Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » #TaxSplaining: More disinformation and one decent point
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
#TaxSplaining: More disinformation and one decent point

Wednesday, Mar 13, 2019

* David J. Roberts, an associate professor of accountancy at DePaul University, writes in the Tribune that the governor’s graduated income tax proposal is “severely flawed and would have serious negative consequences.” How? Well, the “millionaire’s tax” for starters

Think of this as a progressive rate structure with a cliff. At the million-dollar threshold, one extra dollar of income puts you over the cliff. Ignoring the effects of any other tax provisions, that one dollar of income would cost $8,565 in additional tax, an incredible marginal rate of 856,500 percent on that dollar. Imagine the efforts that taxpayers would go through to avoid being taxed on extra income if they were close to that threshold. And a tax like this might cause some wealthy individuals to flee Illinois altogether.

“Oh, please, won’t anyone think about the millionaires?!” /s

Loo, somebody obviously didn’t run the numbers. As we’ve already discussed, the tax avoidance window is a mere $9,305

The cutoff point above which tax avoidance wouldn’t make sense would be $1,009,305. State taxes would be $80,239.75 for an after-tax income of $929,065.25 - exactly what you would’ve paid if you made a million dollars.

Increase that income by just a dollar, to $1,009,306, and your state tax would be $80,239.83, with an after-tax income of $929,066.17 - 92 cents more than you’d have made with a million dollars in earnings. After that, the gravy gets thicker.

* Back to Associate Professor Roberts

Under the proposal, the same rates apply to both single and joint filers. So, for example, two single individuals who each have $250,000 of net income would each pay at a rate of 4.95 percent on income above $100,000. If they marry one another, their combined $500,000 of net income means that the second $250,000 would be taxed at 7.75 percent. Ignoring the effects of any other tax provisions, this results in $7,065 of extra tax, a giant marriage penalty.

* I asked the Pritzker administration the other day about this “marriage penalty” issue…

Current Illinois tax code does not distinguish between married and single filers.

There’s little to no evidence to support the claim that people base their decision to marry on tax rates.

More married couples - especially low-income married couples - receive marriage bonuses at the federal level because of the structure of the federal tax code.

The wealthy - not low-income working families - are more likely to benefit from a higher income threshold for married filers.

Doesn’t sound like the governor is much interested in this particular topic to me.

* Roberts again

If the plan would double the size of the rate brackets on a joint return, that would eliminate the marriage penalty, but it would result in much less tax revenue. And it would create big potential marriage bonuses. A single person with high income might marry someone with little or no income, and that couple could benefit from lower brackets.

Um, what? A bunch of rich people are gonna suddenly rush out and marry poor people so they can lower their state income tax bills? That’s… not how real life generally works.

A good rule of thumb is that if you have to stretch reality that much to make a point, you should probably avoid making the point.

Instead, perhaps the Republicans could simply demand during negotiations that married couples be allowed to file separate state tax returns or new married filing jointly rates are devised. That is, if they don’t walk away from the talks.

- Posted by Rich Miller        

76 Comments »
  1. - OneMan - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 1:53 pm:

    Would be curious where the magic line with Illinois marriage ‘penalty’ would be where it might make sense to file separately at the federal level and the state level.


  2. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 1:54 pm:

    ==Current Illinois tax code does not distinguish between married and single filers.==

    That’s because the current Illinois code does not distinguish between people making different amounts of money. There’s no need to distinguish joint returns or individual when everyone pays the same rate.


  3. - Steve Rogers - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 1:55 pm:

    That’s the reason people decide to marry–state tax rates? “I’m sorry, I can’t accept your marriage proposal, you’re not in the right state tax bracket. However, if we move to Florida, then I’ll marry you.” Ahh, nothing says true love like comparing income tax schedules.


  4. - City Zen - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:03 pm:

    Marriage Tax.

    Run with this all day long. Forget the millionaire’s tax.

    97% refund for most? 100% penalty for all married. Much like the refund messaging, you don’t have to quantify. If it’s $1, it’s a penalty.

    This also complicates the messaging for the proponents. Could you file separate federally and still come out ahead? Maybe, if you are a,b,c,d… You’ll lose people quickly.


