Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Oppo dump
Next Post: Today’s photo
Posted in:
* On taxes…
“It’s painful, I hate to put new taxes in place but it’s an important, pro-growth, investment policy,” Rauner said. “We shouldn’t tax investment and income, we should tax consumption.”
And…
“A consumption tax hurts hard-working people raising families and living from paycheck to paycheck,” Gov. Pat Quinn said.
I’m not sure how taxes on consumption promote growth, but whatever.
* On the minimum wage and the upcoming referendum…
“I wouldn’t support raising Illinois’ minimum wage without pro-business reforms. I would not support that,” Rauner said.
“There’s only one candidate for governor who supports raising the minimum wage without condition. It’s the right thing to do,” Quinn said.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:26 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Oppo dump
Next Post: Today’s photo
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rauner’s position is the sounder position from a pure economics standpoint.
Both men are talking only to their base voters here.
Comment by Cassiopeia Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:31 am
===“We shouldn’t tax investment and income. We should tax consumption,” Rauner said.===
Isn’t Rauner the same candidate that is going to rely on the General Assembly to vote, again to bring back an elevated …income … tax rate for his billion dollar deficient budgetary plan?
So, Rauner wants…to increase the income tax…but is pandering to a consumption tax focus…that might even have a lesser chance to get through the GA as it’s constituted.
I would like to know if Rauner would tact towards “No Income Tax - Sales Tax” swapping?
That was just snarky fun…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:32 am
True colors being shown. Article yesterday practically has BR wanting you to believe he’s going to join the fast food “15 and a union” protesters. Now he wants to tax working families at a higher rate and is kinda-sorta with increasing the minimum wage.
Oops! Bruce, your privilege is showing!
Comment by QCLib Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:33 am
Yet, the legislature controlled by your party did not approve such a change? What levers did you use to try and get that done? It’s easy to say ‘I am for X’, but what have you done to try and make it happen?
Comment by OneMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:34 am
I love how Democrat Quinn and other Democrats are against consumption taxes, because the allegedly hurt the poor. On the other hand, these same Democrats have no problem raising user fees time and time again, on basic services, which definitely hurts the poor. Nice try, Quinn, but your argument isn’t consistent.
Comment by Apocalypse Now Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:42 am
Rauner’s consumption tax on unnecessary shtuff proposal(interior decorating, chartered flights, armored cars to move his fortunes) was to make him look like a less-evil rich white dude.
Quinn’s position since 2012 should’ve been a progressive state income tax. It just makes sense, is easy to follow, and even if its pie-in-the-sky, it’s good politics.
Now they’re stuck in this awkward position of Rauner sounding like a Dem and Quinn sounding like a Republican.
Welcome to the Gutter.
Comment by North Shore Joe Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:42 am
- Rauner’s position is the sounder position from a pure economics standpoint. -
Regressive consumption taxes are sound economics? Did you get your econ degree from a cereal box?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:42 am
I’m stunned that a new income stream is being supported by Rauner. Would like to know specifics but don’t think it’s enough without something else changing. I do find it hypocritical that there is a different tax rate on those living on dividends and interest pay a different rate than those who have to work all their lives.
Comment by Bourbonrich Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:42 am
To the first commenter; the idea that consumption taxes are more economically sound than taxes based on ability to pay flies in the face of years of established economic theory, unless you also believe in the Laffer Curve.
…the bigger thing here is, Bruce Rauner effectively said “look, I hate to tax poor people, but we just can’t tax the rich,” and the collective media response is “Meh, no story here. Anything new on NRI??” Come on, man.
Comment by Anon Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:43 am
You put too much into this post.
Both are worthy of discussion.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:44 am
–Rauner’s position is the sounder position from a pure economics standpoint.–
LOL, what is “pure economics?” What a meaningless statement.
“Consumption” taxes — AKA sales taxes — are flat-out regressive. Everyone has to spend a certain amount to live. Those at the lower end spend more of their income to do so.
And how in the world do sales taxes encourage growth? That’s just ludicrous. I’ve never heard anyone claim that.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:44 am
Stunning. After spending a summer trying to appear as though he supports increasing the minimum wage, Rauner undoes it all with another anti-minimum wage soundbite.
Comment by Century Club Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:44 am
“Rauner said - Shouldn’t tax investment and income, we should tax consumption”
You can not be more obvious than that! He wants himself and his rich friends to not pay as much tax, and wants to shift that burden down on the poor, struggling families, and middle class. Lets see if the media will report that and demand further answers, or if it will be like the primary when they let him pawn off issues saying “I will be rolling out the details later”. This detail of his tax shift, exactly opposite of the majority view that the rich should should actually pay more taxes (like a graduated income tax or millionaire tax, should be called out.
Comment by Primary Target Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:47 am
Huh
Mitt is flip flopping, back tracking, oh what the heck admitting that he flat out lied in the primary campaign when said every body broke their promise on the temporary tax. At least Thompson and Edgar had the grace to wait until after the voters to tell them they lied.
It might also be fun to recall than on the 20 anniversary of the effort to clean up the Waukegan Harbor of Super Fund pollution damage that Mitt wants pro business reforms before supporting minimum wage hike.
BTA Pro business reforms usually mean more Super Fund sites will be created.
Looks like Mr. Shrimp will have some ’splaining to do this holiday weekend
Fire, Aim Ready.
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:49 am
Is the mentality of this State that “We should all strive to achieve minimum wage,”? I mean, come on! Minimum wage is just that, a minimum. If you want to be able to buy a nice house and car, then take the steps needed to get there. Stop expecting the government to hand it out to you on the backs of others, which, by the way, is the liberal Democratic way!
Comment by Doi Chef Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:49 am
It is hilarious looking at some of the postings ranting against, consumption taxes/sales taxes, when the City of Chicago and Cook County have some of the highest consumption taxes/sales taxes in the United States. Folks, at least, be consistent on your position about regressive taxes.
Comment by Apocalypse Now Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:50 am
Consumption taxes create an incentive to invest because money (capital) that is invested avoids taxes.
