* Zorn takes a look at the constitutional amendment passage requirement of 60 percent of those voting on the measure or over 50 percent of all those voting in the election…
The either/or requirement makes interpreting the results feel like one of those vexatious story problems from junior high math. If 6 million people go to the polls, and half a million of them leave the referendum question blank on their ballots, what share of the yes/no votes needs to be “yes” for the amendment to pass?
The answer is 54.5% because the “majority of all votes cast” requirement would be achieved first with 3,000,001 votes, even though it is a lot lower than the three-fifths (60%) of yes/no votes cast — the other path to passage.
And, not uncoincidentally for the purposes of this column, it is approximately the percentage of the vote that Gov. J.B. Pritzker received when he beat incumbent Gov. Bruce Rauner in the 2018 general election in a campaign marked by his strong support of switching to a graduated-rate system.
The basic idea behind this unusually convoluted requirement is that the more the public is engaged with a referendum question, the more the constitution wants to honor the principle of majority rule. But the more the public is tuned out — doesn’t care or doesn’t feel informed enough to vote either way — the more the constitution wants to raise the standard for passage so that reforms that are obscure, complicated or actually unpopular don’t slip in under the radar.
Go read the rest.
* In a related development…
* The Wall St. Journal’s editorial board is, not surprisingly, opposed to the measure…
Illinois voters will decide next month whether to enact a progressive income tax, paving the way for a new top rate of 7.99%. In addition to the direct damage higher rates would inflict on bottom lines, voters should consider the high-tax neighborhood they’d be moving to.
The Tax Foundation ranks states by tax competitiveness, and its latest analysis is bad news for Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and other progressive-tax backers. The Prairie State currently ranks 36th worst in overall tax burden because its flat individual rate of 4.95% offsets very high property and other taxes. (See the nearby table.)
But its proposed slate of new individual income tax rates, along with a corporate tax hike tied to the same ballot measure, would drop the state’s rank overall to 47th. That would move Illinois into Dante’s ninth ring of tax hell, ahead of only New Jersey, New York and California.
* And it’s little surprise that the Sun-Times editorial board is for it…
Millionaires and billionaires don’t like paying higher taxes any more than the rest of us, though they are in a much better position to do so. It’s in their bald self-interest to kill the Fair Tax proposal, meaning Illinois would remain stuck with its regressive flat tax — no matter what harm is done, down the road, to middle-class and low-wage earners.
And you can count on that: If Illinois does not approve a graduated income tax, the likelihood that ordinary working people will have to pay higher taxes will only grow.
The states’ finances are in crisis and additional revenue is necessary. Cutting expenses alone won’t do the trick. If that additional tax revenue is not paid by the very wealthiest taxpayers, as set out in the Fair Tax plan, it will be paid by everybody else — every carpenter, hair stylist, accountant and store clerk.
* Hannah Meisel…
But what the fate of Pritzker’s so-called Fair Tax will mean for Chicago’s financial future is less clear cut. The potential for extra revenues at the state level doesn’t make a significant dent in the city deficit, and isn’t a silver bullet for fully funding items Lightfoot campaigned on last year.
The mayor has been far less vocal than the governor about where she stands on the graduated income tax, endorsing it when prompted, but not leading on the issue.
“I’m a for,” Lightfoot told reporters last week when asked about her position on the tax change. “I’ve been fortunate enough in my life to make a substantial amount over time. And I think people recognize the need for everyone to pay their fair share, but I think we have to do it in an equitable way and I think that’s what the Fair Tax, as it’s known, seeks to accomplish.” […]
But State Sen. Rob Martwick (D-Chicago), who championed a progressive tax for years and sponsored the graduated tax amendment in 2019, was not shy about his belief that the city’s finances would be devastated without voter approval of the tax, as it would “stabiliz[e] the state revenues that flow through to the city.”
“As bad as the state’s budget is, the city’s is immeasurably worse,” Martwick said. “If [the graduated income tax amendment] doesn’t pass, it could be catastrophic all around, especially for the City of Chicago.”