  5. - Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:03 pm:

    ===“Oh, please, won’t anyone think about the millionaires?!” /s===

    I generally support the tax plan, though the fact that $1 can generate thousands of additional dollars in taxes does rub me the wrong way. Couldn’t they have just added another bracket? Yeah yeah yeah, I know why they didn’t. To keep the highest marginal rate as low as possible.


  6. - Res Melius - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:03 pm:

    The “marriage penalty” is real and may be an issue decades down the road as average incomes grow through inflation and “millionaires” are more common (e.g. $100k in the 1960’s). Current federal tax SALT limitations also have a marriage built in since the $10k limitation is for household and not individual. The point is not whether you get married due to taxes but what is more “fair.”


  7. - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:06 pm:

    Just for fun, because this debate needs some catchy lingo, let’s call it the “Pretty Woman Effect”

    – A single person with high income might marry someone with little or no income, and that couple could benefit from lower brackets. –


  8. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:06 pm:

    ===Marriage Tax.

    Run with this all day long. Forget the millionaire’s tax.===

    With what money?

    Pritzker will fund the pro referendum ads, (his group)

    Baise and the folks gonna go dollar for dollar against a message …

    97% will see no change or a decrease?

    Oops, there’s that millionaire tax…


  9. - Wondering - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:06 pm:

    How are oayroll deductions going to work effectively? The employer may not know the spouse’s salary.


  10. - RNUG - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:07 pm:

    == Ahh, nothing says true love like comparing income tax schedules. ==

    I know that was snark but, actually, when you get to be a senior citizen, tax issues like that come into play on any decision to marry or remarry. You run the numbers and then decide to wed or just live together.


  11. - anon - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:10 pm:

    Pritzker’s response on the ‘marriage penalty’ makes no sense. Current Illinois law doesn’t distinguish? Yes, but current Illinois law also requires a flat tax. Plus, the administration has argued for a graduated tax based on the argument that everyone else does it. Except everyone (or mostly) else also uses differing rates for single, married filing separately, and married filing jointly.


  12. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:11 pm:

    ===when you get to be a senior citizen, tax issues like that come into play===

    Well, if you’re living on a retirement income, then tax issues would be moot since Illinois doesn’t tax any of that income.


  13. - BenFolds5 - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:11 pm:

    Honestly, I don’t really want this proposal to go through because there is no cuts and clearly never will be. But, if I was JB I would get on this yesterday. Have a bill and ram it through. For the majority of the tax payers are going to hear marriage penalty. Or 97%… No matter, nobody believes a politician. The longer this goes, the more confident I am this won’t go through.


  14. - LakeviewJ - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:11 pm:

    I am available to marry any rich person!


  15. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:14 pm:

    But it’s only a marriage tax for higher incomes though, right? At lower incomes it doesn’t really matter much, especially with the $100 per child deductions.


  16. - Wondering - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:18 pm:

    For a married couple, both would get the rates at the lower brackets at first but when filing they might owe as they can only take advantage of the lower rates on the first x dollars combined.


  17. - City Zen - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:19 pm:

    ==With what money?==

    If you built it, he will come.

    They’ve got plenty of time to pivot. Whether they can…

    Penalized for marrying? Message cuts across all races and orientations. And it cuts deep.

    Take that message to the hole and let out a defiant howl as you hang from the rim.


  18. - Chicagonk - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:22 pm:

    My question is why is the cliff there to begin with? Why not just have income over $1M be another bracket?


  19. - City Zen - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:23 pm:

    ==At lower incomes it doesn’t really matter much==

    I thought every dollar counted?


  20. - JoanP - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:27 pm:

    =A bunch of rich people are gonna suddenly rush out and marry poor people so they can lower their state income tax bills? =

    Hey, rich single guys! I’m available!


  21. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:28 pm:

    ===They’ve got plenty of time to pivot. Whether they can…

    Penalized for marrying? Message cuts across all races and orientations. And it cuts deep.===

    Still don’t pay the bills…

    I never pegged you as “protect the millionaires”, but here you are, lol


  22. - benniefly2@yahoo.com - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:36 pm:

    If a married couple has a gross adjusted income of $250k, congrats!!! They are in the 95 percentile of all household incomes in the USA. If two individuals, each having an adjusted gorss income of $250k get married, congrats!!!! They are in the 1% of all household incomes in the USA. They have done well for themselves.

    With the the extra $6900 or so the $500k agi/year couple might have to pay in taxes, how will they ever feed their kids, though? It’ll be rough, and they might even have to sit in coach a few times, but they just might make it.


