* As subscribers have known for almost two weeks, Vote Yes for Fairness’ own polling has this nip and tuck. Here’s Dave McKinney and Tony Arnold…
Outside the presidential election, there arguably isn’t any bigger outcome Tuesday than whether Illinoisans vote to change the state constitution to set up a new way of taxing workers’ paychecks based on how much they make.
But there’s a debate now as to when voters actually will have an idea of whether their income taxes will change.
Thanks to a potential flood of uncounted mail-in ballots and Illinois’ latest-in-the-nation deadline to count them, one of Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker’s top political strategists said it likely will be well past Election Day before it’s clear whether the ballot question is a winner or loser.
“I think the odds are pretty high,” said Quentin Fulks, Pritzker’s former deputy campaign manager and chairman of the political committee pushing for the graduated income tax, Vote Yes for Fairness. “I’m anticipating probably a week to two weeks for us to know.” […]
Fulks says his committee’s polling shows the battle for changing the taxing structure in the state remains incredibly tight. Survey results his group released from mid-October found 55% of the Illinois electorate supported the graduated tax amendment, with 40% opposed.
…Adding… The antis think fears about a long wait are overblown…
“With historic numbers of voters turning out early, we anticipate clerks across the state will count the vast majority of these early ballots on Election Day, giving us a clear direction on the outcome of the tax hike amendment,” said Lissa Druss, a spokeswoman for the Coalition To Stop The Proposed Tax Hike Amendment.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 7:13 am:
55% to 40% is tight? I guess the MOE must be huge.
- Ezdoesit - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 7:22 am:
They need 60% of those voting on the issue or 50%+1 of those casting ballots in the election. So it is close. I think it will come down to how many people vote on the question.
- Soccermom - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 8:04 am:
Here’s why it’s tight:
On Election Day, an amendment is considered adopted by the voters with the affirmative vote of either 1) a 3/5 majority of those voting on the question, or 2) a simple majority of all votes cast in
the election.
EXAMPLE 1: If 1,000,000 people vote in the election in 2020 but only 500,000 vote on the constitutional amendment, then 300,000 would have to vote in favor of the amendment for it to be adopted (3/5 majority of those voting on the question).
EXAMPLE 2: If 1,000,000 people vote in the election in 2020 and all of them vote on the amendment, then 500,001 would have to vote in favor of the amendment for it to be adopted (a simple majority of all votes cast)
The more people skip the question, the tougher it is to hit one of those numbers.
- walker - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 8:19 am:
Thank you Soccermom
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 8:36 am:
- Soccermom -
Good stuff. Thanks.
I’ve always thought of this;
If it’s going to pass, it won’t be by the 60% (then Griffin dropped $40+ million, and I doubted the 60% more) but it will be because the “Fair Tax” will win the day with an “inside straight”, the last card completing the hand.
Still, if it were easy to pass any CA, we’d see more CAs and them passing. It’s not easy. At all.
- City Zen - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 9:13 am:
I don’t recall ever seeing this much advertising for a constitutional amendment. I would be surprised if the drop-off rate was greater than 5%. If that’s true and those polling numbers hold up, it passes with 55%.
- lake county democrat - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 9:34 am:
Sad personal report:
My mom - staunchly progressive, couldn’t wait to vote against Trump, etc., voted against the fair tax. Voted her entire life for candidates who were likely (or at least more likely) to raise taxes. Never punished a pol who raised taxes.
Thought the fair tax would lead to taxing retirement income.
She’s also not a big consumer of media - if the anti-fair tax message can reach her, it can reach anyone.
- Norseman - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 10:20 am:
As Oswego Willy has noted previously, the Fair Tax proponents sat on their money. They let the opponents drive the narrative and lcd gave one example of how their false messages won the day. Sad.
- Squints - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 10:43 am:
I can’t believe JBs people messed this up. They have unlimited money and an originally popular message and managed to let it get this close.
Not a good sign for his reelection efforts.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 11:02 am:
===Not a good sign for his reelection efforts.===
It’s early, but you need a “WHO” to win, it’s still a state with a history of avoiding electing right-wing candidates, and I’m not expecting much of a primary challenge.
- Montrose - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 11:08 am:
It’s always easier to kill something than it is to pass something. The opponents have that going for them. They need to create just enough fear that changing the status quo is bad for the average voter. Between the retirement income stuff and lots of people not understanding how taxes are raised in the first place, I am really afraid this goes down in flames.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 11:12 am:
===always easier to kill something than it is to pass something===
Especially if you need more than a majority to pass that something.
