Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Dem Rep signs on as chief-co of anti-prog tax rez

Posted in:

Illinois

* Illinois Policy Institute…

Calls to protect Illinoisans from a progressive income tax are now coming from both sides of the aisle in Springfield.

State Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Smithton, signed on as chief co-sponsor to House Resolution 891 on April 27. The resolution was filed in March by state Rep. David McSweeney, R-Barrington Hills, and states that Illinois should not scrap its constitutionally protected flat income tax. […]

Knowing their families and the state’s economy can’t shoulder any more tax hikes, nearly 25,000 Illinoisans have signed a petition telling lawmakers to stand in opposition to a progressive tax income tax via illinoispolicy.org.

State lawmakers would be wise to follow Costello’s lead and heed those calls to action.

The resolution is here.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 9:50 am

Comments

Wow! Just 1 dem signed on.

Comment by Real Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:00 am
Their are two types of Democrats in Illinois. Those that are Democrats and stand for Illinois Democratic values, and those that have to run for re-election. Since they have to actually face the voters they run away from Illinois Democratic values since those values stand for corruption, high taxes, and help government workers (aka campaign “volunteers” and “donors”) at the expense of those who have to pay for those government worker salaries, benefits, and pensions.

Comment by Just Me Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:02 am
Ah well, there’s always a Democrat or two against progressive taxation.

See how the Illinois Propaganda Institute and its phony victims defend the interests of the wealthiest? These are the people who can most afford to pay more, and thanks to the state constitution have shorted the state for decades.

Why should government workers who live paycheck to paycheck give an inch when conservative billionaires and their privileged supporters are waging a brutal fight to not pay a penny more in taxes? The anti-progressive tax people have given everyone else a model of resistance.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:08 am
Got to love paranoid scaremongers. You can have legitimate problems with whatever the brackets and rates would be, but there is no real reason to oppose a graduated tax except fear that your donors might be unhappy with a larger tax bill. Note I said donors and not constituents. They are holding the middle class hostage in order to protect the top 10% (really the top 1%) because the flat tax ties us all together. The CTBA report yesterday said that in IL the tax burden (local and state) on the top 1% was 4.6% of their income (compared to 13% or 10% for the bottom 40% of the population) and yet we have “our” representatives throwing themselves on top of the 1% to protect them. Insanity. Utter insanity.

Comment by Perrid Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:09 am
Rep. Costello, thank you.

Comment by Saluki Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:11 am
What a surprise that qa Republican from uber-rich Barrington Hills opposes a graduated income tax! I’m stunned by the courage that took!

Comment by Streamwood Retiree Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:17 am
Rep. Costello does not want to cut taxes for 98% of Illinoisans.

Comment by SAP Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:18 am
So exactly how are we to raise $2 Billion a year to pay down our backlog of unpaid bills and avoid the 12% interest we are paying on this backlog? And without further penalizing 98% of the taxpayers.

I’ll wait for the answer.

Comment by illini Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:23 am
Rep. Costello,

Thank you for standing up against further tax hikes. Thank you for supporting the taxpayer protection of a constitutionally guaranteed flat tax. Thank you for not playing into the politics of envy and division.

Thank you for not being a snake-oil salesman like Madigan/Pritzker.

Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:24 am
==at the expense of those who have to pay for those government worker salaries, benefits, and pensions==

State workers pay both taxes and into their own pension funds.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:26 am
Easy there - Illinois has a relatively low income tax rate, and very high property tax rates. This will effect lower income level more. An aggressive “progressive” graduated tax will send those that pay Illinois income taxes out of state. Ask Connecticut how this is working out. This “study” is a rationale for a graduated tax, and I fear will become conventional wisdom. Proof through assertion is not fact. Whenever you see the word “fairness” when analyzing Revenues and Expenditures beware. The discussion has left economics and accounting and are in political territory.

Comment by Lets B Adults Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:29 am
==Thank you for not being a snake-oil salesman like Madigan/Pritzker.==

Thinking we can get the state’s finances in order without a progressive income tax *is* selling snake oil. Rauner’s had three years to propose a budget that balances without taxes of at least 5%. He could never do it. He’s proven that we need the revenue, and at least with a progressive income tax, we can get it without causing further pain for 90% of taxpayers.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:30 am
==Ask Connecticut how this is working out.==

We can also ask one of the other 24 states with a progressive income tax…

And we can ask ourselves how IL’s status quo is doing.