  23. - Ebenezer - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:40 pm:

    In general, I get irritated by the accumulation of illogic in the tax code.

    But if you have $1.01MM in taxable income, and your tax minion(s) can’t figure out how to manage this so you don’t pay a crazy marginal rate, you need a new minion. (Hint: shift deductions to avoid falling into the penalty zone.)


  24. - City Zen - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:43 pm:

    Willy - Go ahead, take the charge against that married same-sex couple. Just make sure you’re feet are planted. Be ready in case they dish to the young working couple with their toddler coming down court because JB isn’t about the run back and pass up a cherry picking opportunity.

    Maybe you can swat the toddler’s shot attempt. Not sure the crowd will like it.


  25. - Thomas Paine - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:47 pm:

    “97 percent of Illinoisans, and that includes married couples, will pay less under my plan.”

    It’s just that simple.

    You can also say:

    “under their plan, 97 percent of Illinoisans, including married couples, pay more so that the 3 percent at the top pay less, and that’s not right.”


  26. - BenFolds5 - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:49 pm:

    Also, if this was so straight forward, where is the bill? Will all the D’s in the collar counties be on board?


  27. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:53 pm:

    –A single person with high income might marry someone with little or no income, and that couple could benefit from lower brackets.–

    This playa must have some serious game, putting on the moves and sweet-talking in the clubs around DePaul.

    “Hey baby, how would you like to lower your effective tax rate the hard way?”

    Before I hit the link, my guess was Onion or tronc. Not surprised that it wasn’t Onion.

    How can a newspaper take such nonsense seriously? Maybe in Accountant Dreamworld people behave that way, but get real.


  28. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:56 pm:

    ==where is the bill==

    Don’t be dense. You can’t pass a bill until the Constitution has been amended. And you aren’t likely to see any rates in a proposed Constitutional amendment.


  29. - SAP - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:58 pm:

    ==More married couples - especially low-income married couples - receive marriage bonuses at the federal level because of the structure of the federal tax code.== My observation is that this is patently untrue, at least in cases where both spouses earn similar incomes. Marriage confers many benefits, but income tax savings is not one of them.


  30. - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 2:59 pm:

    I just checked the Pritzker tax calculator for a married couple making $147,000 with zero dependents and $4,700 in property taxes. This couple would save money under the fair tax plan. Then I tried a couple making $190,000 with zero dependents and $5,200 in property taxes. This couple would save money too.

    The bottom line is that the fair tax opponents are desperately trying to find a way to attack it, to protect the rich from paying a higher state income tax.


  31. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 3:01 pm:

    ===Go ahead, take the charge against that married same-sex couple. Just make sure you’re feet are planted. Be ready in case they dish to the young working couple with their toddler coming down court because JB isn’t about the run back and pass up a cherry picking opportunity.===

    This is jibberish given how the plan has rolled out thus far.

    Your concerned trolling is heartwarming.

    ===Maybe you can swat the toddler’s shot attempt. Not sure the crowd will like it.===

    … to help millionaires?


  32. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 3:08 pm:

    Maybe the discussion should be framed around “households” and not individuals? A married couple, where each has a higher income, does pay at a slightly higher rate than an individual with the same income matches their combined income due to the effective rate changing as income goes up. But as a household, they are treated the same.


  33. - Jocko - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 3:26 pm:

    Any couple that’s pulling down $250k in gross annual income needs to take a good look at deductions (IRA, 401K, 529 plan) or simply make peace with the fact that they’re loaded.


  34. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 3:40 pm:

    Warning: Don’t attempt tax policy at home.
    Only one responder really understands the issue. It is a question of fairness or horizontal equity. Should two members in a domestic relationship pay substantially more in taxes if they are married? If you agree, joint returns should not be allowed.


  35. - OneMan - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 3:49 pm:

    I guess my bigger question is why even bother with this now?

    You can propose any sort of rate set you like before the amendment, it isn’t going to make much of a difference IMHO because the anti-amendment people if they are smart, are going to run a ‘you can’t trust the state’ campaign.

    I am still struck by how when I was in Springfield for a state-wide gifted education event and a couple of folks from then Governor Quinn’s office came to speak how many parents brought up the lottery. How the lottery was supposed to help pay for education and why that isn’t helping. Don’t underestimate the distrust of Springfield and using that mistrust to say ‘well this is what they are saying they are going to do, do you trust them’. if the anti folks just get people to not vote on it, that is a win.


