Republican candidate for Treasurer Tom Demmer today launched a new digital ad taking Democrat Mike Frerichs to task for supporting a tax in retirement income in the run-up to the 2020 election. Frerichs was supporting Gov. JB Pritzker’s radical graduated tax amendment that would have increased taxes on Illinois families and then Frerichs took it a step further by saying it could ultimately be used to tax retirement income.
Demmer’s new ad, titled “Taxing”, outlines Frerichs past tax increase history along with his most recent support of considering taxing retirement income.
“Our State Treasurer is supposed to protect your retirement—not tax it. As Treasurer, I’ll be on your side,” said Demmer.
In addition to the new digital ad, Demmer also launched a new online petition where voters can demonstrate their opposition to the Frerichs plan of taxing retirement income. The online petition can be viewed here.
Mike Frerichs stands tall to discussing taxing retirement income.
Either he wasn’t telling the truth before, or not telling the truth now.
The ad, in of itself, it’s a “solid A-“, it’s exactly who Mike Frerichs is.
Since it’s a digital ad, and views are going to be arbitrary, it’s only going to reap the windfall by being on television, or run radio ads with that script.
I would’ve added “Mike Frerichs is dangerous to Illinois seniors” but that’s just me.
As an ad, constituted, it’s an “A-“, gotta get that $7-10 million to drill that simple message in.
I am rating this ad an F+. They’re getting the + due to the quality and concise nature of the ad. They’re getting the F because besides this being a potentially dishonest claim the Treasurers office has no power or authority to change what income the state includes in income tax or to set tax rates. It’s a dishonest claim on top of a claim that has absolutely nothing to do with the office. Either Tom here doesn’t actually understand the role of the constitutional office he is running to fill or Tom wants to mislead voters into worrying about the State Treasurer doing something they can’t do. I am personally not a fan of any message that leaves a person wondering whether the candidate is stupid or dishonest and that’s what this ad does. Not only does it leave me wondering if Tom is stupid or dishonest, it opens the door for your opponent to frame the message you just spent money spreading as being stupid or dishonest and that can be done very easily, such as just by expressing confusing as to whether or not Tom knows that if he wants to set tax policy he needs to be in the legislature.
The main reason why that’s an F is because if you’re going to run ads like this where the claim might be dishonest or it looks like you don’t know what the duties of the job you’re running for are you should not be starring in that ad.
If Tom has a shred of public ethics or a shred of interest in public service he should have hesitated to approve or even star in this ad. I hope for his stake he’s just dim because that has fewer implications than intentionally misleading voters about your opponent and about the office because there is nothing you can say about yourself that is worth voting for.
Frerichs may have voiced support for taxing retirement income (he did) but any sentient being that can read and comprehend can review the Illinois constitution and learn that the Treasurer does not have the legal authority to raise taxes. That is the responsibility of the legislative branch (at last check Demmer is a member) and governor. I would think other here would understand that as well.
Because of where I worked I put money into an account pre-tax which was then matched by my employer. So I don’t really think it’s unfair that my current income is being taxed.
It’s far-far bigger than a misspeak, I mean, Frerichs was an instrumental prong in the defeat of the Fair Tax, merely by talking about things “his office” has no ability to be part of any discussion.
Yet, Frerichs spoke.
I’m still stunned his Crew first thought it was good for him to attend, let alone couldn’t warn the guy, “hey, they may be smiling, but they ain’t friendly, watch your words”
If what Frerichs said is when Frerichs is watching his words, that’s yikes… and probably why that impromptu presser was canceled as quickly as it was called… Frerichs likely woulda “Rutherford” himself… good on whomever told Frerichs to cancel, because it’s bad, but not career ending.
Which is why it’s far-far bigger.
Ok, if it’s, and I’m being gracious, “misleading”… why didn’t Frerichs have that Rutherford-style presser? Because in reality, Frerichs did say it, and now denying it, and in the context of this ad, if Frerichs wants to deny it, Frerichs now opens up the actual fact of what he said… and admitting that while fighting the ad… that’s the goal of *this* exercise… getting Frerichs to defend himself with the actual words that could be damaging or worse.
Demmer needs to hammer and shake this for all it’s worth.
Frerichs can’t deny the ad and also deny his actual words.
That would be a poor rating. Of course Frerichs cannot wave a magic wand and impose a retirement income tax - but he expressed support for the notion. The Treasurer’s office frequently introduces legislative initiatives - is it really a stretch to think if the political climate was right that he would indeed introduce or support such a measure? If he hadn’t been lambasted in 2020 I’m certain that would be the case.
I find it interesting people on this blog saying it is dishonest for a candidate to use the very words that candidate’s opponent said. Where were you for years when the Democrats were attacking Illinois General Assembly Republicans for wanting to end Social Security? Thats a bigger “pants on fire” lie.
===it looks like you don’t know what the duties of the job you’re running for are you should not be starring in that ad.===
Frerichs commented on the Fair Tax and basically unsolicitedly made comment to taxing retirement income, or at least discuss such a thing… is that not, in the politics, an important note for someone who is considering candidates, it’s what Frerichs favors, this discussion? And to clear up ambiguity, first Frerichs would need to admit why the ad is false, admitting his own words, which it appears Frerichs avoids.
