* Paul Simon Public Policy Institute…
Two-thirds (65 percent) of respondents said they favored a constitutional change “to allow a graduated income tax—that is, tax rates would be lower for lower-income taxpayers and higher for upper-income taxpayers.” Support was robust, with 44 percent strongly favoring and 21 percent somewhat favoring the proposal. About a third (32 percent) opposed the proposal, 24 percent strongly and 8 percent somewhat opposed.
Support for the graduated income tax proposal reached majority levels in all three of the major geographic breakdowns in Illinois: 73 percent in favor in the City of Chicago, 68 percent favorable in the Chicago suburbs and 55 percent favorable downstate. Partisan differences were more stark with 83 percent of Democrats favoring the graduated tax system, compared with only half that level of support among Republicans (41 percent). Roughly six in ten (59 percent) Independents favor the graduated tax. […]
A bare majority (51 percent) favored a constitutional amendment that would allow a reduction in retirement benefits earned in the future by state workers. About a quarter (24 percent) strongly favored, and 27 percent somewhat favored a proposal that “would preserve state retirement benefits already earned by public employees, but would also allow a reduction in the benefits earned in the future, whether by current or future employees.” More than a third (37 percent) opposed the proposal.
The pension-reduction question received majority support in Chicago (55 percent) and its suburbs (51 percent), and plurality support Downstate (48 percent). The variation occurs among partisan groups: below a majority among Democrats (48 percent) and independents (47 percent), with much more enthusiasm among Republicans (61 percent favor).
1,000 voters, MoE of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, mobile phone users were 60 percent of those polled. We’ve discussed some problems with this poll before. A big one is the sample was 56 percent male and 44 percent female. Another is that Chicago is underrepresented and the poll skewed older.
* Questions…
Some people have proposed an amendment to the Illinois Constitution that would preserve state retirement benefits already earned by public employees, but would also allow a reduction in the benefits earned in the future, whether by current or future employees?
Favor 51%
Strongly favor 24%
Somewhat favor 27%
Oppose 37%
Somewhat oppose 17%
Strongly oppose 20%
Other/don’t know 12%
Would you favor or oppose a proposal to change the Illinois Constitution to allow a graduated income tax – that is, tax rates would be lower for lower-income taxpayers and higher for upper-income taxpayers?
Favor 65%
Strongly favor 44%
Somewhat favor 21%
Oppose 32%
Somewhat oppose 8%
Strongly oppose 24%
Other/don’t know 3%
Low levels of undecideds on the tax question and high numbers of “strongly favor.”
We’ll get to some of the other questions later today.
- Grimlock - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 12:48 pm:
As a state employee who will retire in 8 years I wish they would go ahead and try the constitutional change route just so they could finally see it lose in court and shut up about it.
- News Hen - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 12:54 pm:
If Illinois is going to reduce its pension benefit more than it already has with “Tier 2,” then it should just switch to paying into Social Security. At least then the state would not be able to skip its payments. And, really, Social Security benefits might be better than Tier 2.
- Frank Manzo IV - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 12:57 pm:
Despite a lot of money already spent on both sides of the issue, that’s statistically unchanged from a Paul Simon poll from last year (March 2019).
In that poll the graduated income tax was…
Favor 67%
Strongly favor 46%
Somewhat favor 21%
Oppose 31%
Somewhat oppose 9%
Strongly oppose 23%
Other/don’t know 2%
So favor lost 2 points and oppose gained 1 point, but that is well within the margin of error.
https://paulsimoninstitute.siu.edu/_common/documents/opinion-polling/budget-tax-simon-poll-march2019.pdf
- JB13 - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 12:58 pm:
No one is proposing “lower income tax rates” for anyone. Maybe someone could ask: “Would you support a proposal under which people with higher incomes would pay more, and people with lower incomes would pay the same rates they do today?”
Bet that 65% number comes down a bit.
That said, I expect it will pass and there will be much rejoicing.
- Shytown - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 1:02 pm:
The graduated income tax is long overdue and it’s easy for people to understand why it needs to be done. So it’s no surprise that an overwhelming majority are in favor. Let’s embrace it and find other policy areas to fight over.
- Southern Skeptic - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 1:03 pm:
That was a very poorly worded question on their part. You could read the question and think what it means is that we’re going to institute a tier 2 system which of course we already have. And the advocates like the Tribune editorial board are suggesting that an amendment would allow us to cut peoples colors even for existing retirees which is the opposite of what this question says. So it’s pretty worthless.
- Ducky LaMoore - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 1:12 pm:
“Let’s embrace it and find other policy areas to fight over.”
Said no partisan ever.
- Annonin' - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 1:16 pm:
Yikes SpankyBaise has a whole lot of work to do on this one.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 1:21 pm:
The wording of the pension clause is terrible and I would argue doesn’t correctly gauge the true feeling of people. It doesn’t explain what existing and future benefits mean. The crux of what the pension cut folks are trying to do is cut off the cost of living adjustments for existing employees. They claim the COA constitutes a future benefit. When in fact, the COA is part of existing benefits. Ask any Social Security retiree if their inflation adjustment is part of their existing benefit or a future benefit.
