|
*** UPDATED x1 *** Welch suggests another run at a graduated income tax
Wednesday, Feb 24, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller * Greg Hinz…
I reached out to Welch’s spokesperson Sean Anderson, who said the House Speaker was “simply highlighting the unfairness” of the state’s tax system and that Welch “doesn’t think anything should be taken off the table.” Asked if Welch was prepared to move legislation this spring, Anderson said “I think he’s prepared to have a conversation with his caucus and with the governor on the best way to move forward, given the budget, given the deficit.” Considering that the Fair Tax seemed to drive Republican turnout last year and that many House Democrats were actively running away from it by the fall, I’m thinking they’re gonna need a much different approach than last time, if this is actually anything beyond some public spitballing during a webcast. Tying it to debt might help, I suppose, but people would rather pay for things they can touch and fixing past mistakes by throwing money at them is never an easy sell. And maybe applying it to annual income over a million dollars could work, too. Madigan put an advisory referendum on the ballot to do just that back in the day and it got a lot of votes. Thoughts? *** UPDATE *** I asked Jordan Abudayyeh for a response…
|
 |
|
|
- t - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:07 pm:
Yeah, this is a great idea if your objective is to totally empty the state of wealthy residents.
- NotRich - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:08 pm:
“A MUCH DIFFERENT APPROACH”.. true dat
Income over $750k or higher.. that could pass
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:10 pm:
I like it! The millionaire tax was one of Madigan’s better moments. At least Speaker Welch is being realistic about the state finances and need for more money to actually fund necessary state spending. He could’ve easily hidden behind the political pressure. The next Fair Tax if it ever happens should not forbid local governments from instituting a Fair Tax like the last one did. What ever happened to local control?
- Perrid - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:13 pm:
I’m all in for a better tax structure, so I’m probably on board for whatever they put together.
We need to pay for the lifestyle we’ve had for the last whatever number of years. Odds are we aren’t going to cut education or police much, it’s more likely but still not very likely we’re going to cut healthcare or social services more than we already have, and we simply can’t cut pensions, no matter how much people want to stiff the pensioners.
That leaves raising revenue. Republicans hate the idea of asking businesses to chip more in. That leaves updating the income tax.
The idea was raised on this blog of raising the flat tax to X% -say 7%, idk- and passing a bill that lowers that flat rate if and only if a CA passes that lets the financial burder shift off of the masses and onto the few who can oh so easily afford it.
Republicans will once again scream that that is a “threat” or coercion. I call it being honest about the cost of state government existing, for once. People like nice things. People even like not so nice things that more or less work. No one wants to give them up, but no one wants to pay for them, and Republicans take advantage of that.
- Raising Kane - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:13 pm:
Great guy but his political instincts may need some fine tuning. That tax was radioactive in the suburbs and cost the Dems seats. Cant imagine the Governor would want to deal with that in his re-election campaign. The problem wasn’t the messaging it was the fact that nobody trust state government.
- Mama - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:13 pm:
“Income over $750k or higher.. that could pass.”
Why not make it a simple one-half million dollars ($500,000.) or higher?
- Bob - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:16 pm:
Revenue needs to be raised form somewhere. Seems like a reasonable idea to try again for a graduated income tax. He should also consider applying it to six figure pensions and above.
- SWIL_Voter - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:17 pm:
== Yeah, this is a great idea if your objective is to totally empty the state of wealthy residents.==
Where are they going to go? Most states have progressive taxes.
The politics of it is obviously tricky, but there just isn’t that much mystery here. The voters don’t want taxes or cuts. They don’t want debt, but they don’t want to pay what they owe. Somebody’s taxes have to go up or everybody has to give up services. It’s a no-brainer we should ask the wealthy to pay their share. No idea how you sell reality to a population thoroughly invested in fiction
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:17 pm:
It’s not ripe.
Dems got owned, out hustled, and as Rich says, folks were running away from the thing once the messaging lost footing.
Nothing is ever dead until it’s dead, but resurrecting it now, nah, not good.
- SSL - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:19 pm:
He should let the Governor decide when the time is right. After all, he’s going to have to fund the effort again.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:22 pm:
Tying it to pension REFORM would be a winner.