To this too;
===Not only does it leave me wondering if Tom is stupid or dishonest, it opens the door for your opponent to frame the message you just spent money spreading as being stupid or dishonest and that can be done very easily, such as just by expressing confusing as to whether or not Tom knows that if he wants to set tax policy he needs to be in the legislature.===
How can Frerichs pivot to dishonesty when it would mean that Frerichs must be honest to what he said? Isn’t the ad a big ole trick bag to that, “it’s all false, because what I said was…” and that’s prolly why that impromptu presser was canceled. How exactly is this needle thread to your ask without Frerichs sinking himself?
===use the very words that candidate’s opponent said===
Frerichs added one argument for the progressive tax is the consideration of taxing retirement income of those who can afford it. He said he knows people who receive 6-figure yearly pensions and do not pay income taxes, but the current system doesn’t differentiate between them and retirees who barely get by on their savings or pensions.
“One thing a progressive tax would do is make clear you can have graduated rates when you are taxing retirement income,” he said. “And, I think that’s something that’s worth discussion.”
===Demmer needs to hammer and shake this for all it’s worth.===
There are better ways to do this and if his entire campaign is going to rely on fear mongering over taxing retirement he is going to have a bad time. We have reached a point in our society where the majority of the potential and even the likely electorate doesn’t have pensions and their 401k is non-existent. In my opinion I think this issue has limited appeal and effectiveness and I would be interested in seeing a poll where voters ranked the preference over this issue with components of party ID.
Where does Tom stand on the Kinzinger test?
How does Tom feel about stripping the rights of women and people who are LGBTQ?
There will be bigger issues on the ballot than taxing retirement income.
===Because of where I worked I put money into an account pre-tax which was then matched by my employer. So I don’t really think it’s unfair that my current income is being taxed.===
Where I worked, we were encouraged to put money into the tax deferred accounts. There was even a big poster on the wall sent by the State of Illinois. It said in big letters, …”The State of Illinois will NEVER tax this money”… (put into these accounts). A lot of us put as much money as we could year after year into 403s and IRAs, expecting the State to keep it’s word.
These accounts were NOT matched, (100% employee funded). I think it would be unfair to tax retirement, and I don’t trust Frerichs or Demmer.
===There will be bigger issues on the ballot than taxing retirement income.===
Winning issues, real or otherwise, are how campaigns roll.
The issue was instrumental in the defeat of the Fair Tax, citing ads specific to Frerichs own words.
===In my opinion I think this issue has limited appeal and effectiveness and I would be interested in seeing a poll where voters ranked the preference over this issue with components of party ID.===
If the Fair Tax Flop is any indication to the polling…
The simplicity of taxing retirement income, even a “discussion” to such a thing, seniors aren’t likely wanting any discussion to it, if I am to believe the results of the Fair Tax vote, abd the use of the ads.
===Where does Tom stand on the Kinzinger test?===
Probably more of a “primary” question, and after the primary, hammering and shaking Frerichs’ own words would be the order of the day, and a shorter window between dates might even help Demmer here, ironically
Show me where Frerichs said he COULD tax retirement income or where in the constitution he has the power.Also, since you made the point, can you share the number for the Bill he introduced (which he cannot do by the way, he can provide a legislator with a recommendation but then a legislator must introduce the bill)? Exactly. He did not.
=Thats a bigger “pants on fire” lie.+
Feel better? I am not a member of either party and have no problem calling anyone out. Unlike you apparently.
Please reread or re watch the ad. It was not limited to Frerichs “own words”. And I clearly laid out an honest and fair way to use Frerichs words (at no charge to Demmer I might add) but maybe you didn’t catch that.
I would not have as much of a problem candidly discussing the fact that there are millionaires in this state who pay little or no income tax due to receiving all or most of their income through a federally taxed retirement source, which includes guaranteed payments to partners and that any tax policy that gives millionaires a free pass is worth changing.
I don’t think that in 2022 a state wide elected official should really be afraid of pointing out that lower and middle class households are paying more in taxes than millionaires receiving “retirement income” from sources that the overwhelming majority of Americans will never experience and probably never even hear about.
The existing policy Illinois has does little or nothing to help seniors who are below the poverty line since federal tax policy already excludes their income from the AGI. If the intent is to help struggling retirees then then law needs to be changed. Right now most of the “help” is going to households earning above the State’s median household income causing this to function like a transfer between lower income households to some of the wealthiest households in the state.
I think there is room for a politician or elected official to thoroughly embarrass someone like Tom Demmer or anyone who supports or defends a tax policy that allows millionaires to avoid taxes on their income while others in the state will have to work until the day they die or until they are physically unable to in order to make ends meet.
It’s not about pivoting. It’s about pouncing and Tom Demmer probably doesn’t have talking points for why he thinks millionaires shouldn’t have to pay taxes at the expense of everyone else.
