Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Unclear on the concept
Next Post: Another dashed dream
Posted in:
And, I am not a fan of taxes. I am an anti-tax, limited government person. I have said I am willing to raise taxes. I will support a tax hike. I don’t like it. It’s hard to do. But, I am willing to do it as a compromise- to get truly balanced budgets. So, anyone who would say, “Well, the Governor just won’t compromise.” They’re not, that’s a little disingenuous.
Higher taxation is not part of a compromise. Higher taxation is a given. It’s basic arithmetic. If it wasn’t, the governor would’ve already submitted two budget proposals that were completely balanced with cuts. He’s never come close to doing that. Why? Math, baby. Math.
And if anybody thinks that Democrats are falling all over themselves to raise taxes, well, they should think again. While many are willing to do it (because math), most aren’t looking forward to it, even in Chicago. After a county sales tax hike and huge city property tax hikes and coming local tax increases for CPS, no Chicago Democrat in their right mind would vote to sharply curtail union and worker rights and benefits in exchange for simply being allowed to pass a big state tax increase.
* The governor wants some things that I support, like workers’ comp reform (also, giving school districts the same latitude on union contracts that CPS has ain’t exactly revolutionary, either).
But in exchange, all he’s basically offering is continuing most of the same programs that existed before he was elected along with the privilege of passing a tax hike.
Some compromise you got there, dude.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:37 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Unclear on the concept
Next Post: Another dashed dream
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Bruce,
Regarding *limited government*:
Does your idea of *limited government* mean that Climate Change (for instance) does not exist, and thus businesses that contribute to the environment should not be regulated?
Or does *limited government* a reduction in civil liberties, for instance something like *McCroryCare*…government bathroom regulations?
Which is it Bruce?
Thanx,
Del
Comment by Delbert Grady Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:41 am
Unfortunately, the Governor’s messaging on this is pretty effective. The Democratic messaging has not been clear in response.
Rep. Durkin was on Chicago Tonight, and Phil Ponce neither pushed him on this, or on the Governor’s failure to introduce a balanced budget.
Comment by Keyrock Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:43 am
Rauner didn’t get to where he is by being a person who compromises. And when you view the state’s most vulnerable as leverage to achieve your agenda, the pressure to compromise before these folks are hurt does not exist for him.
Comment by slow down Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:43 am
It looks like taxation is necessary.
But the level of taxation can be a compromise.
Comment by Gone Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:44 am
===Higher taxation is not part of a compromise. Higher taxation is a given. It’s basic arithmetic. If it wasn’t, the governor would’ve already submitted two budget proposals that were completely balanced with cuts. He’s never come close to doing that. Why? Math, baby. Math.===
Raunerbots,
Please read the above grab, then re-read.
A required element is NOT a give. The worst of all the talking points is thus fallacy “simply” because math is math is math.
It’s not up for discussion or debate, or as Rich has said above and pointed out here 6,317 times…
If the Goveror wants to submit a balanced budget with ALL the cuts necessary to make a tax increase invalid, he can do so…
Further…
Rauner himself, at the presser where “big, long term gains” was made quite clear, right before that Rauner made absolutely clear he, Bruce Rauner, was not going to put forth cuts, “no, no way”.
So… Rauberbots… Take notice.
This revenue ruse as a give is NOT a give.
Understand the politics, but comprehend the math.
Oswego Willy
…
Great post, Rich.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:44 am
Just because Quinn signed a higher tax rate into law doesn’t make returning to that rate a “given”
Democrats are falling over themselves to pass spending that we dont have the revenue to support! Look at these dem representatives going back to their districts saying they got $ for X, Y, and Z local projects after voting for Madigan’s budget. Classic politicians.
Comment by John Rawls Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:45 am
Did you forget to mention the widely held belief that BigBrain has a small problem keepin’ his word ( so how would anyone know if the $ would be spent as promised or that the $uper$tars would execute the deal
Those are two different, but essential topics.
This looks like a boring day TTFN
Comment by Annonin' Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:47 am
===Democrats are falling over themselves to pass spending that we dont have the revenue to support!===
You also recognize Rauner’s own budget outline was billions out of whack too… Correct? You know Rauner wanted to spend… more than the state took in… Right?
You know this… Right?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:49 am
“I am willing to raise taxes. I will support a tax hike.”
Quite a few GOP legislative candidates are highlighting their support for the “Rauner agenda” in their campaigns. Those words will bite them pretty hard.
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:51 am
John Rawls, the Governor is also falling all over himself to introduce spending that we don’t have the revenue to support.
I don’t remember the Governor clamoring to close a bunch of state facilities. Or parks. Or historic sites.
I don’t remember his proposal to further reduce the ranks of the State police, or reduce eligibility for Medicaid coverage for the elderly. (His Medicaid cuts last year were focused on pass through dollars to providers.)
And he continually wants to spend more on P-12 education (apparently with the caveat that CPS can’t get any more money.)
It’s not just math the requires the tax increase, but also the reality that no one in Springfield is willing to wear the jacket for the large amount of cuts that would be needed to balance the budget. If the Governor actually had the guts to do that, instead of just holding some social services and higher Ed hostage, then his crocodile tears on raising taxes would be a bit more believable. Instead all he ever proposes is finding clever excuses to short the pension payment, and not paying existing group health liability.
Comment by Juice Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:53 am
You forgot the required disclosure: “paid for by the Democratic Party of Illinois”
“Because math” catchphrases like this are so self-serving and short-sighted they belong on some flimsy mailer.
Comment by Driver Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 10:55 am
Great post, Rich.
State Rep. Terri Bryant, in a recent flyer says, “Will balance the budget without raising taxes.” and she will, “Fully fund education for our children.” Does she say how she would accomplish this? No, she does not. She can’t because of what Rich is pointing out, the math blatantly does not work for what she is asserting.
Comment by Jimmy H Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:01 am
Rich -
The compromise is not whether we raise the revenue, but how we raise the revenue.
And there, it actually seems like its Democrats we are willing to compromise the most.
Nearly every Democrat prefers to enact a progressive income tax or a millionaire tax. Most would prefer to shutter corporate tax expenditures or tax retirement incomes over $100K.
But what we’re like to see is one of Democrats’ least favorite options: the personal income tax hike.
