Today, Vote Yes For Fairness released its first television ad on why Illinoisans need to pass the Fair Tax in this election. The ad, “Lived In,” highlights how our current tax system is unfair, forcing Illinoisans, including our essential workers, to pay the same tax rate as millionaires. The Fair Tax would set things right, while keeping taxes the same or less for at least 97% of Illinoisans and only asking those making more than $250,000 a year to pay more.
“Illinois has one of the most unfair tax systems in the country, forcing our working families to pay the same tax rate as millionaires and billionaires,” said Quentin Fulks, Chairman of Vote Yes For Fairness. “Illinoisans don’t have to accept the status quo any longer, and can bring fairness to our tax system in this election by voting yes on the Fair Tax. With only 75 days until Election Day, we’re committed to ensuring Illinoisans know the truth about the Fair Tax and how it will help our families, our communities, and our state.”
Vote Yes For Fairness is funded by Gov. JB Pritzker.
I mean, they’re both pretty good, I guess. But my script would say “because of the way our tax system works, the very rich in Illinois pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class. A graduated income tax, which you can vote yes for on Nov 3rd, is the way to make sure that they pay their fair share — and you don’t pay more than yours.”
The AARP ad is better, because it’s punchier, plays up the class warfare angle which has more emotional resonance as opposed to the geography angle, and at least makes an effort to explain how the FairTax would make the viewer’s life better (i.e., current tax is hurting families/FairTax will generate revenue and protect your retirement income).
- Fighter of Foo - Thursday, Aug 20, 20 @ 9:28 am:
C - middle class knows they are coming for us next. New York has chased high wealth folks. This is a big country when you have the money to leave anyplace.
=== The payback plan appears to be asking on bended knee for the feds to cover the loan.===
Prolly with a bunch of other states. You forgetting the pandemic crisis and the economic downturn brought on by not addressing the pandemic?
You think Illinois is alone? Hmm.
=== Conversely, the underlying premise that the IL budget has been mismanaged for years is pretty universal.===
For a whole GA, there was no state budget.
Guessing you think that helped, or…
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Aug 20, 20 @ 9:30 am:
Really like the first one, simple and direct, and comparing us to states with a graduated income tax is good to highlight the flat tax unfairness. I give it an A.
The AARP one is angrier and maybe more suitable for downstate. Was just thinking about something like this, where an ad would say stop giving more of your tax dollars to “corrupt” Madigan and Springfield, vote for a tax cut. Great to see AARP supporting the graduated income tax. B-
Liked the top one. Simple message, it’s about the 97%
The AARP is a bit nuanced, but it doesn’t damage the bottom line message.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Aug 20, 20 @ 9:31 am:
I like the first one. The first ad explains why it is caused Fair tax. The AARP one kinda implies rich people causes Illinois’ problems. While I agree rich people got low taxes for decades in Illinois, it seems a little unfair.
I would give them a solid B. At some point they’ll need to counter the pushback that a tax increase is unnecessary. Once it’s clearly understood that an increase is inevitable, it’s an easier sell for voters to have the burden fall on someone else.
== At some point they’ll need to counter the pushback that a tax increase is unnecessary. ==
This, although they’ll need to go further: “Because of COVID, our state faces an unprecedented crisis.
It’s time to make the rich pay their fair share, or we won’t be able to meet our state’s basic needs.”
Unless there is a generous Fed bailout to address the impact of Covid on state financials, the tax picture in Illinois will be dismal. Nothing anyone can do about that right now.
We don’t know how much the fair tax will deliver in reality. The $3B may be a really good projection, but if the Feds don’t deliver, it won’t be nearly enough, and everything will have to be on the table. A broader income tax rate increase and taxing retirement income included.
The ads are fine. Not sure there are a lot of undecideds on this issue.
- Grandson of Man - Thursday, Aug 20, 20 @ 9:55 am:
“anybody checked the tax rates in Iowa and Wis. for middle-income earners?”
Yes, tax rates for middle income people are significantly higher in Wisconsin and Iowa compared with the Fair Tax.
- Frumpy White Guy - Thursday, Aug 20, 20 @ 10:02 am:
The Republican groups will counter with Ads that mention ComEd corruption. Perhaps JB should run a commercial that lists the big salary of ComEd Executives and that with the passage of the fair tax will be required to pay more.
The message of “protecting your retirement income” by the AARP is an effective one. Knowing that they’re behind this send a message to an important voting block who currently doesn’t pay state income tax.
“Billionaires didn’t mismanage the state budget, either.”
This is true in the narrow sense that Bruce Rauner’s net worth is only about $400 million. Also, the rich deform our budget, as they do most of the rest of our society, because our government is primarily organized to serve their needs and desires rather than the 99% (or 97% in the FairTax context).
I think the Pritzker ad is better. It does a better job of making the case for changing the system independent of the need for more money. The AARP ad’s “new tax money has got to come from somewhere” assumes that folks agree with that statement.
If you think the graduated tax does not trickle down to the middle class soon after it is passed you have you head in the sand. If you think retirement income does not get taxed soon after this passes then you have your head up your a**. As soon as every public employee union votes on a new wage standard where every member makes the same wage then you can talk about fairness and equality.
Arock- now do what happens to the tax rate when the fair tax does not pass. If it goes up for everyone either way, then why the vitriol? Because you’re protecting the rich and trying to scare the less well off.
