* My Crain’s Chicago Business column…
After decades of the state putting off things like fixing our roads and bridges, we started to see some very real progress this year.
Huge bipartisan legislative majorities approved a $45 billion infrastructure program.
In the process, however, the state’s motor-fuel tax went from 19 cents a gallon to 38 cents a gallon. My Facebook feed was jammed with exclamation points for days on end. Well, just wait until those angry Illinoisans find out their license plate fees are also going up next year, or they realize there’s a new tax imposed when they trade in their cars.
The idea back in May was to pass all these tax hikes and then go quiet. The governor would then focus attention on announcing new projects and grants, and eventually the furor would all die down.
But that hasn’t quite happened, partly because Chicago’s budget woes have kept taxation in the foreground.
New Mayor Lori Lightfoot clumsily floated a bunch of nonstarter ideas like taxing retirement income to help her bail out the fiscally troubled city. Taxing retirement income at the state level polls about as well as meningitis. Gov. J.B. Pritzker defeated two Democratic primary opponents partly by hammering them for opening the door just a tiny crack to the possibility of such a tax.
But because Chicago’s mayor was interested, it was big news everywhere. My Facebook feed went nuts again, and the governor was forced to publicly shoot it down.
Meanwhile
Click here to read the rest before commenting, please. Thanks.
- Will Caskey - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:28 am:
It’s almost like mumbling about taxing the rich/investors/marshmallows to show you *tried everything else* before doing what you were always gonna do just angers people more because all they hear is “tax”
- DuPage Moderate - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:32 am:
This can’t be news to anyone? All we have been hearing and all this is really coming out of our representative bodies over the last two year is tax. tax. tax all the while high end home sit unsold and my neighbors move south. The Democrats have totally over played their hand on revenue and underplayed it on cuts/concessions. This will end badly.
- Will Caskey - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:35 am:
Talk of “cuts” when the state has billions in backlogs because the previous governor thought just not paying any bills was a solid way to cut spending is irrelevant. Taxes are going to go up, and go up a lot, because successive waves of legislators and governors were voted in who broke the government and were reelected doing so.
- Steve - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:35 am:
I think this is one the best columns Rich has written. Having a flat tax does limit the ability of some politicians to talk tax hikes. I could see how messaging on future tax hikes just on the wealthy can be lost .
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:37 am:
Instead of going quiet, the issue of more and higher taxes won’t go away. And that can’t be good for the governor’s graduated income tax proposal, which has to be approved by voters next year.
The budget woes aren’t just in Chicago, they are all across the state.
Springfield has done nothing to fix the driver of the deficits, unless you consider a property tax task force an accomplishment.
JB’s tax graduated tax plan is earmarked for new spending, not paying the pensions.
- DuPage Moderate - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:38 am:
Will:
“Were voted in”? They continue to get voted in in droves.
This alone is Exhibit A as to why it may be good politics to follow the will of the people of the State of Illinois but it’s awful business and it’s terrible for the State.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:43 am:
Some of the plate increases didn’t get a lot of publicity.
The one license plate fee increase that is really going to tick off a lot of people is the increase on trailers. Regular trailer plates (except RT) were all increased by $100. This means a TA plate that used to cost $18 is now $118. Same for the rest of the T series.
Lots of people kept a small trailer around because it didn’t cost much. Heck, I have an old trailer made from the back of a pickup; it’s worth about $400. At these prices, I’m wondering if it is worth keeping for the few times a year I use it. I suspect other people will feel the same way. Or if they have multiple trailers, they may only license one now and just (illegally) switch the plate to whatever trailer they need to use.
The other fees that might surprise people are the extra $1 (ISP fleet) and $2 (DNR) surcharges for all plates on top of the $50 increase for car plates.
Electric car owners won’t be happy, they went from $35 to $248.
The only plates they didn’t increase were motorcycle.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:46 am:
And people will start paying the new plates fees in 2020 so it will be front and center in the voters’ minds.
