Illinois have said a Fair Tax would provide a tax cut to the majority of families in Illinois well how much for this group? Until the Governor releases the proposed brackets really no progressive should support the idea abstractly. - Perrid - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:20 pm: @Rod, actually EVERY progressive should support the constitutional amendment, full stop. Giving the state flexibility hurts no one (yes I’m assuming people at the top of the income scale who pay more won’t be “hurt” by paying more). Rates can always be changed. Rates almost certainly will be changed. If you don’t like the brackets they propose when all is said and done, then oppose that legislation, not the amendment. - 44th - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:23 pm: Cut expenses and balance budgets, City, County and State gave up on that a long time ago. just issue more debt when in doubt. Gee, I wonder whose career was built on that premise and now he is doing same to Fed Budget? - RNUG - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:30 pm: == My statement was not about taxing retirement income, it was about using retirement income, to be added to your non retirement income, to raise you into a higher tax tier, and thus tax your non retirement income at the higher tax tier. == Got ya. Doing what you propose would require a bit of a rework of the IL-1040. Probably would have to have a separate worksheet for it. Not saying they wouldn’t do it, but it would complicate things and make it easy to fill it out incorrectly. I’d still bet against it. - Original Rambler - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:31 pm: I’m still questioning the wisdom of publicizing the rates - which are specific and changeable - along with the CA - which is general and permanent. Voters will be casting a vote on the CA but will undoubtedly be basing their vote on the companion legislation. My gut tells me this is either brilliant…or disastrous. Not sure which yet. By the way, can the GA call for a special election sooner than 17 months specifically for this CA? Last, just saw that Pritzker wore a brown suit to the S-T editorial meeting. How Reaganesque. - City Zen - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:33 pm: ==The concern I have is for the in the lowest 40% of non-retired household incomes in our state going up to $38,000. How much will the actual rate decline for this group?== The proponents are only going to care about the % of taxpayers that will have taxes go down, not the $ reduction they will receive. They’re going to want to claim something like “80% taxpayers will see a decrease.” They’re not going to tell you that the majority of that 80% is only getting $50. Whatever discount you get, it will be devoured by your next property tax increase and/or school referendum and/or progressive rate tax hike. - RNUG - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:38 pm: == How long are the rates guaranteed not to increase? == Maybe there should be a limitation that rates can only be changed every 5 years, barring a national emergency like the Great Depression … and even then require a super majority. That limitation could be put either in the CA or the companion rate bill. Personally, I would put it in the CA. There are some related items in the Illinois Constitution, like the requirement to ask the public about a Con-Con every 20 years. - Donnie Elgin - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:39 pm: Running the question on The November 2020 General ballot will make for an extra fun St. Patrick’s Day next year .. March 17, 2020 - GENERAL PRIMARY ELECTION - Grandson of Man - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:39 pm: According to the article, Pritzker wants “companion legislation” in rates. This is where people negotiate, and why someone would initially be reluctant to propose rates, as Pritzker was in his gubernatorial campaign. I want to see rates as well, and a measure of bipartisanship in coming up with them. Pritzker should have the political money to cover for one or more Republican GA member supporting this. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:43 pm: Rauner couldn’t come up with one thing to cut in 4 years? Did you miss the AFSCME negotiations and the Cullerton pension reform proposals? - north shore cynic - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:43 pm: This is a terrific idea. It gives all the high earners 17 months to put their house up for sale and find a new residence in a neighboring state….or Florida or Texas. - RNUG - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:46 pm: == By the way, can the GA call for a special election sooner than 17 months specifically for this CA? == “… shall be submitted to the electors at the general election next occurring at least six months after such legislative approval …” Right now a (upper case) General Election is held every 2 years. The IL Constitution is silent on whether the GA could appropriate funds for and call for a (lower case) general election specifically for a CA. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:47 pm: (Sigh) ===Rauner couldn’t come up with one thing to cut in 4 years?