  36. - VBL - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 3:52 pm:

    Agree the 97% argument is good for proponents, but I also think the “marriage penalty” argument coupled with general distrust of the legislature can be persuasive if the resources exist to get the message out. A lot of middle class folks may not be there now, but hope to earn more in the future so they could be affected eventually, especially if brackets aren’t indexed to inflation. People are naturally resistant to change and they tend to listen only in soundbites. Remove the “penalty” and that gets taken off the table.


  37. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 3:54 pm:

    “Should two members in a domestic relationship pay substantially more in taxes if they are married?”

    You have to get pretty high on the income scale for the “substantially more” effect. In other words, progressive taxes are progressive.


  38. - lost in the weeds - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:02 pm:

    The accounting professor when attacking the tax “deathstar” aims for the weakest points. Need to get shields up and explain these positions.


  39. - City Zen - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:05 pm:

    ==This is jibberish==

    Hardly. You think JB is hauling it back down court to play defense? You’re on your own.

    We’re talking marketing potential here. Tax cut for 97% vs tax penalty for 100% married. Penalty implies more. Explaining the penalty more requires…explaining.


  40. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:08 pm:

    ===penalty for 100% married.===

    Not all married file jointly.

    What else ya got?


  41. - City Zen - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:10 pm:

    Reporter: Governor, can you explain your reasoning for imposing a tax penalty on married couples?

    JB: There’s little to no evidence to support the claim that people base their decision to marry on tax rates.

    Ride. This. All. Day Long.


  42. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:11 pm:

    Marriage penalty impacts a minority in any significant way.


  43. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:13 pm:

    Reporter: Governor, can you explain your reasoning for imposing a tax penalty on married couples?

    97% of taxpayers will see no change or a break with this plan the voters will vote on, and passed the General Assembly. It’s time for the rich to pay their share, the 3% we identified.

    Anything else?


  44. - CivilSpk - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:13 pm:

    The real issue for most people going forward is the real estate taxes. It cuts across all incomes and will increase every year. Most people I know that have moved or are planning on moving (a large percentage of the community) site real estate taxes first and income taxes second. Those 97% probably pay more in real estate taxes than income tax. Toss in the weather for good measure.


  45. - Bourbon Street - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:15 pm:

    Are the residents of states which presently have graduated income taxes fleeing those states because of the “marriage penalty”? Are the rich in those states marrying poor people so they can lower their tax liabilities? Are people in those states divorcing in order to save a few bucks on their taxes?

    Thought not.


  46. - City Zen - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:16 pm:

    JB: Anything else?

    Reporter: But they will pay a penalty, correct?

    (JB exits press briefing)


  47. - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:19 pm:

    Reporter: Governor, can you explain your reasoning for imposing a tax penalty on married couples?

    Gov: I appreciate you and the Policy Institute being so concerned about MK and I, but we’re fine. This isn’t about us. This is about the 97 percent of Illinoisans, single, married, whatever, who deserve a tax break.

    Jordan: Thank You.


  48. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:25 pm:

    ===But they will pay a penalty, correct?===

    Misinformation about the plan so the wealthy 3% don’t pay their fair share is why I’m fighting for the 97%, the non-millionaires.

    This is a parlor game with Pritzker using all his resources to frame it as the millionaires tax, anyone defending it defends millionaires.


  49. - City Zen - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:45 pm:

    ==This is a parlor game with Pritzker using all his resources to frame it as the millionaires tax, anyone defending it defends millionaires.==

    Totally agree that should and will be his play. But a marriage penalty is not misinformation, it’s math. JB just lumped the millionaires with everyone married. That’s the opposition play. Both sides will frame it accordingly.

    Parlor games…Minnesota Fats…JB calling “married couple, corner pocket.” You want co-writing credits?


  50. - supplied_demand - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 4:48 pm:

    ==Reporter: But they will pay a penalty, correct?==

    Married couples will still need to make over $250k to see a tax increase. 100% of married couples don’t make over $250k. It’s a lie to say this imposes a tax penalty on 100% of married couples.

    My wife and I were at a combined $220k of income this year (which puts us in roughly the top 5% of household income nationwide) and we would see a tax cut in this plan.


