* OK, this is gonna get a little complicated, but stay with me here. From the Illinois Policy Institute…
Pritzker’s [graduated income tax] plan assumes Illinois will see average annual income growth of 3.61 percent. His administration claims this “conservative” estimate is both consistent with the state’s recent performance and accounts for a one-year stagnation in income growth to account for a slowing economy. But Pritzker is wrong on both counts.
According to the IRS, the average annual growth rate of Illinois’ adjusted gross income over the past five years of available data has been 3.37 percent, meaning the administration fails to correctly account for the past. The governor also alleges that a one-year stagnation of income growth in his assumption is “conservative” and accounts for an economic slowdown. But Illinois’ total income has not only stagnated, but declined in two out of the past four years on record.
* First of all, Pritzker’s office says they’re using net income for their five-year projection, while the IPI is using adjusted gross income. What’s the dif? From the governor’s office…
Net Income vs. AGI
We used net income because this is the taxable base upon which the tax rate is applied. Federal AGI is only a part of the picture, and is insufficient to create a realistic projection. When individuals file income taxes in Illinois, the state modifies the Federal AGI and then applies its own exemptions and deductions to come to the net income value.
* And the governor’s office looked at compounded annual growth instead of just simple growth. Team Pritzker…
The advantage of using a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) versus a simple annual average growth rate is that it provides a more realistic measure of growth. CAGR smooths year-to-year volatility, providing a more accurate way to—in the case of investments—measure actual fund performance over a given period of time. We need a 5-year forecast of incomes, because our most recent available data is for the 2016 tax year and the year the fair tax would take effect is 2021. Because we’re relying on a 5-year forecast, it’s far more important to know the likely values of income at the point in time five years in the future (2021), not what is happening in any given year between 2016 and 2021.
A CAGR is the compound average of a single year of growth. The annualized figure takes into account that we used the CAGR for 4 years of growth, and no growth for the fifth year [to reflect an expected national economic downturn]. So, the annualized value is effective 4/5ths of the 5 year GAGR.
* Now, click here to see the governor’s chart. My own impression when I first read the IPI’s report was that the group was looking at growth in all income levels, but I was more curious about people who earn higher incomes because they’re gonna get hit with the higher rates. From the governor’s office…
The growth in upper income brackets in Illinois is dramatically outpacing growth in lower income brackets.
That certainly makes sense and was what I expected.
* According to the governor’s office, the five-year 2011-2015 compounded annual growth rate for Illinoisans making $50,001-$100,000 was 0 percent. The same growth rate for Illinoisans making $25,001-$50,000 was 1 percent. The governor’s projected five-year growth (2016-2021), including a year of a national slowdown, is 0 percent for both. It’s -1 percent for incomes under $25K.
But the 2011-2015 growth rate for people making between $101K and $500K was 5 percent and it was 7 percent for those making over $500K. Those are projected to be 4 percent and 6 percent, respectively, for the 2016-2021 forecast.
Higher tax rates kick in at $250K.
…Adding… From the Illinois Policy Institute…
1) They used the preliminary 2016 income number from IDOR when a final number is available. The final number is lower by $3 billion, which maybe explains why they didn’t use it. This is artificially inflated, meaning the one-pager is artificially inflated too.
2) The numbers they gave you don’t match the total 2016 income number they released initially in the one-pager. The reason is that the one-pager added non-Illinois-resident filer income to the total (a highly volatile revenue source). Doing this makes their taxable income estimate rosier in 2021. Recall that the 97% tax cut claim is based on the one-pager.
In other words, they took growth in a number that doesn’t include an income source and applied it to a number that does include that income source (roughly $31 billion in 2016). They are flying by the seat of their pants here.
This also means they’re including 560,000 non-Illinois-resident returns in their 97% tax cut talking point.
3) Despite these inaccuracies, taking the info from the one-pager — 15.22% total growth from 2016-2021 — we backed out what the 4-year annual growth rate was. We use AGI because this reflects actual changes in income whereas net income can reflect changes to the state tax code. Predicting based on net income means you have to estimate size of deductions, etc. We checked IDOR data on net income and that still doesn’t reflect Pritzker’s assumed growth on the one-pager.
4) Economic growth should not be expected to increase at the tail-end of an economic expansion, even if their numbers were legit. They say it’s exactly the same for four years and then in one year it doesn’t grow. That’s irresponsible.