The Illinois GOP does not support, introduce, or discuss policy that would actually help a majority of their voters and constituents and Democrats should dunk on them every time a doofus gives them the ball.
=== The existing policy Illinois has does little or nothing to help seniors who are below the poverty line since federal tax policy already excludes their income from the AGI. If the intent is to help struggling retirees then then law needs to be changed. Right now most of the “help” is going to households earning above the State’s median household income causing this to function like a transfer between lower income households to some of the wealthiest households in the state.===
Doesn’t that open up a discussion to the threshold… and the question of what Frerichs actually said and now won’t even acknowledge?
Maybe that idea is more of a question to Frerichs as to why he won’t merely embrace his own words and run as you suggest, especially after Demmer coming out with this ad.
=== I think there is room for a politician or elected official to thoroughly embarrass someone like Tom Demmer or anyone who supports or defends a tax policy that allows millionaires to avoid taxes on their income while others in the state will have to work until the day they die or until they are physically unable to in order to make ends meet.===
The discussion Demmer wants is “taxing retirement income”
Any candidate now entertaining any level of taxing retirement income, even in a discussion, that’s not embarrassing Demmer, that’s Frerichs likely “Rutherford-ing” himself.
The climate for the “discussion” is not a winner, if it were, Frerichs would have already embraced his own words?
- PublicServant - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:11 am:
I give the Ad a B. The messenger is flawed, and gets an F. He voted against overriding Rauner’s veto of the Budget. That would have had a much greater impact on all of Illinois, than advocating for a discussion of taxing grandma and grandpa. Don’t get me wrong, that was bad enough, but actions speak louder than words, Mr Demmer.
===Maybe that idea is more of a question to Frerichs as to why he won’t merely embrace his own words and run as you suggest===
That’s kind of like asking why Tom Demmer believes he needs to fear monger over retirement income taxes to win. The biggest obstacle for this issue is how the media chooses to cover it which often avoids discussing any of the reasons why it is a ridiculously regressive and expensive tax policy that favors the richest people in the state. That helps the Tom Demmer’s of the world spread their misinformation while failing to inform the electorate on the issue. Tom Demmer wants to take peoples rights away and here we are complaining that Michael Frerichs once acknowledge the idea of discussing an existing policy.
=The trick bag begins with the truth… Frerichs… discussion to retirement income… and Frerichs avoids the discussion to that thought.=
For me there two different issues at play with the add and Rich’s question. What Frerichs said, and what the ad states. Without a doubt the ad falsely portrayed Frerichs and just plain lied.
From the standpoint of your argument, you are absolutely right. Frerichs walked right into this attack. He made statements, essentially grabbed a hold of one of the most sensitive third rails in Illinois politics with both hands, about taxing retirement income that will follow him so long as he is an elected.
Nobody (including me) cares that he has changed his tune. It was political malpractice and it paved the way for Demmer. And, Demmer could have simply launched an honest ad, but that is not who he is. I have been in the room with Demmer and listened to him speak. He told me all I need to know about his integrity.
We really should tax some level of retirement income, but that is easy for me to say since I don’t have to get the votes.
While I understand where Frerichs was coming from, he should probably announce he has rethought the issue and no longer supports taxing retirement income, period. It would be a smart political move even though he might take a hit for changing his position.
While I don’t like State Officials, running down the State, the blunt fact is one of the few reasons retirees have for staying in Illinois is the lack of tax on ALL retirement income. Very few States exempt all retirement income; most just exempt Social Security and / or a portion of income.
Let’s face it, retirees aren’t staying here for the weather. It’s either the (mostly) reasonable housing (although property taxes are high), wanting to be near family, or the income tax exemption. If you start taxing retirement income, even over a certain threshold, those people have the financial resources to move out of State, and you will actually have a net loss because you are no longer capturing their property and sales tax.
== Show me where Frerichs said he COULD tax retirement income or where in the constitution he has the power.Also, since you made the point, can you share the number for the Bill he introduced (which he cannot do by the way, he can provide a legislator with a recommendation but then a legislator must introduce the bill) ==
Yeah I’m familiar with the Illinois bill introduction process. You ever hear of a Treasurer’s office initiative? Just like any outside initiative those things are not written by the legislator and often a legislator simply parrots the talking points of the agency their trying to help.
But, we’ve strayed far from the point. I think what Demmer said was fair game - Frerichs office indeed has a legislative agenda just like any Constitutional office - voters have a right to hear his words used as political bait.
=== That’s kind of like asking why Tom Demmer believes he needs to fear monger over retirement income taxes to win.===
It’s a proven winning strategy. That’s the end game. Frerichs own refusal to acknowledge what he said reinforces why it’s a winning strategy.
=== The biggest obstacle for this issue is how the media chooses to cover it which often avoids discussing any of the reasons why it is a ridiculously regressive and expensive tax policy that favors the richest people in the state.===
I hate to even say it, but “asked and answered” and further, it’s not up to the media to shield or empower political prongs that may be used, if Frerichs wants that, get that earned media by owning up to his own words or raise the dough and make that argument himself… abd then the ole trick bag woulda worked because, if Griffin chips in $7-10 million, Frerichs will face the scrutiny he (Frerichs) knows makes this run a possible losing run.