- Nuke the Whales - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:23 pm:
Pass a draconian budget and make people realize they need to get rid of our obsolete tax system.
- Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:26 pm:
Either the flat tax rate goes up on everyone, or the constitution is changed and the tax levy of Illinois becomes more progressive.
Those are the choices.
Those are the only choices.
Making crazy claims associated with reality is not a substitute for policy.
You want cuts, GOP? Show us where you want to cut.
- Out of Illinois - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:27 pm:
Tying it to Pension Reform just makes it unconstitutional based on the Illinois Supreme Court and running it again less than three months after it was slaughtered in the election doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense. I have met the Speaker before and for him to think this could pass surprises me.
- Papa2008 - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:27 pm:
Only way to have a chance at passing a graduated tax in Illinois: 1. Raise overall tax rate to 8%. 2. Followed immediately by proposal to add graduated tax to ballot. 3. Agree to reduce the flat 8% rate to max of 4% for bottom 90% of tax payers if graduated tax passes. You’ll need some pretty brave legislators (good luck finding them) to take the heat for the tax hike, and to hope they survive the subsequent ballot proposal election. Never happen.
- Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:28 pm:
When I first saw that the governor’s budget proposal did not include a tax hike, I wondered if progressive tax round two was going to be in the works. It could actually work, I believe, if they structure the proposal like every other freaking state that has a graduated income tax. Make it like Iowa. Have four or five brackets and campaign on a handy dandy tax calculator set up on the campaign’s website that will show people the difference in the amount of tax they will pay. Not rocket science and doable. And don’t put Quentin in charge.
- Huh? - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:28 pm:
“Tying it to pension REFORM would be a winner.”
And what would this look like? Tier 2 was a pension reform idea.
- Lincoln Lad - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:29 pm:
Timing is everything… This should be revisited but not in the middle of trying to get the pandemic under control and vaccine in arms. Need a win before revisiting a horrible loss…
- 1st Ward - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:29 pm:
5 years is a long time so why bring it up now? No way you could only tie to pensions; teachers unions will fight for the stepped up funding that they are likely not receiving in the proposed budget. IF LGDF cuts are restored through phasing out tax loopholes municipalities have their own pension issues too and LGDF cuts happened previously too. Do you leave them out? Is JB willing to throw another $50MM behind this? If not who funds, how much? I imagine less support for going back to the well so soon after being soundly defeated in a high turnout general election and what appears likely billions coming in from Washington when State revenue did not decrease. This type of trial balloon this quickly after the issue was decided is not smart strategy. The only reason I voted in 2020 was to vote no on this question.
- La La Land - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:30 pm:
Bringing it back now would probably not help the Governor’s reelection bid. So do you really want highlight that it did not go?
- Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:30 pm:
I see the trolls are out as expected.
OW is right on the non-graduated (said with tongue firmly in cheek) money. Plus, nothing like throwing a little more gasoline in the election fire. This suggestion shows me the new leader news a little more political seasoning.
- Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:31 pm:
“ Tying it to pension REFORM would be a winner.”
It is a great idea. Tie it to the fake pension reform that will get overturned in court. It seems 100% disingenuous, but I would love to see the GQP advocate against pension reform. That would be fun.
- SouthSide Chirish - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:31 pm:
Two things as someone who heard it live: 1) the new Speaker was very broad and vague about resurrecting it “at some point” and leaving options on the table. He did not give ANY impression this was something for the 102nd GA. 2) He spoke very well about doing something to enhance trust in lawmakers and that being the critical part of getting a new look from voters. So he was looking at what might make voters trust that this money would be spent appropriately. Maybe Rich is right that its better on something tangible, but still an interesting idea that many talked about last year - if the graduated tax is tied to overall reform and pensions, then it becomes more palatable and increases trust.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:32 pm:
Oops, “needs” not “news.”
- 40,000 ft - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:32 pm:
Anything tied to property tax relief could be sell-able.
And there should be enough common sense to not indulge in scammy smoke and mirrors language; the people are on alert and smarter than the credit they’re given.
- Nieva - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:33 pm:
If they will put it all to pension debit I would support it.
