Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

More answers needed on Pritzker’s “artificial progressive income tax”

Posted in:

Illinois

Pritzker has said his goals as governor would be expanding early childhood education, increasing funding for grade and high schools, widening tax breaks for lower-income earners and reducing the property tax burden on local homeowners. Achieving them could require a significant increase in the state income tax rate of 4.95 percent on individuals.

Illinois widely is regarded as paying a relatively low share of the funding for public grade and high schools, about 25 percent based on Illinois State Board of Education figures for the 2016-2017 school year. Instead, nearly 70 percent of schools’ money comes from local property taxes. A Civic Federation study found that $18 billion in property taxes is dedicated to local schools statewide. […]

“It would take us about two years in total to get it all done and said, that we would have a progressive income tax,” Pritzker said at a Loop news conference.

“So in the meantime, you could have what I would describe as … an artificial progressive income tax in which we would raise the exemptions for those striving to get to the middle class, those in the middle class too, and raise the overall rate and raise the earned income tax credit at the same time — all of which would create a kind of artificial graduated income tax in the state,” he said.

Pritzker didn’t elaborate on how additional exemptions or deductions would work. He said he viewed an increase in the state’s flat-rate income tax as “only a temporary answer and that you really need the permanent answer of a constitutional amendment.”

1) It could take longer than two years for a graduated income tax to find three-fifths super-majorities in both chambers. A lot longer. Even if the House Dems increase their strength this November and reach the magic number of 71, Speaker Madigan has several members who either are anti-tax hike or (more likely) have been deliberately positioned as anti-tax.

2) The “artificial” progressive tax is an interesting idea. But Pritzker needs to flesh it out some more. He’s squeamish about identifying rates for his progressive tax idea, but what about at least giving us a cutting-off-point on income levels that would benefit from his “artificial” plan? Where would he draw those lines?

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:33 am

Comments

The artificial progressive tax, I agree, is an interesting idea. But I fear that Pritzker’s flaunting it as a way to get around the state’s constitution will result in it getting struck down by the courts.

It’s one thing to pass a bill that would raise exemptions. It’s another thing to state publicly the whole reason for changing the tax law is to get around the constitutional prohibition of progressive rates.

Comment by Robert the Bruce Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:44 am
This is such a critical issue, and we need answers. I read briefly yesterday along the lines that Pritzker wants to lower property taxes and the tax burden on lower-income people via a progressive income tax. That’s a great idea. We strongly support progressive taxation, and I want to see it with cuts to property taxes and lower burdens for many people who are not among the highest incomes.

Raising the tax now and giving exemptions/deductions is not my favorite approach but it’s likely the most realistic—until we can amend the constitution. If it’s the most realistic, go for it full-on. But we need to see a plan.

Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:44 am
Interesting idea, but I think the electorate would go nuts at the prospect of another hike of the existing flat tax rate - even if it is coupled with more exemptions. Most people do not understand the nuances created by the exemptions and will still presumably receive a hit to their paychecks when the withholdings are adjusted to account for the new tax rate (I assume the exemptions would give people a refund at tax time but in the meantime will take out more from paychecks). Also, all people will hear (and read in the newspaper) is that another huge tax increase was passed.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:47 am
Pritzker isn’t “squeamish”, he’s smart. If Bruce could get elected on “Shake up Springfield, and Bring Back Illinois”, then Pritzker should flesh out his positions only in general terms until Rauner is sent packing.

Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:53 am
I just don’t see how an artificial progressive tax could legally comport with Article IX section 3 of the Illinois Constitution which mandates a non-graduated income tax. I realize that credits and exemptions are now in the Illinois Tax Code but they are not generally applicable. Pritzker’s plan would be expressly intended to violate that express prohibition. Can’t see that working legally.

Comment by TominChicago Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:54 am
JB is on the right track with additional exemptions or deductions. He has some time to flesh those out- not a lot, but some. The SALT in the wounds of the recent Federal tax changes will help “season” that along. Let some other states challenge this for a while (see New York and New Jersey).

Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:55 am
We don’t need to see rates or a plan. This is just people talking that want to give Rauner campaign ammo.

Comment by Real Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:55 am
==If Bruce could get elected on “Shake up Springfield, and Bring Back Illinois”, then Pritzker should flesh out his positions only in general terms until Rauner is sent packing.==

Yeah, the record is pretty clear, voters want aspiration, not explanation.

Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:59 am
One hypothetical scenario, for illustration purposes:

Use $50,000 (net of current exemptions) as the baseline. At 5% the tax on $50K is $2,500. At 7% the tax on $50K is $3,500, a $1,000 increase.

Increase the exemption by $15,000 meaning $50K is taxed as if it were $35K.

At 7% the tax of $35K is $2,450, slightly less than $50K at 5%.

Everyone earning more than $50K gets a tax increase, everyone earning less than $50K gets a tax decrease.

= = =

What the baseline should be will require negotiation and compromise but the premise is simple, . . .

Increase the exemption by whatever is needed to result in a net zero change in tax at the chosen baseline.

Is that $40K? $50K? $80K?

At what rate? 6%? =or= 7% =or= 8%?

Don’t know, yet.

= = =

JB should not be expected to propose precise numbers, right now, and he should be flexible in negotiating the final numbers.

First, let’s agree on the concept. Then, do the math.

Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:00 am
Why should Pritzker show some rates now when certain things he wants to do is not currently in the budget like legalizing and taxing marijuana?

Comment by Real Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:06 am
===If Bruce could get elected on “Shake up Springfield, and Bring Back Illinois”===

Does that justify Pritzker’s generalities? Two wrongs make a right?

Comment by People Over Parties Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:07 am
== Does that justify Pritzker’s generalities? ==

Given JB’s need for General Assembly “buy in” to make this idea work, he should propose the concept and let the GA haggle out the final numbers.

But the concept is firm, the personal exemption is increased by whatever is needed to zero out the flat rate tax increase at a chosen income level.

Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:10 am
File this under “If You’re Explaining, You’re Losing.”

Awfully hard to argue you’re going to lower taxes with some sort of legal slight-of-hand after you increase the tax rate.

More messages discipline and less policy wonk, please.

Comment by Roman Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:15 am
==Does that justify Pritzker’s generalities? Two wrongs make a right?==

We campaign in poetry and govern in prose.

And anyway, any numbers he puts out now would all be subject to legislative haggling…which is to say meaningless.

Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:21 am
Oh, so *now* it’s the General Assembly’s job to work out the details of the state finances? Interesting. Please, tell us more, Democratic partisans.

Comment by JB13 Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:21 am
===Oh, so *now* it’s the General Assembly’s job to work out the details of the state finances? Interesting. Please, tell us more, Democratic partisans.===

(Sigh)

As a Republican, here’s what I absolutely know about any and every Pritzker proposal…

71 and 36

See, that’s the rub.

Pritzker, if elected, like Rauner who as elected, need to know the game here specifically is… 71… and… 36

Your “concern” while fun to make it partisan, the numbers are the numbers. Rauner, Pritzker… any governor.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:25 am
Property taxes aren’t going down, every level of government is being hurt by less State money coming down the pipeline. Most are not catching up on their Police and Fire pension obligations. Infrastructure repairs that have been put off only increase in cost over time so local governments have had to add/increase taxes on items that were not taxed or heavily taxed in the past. The demolition of abandoned properties be them residential or business is also taking a heavy toll on local governments finances downstate. There will a substantial increase of income tax at all levels in Illinois in the near future.

Comment by Stand Tall Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:27 am
There is a straightforward way to do an “artificial” progressive income tax. Just raise the minimum income over which you pay zero tax to the median income, so that half of the people pay no state income tax at all. Then set the tax on the incremental over the median at double the current rate. Everybody who makes less than double the median (about 2/3 of all taxpayers) would see a tax cut. The remaining one third would pay more than they do now. Would that cause them to move? No–because the states that have graduated income tax have upper rates about twice our flat tax. We would be approximately matching them. This would bring in a lot more revenue than our current system and I believe would pass constitutional muster, since a flat rate with an income cutoff is well established. It just changes where the cutoff is and what the rate is.

Comment by jake Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:27 am
Glad to see increasing attention being paid to the flat rate provision of that pesky constitution. The next question for rauner is strategic. Generate a scholarly examination critical of the constitutionality of the artificial progressive tax? Or save that for later, and just constantly beat pritzker for wanting to raise your taxes?

Comment by Langhorne Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:27 am
He’s gone from word salad to word soup. This guy can’t complete a thought.

Comment by A guy Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:33 am
== And anyway, any numbers he puts out now would all be subject to legislative haggling…which is to say meaningless. ==

This. All day, this.

The concept is firm, the personal exemption is increased by whatever is needed to zero out the flat rate tax increase for a specified income level.

