31 Comments - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 1:58 pm: Voted no, while fully supporting a progressive income tax. It should not be forcibly demanded. That’s the stuff of political extremes, like CTU types attacking mainstream Democrats. It takes collaboration and work, and attracting support instead of repelling it with angry demands. - Checkers - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 2:03 pm: Yes - For one, the times have changed. Now, voters feel more strongly that the system is rigged in favor of the elite. Second, it’s needed for the state’s fiscal health. Finally, strengthening IL’s credit rating while lowering taxes for 97% of taxpayers is a strong message for a Presidential campaign. - 47th Ward - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 2:11 pm: Demanding isn’t a term I would use, but advocating for another referendum in 2028 might be a good idea for the Governor. It gives him some cred among DSA types, lets voters make the ultimate decision, and a referendum in a presidential year would benefit from much higher turnout. It lets Pritzker look more progressive without actually having to own a tax hike on wealthy residents. Finally, by the time the referendum is decided, he’ll know if he’s going to finish his third term. So, yes. - Ducky - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 2:15 pm: No. Doing this again is insulting to voters who just told you no on this idea. Cut the base state income tax to 2.5% and add a 1.5% pension surcharge on top until the state reaches 90% funding, with automatic repeal once that is reached. - Andrea Durbin - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 2:16 pm: A fair tax is the path to economic stability for the state. - Incandenza - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 2:18 pm: Yes - CO is also looking at moving beyond their flat tax in a referendum this election. The electorate is more open to progressive politics across the country. - Mason County - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 2:18 pm: Switching the source of the tax base does not change anything in the aggregate providing it is an equal change. It merely, in at lease some cases, changes who pays what and how much more or less. We all know what Rauner was about (not good) but JB needs to clarify the details of any such partial switch- and I mean the details. - What's in a name? - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 2:27 pm: I love JB and I think there is merit in the Progressive Income tax but the voters spoke. At least it wasn’t Brexit. - Mary - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 2:35 pm: A state which governs well and responsibly can and should have a progressive tax rate. Not Illinois. Illinois politicians would not be able to restrain themselves. They would jump gleefully into millionaire taxes at levels so absurd that they’d chase away high earners and the businesses that employ them, then repeat the process with lower income levels. - DuPage Dad - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 2:51 pm: Yes, as long as it’s a millionaires’ tax. Easier to explain and the $4B/yr can be constitutionally tied to property tax relief for homeowners. Institutional investors and out-of-state residents with 2nd-homes in IL would be excluded based on rebates for those with homestead exemptions. This report describes how it could work https://www.illinoisepi.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ILEPI-PMCR-Millionaires-Tax-Report-FINAL.pdf - City Zen - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 2:52 pm: ==was predicated on implementing a graduated income tax== Increasing the Property Tax Credit does not require a constitutional amendment. Never has. Never will. Whie the Fair Tax did increase the property tax credit from 5 to 6 percent, a $100 rebate on a $10,000 property tax bill is not the relief that is required to bring IL property taxes in line with the rest of the country. - Old Guy - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 3:08 pm: Property taxes regressive; progressive income tax is the only fair tax despite what those opposed (who would generally have to pay more) say. - Banish Misfortune - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 3:14 pm: Not much more to say but that current taxation is regressive. But if JD plans to run for Pres, he will need to put that off. - Banish Misfortune - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 3:15 pm: That would be JB. Not JD. Though we’ll see that too. - iheartsza - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 3:17 pm: I believe that a graduated income tax is truly one of the most important (and impactful) changes IL needs to make. The successful fear mongering over it in the 2020 election was absurd, and as an election judge, I watched probably close to 100 people vote without knowing what they were voting for/against because the wording of the ballot question was confusing and included a bunch of double-negatives. Let’s try this again?? - JS Mill - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 3:20 pm: Voted yes, although I have reservations about “forcefully”. As we have learned from conservatives, the law is never settled, so I think you can go back to the well on this. But, for me to vote yes, I need to see exactly what will happen with the money and how it will be safeguarded so that it cannot be redirected and schools are not left in a fiscal debacle when funding gets tight. =It gives him some cred among DSA types,= These are not the people Pritzker needs to appeal to. These are not your scandinavian/european social democrats whom I could support. He needs to appeal to independents and center left/right people. - here