- Metric Man - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:35 pm:
I think tying a new tax to paying for the pension system is about the last thing you’d want to do. People can stomach tax increases for roads and schools - not something like state workers retirements.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:35 pm:
===Anything tied to property tax relief could be sell-able.===
The problem with that theory is that people always believe they’ll get the income tax hike but never believe they’ll get the property tax relief. Democrats learned that the hard way in 1994.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:37 pm:
===pension debit I would support it===
“Springfield politicians want to raise your taxes to pay for their crushingly expensive mistakes”
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:37 pm:
- Norseman -
I felt that snark.
To the post, if you’re searching for a way if makes sense after the Flop, then you missed the point on how it lost, not just why it lost.
- DuPage Saint - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:37 pm:
Tie it to real estate property tax and show hard numbers and you might have a chance
- Earnest - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:38 pm:
Bad idea. Wait until people experience the fallout from the harsh cuts due to it not passing, or the fallout from the increase in the flat and service taxes due to it not passing, then hold it out as a positive change. If people don’t see there was a negative impact from it not passing, they’re not going to be convinced it’s necessary.
- TheUpperRoom - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:38 pm:
Dems lost on messaging. I can’t tell you how many of my working class conservative friends voted down the amendment because they thought THEIR taxes were going to be raised. Democrats need to promise a tax hike unless the amendment passes. Either we raise taxes on everyone, or only on those who can afford it. Republicans say we need to have spending cuts, but republican voters also fight those cuts. “Yes, let’s cut spending! But not that, I need that benefit…”
It’s all about messaging.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:39 pm:
Perspective to messaging?
The messaging devolved to the Frerichs Tax, taxing retirement income.
There’s no quick fix to run it now, it’s not ripe.
- 40,000 ft - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:39 pm:
To legitimately sell it, the swap would have to be codified in both the ILConst and the ILCS, and maybe even tied together in the language.
No classic funny business tho. The people’s are on to the games of all that.
- Swimdad13 - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:41 pm:
It doesn’t help that every state with a progressive tax also taxes retirement.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:43 pm:
Maybe try it as a millionaire tax, affecting the wealthiest. This time, however, Pritzker will be running for reelection, and he and the DPI would need to tie themselves to it. They were nonexistent in the Fair Tax campaign.
But if it fails again, let it go. Don’t be like the GOP, trying and failing dozens of times to weaken or repeal the ACA.
As far as pension reform, the problem is accumulated debt, and we can’t cut our way out of that. Some want pension reform just to hurt certain people.
- Simple Simon - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:43 pm:
Bad politics in the short run given the recent stinging loss. Better to do a pseudo gradation using higher standard deductions to protect lower income people, and raise revenue through broader based sales and service taxes plus a smaller tax increase. You can “dedicate” it to paying the ramp all day, but we all know budget money is fungible.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:44 pm:
=== It doesn’t help that every state with a progressive tax also taxes retirement.===
Huh?
What does that even mean in context? Illinois doesn’t tax retirement income, had the Fair Tax passed, that would’ve still been true.
- Red Ranger - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:46 pm:
This is an unforced error by the Speaker. Great talking point for the GOP. Rich @ 3:37 comment is spot on.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:48 pm:
Too soon. Way too soon. If this is a trial balloon it’s leaking gas.
- Al - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:50 pm:
I understand there are those who seek to demand businesses pay their workers a minimum of $15 a hour or about $30,000 for full time work. Is this More Fair Graduated Income Tax proposal increasing the Standard Deduction to $15,000 and each Exemption to $15,000 so someone making the Minimum can avoid paying the income tax on their first $30,000. No? Then you are not seriously interested in Fairness.
- TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:50 pm:
I don’t know why this is so difficult.
Raise taxes immediately to 7% or 8%.
This cuts out the “but this change would give the legislature the power to raise taxes anytime” nonsense argument. By showing the legislature already can do this.
Then put a referendum to set the tax rate to the lower rate for the majority of voters, and a higher rate for higher earners.
Simple numbers game at this point. Force the population to vote for their own interests, instead of allowing them to be conned into voting against their own interest.
Make the vote easy and obvious for people, and this passes easily.
Vote no? Okay, you keep the 7% tax rate.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:54 pm:
=== I don’t know why this is so difficult.