It’s not great.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:32 am
*34 states…

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:33 am
I didn’t realize you had so many millionaires reading your blog and worrying about their taxes being increased if we move to a progressive tax

Comment by Publius Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:33 am
I hope everyone understands that we need more revenue. But where is the study for expenditure reform? The State OWES its existing workers what we promised them. But Illinois has to do something different to stop digging this hole. We solve nothing without More revenue, major reform and a long time horizon. Less than 20% of the public sector had defined benefit programs because they are unsustainable.

Comment by Lets B Adults Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:36 am
Meh, I’m quite certain that members of the Costello family businesses would be among the 2% who would see a bump from a progressive tax income tax.

The old man is raking it in from lobbying and buying Illinois debt.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:37 am
Publius - The “millionaires” you propose to tax are the taxpayers that are the most mobile. They are the ones who can leave. You don’t think taxation effects behavior?

I think “millionaires” would accept higher taxes, IF, there was real reform.

p.s. is there something wrong with being a millionaire?

Comment by Lets B Adults Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:41 am
We absolutely do not need more revenue. We need to drastically curtail pension payments, Medicaid spending, and administrative bloat in local government and higher ed.

The fastest growing states have no income tax at all. That should be our goal. Cut spending to the point where we can live on a broad based sales tax and abolish both the corporate and individual income taxes.

Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:43 am
This is about the legislature being allowed to simply consider other tax structures.

Comment by walker Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:45 am
The new federal tax code makes progressive state income taxes much more difficult to enact and swallow. California and New York are so concerned they are attempting through “charity deductions” to get around the 10K SALT limit. Just a reminder for all those excited about moving to a progressive state income tax code.

Comment by Steve Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:45 am
How can you avoid paying 12% interest?

The legislature could pass a law that has a reasonable late interest penalty for starters

Illinois could also pass some laws that will entice investment in Illinois by the private sector instead of incentivizing flight and disinvestment.

Illinois economy has lagged the rest of the country for the past 18 years

Look how healthy the economy seems to be right over the border of Wisconsin. Why is that?

The Land of Lincoln is the land of unions and trial lawyers, not free enterprise

Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:46 am
==You don’t think taxation effects behavior?==

Given that they kept leaving even after we cut taxes in 2015, it’s clear that the relationship between tax rates and behavior isn’t quite so simple as you think.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:48 am
===We need to drastically curtail pension payments===

Pay in full, cut the payments made…

…

The money is still owed.

That’s not changing.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:48 am
Fear-mongering trumps math for those who like the status quo with the flat rate income tax. It was always going to be a heavy lift to amend the Illinois Constitution.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:48 am
Any one out there willing to place a wager that assuming a progressive tax program is ever implementer- more then 2 percent of Illinois taxpayers will see an increase. My guess is it will be closer to 50 percent of tax filers

Comment by Sue Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:50 am
==I didn’t realize you had so many millionaires reading your blog and worrying about their taxes being increased if we move to a progressive tax==

I didn’t realize that Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa and Minnesota have literally NO wealthy people living in those states. I mean, unless posters like Just Me and Political Animal are not honest reliable posters and are just posting drive-by comments to support the agenda of some shady conservative paymasters. If they and the IPI are telling the truth, then all the wealthy people have already moved out of those states for places like Tennessee and florida, right? But I take them at their word. It’s just plain worrisome that many Midwest states have only middle class and poor residents. We should really start a blue ribbon commission to study this phenomenon.

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:51 am
==We absolutely do not need more revenue.==

Just ’cause you said “absolutely” doesn’t make it true. We tried the “no new revenue and hope” thing for Rauner’s entire term up to this point, and everything is worse. Pensions are protected by the state Constitution, Medicaid payments by federal laws. Local governments are paid at the local level, so the only pot you’ve ID’d is higher ed admin, and while UofI’s 32 different Vice Provosts for Administrative Doohickery are obnoxious, they aren’t enough to pay the bill.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:51 am
===Medicaid spending, and administrative bloat in local government and higher ed.===

Show the cuts, rub on those specific, very specific cuts.

Don’t run on “waste, fraud, and abuse”… show me… I’m cutting $300 million from higher ed.

Ok.

Now go run in Edwardsville and Carbondale, tell them you are all but closing them.

See how that goes.