The one-pager referenced above is here.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 12:22 pm:
–The growth in upper income brackets in Illinois is dramatically outpacing growth in lower income brackets.–
–But the 2011-2015 growth rate for people making between $101K and $500K was 5 percent and it was 7 percent for those making over $500K. –
It ain’t rich people leaving the state.
- Perrid - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 12:32 pm:
So everyone is picking their own assumptions and running with them. What else is new. For whatever little it’s worth, I’m more inclined to believe the Gov than the IPI, but I would be astounded if Hynes et al. had not put on rosy-colored glasses before looking at the numbers.
- Nieva - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 12:34 pm:
Well, that is as clear as Mississippi River water…
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 12:37 pm:
“It ain’t rich people leaving the state.”
But a few and their shills are crying crocodile tears about how bad it is here and are pushing the “Illinois Exodus” narrative. They’re screaming about reforms needed while they outpace all of us in income gains, percentage-wise.
We have the best example ever as to why we need to raise taxes on the rich: the former governor, whose income more than tripled in 2015 while he launched his war against unions and began his budget sabotage, causing so much damage.
- Ben Folds 5 - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 12:41 pm:
Grandson… you can say that’s the best example why they will need to tax a different definition of “rich”… the middle class is leaving more and that pool is the deepest. They have to come for that group. 250 will be 200 sooner than later.
- Not a Billionaire - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 12:42 pm:
The Govs figures are straight from the income taxes and he is assuming no change in growth . It’s very conservative in fact.
- Ben Folds 5 - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 12:44 pm:
the former governor, whose income more than tripled in 2015
And the current one physically removed toilets to pay less. I respect the hustle but that’s next level tax dodging. Physical changes not spreadsheet. Your point? They will never pay enough to solve this mess.
- Old Illini - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 12:47 pm:
==It’s very conservative in fact.==
I might believe you more if you were Not Not a Billionaire.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 12:48 pm:
–the middle class is leaving more and that pool is the deepest. –
Please show your work.
Maybe they’d like a tax cut. Your against that, I take it?
- Perrid - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 12:49 pm:
Ben Folds 5, if you want to protect the people making 200k, cool. Do that. If and when their taxes get hiked, that is, which is not being discussed today. Until that happens, you’re just using a slippery slope fallacy.
- The Doc - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 12:52 pm:
==250 will be 200 sooner than later==
Cite your source or kindly go away.
- Anon - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:00 pm:
The Doc-
Every progressive tax in history dips further into the middle class as time goes by.
You really think Illinois will be the first in the history of human kind to buck that trend?
The current rates are nothing but the teaser rates on a loan until the real rates kick in after a few years with the balloon payment to come.
The rich will be subsidizing us on their own for a few years until the real pain gets spread around down the line.
- Ben Folds 5 - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:04 pm:
The proposed spending with no cuts is the only source needed. The tired schemes of not paying TRS obligations but spend are the sources. Simple mathematics is the source. How and when can the pension obligations be paid if they are never paid?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:07 pm:
–How and when can the pension obligations be paid if they are never paid?–
Pensions aren’t being paid? Since when?
- Ben Folds 5 - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:13 pm:
Word. Has the shortage been tackled in the last 10 years? Is this enough from the rich? No. The point is they will come for the middle class. 200 k with a family and modest house in the collar counties isn’t rich. He’s losing the fight already. He’s backed off on the 97% in his own releases. So that’s a direct source. Right?
- Honeybear - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:22 pm:
“200 k with a family and modest house in the collar counties isn’t rich.”
Ahh, yeah it is.
Dude, 51% of our Illinois school children
need free or reduced price lunch.
Wow you really need to check your privilege.
- Perrid - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:23 pm:
“Backed off on the 97%”… I must have missed that. Just this morning, we heard Think Big’s ad say that 97% will not see a tax increase. Some people are picking at it and saying it’s different than saying 97% will see a tax cut, but that’s a rhetoric problem, not a policy change.
- Ben Folds 5 - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:30 pm:
Honeybear. How much is enough? Is buying a house in a good school district that is worst on the block privilege? A couple worked themselves through college and advanced degrees privilege? Driving 10 year old cars privilege? So the harder you work and save to be responsible means you need to cover those that don’t? It’s not privilege. It’s called self reliance. What our country used to admire. I pay more. I m willing to pay more. Not being open to a blank amount isn’t privilege.