- Quibbler - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:48 am:
== If it’s one tax story after another after another, people could very well buy into the opposition’s argument that the state can’t be trusted to keep this new tax focused only on high-income taxpayers, or that the tax the Democrats want to impose is too high and could have serious negative economic consequences. ==
Only if the media completely fails to cover the FairTax accurately. So actually…you may have a point.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:51 am:
Voters knew what they were getting with Pritzker and went for him anyway by a huge margin. Many want to invest in and fix Illinois. The motor fuel tax doesn’t seem very perceptible, as gas prices are low. People bitter about taxes were there before and after Pritzker’s huge victory, so 2020 is partially baked in already. The key would seem to be driving up turnout for the ballot question, to get it up to 50% of all voters in the election.
The fair tax would give a tax cut to the vast majority of incomes. It would be a game-changer for the state, to finally get more revenue from the likes of those who should have paid more a very long time ago.
“tax all the while high end home sit unsold and my neighbors move south”
After the 2011 tax hike more wealthy people came to Illinois, so that’s a bad trolling attempt.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:52 am:
Tax cat’s outta tax bag.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:56 am:
===Springfield has done nothing to fix the driver of the deficits, unless you consider a property tax task force an accomplishment.===
The pensions and deficits.
Not having a budget for two years drive up deficits.
Paying the costs of pensions, even (constitutionally) changing pensions won’t change what’s already owed.
If you think there’s a better way, a Raunerite way, that was defeated in embarrassing ways in 2018, so embarrassingly, Rauner himself tried to replace… himself… after the primary.
How this all matters, and to the Post,
As the last administration tried to cry, “there are no cuts acceptable”, or having no agency heads lists cuts during sworn testimony, the talk of taxing, versus this need of revenues, the politics to all is the perceived idea that “all we get is taxed”
Like Rep. McSweeney, the tweeter extraordinaire that despises taxes, which is fine, and wants no taxes raised, and all taxes should be lowered.
Well, I’d like that too.
But where are these cuts?
Rauner tried to starve a whole state. That led to the most embarrassing loss for a sitting Republican Governor in 100 years.
Why is this important?
The discussion of “we are taxed too high” versus “we are in need to pay for all we want” really gets swamped by… the negative view the “angry” have towards our own state.
The ideal would be Lightfoot and Pritzker and the “4 Tops”, then Lightfoot, Pritzker, and Madigan and Cullerton, these meets happen to discuss… “how can we make things better, constitutionally, and have the discussion be on the good for all Illinois, by paying what’s owed, instead of, “taxing for no good reason”?
While seemingly Pollyanna, it ain’t, due in large part… 60, 30, and signature… governing.
- very old soil - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:58 am:
RNUG. Last time I got a sticker for the snowmobile trailer I have used once in the five years since I got it in exchange for a leaf blower, I asked how much the fine was for not having one. The SoS clerk didn’t know but a police officer who was standing at the counter said $138 as I recall. (Quick Google search I found $120). Odds might be in your favor not to get one. I drove my pickup for ten months on an expired sticker, the new one was in the glove compartment.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 9:58 am:
===I could see how messaging on future tax hikes just on the wealthy can be lost .===
No.
The messaging is easier and smarter than that;
“97% of taxpayers will not see an increase in their taxes.”
That’s 3% effected. See how it narrows your trolling the wealthy to the narrow 3%?
That’s not an accident.
- Steve - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:02 am:
OW
The 97% number might last a few election cycles . There’s nothing written in stone that says legislators can’t change their mind given certain economic conditions.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:06 am:
===The 97% number might last a few election cycles .===
So… 6-8 years.
Again, your concerned trolling is compelling, but not anywhere close to being honest to today.
I do know that if the fair tax fails, and it may fail, immediately, discussion will turn to raising the flat tax. How do i know? That will be the stick to the carrot of the flat tax passing.