Raise taxes immediately to 7% or 8%.===
Show me 60 and 30, just for the tax increase, and you think a sitting governor *ANY* sitting governor coming into their cycle a 25% income tax increase…
That’s not a heavy lift, that’s moving Heaven, Earth… and Hades.
- Just got real.... - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:56 pm:
A business colleague called last week to inform me that they were departing Illinois this month. Their growing firm, in business for 3 decades, with more than 30 employees is departing Illinois, because of the “business unfriendly” environment. The Speaker’s threat of a graduate income tax will only accelerate these types of moves.
- The Real Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:59 pm:
If the Constitution is amended then pension reform would be “Constitutional” by definition. Let voters approve a graduated tax plus pension reform, i.e., reductions in benefits, as a package. Voters would approve me thinks
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:03 pm:
- The Real Norseman -
“I know the - Norseman -, - Norseman - is a friend of mine… he’s the - Norseman -“
=== If the Constitution is amended then pension reform would be “Constitutional” by definition. Let voters approve a graduated tax plus pension reform, i.e., reductions in benefits, as a package. Voters would approve me thinks===
Me thinks you haven’t read the ILSC ruling, or understand the contract clause in the US Constitution, and pairing it, you’d be better off convening a constitutional convention then trying to find 71 and 36 that will vote against the pension language as it is in the constitution.
- natty lite - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:03 pm:
It’s a good idea. Cobble together the various ideas on the blog:
- first, double the existing tax and market the progressive tax as the tax cut amendment
- in the constitutional amendment, also require annual pension payments to be made in full with current dollars based on actuarial recommendations (no more “statutory” payment that is far below the actuary recommendations)
- make it a true millionaire’s tax so that all those suburban moderate households making $250k don’t feel like they are being treated the same as Ken Griffin
But the wounds are too fresh and no Dem would want this next to their name in a midterm that will already be expected to be difficult for Dems.
- Norseman Minor - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:06 pm:
===“I know the - Norseman -, - Norseman - is a friend of mine… he’s the - Norseman -“
The fondness for you, OW, is tremendous.
- our sad state budget - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:12 pm:
We have now had four consecutive Governors that in their first year of office refused to take the immediate and necessary steps to fix the budget, maybe the 5th one will finally learn.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:12 pm:
===Cobble together the various ideas on the blog===
KISS
- RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:15 pm:
== Tying it to pension REFORM would be a winner. ==
Come on -Norseman-. We’ve talked plenty at meetings and you know the realities on the pensions. It may sell politically, but there are the legalities we have to contend with.
Are you advocating something that would sound like reform to the general public? Or do you have a real idea that could get past the judges?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:17 pm:
Have Barickman in the Senate (with all his id-ers) and Welch in the House put to the question to convene a constitutional convention outside the 10 year window.
Find 71 and 36, make it a bipartisan want, get it to pass… then at the convention decide how to move forward.
- Nick - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:26 pm:
2024 at the earliest seems doable.
2022 is just asking for trouble.
- Shomo - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:29 pm:
“ - Just got real…. - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 3:56 pm:”
Your business colleagues always call you “last week”. They must be using a time machine.
- Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:39 pm:
This is likely not to be a popular opinion, but Governor Pritzker may actually benefit from being on the ballot at the same time as a progressive income tax amendment. Both could benefit.
The progressive income tax amendment lacked a face, mascot, or sales person. It was not tied to a specific vision or to a specific platform and was not pitched as being part of a vision of the future of Illinois with a fairer tax structure and better schools that are funded from income taxes rather than property taxes.
Pritzker could also literally run on it and use the issue to discuss economic populism and the potential to address rural education and other short comings that no one in the state is proud to be a part of and to do right by Illinoisans and keep our promises to our communities, but especially to the vulnerable and sick. The progressive income tax could make it so that the education received at the best schools in affluent Chicago suburbs isn’t that different from the best school in Randolph County so that where you’re from and where you grow up doesn’t limit your opportunities.
I could go on, and on about how the progressive income tax amendment could be a great thing to run on — it was already popular and it feeds right into a strong “why you should vote for me narrative” and “things could have been much worse, but we made a little progress” isn’t the most compelling campaign message.