=== According to senate testimony, this is true. This is also an apple ===Did you miss the AFSCME negotiations and the Cullerton pension reform proposals=== Destroying labor and pensions isn’t a budgetary cut. This is an orange. - Big Jer - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:47 pm: ===They want people voting on the concept. Providing details would just provide ammunition to the opponents.=== Not just the opponents but also amongst the people for the progressive tax. There is there concern that a progressive tax will not be progressive enough as Pritzker will not want to hit his wealthy cronies too hard. Illinois has 17 Billionaires and 280,265 Millionaires. The number of millionaires puts Illinois in the top 5 in the US. http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/state_millionaires_household.htm - Blockedmore - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:51 pm: =I wish they would put forward as much energy on expense reductions as they do on tax increases.= Your wish is granted - paying down old bills reduces interest expenses. - Grandson of Man - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 12:56 pm: “Rauner couldn’t come up with one thing to cut in 4 years? Did you miss the AFSCME negotiations and the Cullerton pension reform proposals?” The harsh state worker cut proposals for which the former governor caused big damage in trying but failing to impose are exactly a reason why we need a graduated income tax. In his first year as governor, when the predecessor declared war on AFSCME and state workers (and many others), his income shot up to $188 million. That’s really immoral, trying to cut workers drastically and stripping away their rights while enjoying massive prosperity and being taxed at the same state rate as those who are being threatened. - Just Me 2 - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 2:07 pm: I second Just Me… and not because we have similar names. - a drop in - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 2:40 pm: == How long are the rates guaranteed not to increase? == How long are the rates guaranteed not to increase now? Not a reason to oppose GIT. - City Zen - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 2:47 pm: ==being taxed at the same state rate as those who are being threatened== Since you’re busy calibrating your morality scales, care to tell us how progressive your union dues are? - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 2:53 pm: ==…care to tell us how progressive your union dues are?=== You’ll have to connect some dots here, outside your usual anger towards unions, pensions… - Chicago_Downstater - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 3:11 pm: @City Zen I’m not in a Union, and I think @Grandson of Man is right to point out the immorality of that situation. What non-related issue that you think I’m not Progressive enough on will you trot out to try and dismiss me? - titan - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 3:17 pm: RNUG Article III, Section 6 defines the (lower case) “general election” to mean the (upper case) “General Election” for most purposes - including when a constituional amendment may be presented for referendum. - City Zen - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 3:26 pm: ==You’ll have to connect some dots here== Most certainly. First, I’ll need to know how many dots there are between the amount of dues a new teacher in Taylorville pays to the IEA versus the retiring teacher in New Trier at the top of the pay scale. If the unions such as IEA are such proponents of progressive revenues streams, then their main source of revenue - union dues - must certainly be based on those same progressive values, no? I mean, no way that newbie teacher in the poorest district in the state with a salary 1/4 of his new Trier counterpart pays the same dues, right? ==outside your usual anger towards unions== Not sure you’re the best person to be lecturing on outside the usual of anything. With all due respect, of course. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 3:32 pm: ===If the unions such as IEA are such proponents of progressive revenues streams, then their main source of revenue - union dues - must certainly be based on those same progressive values, no? I mean, no way that newbie teacher in the poorest district in the state with a salary 1/4 of his new Trier counterpart pays the same dues, right?=== Your phony concern for labor is… noted. ===With all due respect=== Don’t patronize me, you’re not good at it. - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 3:51 pm: OK. So, to pass an amendment, it must be approved by a supermajority vote of 60 percent of those voting on the question or a majority vote of those who cast a ballot for any office in the election. So, the bar is higher if there are no other offices on which to vote? Sixty percent vs. a simple majority? Is this why they won’t consider the amendment question in an odd-numbered year? - Nonbeleiver - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 4:05 pm: Go ahead put it on the ballot. ALONG with term limits of no more than 12 years in the GA or 8 years in a Statewide office. Bet the latter doesn’t happen. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 4:08 pm: ===ALONG with term limits of no more than 12 years in the GA or 8 years in a Statewide office.=== Find the votes in the GA and then… No need to muddy the waters if they have the votes to get the progressive income tax done clean. A lesson Rauner never learned… Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.