Senate’s gonna Senate
Friday, May 3, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* First up…
OK, that’s just silly, mainly because no rate bill had ever passed in the first place. It was just numbers on a piece of paper and the package was always up for negotiation before passage. Also, the Senate only raised the rates on the highest brackets.
Even so, the Senate Dems walked right into that simplistic rhetorical punch.
* And now this…
The following statement was issued Thursday by Illinois House Progressive Caucus Reps. Ammons (co-chair), Guzzardi (co-chair), Mah (co-chair), Villanueva (treasurer), Ramirez (secretary), Cassidy, Gabel, Harris, Mason, Moeller, Ortiz, Robinson, Stava-Murray, and West.
“We strongly disagree with the passage of SB 689.
“Our state is finally trying to fix its deeply unfair tax policy. We are finally asking the wealthy to pay their fair share in funding the basic operations of government. A $300 million tax cut to the estates of the super-rich is a move in precisely the opposite direction.
“We urge our colleagues to join us in opposing this giveaway to the wealthy few.”
* One Illinois…
Senate Democrats said the estate tax “has increasingly been an issue in agriculture communities across Illinois.” Yet economists, such as Thomas Piketty in his book “Capital in the 21st Century,” have argued that it’s one of the most effective methods of addressing income inequality and leveling the economic playing field between rich and poor. […]
[Representatives in the Progressive Caucus who signed the statement opposing SB689] might well ask whom the compromise is meant to appease. Senate Minority Leader Bill Brady of Bloomington voted against SB689, as did Sen. Chuck Weaver of North Peoria.
Just last month, Weaver joined in a debate with Guzzardi and Sims on the “fair tax” at the City Club of Chicago, and when Guzzardi argued that the rich weren’t fleeing the state because of taxes, and that the state was actually encouraging seniors to move here by not taxing retirement income, Weaver countered that they were leaving Illinois because of its estate tax.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 11:34 am:
So Weaver was for it before he was against it?
- Anon - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 11:34 am:
It was a terribly misguided idea to forgo $300 million in revenue we don’t have to eliminate the estate tax, especially at a time when we are going to have a $1 billion dollar a year pension holiday because of the governor’s other spending priorities.
I hope the house goes to the wall on this and demands it be put back in, because eliminating the estate tax flies square in the face of the argument behind the need for the progressive tax.
- Roman - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 11:38 am:
== Senate’s gonna Senate ==
Yep. The estate tax bill is a perfect example. Gives Cullerton the ability to push back against the GOP’s “we weren’t asked for input” complaints. He can say, we offered you something you’ve always wanted in the tax code and you voted no.
- Grandson of Man - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 11:39 am:
Republicans are simply for the rich. They have a shrinking voter base and aren’t even trying to expand it. They prefer to be in a closed loop, just screaming opposition to each other. If they expanded their base, we might have some moderate Republicans who’d support a fair tax while negotiating for some of their own wants.
- CPA - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 11:54 am:
If the Republicans are for the rich? How are the Democrats for the poor?
This tax plan is just an increase on the rich.
It will have minimal impact for everyone else.
When they talk about the 97% it’s such a minimal impact that it has very little relief.
I just hate the advertising of calling this progressive. Do the math and it really doesn’t do anything beyond increasing the taxes on the rich.
- The Dude Abides - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 11:59 am:
“Republicans are simply for the rich. They have a shrinking voter base and aren’t even trying to expand it”
I said pretty much the same thing on a different thread yesterday. They don’t even try to conceal that fact any more. With their primary money source Rauner out of the picture now they are even more dependent on money from powerful corporate interests. The Democrats offered the estate tax repeal as a way of giving the GOP something they’ve always wanted in exchange for support of their progressive tax plan but still not a single GOP vote. In no uncertain terms they’ve been told by their benefactors to oppose the tax plan with no exceptions.
- You Bet - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:01 pm:
The battle ground isn’t the minutiae. The general public will ultimately decide “do you trust the Legislature” over the long haul? That will be the driver.
The Legislatures historic performance as illustrated by the current fiscal quagmire and mass exodus of citizens will keep a “no” vote in play to the very end.
Run a poll and ask this question . . . . .Do you trust the ILGA? One cannot even comprehend the “no” responders being less than 75%. Everything else is noise.
- MG85 - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:05 pm:
I continue to reject the premise/argument that Cullerton needs/needed an ability to push back against the GOP by offering up a proposal antithetical to progressive ideals like repealing the estate tax. If anything, this move gives ammunition to opponents of the Fair Tax by saying how can we be cutting revenue if we need it?
The Democratic Party is making an argument more revenue is needed to pay for the cost of Government that people clearly want. It makes little logical/political sense to have that position while passing bills that subtract revenue (especially from sources of the super-wealthy).
If the GOP wanted to bargain in good faith and offer this up in exchange for GOP votes on passing the Fair Tax amendment and rates, then the Democratic leadership should let them offer it, and use it as a way to reach a compromise.
Heck, it would even make more sense to me if this bill was passed because the Democratic Party wanted to arm some challenger to a central or downstate GOP Senator, like McClure, for voting against eliminating the Estate Tax but that’s not what I’m hearing.