- A Jack - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 1:26 pm:
I suspect that a pension constitutional change would require majority Republicans in both houses to even appear on the ballot. And then more time while it gets fought over in the federal courts as to if it violates the contracts clause. By the time the amendment actually would get implemented, the great majority of tier one pensioners will have reached retirement age. So this bird has flown. The options are to repay, restructure, and refinance the pension debt.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 1:31 pm:
Maybe with the skewing of this poll, the numbers are actually more favorable for the graduated income tax. Also a high number of millionaires support it, which can fly in the face of the “rich will leave” right wing crowd.
It’s encouraging to see independents supporting this, and many Republicans as well, but it may be tough to get some of those votes. Many will actually get a rate cut, from the current 4.95% to a lower rate, the lowest being 4.5%.
It’s past time of us to let go of constitutional pension reform. That’s over. If some want to continue pounding their heads on that issue, who is anyone to stop them?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 1:45 pm:
I’m coming at this…
The goal of the exercise is to hit a percentage, and the three things to sell it is;
97% will see no tax increase.
If the progressive tax fails, everyone’s taxes will go up, even the 97%
There will be cuts or less funding without the extra revenue.
Looking at those arguments and where this poll has the percentage(s)… the end game is going to be to gin up turnout in a presidential year with folks voting for the amendment as seen.
It’s almost harder to sustain then to rise… that’s going to be the trick that those opposing the amendment have going for them
We’ll see.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 1:48 pm:
=== A bare majority (51 percent) favored a constitutional amendment that would allow a reduction in retirement benefits earned in the future by state workers.===
Not a strong enough number to get the GA to 71 and 36… let alone members won’t vote against what they believe for a “51%” number sitting out there.
- j my opinion - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 1:48 pm:
Seems like it would be required to do both. Reduce benefits and add graduated tax. Really a hard situation based on the actual numbers.
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 2:09 pm:
“It doesn’t explain what existing and future benefits mean.” It also doesn’t touch on the fact that you don’t earn pension benefits, they’re what you get on the first day on the job. Wasn’t there another post about willful ignorance around here somewhere?
- RNUG - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 2:23 pm:
Sigh … just because 51% want it doesn’t mean it is legal. The Illinois Courts have been consistent for over 45 years; only way to change the pensions is via an individual and voluntary contractual modification agreement.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 2:27 pm:
=== just because 51% want it doesn’t mean it is legal.===
Yep…
=== let alone members won’t vote against what they believe===
They have to believe it’s legal too, they don’t.
- Ano - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 2:50 pm:
Reducing benefits to future workers will not do great things to attract good workers. What keeps coming up is the funding issue with someone stating above that if Tier 2 workers were switched to SSI, at least there wouldn’t be a funding issue (and benefit might actually be better than Tier 2).
Finally the true problem of state pensions is being acknowledged. It’s not over the top benefits, nor is it lack of contributions by workers (who have no choice in their payroll deductions). The villain has been the state, welching on it’s obligations.
While that acknowledgement might not solve the current problem, it makes crystal clear where the problem lies and whose responsibility it is. Punishing workers for something they not only contributed 100% to with their pension deductions but ALSO with their tax dollars, like everyone else, hardly seems justifiable.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 3:02 pm:
==The villain has been the state==
Don’t recall the state freezing wages and pulling back significantly on health benefits all these decades while they were shorting the pensions.
- Evanston - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 3:38 pm:
“
- City Zen - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 3:02 pm:“
Then you weren’t paying attention. Both Quinn and Rauner froze wages. Also, the Quinn freeze was accepted by the Union never to be made up.
- Evanston - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 3:39 pm:
“City Zen - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 3:02 pm:“
Then you weren’t paying attention. Both Quinn and Rauner froze wages. Also, the Quinn freeze was accepted by the Union never to be made up.
- Jibba - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 3:46 pm:
“And, really, Social Security benefits might be better than Tier 2.”
Not nearly as good, my friend.
- Taxedoutwest - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 4:54 pm:
Only “3% will see an increase.” Laughable because this tax will hit small business hard (Subchapter S corps aka “pass throughs”), so they will pass the tax along to their customers not the mention the poor dude or dudess that loses his/her job so the business owner can continue to function with the higher operating costs. Bottom line, everyone will see a (tax) increase in their costs to live in this Illinoid.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 4:59 pm:
=== Only “3% will see an increase.” Laughable because this tax will hit small business hard===
… and yet it will *still* be… 3%
=== Bottom line, everyone will see a (tax) increase in their costs to live in this Illinoid.===
Still, in the tax rolls, 3% will see an increase.
Your argument to “save the 3%” (small business owners) will be a losing argument as 65% already seemingly agree, via this poll, that a graduated tax is good.
You’re swimming upstream with the wrong argument.
- Generic Drone - Tuesday, Mar 3, 20 @ 5:16 pm:
Or, they can just bring in replacement workers like they are doing where I work. State savings at it’s best.
- thoughts matter - Wednesday, Mar 4, 20 @ 8:37 am:
I have a concern with survey questions like the one regarding pensions. Rich has a different post that shows candidates don’t always understand our current offered pensions. I think we can all agree the general public doesn’t either. Many of them answer yes but have no knowledge of Tier 2 or its’ long term affect on the pension backlog. I read somewhere that Tier 2 employees will outnumber Tier 1 working employees in 2023. It’s not a good idea to accept survey results and do something based on them if the respondents don’t understand the subject matter.