  51. - City Zen - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 5:05 pm:

    ==Married couples will still need to make over $250k to see a tax increase.==

    How much do they have to make to incur the Marriage Penalty?


  52. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 5:31 pm:

    ===How much do they have to make to incur the Marriage Penalty?===

    Describe the penalty to it… then show the income.


  53. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 5:35 pm:

    ===So, for example, two single individuals who each have $250,000 of net income would each pay at a rate of 4.95 percent on income above $100,000. If they marry one another, their combined $500,000 of net income means that the second $250,000 would be taxed at 7.75 percent. Ignoring the effects of any other tax provisions, this results in $7,065 of extra tax, a giant marriage penalty.===

    I ask because… in this…

    How many folks will be in this pickle, will it be greater than 97% of people?

    See where I’m going with this.


  54. - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 5:39 pm:

    I was just messing around with the fair tax calculator and found that even up to $250,000 with $6,000 (or higher/lower) in property taxes, a married couple would get a tax cut. So not too bad.

    We need revenue, so it’s fair that higher-income households pay more. If they can tweak the policy to help married people and still get the revenue, go for it.


  55. - Rabid - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 6:24 pm:

    a sham hiding behind the middle class to stop legislation for the rich


  56. - Montrose - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 6:38 pm:

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the “marriage penalty” gets some traction and Pritzker says “Ok. We modified our proposal to remove the marriage penalty.”

    If the Republicans ride the marriage thing All. Day. Long., what do they do if Pritzker calls their bluff? Because they don’t really care about that. They want to stop the entire idea.


  57. - City Zen - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 7:53 pm:

    ==Describe the penalty to it… then show the income.==

    Every income level has the marriage penalty. The marriage penalty is the difference between one tax filer making $X and two tax filers together making that same $X. Go on the website and try it.

    ==If the Republicans ride the marriage thing All. Day. Long==

    They haven’t totally gotten on board yet. Many still haven’t figured out how to get off the Millionaire’s Express yet. Probably still admiring the oak trim.

    I can see they’re already fueling up the Trust Train. That might be their best bet.

    Then there’s the Constitution Special. The willingness to re-write this clause but not touch the pension clause might rub some the wrong way.

    I agree it’s a shame they want to derail the train and what’s considered a bluff should really be a negotiation.


  58. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 8:51 pm:

    –Honestly, I don’t really want this proposal to go through because there is no cuts and clearly never will be.–

    Well, what would you cut?

    And have you forgotten when there was no budget and higher ed, MAP grants, and social services were all slashed?


  59. - Person 8 - Wednesday, Mar 13, 19 @ 10:54 pm:

    So I ran some numbers, obviously you can cherry pick a multitude of numbers, but this gives a general concept of the “marriage penalty”. I kept my figures under the 250K+ total(the 97%) for now. Also, I did not factor in kids credit/property tax break ect…

    200K spouse 1(S1) 50K spouse 2(S2)
    Current Tax: $12,375
    Married: $12,310
    As singles(combined): $12,270

    80K spouse 1(S1) 80K spouse 2(S2)
    Current Tax: $7,920
    Married: $7,855
    As singles(combined): $7,810

    60K spouse 1(S1) 19,168K spouse 2(S2)
    Current Tax: $3,918
    Married: $3,864
    As singles(combined): $3,849


  60. - Mike - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 6:01 am:

    It’s interesting to watch the comments on here literally fight tooth and nail to support the marriage issue instead of just recognizing it’s an issue. I mean would it be so bad to say so and just work to correct it?


  61. - Rabid - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 6:12 am:

    This is an issue for the 3% that the republicans are fightin for


  62. - Person 8 - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 6:38 am:

    With the talk of messaging, a tax decrease/no change is still going to win out over the marriage penalty. I posted some numbers last night, but the filter must have stopped my post.
    This morning I ran through a bunch of scenarios with the median household income as my starting point. The biggest “marriage penalty” I got was around $15, but they were still about $55 less than the current structure. This of course didn’t factor in kids and property tax credits.


  63. - Mike - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 7:44 am:

    So I think what I hear you saying is all your crowing about “fairness” really only matters when you consider it fair. got it


  64. - Rabid - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 7:54 am:

    Yes absolutely the republicans should standup for whats fair for millionaires


  65. - City Zen - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 8:26 am:

    Person 8 - Perfect. You explained the Marriage Penalty.