Comment by Juvenal Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:02 am
From the get-go, Rauner seemingly has had trouble with math. And the meanings of the words he uses.
I don’t believe for a second that’s truly the case, but some of the people all of the time will buy whatever he’s selling, no questions asked.
For illustrative purposes, just a couple of examples of the governor’s faux struggles with simple math and English that are actually calculated obfuscation for political gain.
http://www.nwherald.com/2016/01/18/miller-numbers-dont-add-up-for-gov-bruce-rauner/am8p1qx/
http://www.nwherald.com/2014/08/29/miller-rauner-spending-promise-is-a-lie/arh0o8o/
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:04 am
- Driver -
I read your comment 3 times. Can you “expand” what your drive-by actually means?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:05 am
===But in exchange, all he’s basically offering is continuing most of the same programs that existed before he was elected along with the privilege of passing a tax hike.===
I’d quibble with “basically” but otherwise couldn’t agree more.
This has been clear for 18 months. What is also clear is that the tax increase is going to need a lot of Republican votes. The only question is, what will Rauner get in exchange for doing his job?
Funny that every Governor before him managed to accept that things like finding new revenue are part of the job they volunteered for. The Governors that tried to get something extra in exchange for doing their job mostly went to prison.
It’s time to do your job Governor. Then let’s have the debate about everything you think is wrong with Illinois. There are plenty of places to find agreement in that conversation. THere is no need for poor college students to drop out while you extort the General Assembly into voting for an agenda with little support, even among Republicans.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:05 am
This was a great post that clarifies a very important point. I look forward to the day when the level and form of taxation, spending and services are what is actually being debated.
Comment by AC Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:09 am
Like any science, math doesn’t care if you believe in it or not.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:13 am
Driver
Hopefully you are simply uninformed about our Governor’s plans.
Since Rauner formally proposed two budget spending plans that required over 3b in new taxes to balance, how is this a Democratic plan?
Using Republican numbers, please prove to us that taxes are not required by math. Something required by math in your own plan is not a compromise.
Comment by walker Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:15 am
And for the record, there remains on the governor’s desk a bipartisan, compromise $700 million emergency appropriation to partially pay social services providers for the work they signed contracts with the Rauner Administration for.
There was not a dissenting vote, Democrat or Republican, on that legislation.
Yet, after the fact, the governor set new conditions on even partially paying for contracted goods and services already provided in good faith.
I’d suggest that “good faith” is another couple of words the governor pretends he doesn’t know the meaning of.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:16 am
Rich - let me firmly disagree with you on one point from your post. It’s well established that Democrats don’t like raising taxes given that when they enjoyed a period of total State control of Government, they first passed a TEMPORARY tax increase that most Dem legislators promised (and promised repeatedly) would end in 4 years, and then in 2014 still with total control of State government, they passed a budget that relied on these same revenues, but would not pass the tax increase extension. Then after Rauner wins the election, the same Democrats failed to use the lame duck session to extend the tax increase so that the budget they passed would actually be balanced. The Democrats were dying for Republican cover on any tax increase – its why the 2010 tax increase was TEMPORARY, and why they never extended when they had total control.
So given that, why should a Republican governor or Republican congressman provide that cover to Democrats now and not get anything in return? Now Rich, I know you like to say that Democrats did not act during the Lame Duck out of deference for the new governor who asked that it not be extended, and there is likely some truth to that but it’s not the whole story. They have been DYING to hang the RAUNER TAX increase around the Republican’s neck? Just one day after Rauner was elected, Cullerton was lauging it up with Eric Zorn and bragging about how they were going to enjoy pushing through the Rauner Tax (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-cullerton-rauner-taxes-zorn-perspec-1106-20141105-column.html)
Comment by Gerry Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:17 am
== But the level of taxation can be a compromise. ==
Yes. The choice is between x that is just enough to fund all state services, employee benefits including insurance and pensions, and pays off the debt backlog … or x+ which includes expanded school spending, local property tax relief, infrastructure improvements, and the pork necessary to get enough votes to pass it.
Thanks to the damage already inflicted, the rate will have to be above 5% … the only question is how much above 5%.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:17 am
Sure Oswego Willy, let’s raise the income tax to 7% and fill the budget gap this year. Because math. And we’re seeing significant expense growth in Medicaid, pension contributions, and social service program growth. So we’ll need to come back to the table and raise taxes again soon, because math.
Also, the legislature passed several bills this year to raise minimum wages for workers, expand child care coverage, add funding for Chicago Public Schools, and more…so we should raise taxes another point or so to pay for that, because math.
The “because math” argument belongs on a mailer because it’s a catchphrase, not a policy argument. It’s self serving because it assumes that anything and everything you want to spend money on should be paid for by tax increases whenever necessary.
Comment by Driver Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:18 am
==it assumes that anything and everything you want to spend money on should be paid for by tax increases whenever necessary.==
No, it assumes that the bills incurred in the past have to be paid.
If you don’t get that taxes have to be part of the solution then you really need remedial education in math.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:22 am
Excellent post by Rich and a lot of good comments by the usual folks. Then again, the Raunerbots crawl out, spout rhetoric and then crawl back into their cave.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:25 am
Driver - the reason “because math” is more than a catchphrase is because both of Rauner’s budget proposals required additional revenue to balance. There is no presumption that this means we should treat revenue from taxes as an open checkbook, in fact this argument is a direct challenge to that type of thinking. “Show me the money” and in this case the money can either be additional revenue or cuts or some combination.
Comment by AC Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:25 am
I understood the comprise already occurred. Madigan agreed to let the income tax hike expire in deference to then Governor-elect Rauner’s campaign promise to make the tax unnecessary by “cutting waste” form state government operations.
Comment by Qui Tam Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:25 am
But - Driver -…
Math IS required for Rauner to keep the budget at FY2014 levels… and…
… Rauner refuses to put pencil to paper to show necessary cuts to keep taxes at those levels, including his own spending plan that’s Billions out of whack.
So while your typing is nice and your grammar on point, your realization of math is still in the “get off my lawn” mentality.
Also, you do realize any legislative changes you’re screaming at like a person on a porch screaming at clouds also needs Rauner’s signature… Right?