How are you going to vote on the progressive income tax decision?
LOL
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:08 am:
===There’s nothing written in stone that says legislators can’t change their mind given certain economic conditions===
The political climate.
You think it was an accident both Rich Daley and Rahm Emanuel chose to “want” to keep property taxes low?
Didn’t we already discuss your trolling about “the future” before…
- Steve - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:09 am:
OW
You must be very confident on another recession not happening in the next 6 to 8 years. I hope you are right.
- Lt. Guv - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:10 am:
Steve,
That’s no different than today. It’s the legislature’s job to set the tax rates. They can do it at any time.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:10 am:
===You must be very confident on another recession not happening in the next 6 to 8 years. I hope you are right.===
If I *think* I knew that… I’d be you and your alleged futurist knowledge.
- Seats - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:11 am:
=== The only plates they didn’t increase were motorcycle. ===
Glad to see JB extending an olive branch to Bruce. /s
- Responsa - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:12 am:
I had thought at the time that JB Pritzker’s solid victories both in the primary and general were more about replacing an unpopular governor than about an over-all adoration for his tax and revenue policies and proposals. I wondered if he, his team, and many in the legislature might not be misinterpreting what his electoral “mandate” was and thereby rushing things. As I have watched all that transpired since then, especially the advent of Lightfoot and her narrative, I still think that is a strong possibility.
- Steve - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:15 am:
- Lt. Guv -
It’s more difficult to change rates when you have a flat tax because it applies to all taxpayers.
- Seats - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:15 am:
Beating Bruce Rauner seemed like it was always going to be kind of easy. Financially repairing all the damage he created though was always going to make reelection very difficult for JB in my opinion. Needs to get this progressive tax passed.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:15 am:
===I wondered if he, his team, and many in the legislature might not be misinterpreting what his electoral “mandate” was and thereby rushing things.===
I doubt that.
Why?
74/40, all eight statewide offices…
I’m confused where there might be a misinterpretation?
The state has decided, electorally, “today”, this is the direction desired.
You think 2020 will be better for Raunerites and Trumpkins… in Illinois?
Respectfully.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:16 am:
Taxes are going up way beyond what is currently proposed because taxing the 3% more will not even make a dent in the problem, much less pay for all the new spending programs.
The fair tax would give a tax cut to the vast majority of incomes?
Talk about a bad trolling attempt at misdirection.
Just raising taxes will not solve anything or reverse the population exodus
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:16 am:
===It’s more difficult to change rates when you have a flat tax because it applies to all taxpayers.===
What do you base this on?
- Barrington - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:17 am:
Not surprised that the Mayor came out with a proposal to tax retirement income. Ty Fahner is her mentor.
- Lt. Guv - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:25 am:
===It’s more difficult to change rates when you have a flat tax because it applies to all taxpayers.===
Don’t buy that. Tax increases will always require a pound of flesh for politicians. The question is when do the benefits of the increased tax outweight the cost of that pound of political flesh. Unfortunately, far too many for far too long have overvalued that pound at the cost of the well-being of the state.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:27 am:
===Taxes are going up way beyond what is currently proposed because taxing the 3% more will not even make a dent in the problem, much less pay for all the new spending programs.===
Probably not until 2023-2024.
Because…
Politics, and the ask to raise taxes will need the actual monetary realities of the new history with the graduated tax.
This idea that it’s happening tomorrow, it the Raunerite thinking that this made sense too;
“I’ll let you raise taxes to pay for things, *after* you end prevailing wage and collective bargaining”
- Lucky Pierre -
Your trolling here is why Rauner lost, and first tried to bail on folks like you.
===The fair tax would give a tax cut to the vast majority of incomes?===
No, keep up.
“97% of taxpayers will not see an increase in their taxes.”
That’s the discussion, but you already know that.