The best argument the Democratic Party needs is pointing to the evidence before Illinoisans: the continued lack of appropriately staffed agencies and the negative impact it is having on Illinois (see DCFS and DOC for more explicit examples), the bipartisan agency directors from both Rauner’s and Pritzker’s administrations expressing need for more revenue and staff, and the widening gap of pension liabilities and coverage.
So the framing of the question should be are we going to raise taxes on everyone or are we going to raise taxes on the wealthy and super wealthy?
The GOP, being against the Fair Tax, are arguing that we need to raise taxes on everyone. That’s a losing argument IMO. Instead, Senate leadership is trying to be too clever by half when they can just take the easier, logical and obvious case to Illinois voters.
This strategy is lost on me.
- GroupThinker - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:05 pm:
Agreed, why should greedy mom and pop businesses and family farms be allowed to be pass down to the next generation? Pure greed. Liquidate the business so the government can redistribute the wealth. It’s unfair for small business continue through multiple generations. Only large corporations should be allowed to last more than one generation.
- 47th Ward - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:09 pm:
So there are at least 13 Democrats that won’t vote for the Senate bill as-is. That creates an opening for 13 (or more) HGOPs to vote green on the Senate version or go home to their donors and explain why the House bill that passes keeps the estate tax in it.
They must know that the graduated tax is going to pass. You’d think they’d be working harder to make it somewhat more palatable from their perspective, wouldn’t you?
- wordslinger - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:13 pm:
–Run a poll and ask this question . . . . .Do you trust the ILGA?–
Or, you could do a poll on support for a graduated income tax.
–Sixty-seven percent of Illinois voters said they favored the graduated tax plan, “… that is, tax rates would be lower for lower-income taxpayers and higher for upper income taxpayers.” Just under one-third (31 percent) opposed the plan. The plan received high levels of support across all three major geographic divisions of Illinois with the highest level of support coming from Chicago (74 percent). Voters in suburban Cook and the collar counties supported the plan by a 68 percent to 31 percent margin, while 60 percent of downstate voters supported and 37 percent opposed the plan.–
Plus, there were real polls last November when those repeating your talking points got creamed for every statewide office and reduced to the lowest-level of GOP representation in the GA in decades.
Everything else is noise.
https://thesouthern.com/news/local/siu/simon-poll-illinois-voters-favor-graduated-income-tax-millionaire-s/article_f6cb6181-adb6-5a8d-b890-729877abae82.html
- Bigtwich - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:22 pm:
Do you trust the ILGA? You Bet, I do. More than you anyway.
- You Bet - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:23 pm:
This version never sees a House vote. The Speaker will do what he always does. . . . . .run his own version, pass it out of the House, send it over to the Senate and adjourn.
The Senate, per usual, will acquiescence to what the Speaker wants as they will be left with no options. Guaranteed. This movie is so old they don’t even play it on TNT anymore.
- anon2 - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:30 pm:
As far as small businesses, the vast majority are well below the threshold of taxation.
- City Zen - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:30 pm:
==Reps. Ammons (co-chair), Guzzardi (co-chair), Mah (co-chair), Villanueva (treasurer), Ramirez (secretary)==
One executive per two regular members. How progressive. And who heads the party planning committee?
- Jocko - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:40 pm:
==mom and pop businesses and family farms be allowed to be pass down to the next generation==
Worth more than 4 million? Maybe the Clampetts.
- Hal - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:55 pm:
Maybe IL is trying to attract/keep more retired folks. Even if they don’t pay taxes, they still spend money.
No Estate Tax. No Roth tax. No retirement income tax. Seems IL isn’t a terrible place to retire tax wise.
- Grandson of Man - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:03 pm:
“If the Republicans are for the rich? How are the Democrats for the poor?”
Democrats want to put the poor and middle class workers in a safer place, by bringing in more revenue and not cutting as much—but probably not every Democrat, as we may soon see in the House. Republicans scream cut, cut, cut.
- Generic Drone - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:30 pm:
No more tax breaks for the uber rich. Havent we made ourselves clear? Maybe you only want to be in office 1 term like Rauner?
- Reality Check - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:54 pm:
Property taxes are going to increase - there is no other way that the municipalities can keep up with the ever increasing pension payments. State income taxes are going to have to be increased significantly (a lot more that the supposed 3.4 billion) in order to keep up with state pension obligations. Unfunded state obligations increased that much over the last year. JB kicking the can down the road isn’t going to help. Illinois is simply going to have to raise a LOT of revenue. Guess where its going come from.
- Al - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:55 pm:
These tax discussions are silly. When we talk about Estate taxes we do not talk about tax Rates. When we talk about Income taxes, all we talk about is rates, and leave out the Standard Exemptions and Deduction amounts. Step it up.
- Techie - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 3:03 pm:
Whose idea was it to repeal the estate tax, anyway? It (ideally) serves a necessary purpose in society - preventing lucky children from living solely off inherited wealth.
The whole reason conservatives want the public to be upset at (nonexistent) welfare queens is because they collect money without working for it. And yet the children of the wealthy are allowed to do just that - collect money without working for it.