Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

“Plan C” seems more likely

Posted in:

Illinois

* Jim Nowlan on the graduated income tax proposal…

What happens if the constitutional amendment fails? Fiscal chaos. Since there won’t be enough revenue to pay basic bills, bond houses will declare Illinois state and local debt to be “junk.” This will make the state and its 7,000 governments, which often need debt to fund long-term projects, a pariah among the states.

That is why “No” voters like me have a responsibility to be ready with Plan B. In our book “Fixing Illinois” (U. of I. Press, 2014), co-author Tom Johnson and I call instead for broadening the sales tax to remove scores of exemptions (semen for artificial insemination of livestock, for example, is among many) and extend the tax to services, as Iowa does. And also tax some retirement income, as most states that have an income tax do.

Pundits say the political barriers to Nowlan-Johnson are insuperable, because taxes would increase on all of us, not just the rich, and voters wouldn’t stand for it. So, as I say, chaos.

OK, but increasing the flat tax by a point or two is far more likely than either taxing retirement income (the most unpopular tax proposal bar none) or creating a new sales tax (scores of lobbyists will be picking services off one by one).

One way or another, taxes are going up or the budget will be slashed, and this governor ain’t gonna slash the budget. So, either upper-income residents will pay more or everybody will.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 9:59 am

Comments

Threaten voters, to get them to vote your way. Scare them big time. Yea that will work.

Comment by Chichi55 Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:04 am
=== One way or another, taxes are going up or the budget will be slashed, and this governor ain’t gonna slash the budget. So, either upper-income residents will pay more or everybody will.===

This *will* be the closing argument in ads come November 2020 in support of the progressive tax passing.

Still waiting for that $5 million match by Maisch. I’m not holding my breath, but I’m waiting.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:05 am
- Chichi55 -

It’s not a threat, it’s a promise.

If it doesn’t pass, things are going to go up, namely taxes for all.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:16 am
The “debate” will be fascinating. On the one hand the closing argument will be either the rich folks pay, or you pay.

The counter will be that the people bringing you this rich people will pay utopia are the same people that you repeatedly have not been able to trust, so keep your hand on your wallet as there are not enough of them and they will be coming for you soon.

The 60% threshold, even well funded is not a slam dunk as the notion that IL government has been a poor historical steward of $$$ is not limited to regional bias.

Too many thoughtful people like Mr. Nowlan voting “no” will be problematic for the 60% necessary.

Comment by Say What? Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:17 am
I find it ironic that the Governor who is championing a progressive income tax is also directly responsible for hiking regressive taxes/fees (here’s looking at you, $0.19+/gallon tax hike and additional $50 car registration fee).

The thing is, there is an onslaught of taxes and fees on everything in Illinois. Income, sales, transfer, etc. There is literally no break on taxation (at least in progressively taxed Minnesota, groceries and clothing are not subject to sales tax).

Comment by Romeo Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:19 am
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

Can’t help but think of this quote when people like Mr. Nowlan act like making the rich pay more is somehow so much worse then forcing everyone to pay more.

Comment by ItsMillerTime Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:22 am
Everybody is already paying more in taxes. And everyone will pay more after the January 1 tax hikes.

Which is worse, slashing government or recklessly expanding it while slashing the pension contributions?

Raising taxes a point or two would double the income tax in this state from 2010 when a temporary tax hike raised it from 3% to 5%.

And it would come on the heels of a 30% income tax hike on everyone in 2017 from 3.75% to 4.95%.

And yet we still have 7,000 units of local government. Nationally there are a total of 90,075.

Illinois is getting what it voted for, bigger government, higher taxes and zero reforms of our government and business environment.

Why exactly should voters believe the ruse that only the wealthy’s taxes are going up in the future and this time the huge tax hike will solve Illinois problems, unlike the previous assurances?

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/number-of-governments-by-state.html

Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:23 am
Either the wealthy pay more everyone’s going up 20%. That’s the way it needs to presented. Plain and simple. We’ll see how many low to middle incomers will take one for the much more well off.

Comment by El Conquistador Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:25 am
When Nowlan and Johnson can waive their magic wands and enact their “Plan B,” I’ll take them seriously. It’s easier to defeat something with a multitude of bogus arguments and pie-in-the-sky alternatives ideas than to enact effective changes. Fair tax is a reasonable and a doable option at hand.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:26 am
== Too many thoughtful people like Mr. Nowlan voting “no” will be problematic for the 60% necessary.==

I somehow doubt that folks walking into that voting booth are going to be asking themselves “what would Jim Nowlan do?” Former professors and newspaper editorialists aren’t going to be driving the conversation.

This is going to be sold as a wealth tax, which is about the only policy that both dems and trump supporters agree on, and something that 66% of Illinoisans already voted for a couple years ago. Plus, the opposition to it is being led by Maisch and Baise - always a recipe for failure. More likely than not this plan will pass by a country mile

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:32 am
Big government isn’t cheap. Someone has to pay. One major problem coming is the way the law is going to be structured. The millionaires are supposed to pay a higher tax on dollar one than everyone else. That’s a problem which will probably wind up in federal court via the 14th Amendment under “equal protection under the law” of Section 1. That could be a lot of money on a small group Illinois is counting on that some unelected federal judge might not smile upon. You can have a progressive income tax but maybe not the way Illinois wants it.

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:32 am
===There is literally no break on taxation (at least in progressively taxed Minnesota, groceries and clothing are not subject to sales tax). ===

There is no Illinois sales tax on groceries and medicine.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:33 am
No wonder why the Viking fans are so stylish compared to the Packer fans.

Literally night and day.

Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:36 am
=== The millionaires are supposed to pay a higher tax on dollar one than everyone else.===

Have you even read the proposal or the triggers to the rates?

=== That’s a problem which will probably wind up in federal court via the 14th Amendment under “equal protection under the law” of Section 1.===

Narrator: Federal income taxes are already progressive.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:37 am
This is a blue state in a presidential year so I imagine Democratic turnout will be high. Taxing the wealthy, while more popular among Democrats and independents, polls fairly well among Republicans too. Given those two facts, does anyone really think the amendment won’t pass?

Comment by Cap'n obvious Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:41 am
Narrator

Illinois tax hike will not be progressive as written.

The Uber wealthy would pay 7.99% on every dollar earned.

JB and his cohorts think the equal protection clause is more of a guideline than a rule

Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:45 am
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/illinois-income-tax-rates-progressive/131673/

” For only that highest bracket, the taxpayers’ net income would all be taxed at that top rate, unlike the rest of the brackets.”

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:47 am
. “Given those two facts, does anyone really think the amendment won’t pass?”

I do not think it is a foregone conclusion that it will pass.

Comment by OpentoDiscusssion Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:49 am
Shorter Nowlan: “oh, I know - instead of raising taxes on wealthy people, why don’t we instead tax hair cuts and nail appointments and handyman repairs? Also, we can institute a brand new tax on retired senior citizens.”

Dumbest policy pitch in the history of ever

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:49 am
“Protect the millionaires”?

Is that how it’s gonna be stopped?

Can’t wait for that, lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:51 am
===There is no Illinois sales tax on groceries and medicine.===

Check again Rich. Illinois definitely charges sales tax. Per IDOR:

Illinois’ sales tax rate is 6.25 percent on general merchandise and 1 percent on qualifying foods, drugs, and medical appliances. The tax rate may be higher in some areas because some local jurisdictions are allowed to impose their own taxes. Please visit our Tax Rate Finder to find specific tax rates in Illinois.

It’s 2.25% here in Chicago with the RTA tax added

Comment by Dad of too many Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:52 am
=== For only that highest bracket, the taxpayers’ net income would all be taxed at that top rate, unlike the rest of the brackets.===

Yep. The top. The “Millionaire Tax”…

My hope is that it’s highlighted and called the “Millionaire Tax”.

Appreciate the clarification, and what folks are “fighting for”

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:55 am
Steve, that is one heck of a stretch. You think the courts are going to throw out these rates because it’s a flat rate for top earners? I bet you a Coke that a judge throws that out in a heartbeat. It’s a hard argument to make that states can have progressive rates, that they can tax high earners more, but you can only tax them in certain ways.

Even if the judge did, the GA could just increase the rate for top earners to offset the lost revenue from and making the rates tiered, which means that the top earners would actually end up paying more. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:56 am
=== - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Oct 24, 19 @ 6:47 pm:
We are all taxpayers.
Keep up.
Dividing them is ridiculous ===

Comment by Birdseed Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:59 am
No one is questioning whether progressive taxes are legal. They are legal. it’s just the way this one is structured. It would be very disruptive if a federal judge wouldn’t allow a higher rate on lower income and Illinois was depending on that money for its’ budget.

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:00 am
Nowlan’s article offers up a false choice between two alternatives: “This will make the state and its 7,000 governments…” There’s the problem, thousands of township governments, most of which are embedded good old boy havens whose finances haven’t been audited in 200 years.

The good old boys apparently have access directly to the governors office, see the press release from May 16, 2019 at TOI:
“Today TOI Executive Director Bryan Smith, President Danny Hanning and Legislative Committee Chair Arnold Vegter met with Governor JB Pritzker in his office to discuss House Bill 348. It was a good meeting with lots of dialogue.” Arnold Vegter is the third generation highway commissioner of Union Grove Township in Whiteside county. It’s an inherited feudal position. Vegter’s father Harlan and his grandfather Bill were his predecessors.

Comment by Buford Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:01 am
Be assured that many of the well-off and super-rich people at the forefront of graduated income tax opposition want to cut government and rip the savings out of the poor and middle class, by slashing social programs, state workers and union rights.

Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:02 am
===The good old boys apparently have access directly to the governors office, see the press release from May 16, 2019 at TOI:
“Today TOI Executive Director Bryan Smith, President Danny Hanning and Legislative Committee Chair Arnold Vegter met with Governor JB Pritzker in his office to discuss House Bill 348. It was a good meeting with lots of dialogue.”===

LOLOL

The bill passed that day. TOI opposed the bill. I don’t get your point. http://ilga.gov/legislation/Witnessslip.asp?LegDocId=152706&DocNum=0348&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=114530&GAID=15&SessionID=108&GA=101&WSType=OPP

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:04 am
Living rent free in - Birdseed -‘s head is as much fun as it appears, I promise. lol

Friend, all of us being taxpayers is the unifying factor. What’s paid isn’t dividing anyone. Otherwise the federal income tax would face that same concern.

Everyone is paying.

Can you put in an extra room, I’m accumulating lots in your head, lots of space…

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:04 am
It is my understanding that for this to pass 60% of the voters must approve it OR a majority of those voting in the election.

Is this correct? While many polls would suggest that there is strong support for this amendment I do not necessarily trust such polls and it is a long way from election day.

Am I saying it will be defeated. No. But I am not certain it is an automatic get go despite what certain polls might say.

Comment by OpentoDiscusssion Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:07 am
Can you imagine a situation where you ask the voters for a tax increase, they say NO, and then you raise them anyway? That sounds like fun.

Comment by SMH Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:10 am
Taxes will go up for everyone no matter what. Once the “fair tax” passes, lawmakers will have free reign to raise the taxes on everyone above the poverty line.

Comment by An Illinois Man Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:16 am
==Can you imagine a situation where you ask the voters for a tax increase, they say NO, and then you raise them anyway?==

Yes, I can because that is exactly what they are going to be told. Graduated income tax or flat tax increase. Their choice.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:18 am
The best argument I have seen made is ‘do you trust government not to change the rates down the line.’ They have taken to the bait and switch argument ala the lottery and tollway. Pretty good argument in the face of potential havoc by the feds in the various corruption investigations. But, where is the organized effort from those opposed? Where is the money to run the opposition. I guess there is time but a lack of money and opposition lets the Governor and his ally’s set the debate.

