Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » PPP poll: 58 percent support governor’s “Fair Tax” in targeted House districts
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
PPP poll: 58 percent support governor’s “Fair Tax” in targeted House districts

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

* Polling memo…

From: Katherine Patterson, Public Policy Polling
To: Interested Parties
Subject: Majority in Key Illinois HDs Support Fair Tax Amendment
Date: May 20, 2019

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds that a majority (58%) of voters in Illinois Legislative Districts surveyed support an amendment to the Constitution called the Illinois Fair Tax. The amendment, currently being considered by the State Legislature, would change the state’s income tax from a flat tax, where everyone pays the same rate of income tax, to a graduated tax system where wealthier people making more than $250,000 a year pay a higher rate. Only 33% of voters oppose the Illinois Fair Tax amendment.

When presented with arguments in support of and in opposition to the Fair Tax amendment, a majority of voters in the Districts surveyed are convinced by arguments supporting the amendment. 51% of voters are very convinced by the argument that the tax system would be fairer with the amendment, and that 97% of those surveyed would see no increase in their state income taxes. An additional 19% find the argument somewhat convincing, with only 28% of voters unconvinced. A plurality of voters surveyed (47%) are not convinced by the argument by opponents of the Fair Tax that new taxes will be wasted by the state, and that higher income taxes on the wealthy will hurt the Illinois economy.

Key findings from the survey include:

    • 75% of Democrats and 55% of independent voters surveyed support the Fair Tax, with only 16% of Democrats and 37% of independents in opposition.
    • A majority of voters in every age group support the Fair Tax, with 53% of voters age 18 to 45, 62% of voters aged 46 to 65, and 55% of voters older than 65 in support.

PPP surveyed 517 Illinois voters in House Districts 45, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 76, 80, 84, 96, 111 and 112 from May 15-16, 2019. The margin of error is +/- 4.3%. This poll was conducted by telephone.

1) 58 percent is strong support, but it’s gonna need 60 to pass muster with voters (or over half of everyone who votes in the election).

2) A result not fully fleshed out in the memo

Opponents of the Illinois Fair Tax say these new taxes will simply be wasted by the State and that taxing higher income people more will hurt the Illinois economy and cost jobs. Do you find this a very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not a convincing reason to oppose the Illinois Fair Tax?

    Very convincing 26%
    Somewhat convincing 21%
    Not convincing 47%
    Not sure 5%

Tied.

3) Also not mentioned in the memo

Do you approve or disapprove of President Donald Trump’s job performance?

    Approve 39%
    Disapprove 57%
    Notsure 4%

Oof.

4) PPP is a robopoller, so keep that in mind.

5) District-by-district numbers would be much better.

6) Here are the Democratic House members matched up to their district numbers…

45 - Diane Pappas
48 - Terra Costa Howard
49 - Karina Villa
51 - Mary Edly-Allen
53 - Mark Walker
55 - Martin Moylan
56 - Michelle Mussman
57 - Jonathan Carroll
61 - Joyce Mason
62 - Sam Yingling
76 - Lance Yednock
80 - Anthony DeLuca
84 - Stephanie Kifowit
96 - Sue Scherer
111 - Monica Bristow
112 - Katie Stuart

7) Crosstabs are here.

- Posted by Rich Miller        

27 Comments
  1. - Reality Check - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 10:17 am:

    58 percent is strong support, but it’s gonna need 60 to pass muster with voters (or over half of everyone who votes in the election).

    Yes, but these are swing districts. If it pulls 58 there and piles up 80s in base districts, that’s a win.


  2. - City Zen - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 10:18 am:

    Plenty of time for the Marriage Penalty to make the rounds.


  3. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 10:22 am:

    ===Plenty of time for the Marriage Penalty to make the rounds.===

    If 3% of all taxpayers are seeing an increase, what percentage is that marriage “penalty” effecting?

    You concern for 2-5% of folks making a family income of $250K is… “admirable”? lol


  4. - Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 10:29 am:

    An average of 32 people per district polled, so a district breakdown wold not be statistically significant. Hopefully someone does a larger poll in some of those districts. JB could afford to do some to convince any undecided legislators.