* The Illinois Policy Institute gonna Illinois Policy Institute…
There are 2 million Illinoisans of retirement age, and currently the state does not tax their retirement income. But there is significant reason to believe the “fair tax” amendment to the Illinois Constitution would bring retirement taxes if passed.
And then there might be 10,577 fewer of those seniors in Illinois if its experience with a progressive tax matches Connecticut’s.
I love how they project down to the person. You can pretty much figure a projection is phony when you see that.
* Butler has it right…
Governor J.B. Pritzker is assuring voters that a proposed graduated income tax will not impact their retirement income. Pritzker said late last week that opponents of the “fair tax” are planning to tax retirement income. Republican opponents say Pritzker’s statement isn’t true. Republican lawmaker Tim Butler says that it is unlikely that legislation will be proposed to change rules on taxing retirement income, whether the graduated income tax passes or not.
…Adding… Rep. Butler says he doesn’t know where WJOL got that info and pointed to this story…
Rep. Tim Butler, R-Springfield, opposes the proposed tax amendment.
“From the House Republican perspective, we in no way support taxing retirement income,” Butler said. “I don’t know where the governor comes up with that statement.”
Redfield said whether this tax is passed or not, the legislature has always had the power to tax retirement income, but he said he thinks it’s unlikely that there will be a legislation change to that.
“What stops from taxing retirees today is that we have a flat tax in Illinois. If we tax one retiree, we have to tax all retirees,” Butler said. “That’s the firewall against raising taxes.”
…Adding… WJOL updated…
A previous version of this story attributed comments to lawmaker Tim Butler that were not accurate. We regret the error.
*** UPDATE 1 *** I told you last week that a judge had denied IPI’s motion for a TRO against part of the official Fair Tax explanation language. The final order was released today. Excerpt…
While Plaintiffs have a clear right to a free and equal election, they have not demonstrated a clear right to corrective action on an emergency basis, for it is not patently clear the language on the ballot or pamphlet is so rnisleading that it abridges a constitutional right in need of protection. Like it or not, the proposed amendment does give the State the ability to impose higher tax rates on those with higher income levels and lower income tax rates on those with middle or lower income levels, just as the ballot describes. Plaintiffs have not shown on the clearest of grounds that this language is so misleading and confusing to give rise to a constitutional violation. Plaintiffs merely conclude and speculate that the language is deceiving and confusing to voters without any specific evidence demonstrating confusion or obstruction to a particular individual or group of voters.
*** UPDATE 2 *** Press release…
COL (IL) Jennifer Pritzker, ARNG (Ret.) has donated $500,000 to the Coalition to Stop the Proposed Tax Hike Amendment as a measure to help protect the citizens of Illinois. Jennifer Pritzker believes the proposed graduated tax will only hurt already overburdened Illinois taxpayers and removes any political barrier to impose a tax on retirement funds.
“There is evidence that the tax hike amendment could eventually raise taxes on the middle and working classes. With so many families and small businesses struggling to recover from the ravages of the pandemic, raising taxes is not a financial solution Illinoisans can afford to enact,” said Jennifer Pritzker, President and CEO of TAWANI Enterprises, President and Founder of the TAWANI Foundation and the Pritzker Military Foundation, and Founder and Chair of the Pritzker Military Museum & Library.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 11:44 am:
It was confusing, then I saw a nice chart of vote requirements to pass this using the 50% threshold. To require 60% to pass would mean 16.67% would not vote on the question. The higher the percentage of voters who vote on it, the lower the threshold to be adopted. This amendment is saturated in ads, so hopefully it will reach an easier threshold to pass. The “no” voters could help it reach an easier threshold.
- thechampaignlife - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 11:47 am:
If this fails, the play might be to run it again in 2022 paired with something for the Repubs: leader term limits, independent maps, magic fairy dust pension “reform”, property tax reform, etc.
- Jose Abreu's Next Homer - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 11:57 am:
Wait, I thought this was a tax for the IL State Fair
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:01 pm:
=== might be to run it again in 2022 paired with something for the Repubs===
Why?
