Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Because… Chicago!
Posted in:
* Illinois Policy Institute…
Persistent income tax hikes for decades have not been able to fix the state’s finances […]
Given the state’s income tax history, it is especially concerning that Pritzker’s proposed “fair tax” does not include any protection against future tax hikes for middle-class Illinoisans
A history of persistent income tax hikes? The income tax was increased in 2011, partially rolled back in 2015 and partially restored in 2017. The last time the General Assembly voted to raise the state’s income tax before all that was in 1989.
That’s thirty years ago, folks. In three decades, the income tax was raised once to 5 percent and it’s now at 4.95 percent.
It’s rare because it’s so darned difficult to do. Those who think it’s so easy must’ve missed that excruciating two-year fight over tax rates which ended with a bunch of House Republicans quitting. I mean, it was in all the papers.
* More…
The last state to implement a plan similar to Pritzker’s was Connecticut in 1996. State lawmakers made the same promises of middle-class tax cuts, property tax relief and increased spending on social services. But those promises were broken. The typical Connecticut family saw a 13 percent hike in their income tax rates, property tax burdens increased 35 percent, and the poverty rate increased 47 percent.
What they don’t tell you is that the marginal income tax rate on a typical Connecticut family rose from 4.5 percent all the way up to a totally ridiculous 5 percent in 23 years. Whew. Those poor, put-upon Connecticutans (Connecticutites? Connecticutians?).
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:11 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: Because… Chicago!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Connecticuters.
Comment by NomChompsky Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:14 am
===Those poor, put-upon Connecticutans (Connecticutites? Connecticutians?). ===
Nutmeggers
Comment by Downstate Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:16 am
If it happens more than once, it’s persistent to IPI.
Unless of course you’re talking about not presenting a budget for the first two years of a governorship. Then it’s refreshing, or something like that.
Comment by thunderspirit Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:18 am
Per Wikipedia, Conn. denomyms are:
Connecticuter
Connecticutian
Nutmegger
More on nutmegger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutmegger
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:25 am
=A history of persistent income tax hikes?=
The argument goes that Democrats just want to raise your taxes, and Republicans just want to gut spending. The reality shows that neither statements are true.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:25 am
Found it: According to Webster’s New International Dictionary, 1993, a person who is a native or resident of Connecticut is a “Connecticuter” …
“Nutmegger” is sometimes used. It is derived from the nickname, the Nutmeg State, based on the practice of the Connecticut peddlers who traveled about selling nutmegs.
There is not, however, any nickname that has been officially adopted by the State for its residents.
https://ctstatelibrary.org/CT-nicknames
I like Connecticutians the best. Pronounced like Lilliputians.
Now, back to the topic.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:25 am
Connecticut is our east coast sister-school: Our Lady of Crippling Pension Debt.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:25 am
JB championed a tax cut for the middle class, your fightin for the same people supposedly
Comment by Rabid Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:26 am
Interesting that their introductory graduated rate structure was a tax cut for 100% tax filers.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:27 am
Connecticutistanians.
Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:30 am
“Interesting that their introductory graduated rate structure was a tax cut for 100% tax filers.” Where does it say that?
Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:32 am
Really, you can argue that the rate didn’t change from 1969, when it was implemented until 2010. It began as 2.5%, then bounced around in the 1980s, going up to 3% once, but hovering around 2.75% most of the time. So, our income tax rate had relatively been the same for 50 years, until the jump to 5%.
Comment by Steve Rogers Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:34 am
Tryin’ to remember how many times the reckless legislators hiked the rates between 1970 and 1989? So it looks like the 3%ers are forced to oppose the fair Tax with the lonely idea that they are protecting the Rauner Rates.
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:37 am
–Persistent income tax hikes for decades…–
The words must have been chosen by random. Just lazy, lousy writing
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:41 am
I think (hope) that the IPI is fighting a losing battle here. Pritzker’s camp gets to run on “cuts for 97% of people” while the IPI has to make due with “our poor, put upon, beloved millionaires will all leave!”
Comment by Actual Red Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:45 am
===was a tax cut for 100% tax filers===
Do you have a source for the above statement?
Because the link below shows that Ct’s first graduated structure had two brackets with the top tier being the same rate as the flat tax from the previous year.