- Steve - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:29 am:
OW
Given where the state marginal income tax were since 1970: Illinois wasn’t considered a high income tax state. Plus, there wasn’t major discussion every election cycle on changing rates. From 1970 to 1982 the rate was 2.5 %. From 1983 to 2010 it fluctuated from 2.5% to 3%.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/illinois-income-tax-rates-progressive-510514681.html
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:32 am:
===Plus, there wasn’t major discussion every election cycle on changing rates. From 1970 to 1982 the rate was 2.5 %. From 1983 to 2010 it fluctuated from 2.5% to 3%.===
Soooo….
Changing taxing rates happens less then even you thought…
And for someone who can’t see in the future, as you tell me, you can now see how it *will* be different in a graduated taxing scenario.
That’s fun.
You’re trolling yourself, and you don’t even realize it, lol
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:32 am:
==The 97% number might last a few election cycles==
One year. No inflation indexing, remember?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:33 am:
===One year. No inflation indexing, remember?===
So it’s still true?
Oh.
Thanks.
- Steve - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:37 am:
OW
I prefer the Illinois tax code pre-1969. There were roads, there were schools. There were more limitations on politicians because they had less money to work with.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:41 am:
===pre-1969===
It’s 2019
- Downstate - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:41 am:
The bigger quote out of the story was this…
“the state set the taxation levels so high that no casino company would ever invest in the endeavor.”
Allow me rewrite that for the current state of economic development in Illinois…..
“the state set the taxation levels so high that no company would ever invest…”
Everyone’s mad at Lightfoot because she had the courage to speak the truth.
- Pick a Name - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:42 am:
60% is needed to pass, correct? That will be a tall task.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:46 am:
==So it’s still true?==
Correct, for one year. Do you think if we put an asterisk next to the percent symbol it’ll look too busy? 97%*
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 10:49 am:
===Correct===
A big step. Thanks.
We’ll see after year two and beyond how it plays out in the political, and your concerns, which will probably need addressing.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 11:03 am:
==60% is needed to pass, correct?==
Or if 50% of all voters, including those who skip the question on their ballots, approve it.
- Langhorne - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 11:04 am:
I think the trade-in tax may be the one that sneaks up and bites people, once it is more widely known. It is big, And it may strike people as double taxation. You paid sales tax when you bought the $40,000 car. Now you are going to be taxed again when it is worth $20,000 and you want to trade it in. A partial exemption helps, but it is an attractive subject for talk radio and anti-tax sentiment.
OW, committee testimony is rarely sworn.
- Seats - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 11:22 am:
To Langhorne - I would like to see the numbers in regards to what percentage of people get 20k or more in their trade-in values. I would assume that the vast majority of trade-ins would fall under that value. Seems like a tax that will be hitting closer to the top 10%?
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 11:31 am:
=Not surprised that the Mayor came out with a proposal to tax retirement income. Ty Fahner is her mentor.=
Ditto for the COLA she wants to kill.
Totally saw this coming.
She keeps saying pension are a promise, pensions are a promise and yet she teams up with Tyrone Fahner.
Plus, she has shifty eyes.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 11:31 am:
== The fair tax would give a tax cut to the vast majority of incomes. ==
While technically true, it would be more accurate to say 97% of payers will not see their income taxes increase under the proposed graduated rates.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 11:37 am:
== … may be misreading … ==
They probably are misreading the election results. Many of the votes were against Rauner as opposed to for JB. Yes, those voters knew JB was campaigning on a tax increase, but they are probably uncomfortable with the size of some of the increases. I expect to see some backlash next November; the real question is if it will be enough to derail the graduated income tax.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 11:43 am:
== It’s 2019 ==
And some of us were paying taxes back in 1969 …
The income tax is probably fairer than the previous system. The SSD part about the switch is the GA went into it with a bit of revenue cushion designed in, but they spent all of it and more between FY70 and FY75 … which lead to shorting the pension payments and the landmark pension ruling by the IL SC.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 11:48 am:
===The idea back in May was to pass all these tax hikes and then go quiet.===
I never quite understood this logic. The tax more, borrow more, spend more philosophy is not something that would go unnoticed by the masses who are now paying more at the gasoline pump, and will be hit up with higher fees and taxes elsewhere. The gas pump remains the big reminder and it isn’t going away, unless we pretend that gas tanks will refilled less over the next few years. If there is a spike in gasoline prices over the next couple of years?