Please, do use “Super-Majorty overrides”… after 60+ failed overrides you’ll look even more foolish.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:27 am
===The “because math” argument belongs on a mailer because it’s a catchphrase, not a policy argument.===
A budget is a policy argument. Can you show us where you’d make enough cuts to change the math? I figure you’d have to cut between $3 and $4 billion from current spending to get a balanced annual budget. Then you’d have to cut about $2 billion more to pay old bills off over time. We’ve racked up quite a bit of debt under Governor Rauner and it needs to be paid off too.
So if you don’t think taxes have to be raised, tell us where you’d clip $6 or so billion from the budget. Use the 2015 budget as your starting point. Subtraction is math too you know. Have at it.
We’ll wait.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:29 am
I agree, great post.
Revenue is a must. I just wish that we can make our revenue structure more progressive. It’s quite unfair that the people who are major contributors to our current crisis, with non-budget demands that they know won’t pass, are not being compelled to pay higher taxes and shoulder more of the fiscal burden.
The voters support a millionaire tax, and what worker who’s not in the so called 1% or a higher income earner wouldn’t like an income tax cut? It’s there but for the political will.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:33 am
The tax increase was temporary because that was a Quinn precondition for signature. Madigan preferred a permanent increase. The decision not to pass and extension/permanentization of the increase was a reaction to the Rauner request to let the increase expire.
Comment by SAP Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:36 am
The basic arithmetic facts have been known by “the informed” since Rauner started shutting down construction jobs last June.
Rauner’s OodaLoop circus ride of words like “just to pass a massive tax hike of $1000 per person” and “#taxhikemike” just got a Truth Bomb, launched by Rauner himself.
Can’t make up this stuff. smh.
Comment by cdog Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:36 am
Prediction - many of the posters here that are slamming Rauner and demanding that he agree to a tax increase for nothing, will immediately turn their focus to slamming the “Rauner Tax increase” from now till Nov 2018! Such is politics - stay strong Bruce!
Comment by Gerry Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:38 am
Also, (but not yet seeing my just posted post yet)
would it be correct to say that the temporary tax was needed because of the national economic situation? (misses in revenue projections causing a bill backlog?)
Comment by cdog Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:39 am
The Gov should submit a budget proposal that includes the drastic cuts that he knows needs to happen. Not politically attractive to do, but at this point, they might be necessary. Even with significant revenue increases, big cuts need to happen. Gov needs to put agencies on the chopping block. Not trim the fat, butcher off the fat. Maybe, just maybe, we won’t be here all over again in ten years.
Comment by BK Bro Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:39 am
@11:39 I am speaking about the Great Recession’s as related to Illinois cash flow and revenue expectations.
Comment by cdog Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:41 am
===will immediately turn their focus to slamming the “Rauner Tax increase” from now till Nov 2018! Such is politics - stay strong Bruce!===
#TaxHikeMike ring any bells there, - Gerry -
You slam the Democrats wanting a tax hike, staying strong when you are REQUIRED to sign a tax hike because of math…
… #TaxHikeMike might need to be… rebuffed with “The Rauner Tax Hike”… with lots and lots of Raunerite “green”
So - Gerry -… is your “Stay strong” just like “Hang in there”?, LOL
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:42 am
You know politics, but apparently not math. They ARE different, and while short term increases in revenue of some amount ARE required by “math”, large, permanent tax increases are politics.
MATH says that it makes sense to get rid of prevailing wage and pay market rates for school, municipal, and road construction. Politics says keep overpaying. The portion of the deficit relating to that is politics, not math.
MATH says that continuing to fund schools at escalating costs per student about double that of inflation is unsustainable and has to be controlled. Math also shows that most of this escalating cost is due to school districts approving contracts whose costs exceed that of available revenues. Math show us that the ability of education unions to threaten to strike are driving that unsustainable cost increase by comparison with states that prohibit strikes (41 at last count). Math, and financial management, demands that this threat be removed in order to make education spending sustainable as determined by school boards. POLITICS says let them strike and continue unsustainable increases.
Hurting the taxpayers by increasing taxes isn’t compromise. The budget must be balanced, and the money just isn’t there to do it fro a year or two. As you SHOULD know, the amount and duration of the tax increase IS a matter of compromise, as is planning for substantial reduction in state spending in upcoming years.
MATH says we couldn’t afford the high pensions, early retirements, and “salary spiking” before retirement that Springfield foisted on the public. POLITICS enticed Springfield to do it anyway.
The financial predicament in which Illinois finds itself wasn’t created by “MATH” it was created by politics, and bad electoral decisions by the voters.
Freezing salaries, benefits, and other expenses that affect the state budget, while minimizing tax increases, is what the “MATH” says is the right course. The legal power is in Springfield to do this. It’s POLITICS that keeps that from happening.
Comment by Illinois Bob Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:44 am
==stay strong Bruce!==
Wonderful. Another person to add to the clueless pile.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:49 am
I seem to recall math also included the concept of subtraction.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:50 am
==Not trim the fat, butcher off the fat==
You cannot cut $7B by “trimming the fat.” Doing such a thing involves killing the patient.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:51 am
Gerry and SAP. I’ve heard Quinn say in a private discussion that he wanted a permanent increase, and Madigan insisted that it should be temporary.
Whoseever idea it was, it’s true, as Gerry said that the Speaker and Cullerton were only too happy that Rauner asked them not to make the temporary increase permanent, because it meant Rauner had walked into a trap, and would share ownership of any subsequent increase. That was good politics, if bad policy, on their part.
But that doesn’t mean Rauner’s current situation isn’t ruled by the basic math that he helped create. And now, as they say around here, “Governors own.”
Comment by Keyrock Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:51 am
I’m sure you are a great guy Demoralized, you just can’t express yourself is all.
Comment by Gerry Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:51 am
SAP
Sorry, I recall the opposite. Quinn started with a tax increase and came late to the “temporary” label as a political requirement expressed to him by the GA leaders. Don’t know what MJM personally wanted, but he represented his caucus well.
And this myth that the scheduled reduction had anything to do with something Rauner said, is an embarrassment. The only way the temporary tax increase might have been extended, would be with a Quinn victory.
Comment by walker Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:51 am
===You cannot cut $7B by “trimming the fat.” Doing such a thing involves killing the patient.===
+1
Well said
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:53 am
I’ve yet to see a single Rauner supporter that frequents this blog defend, or at least explain, why Rauner has not put forth his vision of a balanced budget. Why not? Please explain.
