58 Comments - Jibba - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:05 am: “You want to learn the first rule? You’d know if you ever spent a day in your life: you never open your mouth until you know what the shot is.” - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:12 am: Successful campaigns survive adversity and missteps that inevitably happen. Maybe it’s better that Frerichs cancels the presser to not help elevate the misstep. There’s a good Vote Yes ad on TV now, showing people saying they’d get a tax cut and such. The Vote No side doesn’t have much beside recycling lies like small businesses will be hurt, people will leave the state (most will get a tax cut), politicians will have new taxing power and the like. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:12 am: This woulda been his “Dan Rutherford” moment, trying to end discussion, but probably ending a career. Mike Frerichs is tall. Dan Rutherford’s “Friday Fiasco” not only ended Rutherford’s campaign, but ended Rutherford’s career. We’ll never see anyone foolishly throw away their career like that Mike Frerichs, “Hold my water”? But, smarter folks than Rutherford had stopped Frerichs from himself. Honest? Dunno how you could think about walking that back, Frerichs thinks it’s worth discussing. That’s his own thought. How do you clarify when it’s something you already believe? This will, and is, Mike Frerichs; “Mike Frerichs, standing tall to tax retirement income.” It’s who he is. When you’re about yourself, and you pander to IPI, and you speak your “truth” to dorm room thinking, you get what Frerichs did. Frerichs wants to be, not only relevant, Frerichs wants to seem to be the smartest in the room, and that room was one where IPI easily made a discussion about things Frerichs shoulda known were off the table of any discussion. Seniors can’t trust Frerichs now. That’s for sure. All that happened here was Frerichs looking in a mirror and remembering Rutherford… and that “Friday Fiasco”… and deciding there is no good in this today. - Arock - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:17 am: After you let the cat out of the bag you can’t deny that you did it by trying to put the cat back into the bag. I imagine that there has been a lot of discussion behind closed doors on this matter and he forgot whom he was with when he let this slip out. Only raising taxes on the rich will not solve Illinois budget problems and pension problem. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:24 am: === After you let the cat out of the bag you can’t deny that you did it by trying to put the cat back into the bag. I imagine that there has been a lot of discussion behind closed doors on this matter and he forgot whom he was with when he let this slip out.=== (Sigh) No. What happened is pretty simple when you look at it as Frerichs; Frerichs likes attention, likes to be the smartest in the room, likes to pander to achieve both. Frerichs spoke to the audience, making it about a “discussion” Here’s the quote, June 18… === “One thing a progressive tax would do is make clear you can have graduated rates when you are taxing retirement income,” he said. “And, I think that’s something that’s worth discussion.”=== It’s worth the discussion to tax retirement income… if you can show graduated rates. It’s not some tin foil plot. It’s Frerichs trying, in dorm room stylings, show he can see discussion with parameters. It’s Frerichs, no one else, no plot, no secret plans, just Frerichs - Almost the weekend - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:27 am: This is bad. I do think the press conference without any coordination, then canceling it minutes before makes it even worse. But how many non-politicos will hear about this news? I don’t know. I do think Pritzker’s campaign have not been nearly as active as I thought they’d be. Was somewhat expecting the ad bombardment they implemented in 2018.I know this year has been crazy, but I think they started late to vote yes on this amendment. If it doesn’t pass now there’s a scapegoat. We will find out in a month. - Roman - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:30 am: The “no” side is always the easier argument, no matter the issue, so I don’t want to give them too much credit. But the messaging war on the amendment has been a turkey shoot so far in favor of the opponents. Frerichs has certainly helped them, but man, did they play the media like a fiddle the last 24 hours. This lawsuit is so frivolous the IPI’s attorneys should probably be sanctioned, but headlines they got talking about retirement income were worth almost as much as a Ken Griffin media buy. - AD - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:35 am: The more people I talk to, the less I think this will pass. Nobody I talk to is strongly for it, but plenty of people (including those making less than $250k) adamantly against it. No one trusts Springfield to do right with their money. - Powdered Whig - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:37 am: If this fails it will be a huge loss for Pritzker. He needs better messaging and needs to get it out ASAP. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:42 am: === The more people I talk to…=== Anecdotal is not data. Still, even in best times, a 2 in 5 chance is pretty good, as i saw it when it passed the GA, it’s probably 1 in 3 now If it were easy to change the constitution, we’d have folks trying to change it constantly. Yep, it could be a colossal loss if it fails. They’ve had time, resource, the financial means… we’re voting right now, as i type this, Illinoisans are voting. We’ll see how it plays. Frerichs, this called off presser, the IPI inserting Frerichs, all unhelpful to the governor and the fair tax proponents. - Responsa - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:44 am: ==No one trusts Springfield to do right with their money.== This, so much this. - Lew - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:51 am: Stand down and stand by, Treasurer. Shelter in place. - Jocko - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:53 am: If the Fair Tax fails, brace yourselves for the howls of outrage when the rate goes from 4.95 to 6%…particularly from the Baby Boomers (and those they elected) that got us into this mess. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:54 am: It’s great that the messaging and ad has been put out, that we will probably get a flat tax hike without the CA. Then voters will really give more of their money to Springfield politicians. The Vote No people don’t care about this, only that the rich are not taxed more than everyone else. Some say they like the flat tax better, meaning that lower/middle income people continue to shoulder the tax burdens of the wealthy. - JoanP - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:57 am: = No one trusts Springfield to do right with their money. = I have to say that I do NOT get this as a reason to vote against the graduated income tax. Do these folks trust Springfield with their money now, with the flat tax? Flat or graduated, we’re going to get taxed, and it makes more sense to do it in a way that the burden falls more heavily on those who can best afford it. - Langhorne - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:12 am: Taxing retirement income is a great idea, IF you are in a grad school public finance class. In the real world, not so much. This is Mikey trying to be relevant to the “discussion”. Instead, he made a mess all on his own. There is no explaining it away. Just sit down and be quiet. Contemplate how your career peaked. Start planning the next phase of your career. - SSL - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:15 am: Lots of money yet to be spent on this issue. Your eyes and ears will be bleeding from the pounding they will take in the coming month. I never really saw this as a progressive tax. Not enough tiers and doesn’t raise enough revenue, and boy do we need revenue. Even worse, if it doesn’t pass, you still have a lot of collateral damage and a bunch of angry people, all for nothing. Oh well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. - Roman - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:19 am: == If the Fair Tax fails…== Also be ready for a lot of talk about “closing loopholes.” Farmers and manufacturers in particular might be in for a rough ride. - DuPage - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:19 am: 1. Do not step on the 3rd rail. 2. See number 1. - Bad Habits - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:24 am: === Anecdotal is not data === Next sentence, “. . . It’s probably 1 in 3 now” (Ugh) (Sigh) (Ugh) - Northsider - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:28 am: == Flat or graduated, we’re going to get taxed, and it makes more sense to do it in a way that the burden falls more heavily on those who can best afford it. == ^^ This. ^^ - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:30 am: - Bad Habits - Context is key; === Still, even in best times, a 2 in 5 chance is pretty good, as i saw it when it passed the GA, it’s probably 1 in 3 now If it were easy to change the constitution, we’d have folks trying to change it constantly.=== So there’s that. :) - illinifan - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:30 am: ” when the rate goes from 4.95 to 6%…particularly from the Baby Boomers (and those they elected) that got us into this mess” Baby Boomers won’t howl. Most of them now receive retirement income, so if the rate increases it won’t affect them. Lower income households who are less able to move to other states will be the ones hurt. The Ken Griffins of the world can live where ever they want and like Rauner is able to call Florida home. - AD - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:32 am: === Anecdotal is not data.=== I don’t disagree, but I haven’t seen polling on this issue, so I’m going by the data I do have which is the people I talk to. And, it’s been pretty much a no hitter on supporting the fair tax including multiple people who work W-2 jobs and make less than $100k. - Rabble - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:33 am: I am old enough to remember for example that we were told that if we get the lottery in Illinois that it would take care of school funding and I don’t think that happened. Just because they are only planning to tax higher income folks now doesn’t mean that they will stop there. More has never been enough as is seems that the more they get the more they spend on things we suddenly need that we didn’t realize we needed before. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:34 am: === so I’m going by the data I do have which is the people I talk to.=== That’s not data It’s the definition of anecdotal - RNUG - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:35 am: == No one trusts Springfield to do right with their money. == I don’t trust them but I still plan to vote for the graduated tax. - Dotnonymous - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:38 am: Frerichs was simply suffering from a low oxygen dip…due to his height. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:39 am: ===No one trusts Springfield to do right with their money=== True, but the choice here is making upper-income pay or making everyone pay. At least for now. lol - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:39 am: === Governor Pritzker put the muzzle on Treasurer Frerichs who was minutes away from telling the people of Illinois the truth: Pritzker has a plan to tax retirement income in Illinois and needs the constitutional amendment to get it done.=== Raunerites tell misleading things. If that were at all true, what is Schneider’s source? Was he in the room? Total buffoonery, why Raunerites will lose more seats in the General Assembly, and why dishonesty is a Raunerite calling card. - City Zen - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:44 am: ==brace yourselves for the howls of outrage when the rate goes from 4.95 to 6%== Then the legislature can increase the personal exemption or other tax credits. They can do that today, you know. - Bad Habits - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:44 am: Doubling down on announcing your data less guess on 1 in 3 after calling DA out on “Anecdotal is not data”? I can’t argue with that - Shytown - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:46 am: The GOP must be crying right now because they won’t get all that good content that Frerichs would’ve spoon fed them if he went through with this. He didn’t do this effort any favors when he opened his mouth over the summer and it wouldn’t have done any today either. Maybe the only smart thing he did was cancel this thing. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:53 am: === I can’t argue with that === Yeah, about that… Right now, 230,000 plus voters, they’ve cast ballots. Are you aware of the benchmark needed for passage? How about how it works in concert with turnout? Let’s talk about voters voting to even *have* a constitutional convention and that vote. It’s not me asking my in-law uncle married to my favorite aunt and speculating off if the Bears beat the Packers at home not on Sunday type of look… It’s difficult enough to pass, even getting folks to have a convention failed. So, if someone’s neighbor thinks something, no matter the criteria of what higher turnout, or a moving threshold, or past history measured… :) - AD - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:54 am: ===True, but the choice here is making upper-income pay or making everyone pay. At least for now. lol=== Don’t disagree with you for year 1, but let’s say that Covid hurts State revenues for all of 2021, what stops the legislature from coming back and putting a 7.5% tax on all income over $50k or retirement income if this passes. Nothing. Comes back to the trust issue, people tend to trust the devil they know over the one they don’t. - Juvenal - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:06 pm: === There’s a scapegoat === Really, that’s what this is about. === IF you are in a grad school public Finance class. === Is it 38 or 40 other states that tax retirement income? === brace yourself when the flat rate goes from 4.95% to 6% === Of all possible outcomes, that seems the least likely. Democrats are not going to raise the tax rate alone. The GOP is not going to raise the tax rate without pension cuts — there are only Raunerites and Trumpkins left — and that is not going to happen. Democrats will end up making deep cuts that disproportionately impact Republican districts, and put the amendment on the ballot again in 2022, or perhaps try for the millionaire’s amendment, but make it 5% surcharge instead of 3% this time. - retiree - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:26 pm: ===The facts are absolutely clear: the Fair Tax does not tax retirement income, nor does it make it any easier to do so.=== Not exactly true. I agree that imposing a flat tax on retirement income would be political suicide, but a tax that kicks in at, say, $100K of retirement income and above would become possible and would be acceptable to the vast majority of taxpayers, including most retirees. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:30 pm: === ===The facts are absolutely clear: the Fair Tax does not tax retirement income, nor does it make it any easier to do so.=== Not exactly true.