  5. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 10:34 am:

    Democratic and independent voter support in the polled districts is encouraging. If you’re a Democrat in one of those districts, you can look at those numbers generally and take some heart. With Pritzker’s and his allies’ financial backing, Democrats who vote for the amendment by-and-large should be okay in those districts, to weather opposition.


  6. - City Zen - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 10:45 am:

    ==what percentage is that marriage “penalty” effecting?==

    The percent who are married.

    https://taxfoundation.org/state-marriage-penalty/


  7. - Anotheretiree - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 10:46 am:

    10 Million Americans got a tax increase last year at the federal level. If you weren’t concerned for them, then your concern for the IL 3% rings hollow.


  8. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 10:47 am:

    ===The percent who are married.===

    … who make over $250K

    Why do you insist on forgetting that time and time again?


  9. - Pundent - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 10:51 am:

    =Plenty of time for the Marriage Penalty to make the rounds.=

    Are you suggesting that rich married people deserve special consideration that rich single people aren’t afforded? Good luck with that.

    Advocating for couples with a combined incoming over $250K while a large majority shows no increase in taxes doesn’t sound like a winning argument to me. If it did the opposition would be calling this the “marriage tax” instead of the “jobs tax.”


  10. - I Miss Bentohs - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 11:21 am:

    ===Plenty of time for the Marriage Penalty to make the rounds.===

    If 3% of all taxpayers are seeing an increase, what percentage is that marriage “penalty” effecting?

    You concern for 2-5% of folks making a family income of $250K is… “admirable”? lol

    That is too short-sighted sir. Those of us that value marriage (literally) do not want a penalty that makes it so you are worse off financially if married (and this applies to all making over $10K in this case).


  11. - City Zen - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 11:26 am:

    ==who make over $250K==

    Who make over $10,000. Any situation in which a married couple filing jointly pays more than they would have otherwise filing separately constitutes a Marriage Penalty.

    The fix is simple: Double the existing brackets. Anything otherwise is a Marriage Penalty.


  12. - I Miss Bentohs - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 11:26 am:

    ===The percent who are married.===

    … who make over $250K

    Why do you insist on forgetting that time and time again?

    This is incorrect. If the tax is higher after $10K than before $10K, then the second earner is not getting credit for the lower amount in the first $10K. It may be a small amount but that is not the point. You are still penalizing marriage which to some (aka me) is wrong.


  13. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 11:42 am:

    ===Who make over $10,000. Any situation in which a married couple filing jointly pays more than they would have otherwise filing separately constitutes a Marriage Penalty.

    The fix is simple: Double the existing brackets. Anything otherwise is a Marriage Penalty.===

    So a married couple should be at $500k?

    ===Those of us that value marriage (literally)===

    Oh boy, lol

    ===It may be a small amount but that is not the point.===

    What is this “small amount”?

    The percentages, are they still “below” the current percentage of income tax?

    I’m just asking to show the work… where the current rate is now… what the new rate(s) are…


  14. - Jocko - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 11:46 am:

    ==It may be a small amount but that is not the point.==

    The median household income in Illinois is $63K and the average household income is $85K. You’re telling me that raising taxes on a family that makes 3x (to 4x) what their fellow Illinoisans bring home is unfair?


  15. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 11:50 am:

    Let’s look at the “Illinois Policy Institute”

    From them…

    ===Unlike the federal income tax system, Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s progressive income tax rates do not differentiate between single and joint filers. That means couples could see a hefty tax penalty simply for getting married, as their combined income could push them into a higher bracket.

    For example, if two earners each making $145,000 married and reached an adjusted gross income of $290,000, they would see a $1,061 marriage penalty as opposed to being single filers. They would also see a $930 tax increase compared to today’s current flat rate.===

    I looked at their “analysis”… they seem to be only beefing about the “over $250K”…

    Further, it goes at the “current rate” versus” proposed rate.

    So, show the work, and the current rate, the proposed rates.


  16. - Fixer - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 11:53 am:

    Jocko, that’s exactly what those opposed to it are saying. They seem to forget where the average household income is entirely in this situation.