Comment by Moby Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:54 am
If the Governor followed basic arithmetic, he woulnd’t have insisted on the biggest tax cut in state history when part of the income tax hike was allowed to expire. Not if having a balanced budget was his goal.
Comment by anon Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:55 am
==many of the posters here that are slamming Rauner and demanding that he agree to a tax increase for nothing==
Nope, just pointing out that in order to be something Rauner gives in exchange, it has to be optional. Were the Governor to have proposed a budget which was balanced without a tax increase, then it could be argued that he actually was giving up something. Since he was unwilling to provide such a budget, either such a budget was not feasible, or he was unwilling to take the responsibility for cuts at that level.
Comment by AC Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:56 am
Gerry:
I don’t even know what “stay strong” means and you likely don’t either. “Stay strong” in watching the state’s social service network be obliterated? Is that what you mean by “stay strong?” I’d love to know what “stay strong” means other than being a ridiculous sound bite.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:56 am
I’m actually not sold that we need a tax increase. Yes, we need one IF we basically stay on the same course maintain that we have to continue on our course that got us into this. And the Governor has not been able to present a balanced budget that is within current laws, but maybe we need to change some laws.
Such as the pension ramp, why do we have to have it fully funded in 30 years? Have some actuaries play with numbers and get creative, maybe we should be looking at 80% in 45 years or 50 years. Heck, maybe we should just start over with the Edgar pension ramp and do a 75 year flat ramp that can only have a 3% increase year over year. Why are we still living with what is a bad law passed in the 1990s? Personally, I have no intention on paying for my father’s sins, I have to pay my own to pay for and they are expensive enough.
Also, pass a “consideration” pension reform or cap salary increases at half the rate of inflation to start decreasing our pension costs. I realize I will take some criticism from people who think I should just pay more taxes money so public sector workers can have diamond studded retirements. I’ll take those criticisms fully knowing there are 49 other states I can live and in nearly all of them, my money goes farther. To those who criticize this idea of needing time to go through the courts, see above suggestions on updating the ramp.
Also, pass some things like workers comp reform which lower costs to the State, local units of government and will increase revenue because it is costing our state jobs and businesses. Will the increased revenue solve all our problems? Absolutely not, but cutting costs and increasing revenue is a good starting point and when combined with other good financial management steps we can get moving in the right direction.
I only mentioned three items (adjust the ramp, pension/salary reform & workers comp) and I know there are other steps that can be taken such as prison reform, procurement reform, upgrading our state’s technology, etc.
We might have a math problem still after all that and need to increase taxes, but I don’t think we know for sure because we have a bigger mind-set problem that we should just continue with bad policy no matter the cost. We also have a speaker who is latching on to opposing any reforms or changes because he believes his best path to retain power is the status quo and make no mistake, the only thing Madigan cares about is maintaining power in the House.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:57 am
–“Because math” catchphrases like this are so self-serving and short-sighted they belong on some flimsy mailer.–
You can find budget books at the link below.
“Because math,” you could use them to show how you would balance the budget with cuts.
If you won’t, please understand that your mental onanism is recognized as such.
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/budget/Pages/default.aspx
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:59 am
Demoralized - Stay Strong means don’t capitulate and that I support you, just as I assume you support Madigan/ Cullerton and don’t want them to capitulate to Rauner. Let’s stop personally bashing each other - I’m not clueless I just disagree with you.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:59 am
Walker, that’s how I saw it. But you speak from a better position.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:59 am
===I only mentioned three items (adjust the ramp, pension/salary reform & workers comp) and I know there are other steps that can be taken such as prison reform, procurement reform, upgrading our state’s technology, etc.====
You’re only about $7.25 billion shy of closing that gap! Keep going!
lol
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:59 am
Demoralized - Stay Strong means don’t capitulate and that I support you, just as I assume you support Madigan/ Cullerton and don’t want them to capitulate to Rauner. Let’s stop personally bashing each other - I’m not clueless I just disagree with you.
Comment by Gerry Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 11:59 am
== I assume you support Madigan/ Cullerton==
Don’t assume anything. Only an absolutist assumes that if you oppose the Governor you support the other side.
And only an absolutist thinks compromise is capitulation. So long as that attitude exists we’ll continue this nightmare.
“Stay strong?” Anyone that wants anyone to “stay strong” in this mess just doesn’t get it.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:02 pm
The reason isn’t “math”, it’s “will”. Within a few hours a reasonably intelligent person can craft a mathematically sound balanced budget that doesn’t need additional revenue. They can also craft a balanced budget that significantly reduces taxes. What they can’t do at this time, however, is craft one of those budgets that will get any real support from the General Assembly or the Governor. Math is not the problem, it is the will to make the tough choices.
Comment by Pelonski Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:03 pm
==I’m sure you are a great guy Demoralized, you just can’t express yourself is all.==
How refreshing . . . when you can’t prevail with fact-based arguments, attack the person. It moves the discussion along so nicely.
Comment by Just Chilling Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:03 pm
=== Only an absolutist assumes that if you oppose the Governor you support the other side===
Exactly right.
So tiring.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:04 pm
==but I don’t think we know for sure==
You don’t think we know for sure? When do you think we’ll know for sure? It’s been a year now. How much more time do you need?
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:04 pm
===Within a few hours a reasonably intelligent person can craft a mathematically sound balanced budget that doesn’t need additional revenue===
It’s 12:04. I’ll give you until 3:30. Have fun!
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:05 pm
“Stop being so unreasonable. Give us everything we want - which we don’t really want, by the way - and we’ll let you take the blame. Deal?”
Comment by JB13 Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:05 pm
Basic math is more than just addition. Among other operations it includes subtraction, not to mention long division.
Comment by Keyser Soze Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:08 pm
Ahoy! - Not that we shouldn’t revisit the pension ramp, but there’s an issue with a an amortization schedule beyond a certain point. Imagine a $1,000 loan at 5% over 50 years. Annual payments would be $54.50. Shorten the time period by 20 years to 30, and the annual payments would be $64.42. So, with anything resembling an amortization schedule, there isn’t much or a point of extending payments much beyond 30 years.
Comment by AC Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:08 pm
“Don’t assume anything. Only an absolutist assumes that if you oppose the Governor you support the other side.