Why cave to Raunerite Policy when it first can’t get 71 and 36 and second, Rauner was humiliated in defeat running on those policies?
If it fails, it’ll fail because the Frerichs Tax, taxing retirement income (which isn’t even at play or even possible if it does pass) versus the Fair Tax… and the saturation of 97% was never realized or solidified before the Frerichs Tax drop.
With respect.
- Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:08 pm:
The “this will tax retirement income” ploy seems to work. I know some smart people who voted no because of worries about taxing their retirement income.
I don’t think I will like Plan B if this fails.
- AC - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:09 pm:
There’s nothing in the fair tax amendment to prevent the taxation of pets either. Illinois already ranks among the lowest percentage of households, with only 32.4% having a dog as a member of their household. If the fair tax passes, 4,105,670.004 households that include dogs in Illinois will move other states. Additionally, the 26.3% of households in Illinois that include cats would also leave the state. That’s an additional 3,332,688.923 people leaving Illinois. The few remaining states that have either a flat tax or no income tax would become overcrowded, filled with refugees from the Land of Lincoln. It would be devastating. Yes, this is /s
- Unconventionalwisdom - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:10 pm:
I have voted.
What was on the ballot is very vague and reads somewhat like a campaign ad for it.
And there is nothing on the ballot with the tax rates run in the ads for it.
I do not consider that a good thing.
- Unconventionalwisdom - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:15 pm:
Not that often I agree with Oswego Willy but I think he has summed it up quite well.
- Dee Lay - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:18 pm:
The IPI and GOP does understand that if you wanted to tax retirement income, you could do it without a fair tax or not….right?
I love that the Fair tax is this mythical green light to raise taxes, even though the green light exists already.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:20 pm:
==That would move Illinois into Dante’s ninth ring of tax hell, ahead of only New Jersey, New York and California.==
Do tell. Are the millionaires packing up and loving out of California and New York? Are businesses leaving those states? To be more specific, has this horrible situation driven the Wall Street Journal to move to another state?
- City Zen - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:22 pm:
==I know some smart people who voted no because of worries about taxing their retirement income.==
I imagine the sentiment among many retirees is “leave well enough alone.”
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:31 pm:
==If this fails, the play might be to run it again in 2022 ==
I don’t know if they’ll be able to wait that long after this year’s revenue hole. Might have to raise the flat tax next year whether they want to or not. But the dems can at least call that the “Republican Party tax” or the “Durkin tax“, or maybe the “Ken Griffin tax”, since they’re the ones trying to kill this amendment. “We tried to only raise taxes on the rich, but Ken Griffin spent a kajillion dollars to defeat that amendment, so now we have to raise taxes on everyone”
- Publius - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:42 pm:
I think a lot of people read this as voting for a tax increase or they are upset their propery taxes are too high. If it does get defeated the governor should call a constitutional convention. I would advocate for a total re-write of how local govenments are orgianized. Let’s get rid of all the overlapping and duplicated government units. Illinois has the most in the nation. I would get rid of everthing including counties and start again.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:45 pm:
If every ILGOP legislator voted against/opposed taxing the rich and no one said anything, did it really happen? If the DPI actually had messaging, it could and should paint the ILGOP as protecting the richest at all costs. It’s a huge political gift to Democrats if they want to use it.
- thoughts matter - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:53 pm:
=The few remaining states that have either a flat tax or no income tax would become overcrowded, filled with refugees from the Land of Lincoln.==
Oh how I wish that the powers that be had highlighted the fact that most states are not flat tax. Prowl act like they’ve never heard of this concept before.
== What was on the ballot is very vague and reads somewhat like a campaign ad for it.
And there is nothing on the ballot with the tax rates run in the ads for it.==
What’s on the ballot is the official legal wording for the change in the statute. They can’t add to it, they can’t tell you rates that appear in a different bill. However every household got a fancy blue pamphlet in the mail explaining it and offering all the even half baked arguments in favor or against it.
People are supposed to do some research before they go vote. It’s why I never vote for university trustees since I don’t know one thing about any of them.
- thoughts matter - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:54 pm:
People not prowl. I’d better do some research on how to proofread.
- 1st Ward - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 12:56 pm:
Mom is a retired teacher - center-left voted JB. To my surprise she re-posted IPI talking points that this would tax retirement income. The 32 states that have a graduated income tax all tax retirement income line seems to be working on some.
Although I believe JB, JB will not be the Gov forever. Taxation of retirement income >$100K polls well - 57% per Paul Simon across party lines. Rahm and Lori have brought up taxing retirement income >$100K last year too. It’s years away contingent on the CA passing.
- Jibba - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 1:00 pm:
==That would move Illinois into Dante’s ninth ring of tax hell, ahead of only New Jersey, New York and California.==
Honestly, where do they think we should be, given our tremendous indebtedness? I ‘d be happy to be better than even one other state.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 1:00 pm:
===Taxation of retirement income >$100K polls well - 57% per Paul Simon===
Yeah, right. That assumes the messaging is honest. lolol
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 1:02 pm:
=== Taxation of retirement income >$100K polls well - 57% per Paul Simon across party lines. Rahm and Lori have brought up taxing retirement income >$100K last year too. It’s years away contingent on the CA passing.===
Narrator: None of that is on the ballot.
=== To my surprise she re-posted IPI talking points that this would tax retirement income.===
That is the Frerichs Tax versus the Fair Tax.
It’s wholly dishonest, but when you don’t solidify a thought like 97%, other things creep in.
If we’re gonna play “dorm room anecdotal”, when you found out, did you educate her on the truth, or did you merely ponder the wonders of this and your mom?
===The 32 states that have a graduated income tax all tax retirement income line seems to be working on some.===
Find 71 and 36, or heap up another Hot Pocket, grab a slurpee, and make a list of 71 and 36.
:)
- Publius - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 1:03 pm:
I see lots of IPI facebook reposts. I think most people assume they are non-partisan. A lot of people start talking about property taxes that everyone has to pay. No matter what the argument many people feel they are overtaxed in total and other states have lower taxes.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 1:05 pm:
===Taxation of retirement income >$100K polls well - 57% per Paul Simon===
Aren’t you the same guy in the same comment that said your Mom is worried about taxing retirement income.
You gonna educate your mom about how it won’t effect her in a graduated tax on retirement income but not clarify what the Fair Tax is?
I don’t think you grasp how silly your twisted logic sounds.
- retiree - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 1:06 pm:
Allow me to toss out an outside-the-box idea. How about we abolish all of the taxes that are regressive: sales tax, fuel tax, etc., and raise the flat tax to cover them. That way, the flat tax would become a fair tax.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 1:07 pm:
=== Allow me to toss out an outside-the-box idea.===
Only if you pay for the pizza and meet the pizza guy outside the dorm…
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 1:14 pm:
===Allow me to toss out===
lol
You have two choices, up or down. Far too late for the negotiating phase.
- 1st Ward - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 1:25 pm:
Rich - Respectfully, you posted it.
https://capitolfax.com/2020/06/18/frerichs-steps-on-third-rail/
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 1:29 pm:
- 1st Ward -
Respectfully;
===So the poll assumed that…===
The assumption is to the question posed to all.
Also, can you tell what happened after you told your Mom that the Fair Tax wasn’t taxing retirement income?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 1:35 pm:
===you posted it===
So?
You’re saying there’s no chance that opponents won’t scream that this is the first step down a slippery slope to taxing grandma’s tiny pension?
Take a breath already.
- retiree - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 2:08 pm:
=== Far too late for the negotiating phase. ===
Just looking toward the future…
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 2:12 pm:
=== Just looking toward the future…===
Oh.
=== How about we abolish all of the taxes that are regressive===
“I’ve seen the future, this isn’t it”
- Magic 8 Ball, maybe.
There’s no 71 or 36, and can’t imagine a governor liking this, so…
- RNUG - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 2:18 pm:
And the GA could have made this so simple if they had included the needed flat tax hike as a contingency in the graduated rate bill.
If the graduated tax CA fails, I will blame it on political incompetence by the Democrats.
- Unconventionalwisdom - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 2:20 pm:
For those who say this amendment assures taxing retirement income (vs the present language), please explain.
I do not see it.
However, as a political tactic to vote NO it might be very effective.
- retiree - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 2:20 pm:
=== You have two choices, up or down. ===
I understand. Leaning slightly toward up, but very afraid of that slippery slope. Do I really trust those guys in Springfield?
But really, why not aggregate all taxes into one tax based on income (or better yet, net worth). Get rid of sales tax, property tax, and all the others.
The way I look at it, if I’ve accumulated a wealth that this wonderful country has enabled me to achieve, why not contribute back a percent or two of it each year as a thank you?
- Norseman - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 2:37 pm:
=== There is evidence that the tax hike amendment could eventually raise taxes on the middle and working classes. ===
There is no evidence.
We need to get thicker boots for all the stuff being shoveled by anti-tax folks here.
The amendment will not raise anything. It puts in place a graduated tax structure. Accompanying legislation passed to implement the new structure would lower taxes on some, raise on others.
To say that taxes will eventually be raised … is like saying a storm will eventually hit our town.
- Shytown - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 2:40 pm:
Jennifer Pritzker is looking out for the middle and working classes…Uh huh.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 2:46 pm:
=== “What stops from taxing retirees today is that we have a flat tax in Illinois. If we tax one retiree, we have to tax all retirees,” Butler said. “That’s the firewall against raising taxes.”===
Then I expect Butler to vote FOR the Frerichs Tax once the Fair Tax passes
Butler isn’t a very talented legislator if he doesn’t know already that taxing retirement income is the third rail, or Butler is quite the fool thinking that playing to fear while being dishonest to the issue makes him a crafty pol.
My own thought is Butler is confused about the whole issue and says whatever he’s told.
- 1st Ward - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 2:49 pm:
“There is no evidence”
The evidence is this raises $1.4Bn this fiscal year with a ~$7Bn hole. In a full year it raises $3.4Bn. Who or what is making up the difference.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 2:57 pm:
===Who or what is making up the difference.===
Well, don’t tell your mom it’s a tax on retirement income. That’s not true.
- Lurker - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 3:08 pm:
When I voted I had a hard time finding the question. It is in a weird spot with meaningless stuff you read over. I found it but two neighbors did not see it. (Oddly, one was for and one was against)
- Tax man cometh - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 3:13 pm:
Do millionaires pay the same tax ” rate” yes….do they pay more…way more. 5% of 10k =500. 5% of 100k is 5000. 5% of 1 million is 50k…so a million income pays 10 times what 100k income does and 100 times what you pay on 10k.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 3:15 pm:
=== Do millionaires pay the same tax ” rate” yes===
Shoulda stopped there, now you sound silly and ignorant to the truth of your first part, lol
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 4:03 pm:
=== For those who say this amendment assures taxing retirement income (vs the present language), please explain.
I do not see it.===
Not one person said that. The reason you don’t see it, is you’re looking for a known non-existing thing.
I have said find 71 and 36.
You’re choosing to then try to build a straw man of something no one said.
You want to justify this;
===However, as a political tactic to vote NO it might be very effective.===
Meh. Then everyone’s tax could go up, less retirement income.
You think that’s politically savvy… “ok”
- Sgt Rock, USMCR (Ret.) - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 4:12 pm:
Has anyone got an explanation of how the amendment as presented comports with Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Illinois Constitution?
In part:
“… The vote on the proposed amendment or amendments shall be on a separate ballot.”
The question is at the top of my mail-in ballot above the Presidential race, but not on a separate ballot.
Would this be grounds for a legal challenge?
https://ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con14.htm
- Go Big - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 4:45 pm:
=Then I expect Butler to vote FOR the Frerichs Tax once the Fair Tax passes=
Then you aren’t a very talented prognosticator as neither Butler nor any Republican is coming within 100 miles of a yes vote on raising the flat tax in the next GA session.
Not one . . . . .
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 4:47 pm:
===…as neither Butler nor any Republican is coming within 100 miles of a yes vote on raising the flat tax in the next GA session.===
… because being wholly dishonest is the Raunerite calling card.