- Theshow - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 11:22 am:
If it passes after 2 weeks of counting, the conspiracy theorist are going to lose their minds. I wonder if Griffin will let any of his employees take 2 weeks off to volunteer as election monitors.
- Soccermom - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 11:23 am:
A brilliant political advisor (no, not me) pointed out that the problem started with the name. Don’t call it a “tax” of any kind. Call it the “middle class tax break” amendment.
- City Zen - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 11:31 am:
The preferred tactic of the Fight Back Fund, IIRC.
- Chris Homan - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 12:19 pm:
I always worry when citizens start thinking they can tax others to get more benefits. I would rather the rich people keep the money and invest and grow their businesses rather than sending it to the state of Illinois. If someone is successful they pay more 3% of a million is more than 3% of $100,000. Sticking it to others so we can have more government freebies is a mistake
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 12:35 pm:
Thanks everyone for clarifying about the 60% 55% avenues to win.
===Sticking it to others so we can have more government freebies is a mistake.===
Or citizens doing their duty to pay for roads, schools, courts, etc. It’s all about your attitude my friend.
- Ike - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 12:36 pm:
Chris - what?
- Jocko - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 1:12 pm:
==so we can have more government freebies==
Um, clean air and water, national defense, and a robust travel network cost money and (spoiler alert) the feds have different tax brackets based on one’s ability to pay.
- Soccermom - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 1:25 pm:
Chris — also, rich people benefit more from “freebies” like air traffic control and interstate highways. So it makes sense that they pay a higher percentage.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 3:05 pm:
=== I would rather the rich people keep the money and invest and grow their businesses.===
Or they can get state police instead of paying for their own police, state roads instead of paying for their own roads, educated job applicants instead of educating their own job applicants,
And keep even more money.
- Unconventionalwisdom - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 3:05 pm:
I have stated repeatedly that all mail ballots should have been postmarked 10 days before the election in order to be counted on election day.
Same goes for absentee ballots. Should be done at least 10 days before the election. If people can’t do that, after all the publicity on this issue, the too bad.
This could very well turn out to be a mess and it is not helpful to anyone or the election preocess and its integrity.
- Unconventionalwisdom - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 3:20 pm:
Again, more resentment against the rich.
For those who constantly use that term, what is your definition? Is it anything above $250,000 that this amendment (unofficially) seems to use? If so, do you really believe a couple making anything above $250,000 a year is ‘rich.’
When the proponents originally talked about the $1,000,000 figure, I figured OK but don’t go below that. Sure enough they did.
The marriage penalty aspects, total disregard for inflation combine to help thinking, knowing citizens to have doubts.
The taxation of retirement is clever advertising by its opponents although it is totally false and misleading as it relates to the actual language of the amendment.
These issues may defeat this issue that otherwise should have passed rather easily
P.S. Unless taxing of retirement income takes place, I will not be affected by what it’s proponents are saying in their ads.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 3:26 pm:
=== For those who constantly use that term, what is your definition? Is it anything above $250,000 that this amendment (unofficially) seems to use? If so, do you really believe a couple making anything above $250,000 a year is ‘rich.’==
(Sigh)
Save this for the dorms.
On the ballot, it’s the 3%
You are either incapable of grasping that 3% is wealthy, that 97% is beyond a vast majority, or you get confused by percentages.
Same thing you tried last time, it’s 3% on the ballot.
The rest is dorm room silly.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 3:27 pm:
=== The marriage penalty aspects, total disregard for inflation combine to help thinking, knowing citizens to have doubts.===
Narrator: It’s still… 3%… of those paying taxes.
That’s the ball game. Slice, dice, parse, or chop… 3%
- PublicServant - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 3:54 pm:
=== If it passes after 2 weeks of counting, the conspiracy theorist are going to lose their minds. ===
I don’t think they can find them now.
- Unconventionalwisdom - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 4:14 pm:
@OswegoWilly
Still don’t get it do you Willy. And you never will.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 4:15 pm:
=== I have stated repeatedly that all mail ballots should have been postmarked 10 days before the election in order to be counted on election day.
Same goes for absentee ballots. Should be done at least 10 days before the election. If people can’t do that, after all the publicity on this issue, the too bad.===
Yeah. ‘Bout that:
1) That’s not the law.
2) Absentee and Mail In ballots are the same, there’s no difference. None. Yikes.
I’m sorry, democracy works differently.
- Unconventionalwisdom - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 4:17 pm:
I stated my opinion. Learn to accept other opinions and not poste snarkey comments ad nauseum all day.
I know I have made a good point when you come on and try to deflect it with your little petty jabs.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 4:17 pm:
=== Still don’t get it do you … And you never will.===
I understand dorm room silliness and not grasping what is in the ballot.