Unless you are adding personal exemptions, credits, and rate phase-out and recapture requirements.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0058.pdf
City — It is helpful to people trying to understand your arguments if you provide context and as much information as possible here.
Comment by Big Jer Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:48 am
==Persistent income tax hikes for decades==
The IPI hasn’t always concerned themselves with facts. They come up with a conclusions first.
==does not include any protection against future tax hikes==
There aren’t any protections now.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:54 am
Make no mistake, those who oppose the graduated tax on the 3 percent are going to cling to their opposition with the same tenacity as Gollum. Like his Precious, it’s all they care about, and they will say and do anything to achieve their goal.
Comment by Hieronymus Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 11:56 am
Perfidy, perfidy, IPI perfidy
Comment by Honeybear Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 12:03 pm
The right wing scare tactics are so old and transparently bogus. It would be best if we discard those and move toward reality, that we can raise taxes on the wealthy to better-protect those who are not, like social services recipients, government employees and many students.
Why won’t the House GOP negotiate for the graduated income tax? The vast majority of state residents would get a tax cut right off the bat. How is that not attractive to the political party whose essence supposedly is to cut taxes? Why would the ILGOP pass up an opportunity to negotiate and try to improve Pritzker’s proposal? It would mean the vast majority of us would be giving less of our money to government and to Madigan—right up the GOP’s alley.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 12:12 pm
Big Jer - That’s all I had to go on was the brackets. Maybe there were other rules or phase-outs in place. But it looks like CT’s first attempt at tax fairness was revenue neutral, at most.
But hey, look, married brackets twice the rate of the single brackets. What a novel concept.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 12:50 pm
In 1987, illinois median income approx $31/k. Today, approx $63k. Thats a bunch more income tax.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 12:54 pm
=== What they don’t tell you ===
For heaven’s sake, Connecticut has the sixth-highest income and 5th lowest crime rate in the country.
If you are trying to scare people, I recommend steering clear of the “OMG we might end up like Connecticut!” argument.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 12:56 pm
==Thats a bunch more income tax.==
And inflation.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 12:57 pm
Them darn democrats, taxin’ and spendin’ and tryin’ to hurt our Job Creators(tm) We need a ‘overnor who will refuse to spend another red cent. Hopefully for at least two years.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 12:58 pm
Our debt burden is huge and government spending goes up much faster then income in Illinois. Yes, it easier to raise taxes under a progressive income tax. This is one of the reasons politicians want it. Just change the rates and brackets. Put a three fifths vote in the referendum, for the house and senate to raise rates. Let the politicians think about it.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 1:11 pm
Blue Dog Dem: What was the cost of paving a mile of road in 1987? And today?
Comment by Steve Rogers Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 1:23 pm
=Yes, it easier to raise taxes under a progressive income tax. This is one of the reasons politicians want it.=
Your opinion not supported by facts. And if they’ve been chomping at the bit to do this what took them so long?
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 2:09 pm
===easier to raise taxes under a progressive income tax===
On higher incomes, yes.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 2:11 pm
==Yes, it easier to raise taxes under a progressive income tax==
Why is it any easier than it is now?
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 2:13 pm
==Why is it any easier than it is now?==
You’re seriously asking? Because you can raise revenue significiantly while only raising taxes on 3% of taxpayers.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 3:12 pm
You know what else is historically rare, an actuarially balanced budget. My children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will be paying for goods and services consumed 20 years ago.
Comment by Angry Republican Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 3:51 pm
===What was the cost of paving a mile of road in 1987?===
Doesn’t have much to do with the state income tax, progressive or otherwise. The Capital Bill thread called and it wants its topic back.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 5:04 pm
Not in favor of a success tax.
Work hard, work long hours , work weekends to provide the best for your family and send a higher % of it to Springfield. Because they are so good at managing finances ?
Comment by South Side Sam Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 6:42 pm
If we want to get the millionaires to pay more why not a Mansion Tax on homes sold over $750k?
Comment by Sam Hall Thursday, Mar 14, 19 @ 10:40 pm
have a contest, whoever pays the most state taxes gets the key to the state a night at the executive mansion on their birthday
Comment by Rabid Friday, Mar 15, 19 @ 8:55 am