===Tom Demmer wants to take peoples rights away and here we are complaining that Michael Frerichs once acknowledge the idea of discussing an existing policy.===
I’ll look forward, no snark, to Frerichs running like that, and Demmer running as he is… the outcome could be like the Faur Tax.
- JS Mill -
It’s all good, and I hear ya, and - Candy Dogood -, too, I really do, it’s the politics screaming back at me that has me where I sit, I appreciate your follow up, yes, we do agree.
Because Frerichs did discuss taxing retirement income openly, it is fair game to suggest he did so (even it there is nuance beimg missed). And because taxing retirmentment income is a topic that will gain votes across the political spectrum, I think it is wise to push this argument.
However, the ad is not an A, because of the line, “[the] State Treasurer is supposed to protect your retirement.” Actually, that is not true (unless we are perhaps only talking with state employees, vested in the state retirement system). As such, this is akin to a lot of other candidates making promises that are not in the job description.
But overall, I think it is a fair political ad, and a smart one. Grade = B
On balance I give it a C. While it is fairly accurate in reflecting Frerichs’ comments, the issue has no bearing on the responsibilities of the office holder. I would be more interested in hearing Demmer’s ideas of what he would actually do as Treasurer or what Frerichs isn’t doing. An ill advised comment by Frerichs is neither disqualifying nor does it create a compelling reason to vote for Tom Demmer.
== The biggest obstacle for this issue is how the media chooses to cover it which often avoids discussing any of the reasons why it is a ridiculously regressive and expensive tax policy that favors the richest people in the state. ==
I would say the ‘biggest challenge’, which was born out during the graduated income tax ‘race’ was that people fundamentally don’t believe politicians when they say ‘This tax change will not impact you’. If you have to say “I wasn’t talking about taxing you” you have lost the conversation.
For what it’s worth my rating of the ad as an F is because the candidate himself is the one doing the fear mongering and misrepresentation which is not necessary. Whether or not he’ll be scrutinized for it isn’t up to me either.
Given how Frerichs helped JBP bungle the Fair Tax, I really thought he would be the one to take the blame. I expected him to get a credible Dem challenger.
It is pretty insane how the most impactful political failure in decades happened and no one was responsible.
=he should probably announce he has rethought the issue and no longer supports taxing retirement income, period.
While I recognize the political upside to this, I personally think it would be a mistake. Frerichs believes the topic is worth have a conversation on. And we should. There are any numbers of ways that we can bring fairness to our tax system that should be part of an intelligent conversation. The alternative is that we continue to rely on regressive tax systems that place an undo burden on middle and lower income individuals for the benefit of the wealthy (working and retired). Continuing to discuss these issues is both honest and the right thing to do morally.
- Louis G Atsaves - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 1:00 pm:
Our current Treasurer crossed that radioactive line, then ran for the hills when the blowback began. He may have believed a conversation should have taken place back when he made his statements, but he has had plenty of time to organize a few conversations since that pratfall. He hasn’t. He won’t. No one else has picked up that fumbled ball of his. With a businessman now giving away free gasoline on two separate days, creating pandemonium at gas stations and tying up traffic in those areas, a conversation on taxing retirement pensions has slipped strongly into never never land.
It is a fair ad and fairly portrays the Treasurer’s words and actions. All the whataboutisms and parsing notwithstanding, I give it an A.
- Persist - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:21 am:
Frerichs can deny it, but Demmer and everyone else have the receipts.
- Dan Johnson - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:22 am:
I hope a rebuke from Jim Edgar is forthcoming. It’s important to be honest.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:26 am:
Mike Frerichs stands tall to discussing taxing retirement income.
Either he wasn’t telling the truth before, or not telling the truth now.
The ad, in of itself, it’s a “solid A-“, it’s exactly who Mike Frerichs is.
Since it’s a digital ad, and views are going to be arbitrary, it’s only going to reap the windfall by being on television, or run radio ads with that script.
I would’ve added “Mike Frerichs is dangerous to Illinois seniors” but that’s just me.
As an ad, constituted, it’s an “A-“, gotta get that $7-10 million to drill that simple message in.
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:29 am:
I am rating this ad an F+. They’re getting the + due to the quality and concise nature of the ad. They’re getting the F because besides this being a potentially dishonest claim the Treasurers office has no power or authority to change what income the state includes in income tax or to set tax rates. It’s a dishonest claim on top of a claim that has absolutely nothing to do with the office. Either Tom here doesn’t actually understand the role of the constitutional office he is running to fill or Tom wants to mislead voters into worrying about the State Treasurer doing something they can’t do. I am personally not a fan of any message that leaves a person wondering whether the candidate is stupid or dishonest and that’s what this ad does. Not only does it leave me wondering if Tom is stupid or dishonest, it opens the door for your opponent to frame the message you just spent money spreading as being stupid or dishonest and that can be done very easily, such as just by expressing confusing as to whether or not Tom knows that if he wants to set tax policy he needs to be in the legislature.