But the thing is that right now the problem is not lack of capital available for investment. Corporate profits are the highest (as a %-age of GDP) since they started tracking that in 1948. Interest rates are ridiculously low, meaning there’s lots of capital available.
Under these circumstances, shifting to consumption taxes does not promote growth. What will promote growth is stimulating demand, and consumption taxes most definitely discourage demand.
On the other hand, if you wish to create more capital (by definition in the hands of the richest), lowering taxes on capital and increasing taxes on consumption is definitely the way to go. I mean, both Bruce Rauner and I could spend $18 on a Timex watch and pay the same dollar amount in consumption taxes on that watch. But as a percentage of Rauner’s $53 mln in income, it’s a much smaller hit than a percentage of my much more modest income.
Comment by Vasyl Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:52 am
=== Rauner’s position is the sounder position from a pure economics standpoint. ===
That depends on whether you accept Say’s Law.
If Say’s Law is true, Rauner is right.
If Say’s Law is false, what Rauner is proposing simply is the worst strategy imaginable for the health of the overall economy.
=== Say’s law, or the law of markets, is the controversial assertion, found in classical economics, that aggregate production necessarily creates an equal quantity of aggregate demand. ===
Comment by Bill White Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:53 am
–Folks, at least, be consistent on your position about regressive taxes.–
Point out who has spoken out in favor of sales taxes, Mr. Strawman.
By the way, that’s hardly a “liberal” thing. Reliance on regressive sales taxes and fees over a progressive income tax is more of a right-wing Dixie thing. Check out Gov. Jindal.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:54 am
“Use Tax Bruce” salutes General Growth!
Yeah, sure Bruce, what we need is higher sales taxes… keep talking that up, and we’ll see what your polling numbers look like in suburban Cook in October.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:56 am
===It is hilarious looking at some of the postings ranting against, consumption taxes/sales taxes, when the City of Chicago and Cook County have some of the highest consumption taxes/sales taxes in the United States. Folks, at least, be consistent on your position about regressive taxes.===
So you want to ADD to that? Adding consumption taxes to an already burdened Cook County is… smart? Adding consumption taxes to an already burdened Cook County is…not effecting the least wealthy first?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:57 am
All tax increases on working families hurt us in some way. As a family on one income that is under the median state income, I believe the income tax hurts us the most. For one, it’s what we need (income) vs consumption which is something we don’t need as much and pay proportionately to what we consume. I’m not talking “fair tax” proposals here (which is a bunch of crap), I’m simply saying that a tax on services instead of income would help my working class family, so I’m pretty sure it would help many others.
I’m guessing a consumption tax would also bring in more tax revenue from corporations who are able to dodge the Illinois income tax.
Regarding minimum wage, if Quinn’s opinion is we need just need to increase the minimum wage and not try to offset high employment costs in Illinois than he is supporting a policy that hurts small businesses. Of course this is a guy who wants to tout that he did something for workers compensation reform. After Quinn’s “reforms” we’re still the 3rd highest cost in the nation and that is costing us jobs.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 9:59 am
@Ahoy: I think you severaly underestimate the amount of services consumed by middle income families.
Comment by Vasyl Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:01 am
A consumption tax is a better idea at this time of economic challenge because in this state’s situation, we have a strong need for investment and for infrastructure maintenance.
Illinois is a highway. We are in the middle of the US. It is why we are living here. We not only have the world’s greatest topsoil and plentiful rain - we can catch every form of commerce between New York City and Washington DC, across to Seattle and San Francisco. Chicago is this country’s greatest distribution point by rail, air, water and truck. That’s why were an economic big dog. Millions live here because that is where the money is. They aren’t here because of the skiing, backpacking, snorkeling, or the lovely winters and cool summers. If you strip away the opportunities to make money in Illinois - our population would end up being similar to perhaps, Kentucky’s. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)
But we won’t get that commerce if we don’t keep our infrastructure functioning. If we hamstring the businesses who benefit from our location, we lose. If we make it too expensive or too difficult to stay here, we lose. Our unemployment rate isn’t where it needs to be. We are not keeping up with those big dogs, like we used to. As the global market dominates, the muscle men that dominated the national market atrophies. We’re one of those old fat guys.
So we need to capitalize on the purchases being made by Illinoisans over capitalizing on what was once robust corporations. See that Sears Tower? Its not Sears anymore. See those big banks? Those aren’t run by Chicagoans like they once were. See the Loop? Chicagoans don’t own it like they used to. Chicago went from being owned by Chicagoans, to being rented by others. And we all know what happens to rental properties, right?
So - we need to rebuilt Illinois. We need to get into the 21st Century. It isn’t about “fairness”. It is about how to get there. We will get there by taxing consumption. It is the tax which will work best for us, at this time.
We also need to tax Boomers. They aren’t investing like they used to. They are retiring and consuming. This generation is like a hoard of locust on our state, eating and consuming everything and will not leave much behind for the smaller generations currently making those babies and families and future. We need to get more out of them. And that is how we need to do it.
I’m not saying to get rid of other taxes, except possibly corporate taxes, (which aren’t paid anyway) - tax the capital gains. Tax the consumption. Give these people the incentive to reinvest in Illinois.
We really need to do that!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:01 am
I disagree with Rauner’s tax philosophy. To me there must be something moral in taxes. Right now the very wealthy are reaping almost all of the income gains. It’s only right to require that they pay proportionally more than others, and that means a higher income tax, corporate tax and capital gains tax.
Some argue that taxes hurt growth, but that hasn’t been the case in many instances. Take Chicago, for example: Real estate companies are reportedly buying more and more commercial properties after the recession, and they’re prepared to underwrite the tax liabilities. They see Chicago as a place of strong economic growth.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140816/ISSUE01/308169981/why-real-estate-investors-just-cant-quit-chicago
California and Minnesota are not doing too badly after raising their income taxes. California posted relatively strong one-year job gains–one of the best of those I examined–and Minnesota’s economy is doing pretty good, considering the overall economy.
Then again we had previous years in which marginal tax rates were very high, and there were stronger economies for a larger proportion of the population.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:03 am
give a raise or make more tax what to do?(both,state wins)
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:05 am
How far back into the CF archives do you have to go to highlight Quinn’s ineptness and deceitfulness? “I won’t mess with pensions” says he. Yet, he was on the front saying we need to do something about pensions. If you don’t like Rauner’s plan, fine. At least he’s laid out something. Quinn’s idea is to tell you one thing and then SURPRISE! after the election.
Comment by Doi Chef Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:07 am
==Wake up Ahoy==
If Rauner pays 40% less income tax on 50 Million, and others like him follow suit, the sales tax rate (not paid by corporations, but paid by YOU) as a direct bill or a pass thru (Use Tax) will have to go way up to offset the loss in income tax revenue.
Comment by Primary Target Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:08 am
Lots of scholars on the board this morning. Good. Welcome. Rauner and Quinn both could use your help.
Here’s what I think Rauner is saying, and for the record, it doesn’t have much to do with economics, so bear with me. Rauner is saying that taxes on regular and investment income are discincentives for growth. While that is true, all taxes by their nature are a disincentive for growth. Duh.
Rauner is also acknowledging, somewhat begrudgingly in my opinion, that it does cost money to operate a government, and even though he might have disagreed in the past, government is necessary for a capitalist system to thrive.
So we need government, it costs money, and since Rauner doesn’t want to deter growth, the only major tax left to hike is on consumption.
Taxes serve two main purposes: they generate revenue for government and they deter certain behaviors. Generally speaking, you should tax things you want less of, which to Rauner’s point, means income and investment gains shouldn’t be taxed because we want more of them. I’m kind of surprised he doesn’t support a pollution tax, which seems like it would be right in his wheel house as a pro-growth revenue generator, but that’s a subject for another day.
What Quinn is arguing, in his own ham-handed and often incoherent manner, is that there ought to be balance and fairness in the combination of taxes levied to fund government. His preference is to increase the income tax because income taxes (unlike sales or property taxes) are based on the ability to pay. And 5% is not confiscatory and while it may technically deter some growth, it has the advantage of creating a broad and diverse tax base which is more stable and less prone to shocks.
And it’s not like Rauner is proposing to do away with income or capital gains taxes either. In fact, he’s on record as supporting a return to 5% because he needs the revenue to run state government. It’s just that he’d shift the burden from income taxes to consumption (including services) over his term.
Hope that helps.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:08 am
A broad consumption base that includes services, at a lower rate than the current high sales taxes on a very narrow base, could reduce the overall consumption tax burden on the poor and raise more revenue from currently non-taxable services (purchases of services likely rise with income). There are fewer ups and downs in consumption tax revenues than with income based taxes, so stable revenues are another plus.
Comment by Alexander Cut the Knot Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:08 am
Vman, is your solution is to get people to stop spending money? I can predict what that will do to our economy. Given that everyone’s income is the sum of everyone else’s spending. If we all stopped spending, what will happen to our collective income?
Comment by Concerned Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:08 am
47th Ward: well-put!
Comment by Concerned Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:09 am
Since neither was proposing, at this time, a progressive tax. Either increase bites the less wealthy.
Personally when I’ve been living paycheck to paycheck I used less services. I changed my own oil, fixed my own sink,and had my wife cut my hair and the boys etc. Use taxes (what he Is advocating) are easier to avoid if your struggling. I somehow doubt Dianna cuts Bruces hair.
As for the minimum wage hike he has a point in that pro business reforms will help to offset the increased cost of labor. I would however like to see what “reforms” he is talking about.
Man I hate when Rauner says something I kind of agree with.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:10 am
Ahoy: You are completely wrong about how sales tax and income tax affect you personally. The less income you (I am using the royal you now, not you specifically) earn, the less income tax you will pay. The less income you earn, the greater percentage of your income is devoted to consumption. High sales taxes hit you much harder than they hit Bruce Rauner.
Comment by SAP Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:11 am
=== It isn’t about “fairness”. It is about how to get there ===
I agree 100% - therefore we need to have a non-partisan objective discussion about economics.
=== A consumption tax is a better idea at this time of economic challenge because in this state’s situation, we have a strong need for investment and for infrastructure maintenance. ===
At this time there are trillions of dollars sitting idle on the sidelines. The evidence? Look at interest rates, which are darn close to 0%
There is more than enough idle capital to invest - there simply are no good investments to invest in.
Consuming less will reduce demand causing there to be fewer good investments to choose from.
#ParadoxofThrift
Comment by Bill White Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:11 am
AS to the minimum wage talk - it is pathetic. Raising the minimum wage has already been done in Illinois. Blagojevich did it, remember?
So, how did that work out?
Telling voters you will be raising the minimum wage as an economic solution is like telling a cancer patient to take Tylenol. Would it hurt? It would have the same effect whether you do it or not! Both will give you relief that may last for a moment or two - but does absolutely NOTHING to help the real problems causing the pain, in this case economic.
So kudos to old Doc Quinn for proclaiming he will heal our state with a minimum wage increase. Now, what is his remedy for these economic tumors of debt that are killing us? Enemas?
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:13 am
===And it’s not like Rauner is proposing to do away with income or capital gains taxes either. In fact, he’s on record as supporting a return to 5% because he needs the revenue to run state government. It’s just that he’d shift the burden from income taxes to consumption (including services) over his term.===
Good stuff right there. Thanks.
To that,
===It’s just that he’d shift the burden from income taxes to consumption (including services) over his term.===
It goes back to, “If Bruce Rauner’s first fiscal move is to move the income tax rate up, and he may not find a GA willing to help with that, how will a Governor Rauner sell the consumption flip to that same GA?”
I am only coming at it from the political economics of revenues needed in budgetary spending, now add the political capital Rauner needs to sell this, given who he is going to need to convince.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:14 am
VMan
With interest rates are at historic lows, to say debt is killing us is factually false.
False in the same sense that saying the Earth is flat is false.
Comment by Bill White Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:15 am
Regardless of whether you agree with Quinn that we should tax rich people or with Rauner that we should tax poor people, at least Quinn proposes a path that comes close to being based on fiscal reality.
Comment by SAP Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:17 am
One advantage income tax has over consumption tax is that the federal government will refund to us part of the income taxes we pay but won’t refund any of the sales taxes we pay.
If you are in a 25% federal income tax bracket, and pay an additional $1,000 in state income taxes, you save $250 on your federal 1040 versus saving nothing if you pay $1,000 in sales/service taxes.
Comment by Bill White Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:23 am
Let’s not oversimplify. To get a better economy, both the supply and the demand side must be supported. And taxing either can tamp them down some.
At our current modest rates, neither suggested move in tax rates will have all that much impact. We’re not at 90% highest marginal rates like we once were.
However government must play its role of building and maintaining public infrastructure, security, and ensuring free market processes thru law. Both Rauner and Quinn admit that the Illinois government currently will need more tax revenue from some sources, to keep operating.
The idea that “investment” and “income” as Rauner defines them generally above, actually drive growth and jobs in the short term, has been proven mostly false in our current economy.
When real economists, not politicians or their followers, use the term “investment” they mean resources directly applied to create new production — that’s not what Rauner is talking about. He’s talking about not taxing wealth creation regardless of how it is held or used. Or if and when it actually becomes productive investment.
Comment by walker Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:23 am
==Regardless of whether you agree with Quinn that we should tax rich people or with Rauner that we should tax poor people,…. ===
SAP–trying to incorrectly over simplify either man’s strategy to fund Illinois as you have done here helps no one, including the candidates themselves or voters.
Comment by Responsa Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:24 am
Vman, is your solution is to get people to stop spending money?
I share your concern, Concerned. We’ve been repeatedly told by our sharpest Marxist economists throughout our college days that taxing consumption will kill our economy because consumption makes the world go round, or something like that.
I remember hearing that mantra from the sharpest of minds, of which I do not include myself.
Yet - this isn’t 1914. We have a really different situation going on in 2014. The world really has moved on. We have an enormous problem. They are old people. God love them, and I hope to one day be one, but we have a deluge of old people who couldn’t have predicted their longevity and capital needs for living as long as they are, and are doing. With every year, we are exponentially increasing the number of retirees in Illinois. These people won’t be working, so there isn’t an income tax. We don’t tax their retirement income. Yet they have the same needs as other Illinoisans, PLUS all the infrastructure needs required of a retiree population.
So - we need a consumption tax on them. They will still need their Cialis, their Metformin, their beautiful retirement vista homes, and they will still be on our roads. They will still be consuming, bless them - and we need to get a wee bit of that if we believe we can outlive the demands on our system and have anything left over for today’s kid’s tomorrows!
So, shelve old Karl Marx for a generation or two. Dust it off if things return to a similar situation as it was a century ago. But right now, we need to rethink what governments do and how to pay for it.
We can’t let our 20th century ideologies, prevent us from making our 21st century a great one.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:26 am
The hyperventilating on the regressiveness of a consumption tax is ridiculous. Do we know the details of Rauners proposal? no. Is he proposing eliminating sales tax exemptions on food and medicine?(2 categories that would affect low income families the most) no. Would a higher consumption tax extract more money from higher income folks? yes. (ie. 2% additional sales tax on a $20,000 car = $400; a $60,000 Escalade = $1,200)
Comment by jimlion Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:26 am
==Quinn’s idea is to tell you one thing and then SURPRISE! after the election.==
Um, Rauner is going to have to do the exact same thing. He’s promising to reduce taxes, freeze property taxes AND increase spending on things like education. Unless he has some magical money tree to replace the lost revenue then he’s going to give you a big surprise after the election by not doing something he says he is going to do. Don’t be so naive.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:27 am
I’m sure glad that the majority of rational thinking people don’t have the same warped, selfish beliefs like Vanilla Man. There’s obviously no “human” compassion or understanding in his extreme beliefs.
Comment by forwhatitsworth Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:27 am
@VMan:
Tell that to the people who would get a raise.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:28 am
== without pro-business reforms ==
This could be a good or bad thing. Good if it means reforming the tax code and expanding the business base paying taxes. Bad if it means more state handouts to large companies.
== It’s the right thing to do” ==
In fact, we put it on the ballot instead of voting on it a few months ago just so we can tell you how strongly we think it’s the right thing to do.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:28 am
Even if Rauner believes this…Where are his handlers? Last time I checked this was still a blue state. And you wish to get +20% of the vote from the City of Chicago with a proposal for a Consumption tax increase?
Stay tuned folks Rauner could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here in a Brady/Plummer style meltdown. Bruce needs to fly his private jet to the Caymans and not come back unt8il 11/5.
Comment by Madison Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:33 am
In one post, we have the reasons that I flipped from Rauner to Quinn.
Contrary to the first post, from an economics perspective a consumption tax will not help this economy.
Demand remains a problem. Consumption taxes raise prices and limit demand.
We are slowly coming out of a recession, and Rauner’s tax plan would push us back in. Economically, it is the worst possible thing we can do.
And then there is the fairness of shifting taxes from rich to poor and the fact that Rauner doesn’t include his own industry in the new system. That sure makes us question Rauner’s motivation.
Comment by Gooner Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:37 am
== I’m stunned that a new income stream is being supported by Rauner. ==
6 months ago, many people would have laughed at anyone telling them Rauner would support, much less suggest, any sort of new taxes or tax increase.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:38 am
And to my friends who have their hearts crushed by my earlier postings and are feigning disgust - please allow me to appropriately feign an apology in return!
We need to have a serious discussion, and yes - feelings may be bruised. Look away darlings!
Besides many of you have given me more than one smack across the back of my head with your lacey fans and I’ve survived. I’m certain your heads are as hard physically, as they seem to be mentally.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:40 am
Forwhat
I may not completely agree with what vman is saying. However there is no doubt that income tax won’t touch retirees although those retirees will continue to utilize services and infrastructure. A use tax will help to offset expenditures related to retirees. What would you chose to handle that?
Vman might I suggest you refrain from calling baby boomers locusts. Mind of ruined the decent point you were making.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:43 am
Vman, it is hardly Marxist to understand or say that the problem in our economy is not a lack of supply but rather a lack of demand. The consumer-driven economy has been a marvel of the capitalist system. But the economy has stalled due to a lack of demand, not a lack of supply.
There is a record level of idle cash sitting in the hands of corporations and with the very wealthy such as Rauner (though thank god he is spending those dollars like crazy on his campaign–talk about a stimulus program!).
I think we may be talking past each other. Your last post shifted away from the economy and focused more on how to get the tax revenues needed to fund the government we need. You suggest taxing old people who spend too much for your liking. Interesting theory. I would prefer to fund the government in ways that do less damage to demand.
Comment by Concerned Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:44 am
=== We need to have a serious discussion, and yes - feelings may be bruised. ===
Okay, Vman.
Why is it a good idea for the people of Illinois to pay an additional $25 dollars to the federal government for every $100 paid in consumption taxes versus income taxes?
Comment by Bill White Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:46 am
VMan, you’re either way-on, or way-off your meds. You can pull that off at work? Good for you.
But seriously, what kind of man suggests he should be supported by old people? Your turn in the barrel, dude, just like real productive people.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:47 am
===Besides many of you have given me more than one smack across the back of my head with your lacey fans and I’ve survived. I’m certain your heads are as hard physically, as they seem to be mentally.
===
Is this another one of your “misunderstood” compliments?
Are you playing victim as you articulate those whom you see as “hurting”…as locusts?
I think I’ve tried to be serious here, asking about upping the income tax rate Rauner fought for to sunset, and to follow up on Rauner needing income taxes to fund state government, but maybe trying to change the funding source in the political climate, and how that could work…
Where is the non-serious discussion here?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:51 am
Governor Vanillaman:
I’m here today to propose a new plan to invigorate the Illinois economy. It will be a new day for all Illinoisans when we institute the cremation tax. Ive discussed this proposal with all the brightest minds in Illinois: Bruce Rauner, Bill Brady, Jason Plummer and even…Oswego Willy. They all agree…we will just cook these old cadavers and improve our economy at the same time. We’ve discussed this proposal and even found out that we can generate electricity at the same time.
A win-win for taxpayers.
A consumption tax that has no consumers when we finish with them. So:
Bruce: take away their pensions. These fogies don’t pay taxes on them anyway
Bill: Work on the meltdown process
Jason: Build us a crematory on every corner. You can put shingles on it but not wood frames.
Willy: get some lipstick on this pig were gonna push it past MJM.
Governor Vanillaman has to go now, I must get working on a proposal that adds value to the process. The euthanasia program! Right now its slated to be voluntary, but we need to get rid of some of these relics they pay no taxes anyway.
Comment by Madison Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:57 am
Some really nice posts here. A few reactions and restatements:
1) We have a huge pension burden in this state that our courts are effectively handcuffing us to pay. Whether that’s a good thing, or a bad thing … It remains that the state needs money. So whether it’s regressive or progressive or whatever, misses the point a little: can Rauner’s plan raise enough money to actually pay IL’s upcoming bills? The overwhelming evidence right now suggests it cannot. Advantage Quinn.
2) It’s been stated but it needs endless reiteration: for some sales and services, the tax is high. For others (including in Chicago), they’re low or nonexistent. It’s a swiss cheese system and just looking at the percentage doesn’t tell you enough about the reality. And there’s not much rhyme or reason here beyond politically well-organized Springfield lobbies, as far as I can tell. There’s room for a deal here, though it would be one monster political fight. Advantage Rauner.
3) How about a progressive consumption tax? You can look around the web for models, it’s been tossed around. If you’re a rich guy and you actually are buying new factories and putting lots of people to work, fine, get a tax cut. If you’re talking endlessly about this idea, but in reality you’re mostly buying yachts and Monets and private jets for your family (often from overseas), then you pay higher taxes. Advantage … well, nobody really, because our IL Constitution thoughtfully prohibits us in this respect from doing smart 21st century taxation. But maybe a slight advantage to Quinn / Dems, because they’re at least gesturing in the right direction.
Comment by ZC Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:58 am
If one is to believe anything from the CTBA and Ralph Martire taxation has a negligible impact on economic growth. That may be contrary to what economists would posit, the facts may be found in the actual outcomes when comparing GDP growth from states with high and low taxation levels. Depending on the source Illinois is a middling or low taxation state (overall taxation, it is generally accepted that we are one of the highest when it comes to property taxes). If that be the case why does Illinois lag behind most of the nation in GDP growth? It would seem that the tax merit of the taxation discussion (again based on Martire) is lacking, the answer may lie in our regulatory climate and the stability/predictability of our state government. That might be a bunch of nonsense but historically, placing the greatest tax burden on the middle/working class has been a failure when it comes to “growth”. Currently, the tax rates on income for high income earners are at or near the low range historically.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 10:59 am
what kind of man suggests he should be supported by old people?
I can’t say it is being heartless at all because every generation has done that. Why should our new retirees be exempted? Boomers got where they are on the backs of a GI generation who sacrificed their lives around the world, and then built that country Boomers grew up in. Boomers haven’t saved as earlier generations, and they are living longer.
Then there is the problem with the divorce rates among Boomers, so where previous generations had left behind a small nest egg for their families, Boomers have fractured families, so that generational transfer won’t be there for the next generation as there was for the Boomers.
And Mr. White - you are shifting to another issue entirely. If you have a problem with the amount of federal tax dollar returned, perhaps you need to consider sending a different guy to the US Senate in November. Our Senior Senator has been in office long enough to have the problem you are pointing out, fixed, and if it is a big concern to you, then perhaps you will need to address him.
I do want you to know that I share your concern as well, however that doesn’t really involve Mr. Rauner’s proposal.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:01 am
=== Taxes serve two main purposes: they generate revenue for government and they deter certain behaviors. Generally speaking, you should tax things you want less of … ===
True. I think everyone agrees on that. So why in a mass consumer society, would we want less consumption?
If you go back and actually, uh, read Karl Marx, I think you may learn the economic system he observed in 1848 was not based on mass consumption, and it was on its way out more than a hundred years ago. Rauner’s proposing a regressive tax here when we already have too many disincentives to consumption, and using Marx as a straw man doesn’t make the problem go away.
Comment by olddog Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:03 am
V-man, I realize that Boomers are in for a rough time as we age. Your descritption of us as a “hoard of locusts” is typical of the rhetoric I’ve been seeing pop up.
You are blaming the wrong people, though. Boomers individually do not have all that much money. The money is locked up by the 1% and corporations. And you know this.
Want a better economy? Get companies to unlock the money they are hoarding and to invest in their employees.
And don’t worry, V-man, with all of us locusts out of the job market, there will be lots of job openings, unemployment will go down, the US will encourage immigration for work (including from Mexico and Central America). Just becauseboomers retire it doesn’t mean all the jobs go away. In fact, entire industries will see a boom as they provide services to the older generation.
We’re in a transition period, and times of change are times of chaos. Illinois is going to look very different in 15 years, it’s true. It doesn’t have to be worse.
And one last thought, dear V-man: Retired people comprise the bulk of primary voters.
Comment by PolPal56 Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:06 am
…. “exponentially increasing the number of retirees in Illinois. These people won’t be working, so there isn’t an income tax. We don’t tax their retirement income. Yet they have the same needs as other Illinoisans, PLUS all the infrastructure needs required of a retiree population.”
I am retired , my pension is not taxed and I paid $3785 in Illinois income tax this last year.
Am I an exception or is it a myth that older people pay little or no state income tax? I don’t really know. Does anyone have any IDR data to document this one way or another? I have never seen an age breakdown.
I do know that over the years I have seen many assumptions stated as truth that may or may not be reality.
As far as this overall issue goes it seems to be breaking down by ideological views as to the merits of consumption vs. income tax. It is previous obvious to me that both are needed but the devil is in the details as to how much of each. And most importantly, just because one type of tax increases does not mean the other type will decrease- almost always both go up!
P.S. If Rauner is elected, I pick that very little or nothing will happen as there will be total gridlock in Springfield. Which may not be a bad thing.
Comment by Federalist Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:07 am
===So why in a mass consumer society, would we want less consumption===
It’s not that he wants less consumption, it’s that the alternatives would mean less income for him and his pals like Ken Griffin. They’d rather not pay anymore for the Government Bruce wants to run. They’d prefer it if we all paid more.
And VanillaMan would prefer it if Seniors paid more (cat food is taxed higher than groceries, so that’s a start).
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:12 am
== Raising the minimum wage has already been done in Illinois. ==
Illinois currently has the 6th highest minimum wage in America.
Illinois has also increased the minimum wage by 60% since 2003, which is more than double the inflation rate of 29% during that time.
2003 $5.15
2004 $5.50
2005 $6.50
2008 $7.50
2009 $7.75
2010 $8.00
2011 $8.25
Comment by Formerly Known As... Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:15 am
And don’t worry, V-man, with all of us locusts out of the job market, there will be lots of job openings, unemployment will go down, the US will encourage immigration for work (including from Mexico and Central America). Just becauseboomers retire it doesn’t mean all the jobs go away. In fact, entire industries will see a boom as they provide services to the older generation.
We are already heavily into the Boomer retirement stage, and none of the things you claim will happen - has happened. So I’m just guessing your other opinions may be a tad off as well.
Retired people comprise the bulk of primary voters. I expect them to comprise the bulk of a whole lot of stuff besides that as well. So we need to figure out how to survive this amazing demographic shift.
Illinois is dead broke. You can’t keep raising taxes on working moms raising kids on daycare while they serve up your senior coffees at minimum wage.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:18 am
Just a thought on the belief that if you tax something, you get less of it. That’s not always true as the example of a daycare center that wanted to attempt to alleviate the problem of having to pay employees to stay after the regular pickup time for certain people who failed to pick up their children on time. The idea was to fine the practice in the belief that financially penalizing people would lessen the bad behavior. The results, however, were that many more people came late, since coming late was now a financial consideration, a babysitting fee, thus alleviating the guilt that had previously kept the bad behavior in check. Some things, just shouldn’t be monetized.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:22 am
- Madison -,
While fun, 100%, fiction, I would last as long as I could as an advisor to Gov. VanillaMan; a whole afternoon. The governor would be holding the door open for me too.
To Seniors,
No matter the side you are on in the retirement income and/or pensions, calling those citizens “locusts” isn’t really addressing the problems, or if seniors actually have a role in it positively or negatively in regards to taxes.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:25 am
FKA, aren’t you cherry-picking the timeframe there? Why do you pick that timeframe? Your numbers seem to imply that the minimum wage in Illinois far exceeds the rate of inflation as a general rule, and nothing could be farther from the truth.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:27 am
One thing a consumption tax does is capture some of the very large piece of the economic pie - illegal, and legal but evading taxes - that is never reported as income. I’m for a three-pronged approach with a lower sales tax rate but including services, a lower income tax rate but including all federal taxable income (which is after the much larger federal exemptions and deduction), and retaining some real estate tax. Real estate tax is too complicated for me to figure out except that I know the current system for farmland delays increases so long that by the time they come there’s been a bust in value. You could also look at basing vehicle license fees on the cost of the vehicle; I think Indiana does that. I know none of this does anything about getting the state to do a better job of getting its money’s worth.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:29 am
You are SO HIRED!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:38 am
This is Illinois.
Why not tax both?
Comment by Leroy Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:39 am
Now find yourself a job at IDOT!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:39 am
Primary Target @ 9:47 a.m.: BINGO!
Comment by Northsider Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:43 am
I think walker hit a key point. “…the term “investment” they mean resources directly applied to create new production” That to me means building or expanding a factory, opening a store, funding R&D, whatever…and not just sending a check off to your favorite mutual fund and hoping.
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:54 am
“and not just sending a check off to your favorite mutual fund and hoping” or buying companies, milking the profits and then casting them off.
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 11:55 am
Vanilla Man, you seem to be arguing that we need a consumption/service tax to fund infrastructure. That’s an argument for more government revenue (taxes0 generally, not an argument for a consumption tax specifically.
To repeat what others have said: a consumption tax favors (private) investment. However, the availability of private investment (capital) is really not a problem as shown by ridiculously low interest rates. No, the problem is that there is not enough aggregate demand to pay a better return on investment than just stuffing the money in a mattress )or government bonds that pay near zero).
What we need is to increase aggregate demand so that when you invest a buck in a new factory or (since we’re talking services) a new company, you make a profit. Taxing consumption increases the cost of the product or service, reduces demand for the product or service, and thus does nothing to make it more attractive to invest a buck in a new business rather than a government bond.
That’s not Marx, that’s Adam Smith.
Comment by Vasyl Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 12:02 pm
@ 47th Ward 11:12 am
Thanks. I thought (hoped?) you were being snarky there — couldn'’t agree with you more about Rauner and his hedge fund buddies.
Also: I’m retired but I have two cats, so it’s nice to think I’m helping to pay back when I buy a bag of Meow Mix. I try to be a low-cost locust!
/snark
Comment by olddog Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 12:02 pm
I try to be a low-cost locust!
LOL!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 12:08 pm
Vasyl:
=That’s not Marx, that’s Adam Smith.=
That is outstanding!
Comment by Concerned Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 12:15 pm
The American economy has been consumer-driven since the post-WWII boom. Sales taxes are inherently anti-growth and regressive.
But show me someone who wouldn’t take an extra $20K in income a year, or take a 10% ROI, because they would have to pay the same marginal tax rate.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 12:42 pm
To quote Milton Friedman, “In one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, nobody is any longer a Keynesian.”
Debating policy during politics season. Oh you silly wonks just take it too seriously.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 12:51 pm
Finding a way to at least partially tax the underground economy or “cash economy” seems like a goal worthy of consideration. And it ain’t going to come through self reporting income tax filings. And a person reporting little or no income should not automatically be assumed to be “poor” or without resources. A consumption tax does help get at that money at least somewhat, I think.
Comment by Responsa Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 1:20 pm
- And a person reporting little or no income should not automatically be assumed to be “poor” or without resources. -
Yes, I’m sure most of them are living high on the hog with 9 mansions.
Meanwhile, you’re right, Rauner is refusing to report any income from last year but I’m assuming he is definitely not poor or without resources.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 1:27 pm
Sounds like everyone here needs to read CApital In the Twenty-first Century. Heard it plugged on NPR when it came out, and I have to say the portion I have read has really expanded my understanding of the unique economic conditions we all have grown up in.
VMan, I’m looking at you particularly.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_17?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=capital%20in%20the%20twenty-first%20century&sprefix=capital+in+the+tw%2Caps%2C303
Comment by Colossus Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 1:33 pm
the whole swarm will be voting for quinn because he will not tax pensions
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 1:34 pm
CApital In the Twenty-first Century?
Have you read any of the reviews? Or are you depending completely on NPR and your own judgment?
Google the title and read a few from both sides of that debate. Pikkety is sincere, but wrong in many fundamental ways.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 1:51 pm
Doesn’t a consumption tax affect more affluent folks since they typically consume more? On the other hand, isn’t the real estate tax a consumption tax - kinda?
Being near to retirement I see the benefit of not being taxed by Illinois for that income. However, I think that may be unfair (did I just say that?). Other states vary much but many assess taxes on some or all of your retirement income, including SSA.
However, I wouldn’t want to the Governor or member of the GA who pushes that (eg Ogilvie).
Comment by dupage dan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 1:51 pm
DuPage,
The problem is that people at a lower income will spend rather than save or invest (since they lack funds to so do same).
As such, they will pay a far higher percentage of their income in taxes, as opposed to people at a higher income.
If I’m living pay check to pay check, all that money is going to be taxed. If I’m investing or saving, the amounts invested or saved are not taxed.
Comment by Gooner Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 1:54 pm
–Doesn’t a consumption tax affect more affluent folks since they typically consume more?–
There’s X amount of consumption everyone has to do to function. A sales tax takes a higher percentage of income from those at the lower ends to achieve X.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 1:58 pm
Doesn’t a consumption tax affect more affluent folks since they typically consume more?
Yes. It takes more from them than an income tax does. Especially when they have an account in the Caymans, so Governor Quinn tells me. I bet it could be written so that even if Rauner orders a new Lear jet from the Caymans, he would still need to pay a consumption tax on it.
Let me quote that great financial guru, Martha Stewart on this, “It’s a good thing!”
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:07 pm
Wordslinger….That’s only true if there are no exemptions from the sales/consumption tax which is not the case in Illinois.
Comment by jimlion Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:12 pm
.–That’s only true if there are no exemptions from the sales/consumption tax which is not the case in Illinois.–
The exemptions are there for everyone. Doesn’t change the equation.
A person making $20,000 a year will spend a higher percentage of income buying the same basket of goods than a person making $100,000 a year.
Is that a difficult concept?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:17 pm
NYT: “Everything You Need to Know About Thomas Piketty vs. The Financial Times” http://pages.citebite.com/b3j6p3n0m0hkg
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:26 pm
An income tax is a tax on work and investment. By basic definition, a tax on work is the worst type of tax to encourage work and investment.
Wordslinger, there are any number of ways a consumption tax could be structured so as to hold harmless the lowest income.
To collect the same revenues from the same people, it is far better to tax consumption than income.
Comment by Johnny Utah Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:28 pm
helmsley only the little people pay tax`s
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:29 pm
==To collect the same revenues from the same people, it is far better to tax consumption than income.–
On the state level? Give me a break. It would be the easiest dodge in the world and bad for local business.
Your driven by ideological purity, not practical considerations.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:36 pm
Wordslinger: I’m driven by an understanding of basic economics. That is something that has never crossed your radar.
The stress is on the term basic. It is a waste of time to educate you on a whole new topic of economics when you’re willfully ignorant of the entire field.
If you ever do want to understand, try www.google.com
Comment by Johnny Utah Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:42 pm
==it is far better to tax consumption than income.==
Sure it is. Especially for rich people.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:42 pm
Right. Having no income tax really failed Illinois from 1818-1969.
