* Kerry Lester takes a look at Illinois’ last constitutional convention in the context of the flat tax settled on by the drafters…
“A graduated, or progressive tax was first brought out for discussion when Otto Kerner was governor,” said Ray Serati, who covered the constitutional convention for Copley News Services at the time. “While there was some discussion of that in Con-Con, it just couldn’t gather enough support.”
[House Speaker Michael Madigan, who was a con-con delegate] said lobbying efforts led by delegate Joseph T. Meek, a Western Springs resident who was also president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association at the time, ensured the constitutional language would stop today’s lawmakers from instituting a graduated income tax without voters amending the constitution.
“He was the Rob Karr of his day, and he would spend every day, almost the entire day arguing for a flat rate of the income tax,” Madigan said. “He had a very persistent, but pleasant personality.”
Karr is president of today’s IRMA, which continues to oppose a progressive tax, spokesman Ryan McLaughlin said.
Go read the whole thing. Interesting stuff in there.
* Related…
* The Brief Time Illinois Had A Progressive Income Tax
- PublicServant - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 9:37 am:
The rich have always had people to shill for them.
- Chris Widger - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 9:49 am:
==The rich have always had people to shill for them.==
Retirees who have a sweetheart deal to protect their income from a fair and equitable tax have always had people to shill for them.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 9:54 am:
The “Illinois Issues” article is very interesting: A Republican governor pushes through a graduated income tax over Dem objections to relieve the property tax burden.
Nearly 90 years later, the income tax vs. property tax issue remains at the forefront. Just the players have changed.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 9:55 am:
Widger, the big difference is the vast majority of Illinoisans are “shilling” against a tax on retirement income. They need no prodding.
- Smalls - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:00 am:
Worth reading Andy Shaw’s commentary in the Tribune on the progressive income tax. I think the topics he covers are where most of the attacks against the progressive income tax will come from.
- 44th - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:17 am:
Tax reform from a guy who took out toilets in his house to avoid taxes…
- PublicServant - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:21 am:
A sweetheart deal…Oh you mean a contract?
- efudd - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:22 am:
Widger, most of the retirees I know in Union county live very modestly. No one is shilling for them.
But if you want to make them the bad guys, be my guest.
- NoGifts - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:25 am:
Retired people should continue to contribute to running the state along with the rest of us.
- PublicServant - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:33 am:
When I was working, I took care of retirees contributions so they could eek by on their fixed incomes, now you want me to pay taxes on my retirement income too, so you get a break that I didn’t get when I was working? I and most other state residents are a firm no to that.
- RNUG - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:38 am:
== the big difference is the vast majority of Illinoisans are “shilling” against a tax on retirement income. They need no prodding. ==
It’s simple. While everyone hopes to be a millionaire, they are also realistic and know it is unlikely, so they don’t equate taxing millionaires more with taxing themselves. Everyone knows they will end up retired some day, so they are in favor of one of the few tax breaks they can envision taking advantage of. It truly is a 3rd rail of Illinois politics.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 10:40 am:
RNUG, as usual, is right again.
- Whatever - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 11:11 am:
==Retirees who have a sweetheart deal to protect their income from a fair and equitable tax have always had people to shill for them.==
The history of the exemption indicates otherwise. Right after the income tax was enacted in 1969, a lawsuit was brought arguing that income that was actually earned before the tax became law could not constitutionally be taxed. The Supreme Court said it could be taxed, but that the law did not actually do so. The GA amended the law to expressly provide that, for individuals, the law did not tax income that was actually earned before 1969, but corporations were subject to tax on their pre-69 income. As part of that enactment, the GA expressly exempted retirement pay that had actually been earned before 1969. The actuaries complained that this was virtually impossible to compute, and the GA simply threw up its hands and amended the law again to exempt all retirement income.
- Maywood John - Thursday, Mar 28, 19 @ 3:45 pm:
Interesting, when most retail merchants would get a cut or stay the same under Pritzker’s plan.
- theCardinal - Friday, Mar 29, 19 @ 7:12 am:
The once great state needs spending control before tax changes…then look at service taxes and streamlining the current system if you add a % so be it. Driving the wealthiest and most mobil out not a good solution.