And only an absolutist thinks compromise is capitulation. So long as that attitude exists we’ll continue this nightmare.”
Well said. Personally, I support responsible government which means I currently support neither the Republicans or Democrats.
Comment by Pelonski Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:10 pm
=== Only an absolutist assumes that if you oppose the Governor you support the other side===Exactly right. So tiring.
What’s so tiring about it Rich? Demoralized calls me clueless after what I believe was a thoughtful/ reasoned post, then tells me he does not understand what “Stay Strong” means. So I try to explain it. I honestly thought it he’s jumping on me because I said I support Rauner, he probably at lease is more supportive of the other side. Geez
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:15 pm
=== Only an absolutist assumes that if you oppose the Governor you support the other side===Exactly right. So tiring.
What’s so tiring about it Rich? Demoralized calls me clueless after what I believe was a thoughtful/ reasoned post, then tells me he does not understand what “Stay Strong” means. So I try to explain it. I honestly thought it he’s jumping on me because I said I support Rauner, he probably at lease is more supportive of the other side. Geez
Comment by Gerry Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:15 pm
–The reason isn’t “math”, it’s “will”. Within a few hours a reasonably intelligent person can craft a mathematically sound balanced budget that doesn’t need additional revenue. They can also craft a balanced budget that significantly reduces taxes. –
And a few hours later, that person will be making the rounds of a number of state and federal courts getting the book thrown at him for violating every every consent decree.
You are just talking nonsense.
But prove me wrong — take a few hours over the weekend and get back to us on Monday with your balanced budget that reduces taxes.
Have fun!
http://www.illinois.gov/gov/budget/Pages/default.aspx
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:26 pm
-AC-
Thank you for making the point about diminishing returns on extending the ramp. You’rd right. Depending on the assumed rate of return, somewhere between 30 and 40 years you lose any benefit from additional years.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:29 pm
Interesting factoid here. I looked up state expenditures pre capita, http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/per-capita-state-spending/
and Illinois is relatively low at only $4734 per person.
That number is misleading, however. Most states pay much larger shares for education, while Illinois state government contributes the least. That leaves about 65% of the K-12 expense on local taxpayers to fund at the cost of 18% per student above the national average.
I also read that Illinois ranks 8th in per capita spending for police and fire from the NEA “Rankings and Estimates” report.
A high percentage of that is also funded locally.
It would be interesting to find out how Illinois compares in per capita spending in other state “buckets”.
Any of you state workers or wonks been able to find that statistic somewhere in Illinois budget analysis for areas in which we may be able to find savings or disproportionately high spending?
Comment by Illinois Bob Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:31 pm
Ok, let me weigh in on this.
If, as some here have stated, we don’t need revenue to balance the budget, I have one challenge for you:
Name the cuts. Specifically, name them.
What departments, which programs, who is going to lose.
If you say “across the board” then I know that you’re not serious.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:35 pm
=== it assumes that anything and everything you want to spend money on should be paid for by tax increases whenever necessary. ===
At the risk of repeating myself on a nearly daily basis: further evidence as Frameworks Institute points out that most people struggle to understand basic concepts of public budgets, including the relationship between budgets and taxes.
Ms. Driver, to clarify: it’s not about what Oswego Willy wants to spend money on.
It’s about what the Governor wants to spend money on, or more accurately: the services the governor has asked the General Assembly to appropriate funding for.
And yes, generally speaking, taxes are how the state pays for the delivery of services. The other alternative is various forms of borrowing, all of which just shifts the tax burden from those currently enjoying services to our children, and in some cases their children.
Comment by Juvenal Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:37 pm
Pay off the back bills with a 3 year 1.5% income tax increase that is honestly devoted to paying these bills.
Get that ‘credit card’ deficit off the books and learn to live with the 3.75% rate
Comment by Federalist Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:42 pm
===MATH says that continuing to fund schools at escalating costs per student about double that of inflation is unsustainable and has to be controlled. Math also shows that most of this escalating cost is due to school districts approving contracts whose costs exceed that of available revenues. Math show us that the ability of education unions to threaten to strike are driving that unsustainable cost increase by comparison with states that prohibit strikes (41 at last count). Math, and financial management, demands that this threat be removed in order to make education spending sustainable as determined by school boards. POLITICS says let them strike and continue unsustainable increases.===
Please note:
- Illinois Bob - yet again makes it about schools & teachers and teachers’ unions.
Seriously, - Illinois Bob -, your tired hatred for teachers is irrelevant to the math of the budget.
I’m not feeding you, I’m not looking for a retort. I’ll let your words speak to my point.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:42 pm
===learn to live with the 3.75% rate===
Show us where you’d cut $3-$4 billion? You’re a smart guy, give us a few examples of cuts we can learn to live with.
Put up or shut up.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:46 pm
Gerry,
Tired of reading your comments TWICE get with the program!
Comment by BumblesBounce Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:48 pm
Compromise with Democrats virtually always includes spending increases. We don’t have money for that - even with a tax increase. Not sure exactly where it is he’s supposed to compromise. Insist on no structural reforms and approving higher taxes for even bigger government? No who’s being unrealistic? If that’s what Illinoisans wanted, they would have re-elected Quinn.
Comment by Anon Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:49 pm
@ Demoralized–And only an absolutist thinks compromise is capitulation.–
Bingo! At both the state and federal level.
Comment by Steve Rogers Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:51 pm
The Governor did say during the campaign that he was going to root out all sorts of waste. But in a recent interview he seems to have forgotten that promise. Or as is more likely, once he was able to look at the books, he found very little waste to cut.
As far as the pension ramp goes, if you lengthen it, you are pushing debt off on your children. It seems silly to me to tinker with it now that we are at the top of the ramp. The actuarially required state payment went down 1% for FY17. That means the pension debt isn’t growing, but reached some stabilization.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 12:54 pm
Hard to believe that some of these commenters are still A)drinking the KoolAid B) uneducated about the lack of revenue we’ve had for multiple decades and the results we now see from that or C) blind to the facts.
One thing you can definitely count on though….AZ Bob, who is now Il Bob can always be sure to blame everything on schools and teachers. You know, the real 1%-ers, not the likes of Bruce. One track mind.
Comment by AnonymousOne Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:01 pm
47th Ward,
First I would not trust your numbers any more than your geography- you know what I mean after your snotty comment to me a couple of days ago.
If there is a deficit, back bills excluded since they would be paid by the tax I
mentioned, it would be up to the GA and Governor to make the cuts. Just like the rest of us do in our lives.
Hope that answers the question for you.
As far as your comment to “Put Up or Shut Up” you are merely exposing the type of person you are since I said nothing to warrant that comment.
Since I don’t think this adds anything to the discussion of this site I suggest we not make any comments to each other in the future.
Comment by Federalist Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:05 pm
I don’t see how Rauner can possibly agree to a tax increase to 5 percent or more. He might as well put up a sign saying Pat Quinn was right.
It’ll probably be nominally less. 4.85 as others have suggested seems about right. And temporary again.
But when to tell us to open our wallets again. After November might be safest for our risk-averse legislators, but it’s closer to November 2018 and after the presidential, Rauner’s re-election bid will be
one of the more interesting elections here. We’ll be reminded every day that he raised our taxes.
Maybe he should have increased taxes when he came into office. Then he could have spent four years talking about how he had to raise taxes because the Dems left such a mess. Which they did.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:08 pm
==Compromise with Democrats virtually always includes spending increases. ==
Well that shouldn’t be a difficult compromise then since the Governor is asking for that very thing in several areas.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:13 pm
“It’s 12:04. I’ll give you until 3:30. Have fun!”
$1.5 billion by eliminating higher education spending
$.5 billion by eliminating public safety spending on IEMA, state police state fire marshal, etc
$.3 billion early childhood programs
$1 billion general state education aid for k-12
$.5 billion special education
$1 billion reduction in teacher pension pickup
$.2 billion reduction in SURS
$.5 billion in public transportation & rail
$1 billion in non-federal transportation maintenance / repair
$2 billion in community care, adoption support, disability services, etc. from the “Meet the Needs of the Most Vulnerable” programs
That’s 8.5 billion in cuts from state GRF funds without even making it through all appropriation areas of the budget. Of course, the impact on spending will be much greater since many of these programs have federal matches.
Is this something I would support? No, and it is scary to think that these are some of the types of cuts we would be looking at without more revenue. Still, it is mathematically possible and from what I can tell legally allowable under both state and federal law.
Comment by Pelonski Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:15 pm
==he probably at lease is more supportive of the other side==
No, he isn’t. Again, opposing the Governor DOES NOT MEAN you support the other side. Some of you really gotta get over this belief that if you aren’t for one side you must be for the other. Enough already. I swear it’s like talking to my teenage kids sometimes. They live in a black and white world too.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:19 pm
Lol, you’re pretty thin-skinned pal. But like the Governor and the Republicans in the General Assembly, you can only rail against (permanent) higher taxes. You bravely call on the rest of us to live with current revenues, and like your compatriots, you refuse to discuss or debate the impact of that, or what that really means.
You aren’t here to engage in debate. You’re here to advance an agenda. You aren’t worth my time. Good day.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:20 pm
Higher cost of borrowing + cost of lost jobs + cost of lost revenue from lost jobs + immeasurable negative impacts on real humans > 1.4% ?
Comment by siriusly Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:21 pm
Here’s another way to raise taxes. If your rich and getting tax deductions, you submit to a drug test. If you fail, you get the standard deduction. Some states do this with food stamps. In fact a CongresssPerson in Wisconsin proposed this. Makes sense to me. If your snortin’ coke you shouldnt be getting Free Government Handouts that cost real money. Wonder if Bruce would support this?
Comment by Delbert Grady Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:24 pm
The best strategy would be for another temporary tax increase and tie it to milestones in the payment of the pension debt. Perhaps a 10% decrease in pension debt might be a quarter percent drop in the tax rate just as an example. Actuaries will need to assist with the actual timings. This will help keep spending growth in line with revenue growth.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:28 pm
==your tired hatred for teachers is irrelevant to the math of the budget==
Not in his mind. They are the key to solving all of our woes.
I think somebody in the education system was mean to him and he’s holding a grudge which has turned into a borderline obsessive campaign against everything to do with the Illinois education system. His little tantrums on the subject are just sad.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:29 pm
@federalist (sorta off point):
Great idea! So you would support a Constitutional Amendment (nationally) that would automatically implement a 25% tax on all goods and services for every Congressional Declaration of War.
I’m guessing that most recent wars that were paid for with *credit cards* has got to be driving you crazy!!!!!!
Right?
Comment by Delbert Grady Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:32 pm
A Jack: the unfunded pension liability is growing, and will continue to grow for quite a few years now
Comment by steve schnorf Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 1:55 pm
Demoralized - since you are so neutral in this, what is the compromise out there right that you think the governor should be accepting? I wonder if you will reply before Ahoy replies to Rich?
And at the request of Bumbles, I’m just posting this once. Thanks for the advice friend
Comment by Gerry Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 2:10 pm
Even though higher taxes are necessary, I don’t think Rauner is wrong in calling it a compromise. The structure of the tax increase will certainly require compromise.
Comment by Chicagonk Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 2:12 pm
@ Demoralized
==Not trim the fat, butcher off the fat==
You cannot cut $7B by “trimming the fat.” Doing such a thing involves killing the patient.
That’s why I recommended butchering, not trimming the fat. If Illinois doesn’t have enough money for large sections or entire agencies, be done with them. That too is “math.”
This is a slow motion financial train wreck. I agree, trimming will not solve the problem. Illinois needs massive restructuring. There’s just no way out of this without big changes, even with a tax increase.
Comment by BK Bro Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 2:29 pm
We know that most are for a progressive tax, regardless of legislative inability to pass CA for ballot.
We know that most understand that trickle-down economics and the “job creator” theories are junk.
What would work for growth and middle-class consumer demand, budget deficits, bill backlog, and pension load would be a very high personal exemption above which a steep state tax would be paid.
It would be interesting to know what state receipts would be on 7% tax rate, after a $25k-$50k exemption per person.
Just think, that first $100k for a family of four would not be taxed.
Illinois on the road to healthy growth, without the damage to middle-class and those below middle-class.
The day is coming where free-market capitalism, is going to need a little more demand through redistribution to keep going. Think of a bicycle that the pedals are going just too slowly and it eventually tips over, crashed. (Krugman’s favorite metaphor)
I sure hope Rauner starts to understand the role of government, soon. His last 18 months have been a lose/lose/lose.
Comment by cdog Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 2:29 pm
==Seriously, - Illinois Bob -, your tired hatred for teachers is irrelevant to the math of the budget.==
But his comments regarding teacher compensation are indeed relevant to the budget.
All these folks are focused on funding disparities between rich and poor school districts. But the #1 reason for ed funding disparities is teacher compensation. If you took a rich and poor school district and used one average salary schedule, it would resolve much of the funding difference. The rich district still has high property taxes and gets less funding from the state, but the property taxes for education are redistributed to the poor district. One consolidated average salary schedule is the #1 key to funding equity in education. That’s the math.
So a much smaller tax increase would be needed to make up the difference. That makes it directly related to the state budget.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 2:29 pm
==A Jack: the unfunded pension liability is growing, and will continue to grow for quite a few years now==
Yes. But he might be on to something creative. Automatic tax hike trigger if/when pension liability grows.
Or, do tax hike now with an automatic expiry in three years unless pension liability would grow…and since it will grow, the needed revenue would stay.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 2:35 pm
=That’s why I recommended butchering=
Might I recommend familiarizing yourself with spending that is mandated by law and consent decrees? Once you’ve completed that review you can then advise on what you’ll be butchering.
Comment by pundent Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 2:38 pm
===All these folks are focused on funding disparities between rich and poor school districts. But the #1 reason for ed funding disparities is teacher compensation.===
LOL!
Yeah, CPS is paying their teachers way more than New Trier. It’s always the teachers.
All those New Trier educators leaving for CPS for the big dollars…
Good one!
===recommended butchering, not trimming the fat. If Illinois doesn’t have enough money for large sections or entire agencies, be done with them. That too is “math.”
This is a slow motion financial train wreck. I agree, trimming will not solve the problem. Illinois needs massive restructuring. There’s just no way out of this without big changes, even with a tax increase.===
Your lack of understanding the functions of governmental agencies and slashing and matching federal dollars and mandated state programs to get those dollars is your ignorance of what it truly means to slash billions… easily.
“It may hurt”…
… and cost billions more to lost dollars in fed funding let alone the Legislstive requirements of some other programs.
Seriously, the complete lack of understanding institutional knowledge… Is it a disease… spreading?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 2:44 pm
=== Illinois needs massive restructuring. There’s just no way out of this without big changes, even with a tax increase. ===
And that would be? Expected to save?
Comment by Norseman Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 2:47 pm
Thank you, OW, for reminding people of the risk of losing matching federal funds if you cut in the wrong places.
That cannot be emphasized enough. Especially spending that goes to in-state recipients/vendors, who then spend most of their income in-state.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 3:01 pm
OW - The #1 reason - not the ONLY reason - for the disparities in instructional funding spent PER PUPIL is teacher compensation.
To use your New Trier example but instead compare it to a comparably sized poor school district, one avg salary schedule - keeping existing tax levies the same - for both those districts would address most (not all) the instructional funding differences per pupil.
LOL at the math all you want, but the key to funding equity is how we allocate teacher salaries. Equalize that (higher for some, lower for some), raise taxes to make up the difference, and the problem is solved. The funding problem, that is. Results are a different animal.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 3:03 pm
“Higher taxation is a given” is spot on, long obvious to anyone who examines the budget.
The gridlock is fundamentally about sharing the political responsibility for that tax increase. Rauner wants Democrats to be fully responsible for the tax, and Madigan will demand that the pain is shared by both parties, for Republicans to sponsor and vote for that tax bill and delivering only the minimum number of Dem votes required to pass it.
Comment by peanut Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 3:13 pm
Steve,
At least for the state’s retirement systems it is not growing, perhaps for TRS or SURS. However for the state systems, the employer contribution rate as determined by the public pension section of DOI has remained the same for FY17. If that was still growing, the actuaries would have had to increase the employer contribution rate to remain even.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 3:14 pm
- City Zen -
Since school districts negotiate pay for teachers and have the taxing ability to pay these wages, your ignorance to…
===one avg salary schedule - keeping existing tax levies the same - for both those districts would address most (not all) the instructional funding differences per pupil.===
Making uniformed wages for a teachers’ market won’t hapoen.
If it happened, why would good teachers go to bad schools to be paid the same?
They wouldn’t.
Districts like New Trier and Naperville’s two districts is that they set the salary scale for other districts.
Teachers are not “killin’ thus state, just killin’ it”
Nope. Chicago can raise property taxes if the want. No one is stopping them.
What else ya got?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 3:15 pm
=== If there is a deficit, back bills excluded since they would be paid by the tax I
mentioned, it would be up to the GA and Governor to make the cuts. Just like the rest of us do in our lives. ===
Again. Frameworks Institute. Discredited Household Budget analogy.
That said, always happy to meet another so-called conservative who claims to have never increased their income.
Comment by Juvenal Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 3:38 pm
==If Illinois doesn’t have enough money for large sections or entire agencies, be done with them.==
So, tell us which ones.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 3:40 pm
Willy, I don’t disagree with your argument, but I got the impression that what City Zen was trying to point out is that under the current system, the wealthier districts that have the good schools are able to pay their teachers more than the poorer districts that generally (though not always) have worse schools pay their teachers less. Which leads to the best teachers taking jobs at the best schools, even though their skills could be better put to use elsewhere. What they are suggesting is that instead of property taxes going to their local district, that property tax revenue would be redistributed.
Comment by Juice Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 3:46 pm
==Since school districts negotiate pay for teachers and have the taxing ability to pay these wages==
I know how wages are determined today, but it doesn’t have to remain that way. Taxing ability has already been established. Tax allocation is a different animal. The New Trier resident already pays more in state income taxes and gets less funding from the state. His school funding doesn’t have to remain local. But since it does, it inflates salaries in his district. Reallocate that excess to another district.
== why would good teachers go to bad schools to be paid the same?==
Have you seen the salary differences between “good and bad” schools (say Oak Park vs Markham)? Today, if they go to the “bad” school, they’d be making considerably less. Now they can go anywhere without a penalty. This puts the “bad” districts on equal footing.