The main reason why that’s an F is because if you’re going to run ads like this where the claim might be dishonest or it looks like you don’t know what the duties of the job you’re running for are you should not be starring in that ad.
If Tom has a shred of public ethics or a shred of interest in public service he should have hesitated to approve or even star in this ad. I hope for his stake he’s just dim because that has fewer implications than intentionally misleading voters about your opponent and about the office because there is nothing you can say about yourself that is worth voting for.
- Old Timer - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:32 am:
I give it an A. Too bad Mikey doesn’t like it.
- OneMan - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:38 am:
Direct and understandable — A
- TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:47 am:
But wait, didn’t republicans tell us that voting against the progressive tax would stop the legislature from targeting specific groups to tax?
There is of course a solution here;
Tax retirement income over 200k.
Oops. Too bad we didn’t pass that progressive tax structure. Guess we’ll have to tax your retirement now too.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:51 am:
Solid F.
Frerichs may have voiced support for taxing retirement income (he did) but any sentient being that can read and comprehend can review the Illinois constitution and learn that the Treasurer does not have the legal authority to raise taxes. That is the responsibility of the legislative branch (at last check Demmer is a member) and governor. I would think other here would understand that as well.
I rate this ad “pants on fire”.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:52 am:
Because of where I worked I put money into an account pre-tax which was then matched by my employer. So I don’t really think it’s unfair that my current income is being taxed.
- Rabid - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:53 am:
Flat tax hero wants to save seniors like millionaires A+
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:57 am:
I would like to thank Frerichs for giving me one Repub to vote for so I can continue to say I split my ticket.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:57 am:
I think that’s a pretty good attack ad. I’m a little surprised Demmer hasn’t put out a gauzy intro video yet, but not every ad needs to do everything.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:04 am:
===(he did)===
… and that’s the whole point of this exercise.
It’s far-far bigger than a misspeak, I mean, Frerichs was an instrumental prong in the defeat of the Fair Tax, merely by talking about things “his office” has no ability to be part of any discussion.
Yet, Frerichs spoke.
I’m still stunned his Crew first thought it was good for him to attend, let alone couldn’t warn the guy, “hey, they may be smiling, but they ain’t friendly, watch your words”
If what Frerichs said is when Frerichs is watching his words, that’s yikes… and probably why that impromptu presser was canceled as quickly as it was called… Frerichs likely woulda “Rutherford” himself… good on whomever told Frerichs to cancel, because it’s bad, but not career ending.
Which is why it’s far-far bigger.
Ok, if it’s, and I’m being gracious, “misleading”… why didn’t Frerichs have that Rutherford-style presser? Because in reality, Frerichs did say it, and now denying it, and in the context of this ad, if Frerichs wants to deny it, Frerichs now opens up the actual fact of what he said… and admitting that while fighting the ad… that’s the goal of *this* exercise… getting Frerichs to defend himself with the actual words that could be damaging or worse.
Demmer needs to hammer and shake this for all it’s worth.
Frerichs can’t deny the ad and also deny his actual words.
- Blue Dog - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:14 am:
Frerich was correct in his thoughts.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:16 am:
===Frerich(s)was correct in his thoughts.===
Correct or not, a candidate can’t actually *run* on them in Illinois and expect to win.
If that were true, Frerichs would have embraced what he says already and hammer Demmer for not agreeing.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:18 am:
=Frerichs can’t deny the ad and also deny his actual words.=
You are correct on that point. No question. And it is red meat for an honest attack add. “Frerichs would like to see retirement income taxed”
That is true even if Frerichs tucked tail and changed his tune.
But that isn’t the deceitful and dishonest ad that Demmer ran. Demmer is lying. That fact is as true and accurate as Frerichs stupidity.
=”After years of tax hikes, Mike Frerichs is coming for your pension or 401k.
That’s right. Frerichs wants to tax your retirement!
The State Treasurer is supposed to protect your retirement, not tax it.”=
- Lakefront - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:21 am:
== I rate this ad “pants on fire” ==
That would be a poor rating. Of course Frerichs cannot wave a magic wand and impose a retirement income tax - but he expressed support for the notion. The Treasurer’s office frequently introduces legislative initiatives - is it really a stretch to think if the political climate was right that he would indeed introduce or support such a measure? If he hadn’t been lambasted in 2020 I’m certain that would be the case.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:22 am:
===but he expressed support for the notion===
He expressed support for the conversation.
- Nagidam - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:25 am:
I find it interesting people on this blog saying it is dishonest for a candidate to use the very words that candidate’s opponent said. Where were you for years when the Democrats were attacking Illinois General Assembly Republicans for wanting to end Social Security? Thats a bigger “pants on fire” lie.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:26 am:
- Candy Dogood -
Good stuff, appreciate your take.
Couple questions, if I may;
===it looks like you don’t know what the duties of the job you’re running for are you should not be starring in that ad.===
Frerichs commented on the Fair Tax and basically unsolicitedly made comment to taxing retirement income, or at least discuss such a thing… is that not, in the politics, an important note for someone who is considering candidates, it’s what Frerichs favors, this discussion? And to clear up ambiguity, first Frerichs would need to admit why the ad is false, admitting his own words, which it appears Frerichs avoids.