    Doesn’t matter what you make. Like the “97% get a tax cut” messaging, it doesn’t matter if it’s $1 or $1,000. A cut is a cut. A penalty is a penalty.

    Remember, it’s labeled a “fair tax”. Are a husband/wife making $50,000 each going to think it’s “fair” they would pay more taxes than the single guy making $100,000? With taxes, it’s always about someone else.


  66. - Rabid - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 8:34 am:

    Don’t you get two deductions being married, one single?


  67. - Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 8:36 am:

    Meh, by that logic it isn’t fair that someone with a more expensive house gets a bigger cut.

    And the deductions per child aren’t equal to everyone in the state either.


  68. - Rabid - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 8:43 am:

    This is like class warfare, a billionaire picking on millionaires


  69. - anon - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 8:52 am:

    Oswego - you ask “how many will be in this pickle.” Is it now your position that government policy can be inexplicably unfair, provided that sufficiently few people are (presently) impacted by the policy? I didn’t realize you were a Raunerite.


  70. - Anon - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 8:53 am:

    Rabid - two single persons get two standard deductions at the federal level. Two persons who are married filing jointly get double that standard deduction. Parity.


  71. - Person 8 - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 8:56 am:

    “A cut is a cut. A penalty is a penalty.”
    In this case it’s both. Obviously, 97% still get a cut, but just not as much. If the alternative is higher taxes for 97%, I think I’ll choose the penalty plus a cut, over the current rate.


  72. - Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 9:00 am:

    If the married couple each have decent income, they likely each have insurance through their employer. But if one spouse earns far less, there is a good chance that one does not have insurance and has to be on their spouse’s plan, costing them more each month than a couple where both have insurance. The ones who have any “real penalty” are in the former camp while the ones in the latter don’t face much of a penalty, if any.


  73. - City Zen - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 9:04 am:

    ==This is like class warfare, a billionaire picking on millionaires==

    Or a union boss picking on two union members. Cuts across every. income. level.

    == Obviously, 97% still get a cut, but just not as much.==

    See what you’re doing? You have to explain it. More words equals more confusion. “Someone else gets more? How is that fair? What are you trying to pull?”

    Use your “$15 tax penalty/$55 tax cut example.” Once you explain it’s “only” $15, you then have to explain why the entire tax cut is “only” $55. JB doesn’t want to have to explain this.


  74. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 9:09 am:

    ===Use your “$15 tax penalty/$55 tax cut example.” Once you explain it’s “only” $15, you then have to explain why the entire tax cut is “only” $55. JB doesn’t want to have to explain this.===

    97% are getting cuts or no change in income tax.

    ===Every income level has the marriage penalty. The marriage penalty is the difference between one tax filer making $X and two tax filers together making that same $X. Go on the website and try it.===

    Your argument here is go *see* the difference, then you don’t want to discuss it, LOL

    Every day, you become more and more of a parody of yourself. First it’s the anger towards labor, then the obsession with pensions, now it’s saving millionaires from the millionaire tax…

    You said, look for yourself, someone did, now you don’t like the result? lol


  75. - Person 8 - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 9:14 am:

    CZ, understood, it’s just wording then?

    “97% of all taxpayers will receive a tax cut, married or single.”


  76. - Rabid - Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 9:16 am:

    The fight for fifteen GOP style


TrackBack URI

Post your comment... And please take a half second to come up with a nickname. It makes following the posts easier for everyone... Thanks

In other words, do your best to be civilized and smart.


* Pritzker "outraged" over "gross mistakes" by "irresponsible" DCFS contractor: "These children are our children"
* Reader comments closed for the weekend
* Judge knocks down Deerfield assault weapons ban
* Question of the day
* Pritzker appoints 5 new SIU trustees
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Fundraiser lists
* "It’s a car in a very small tunnel"
* Illinois Family Institute calls legislator a "feticidal maniac"
* DCFS contract caseworker under investigation
* It's just a bill
* College Illinois bailout will cost state $501 million
* After Sterigenics shutdown, EPA testing shows "a pretty rapid drop" in cancer-causing chemical emissions
* Moylan's "go slow on pot" resolution reaches majority support
* Chicago isn't the outlier, Downstate is
* Dueling arguments
* Another self-own
* *** UPDATED x1 - Daniels responds *** Strip club manager's "fears" are unfounded
* *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............
<


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
WordPress




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller