72 Comments - Actual Red - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:08 am: If I’m understanding right, what the Civic Federation is proposing is … exactly what we have now? The whole point is to allow higher marginal rates for higher incomes. - Angry Chicagoan - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:10 am: Frankly, I see this as parsing by the Civic Federation. They’ll never truly support a progressive tax based on this evidence, the giveaway being the allusion to class war in the claim that it’s pitting “different classes” against each other. And with the pivot almost in the same sentence to claiming the tax isn’t truly progressive, they’ve attacked it from both the left and the right in the same statement. - Christopher - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:12 am: I think I understand what Msall is saying, that, basically, the real tax rate change occurs only at one dollar amount, above $250,000, and that isn’t fair. The lowest income earners should pay a significantly-lower rate, then the tax rates should rise proportionately as income increases. - 61820 - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:13 am: I think what they’re saying is that they want the ratio of top rate to bottom rate to be larger, so that low earners pay even lower rates than what has been proposed. This seems like an objection to the rates in the law, not the amendment allowing a progressive structure. But, advocating changing rates already is only going to play into the arguments made by the anti-amendment group. - Pundent - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:16 am: Voted no. But I don’t favor a change where the income of the upper class is a multiple of or somehow tied to the lowest income earners which some might also argue is “fair.” - dave ristau - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:17 am: I vote no. There are many ways to shelter those with less income from income tax. Raise the minimum income exemption. Raise the personal exemption. Create credits for the poor and those with other needs. IMO the scaled tax becomes complicated and foggy. We need the rich to invest. Investors do not like foggy or uncertainty. The things I mentioned mostly effect lower/middle earners. Try and keep things simple for the rich taxpayers. They can handle more tax but we need to keep it simple. I feel the scaled tax is just a cover for raising tax on everybody. Just raise the tax and shelter the poor and middle class through tax breaks and barriers. - ChicagoVinny - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:17 am: I’m not clear on their position - are they for scuttling the amendment that would allow for a progressive tax, because they don’t like the specific proposed tax rates? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater if “they aren’t opposed to a progressive tax structure” and maybe a little disingenuous. - Bruce( no not him) - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:22 am: so they want the status quo? - R A T - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:23 am: I said no. Super low incomers need to pay 0% - deesendem - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:23 am: i voted no. the wealthy have more ability to pay more. its a good problem to have. if their world crashes, and their income falls, they will then pay less in taxes and will be supported by those who earn more. its just fair. - Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:24 am: Basically every state that has a progressive income tax actually has lower tax rates for the poor than Illinois would, and most would have a higher tax rate for the most wealthy. There argument is terribly disjointed. - twowaystreet - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:25 am: Voted no, but also not a fan of the rate structure. To me it seems more in line with a two-tier tax structure than a graduated tax structure. I would have been a fan if they would have lowered rates at the bottom income brackets and created higher brackets for people making over 100,000 a year to gradually get up to the highest rate on millionaires. In my opinion the rates were set based on politics, so they could campaign that 97% of Illinoisans tax won’t go up. I get why, it’s a tough sell otherwise (and still is). But still I don’t think it is good policy. NJ is a good case study of when a state make tax revenue too dependent on the wealthiest in the state. You can easily blow millions in the state budget from one person moving out of state. - City Zen - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:26 am: Yes, because as I stated yesterday (not sure if I made the bracket chaining observations before or after Msall), this is a true compromise. The Fair Tax people get the rich people tax they’ve been clamoring for years now. The rich pay are basically soaked for one tax hike while the rest get off scott free. This is “fair”. The No side gets the “protection” they believe the current flat tax provides in future tax hikes. I would be in favor of this, among other changes. - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:26 am: No. The question is if the rates should be linked. Meaning if a raise happens on the highest rates also means an identical raising of all other rates at the same time. That would also mean if retirement income is ever taxed at say 1% then it would require a 1% increase on all brackets as well. Again. No - Mal - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:26 am: Voted no.. Not even sure why someone with lots of money would even consider a tax raise on lower incomes each time one is done to the highest incomes. - Soccermom - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:28 am: This is, um, disingenuous. The Fair Tax amendment does not set out the rates - it merely makes it possible to impose graduated rates. - Dan Johnson - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:29 am: It isn’t different groups of taxpayers. We are all individuals. It’s the stage of the money that ought to be taxed differently. It’s not like a high-income earner in 2020 is forever a high-income earner. Or a low-income earner is 2020 is always a low-income earner. It’s not like your race or gender. It’s whether we choose to tax the essential or basic income the same as the extra or luxury income. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:31 am: === The Fair Tax amendment does not set out the rates - it merely makes it possible to impose graduated rates.=== If that’s the premise of the argument being sided, I’m “no”. If there’s a factual way to move off this premise to the question, I’d like to hear it. - City Zen - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:31 am: ==In my opinion the rates were set based on politics, so they could campaign that 97% of Illinoisans tax won’t go up.== That’s why there are no married tax brackets below $250,000. It would only muddy their tag line. “Only anyone earning above $125,000…” is not as convincing, hence the creation of the marriage penalty. - lake county democrat - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:32 am: Like others, I’m unclear here: I might be able to support some limits on the degree of progressivity of tax increases (i.e., you can’t tax the top 3% without increasing the others by a certain fraction of that increase). But would depend on the numbers. That doesn’t sound like what they’re interested in though: sounds like they just want to keep the flat tax. - Pundent - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:32 am: =Not even sure why someone with lots of money would even consider a tax raise on lower incomes each time one is done to the highest incomes.= Because it would temper the desire to raise taxes across the board. It is essentially the reason that they want to preserve the current flat rate structure. The Civic Federation knows that raising taxes on a minority of people is much easier than raising taxes on all. - twowaystreet - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:34 am: ===This is, um, disingenuous. The Fair Tax amendment does not set out the rates - it merely makes it possible to impose graduated rates. === Um… you haven’t been reading the proponents mailers then. They are making about the rates. That’s why that GA passed rates ahead of knowing whether or not structure would pass. I don’t fault for them for that, the opposition would have had a field day if no new rates would have been passed. They are still trying to work the “blank checkbook” angle, but I’m tired of people who are for the new structure telling me it isn’t about the rates. That’s the proponents entire argument for changing the structure. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:34 am: === That’s why there are no married tax brackets below…=== Again. - City Zen -. You can pretend and phony up whatever you think, you’ve already agreed, it’s *still* only the 3% seeing a raise. That’s it. That’s the group. The 3% of those filing income tax. You keep learning this, but then pretend you misremember, lol - City Zen - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:36 am: == The Fair Tax amendment does not set out the rates== No, but the state constitution does include the “ratio of 8 to 5″ clause to determine corporate tax rates. So there is precedent to tie tax rates together in the constitution. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:38 am: === No, but=== Shoulda stopped at “No” That’s the answer. - Loop Lady - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:38 am: Wait a second, so this is why Larry Msall is head of the Civic Federation? - Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:42 am: The Civic Federation works for their donors. They’ll do whatever they can to gut pensions and prevent a tax increase on their donors because that’s what their donors demand. It’s why their positions are incoherent and contradictory. Tax increases for thee, but not me! - Benjamin - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:43 am: I’ve read Msall’s statement four times and I still don’t know what he’s getting at. The Tribune states that the Civic Federation wants it to be more progressive, but I can’t deduce that from his words. So I voted no to…uh, whatever it is he was saying. - City Zen - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:46 am: @twowaystreet nails it. - The Doc - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:47 am: That the Civic Committee is arguing for *greater* progressivity as a pretext to vote against the proposal is revealing and strains credulity, particularly in light of their endorsement to tax retirement income, which is a complete non-starter politically. The tortured reasoning here is a sight to behold. - Socially DIstant Watcher - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:51 am: The Civic Federation opposes the constitutional amendment because one statute that would implement the amendment isn’t to their liking? Why not support the amendment and also support a change to the statute? Are they so committed to taxing retirement income that they want to force the state in that direction? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:51 am: === So there is precedent to tie tax rates together in the constitution=== Yes, true. But this idea goes well beyond that. - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:53 am: Voted no. The richest have got away from paying a fair share of state income tax ever since 1969, when the tax started. It’s way, way past time that they pay more and so many others pay less. - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:56 am: I thought that ratios similar to the 8 to 5 ratio on corporate taxes should have been in the amendment. Lower incomes can be helped by increasing the standard deduction. The Fair Tax Amendment is structured so that groups of taxpayers can be split out and treated differently. This includes retirement income. Divide and conquer is not a new concept. I am still voting yes on the Fair Tax Amendment. It will change the dynamics of increasing taxes in the future. - thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:58 am: Voted yes. Simply use the same 8-to-5 ratio (or pick a different ratio) as for corporations-to-individuals by repeating the sentence and changing two words and deleting 3 others: “In any such tax imposed upon =individuals= the highest rate shall == exceed the =lowest= rate imposed on individuals by == == a ratio of 8 to 5.” That can give some comfort to the top earners that a rate increase on them will increase the rate for everyone. Meanwhile, the personal exemption and EITC can still be increased to lower the effective rate for the low income. That said, I still support the amendment as it stands. As they say, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. - Stuff Happens - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 10:59 am: I said yes, but I assumed the rate of increase wouldn’t be the same. I also assumed that there might be additional credits for lowest income earners. - RNUG - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:03 am: I voted yes … but with two qualifiers. (1) the personal exemption should be increased, indexed to inflation, and also phased out around the $125k - $150k level. (2) the highest rate should be limited to no more than 5 times the lowest rate (I’m kind of envisioning a low rate of 3% and a high rate of 15%). The GA could set the spread lower but not higher. - Perrid - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:05 am: The world isn’t fair. It’s not fair that some people make millions while others starve. No one “deserves” millions of dollars. You are not working harder than people that make minimum wage. This is a lie our society tells ourselves to sleep better at night. So no, I don’t think there should be any limits or protections put in place to “protect” the wealthiest and most powerful people in our state. - Froganon - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:11 am: Voted No. High income folks should pay more, a lot more. What they pay should not be tied to taxing low income folks. The Civic Federaqtion shills for their donors. Passing the Fair Tax will grow our economy. Higher rates for the rich will grow it faster and better. Google Minnesota/Wisconsin taxes in 2010. - City Zen - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:14 am: Didn’t a number of experts on the Fair Tax side argue states with graduated tax rates rarely, if ever, change their tax rates? Didn’t they also argue that often those tax rates decrease? So rates out there today should be the end of it. Their words, not mine. So what are we arguing here? The rates aren’t going to change. Yet 70% of those voting on this poll are anxious to raise the rates. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:16 am: === Didn’t a number of experts on the Fair Tax side argue states with graduated tax rates rarely, if ever, change their tax rates? Didn’t they also argue that often those tax rates decrease? So rates out there today should be the end of it. Their words, not mine.=== Then cite them please. Thanks. - Wonk - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:18 am: Voted yes, along the lines of RNUG’s proposal. I think there should be some metric that ties the lowest and highest rate together. A concept that the highest rate can only be up to X times more than the lowest rate preserves some sense of everyone chipping in some amount to dig us out of this hole. It’s easy to vote to raise taxes when you can say to your constituents that it only impacts other people. Everyone needs some skin in the game to make the hard choices. - Responsa - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:20 am: I’ve never understood in offering this amendment why they chose to call it Fair Tax rather than Progressive Income tax. I assumed the proponents had poll tested what to call it and decided that Fair Tax would make a better sell even though (to me at least) the name always seemed manufactured, vague and a little too cute by half. I think Msall’s comments may help some people better understand why the amendment was not marketed as a progressive income tax. And I am now wondering how it actually measures alongside the other states’ progressive income tax structures that proponents continually hawk that Illinois should join the club with. - City Zen - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:20 am: == Google Minnesota/Wisconsin taxes in 2010== Google Minnesota income inequities in 2020. Both of those states rank at the bottom nationally in regards to racial and income equality. Their “growth” came at great expense to many. - Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:24 am: (2) the highest rate should be limited to no more than 5 times the lowest rate (I’m kind of envisioning a low rate of 3% and a high rate of 15%). The GA could set the spread lower but not higher. California top rate is 13.3% Hawaii- 11% Oregon- 9.9% Minnesota- 9.85% How on earth could Illinois impose a 15% state income tax? - BulfrogVino - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:27 am: I agree with RNUG. But also see that the marriage penalty be removed. Lastly, a decoupling from Federal rules so that all offshore income would be taxed to truly make this progressive. - City Zen - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:28 am: ==Then cite them please== Amanda Kass at UIUC: https://gfrc.uic.edu/do-states-with-graduated-structures-change-tax-rates-more-frequently-than-states-with-a-flat-structure/ CTBA: https://budgetblog.ctbaonline.org/states-with-graduated-income-taxes-are-more-than-twice-as-likely-to-cut-taxes-as-to-raise-them-67a9603a96f7 - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:34 am: - City Zen - From the CTBA link; === Our key finding: Since 2003, states with graduated income taxes have cut taxes nearly two and a half times more often than they have raised them on the middle class. In any given year, a state with a graduated income tax had a roughly 13 percent likelihood of cutting taxes — versus just a five percent likelihood of increasing them on the middle class.=== Is that… bad? I’m confused to why you’re citing it. - Amalia - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:46 am: Larry, Larry, Larry…. what the what??? - SSL - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 12:37 pm: Voted no. I just don’t like to see the word impossible in a tax policy. I’ve never thought the fair tax is a true progressive tax. There should be more tiers if you want to call it progressive, with at least two more on the higher end. There are essentially two tiers in the proposed fair tax. - thisjustinagain - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 1:09 pm: No, and a big NO at that. For all the reasons above commenters wrote. The Civic Federation just won’t come out and say what the members want, which is the status quo. Doing what the CF says would simply gut the entire concept of the amendment. - walker - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 3:03 pm: No. Specific tax rates or ratios really do not belong in any Constitution. Constitutions are for rights, structures, processes, and powers. - Pro Bono - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 4:06 pm: On the question–tying high income taxes to low income taxes is what we have now with the flat tax, and it bakes in inequality and injustice. Setting a spread in the constitution like the 8 to 5 makes no sense for an individual progressive tax, offers no “protection” for either end. Just set the rates with legislation. I just voted YES for the fair tax, for education equity and a path to state fiscal stability. The Metropolitan Planning Council has a much better list of needed reforms than the Civic Federation does, and they SUPPORT the fair tax amendment. https://www.metroplanning.org/news/9943/MPC-Statement-on-the-Illinois-Fair-Tax-Amendment Gotta say, the Civic Federation looks as selfish as the Civic Committee, both groups hiding behind the flat tax provision, avoiding higher taxes they would pay in many other states, not willing to extend themselves to help their fellow Illinoisans who really cannot afford to pay more. I expected more of the CF. Their list of reforms can be achieved through legislation. No good reason for them not to support the constitutional amendment apart from desire to keep paying low taxes, no matter how the state is faring. At least stay neutral, and not tie yourself in knots trying to justify opposition. - Unconventionalwisdom - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 4:11 pm: The amount of disingenuous and outright misleading ‘information’ on this amendment is overwhelming. And from both sides. Why am I not surprised? - Unconventionalwisdom - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 4:22 pm: =I’ve never thought the fair tax is a true progressive tax. There should be more tiers if you want to call it progressive, with at least two more on the higher end. There are essentially two tiers in the proposed fair tax.= I have already voted. And the proposed amendment did not have any “Tiers’ mentioned: ‘The proposed amendment grants the State 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.’ I love the ‘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.’ Unnecessary and irrelevant language that sounds like a campaign ad. - Fair is fair - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 4:22 pm: I do not believe there is a “Fair Tax Amendment.” There is a constitutional amendment that if approved would allow the previously enacted so-called Fair Tax to go into effect. - Rich man, poor man - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 5:19 pm: The problem with the fair tax are the brackets. The ads never say if they’re talking about single or joint filers. $250K For a two income household is exactly rich. That’s upper middle class, not the wealthy class. I have a friend who is a CPA and she tells me there are lots of returns making seven figures today. (100 miles from Chicago ) Widen the brackets and you’ll get the votes. Don’t and you won’t get the votes. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 5:21 pm: ===That’s upper middle class, not the wealthy class=== It’s upper income. Period. - Pundent - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 5:25 pm: =I have a friend who is a CPA and she tells me there are lots of returns making seven figures today.