- RedIllinois - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:34 pm:
HB, I live downstate, and a family of 4 on 200k is doing well, but not even close to rich. 51% of kids may qualify for free and reduced lunch, but no way do 50% of kids need that benefit. That’s like saying our poverty rate is 50%.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:35 pm:
==So the harder you work and save to be responsible means you need to cover those that don’t?==
Nobody said that. And it’s insulting that somehow you think those that make less money work any less hard or are any less responsible. Arrogant much?
- Demoralized - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:39 pm:
==200 k with a family and modest house in the collar counties isn’t rich.==
No, they aren’t. But there’s a whole lot of people (hence the 97% number) who don’t make anywhere close to $200,000 and they aren’t going to feel all that sorry if someone making that amount of money has to be higher taxes. So if you’re looking for some sympathy in that argument it’s a losing one.
- RedIllinois - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:39 pm:
— And it’s insulting that somehow you think those that make less money work any less hard or are any less responsible. Arrogant much?—
And no one said that.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:40 pm:
==And no one said that.==
Then you can’t read
- CapnCrunch - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:42 pm:
Their income forecast seems reasonable but I am curious about their revenue calculations. For example, according to the table they sent to Capitol Fax the taxable income for the over $1 million cohort was $80.6 billion and the new rate (7.95%) would provide additional revenue of $2.72 billion. Yet taxing this income base at an incremental rate of 3% (7.95-4.95) would yield $2.42 billion in additional revenue which is $300 million less than their number. What am I missing?
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:43 pm:
“200 k with a family and modest house in the collar counties isn’t rich”
This family would get a small tax cut under Pritzker’s plan, based on his calculator. When I tried the calculator, even family incomes up to $256,500 would get a cut, puny as it would be.
“The proposed spending with no cuts is the only source needed”
We just had brutal cuts as part of Rauner’s budget sabotage. Why be eager to do cuts when they can be minimized or avoided? It’s sadistic. We’re talking about the most vulnerable and those living paycheck to paycheck. We need to put those people on safer ground, and we can do that via raising taxes on higher incomes.
- The Doc - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:46 pm:
==Every progressive tax in history dips further into the middle class as time goes by==
Cite your source, or kindly go away.
- supplied_demand - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:57 pm:
==Ben Folds 5==
It seems like you’ve argued yourself into a corner. You can’t argue against the current proposed rates, so you have created a new set of non-existent rates (hitting those over $200k) to argue against. It’s a strawman.
- City Zen - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 1:59 pm:
==Wow you really need to check your privilege.==
My kids brush their polo ponies twice a day, rain or shine. If not, they lose their Bentley privileges for one day.
- Skeptic - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 2:03 pm:
“Why be eager to do cuts” Yeah, just eliminate the waste, fraud and abuse and our problems are solved. /snark
- Perrid - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 2:09 pm:
CapnCrunch, let me preface this by saying I am NOT a tax expert, but would the change in the corporate rate affect those numbers? Not sure how LLCs are affected by all this. I just ran the numbers too, and it looks like Pritzker is assuming a 3.37% increase for the top bracket, not a 3% raise. Weird.
- Andy S. - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 2:29 pm:
The total net income reported on tax returns by high income individuals, empirically, is very dependent on stock returns. The S&P 500 returned over 14% annually between 2011 and 2016. That is why the total income of filers making $1,000,000 or more grew at a 7% annual rate. This is highly unlikely to be repeated over the 2016-2021 period. Given reasonable long-run average stock returns, a 6% annual growth rate of net income among those in that income category is anything but conservative.
- StickCarrier - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 2:39 pm:
Funny how everyone thinks that the state is entitled to money that is not theirs. I’m going to sit back, eat my popcorn, and watch as the train goes off the tracks.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 2:45 pm:
Once we took a vacation to Shawnee and fished in Little Grassy Lake. We weren’t catching anything, and when we went ashore, one of the locals said take the boat by the reeds off of a small point and fish there. Sure enough, we caught some nice catfish. We need to take the tax boat to where the money is, and that is with the rich.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 2:47 pm:
==everyone thinks that the state is entitled to money that is not theirs==
Well that’s certainly a Rhodes Scholar argument on taxation.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 2:56 pm:
“Is buying a house in a good school district that is worst on the block privilege?”
Yes, it sure can be
a heck of a lot of people, most Illinoisans, couldn’t afford to buy a home in the Chicago Suburbs, Edwardsville/Glen Carbon, and other good school district places.