Comment by Johnny Utah Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:48 pm
==Right. Having no income tax really failed Illinois from 1818-1969.==
That’s absurd and you know it. You could never replace an equivalent amount of revenue via consumption taxes if you eliminated the income tax. People that suggest that there be no income taxes lack a basic understanding of the realities of the state budget and the current revenue needs of the state.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:50 pm
–An income tax is a tax on work and investment. By basic definition, a tax on work is the worst type of tax to encourage work and investment.–
Tell me, professor, is it your “basic understanding of economics,” that people do not try to make more money through work or investment because it’s taxed?
Or should I just just google “koo-koo.”
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:52 pm
–Right. Having no income tax really failed Illinois from 1818-1969.–
You want to go back to the pre-1969 tax system.
I guess I don’t have to use the google after all, lol.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:55 pm
“A person making $20,000 a year will spend a higher percentage of income buying the same basket of goods than a person making $100,000 a year.
Is that a difficult concept? ”
Apparently for you it is. A person with an income of $100,000 buys an entirely different basket of goods and a higher cost basket of goods than the person making $20,000. To not recognize that higher incomes consumes more goods which will drive more tax revenue means that you view an economy as a zero-sum game and not dynamic.
Comment by jimlion Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 2:59 pm
Demoralized:
Yes, states can and do exist without an income tax. 9 of them, in fact. Take a basic look at the amount of consumption that occurs in Illinois. It would take a surprisingly low tax rate to collect the same revenues.
Wordslinger: If you seriously don’t understand how income taxation affects incentives to produce and the reality of production you should not comment any further. This is not a disputed topic in economics anywhere on the globe except right here.
Comment by Johnny Utah Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:00 pm
–If you seriously don’t understand how income taxation affects incentives to produce and the reality of production you should not comment any further.–
So, in your reality, you won’t pursue a job that pays more money because you will pay more in taxes?
koo-koo
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:06 pm
And there it is folks. This is what the ballgame is about. Income and investment shouldn’t be taxed, they should be hoarded in offshore accounts /snark. Seriously though, this guy is running for the .o1%ers only. Vote for him at your own peril.
Comment by Jimbo Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:13 pm
Read about marginal utility. It’s a 250 year old concept that would greatly enhance your understanding of how the world works.
Comment by Johnny Utah Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:15 pm
Johnny, in your reality, do you not see people all around you trying through their work and investments to make more money? Every day? Even though it will mean they will pay more in income taxes?
Perhaps you just slipped in through some portal from an alternate reality. But welcome. Things are a little different here than you’re used to, lol.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:17 pm
general growth hasn`t shut down the borders yet, gas&food cheeper in iowa(i can see the mississippi river from here)
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:20 pm
I wish there was a good republican like Eisenhower around to make sure that taxation was fair.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:23 pm
Johnny, you might want to keep your thoughts here on the down-low the next time you pitch your boss for a promotion and a raise, lol.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:24 pm
mabey “horders~ could help rauner with his obsessive compulsive hording disorder?(bring back america)
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:31 pm
Of course a rich person consumes more in dollar terms. A rich person also pays more in income tax in dollar terms, even in a flat or regressive tax system. Surely we aren’t arguing that the fair way to tax is that everyone pays the same dollar amount, rich or poor?
The problem is this: a poor or middle class person lives (often literally) from paycheck to paycheck because almost all the income is used in consumption. Hence, if we shifted to consumption taxes the paycheck-to-paycheck person will be taxed on almost all her income.
But Bruce Rauner, on the other hand, does not spend all his $53 mln in reported income on consumption. (Seriously, that’s 2,944,444 cheap Timex watches. Or, if you prefer, 2,944,440 cheap Timex watches and one Carhartt jacket.)
So while Rauner may spend $1 mln on consumption, and thus pay more as a dollar amount in consumption taxes than I do with my moderate paycheck, as a percentage a lot more of my income (almost all of it, to be honest) is subject to consumption tax while even at $1 mln/yr, only 2% of Rauner’s income is subject to consumption taxes (using my example).
So unless you believe that everyone should pay the same dollar amount — an incredibly extreme and radical position — saying that the rich “pay more” in consumption taxes says nothing about the fairness of consumption taxes. The rich would pay less than their current share under the flat tax with a shift to consumption taxes.
Comment by Vasyl Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:32 pm
Every example question you ask shows that you don’t understand marginal utility. I cannot help you understand it until you help yourself understand it.
Comment by Johnny Utah Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:34 pm
–Every example question you ask shows that you don’t understand marginal utility. –
And every question I ask, you refuse to answer.
Go back to the dorm room, Johnny.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:43 pm
I’m tired of kicking you around, word. There’s no point. But you should have more pride than to repeatedly comment, with strong conviction, on topics where you’re clueless.
Comment by Johnny Utah Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 3:56 pm
Johnny, yeah, you really beat me bloody.
Have a great weekend — but not too great. Because, what’s the point, what with the law of marginal utility and everything….
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 4:02 pm
@Johnny:
Saying something over and over and over doesn’t really make much of a difference.
You come at this from the position that you are absolutely, positively, no questions asked right. That’s rarely a good stance to take.
There are differences of opinion out there regarding this subject. You are the one who fails to recognize the legitimacy of those differences.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 4:02 pm
Johnny U,
This isn’t the comment section of some third rate newspaper.
If you are going to comment, make some effort to be polite. Otherwise, please go back to “Wing Nut Daily” and share your wit and intelligence over there.
Comment by Gooner Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 4:08 pm
Taxing the locusts will produce spit compared to what can be raised by closing the deductions, loopholes and breaks taken by the 1%. But the plan is sure working! We are all at each others’ throats while giving them a pass! Some have their undies in a know worrying about taxing some “locusts” 50k pension while those like Rauner skate right by. Why? Does it even make sense to a person capable of simple math? When asked why the bank robber robs banks, he replies, “that’s where the money is!” Hello? Where is the money?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 4:13 pm
=undies in a KNOT=
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 4:14 pm
would there be a barter tax?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 29, 14 @ 4:17 pm