=== It is true. The process of passage is not easier. It’s the same. Same process. That’s the point. Paranoid? Maybe. But just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean there isn’t an invisible boogeyman ready to tax you. - retiree - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:33 pm: ===The process of passage is not easier. It’s the same. Same process.=== There’s more to “ease of passage” than the process. There’s the political backlash. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:35 pm: ===There’s the political backlash=== Huh? The GA voted to raise taxes, Rauner vetoed, it was overridden, the Dems later gained seats, Rauner, who vetoed it, lost by the largest margin a sitting Republican has in 100 years. - retiree - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:39 pm: The political backlash of a flat tax on retirement income is why one on will touch it with a ten foot pole. Taxing only huge levels of retirement income becomes politically palatable. - retiree - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:39 pm: one on = no one - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:41 pm: ===on retirement income=== Oh. You got sponsors for that? You think that the GA is going to pass a change to tax retirement income, that it? Facebook is a bit down the dial, make a right. - retiree - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:47 pm: Such an oddly hostile response to what I consider a very reasonable expectation of how the fair tax amendment might play out. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:51 pm: === Such an oddly hostile response to what I consider a very reasonable expectation of how the fair tax amendment might play out.=== Here’s the thing; The third rail in Illinois taxing is taxing retirement income. It polls terrible, unelectable if you vote for it, terrible. The mere fact Frerichs is pushing back so hard… he will be unelectable to higher office if it’s seen he favors taxing retirement income. It’s not a possibility. The politics make it impossible. Of anything, that is the least likely outcome, no matter how the CA goes. It’s not hostile, it’s a tiring of possibles that are impossibles Be well, stay safe, wear a mask. - Thomas Paine - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:59 pm: === There’s the political backlash === Was that a turnip truck whizzing by? You honestly believe that Ken Griffin spent $47 million because he wants to keep taxes from going up on people making $50K a year? Or do you think the 51 year-old is worried about retirement taxes? The Republicans are telegraphing through their proxies that they won’t oppose a retirement tax and flat tax hike. Although we can assume some strings would be attached like pension cuts, there would be no political backlash. Why? Any such plan would have GOP votes on it, and its hard to muster backlash against a tax hike supported by both parties. I guess we could keep repeating a 12 year cycle, Pritzker limps along for two terms, then we elect another Rauner, who promises to fix everything with magic beans, instead driving us another $20 billion into debt, then eight more years of Democratic patchwork, rinse, repeat. Does not seem like a very good plan. A graduated tax is better for business that another Governor Rauner. - OneMan - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 1:10 pm: == I am old enough to remember for example that we were told that if we get the lottery in Illinois that it would take care of school funding and I don’t think that happened. == About 10 years ago I was in Springfield with a gifted Ed group and Quinn staffer came and spoke to the group about education funding, and that was the first comment/question someone in the group brought up. Again, this is anecdotal (sorry I don’t have money for polling) but lots of people don’t fundamentally trust Springfield to get anything right. Heck one of the pro-groups was running ‘Springfield is screwed up who is going to pay to fix it’ ads. You run an ad that says ‘They say you are going to pay less in taxes under this, do you trust them that will always be the case’. It’s accurate (since there is nothing in the amendment that says they can’t raise taxes on everyone if they chose to do so) and it plays to ‘you can’t trust Springfield’ thought. Which between governors doing perp walks, guys pleading guilty and ComEd isn’t a hard sell. - Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 1:18 pm: ===The Republicans are telegraphing through their proxies that they won’t oppose a retirement tax and flat tax hike. Although we can assume some strings would be attached like pension cuts, there would be no political backlash. Why? Any such plan would have GOP votes on it, and its hard to muster backlash against a tax hike supported by both parties.=== Where is this happening? Thanks. - John Deere Green - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 2:12 pm: ==what stops the legislature from coming back and putting a 7.5% tax on all income over $50k or retirement income if this passes. Nothing.