Check your privilege
“A couple worked themselves through college and advanced degrees privilege?”
Oh man, within a thirty foot radius are about 12 people with Masters degrees. Education does not equate to power and privilege. I have a degree from Northwestern University. Meritocracy sure doesn’t work out the way it used too.
“Driving 10 year old cars privilege?”
Yep, still can be privileged.
It can mean you just don’t particularly care about your car. But you can still be privileged and have advantages that most Illinoisans don’t have.
“So the harder you work and save to be responsible means you need to cover those that don’t?”
There is the sentence that explains so much.
I’m sure you work hard. I’m sure you’re a quality person. (I mean to participate here right?)
And…..hard work, responsibility, and self reliance are not a guarantee of the privilege that you and I both have. It becomes less and less all the time. Really, I believe you and I both really privileged. The difference is that I actively strive to understand and engage my privilege in a way that doesn’t or minimizes the oppression/marginalization of others. You, I believe are actively trying to justify your privilege and secure more at the same time attempting to elude accountability and responsibility for the effect your privilege has on others.
We still admire self reliance. I admire it in single mothers. I admire it in those who struggle every day to put food on the table. I don’t admire it in the privileged who narcissistically think that they did it all themselves. No you and I have privilege that most others do not have.
It’s not being privileged that is the problem.
It’s what you do with your privilege
that can cause immense problems for others.
And no
I don’t believe that you are willing to pay more.
Obviously not
- Honeybear - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 3:05 pm:
“My kids brush their polo ponies twice a day, rain or shine. If not, they lose their Bentley privileges for one day.”
Does mocking me make you feel better? Like a bully mocking a poor kid’s school lunch. Does it make you feel bigger?
- Demoralized - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 3:06 pm:
Does the IPI recognize they are making an argument for a larger tax increase?
- CapnCrunch - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 3:38 pm:
“Predicting based on net income means you have to estimate size of deductions, etc…….”
No you don’t, the deductions have already been done.
- City Zen - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 4:41 pm:
Honeybear - “Check your privilege” is a condescending statement that deserves a condescending reply.
Bit of advice: If you’re trying to persuade people, that’s not the way to do it.
- To the numbers - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 4:42 pm:
Using net income instead of AGI makes more sense because, among other things, net income is net of the deduction for retirement income which likely changes at a different rate than the other elements of AGI.
Despite the assertion of the IPI, I suspect estimating the size of deductions will give a bit more accurate number than leaving in the retirement income deduction.
- Blue Dog Dem - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 4:47 pm:
Privilege is a buzzword made famous by Hugo Chavez. Who incidentally died a billionaire.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 4:51 pm:
I wasn’t trying to persuade you.
I was being condescending to you as I find your privileged callousness repugnant.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 4:57 pm:
Wow blue dog dem- stunning combo of at least two logical fallacies. Appeal to Authority and Strawman. It might also be Loaded Question but I’m not certain on that.
- Sue - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 5:39 pm:
One very objectionable feature of JB’s proposal is ignoring any step up in income for married filing jointly- even Obie under the ACA Medicare tax on investment income treats single taxpayers at 200 and married at 250 before the Medicare investment income tax kicks in. Someone needs to point this out to JB - the fair approach is 250 for single taxpayers and 300 for married filing jointly
- Blue Dog Dem - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 5:46 pm:
Honey. As you well know, i am an advocate of a progressive income tax. But i will not demonize the 3%. The word privilege just doesnt sound right.
- Perrid - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 5:50 pm:
Saying “Check your privelege” may not be the most persuasive way of conveying the idea, but challenging someone’s perspective and frame of reference is certainly valid.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 6:11 pm:
–He’s losing the fight already. He’s backed off on the 97% in his own releases. So that’s a direct source. Right?–
I have no idea what you’re talking about, so I guess that makes two of us.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 21, 19 @ 7:25 pm:
–Privilege is a buzzword made famous by Hugo Chavez.–
LOL. This is what happens when you sleep in front of the TV with Fox News on every day.
- Perrid - Friday, Mar 22, 19 @ 8:47 am:
If you go to JB’s tax calculator https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/gov/fairtax/Pages/default.aspx
And put in $80,627,028,570 for your income - the net income for the filers earning more than $1 million in his porjections, which works since it’s the top bracket - the calculator says that “your” taxes would go up $2.4 billion, not $2.7 like it says in his projections. I don’t see what I’m missing here.