===Cut spending to the point where we can live on a broad based sales tax and abolish both the corporate and individual income taxes.===

What are those numbers?

Give me a number, show me those cuts.

Otherwise you’re yelling at clouds from your porch.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:53 am
====We absolutely do not need more revenue. We need to drastically curtail pension payments====

Which part of the unanimous decision in In re Pension Reform Litigation, 2015 IL 118585 did you not understand?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:54 am
==Pay in full, cut the payments made…

…

The money is still owed.

That’s not changing.==

It needs to change. We need to change the constitution. We simply cannot afford to pay for the promises politicians have made to their special interest Union buddies.

@Lester Holt’s Mustache

I’ve been commenting here for about 5 year and read the blog daily. Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I’m a plant.

Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 10:56 am
Political Animal, even if the General Assembly voted to removing the pension protection clause on the ballot, what makes you think it would pass with the voters?

In 2012 the GA put an amendment on the ballot that would have required any bill that enhances pension benefits to be approved by a super majority before it became law, and even that failed.

Changing the constitution to eliminate the pension protection clause is a much bigger hill to climb.

Comment by Juice Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:02 am
==It needs to change. We need to change the constitution.==

Engage with the world as it is, not as you wish it would be. A Constitutional Amendment just to destroy state workers pensions is such an obvious non-starter that Rauner won’t even propose it. And it probably wouldn’t mean anything for benefits already earned, anyway.

To say nothing of the fact that empowering the government to break its contracts is a spectacularly bad idea.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:04 am
==They are holding the middle class hostage in order to protect the top 10% (really the top 1%) because the flat tax ties us all together.==

We Are One.

Comment by City Zen Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:04 am
–The “millionaires” you propose to tax are the taxpayers that are the most mobile. They are the ones who can leave. –

Why would you leave some place you’re making millions? Ask Griff, Uihlein, Rauner and Pritzker.

Why do those who can afford to live anywhere choose places such as New York, LA, London, etc. Low taxes and cost-of-living?

On the flip side, you can be poor anywhere. Might as well be broke in a climate where a 70 degree day in May doesn’t prompt an “Ode to Joy” choral.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/high-taxes-are-not-a-prime-reason-for-relocation-studies-say.html

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:08 am
It’s about the math. You need 3/5 of each chamber to get the question on the ballot. When you are losing dems, your math isn’t ever going to work. Maybe a dem wave this fall will change that equation.

Of course, a dem wave only matters on this issue if Madigan changes his long held refusal to move a bill that would put it on the ballot.

Comment by Montrose Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:10 am
==and at least with a progressive income tax, we can get it without causing further pain for 90% of taxpayers.==

That escalated quickly. Just yesterday it was 98%, today it’s 90% ($150K territory). By Friday, it’ll be down to $75K, the true target number no one will admit to just yet.

Comment by City Zen Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:12 am
Guess Costello does not want 989% of those in his district to pay lower taxes.

Comment by jimbo Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:20 am
“That escalated quickly. Just yesterday it was 98%, today it’s 90% ($150K territory). By Friday, it’ll be down to $75K, the true target number no one will admit to just yet.”

While I don’t think there is a secret plot to say there is a cut for 98% and then switch to raising taxes on everyone at the last minute, I do think CityZen is articulating the assumption of a lot of people. It is a reason why running ads saying “we are going to cut taxes for 98% of people” isn’t necessarily the slam dunk some folks are assuming. A lot of people don’t really believe it will happen. They assume a tax increase will hit them. There is a major trust deficit that the 98% talking point does not fix.

Comment by Montrose Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:25 am
===We simply cannot afford to pay for the promises politicians have made to their special interest Union buddies.===

It was not politicians in hoc to unions, but the people of Illinois who, through their elected delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1970, decided to protect public pensions from the whims of feckless politicians by giving pensions constitutional protection.

Furthermore, in its unanimous ruling against SB 1/PA 98-599, the Illinois Supreme Court wrote:

“The repercussions of underfunding those pension systems in such an environment have been well-documented and were well-known when the General Assembly enacted the provisions of the Pension Code which Public Act 98-599 now seeks to change. The General Assembly had available to it all the information it needed to estimate the long-term costs of those provisions, including the costs of annual annuity increases, and the provisions have operated as designed.13 The General Assembly understood that the provisions would be subject to the pension protection clause. In addition, the law was clear that the promised benefits would therefore have to be paid, and that the responsibility for providing the State’s share of the necessary funding fell squarely on the legislature’s shoulders. Accordingly, the funding problems which developed were entirely foreseeable. The General Assembly may find itself in crisis, but it is a crisis which other public pension systems managed to avoid and, as reflected in the SEC order, it is a crisis for which the General Assembly itself is largely responsible.”

