* Crain’s…
Illinois lawmakers are considering a new “millionaire’s tax” that could generate billions in new revenue. But the measure, which would have to go before voters on this November’s ballot, faces a tight deadline and political hurdles that sank the “fair tax” proposal in 2020.
On the table in the state legislature are a pair of competing measures that would both place a new referendum on the statewide ballot to establish an additional 3% income tax on any resident who pulls in at least $1 million per year. […]
The two proposals — one from Rep. La Shawn Ford, D-Chicago, and another from Rep. Natalie Manley, D-Joliet — only really differ in how they plan to spend the new revenue. Ford’s bill would dedicate the new funds to property tax relief, likely in the form of $1,500 rebates for Illinois homeowners, while Manley’s would divide revenue between property tax relief and funding for schools.
* Synopsis of HJRCA26…
Proposes to amend the Revenue Article of the Illinois Constitution. Provides that an additional income tax shall be imposed on individuals in an amount equal to 3% of the portion of the individual’s income that is greater than $1,000,000 for the taxable year. Provides that the revenue collected from the tax shall be used to provide property tax relief. Effective upon being declared adopted.
* HJRCA21…
Proposes to amend the Revenue Article of the Illinois Constitution. Provides that an additional income tax shall be imposed on individuals in an amount equal to 3% of the portion of the individual’s net income that is greater than $1,000,000 for the taxable year. Provides that, of the revenue collected pursuant to those provisions, 50% shall be used to provide property tax relief and 50% shall be distributed to school districts solely on a per pupil basis. Effective upon being declared adopted.
I’m told that 21 is the one on the table.
The catch is that “shall be distributed to school districts solely on a per pupil basis” means the dollars would not be distributed based on need. That means school districts which are adequately funded would receive the same amount of money per pupil as schools which aren’t. And that could very well mean the state will then have to come up with more funding for its Evidence-Based Funding law to “reverse the added inequity,” as one administration official explained.
Discuss.
- 44 - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:08 pm:
Trust Illinois politicians with more of our $? Do a better job managing what you have. Revenue way up, should be enough. Billions just waiting to be scooped up?? lol. BS numbers and most will declare residency where there second or third home is located.
- Think Again - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:09 pm:
Anti-growth measure that is ill-advised - but at least the Dems finally found the courage to 100% own a tax increase and put their political capital on the line.
- anon - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:12 pm:
Chris Christy said it best–Democrats should take a long vacation as the only way they will screw November up is by offering up dumb ideas.
- Wentworth - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:13 pm:
Per-pupil funding at CPS is the highest it has ever been. CPS enrollment was declining, sharply, and is perhaps staying level now. Funding is not the issue.
CTU is asking for a dues increase, therefore why not push for more education funding, too, to help fund that.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:14 pm:
===but at least the Dems finally found the courage===
It’s just a bill at the moment.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:14 pm:
===Per-pupil funding at CPS===
Is CPS mentioned even once above?
- City Zen - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:18 pm:
I see they’re ignoring inflation again. Not good when they can’t get the fundamentals right.
What happens to the 8 to 5 ratio for coprorate taxes? Does that mean the corporate tax ration can now be applied to 7.95% instead of 4.95? Seems like there might be a conflict there.
- Let there be Sunshine - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:19 pm:
How does this affect the current/go forward flat tax constitutional language…..if passed will it allow the opening of pandora’s box of tiered rates in future years….??
- Penny - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:20 pm:
Greedy vultures. As wealth leaves, the burden will be shifted to middle income families.
- Mason County - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:25 pm:
Usually it is much easier to get this type of measure approved by the voters when they know it does not affect them. And even more so when it is obvious they directly benefit. The graduated income tax did not pass because it was confusing to many as to how it was really going to play out for them personally. Will it drive these high-income earners away? Most probably, unless they have a business that is tied directly to the state and they need to be here to operate it.
Would it pass a November ballot? I think the odds are very high that it would.
- Horseshoe Voter - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:30 pm:
I’m no fan of the “solely on a per pupil basis” caveat, but I’m curious what about EBF would require more money to reverse the inequity. EBF is all about raising the floor for the least adequately funded districts with nothing in place to curb excesses for well-funded districts. (Earlier versions would have dealt with this, but the “no winners and losers” mantra won out.) In FY18, there were 145 districts below 60% funded; today there are zero. In FY18, there were 146 districts over 100% and 5 over 200%; today there are 239 over 100% and 17 over 200%. We’ve made a lot of progress for the most underfunded districts, but we’re still deeply inequitable.
- B - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:38 pm:
I love the tears of the bootlicking billionaire lovers parroting every lie the billionaire class shoves at them. It would be comical of not so sickening.
Weird how we have data upon data that the wealthy dont leave when taxes are raised on them but the same people will keep parroting that lie over and over ad nauseum. Illinois has more millionaires today than it did 10 years ago. How is that possible since they all already left from high taxes?
Crazy how data always counters right wing parroted lies.
Tax the wealthy yesterday.
- Sue - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:40 pm:
There are plenty of very well funded districts where extra money ought to be treated as a form of property tax relief by the district reducing its levy accordingly. But would they do it? It would be a remarkable outcome, to say the least.
- Jerry - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:41 pm:
Where is the Wealth going? Lower income tax rates in another state mean higher taxes elsewhere.
- Aaron B - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:46 pm:
==Ford’s bill would dedicate the new funds to property tax relief, likely in the form of $1,500 rebates for Illinois homeowners==
Is this $1,500 per homeowner anywhere or just the rep giving an example of how the property tax relief would work? It would be more complicated but I would be much more in favor of a percentage based property tax relief instead.
- P. - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 1:49 pm:
It’ll trickle down eventually.
- Sue - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 2:00 pm:
Aaron B - the amendment just says the money would be used for “property tax relief.” Nothing is specified.
- Penny - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 2:03 pm:
Spending less never seems to be an option.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 2:06 pm:
==Illinois has more millionaires today than it did 10 years ago==
I hope so. The cumulative inflation rate is 38% over that timespan.
- Think Again - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 2:08 pm:
=bootlicking billionaire lovers=
Much like the so-called “Fair-Tax, ( lost 53%-47%), if the millionaire’s tax gets on the ballot, it will drive no vote turnout
- DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 2:14 pm:
A million bucks may seem like a lot now but how will it look in 30 years
- Pennies - Tuesday, Apr 21, 26 @ 2:40 pm:
Illinois’ government was always built to finance a population of X. Current population is X-1. Might be looking at X-2. Taxing to achieve X can push it to X-3. Solution is to create X+1. You don’t do that by strangulating X-1.