If you think this vote failing in November won’t result in taxes going up on everyone, Arock, you have your head located where you’re projecting others have theirs.
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Aug 20, 20 @ 10:35 am:
- If you think the graduated tax does not trickle down to the middle class soon after it is passed you have you head in the sand. If you think retirement income does not get taxed soon after this passes then you have your head up your a**. -
How many income tax increases have we seen under the flat tax in the last 30 years, with all the budget shortfalls and debt we’ve had?
And you think shifting more of that burden to the wealthy makes it easier to also shift it to the middle class and retirees?
I’d love to see your math on that one whenever you pull your head out of wherever you’ve placed it.
I don’t like the tagline of “Vote Yes for Fairness”. The ask should be explicit. That may be the campaign’s name, but, with all that’s going on in the world these days, I’m not sure voters will know ‘where’ or ‘how’ to ‘vote yes for fairness’. Otherwise, it’s fine. AARP ad is better, but both should mention amending the constitution.
Do they cover the “marriage penalty”? If so I missed it. I kid.
Arock, can you do us all a favor and cover all of the boogeyman arguments today so we can be done with that? Then we can move on to the infinite possibility of “if” arguments.
Pritzker, with a few exceptions, has been pretty good for his word thus far. The Fair tax is a big one so I hope he stays the course.
The ads are solid B+ material. Agree with Joan P in that sticking with $250000 is clearer than 3%.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Aug 20, 20 @ 10:43 am:
== =If you think retirement income does not get taxed soon after this passes then you have your head up your a**. ===
Count me as one of those people then. The revenue this would generate would be minuscule and the animosity would be great. There is no reason for the GA and Senate to go there.
Neither ad moves the needle for me. Still a no vote. Surprising how Democrats are so terrible with math. People that make more money still pay more in taxes and more for the same terrible services than people that make less. That’s a fact and calling it unfair doesn’t make it less true.
That’s *probably* an indicator it’ll be a last run ad before the election.
- Cook County Thinker - Thursday, Aug 20, 20 @ 11:16 am:
Government services cost money there’s no getting around it. If taxpayers want primary and secondary schools public pensions and Medicaid and they do :taxes have to go up. It’s just not the upper 3% that’ll have to pay more mostly everyone will. The notion that the upper 3% is supposed to bear an outsized burden for the entire state budget is rather problematic from a budgeting standpoint.
=== So it’ll be the last ad run in an election cycle in which there is a heavy push for everyone to vote as early as possible? Won’t much of your target audience have voted by then?===
Probably why for the last couple weeks I’ve wondered aloud what they’ve been waiting for, sitting on $50+ million, over the summer… and nothing.
Why, I even stated it again, today, on the post yesterday;
=== Right now, it’s got a 3 in 7 chance in passing. They wasted a whole summer sitting on $50+ million when reminding unemployed voters worried about rent or a mortgage might be people they’d like to try to make a pitch to in ads.===
The problem with the Iowa and Wisconsin comparison is they don’t have the historical budget issues at every level of government, high property taxes, and continued corruption.
The threat of vote to raise on the top 3% or we will raise on a 100% is effective to swing people on the fence or slightly against.
I am curious how local budget issues in Chicago effect how people vote. In October if Lori says we are raising your property taxes and laying off workers does that change how people vote on this issue and to which side.
- Trapped in the ‘burbs - Thursday, Aug 20, 20 @ 11:50 am:
I would be paying more if this passes. I will vote in favor of raising my taxes. We need more revenue. I should pay more than somebody that is living check to check. My kids went to good schools. Other people helped pay for that. I have a responsibility to pay my fair share. We are all in this together.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Aug 20, 20 @ 12:04 pm:
===The notion that the rich flee states willy-nilly to avoid taxes is largely a myth:===
Too early to tell in the “new normal” where everyone from loan processors and CEOs are given new opportunities to WFH. Within the next 5 years, we will see if the uber-trends are toward areas with lower taxation, city amenities, “living off the grid”, whatever, for those jobs that are tele-transportable. Disclaimer - I am a Fair Tax supporter.
-The problem with the Iowa and Wisconsin comparison is they don’t have the historical budget issues at every level of government, high property taxes, and continued corruption.-
The reason they haven’t had the budget issues is because they collect enough tax revenue with their graduated income tax systems. High property taxes are a direct result of our flat income tax. Corruption happens in all states, voters can vote them out of office and throw the guilty in jail.
To the ads, both are a B. People want the services a higher level of taxes provides. Hopefully, enough of them will make the connection and vote yes. You get what you pay for, unless your talking health care in the USA. In Merica, we pay twice as much to get the worst outcomes thanks to the same folks who oppose the FAir TAx.
The original estimated incremental annual income tax revenue driven by the Fair Tax proposal was approximately $3.7 billion. The vast majority of that was coming from roughly 20,000 tax filers with income greater than $1 million/year.
It would be helpful to know how many of the 20,000 millionaires still have income levels that qualify for the excessive tax rates under the Fair Tax proposal given the economic events we have seen this year.
Assuming the number of millionaires has dropped and the projected deficit for next year is substantially greater than the estimate, just how high do the new Fair Tax rates have to be to cover the deficit?
“The reason they haven’t had the budget issues is because they collect enough tax revenue with their graduated income tax systems”
So Indiana and Michigan do not collect enough tax revenue with their flat tax system? They also have high property taxes? How many Governors and politicians have gone to jail over the past couple decades there?