  17. - Marriage Penalty - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 12:04 pm:

    ===That is too short-sighted sir. Those of us that value marriage (literally) do not want a penalty that makes it so you are worse off financially if married (and this applies to all making over $10K in this case).===

    As a married person making just about the $250K threshhold for the real marriage penalty (it varies; one of us is salaried, the other is self-employed, so it fluctuates), we are HAPPY to pay the marriage penalty if it provides more and better services for families in the state. Do you know what’s much more valuable to me than that 3% income? My children going to well-resourced schools. My autistic child having access to therapies and services he needs. My aging parents having the support they need. My roads being well-maintained and the Metra getting me downtown in a reasonable amount of time.

    Because I DO value marriage, and I DO think it’s important, I think this tax increase is INCREDIBLY important, because a huge driver of divorce is economic stress. Better access to better-quality government services, especially related to education and health care, will help many more children grow up in two-parent homes. And it will help children in single-parent homes have healthier, more stable home lives as well.

    If you support marriage, and want more Illinois couples to get and stay married, the sociological data is clear that this higher tax rate is the single most important intervention the state can make. Platitudes don’t help; better state services that relieve economic pressure DO help. I can afford to pay a little extra in the marriage penalty to help families across Illinois keep their marriages together to, and to help all children in the state have happier, healthier, and safer lives.

    Complaining about a “marriage penalty” in the tax rates that doesn’t actually deter anyone from getting married (and isn’t a punishment — it’s an effect that is difficult to eradicate from tax rates when trying to balance many competing perspectives; you can take an entire tax seminar specifically on this point, and I have) while ignoring the massive, massive benefits marriage as an institution and married people as individuals will receive from higher state tax rates seems either really shortsighted or deliberately misleading.


  18. - City Zen - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 12:12 pm:

    ==So a married couple should be at $500k?==

    At that bracket level, yes. Each married bracket should be double what the proposed brackets are today.


  19. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 12:16 pm:

    === ==So a married couple should be at $500k?==

    At that bracket level, yes. Each married bracket should be double what the proposed brackets are today.===

    How many folks are we talking about? lol

    So you’re for helping the 3% is what it’s coming down to…


  20. - Hamlet's Ghost - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 12:19 pm:

    Money quote (IMHO):

    “75% of Democrats and 55% of independent voters surveyed support the Fair Tax, with only 16% of Democrats and 37% of independents in opposition.”

    My initial reaction to this is that any Dem state rep voting against the Fair Tax potentially has a primary problem in March 2020.


  21. - JS Mill - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 12:38 pm:

    =At that bracket level, yes. Each married bracket should be double what the proposed brackets are today.=

    Why? it isn’t about how many people are making money, it is about income for the household.

    It isn’t a penalty, it is a tax.


  22. - City Zen - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 12:58 pm:

    ==How many folks are we talking about?==

    How many married couples make over $10,000?

    ==we are HAPPY to pay the marriage penalty==

    Fantastic. Let’s ask all working families that same question in regards to the “fair” tax. Maybe they’ll feel the same way about paying a penalty.

    ==it is about income for the household==

    How do the feds treat household income?


  23. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 1:02 pm:

    ===How many married couples make over $10,000?===

    Again.

    Show me these brackets, and are they over the existing percentages.

    Thanks.


  24. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 1:03 pm:

    ===How many married couples make over $10,000?===

    Even the IPI is only beefing about the over $250K

    LOL


  25. - theCardinal - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 1:04 pm:

    Filing married as always,and will pay a few extra dollars, but I don’t want to give on more cent to the state without guarantees the money will go as directed, Lock box everything. They have not shown fiscal responsibility for decades, simply giving a bigger pot a cash will not solve the spend spend spend tax mentality in Illinois. Increase user fees and stop the sweeps.


  26. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 1:34 pm:

    Some of you folks are unclear on the concept of how a graduated income tax works. Only income above $250K is taxed at the higher rate. So, if the household income is $260K, only $10K will be taxed at the higher rate.

    Now, please, move along.


  27. - Bavette - Tuesday, May 21, 19 @ 5:15 pm:

    Household income is not the criteria for taxing families. Family income is. What is the median family income in Illinois? What is it in the Chicago MSA? Is this just more of Chicago subsidizing downstate?


TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Open thread
* Time to rethink legislative replacement process?
* 6,700 more students will receive MAP grants
* "Our worst fears have been realized"
* Home health care workers receive back pay approved in 2017
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* *** 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
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
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