== Nothing but some massive reprisals from those voters, which is why the target with the CA in the first place is the ultra-rich. But other than that, yeah, nothing… - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 2:36 pm: John Deere Green is correct. Some of y’all live in a very weird world. - Unconventionalwisdom - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 3:14 pm: I have no idea as to whether this will pass or not. However the language to be on the ballot is ridiculous and sounds more like a campaign ad for it: =The proposed amendment grants the State authority to impose higher income tax rates on higher income levels, which is how the federal government and a majority of other states do it. The amendment would remove the portion of the Revenue Article of the Illinois Constitution that is sometimes referred to as the “flat tax,” that requires all taxes on income to be at the same rate. The amendment does not itself change tax rates. It gives the State the ability to impose higher tax rates on those with higher income levels and lower tax rates on those with middle or lower income levels. You are asked to decide whether the proposed amendment should become a part of the Illinois Constitution.= https://www.ift-aft.org/post/official-fair-tax-language-on-the-ballot Absolutely nothing about any actual tax rates and a far cry from the language that would be in the Constitution: The amendment to be voted on in November, 2020, would replace Article IX, Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution with the following language:[28] Section 3. Limitations on Income Taxation (a) The General Assembly shall provide by law for the rate or rates of any tax on or measured by income imposed by the State. A tax on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate. At any one time there may be no more than one such tax imposed by the State for State purposes on individuals and one such tax so imposed on corporations. In any such tax imposed upon corporations the highest rate shall not exceed the highest rate imposed on individuals by more than a ratio of 8 to 5. (b) Laws imposing taxes on or measured by income may adopt by reference provisions of the laws and regulations of the United States, as they then exist or thereafter may be changed, for the purpose of arriving at the amount of income upon which the tax is imposed.= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Fair_Tax - Unconventionalwisdom - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 3:23 pm: - John Deere Green - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 2:12 pm: ==what stops the legislature from coming back and putting a 7.5% tax on all income over $50k or retirement income if this passes. Nothing.== You have actually made a good overall point but then you way overstated the case with a rather extreme example. The more obvious way For the GA to move is do exactly what they stated they would do about the rates and then let inflation move more and more people into the higher tax rate (as there is not inflation adjustment) Over a period time this has real impact. Negative for the taxpayer and great for government revenues. - Rabble - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 4:11 pm: =However the language to be on the ballot is ridiculous and sounds more like a campaign ad for it:= I second that emotion. - Whatever - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 4:54 pm: ==For the GA to move is do exactly what they stated they would do about the rates and then let inflation move more and more people into the higher tax rate (as there is not inflation adjustment) Over a period time this has real impact. Negative for the taxpayer and great for government revenues.== Given the inflation rate in recent decades, that may take a while. Just the thought that someone would believe our legislators (who usually cannot see past the next election) have that kind of time horizon for raising taxes is a little amusing. - Just Sayin' - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 7:16 pm: Can we not entertain any cost reduction policies? - Huh? - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 9:17 pm: What is the big deal about Illinois switching to a graduated income tax? What do you think you pay in April for US income tax? A flat tax? No. It is a graduated income tax that we pay to the US government. What is good for US taxes ought to be good for State taxes - a graduated income tax. If the advocates for keeping the flat tax are saying it is good for Illinois, why aren’t they yapping to change the US tax code to a flat tax? Seems like a bit of cognitive dissonance. - Jibba - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 9:48 pm: What is good for US taxes ought to be good for State taxes - a graduated income tax.=== I always thought this should be pounded as the message. Not fairness, but modernization. The Illinois tax is bizarre and archaic and we need to get with the Feds and the majority of the states. - truthtopower - Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 1:02 am: Let’s face it, what Frerichs said makes sense logically and policy-wise, but not politically. Why shouldn’t higher income folks pay a tax on their retirement income. With Fair tax Amendment you can do this. Could also do it now with a very high exemption. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.