Comment by Nagidam Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:20 am
=== Taxes will go up for everyone no matter what. Once the “fair tax” passes, lawmakers will have free reign to raise the taxes on everyone above the poverty line.===

How many times in the past 30 years has the income tax been raised.

The earliest the taxes, politically, could be raised and it makes sense is 2023 for the 2024 tax year. If you’re at all honest, that’s the likely next window, if they even think about doing it then.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:23 am
OW -They havent raised it because it’s a flat tax.

Once lawmakers have the “Only taxing the rich” disguise, they’ll be able to raise it with impunity. Also, it will be up to them to define “the rich”. IMHO everyone above 50k/yr will end up paying more.

Comment by An Illinois Man Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:28 am
==On the one hand the closing argument will be either the rich folks pay, or you pay.==

That’s a confusing message that requires qualifying and repeating the word “tax” repeatedly.

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:31 am
=== They havent raised it because it’s a flat tax.===

Which governor is going to sign an increase in any or all the brackets?

It’s like ignoring the politics is the only way to build this straw man.

Like is… lol

=== Once lawmakers have the “Only taxing the rich” disguise, they’ll be able to raise it with impunity. Also, it will be up to them to define “the rich”. IMHO everyone above 50k/yr will end up paying more.===

… and then the voters will see that and vote as they deem necessary, and you need a governor willing to sign your ridiculousness.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:31 am
=Once the “fair tax” passes, lawmakers will have free reign to raise the taxes on everyone above the poverty line.=

So what changes then? Pretty sure they already have free reign to do that. Just takes 60 and 30.

Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:32 am
“Which governor is going to sign an increase in any or all the brackets?” -JB because he doesnt pay them anyways.

Please excuse me while I try to find a toilet…

Comment by An Illinois Man Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:34 am
Let’s just pass this proposed amendment already and see if it changes anything. Do they use the revenue to address the unfunded oension and benefits? Or is it to be used to address the structural budget deficit that already exists? Either way, it isn’t going to be enough. And this won’t really have an impact for a few years, so in the meantime the bills keep coming. At the end of the Pritzker experiment everyone will be paying more. Count on it.

Comment by SSL Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:34 am
Always amusing to see the hard right constitutionalists come out swinging on the tax debates while arguing the contracts clause doesn’t matter when it comes to pensions.

Comment by Fixer Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:34 am
=== That’s a confusing message that requires qualifying and repeating the word “tax” repeatedly.===

Not really. The ignorant will call this a “Millionaire Tax” and this need to save the 3%.

Plus, I’m guessing a neighborhood of spending in the $20-25 million, the proponents will isolate that “save the millionaires” and rally around it, and close with, “or everyone will face a higher increase”.

Pritzker spent $300K a day, for 430+ days to win. Ya think messaging will lack resources?

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:35 am
=== JB because he doesnt pay them anyways.

Please excuse me while I try to find a toilet…===

Not before his re-election campaign in 2022, or is your habit continually to ignore politics?

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:36 am
OW - Let’s see his tax returns

Comment by An Illinois Man Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:39 am
There is little question in my mind that Mr. Nowlan is one of those who specifically wants to target state employee retirees as their retirement payouts often exceed SS. So this is one way to get ‘THEM”.

Taken from one of his many releases on this topic:

“What to do? The transformative approach would be to broaden the sales tax to include many services, reimpose the tax on retirement income (excluding Social Security, and the equivalent income of pensioners not covered by Social Security),”

https://qconline.com/opinion/columnists/what-the-next-leaders-must-do-to-fix-

I don’t know how he defines “the equivalent income of pensioners not covered by Social Security” and I have never seen an explanation from him.

Go ahead Mr. Nowlan and get your way. And see how many retirees, who already pay significant amounts of Illinois state Income tax, establish legal residence in Florida, Texas and Tennessee.

Comment by OpentoDiscusssion Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:40 am
=== Let’s see his tax returns===

That’s not the argument. The argument is the politics of raising taxes and signing that and then running for re-election.