Had the politicians actually served their “special interest union buddies,” they would have made the pension payments and not gotten so far behind.

Finally, Illinois state employees had no union representation in 1970. The constitutional protections of the public pension were made as a matter of good policy, not union greed.

Mr. Google is your friend.

Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:36 am
===The Land of Lincoln is the land of unions and trial lawyers, not free enterprise===

If Rauner wants to end prevailing wage and collective bargaining… get 60/71 and 30/36…

It’s up to governors to get their agendas passed.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:38 am
* How can you avoid paying 12% interest?
The legislature could pass a law that has a reasonable late interest penalty for starters *
One, it is not really 12%. It is 1% compounded monthly … which is higher than 12% in reality.
Two, this is a terrible idea. What happened to the Republicans that were fiscally responsible? Why am I alone? Pay bills we agreed to pay or quit encountering the bills, dang it.

Comment by I Miss Bentohs Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:39 am
It is amazing that so many legislators who represent districts without anyone who earns more than $1,000,000 — not a single constituent! - are so opposed to higher taxes on higher incomes.

It’s kind of like a bunch of Chicago and suburban legislators filing a resolution opposing any sales tax on farm machinery.

Comment by Dan Johnson Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:40 am
=It needs to change. We need to change the constitution.=

You really think we’re going to change Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution?

Comment by Pundent Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:51 am
*Certainly credit goes to those GOP house members who wouldnt be cowered and voted for the budget last summer. Showed much courage as we saw.

Comment by low level Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:54 am
==That escalated quickly. Just yesterday it was 98%, today it’s 90% ($150K territory). By Friday, it’ll be down to $75K, the true target number no one will admit to just yet.==

What are you on about? I don’t write the bill, City. I rounded down to account for what I thought were legitimate concerns that the CTBA’s projection was too optimistic and that it’s plan would affect more people than it said. But don’t worry, thanks to your intellectually dishonest comment, I won’t make the mistake of assuming your arguments are legitimate again.

Comment by Arsenal Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 11:56 am
118 reps ( 50 Rep oppose, 1 Dem oppose), (42 Dem support, 0 Rep support )

Who are the Democrats not supporting ?
Seems like there are whole bunch not committing.
“Madigan introduced House Resolution 1025 on April 26, and 42 Democratic lawmakers have signed on so far. Meanwhile, 50 House Republicans have signed on to a resolution opposing a progressive tax.”

Comment by Silicon Prairie Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 12:03 pm
Good, we need more like Costello.

Comment by Ron Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 12:20 pm
How is Wisconsin doing so well with that progressive tax with its 7.65% top bracket? Our flat tax is regressive and opposition to the progressive tax is fueled by wealthy interests.

Comment by The Dude Abides Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 12:36 pm
–How is Wisconsin doing so well with that progressive tax with its 7.65% top bracket?–

I heard Gov. Walker say on the TV box that their economy is on fire (I’m Bruce Rauner, and I approve this nonsense).

Wisconsin tax brackets:

–4% on the first $14,790 of taxable income. 5.84% on taxable income between $14,791 and $29,580. 6.27% on taxable income between $29,581 and $325,700. 7.65% on taxable income of $325,701 and above.–

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 12:54 pm
Word- WIsconsin’s RE taxes are like half of what Ill rates are.

Comment by Sue Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:08 pm
Dan Johnson. I hope ypur not insinuating that noone in Jerry’s district earns $1 million annually. Portions of his district are some of the most wealthy in the nation let alone Illinois. Jerry insists on a blend of cost savings and revenue increases. I sure wish he would have run for governor….

Comment by BlueDogDem Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:10 pm
Lets B Adults @ 10:36 am == Less than 20% of the public sector had defined benefit programs because they are unsustainable.==

To the contrary, they were very sustainable. Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548 (2001). Union Carbide Corp. v. Offerman, 526 SE2d 167 (2000).

Comment by Whatever Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:35 pm
Political Animal

You can’t get rid of the pension payments currently owed even if you change the Constitution. You may want to read what the Supreme Court said. It’s crystal clear.

