Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: House Progressive Caucus unveils agenda
Next Post: Once this bill passes, Pritzker has some fence-mending to do
Posted in:
Illinois lawmakers unanimously approved of legislation that would gradually send more state income tax revenue to local cities and towns even though it would happen at the cost of the state’s woefully unbalanced budget.
Illinois collects personal and corporate income taxes and then sends just over six percent of that to local municipalities, totaling around $1.3 billion in personal and corporate income tax annually.
If signed into law, Rep. Anthony DeLuca’s bill would see the Local Government Distribution Fund increase from 6.06 percent to 8.5 percent in 2020, 9 percent in 2021, 9.5 percent in 2022, and remain at 10 percent after February 2023. The percentage of corporate income tax, which is a higher percent but accounts for less of the total distribution, would scale up to 10 percent as well. […]
Rep Brad Halbrook, R-Shelbyville, is concerned about the strain that sending hundreds of millions of dollars out of an already-unbalanced budget would affect the state.
“I understand that there’s this kind of balancing act but how do you deal with, potentially over six years, being a billion dollar-pressure to the state budget,” he said.
Wow. Unanimous vote on a very controversial topic. That certainly sounds newsworthy as heck.
* Now, scroll down…
Halbrook voted for the bill in committee to move it to the House floor for further debate.
Budget hawks say the LGDF subsidizes bloated local governments at the expense of property taxpayers.
The same bill received a favorable House vote last year but wasn’t acted upon in the Senate.
All that only to find out at the end that this was a committee vote on a bill that never moved in the Senate last time around.
And I’m not sure what those unnamed “budget hawks” are smoking, but LGDF money takes pressure off local property taxpayers.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 10:16 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: House Progressive Caucus unveils agenda
Next Post: Once this bill passes, Pritzker has some fence-mending to do
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
A catch-22 for members like Rep. Halbrook - appealing to a core constituency like townships that have been preparing for a decimation of the LGDF - and the general electorate that could label this as more unbalanced spending.
Comment by Midstate Indy Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 10:25 am
“Budget hawks say the LGDF subsidizes bloated local governments at the expense of property taxpayers.”
Sure, there are definitely bloated local governments. But-budget hawks generally note that a decent chunk of that bloat comes from unfunded mandates forced on the locals by state laws. Pressuring local governments to jack up their own tax rates (sales taxes for infrastructure/public safety/schools, property taxes, etc.) doesn’t help the taxpayer in the end.
Comment by Liandro Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 10:31 am
This is the type of garbage you get when you fire your statehouse reporters.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 10:33 am
Getting more funds to the local municipalities is a great idea. Villages/cities/towns are much more responsive to residents needs than Springfield. Plus the new minimum wage rate will hurt local city/village budgets so I’m all for it.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 10:35 am
Is anyone really surprised by this sort of thing from IPI? Also agree with JustMe2 - he beat me to the punch on that comment!
Comment by DownSouth Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 10:38 am
==Pressuring local governments to jack up their own tax rates ==
Except that same IPI also screams about lowering property taxes. So they are advocating for all kinds of ways to lower local government revenue and as with people like the IPI their solution is some magical cuts to make up the shortfall.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 10:40 am
Yes. This would take the burden off of local tax payers. Should these dollars not already be flowing into municipal budgets so they can maintain public infrastructure?
This in addition to the consolidating of the public pensions, while further off in the future, would alleviate a lot of pressure on local governments to be able to provide better government services.
Just my 2 cents.
Comment by Peoria Rules Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 10:40 am
The “thing” with Mr. Halbrook is there this “habit” of trying to get a headline in red meat things instead of getting anything of substance done.
Not a great reputation to have while also in the super minority party.
That’s giving Mr. Halbrook credit…
… if he actually believes this nonsense to the governing… that’s probably more sad than angering.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 10:44 am
This hoary old chestnut? One reason for LGDF is the constitutional prohibition on local income / earnings taxes ulike NYC and StL.
Comment by Smitty Irving Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 10:44 am
Funny how nobody is harping that the amounts the state pays to municipalities isn’t adjusted for region.
When the money flows to them, the small towns want financial parity with the big cities. When it’s minimum wage it has to be adjusted because things are less expensive in rural areas.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 10:49 am
TheInvisibleMan makes a good point. https://capitolfax.com/2019/02/14/the-iml-might-wanna-rethink-this-logic/
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 11:01 am
For years it has been my opinion, that LGDF was the only discretionary item in the budget that could be reduced. Keep in mind I know it wouldn’t be easy, but in order to share the pain statewide, it’s a nobrainer. The entire state got us into this terrible financial crisis. It is only going to take a statewide feeling of the pain to drive this point home. Politician after politician has stumped on a combination of reduced spending and increased revenues. Promising even higher spending by the JB administration will only get us into the same rut that got us here.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 11:06 am
=== And I’m not sure what those unnamed “budget hawks” are smoking, but LGDF money takes pressure off local property taxpayers. ===
In some cases, probably. In other cases, for example if there was an LGDF increase, some munis would certainly increase overall spending but then claim they are being fiscally conservative because they kept their levy the same.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 11:11 am
==Plus the new minimum wage rate will hurt local city/village budgets so I’m all for it.==
Yeah we’re gonna need some facts to back up your claim there, Donnie. Many would argue that higher minimum wage will lead to increased spending at city/village businesses, which would actually help local budgets.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 11:31 am
The LGDF offsets some of the mandates municipals get shoved in their gullet by the state that has no problem spining costs off on them.
Comment by NorthsideNoMore Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 11:55 am
Increased LGDF spending requires the state to raise taxes. Citizens of these municipalities lose discretionary income that could otherwise be spent locally.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 11:58 am
Isn’t this Halbrook the same genius trying to separate Chicago or Cook County from “downstate”. His reputation for ignorance is being cemented every day….consider the source, giggle and move on
Comment by Elliott Ness Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 12:51 pm
This is just a terrible attempt at journalism. The lede is not misleading, it’s just completely wrong.
Seriously, did no one read it before it was posted? Is this one of those “news” outfits that offshores to Bangalore?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 14, 19 @ 5:39 pm