Propose actual numbers in public only after private discussions to evaluate the chances of 36/71.

Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:37 am
==I just don’t see how an artificial progressive tax TominChicago== I used to think the same thing until one day while filling out my tax form and arriving at zero, I realized we all ready have defacto multiple rates. My effective tax rate is 0%. All my income is exempted. How does that fit in a flat tax now ?

Comment by Anotherretiree Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:37 am
Dumb move #2. And counting.

Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:41 am
JB is picking up the torch for the millionaire tax voters. You need a bipartisan blue ribbon panel to execute the wishes of the voters past

Comment by Rabid Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:41 am
==Oh, so *now* it’s the General Assembly’s job to work out the details of the state finances?==

Look, I know it sucks to defend Rauner’s gross fiscal mismanagement, and that when you’re desperate you’ll try to grab at everything, but it’s always been the GA’s job to approve “the details of the state finances”, and it will remain the GA’s job next year, even if JB wins.

Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:43 am
==Propose actual numbers in public only after private discussions to evaluate the chances of 36/71.==

Yes, tell everyone the cost after they agree to purchase. Open and honest government indeed.

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:56 am
In other words, he is saying we should elect him so he can tell us how much our taxes are going up?

Brilliant strategy. That’s never backfired before.

Comment by ChrisB Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 10:56 am
“In other words, he is saying we should elect him so he can tell us how much our taxes are going up?”

If he does it right, he will not say “our taxes” but his and Rauner’s taxes. Pritzker should take responsibility or show contrition over his tax avoidance—unlike Rauner, who refuses to take any responsibility. Pritzker should challenge Rauner to support a progressive state income tax and say both of their taxes need to increase.

Rauner’s tax plan is to gouge the savings out of working class people and strip them of collective bargaining and labor rights. There is a huge difference between the two approaches.

Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:09 am
Nobody wants to hear how everything will be fine so long as they do their taxes right or hire a tax preparer.

Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:10 am
Not one word from JB on how to cut taxes and save money. The State of Michigan consolidated 40 data centers to (3) and saved 19 million the first year. Got rid of the mainframe and converted to open source.

Comment by Silicon Prairie Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:12 am
JB wants to expand the size of government. At least he’s very honest: he wants to raise taxes. Illinois is a big government state, that’s why JB will probably get what he wants one way or another.

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:15 am
===he wants to raise taxes. Illinois is a big government state, that’s why JB will probably get what he wants one way or another.===

Sure… lol

You find me the 71.

That’ll be easy. Piece of cake even.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:18 am
Why does a bill to expand or change how state income tax credits work require 71 and 36? An actual progressive income tax needs that threshold because it has to be a constitutional amendment, but if the “artificial tax” is found to be constitutional, why wouldn’t it just need 60 and 30?

Comment by Doofman Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:23 am
== Not one word from JB on how to cut taxes and save money. ==

Bruce Rauner was given more than 3 years to attempt this, and failed.

Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:23 am
- Oswego Willy -

I’ve yet to see a poll , in the last several years, that says voters aren’t for a progressive tax in Illinois. Although, I hope you are correct because once you get a progressive income tax … they go up and up and up… and their are consequences.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/business/one-top-taxpayer-moved-and-new-jersey-shuddered.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/connecticut/articles/2017-05-07/connecticut-feels-effect-of-drop-in-super-rich-tax-payments

http://www.courant.com/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-tax-migration-0102-20180102-story.html

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:27 am
===Not one word from JB on how to cut taxes and save money.===

Aw, you must’ve missed Gov. Rauner’s budget folks and agency directors telling a GA committee they couldn’t identify a single cut.

Missed it… or willfully ignorant of it?

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:27 am
===Although, I hope you are correct because once you get a progressive income tax … they go up and up and up… and their are consequences.===

Right or wrong, the “rule” is the same, 71 and 36.

The rest is noise unless there are 71 and 36 “Green”

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:29 am
Here’s hoping there aren’t 71 and 36….

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:36 am
==If he does it right, he will not say “our taxes” but his and Rauner’s taxes.==

So if JB lies correctly, allz coolz?

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 12:37 pm
There is nothing unconstitutional or “artificial” about a big increase in the personal exemption as a way of maintaining a flat income tax rate and gaining more revenue mostly from those who can best afford to pay more. Lower income folks can get a needed tax reduction. Given the difficulty of actually amending the Constitution, there should be no shock at all that the Democratic nominee is looking at this.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 12:51 pm
As long as the state doesn’t try to create (explicitly, or in effect) a progressive multi-tier exemption scheme, a big bump in exemption would likely work.