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:47 pm
–Word- WIsconsin’s RE taxes are like half of what Ill rates are.–

Then I guess their graduated income tax is doing the job.

But a 4.11% property tax burden vs. a 3.52% is not “like half.”

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494/

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:49 pm
==WIsconsin’s RE taxes are like half of what Ill rates are.==

If you want that here you’re going to have to do a tax swap

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:49 pm
That was me above

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:50 pm
This has been said before but I believe the Tax code should be gutted. No deductions or exemptions only credits for those making less than $xx,xxx.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:51 pm
Anon- don’t hold your breath about lower RE taxes if we go progresfivevon income taxes. The Big man has very ambitious spending in mind

Comment by Sue Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 1:59 pm
Whatever
“To the contrary, they were very sustainable. Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 548 (2001). Union Carbide Corp. v. Offerman, 526 SE2d 167 (2000). ”

There are exceptions in the private sector.
Hoechst facts are from 1985 tax case / decided in 2001.
Union Carbide is also from 1985.
Is your point they were over funded? in 1985?

In general , I think the PBGC would disagree.

Comment by Lets B Adults Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:10 pm
== Less than 20% of the public sector had defined benefit programs because they are unsustainable. ==
- Lets B Adults -,

You DO realize that Tier 2 was implemented back in 2011? And that the Tier 2 pensions are 100% paid for by the employee with NO state / employer match?

Given that, what do you propose to implement that is cheaper than the State paying NOTHING for Tier 2 pensions?

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:20 pm
== We need to drastically curtail pension payments, … ==

- Political Animal - ,

Given the IFT, Kanerva and SB-1 rulings the can’t by the Illinois Supreme Court that the pension payments can’t be reduced to existing employees and retirees, what is YOUR legal plan to cut pension payments?

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:24 pm
The deal with Wisconsin is simple. Illinois has 264,000 state /local employees and Wisconsin has 114,000. Illinois has the highest paid state employees in the US. We are #1. The only way out is a smaller reformed government and pay in line with other states which Wisconsin and Indiana have done. Illinois has the highest # of independent government organizations in US, and Wisconsin doesnt have a problem like that. Indiana has frozen property taxes. Our guys in the majority here want none of that

Comment by Silicon Prairie Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:26 pm
People who quote a tax cut for 98% of taxpayers must be privy to secret information, because as far as I know, JB hasn’t provided any guidance on what his tax plan is, other than the wealthy need to pay their fair share.

Of course, JB hasn’t acted consistently with his words. Most would consider someone with $3.2B laying around wealthy. But JB doesn’t like to pay taxes, he likes you to pay taxes.

Typical liberal elite, do as I say, not as I do. Must have learned it from Hilary.

Comment by SSL Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:27 pm
== It needs to change. We need to change the constitution. ==

Changing the State Constitution won’t erase the pension debt or allow cuts to pensions. They are currently a contract, and both Federal and State law says you can’t arbitrarily void a contract, especially retroactively.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:28 pm
===The deal with Wisconsin is simple. Illinois has 264,000 state /local employees and Wisconsin has 114,000===

We also have more than twice the population.

“Wisconsin has 72 county governments, and within them, 1,269 towns, and within them but separate from the towns, 402 villages and 190 cities.”

We have something like 7,000 units of government.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:31 pm
===must be privy to secret information===

Um, no. They read publicly available info. Not to mention that there’s a link in this very post.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:32 pm
Silicon Prairie, that translates to a rate of 205/10k population in Illinois and 199/10k population in Wisconsin. Those are both lower than many other states.

And Sue, the median property tax rate in Illinois is 2.3% and in Wisconsin its 1.95%. That’s not half.

Comment by Juice Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:37 pm
Also Silicon Prairie, Pat Quinn proposed consolidating school districts to reduce the number of units of government, and it wasn’t “our guys in the majority” who were screaming about it. It was the GOP.

Comment by Juice Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:39 pm
RNUG - Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:20 pm:
You DO realize that Tier 2 was implemented back in 2011? And that the Tier 2 pensions are 100% paid for by the employee with NO state / employer match? Given that, what do you propose to implement that is cheaper than the State paying NOTHING for Tier 2 pensions?
——————-
Don’t conflate the contribution expense( which IS born by the employee- an improvement) with the liability the State bears of lifetime benefits, at retirement. Employee contributions are one thing. Lifetime guaranteed paid benefits for retirees and survivors are another.
From the Tier 2 Q&A https://www.srs.illinois.gov/Tier2/Faqm_sers2.htm#anchor 1
Q: Will my pension benefit cease after I receive payments equal to the contributions I made to SERS as an active employee?

