57 Comments - wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:08 am: It’s a shallow argument meant to distract and deflect. The GA could raise the flat rate on everyone today or any other day. - Johnnie F. - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:12 am: And most likely Judge, your retirement income still will not be taxed. Stick to the races in which you have a horse. - Fixer - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:14 am: Second what wordslinger said. Flat tax can be adjusted any time. ILGOP, Baise and his ilk, and this judge have seemed to forget that the job of the GA isn’t to work for the campaign donors, but for the citizens of the state. This kind of argument does nothing to help the folks in this state, who, according to the ILGOP, are being crushed by taxes. Dems propose trying to fix that and their response is no, not that way? Alright guys, pick a lane. - DarkDante - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:16 am: –The GA could raise the flat rate on everyone today or any other day.– They could also currently jack up the rate and create tiered income exemptions (say to the first $50K, as proposed by the Judge), allowing for a far less transparent by equally graduated income tax structure. These arguments are beyond weak, fear-mongering bull plop. - Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:18 am: This guy was a judge? I hope he was more thoughtful when he was on the bench. - illini - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:18 am: This is simply another argument based on specious supposition and designed to raise the ire of any taxpayers. As I related a few weeks ago after attending a Town Hall meeting for the 58th Senate District everyone ( well most everyone ) was convinced that a graduated or progressive tan would mean an increase for anyone earning more than $16,000. Honeybear has a word for this. - Smalls - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:19 am: I don’t like the judge’s argument. But here is my issue. The state still isn’t accounting for the additional $4 billion that is needed to fund the pensions at the actuarially required amounts. The progressive tax being proposed does not account for this, so something is needed to fund these amounts. I would rather they lay out a complete financial plan up front. - City Zen - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:19 am: Beyond hyperbole indeed. I don’t think the $50K+ crowd has to worry about a 10% tax. I do think the $100K+ crowd should worry about rates in between 6-7%. That’s probably the first bracket that JB would change as it impacts a minority of taxpayers yet hits everyone above that threshold. - My New Handle - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:20 am: Does the judge have special glasses that allow him to see into the future? Alas, on my income, my own are prediction-proof. - Steve Rogers - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:24 am: Reductio ad Absurdum. - Rebel13 - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:24 am: –The GA could raise the flat rate on everyone today or any other day.– But then they would have to answer to all the voters, not just the ones they want to stick with the bill. –The GA could raise the flat rate on everyone today or any other day.– Then why don’t they do this instead of going after what is written into the constitution? This is a simple divide and conquer tactic. As long as they appease 51% of the voters, they are safe in their job (relatively speaking on this topic alone). Illinois wants to raise the rates on “them”, not “me.” What happens when it isn’t enough and you are now “them?” That is the concern for a lot of people here in Illinois. - Honeybear - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:26 am: The panic of the wealthy and privileged The valiant defense of Solipsism When they can well afford it. They choose to fight for themselves - H. L. Mencken - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:27 am: Illinois debt is like the proverbial elephant the must be eaten. How do you do it? One bite at a time. here is a first step proposal. All Illinois pensions should be taxed by Illinois after the recipient has received the funds they contributed to the system. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:28 am: ===Illinois wants to raise the rates on “them”, not “me.”== Narrator: 97% of Illinoisans won’t see an increase in their income tax. This only works if you believe the 3% need protecting. - Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:29 am: The judge has a point – the current “flat income tax” has an all for one, one for all aspect that a graduated income tax would not. While his examples are extreme it would make political sense for the Dem’s to protect their base and skew the tax burden to those in higher income brackets as they would likely lean more GOP - Hamlet's Ghost - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:30 am: If it’s this loud now, I shudder to think of the volume once the graduated tax amendment actually gets on the ballot. - Fixer - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:33 am: Rebel, my taxes will go up. I guess that makes me a “them” in your eyes. I will continue to advocate for this though because the only other viable alternative is for everyone, regardless of their income, to take a bigger hit on their tax bill. I’m not going to ask someone making $10 an hour working forty hours weekly to take a increase in their taxes when there is a viable alternative on the table. They have a hard enough time with expenses as it is right now. - Stuntman Bob's Brother - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:35 am: ==The