Just came back from Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. The prices charged in each state cannot be disguised when you return to Illinois. A few stations at the border remind us to not pay Illinois taxes at the pump.
The solution of just taxing the 1% because they won’t feel it so badly sounds nice on paper, but doesn’t get around all the other taxes and fees that the 99% have been hit with and will continue to pay.
Saw Pritzker at a press conference stating that property taxes will eventually begin to somehow trend downward now that school funding has been increased.
Can’t wait for that one to hit my mailbox next year./snark
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 11:56 am:
Property taxes are never going to be cut significantly until the GA mandates explicit percentage cuts in exchange for increased school funding.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 11:58 am:
===couple of years===
Can’t govern worrying what “next couple of years” could happen when the deficits and budget challenges today are real.
===Just came back from Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. The prices charged in each state cannot be disguised when you return to Illinois. A few stations at the border remind us to not pay Illinois taxes at the pump.===
Anecdotally, the 3 gas stations in Oswego, today are less that 3 cents, either way mind you, from where they were on “May 33rd”
That said, driving in southern states recently, the 20+ cent cheaper gas was really nice. Also the roads, the county roads, the state roads, less snow mind you, were far worse, like Indiana bad.
I’d love lower taxes, I try to vote with taxes in mind, but as an actual fiscal Republican, honest to that, bills need to be paid, and cuts need to also make sense to serving the public safety too.
Lightfoot needs to come to grips with her own Chicago challenges, and the harsh reality of 60, 30, and Pritzker on board.
These will not be pleasant times.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 12:07 pm:
“May 33rd”?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 12:08 pm:
Session went into overtime… making a snarky note as such
:)
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 12:13 pm:
=It’s more difficult to change rates when you have a flat tax because it applies to all taxpayers.=
They keep saying this, but where’s the logic?
What are they saying? The GA can raise the flat tax now if they want, but they won’t - they’ll wait until we have a graduated tax…..because……………what?
Actually, it seems more likely to have to raise taxes when there’s a flat tax, because the flat tax doesn’t raise enough revenue - it’s inadequate.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 12:15 pm:
===They keep saying this, but where’s the logic?===
Raising taxes on the few is always easier than raising taxes on everyone.
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 12:38 pm:
=Raising taxes on the few is always easier than raising taxes on everyone.=
But they’re appealing to the “everyone” to vote against their own self-interest.
Are they trying to scare “everyone” into voting against a progressive tax because it will be easier to raise the taxes of the few very high-earners?
So, once again - where’s the logic?
- west wing - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 12:41 pm:
If they ran the fair tax in a vacuum, it would have a solid chance. But, as you’ve written, there are so many other tax ideas littering the landscape that will make voters more tax weary.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 12:42 pm:
== The GA can raise the flat tax now if they want, but they won’t - they’ll wait until we have a graduated tax…..because……………what? ==
Math … and getting re-elected.
Raise taxes on everyone (flat tax today), and most (likely all) the people who voted for you will be mad.
Raise taxes on a few (under a graduated tax system) and the majority of voters won’t be mad at you because, from their perspective, you are paying for things with Other People’s Money.
The problem a Representative or Senator has is the wealthy 3% are mostly the people who write campaign contribution checks. But in the overall scheme, you need money to get elected, but you flat can’t get elected without voters.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 12:44 pm:
===But, as you’ve written, there are so many other tax ideas littering the landscape that will make voters more tax weary.===
Here’s where the 7 or 8 figure media buy will be an interesting experiment to how much will be too much.