A: No. Pension benefits are payable to a retired member for life, regardless of contributions.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:53 pm
I don’t deny the liability for past benefits they are payable. But we must wind own the existing liabilities- over time this will occur naturally. We must drastically change the plan, how its funded for the NEXT employee. The state shouldn’t bear market risk, economic risk and infinite actuarial risk.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 2:56 pm
sorry - those last 2 Anon comments were mine 2:53 2:56

Comment by Lets B Adults Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 3:59 pm
Juice

A little more– I also spoke about freezing property taxes and the majority at present is not interested in that. Please explain why Madigan does not want a property tax freeze—is it because he owns a property tax reduction firm? That cant be good for anyone accept him

Comment by Silicon Prairie Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 4:12 pm
Let’s be adults, if not the State, who should bear the “market risk, economic risk, and “infinite actuarial risk” whatever that is? The members and retirees? The school districts? No.

The State is not called the “Plan Sponsor” in Federal Law as a matter of semantics.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 4:21 pm
IL and WI are tied for fifth highest state and local tax burden. If we implement higher income taxes, illinois will be what? The highest in the country?

Comment by Ron Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 4:50 pm
Anonymous@2:56 is correct

Comment by Ron Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 4:52 pm
While those in private employment may not have a company pension plan, they have total control over what their retirement savings are. If you didn’t save and invest, why is that my fault? Given that incomes are significantly higher in the private sector (for comparable credentials), there’s really no excuse not to have a retirement plan at least as good -or much better–than a pension. That is, unless, of course, you just had to splurge on expensive toys, 2nd homes, expensive vacations, etc.all to keep up with your peers.

It’s up to you. But don’t disparage others for being smart about old age needs. Some did without the frills along the way to have security in older age.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 5:33 pm
My sarcasm didn’t come through very well in my post. I’m still learning.

The 98% tax cut some are hanging their hat on here is meaningless until JB says that his plan. He isn’t revealing anything at this point, and that’s his call.

And whether the 98% figure represents reality is also questionable. The number of people making in excess of a milion a year can move up and down fairly significantly. Raise their taxes by 4-5% on everything over a million and watch how many hide some of that money. Like JB.

Penalizing success is popular with some people. Get greedy and people will find a way to avoid paying.

Comment by SSL Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 5:56 pm
Anon- you really are showing your ignorance tonight- we don’t harbor I’ll will at your having a retirement program- the problem is that you have a defined benefit plan which other then for public sector employees is very rare these days. Why should taxpayers not only make contributions for you BUT also have to guarantee the market returns which go into how much risk the govt has to provide you with your retirement income?

Comment by Sue Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 6:14 pm
Sue

It is what it is right now. I suggest everyone deal with it instead of whining about it

Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 6:25 pm
Sue, save as much as you can and move out of Illinois as soon as possible. If enough people do it the state will implode and you can watch the chaos from afar.

Comment by SSL Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 6:45 pm
==Penalizing success is popular with some people.==

Oh good grief. Paying taxes is what you do if you want to live in a society where people are educated, roads are maintained, you have police protection, libraries, etc. I hardly call paying my fair share a penalty.

Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 7:01 pm
Oh good grief, thanks for pointing that out. With JB on track to assume responsibility for this great state, you may find your fair share is a lot higher. Since you had it all figured out, I trust you’ve been sending extra cash to the state already.

Comment by SSL Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 7:10 pm
**Portions of his district are some of the most wealthy in the nation let alone Illinois. **

Some actual facts…

In 2011… Costello has 39 millionaires in his district.

That placed his district 77th in the GA for # of millionaires in his district. He was 78th in AGI and 81st in net income.

His district also voted 57% in support of the millionaires tax.

Comment by SaulGoodman Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 7:18 pm
I don’t mind paying a little more if it will help the state get back on track. I am lucky that I make a good income.

Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 6:13 am
Anyway, I get that people are going to disagree on what sum is needed and what sum is fair. But it’s a tax, not a “penalty for sucess”.

Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Wednesday, May 2, 18 @ 6:42 am