Comment by titan Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 1:11 pm
==Not one word from JB on how to cut taxes and save money.==

I prefer realism rather than fake promises of tax cuts, which, by the way, would be the absolutely worst thing to do right now.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 1:37 pm
So JB is rich he’s not going to tax his buddies and he wants to help the poor so middle class who do ya think is gonna pay

Comment by Q Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 2:19 pm
==I prefer realism==

So do I. JB must show the rates that will fund each of his promises plus balance the budget plus pay off debt. He’s had plenty of time to figure this out, not having to worry about cuts and all.

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 3:47 pm
“OW” thanks. This is the 2nd reason to vote for Rauner…the 1st being a fair map.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 4:55 pm
===This is the 2nd reason to vote for Rauner…the 1st being a fair map.===

The first reason is Rauner is grossly inept and can’t count to 60 or 71?

Hmm.

Dunno if I’d want to know your 3rd reason, lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:01 pm
- Hamlet’s Ghost - Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 11:23 am:
== Not one word from JB on how to cut taxes and save money. ==
Bruce Rauner was given more than 3 years to attempt this, and failed.

You are completely missing the point which is JB doesnt want to cut anything or reform anything. Yes, Rauner failed to convince Madigan over 3 years but he proposed changes it and didnt have the votes. JB isnt proposing anything accept tax increases. Something is going to have to change in Illinois at some point

Comment by Silicon Prairie Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:18 pm
I’ve always thought that the General Assembly vote for a graduated income tax amendment should be framed as a democracy issue. Not 1 legislator is actually voting for a graduated income tax. All they are doing is giving the voters of Illinois the ability to have a voice on the future of taxation in this state. If you’re opposed to it, fine, raise money for a PAC to campaign against it. But it’s undemocratic to deny the voters a say. BTW the same thing is true for a fair maps amendment.

Comment by MyTwoCents Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 5:22 pm
Tax and spend, tax and spend.

Comment by Ron Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:46 pm
When was the last time the state had a real balanced budget? The 50s?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:47 pm
Oh - Anonymous -… you are tiring…

===- charlie wheeler - Wednesday, Jan 17, 18 @ 7:07 pm:

Points of Information re balanced budgets

“When was the last time Illinois actually had a balanced budget?”

Illinois last ended its fiscal year with a general funds budgetary surplus (GF available balance > lapse period spending) in FY2001, when the AB was greater than LPS by some $300 million.

As measured by declining budgetary deficits, Illinois last had a balanced budget (current year spending less than current year revenues) in FY2015, when the deficit declined by slightly more than $1 billion.

If unfunded pension liabilities are included, Illinois likely has never had a balanced budget since the state assumed responsibility for certain public employees’ retirement benefits a century ago. Nor is the state likely to have a balanced budget under this concept for the foreseeable future, as the unfunded liabilities totaled roughly $129 billion as of 6/30/17, roughly three-and-a-half times the estimated general funds revenues for FY 2018.

Sources: Illinois Comptroller Reports, Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability.

Charlie Wheeler===

If you don’t know who “Charlie Wheeler” is… use the Google Key.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 4, 18 @ 9:51 pm
Yep, illinois has never had had a balanced budget. And all JB can do is tax and spend more.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 7:45 am
===…illinois has never had…===

Expecting someone who can’t pick a name to be able to read and comprehend words is a big leap…

===Illinois last ended its fiscal year with a general funds budgetary surplus (GF available balance > lapse period spending) in FY2001, when the AB was greater than LPS by some $300 million.===

Willfully ignorant or blissfully unaware?

lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 7:58 am
Bruce Rauner, having never signed a full fiscal year budget has made Illinois far worse, as Crain’s stated during the time before the bipartisan General Assembly overrode Rauner’s dangerous fiscal policy of squeezing Illinois by refusing to fund state agencies, Illinois universities and rubbing up billions in debt as Rauner refused to pay vendors for work done by signed contract.

As cited here often, Rauner as a governor, Crain’s stated…

===By nearly every measure, the state is worse off since Rauner took office===

… which later, the National Review weighed and measured Rauner as the “Worst Republican Governor in America”

Illinois as a state deserves a governor willing to do the work, like sign a budget.

The General Assembly, in bipartisan overrides, saved Illinois from Bruce Rauner.

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 5, 18 @ 8:07 am