we go again - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 3:22 pm: If there was a credible pledge that taxes would be LESS at lower incomes, I do think it could be sold. But last time all the Dems would promise was their taxes would stay the same. I think that was the killer. Plus Ken Griffin’s millions thrown in opposition— made easier by the fact no one trusts any politician these days. - Annonin' - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 3:29 pm: Voted no. No need need for replacing $$$ Just get Gthe beetle the Dino brain trust to pull their list of cuts. Maybe cut school year in halfb - Pundent - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 3:32 pm: Voted yes. The political landscape is in a different place than where it was the last time this was attempted. And the ILGOP’s fundraising efforts are a mere shell of what they were back then. Although I would fully expect a well-funded opposition campaign. The real question is whether or not Pritzker would fully commit the resources and effort to make this happen. There were plenty of lessons to be learned from the last go-round and hopefully that will be reflected if and when there’s a renewed effort. - Ruth Dakin - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 3:32 pm: Yes, of course he should. The people said no in 2020 because of the scare campaign waged by billionaires against it. In 2024, the people said yes. Unfortunately, that vote was only advisory. The people are tired of billionaires’ hoarding while they face rising property tax bills. If they commit the funds to education (for real), it could significantly lower property taxes. It has a chance. - Just a guy - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 3:59 pm: Voted no. As a native Michigander who’s lived in Chicago for more than 30 years now (and owns a home here in the city), I’d love to trust our elected officials to “tax responsibly” and leave it at the 3%, or the Millionaires, or whatever is ultimately agreed to. But unfortunately, as we’ve seen far too often, the moment a nickel extra comes in, we have folks trying to figure out where the quarter is going to be spent. - Distant Viewer - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 4:12 pm: Yes and the message should be that we can lower middle class taxes by passing a graduated income tax. - Brandon - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 4:24 pm: Yes. Easily should pass. No one making less than 300k as a household should pay a higher rate though, everyone else should incrementally pay more. While we are at it we should also allow sales taxes on services. We are one of the only states that does not do so, meaning we have one of the most regressive tax structures in the country. Earmark a portion of both revenue increases to oensions until they hit 90% and then the revenue can be used for other things after that. - NIU Grad - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 4:40 pm: If he does, there has to be a statewide mandate to keep Treasurer Frerichs away from a microphone for at least 12 months in advance of the referendum. - Remember the Alamo II - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 4:43 pm: === Yes. Easily should pass. No one making less than 300k as a household should pay a higher rate though, everyone else should incrementally pay more. === $300k as a threshold would likely be too low and would result in another loss for the graduated tax. If it is truly a Millionaire’s tax, then the threshold should be $1mil. - Homer - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 5:06 pm: No. Illinois already has a a bad enough climate for business and investors. We don’t need this albatross draped around our neck as well. - Give Us Barabbas - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 5:41 pm: I think JB could pull it off this time riding the wave of anti oligarch, anti-tech-bro sentiment. But the key is he has to say “I want to be taxed higher, every billionaire should be. It’s against my own interest but absolutely in your interest to make rich people pay a fairer share and replace high property tax with a billionaire tax.” Voters won’t believe him otherwise. - Blue Dog - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 5:47 pm: voted no. income taxes shoukd be raised evenly across the board. - Proud Papa Bear - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 6:22 pm: Voted yes. Illinois is one of the most economically segregated states in the country and the root cause is our tax system. Wealthy suburban school districts tap into high property taxes (in absolute dollars, not necessarily a high tax rate) to create better schools, which attracts wealthy people to continue the upward cycle. Conversely, poorer school districts have little money and the lack of demand in those districts depress values. This was laid out in Savage Inequalities 35 years ago and still holds true today. Ironically, many of those who would benefit most from a progressive tax are likely to vote against it. - Amalia - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 6:26 pm: it’s the forcefully return part of the question that gets me to no. he could simply talk about his own taxes and how they would change, that he would/should pay more - CA-HOON! - Wednesday, Sep 9, 26 @ 6:27 pm: I voted yes because it was close enough before and is worth it to try again given all the benefits we could reap, not just in the arena of property tax. And this time around the opposition won’t have gobs of Florida-Man Griffin’s money to throw around, nor will there be another albatross of Mike Madigan proportions hanging around the effort’s neck. I say go for it. TrackBack URI Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.