progressive tax being proposed does not account for this, so something is needed to fund these amounts. I would rather they lay out a complete financial plan up front== Smalls, if I had a kewpie doll, I’d send it to you. They (we) also need to add a billion or two annually to retire the debt more quickly than the ramp provides, so the people who benefitted from the lower tax rates over the decades have more skin in retiring it than the kid who starts his first job tomorrow, and would also serve to save on interest payments. - Ambrose Chase - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:38 am: They should tax the judge on his overuse of commas. The state’s coffers would be shored up in no time. - JS Mill - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:38 am: Why did he only use 10% or 20%? Those numbers are not nearly scary enough. He should have said “the next day the ILGA could turn around and tax you at 100% AND TAKE YOUR GUNS”. That would have been really scary. =All Illinois pensions should be taxed by Illinois after the recipient has received the funds they contributed to the system= Don’t forget everyone else’s retirement income like SSI. - Birdseed - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:39 am: The Judge is exactly right. Class warfare. Don’t raise taxes on your base. - The Dude Abides - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:42 am: “llinois debt is like the proverbial elephant the must be eaten. How do you do it? One bite at a time. here is a first step proposal. All Illinois pensions should be taxed by Illinois after the recipient has received the funds they contributed to the system.” I guess you are clueless as how retirement funds are invested and how compound interest works. You seem to be suggesting that any retirement benefit beyond what the retiree actually put in is charity. The large donors like the flat tax and we’re going to hear some incredible lies by those carrying their water for the next year in a half up to November 2020. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:42 am: ===Don’t raise taxes on your base.=== If your base is a mere 3% and it’s only the wealthiest of the state, I dunno how broad base of support a party has, that sounds nitche-y - Nonbeleiver - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:45 am: The judge is probably correct much to the consternation of many who post on this site. Raising state income taxes and raising them on a constant and ‘complicated’ manner is much more difficult under the present Constitutional language. Of course, it would depend on what was on the ballot. If the language was very direct and specific and could not be changed without another amendment going before the voters then scratch what I said above. If the language is open and vague, then yes, then the GA and Governor will have much more power in raising taxes as they see fit than they do at present. Of course if you want state income taxes to be raised, and particularly on some much more than others, then a broad language amendment is the way to go. - Rebel13 - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:46 am: ===Illinois wants to raise the rates on “them”, not “me.”== Narrator: 97% of Illinoisans won’t see an increase in their income tax. This only works if you believe the 3% need protecting. You missed the point. Today they say 97%, tomorrow, next year? And FYI I am not in the portion that will see it raised, Today…. Rebel, my taxes will go up. I guess that makes me a “them” in your eyes. I will continue to advocate for this though because the only other viable alternative is for everyone, regardless of their income, to take a bigger hit on their tax bill. I’m not going to ask someone making $10 an hour working forty hours weekly to take a increase in their taxes when there is a viable alternative on the table. They have a hard enough time with expenses as it is right now. Then advocate for an exemtion at a certain rate as noted above. And “Them” is not to be a slight on anyone, it is just showing how the divide and conquer tactic works. We,at one time or another, are ok when the raise taxes on others and not us. Tobacco, Alcohol, etc., thus it works. - Birdseed - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:48 am: === - Rebel13 - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:46 am: You missed the point. === Get used to it with that one. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:48 am: Don’t discount the power of the “lockbox” mentality. It got our last CA passed by a 4 to 1 margin. If a CA is crafted, there will be pressure to put some sort of limitation on the flexibility of the graduated rates, even though as currently proposed it inflicts no additional burden on all but the wealthiest taxpayers. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:50 am: ===You missed the point. Today they say 97%, tomorrow, next year?=== (Sigh) ===The state’s individual income tax rate bounced around between 2.5 and 3 percent from 1969 to the end of 2010 - 41 years. The legislature passed a temporary 2-point tax hike in 2011, but only after years of piling up crushing debt. The tax rate rolled back to 3.75 percent in 2015 because there was nothing close to consensus on making it permanent. And it was raised back up to 4.95 percent in 2017 after a massive and terribly damaging political war over the state’s future. To think that the same body would quickly jack up taxes to 10 percent on people making $50,000 is beyond hyperbole.=== Please, understand institutional knowledge. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:51 am: Over the span of those 40 + years, how many of them included super-duper majorities by one party of the Illinois House and Senate? - Perrid - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:52 am: It’s a slippery slope fallacy. One tax hike means a second, bigger tax hike is inevitable. And like Rich said, it’s also just disingenuous. The GA could hike the income tax to 8% for everyone today, it has that power. Most of the reasons why they don’t hike it for everyone now will still stop them from hiking it that high for most people even when/if the constitution is amended. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:53 am: - Birdseed - You should add to discussion, that would be a change, lol Institutional knowledge has shown the historic income tax raises are few and far between, and others have sunset. It’s as though people want to say “history shows” or “who’s to say”… and then ignore… history and those who know the history and their say , lol - Last Bull Moose - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 10:54 am: One reason tax increases have been hard to pass is that the increase hit all taxpayers. The progressive income tax allows politicians to concentrate the burden on a few. The few will not be able to stop tax increases. Tying the upper rate to the lowest rate, for example 3 percentage points higher than the lowest rate, makes increasing the rates in the future more difficult. The top brackets would creep down to raise revenue before a general tax increase was passed. - Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 11:00 am: ” there was nothing close to consensus on making it permanent” The 2011 66% tax hike was very clear that it was only temporary. The bill had specific language sun-setting the rate hike. it would not have passed without it being temporary. - Quizzical - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 11:02 am: The powerless rich people would have no way to defend themselves. It is well known that only the poor people get elected to the Illinois legislture and only poor people donate to political campaigns. Cue story of Rep getting busted for DUI in his Range Rover. - wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 11:14 am: –once the graduated tax amendment actually gets on the ballot.– I think you should replace “once” with “if.” Sixty percent in both chambers is a heavy lift. - Town Cynic - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 11:17 am: This doesn’t happen at the federal level, does it? When Democrats had control of House, Senate and Presidency the sky didn’t fall then. Unless I am missing something, this is nothing but fear mongering. Nobody likes taxes, but they need to be done in a fair manner for everyone. - Grandson of Man - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 11:20 am: Scare tactics are the essence of the right wing propaganda peddlers. Other states have graduated tax rates, and they’re not being raised at will. File this one under the rich will leave and it’s a jobs tax—just another scare tactic. The people who want to protect the rich at all costs are those who support big cuts to the poor and middle class. They are the ones who either stood idle or supported Rauner when he tried to tear savings out of many thousands of workers. - qualified someone nobody sent - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 11:37 am: There has to be a way to compute the required exemption amount increase to offset any increase in the flat rate. Flat rate is the law of the land, like it or not, and we need revenue yesterday. So get DOR wonks to figure it out and keep under 250K unchanged on how much they pay. Keep working on changing the Constitution if you wan to. Pension haters have tried to change it too. How that work out for them politically? - I Miss Bentohs - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 11:47 am: I appreciate that someone is finally making the argument that it is a bit scary to give a Dem dominated state flexibility in collecting taxes and that is a bit scary to some that are not in their base. However, the argument is so ridiculously dumb that it should be ignored. Thus, my stance at this point remains the same … thanks JB for at least trying to be financially responsible and I will back you as the last gov was a fiscal idiot and no responsible person in my Party is giving a sensible thought to this issue. - Jocko - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 11:54 am: ==I give Republicans a pass as an Illinois “endangered species!”== Another victim heard from. - Interim Retiree - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:22 pm: While I subscribe to the Moline Dispatch, I am now a regular non-reader of John O’Shea’s. He regularly gave opinions as facts when I used to read his columns. Perhaps he was a good judge - I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. - Fighter of Foo - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:33 pm: I don’t think the judges comments are out of whack. Throwing out percentages maybe not the right move. But, the idea that you give the inmates the key to the asylum isn’t such a bad warning. We are so in debt. The current is the best example. Offering all spending with no cuts. What if they can raise taxes to feed the spending? Is this as outrageous as the last 40 years of kicking the pension can down the road? Where are the moderates on both sides. Geez. - the Patriot - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 12:47 pm: We should focus on the Facts. 