To this too;
===Not only does it leave me wondering if Tom is stupid or dishonest, it opens the door for your opponent to frame the message you just spent money spreading as being stupid or dishonest and that can be done very easily, such as just by expressing confusing as to whether or not Tom knows that if he wants to set tax policy he needs to be in the legislature.===
How can Frerichs pivot to dishonesty when it would mean that Frerichs must be honest to what he said? Isn’t the ad a big ole trick bag to that, “it’s all false, because what I said was…” and that’s prolly why that impromptu presser was canceled. How exactly is this needle thread to your ask without Frerichs sinking himself?
I’m interested to your thoughts.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:33 am:
===use the very words that candidate’s opponent said===
Frerichs added one argument for the progressive tax is the consideration of taxing retirement income of those who can afford it. He said he knows people who receive 6-figure yearly pensions and do not pay income taxes, but the current system doesn’t differentiate between them and retirees who barely get by on their savings or pensions.
“One thing a progressive tax would do is make clear you can have graduated rates when you are taxing retirement income,” he said. “And, I think that’s something that’s worth discussion.”
https://capitolfax.com/2020/06/18/frerichs-steps-on-third-rail/
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:34 am:
===Demmer needs to hammer and shake this for all it’s worth.===
There are better ways to do this and if his entire campaign is going to rely on fear mongering over taxing retirement he is going to have a bad time. We have reached a point in our society where the majority of the potential and even the likely electorate doesn’t have pensions and their 401k is non-existent. In my opinion I think this issue has limited appeal and effectiveness and I would be interested in seeing a poll where voters ranked the preference over this issue with components of party ID.
Where does Tom stand on the Kinzinger test?
How does Tom feel about stripping the rights of women and people who are LGBTQ?
There will be bigger issues on the ballot than taxing retirement income.
- DuPage - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:40 am:
@- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 8:52 am:
===Because of where I worked I put money into an account pre-tax which was then matched by my employer. So I don’t really think it’s unfair that my current income is being taxed.===
Where I worked, we were encouraged to put money into the tax deferred accounts. There was even a big poster on the wall sent by the State of Illinois. It said in big letters, …”The State of Illinois will NEVER tax this money”… (put into these accounts). A lot of us put as much money as we could year after year into 403s and IRAs, expecting the State to keep it’s word.
These accounts were NOT matched, (100% employee funded). I think it would be unfair to tax retirement, and I don’t trust Frerichs or Demmer.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:41 am:
===There will be bigger issues on the ballot than taxing retirement income.===
Winning issues, real or otherwise, are how campaigns roll.
The issue was instrumental in the defeat of the Fair Tax, citing ads specific to Frerichs own words.
===In my opinion I think this issue has limited appeal and effectiveness and I would be interested in seeing a poll where voters ranked the preference over this issue with components of party ID.===
If the Fair Tax Flop is any indication to the polling…
The simplicity of taxing retirement income, even a “discussion” to such a thing, seniors aren’t likely wanting any discussion to it, if I am to believe the results of the Fair Tax vote, abd the use of the ads.
===Where does Tom stand on the Kinzinger test?===
Probably more of a “primary” question, and after the primary, hammering and shaking Frerichs’ own words would be the order of the day, and a shorter window between dates might even help Demmer here, ironically
- JS Mill - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:46 am:
=== I rate this ad “pants on fire” ==
That would be a poor rating.=
Show me where Frerichs said he COULD tax retirement income or where in the constitution he has the power.Also, since you made the point, can you share the number for the Bill he introduced (which he cannot do by the way, he can provide a legislator with a recommendation but then a legislator must introduce the bill)? Exactly. He did not.
=Thats a bigger “pants on fire” lie.+
Feel better? I am not a member of either party and have no problem calling anyone out. Unlike you apparently.
Please reread or re watch the ad. It was not limited to Frerichs “own words”. And I clearly laid out an honest and fair way to use Frerichs words (at no charge to Demmer I might add) but maybe you didn’t catch that.
The ad remains a prevarication
- Matty - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:53 am:
I will support any candidate that suggests taxing retirement income. I don’t care what their party affiliation is, it’s a principal I believe in.
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:58 am:
===I’m interested to your thoughts. ===
I would not have as much of a problem candidly discussing the fact that there are millionaires in this state who pay little or no income tax due to receiving all or most of their income through a federally taxed retirement source, which includes guaranteed payments to partners and that any tax policy that gives millionaires a free pass is worth changing.
I don’t think that in 2022 a state wide elected official should really be afraid of pointing out that lower and middle class households are paying more in taxes than millionaires receiving “retirement income” from sources that the overwhelming majority of Americans will never experience and probably never even hear about.
The existing policy Illinois has does little or nothing to help seniors who are below the poverty line since federal tax policy already excludes their income from the AGI. If the intent is to help struggling retirees then then law needs to be changed. Right now most of the “help” is going to households earning above the State’s median household income causing this to function like a transfer between lower income households to some of the wealthiest households in the state.