= It’s 3% of filers. What your anecdote tells us is that your CPA friend doesn’t do much work for poor or middle class folks. You know, the people that can’t normally pay a CPA for advice. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 5:39 pm: ===That’s upper middle class, not the wealthy class=== Still… still measured as the top 3% You can’t dictate away from that math. - Unconventionalwisdom - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 5:56 pm: Interesting that terms such as wealthy, rich, poor, lower income, upper income, middle class, upper middle class are bandied about with too often no actual income given to define them. Kind of gets boring. When throwing out these terms at least provide a definition of what you personally define as that measure of income. I say this for everybody. Then at least that provides a good starting point for discussion. - @misterjayem - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 5:59 pm: “It really pits different classes of Illinois citizens against each other.” The idea that the current tax system doesn’t pit different classes of Illinois citizens against each other is beyond laughable. – MrJM - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 6:00 pm: === with too often no actual income given to define them.=== It’s the top 3%. Keep up please. === When throwing out these terms at least provide a definition of what you personally define as that measure of income.=== Again, it’s the top 3% I repeated it ‘cause you se to lack comprehension. It’s the measure for this Fair Tax… 3% - Shytown - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 6:21 pm: I have a lot of respect for Msall, but his org depends on the pockets of those who will be forced to pay more under the fair tax…so take what they’re saying for what it’s worth. - Adam - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 6:23 pm: No. Fight that battle AFTER we get the amendment. - Unconventionalwisdom - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 6:25 pm: =I repeated it ‘cause you se to lack comprehension.= Nasty and insulting and I guess you figure you can get by with it This previous post sums you you up: - Jesus - Tuesday, Sep 15, 20 @ 10:24 pm: Is there a more insufferable know it all than Oswego Willy? Get a hobby. The 3% definition that you are fixated on is the definition the ads for this tax. Obviously my post was addressing a broader issue of the other income levels that are bandied about. So get off your high horse and realize that some of the rest of us also have intelligent viewpoints. - SIU - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 6:35 pm: Unconventionalwisdom - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 6:25 pm: You nailed it….Amen - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 6:42 pm: === The 3% definition that you are fixated on is the definition the ads for this tax. Obviously my post was addressing a broader issue of the other income levels that are bandied about.=== Save that for the hot pockets, slurpees, and your dorm room. The adults are recognizing that the Flat Tax has 3% as the wealthy. Keep up… dorms are for debates, the CA is making the measure. Critics, meh, your argument is a “dorm room”, the CA is a change in the constitution. In 13 days, you’ll still be discussing it with your roommate. Oh - SIU -, still can’t add, but going after me, LOL. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 6:55 pm: To be even clearer? === Obviously my post was addressing a broader issue of the other income levels that are bandied about.=== Your comment was actually this; === Kind of gets boring. When throwing out these terms at least provide a definition of what you personally define as that measure of income. I say this for everybody.=== If it bores you so, why such angst? You’re bored by the discussion. Are you looking to not be bored or the discussion beginning at 3% and what that means going forward or are you too bored to begin the discussion as the Fair Tax sees it? It’s not that I’m snarky on accident, I read what is written and dismissive thoughts to a discussion aren’t helpful. - Unconventionalwisdom - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 7:07 pm: That’s it Willy. Just keep burying yourself in foolish self justification of your inane and often insulting comments. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 7:12 pm: - Unconventionalwisdom - Nah, it’s me, again, clarifying your lunacy. Like this; === So get off your high horse and realize that some of the rest of us also have intelligent viewpoints.=== Yeah. Here’s your viewpoints; === Kind of gets boring. When throwing out these terms at least provide a definition of what you personally define as that measure of income. I say this for everybody.=== Either you’re too lazy to have a view point or it’s too boring to share a view… point. I’ll let you choose, lazy or bored. :) To the post, I stand by my earlier vote. === === The Fair Tax amendment does not set out the rates - it merely makes it possible to impose graduated rates.=== If that’s the premise of the argument being sided, I’m “no”. If there’s a factual way to move off this premise to the question, I’d like to hear it.=== I bet that’s too boring for ya too. - Yooper in Diaspora - Wednesday, Oct 21, 20 @ 11:20 pm: Sounds good close to what we currently have and the Fair Tax Amendment allows for a lot of different graduated income tax possibilities. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.