This graduated income tax CA will be tough enough as it is to pass, let alone the attached noise.
Will cash be king here too?
- Pick a Name - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 1:13 pm:
When people start recognizing they have less money in their pockets, when they send in their car registrations, when they see gas prices increase, when the bag tax goes into effect and when real estate taxes increase, again, the voters will respond in November 2020
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 1:13 pm:
== Will cash be king here too? ==
Probably.
“I never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.”
Various attributions by most likely former Indiana Governor Roger Branigin (1962).
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 1:17 pm:
===…again, the voters will respond in November 2020===
… then the flat tax being raised will be revisited again.
… with the Dems having a new map in 2022.
2020 will not be a great year for the GOP in Illinois.
Pritzker ran on a graduated income tax… and won by 15 points.
Can the CA get 60%?
Dunno.
This amendment and these “taxes”, given the new map in 2022 and such… not seeing much worry by Dems, except for the CA itself so far.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 1:24 pm:
== then the flat tax being raised will be revisited again. ==
If the D’s wanted to play hardball, they would make it perfectly clear what the stakes are. Pass a increase in the flat tax to 7% or 8% in the Spring 2020 session tobut make it contingent on only going into effect if the graduated CA fails.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 1:25 pm:
===they would make it perfectly clear what the stakes are. Pass a increase in the flat tax to 7% or 8% in the Spring 2020 session tobut make it contingent on only going into effect if the graduated CA fails.===
Agreed.
This.
In the ads, on the stump, in the mail, Dems running *with* that in 2020… and Pritzker’s 7 to 8 digit media buy.
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 1:37 pm:
=The problem a Representative or Senator has is the wealthy 3% are mostly the people who write campaign contribution checks.=
OK. Got it.
But, still……..this reminds me of the sheriff scene in Blazing Saddles….. holding gun to your own head and threatening to pull the trigger.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 1:49 pm:
==Pass a increase in the flat tax to 7% or 8% in the Spring 2020 session but make it contingent on==
So….threaten? Do people typically react well or rationally to threats?
If they’re going to the trouble to pass a contingency plan in the 2020 session, why not add inflation indexing to the existing graduated plan? Or doubling all the graduated brackets to create married brackets? Or lock in the proposed rates for x years? Sweeten the deal, no?
Not sure the Legislature having time for your “contingency” is the look they’re going for.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 1:52 pm:
===So….threaten?===
No.
Elections. Have. Consequences.
===Do people typically react well or rationally to threats?===
Voters understand choices.
Heck, Rauner’s own closing argument was… vote for me, before it’s too late.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 1:53 pm:
===Not sure the Legislature having time for your “contingency” is the look they’re going for.===
Voters don’t do nuance.
That’s why choices and campaigns with “this or that” work.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 1:55 pm:
===If they’re going to the trouble to pass a contingency plan in the 2020 session, why not add inflation indexing to the existing graduated plan? Or doubling all the graduated brackets to create married brackets? Or lock in the proposed rates for x years? Sweeten the deal, no?===
Meh.
“We’re good”
They may, may not, but today it’s about, as you readily admit now;
“97% will not see their income tax rise”
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 2:50 pm:
===they would make it perfectly clear what the stakes are. Pass a increase in the flat tax to 7% or 8% in the Spring 2020 session tobut make it contingent on only going into effect if the graduated CA fails.===
To be clear, do i think it would pass? Probably not, the oppo mail on the legislative Dems make it unpalatable, but…
… the premise of what “could” be done, to make it most real, agreed, do that, then let’s see how November shakes out.
To the real, it’s not a possible play or worth the immediate risk at the ballot box with Trump on the ballot already helping Dems.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 3:37 pm:
==to create married brackets==
Sigh. Here we go again.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Sep 3, 19 @ 3:57 pm:
- prices charged in each state cannot be disguised -
Liar, I’ve been through Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio just today and they’re nearly indistinguishable.