I think there is room for a politician or elected official to thoroughly embarrass someone like Tom Demmer or anyone who supports or defends a tax policy that allows millionaires to avoid taxes on their income while others in the state will have to work until the day they die or until they are physically unable to in order to make ends meet.
It’s not about pivoting. It’s about pouncing and Tom Demmer probably doesn’t have talking points for why he thinks millionaires shouldn’t have to pay taxes at the expense of everyone else.
The Illinois GOP does not support, introduce, or discuss policy that would actually help a majority of their voters and constituents and Democrats should dunk on them every time a doofus gives them the ball.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 9:59 am:
===Show me where Frerichs said he COULD tax retirement income or where in the constitution he has the power===
The discussion was brought on *by* Frerichs, feeling a discussion to retirement income was something.
The trick bag begins with the truth… Frerichs… discussion to retirement income… and Frerichs avoids the discussion to that thought.
With respect.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:01 am:
===I will support any candidate that suggests taxing retirement income===
Great. You and about eleven others.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:03 am:
=== The existing policy Illinois has does little or nothing to help seniors who are below the poverty line since federal tax policy already excludes their income from the AGI. If the intent is to help struggling retirees then then law needs to be changed. Right now most of the “help” is going to households earning above the State’s median household income causing this to function like a transfer between lower income households to some of the wealthiest households in the state.===
Doesn’t that open up a discussion to the threshold… and the question of what Frerichs actually said and now won’t even acknowledge?
Maybe that idea is more of a question to Frerichs as to why he won’t merely embrace his own words and run as you suggest, especially after Demmer coming out with this ad.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:06 am:
=== I think there is room for a politician or elected official to thoroughly embarrass someone like Tom Demmer or anyone who supports or defends a tax policy that allows millionaires to avoid taxes on their income while others in the state will have to work until the day they die or until they are physically unable to in order to make ends meet.===
The discussion Demmer wants is “taxing retirement income”
Any candidate now entertaining any level of taxing retirement income, even in a discussion, that’s not embarrassing Demmer, that’s Frerichs likely “Rutherford-ing” himself.
The climate for the “discussion” is not a winner, if it were, Frerichs would have already embraced his own words?
- PublicServant - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:11 am:
I give the Ad a B. The messenger is flawed, and gets an F. He voted against overriding Rauner’s veto of the Budget. That would have had a much greater impact on all of Illinois, than advocating for a discussion of taxing grandma and grandpa. Don’t get me wrong, that was bad enough, but actions speak louder than words, Mr Demmer.
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:17 am:
===Maybe that idea is more of a question to Frerichs as to why he won’t merely embrace his own words and run as you suggest===
That’s kind of like asking why Tom Demmer believes he needs to fear monger over retirement income taxes to win. The biggest obstacle for this issue is how the media chooses to cover it which often avoids discussing any of the reasons why it is a ridiculously regressive and expensive tax policy that favors the richest people in the state. That helps the Tom Demmer’s of the world spread their misinformation while failing to inform the electorate on the issue. Tom Demmer wants to take peoples rights away and here we are complaining that Michael Frerichs once acknowledge the idea of discussing an existing policy.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:18 am:
=The trick bag begins with the truth… Frerichs… discussion to retirement income… and Frerichs avoids the discussion to that thought.=
For me there two different issues at play with the add and Rich’s question. What Frerichs said, and what the ad states. Without a doubt the ad falsely portrayed Frerichs and just plain lied.
From the standpoint of your argument, you are absolutely right. Frerichs walked right into this attack. He made statements, essentially grabbed a hold of one of the most sensitive third rails in Illinois politics with both hands, about taxing retirement income that will follow him so long as he is an elected.
Nobody (including me) cares that he has changed his tune. It was political malpractice and it paved the way for Demmer. And, Demmer could have simply launched an honest ad, but that is not who he is. I have been in the room with Demmer and listened to him speak. He told me all I need to know about his integrity.
We really should tax some level of retirement income, but that is easy for me to say since I don’t have to get the votes.
Your point is taken, and I agree.
- RNUG - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:21 am:
While I understand where Frerichs was coming from, he should probably announce he has rethought the issue and no longer supports taxing retirement income, period. It would be a smart political move even though he might take a hit for changing his position.
While I don’t like State Officials, running down the State, the blunt fact is one of the few reasons retirees have for staying in Illinois is the lack of tax on ALL retirement income. Very few States exempt all retirement income; most just exempt Social Security and / or a portion of income.
Let’s face it, retirees aren’t staying here for the weather. It’s either the (mostly) reasonable housing (although property taxes are high), wanting to be near family, or the income tax exemption. If you start taxing retirement income, even over a certain threshold, those people have the financial resources to move out of State, and you will actually have a net loss because you are no longer capturing their property and sales tax.