2 times tax hikes were going to fix the problem. What we know with absolute certainty is Madigan can’t balance a budget. Hasn’t in 20 years. He will use any new tax to increase spending and still deficit spend. The conversation needs to focus on those facts and whether we as a state agree that is a good idea. And, what chaos ensues when Madigan who turns 77 this month is not around. Father time still undefeated and neither party has any real leader outside of the speaker. Trust-Do you trust a governor who parked his money off shore when he says he plans to tax billionaires like him and they won’t park their money off shore. - wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:05 pm: –We should focus on the Facts. 2 times tax hikes were going to fix the problem. What we know with absolute certainty is Madigan can’t balance a budget. Hasn’t in 20 years. He will use any new tax to increase spending and still deficit spend.– Focus, dude, focus. Rich posted a graph yesterday that showed GRF in surplus during four Quinn years. Fact. https://capitolfax.com/page/2/ - Fighter of Foo - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:13 pm: When the rich leave or basic mathematics catch up they will tax the working class more. It’s too big of a pot of money not to. I literally don’t understand where the “trust” comes from people for any politician on both sides of the aisle on this in Illinois. That’s the scary part. - SSL - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 1:56 pm: Relax people, there is no reason to get excited. If you stay in the state of Illinois long enough, you will have the privilege of paying a higher tax rate on a greater percentage of your income. There’s really no other way this can end. The first thing JB did when he got his bearings was to kick the pension can down the road, big time. What does that tell you.Everyone’s got a bigger bill coming in the next few years. Now, when do we hear something concrete about the proposed gas tax increase? With gas approaching $3.00 a gallon, that’s going to be fun. - Ed Higher - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 2:01 pm: Sounds silly on the face of it. Does O’Shea really believe it? What’s his motive for the op-ed? - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 2:47 pm: Not a fact Wordslinger if the pension debt rose every year under Quinn. A truly balanced budget would make the actuarially required pension payments every year Our new Governor boast of a “balanced budget” that shortchanged the reduced Edgar ramp payment by $900 million a year for the next 8 years - Demoralized - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:25 pm: == would make the actuarially required pension payments every year== Quinn did that ==Our new Governor boast of a “balanced budget”== I’m guessing our new Governor will at least have a budget and won’t let bills pile up to the tune of $16 billion. That’s an accomplishment compared to our old Governor. - Demoralized - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:26 pm: ==Over the span of those 40 + years, how many of them included super-duper majorities by one party of the Illinois House and Senate?== Don’t you get tired of whining about that? I have an idea Louis. Why don’t members of your party simply stay home and save the state some money if all you are going to do is whine about that. Get over it. Be an adult and grow up. - Mike Royko - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:39 pm: 20 years ago the top rate in CA was 9.3%. Today it is 12.3%. If you can find someone willing to bet Illinois tax rates will be lower at any point in the next 50 years - take the bet. - Klaus VonBulow - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 3:58 pm: I know Retired judge John Donald O’Shea and he is a Democrat from Rock Island County. He is well regarded as legal scholar. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 4:03 pm: =====Over the span of those 40 + years, how many of them included super-duper majorities by one party of the Illinois House and Senate?== Don’t you get tired of whining about that? I have an idea Louis. Why don’t members of your party simply stay home and save the state some money if all you are going to do is whine about that. Get over it. Be an adult and grow up.=== Shut up and remain silent because I am in the minority and have strong opinions on this subject? Nope. Not gonna happen. So stop whining about my position already. - Demoralized - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 4:38 pm: Louis: Perhaps if you had an actual opinion on the subject rather than your usual “but we’re in the super-minority.” You seem to throw that excuse out frequently. Again, if the Republicans are so helpless then they should just stay home. Save the state some money. Because that seems to be the only argument you ever have. - City Zen - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 4:40 pm: ==20 years ago the top rate in CA was 9.3%. Today it is 12.3%.== It’s 13.3%. Actually, CA’s lowest tax brackets haven’t been touched in decades. In the early 90’s, CA added temporary tax brackets for anyone earning over $100K. In 2005, they added a millionaire’s tax. In 2012, they added higher tax brackets for incomes over $250K. But it looks like if you made below median income in CA, you avoided tax hikes. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Apr 4, 19 @ 9:38 pm: I’ve learned that I can’t outshout the spend more tax more and pretend it is all reform gang. Fact of life in Illinois. Sorry my response got split up. - wordslinger - Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 8:37 am: –Not a fact Wordslinger if the pension debt rose every year under Quinn. A truly balanced budget would make the actuarially required pension payments every year– Quinn did make full-boat ramp payments, professor. Perhaps you were still working in the salt mines in Siberia during The Great Recession, when projected investment returns tanked. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.