Of course they aren’t going to vote for it, keep up, LOL
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 4:50 pm:
The sole mission of any Raunerite legislator is to complain, whine, blame Madigan, and then ask the press why they don’t get coverage, - Go Big -
Taking my thought… and making it an honest thought to the politics, yikes, that’s like thinking the Rauner costumes were real too, lol.
Thing is, every Raunerite going forward would spend every dollar raised by any and all taxes raised.
That is true, again, please keep up.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 7:11 pm:
I get it that Jennifer is Pritzker’s conservative cousin. Still you think she would have given her cuz a call before stating something so embarrassing: “ Jennifer Pritzker believes the proposed graduated tax will only hurt already overburdened Illinois taxpayers and removes any political barrier to impose a tax on retirement funds.”
What political barrier to tax retirement funds?
- Chicagonk - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 8:33 pm:
I’m voting yes not because taxes are going up regardless. Might as well make it fair.
- Whatever - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 8:36 pm:
==“What stops from taxing retirees today is that we have a flat tax in Illinois. If we tax one retiree, we have to tax all retirees,” Butler said. “That’s the firewall against raising taxes.”==
Not quite true. The Constitution allows reasonable exemptions, which other states courts have interpreted to allow doing things like exempting the first $20,000 of retirement income. We don’t have to tax all retirees under the current constitution.
- Kankakee Kid - Tuesday, Oct 13, 20 @ 9:26 pm:
Plan B based on the Tribune Hickman editorial.
Create an exemption equal to the Federal Poverty Rate for individual, dual income, families, etc. Then raise the flat rate to achieve the desired revenue. Solves two issues.
1. Low income earners pay no tax up to the federal poverty level. Helps people who need the help the most.
2. Generates the revenue the state needs without hurting the needy and without changing the constitution.
Seems to make sense to me but will probably never happen.
- Glasshalfmt - Thursday, Oct 15, 20 @ 7:23 am:
I’ve been trying to solidify my position on the “Fair Tax” amendment and have just a couple of questions maybe some of the more astute members of this blog can answer…
The tax is targeted at the millionaires and billionaires of the state, but it isn’t based on total wealth but annual income…..seems to slightly miss the mark? What about closing tax loopholes they currently take advantage of?
Also, just for the sake of argument, lets say a young married couple makes $60k each in 2020. And let’s assume that based on a cost of living and performance raise of 5% a year for 15 years this same couple will (about) now qualify as a “millionaire or billionaire” under these rules because their combined income exceeds $250k. Does this tax amendment increase with time? Doesn’t this mean that someday in time everyone in Illinois will be paying these accelerated tax rates?
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 15, 20 @ 7:35 am:
===15 years===
If you’re worried about… 15 years from now… you may not have the problems the rest might have to worry about.
=== Doesn’t this mean that someday in time everyone in Illinois will be paying these accelerated tax rates?===
“Someday” isn’t an argument to be for against any reasonable thought to governing or policy.
It’s a straw man.
- Glasshalfmt - Thursday, Oct 15, 20 @ 8:57 am:
Oswego, your arrogant, cynical answers provide no help here. Just don’t respond since you are so much more intelligent than anyone else regarding political policies. I, like many others, am not here to show my “worth”, rather I’m here to try to learn. If you don’t want to mentor, teach, or at least provide some useful/constructive insight….don’t comment.
After trolling the site for years, we all know you are much more astute than anyone else here.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 15, 20 @ 9:07 am:
- Glasshalfmt -
Let’s look at your comment;
The “15 year” thought, no one knows what will happen in 15 years. If you do, please share, and what’s important in removing that thinking is we can’t move policy or govern if the premise of any policy or governing decision predicates on a basis in a foundation of a 15 year end game.
The acceleration of taxes, at any level, in any window of time is what taxing faces, graduated taxes or flat tax. A contracting or growing economy, an economy in flux will put pressures on taxes, and many times highlight more the regressive taxes.
Thanks for your feedback.
Be well, stay safe, wear a mask.
:)