- Lakefront - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:29 am:
== Show me where Frerichs said he COULD tax retirement income or where in the constitution he has the power.Also, since you made the point, can you share the number for the Bill he introduced (which he cannot do by the way, he can provide a legislator with a recommendation but then a legislator must introduce the bill) ==
Yeah I’m familiar with the Illinois bill introduction process. You ever hear of a Treasurer’s office initiative? Just like any outside initiative those things are not written by the legislator and often a legislator simply parrots the talking points of the agency their trying to help.
But, we’ve strayed far from the point. I think what Demmer said was fair game - Frerichs office indeed has a legislative agenda just like any Constitutional office - voters have a right to hear his words used as political bait.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:30 am:
=== That’s kind of like asking why Tom Demmer believes he needs to fear monger over retirement income taxes to win.===
It’s a proven winning strategy. That’s the end game. Frerichs own refusal to acknowledge what he said reinforces why it’s a winning strategy.
=== The biggest obstacle for this issue is how the media chooses to cover it which often avoids discussing any of the reasons why it is a ridiculously regressive and expensive tax policy that favors the richest people in the state.===
I hate to even say it, but “asked and answered” and further, it’s not up to the media to shield or empower political prongs that may be used, if Frerichs wants that, get that earned media by owning up to his own words or raise the dough and make that argument himself… abd then the ole trick bag woulda worked because, if Griffin chips in $7-10 million, Frerichs will face the scrutiny he (Frerichs) knows makes this run a possible losing run.
===Tom Demmer wants to take peoples rights away and here we are complaining that Michael Frerichs once acknowledge the idea of discussing an existing policy.===
I’ll look forward, no snark, to Frerichs running like that, and Demmer running as he is… the outcome could be like the Faur Tax.
- JS Mill -
It’s all good, and I hear ya, and - Candy Dogood -, too, I really do, it’s the politics screaming back at me that has me where I sit, I appreciate your follow up, yes, we do agree.
- H-W - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:37 am:
As a political ad, I give it a B.
Because Frerichs did discuss taxing retirement income openly, it is fair game to suggest he did so (even it there is nuance beimg missed). And because taxing retirmentment income is a topic that will gain votes across the political spectrum, I think it is wise to push this argument.
However, the ad is not an A, because of the line, “[the] State Treasurer is supposed to protect your retirement.” Actually, that is not true (unless we are perhaps only talking with state employees, vested in the state retirement system). As such, this is akin to a lot of other candidates making promises that are not in the job description.
But overall, I think it is a fair political ad, and a smart one. Grade = B
- Pundent - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:39 am:
On balance I give it a C. While it is fairly accurate in reflecting Frerichs’ comments, the issue has no bearing on the responsibilities of the office holder. I would be more interested in hearing Demmer’s ideas of what he would actually do as Treasurer or what Frerichs isn’t doing. An ill advised comment by Frerichs is neither disqualifying nor does it create a compelling reason to vote for Tom Demmer.
- OneMan - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:40 am:
== The biggest obstacle for this issue is how the media chooses to cover it which often avoids discussing any of the reasons why it is a ridiculously regressive and expensive tax policy that favors the richest people in the state. ==
I would say the ‘biggest challenge’, which was born out during the graduated income tax ‘race’ was that people fundamentally don’t believe politicians when they say ‘This tax change will not impact you’. If you have to say “I wasn’t talking about taxing you” you have lost the conversation.
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:41 am:
For what it’s worth my rating of the ad as an F is because the candidate himself is the one doing the fear mongering and misrepresentation which is not necessary. Whether or not he’ll be scrutinized for it isn’t up to me either.
- Blue Dog - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:42 am:
BTW. do we really need a Treasurer.
- SLoop - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:43 am:
Given how Frerichs helped JBP bungle the Fair Tax, I really thought he would be the one to take the blame. I expected him to get a credible Dem challenger.
It is pretty insane how the most impactful political failure in decades happened and no one was responsible.
- Pundent - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 10:54 am:
=he should probably announce he has rethought the issue and no longer supports taxing retirement income, period.
While I recognize the political upside to this, I personally think it would be a mistake. Frerichs believes the topic is worth have a conversation on. And we should. There are any numbers of ways that we can bring fairness to our tax system that should be part of an intelligent conversation. The alternative is that we continue to rely on regressive tax systems that place an undo burden on middle and lower income individuals for the benefit of the wealthy (working and retired). Continuing to discuss these issues is both honest and the right thing to do morally.
- Louis G Atsaves - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 1:00 pm:
Our current Treasurer crossed that radioactive line, then ran for the hills when the blowback began. He may have believed a conversation should have taken place back when he made his statements, but he has had plenty of time to organize a few conversations since that pratfall. He hasn’t. He won’t. No one else has picked up that fumbled ball of his. With a businessman now giving away free gasoline on two separate days, creating pandemonium at gas stations and tying up traffic in those areas, a conversation on taxing retirement pensions has slipped strongly into never never land.
It is a fair ad and fairly portrays the Treasurer’s words and actions. All the whataboutisms and parsing notwithstanding, I give it an A.
- Dirksen - Thursday, Mar 24, 22 @ 1:13 pm:
Frerichs scheduled a press conference to begin the “discussion”and then cancelled it. Wondering when it will be rescheduled.