8 Comments - H-W - Friday, Jan 12, 24 @ 12:29 pm: RE: HB4435 So in essence, some money diverted to educational programs shall not be taxed, if those monies are diverted to what is determined to be “educational assistance” (up to the first $5,250 diverted). Does the definition of “educational assistance” only apply to invested income which will then be taxed when used? If so, that is an established, common approach to taxation policy (e.g., retirement investments do this). But when we stray too far from this model, and apply tax breaks to other sorts of expenditures, we prioritize some expenditures at the personal level as being tax exempt. In so doing, we also prioritize some persons’ needs over the needs of others (e.g., those who can afford to invest and purchase specifically designated goods and services). Religion qualifies for the latter - goods and services that are purchased but not taxed. While this practice (not requiring taxes to be paid if spent in certain categories) is not common, expanding such advantages and privileges should be rare, and explicitly justified. We should know which citizens are being exempted, and why they should be exempted from taxation. Inn every case, doing so should serve the common good since the practice denies the commonwealth fund. In the context of education, this might suggest those who have the ability to set aside money for future spending on education should not have to pay taxes on the money they set aside. It might also suggest when they do spend it, then they pay taxes on the amount actually invested (but not the capital gains). Clearly, this favors the upper-middle class and those below who are able to make significant sacrifices. It does not serve the poor, the working poor, and most of the working-class citizenry. If on the other hand, such spending is to never be taxed, then I want to know why. Simply saying “because it is spent on education” is not a neutral context. Indeed, I would suggest it is not a morally just argument. Some people cannot afford to save for, much less pay for education. They are not empowered by this sort of opportunity. Yet such a policy puts the shared burden of paying for education fully upon those who cannot afford to purchase education. Such a policy also reduces the social obligation of funding education for that portion of the citizenry who choose not to use state provided education system. That is an immoral proposition in my estimation. The latter are also being treated differently from those who have sufficient money, but do not have children and/or are not attending college. Privileging the already advantaged has become a slippery slope. Legislatures now routinely find ways to advance the privileges of the advantaged. Doing so disinvests in the commonwealth used to provide the common good for all citizens, individually and collectively. It distances the advantaged from the average. For this reason, we should actually articulate a reason for approving HB4435 which does not treat all citizens equally. Does HB4435 explain why these specific people should not have to pay taxes on income, that would otherwise be contributed to the commonwealth of the state’s people? I did not see such a justification in the announcement. - H-W - Friday, Jan 12, 24 @ 1:14 pm: I apologize in part. I read the bill initially (okay, I scanned the 109 pages), but did not read the title which indicates this is for student loan repayments. Still, I am not sure why paying back student loans should establish a tax break for those who attend college that those who do not attend college do not receive. The better solution in the long run is to reduce the cost of higher education, not to create additional fiscal advantages for those who attend college. I would suggest lowering the cost of higher education via greater state appropriations is a much better solution, because it has a long run goal, and is a strategy that empowers more, equally. That said, I prefer a federal solution to the burden of student loans rather that a patchwork of solutions across the states. Illinois can be a leader in education is we work to make it more available. The current bill does not make us a leader. It simply gives one group of citizens (those who can find a way to get to college) an option of not paying state income taxes fully. - Leave a Light On George - Friday, Jan 12, 24 @ 1:15 pm: SB2720 - So now you won’t be able legally drive a car in Illinois if your FOID is revoked? Penalty for violation a felony I suppose? Find a real problem to solve Senator. - Formerly Unemployed - Friday, Jan 12, 24 @ 1:24 pm: Please, make people take the drivers test at age 75. It’s too hard to get older people to give up the keys otherwise. - OneMan - Friday, Jan 12, 24 @ 1:28 pm: So H-W - Friday, I would say there are many benefits with tax implications for some people and not others. I can take advantage of a commuter benefit; I have a co-worker who lives 3 blocks from the office, and she has no need for this benefit. My company offers other benefits that, as someone who has adult children, I may not have a need or be able to take advantage of, and that’s fine. Heck, there is that whole teacher spending their own money on materials tax benefit that I can’t take advantage of. It seems to be that it would be reasonable for that education benefit (the loan thing) it would reasonable to not make that taxable. - H-W - Friday, Jan 12, 24 @ 3:19 pm: @ OneMan We agree there are a lot of tax benefits that do not avail themselves to all equally. I will not address your private sector/employer related examples, since the private sector is different from the public sector, requiring a different level of analysis (e.g., corporations are not individuals despite the Roberts Court opinion). I am not suggesting that all tax breaks must be available to all. But we should have an explicit justification for why the state government is giving differential access to tax breaks and that explanation should be reasonable and just at face value. Yes, there are lots of tax breaks provided by government, including teachers being allowed to deduct up to $500 (I believe) if they spend it on classroom supplies that serve the needs of others (students). This bill is different. It does not directly benefit the citizenry writ large - only those who attend college and borrow to do so. It involves individuals spending on themselves and getting tax breaks for spending on themselves. It is a nice thing to do, and having three children with student loans, I am sure they will appreciate the reduction in tax burden. But I fail to see the equity in so doing. The burden of paying taxes is twofold. It is not just about individuals paying. It is also about government spending. The cost of providing for all is expensive and should be shared equitably. This bill does not address the latter. It simply asserts that student loan debt is a unique and special condition that justifies tax relief. If student loan debt, then are there not other “educational assistance” acts worthy of relief, like scholarships to private schools and private school tuition, etc.? - H-W - Friday, Jan 12, 24 @ 3:54 pm: Actually, I may be misunderstanding this bill (4435) entirely. As I read it again, it seems to be a proposal that says if employers pay some of the debt accumulated by their employees, the business gets a tax break for doing so. If that is the case, I am not opposed and have wasted a lot of my time and yours. Sorry folks. New Year, fewer brain cells. - MyTwoCents - Friday, Jan 12, 24 @ 4:29 pm: Leave a Light on George, read the bill. It’s only if the FOID is revoked and not surrendered. If a person surrenders the FOID card there’s no problem. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.