I’m not talking CPS here. I agree…they can raise their taxes first. But math is math.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 3:57 pm
-A Jack-
You are mixing up current workforce pension costs and repaying the unfunded liability.
The current pension costs are going down slightly as Tier 2 staff become more of the employed population because they accrue less pension liability due to both lower wages and paying Tier 1 level contributions for reduced Tier 2 benefits.
As to the ramp, we are NOT yet at the top. Think of the ramp like a sub-prime mortgage where you get a teaser rate and payment the first so many years; you are not even paying the full principal and interest during those early years and the shortage gets added to the owed principal. That (and the Great Recession also) is how a lot of homeowners ended up upside down in their homes.
That’s where Illinois is right now with the ramp; we’re repaying less than the actual principal and interest. The ramp has the payment continuing to go up for quite a few years yet. If we were to be making the full / actuarial payment, we would be paying about $2B more right now … but it would stay at that same payment level until the end.
Illinois, in effect, took out a sub-prime mortgage on the pensions in 1995 with a teaser payment that balloons as time goes on. In retrospect, it wasn’t the best plan … but it was what was politically doable. Not sticking to the payment schedule with pension holidays and borrowing didn’t help. But in partial defense of the people back in 1995, nobody envisioned the double economic hits following 9/11/2001 and 2007-2009.
Bottom line: we can either stick with the existing ramp and it’s increasing payments, we can rework the ramp a bit but it will be at the expense of time / increased total cost, or we can switch to a level payment plan that will cost us more now and next several years but will eventually cost us less.
TANSTAAFL.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:04 pm
Dear Governor,
Your acceptance of a graduated income tax, so that your effective tax rate is in line with middle-class taxpayers, would be a compromise. Combined with closing some corporate tax loopholes and whatever judicious cuts are left to be made, this could pretty much solve the state’s fiscal problems without too much harm to the folks for whom IL really is a high-tax state (you know darn well it’s not for you and your backers).
Increased tax revenue alone? Please see Rich’s post.
Yours truly. etc.
Comment by X-prof Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:16 pm
Majority of the IEPA, State Fair, combine a majority of the departments doing human services and probably scale them back significantly, Lt. gov, significantly scale back DNR, significantly scale back Illinois VA, reduce staff assistant-type positions by half or more, that’s what I can think off the top of my head. Also, members of the house and senate are now part-time like in other states. No pension. Being a legislator shouldn’t be a career. Go get a real job!
I wouldn’t necessarily WANT to do this, but if we’re talking math you do have the option of subtraction.
Comment by BK Bro Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:20 pm
(Sigh)
===I know how wages are determined today,===
Yep, so stop pretending that’s now how it works, it disingenuous.
===…but it doesn’t have to remain that way.===
I don’t think Oswego 308 is going to let Naperville 204 dictate 308 salaries…
===Taxing ability has already been established. Tax allocation is a different animal. The New Trier resident already pays more in state income taxes and gets less funding from the state.===
What?! What is your argument? You make no sense.
===His school funding doesn’t have to remain local. But since it does, it inflates salaries in his district. Reallocate that excess to another district.===
Robin Hood taxing “Rich to poor districts”?
I don’t think you know what your argument is…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:25 pm
===What they are suggesting is that instead of property taxes going to their local district, that property tax revenue would be redistributed.===
Yikes.
“I’m paying $16,000 in property taxes to schools that aren’t mine?”
Tough sell
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:27 pm
OW - I hear ya and I agree. But I can make the same argument regarding the allocation of my state income taxes.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:33 pm
===But I can make the same argument regarding the allocation of my state income taxes.===
No, not the same
I can choose to live in Illinois but choose to live in 204 or 308, but I’m still in Illinois.
The only similarity would be Illinois or moving to Iowa or another state.
You choose your schools as to where you live IN the state.
So no, not the same.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:41 pm
Income tax is a state tax, for the state, GA and Governor to get and use in s budget.
Property tax for schools… is a local thing.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:43 pm
==I don’t think Oswego 308 is going to let Naperville 204 dictate 308 salaries…==
Moot point. Your prop tax remains the same. Naperville prop tax remains the same. Reallocation happens with teacher salaries. Some more, some less. Then recalculate funding level per pupil. Remainder made up on state inc tax hike.
So a portion of your local Ed tax levy doesn’t remain local. So what?
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:45 pm
Take my prop tax bill, take a chunk of money from my local SD, put it in a new line item called “state education fairness” tax, and reallocate. But only after salaries have been equalized. My community will see no worse results
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:52 pm
===So a portion of your local Ed tax levy doesn’t remain local. So what?===
The state now wants to be involved in re-allocating property taxes at “acceptable levels”?
What should the percentage be for New Trier Township or Thornton Township?
Rauner wants to reduce property taxes, not have the state start regulate and redistribute monies.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:53 pm
RNUG,
If the employer contribution rate is only for current employees, then why has it been climbing steadily over the years? When I first looked at it for federal matching purposes (some agencies actually get a part of the pension cost reimbursed federally) the rate was around 12%. It has climbed to about 44%. Unless those extra payments are to make up for Blagojevich shorting the system, they should not have grown that much for current employees.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:53 pm
===My community will see no worse results===
Considering you don’t know the percentage or what exactly the formuka would be… That statement is based in a shred of fact. Sorry.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:54 pm
Cost of living differentials affect salaries. Naperville costs more than Decatur or Taylorville and teacher pay reflects that.
Same for comparing state workers salaries. Indiana cost of living is about 80 percent of Illinois and Indiana salaries are about 80 percent of Illinois salaries. Surprise!
Illinois has outsourced many lower level human services jobs. That also affects comparative salaries.
As many commentators have said, Federal matches and regulations have a huge impact on state costs. You can’t save $7 billion in State funds by cutting $7 billion in expenditures.
Solutions are complicated. The public debate this year is making it more difficult to sell any workable solution.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:57 pm
“Considering you don’t know the percentage or what exactly the formula would be… That statement is NOT based in a shred of fact. Sorry.”
Also…
===Your prop tax remains the same. Naperville prop tax remains the same. Reallocation happens with teacher salaries. Some more, some less. Then recalculate funding level per pupil. Remainder made up on state inc tax hike.===
Teachers are NOT the problem.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 4:57 pm
(Tips cap to - Robert the Bruce -)
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 17, 16 @ 5:03 pm