The progressive income tax amendment lacked that push, lacked that identity, and a literal hedge fund billionaire was able to tie a popular tax proposal to the least popular politician in the state who was under federal investigation.
Putting it off till 2024 is a possibility, but at the same time, there’s not going to be anyone running state wide that will pick up a progressive income tax amendment, make it their ball, and bring it home for a touchdown.
A politician that can afford a large campaign apparatus and as much media as they need should not be afraid of running a bold platform that we known we need.
Run a campaign that gives the voters of Illinois a reason not to be cynical anymore. That makes them feel like they want to take ownership in our future.
- Fav Human - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:40 pm:
Nothing wrong with his political instincts.
He agrees with me
that the main problem was that people didn’t expect the rates to stay as they were explained.
Long history of the state saying one thing and doing another.
But, IF all the money raised could be “lock boxed” to pay ONLY pension needs, AND the rates needed a super (maybe super super) majority to go higher (or income lower) it might well go.
It’s a bold yet realistic idea.
May we have more, please?
- Mad Hatter - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:43 pm:
How about starting a new lottery, and promise that the proceeds will go directly to the Pension mess.
- Anonanonsir - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:43 pm:
There’s a lot you could say about this, but I agree that it is mostly JB’s call regarding if and when and how he wants to revisit the issue.
A memorable line from the campaign was, “I don’t trust Springfield politicians to be fair to taxpayers. Do you?”
Welch’s primary job as the new Speaker is to do his part to build up some trust in state government; then the graduated tax might look more feasible.
BTW Ken Griffin “made” $1.8 billion last year. If it’s all taxable — a big if — he would make something like $54 million in year one by defeating the graduated tax, so if he spent $46 million he’s already ahead a few million.
- City Zen - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:47 pm:
Trust. If they don’t address the trust factor, it will fail again.
1) Make it $1 million - Eliminates confusing brackets
2) Guarantee a 15-20 year rate lock - Demonstrates good planning, addresses trust and predictability concerns, alleviates fear that lower incomes are next and, if so, is many years away.
3) Amend constitution to never tax retirement income - Eliminates “come after retirees next” argument. Either do it now or never do it at all.
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 4:58 pm:
“A business colleague called last week … .” As an immigrant to Illinois, find it interesting that such a decision was made during the worst prolonged cold weather / snow combination in 3 decades … .
IF we really want to keep people from leaving, we’ll put up a humidity screen in Cairo and a cold wind / weather screen in Galena. /s
- Norseman - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 5:08 pm:
RNUG, read the fine print. These comments are from trolls using my nickname for nefarious purposes. You know me and you know we’re in agreement on pensions.
- Broker - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 5:10 pm:
Out migration. If you don’t think it’s a problem, then we should tax the Chicago Board of Trade and Merc Exchange. Lots of money there.
Why aren’t we doing it? Because those businesses can move very easily. That ability to move was made even clearer by Covid.
Either out migration is an issue, or we should tax the exchanges for the benefit of the state and city.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 5:13 pm:
===You know me and you know we’re in agreement on pensions.===
Your position has been clear for a long time.
We know YOU
- Bruce - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 5:25 pm:
Be sure to raise taxes to pave way for MAGA primaries. Write the platform for them. The Dems don’t know how much they will miss MJM as this foolishness should not see light of day until JB is re elected. Timing friends…timing.
- 1st Ward - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 6:06 pm:
“Why aren’t we doing it?”
Pritzker doesn’t support it that’s why. His Deputy Gov has been in talks to get the NYSE if NY institutes a transaction tax.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 6:32 pm:
As others have stated, too soon for running the progressive tax again. Although I do think @City Zen is on to something. The message has to be better and it has to be simple. Offer a lockbox so to speak for retirement income.
=Tying it to pension reform=
Again for the trolls and newbies- pension reform happened a decade ago. It has reduced the annual cost of the pensions by $500 million a year. And that continues to increase. Almost 1/3 of active contributors are Tier 2.
Yet the legacy debt has grown. How could that be? Because the debt payments are not adequate. If you eliminated the pensions system all together you still have the $144 billion that would have to be paid.
The legacy debt is the issue.