You figure out that mail in ballots and absentee ballots are the same?
Your ridiculousness only works if you can’t grasp that the top 3%… is wealthy.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 4:20 pm:
=== I know I have made a good point when you come on and try to deflect it with your little petty jabs.===
You haven’t refuted my retorts.
Further, it’s tiring the thinking of someone complaining what something actually is… to want to discuss… what trey think is should be.
It’s 3% on the ballot. Asked and answered to ya multiple times the “well, what is wealthy”
The CA is clearly saying 3%.
What part are you not grasping?
- Unconventionalwisdom - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 4:31 pm:
@oswego
Responded to you several times. Somehow cyberspace is not posting them.
- Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 5:19 pm:
In talking with friends and neighbors - JB has lost the messaging war on this. They’re against it. They supported JB when it was part of his platform when he was on the ballot. Who owned the messaging on this? Will they keep their job? Think about it - they’ve lost something that they already had… at least in my area.
- P Man - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 5:28 pm:
The current income tax is a flat 4.95%. Tax rate will only lower for under $100,000 incomes to the following rates:
4.70% under $10000 (the most you could reduce taxes is $10000 x .25% = $25)
4.90% under $100,000 (the most you could reduce taxes is $100000 x .05% = $50)
This tax increase will not even cover the current debt. And will need to be adjusted to cover the debt later.
Do you want the current people in charge of the state to be able to change it? Especially that they never tied it to other structural reforms?
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 6:07 pm:
OK. Now I get it.
Stories are better than numbers. For me, at least.
Thanks, Soccermom
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 7:18 pm:
===And will need to be adjusted to cover the debt later.===
Opinion. Not fact. Not on the ballot. False.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 7:21 pm:
=== Do you want the current people in charge of the state to be able to change it?===
Show me your 71 and 36… by NAME, cite the bill number, and the sponsors. You can’t. Good try. No #Phony
===Especially that they never tied it to other structural reforms?===
Show me your 71 and 36… by NAME, cite the bill number, and the sponsors… and what reforms are “they” stopping.
You can’t. Good try. No #Phony
- Chatham Resident - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 8:01 pm:
If the Fair Tax doesn’t pass, primarily due to fears of retirement being taxed next, I look for the Governor’s allies to seek out a primary opponent against Frerichs for Treasurer in March ‘22. Whom it could be I wonder.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 8:11 pm:
=== I look for the Governor’s allies to seek out a primary opponent against Frerichs for Treasurer in March ‘22.===
“If the Frerichs Tax sinks the Fair Tax, I’d expect a primary challenge to Frerichs, probably an AA Woman.”
- Really - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 8:35 pm:
Unconventional Wisdom
Don’t bother with Willy. If you don’t see things his way, insulting you is all he’s got.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 29, 20 @ 8:43 pm:
- Really -
*Still* can’t add to a discussion, thought you left to yell at clouds?
To the post,
The most important thing right now is the threshold of 50% for a chance to pass. That so far, polling wise, seems possible… we’ll see if it stays that way once results begin reporting
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Friday, Oct 30, 20 @ 7:57 am:
=== Again, more resentment against the rich.
For those who constantly use that term, what is your definition? Is it anything above $250,000 that this amendment (unofficially) seems to use? If so, do you really believe a couple making anything above $250,000 a year is ‘rich.’===
It’s tax, not “resentment.”
A couple making $255k (renting, no kids) a year will still save money according to SB 687. $49 according to the Fair tax calculator.
So what happens to the same married couple if Illinois raises the flat tax .5%?
With graduated tax they would pay $12,697.50, with a flat tax increase to 5.45% they would pay 13,897.50.
So your concern over the family making $255,000 and under is unwarranted.
- Chatham Resident - Friday, Oct 30, 20 @ 8:09 am:
==“If the Frerichs Tax sinks the Fair Tax, I’d expect a primary challenge to Frerichs, probably an AA Woman.”==
Who might that AA Woman candidate be?
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 30, 20 @ 8:30 am:
=== Who===
=== probably an AA Woman.===
We’ll see in a year how many folks are going to realize running against Frerichs and the Frerichs Tax is an opportunity.
- Chatham Resident - Friday, Oct 30, 20 @ 10:26 am:
==We’ll see in a year how many folks are going to realize running against Frerichs and the Frerichs Tax is an opportunity.==
Could Hynes be recruited to make a “comeback” and run for Treasurer? Or does he still have baggage from the backfire of his Harold Washington ad against Quinn in the 2010 Gov primary?