- Perplexed - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 6:59 pm:
== If you eliminated the pensions system all together you still have the $144 billion that would have to be paid. The legacy debt is the issue. ==
There’s your answer. Pair a tax hike dedicated solely to legacy debt, and to Tier 1 and 2 state contribs until those folks retire, with elimination of pensions for all new employees.
The ISC said that until she dies, an employee is entitled to the pension benies in force on her first day of employment. The ISC did not say future employees can’t instead have a defined contribution system (a 401(k)-style plan for public employees). If this change applies uniformly to every new employee, it shouldn’t conflict with the pension clause.
Yes, beyond legacy debt, you’d have the cost of pension contribs for Tiers 1 and 2 plus, for new employees, Social Security and contribs to the defined contrib plan. The tax hike can cover all of that. Contributions to the pension funds would inexorably decline. Plus the future costs would be known — and not whipsawed by investment returns or pension holidays.
You’re saying to voters: Yes we made a terrible mess and taxpayers are liable for that. But we’re killing pensions going forward. So this problem will get smaller and eventually vanish. And you don’t have to trust us: Federal law would prohibit lawmakers from underfunding defined contributions.
Congrats, JS Mill.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 7:12 pm:
=== The ISC did not say future employees can’t instead have a defined contribution system (a 401(k)-style plan for public employees). If this change applies uniformly to every new employee, it shouldn’t conflict with the pension clause.===
Isn’t this a revisit of a Rauner want?
How’d that go?
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 7:45 pm:
= But we’re killing pensions going forward.=
And increasing annual costs…
I am sure everyone will just love that.
Given the ILGA’s history of not making good on their promises to public employees, who would believe they will make matching contributions to a 401k.
Of course salaries are going to have to rise to match private sector levels, I am sure everyone will love that. If not, don’t count on anything like services or schools.
Congrats, perplexed.
- anon2 - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 7:47 pm:
== Force the population to vote for their own interests ==
Nine out of ten taxpayers would’ve gotten small tax cuts from the JB amendment, but they still voted no.
==If the Constitution is amended then pension reform would be “Constitutional” by definition. ==
Do you think you could make the existing debt disappear by adopting an amendment saying the State didn’t have to pay it? Or taking away pensions from retirees who already have them? If not, then what amendment would solve the pension debt?
- Responsa - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 8:10 pm:
Changing and improving the messaging by calling it something less cute than “The Fair Tax” would be a good first step for any future run at a graduated tax.
- Advocate - Wednesday, Feb 24, 21 @ 8:16 pm:
You don’t get the progressive vote if you tie all the funding to pensions. The left doesn’t just want this to soak rich people it wants to soak rich people to pay for important government services. That does not mean pensions.
- Dr. Love - Thursday, Feb 25, 21 @ 9:09 am:
Raising taxes to pay for runaway current and future pension obligations? That would lose even worse than the income tax increase of 2020.
- Dr. Love - Thursday, Feb 25, 21 @ 9:10 am:
Raising taxes to pay for runaway current and future pension obligations? That would lose even worse than the income tax increase of 2020.
- illinifan - Thursday, Feb 25, 21 @ 9:25 am:
Arizona is mentioned as wealth tax to increase education funding. That said a number of years ago they significantly restructured their pension system including payout. Now state employees in AZ contribute 12.2% of their salaries to fund their pension (employer does a 12.2 match). They also changed payout and offer multiple styles of payout. If the tax is proposed for pensions, it needs to include a proposal for significant pension reform/restructuring which would also includes negotiating the employee contribution. You may not be able to change the past but you can adjust pensions for the future. AZ has achieved a $1 billion rainy day fund (naturally business growth is helping).
- Commisar Gritty - Thursday, Feb 25, 21 @ 9:27 am:
Real idea:
Tally up how much Pritzker is willing to spend on messaging another fair tax. Then ask Ken Griffen and all those crazy libtarian mega-donors how much they would spend to kill it. Then take both pots of money and use them to pay off pension debt.
Problem solved and I can watch Youtube in peace sans fair tax ads.
- Central Ill concerns - Thursday, Feb 25, 21 @ 9:43 am:
As always talk of pension reform only deals with teachers and state workers. Has anyone looked at the legislative retirement plan and how way underfunded that is. Maybe those benefits should be cut.