Please troll someone else if your ignorance to the politics remains.

Also, find 60 and 30 for that. Simple solutions are neither.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:45 am
I think if nothing else Jim is raising a good point here. Everyone just assumes that this will pass and it’s almost an afterthought.

The Gov and GA should have something prepared in case it does not.

Comment by Boone's is Back Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:46 am
OW- Like I said initially - it’s much easier for politicians to raise taxes with impunity under the disguise of “only taxing the rich”. They’ll be able to define “the rich” as what most consider to be middle class (less than 100k/yr).

Comment by An Illinois Man Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:50 am
===They’ll be able to define “the rich” as what most consider to be middle class (less than 100k/yr)===

Says who?

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:51 am
===“only taxing the rich”. They’ll be able to define “the rich” as what most consider to be middle class (less than 100k/yr).===

LOL.

First it was $50K, now less than $100K, your straw man has nothing, you’re trolling yourself as you try to find “something” outside the political realities.

What’s next, $63K?

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:53 am
OW- you laugh at your own jokes - are you secretly Kamala Harris?

Comment by An Illinois Man Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:56 am
- An Illinois Man -

This isn’t Facebook.

Add to the discussion.

Good luck.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:58 am
why would they make their example for eliminating sales tax exemptions be… semen for artificial insemination of livestock??

Comment by what the... Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:59 am
====Says who?====

Says anyone who thinks that Illinois politicians are disingenuous at their best and flat out greedy at their worst.

Comment by An Illinois Man Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 11:59 am
=== Says anyone who thinks that Illinois politicians are disingenuous at their best and flat out greedy at their worst.===

Your Facebook thinking still hasn’t addressed the politics. Why is that?

Governors own. Pritzker won’t sign a changing in these brackets, if it gets 60 and 30 first, until after 2022, maybe 2023, and taking effect in 2024.

The earliest.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 12:02 pm
===Pritzker won’t sign a changing in these brackets, if it gets 60 and 30 first, until after 2022, maybe 2023, and taking effect in 2024.===

I disagree. If he signs a bill raising taxes, it will only be on “the rich”… Do you see my point yet? It gives him political cover even if “the rich” is the majority of taxpayers

Comment by An Illinois Man Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 12:06 pm
=== Do you see my point yet? It gives him political cover even if “the rich” is the majority of taxpayers===

No, because your utter ignorance to the politics abc campaigns is blocked by your seething tasteless jokes and and the amount of straw left over from your straw men.

If you don’t understand 60, 30, signature then your mouth breathing is best suited for Facebook.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 12:10 pm
“Which is worse, slashing government or recklessly expanding it while slashing the pension contributions?” I’ll take false dichotomies for $500 please Alex. Not only that, but we’re just starting to recover from a 4-year experiment in slashing government, and it wasn’t pretty. Children died.

Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 12:12 pm
- An Illinois Man -

Show me your 60 and 30, thanks

Otherwise you have no case.

No toilet jokes, Socrates.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 12:17 pm
here is plan Z

J.B. Pritzker’s administration reportedly sent to state agency directors last week asks for ideas to save 6.5 percent through efficiencies, elimination of boards and commissions and other ideas.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 12:33 pm
I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think

Comment by Socrates Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 12:38 pm
Prescription drugs are not taxed.
Over the counter drugs are taxed at 1%.

Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 12:49 pm
DonnieElgin. I like me some plan Z. Let’s roll.

Comment by Blue Dog Dem Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:01 pm
Trolls… don’t feed ‘em.

– MrJM

Comment by @misterjayem Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:01 pm
Plan Z

ITS LEMON SCENTED

Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:03 pm
I always enjoy the days when some new dimwit shows up and proceeds to argue with everyone using bad information and conspiracy theories that are easily debunked. It’s like they mistyped r/theDonald into their search engines and cannot understand why everyone is suddenly disagreeing with them.

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:06 pm
Rich @ 11:04 am- “The bill passed that day. TOI opposed the bill.” I didn’t know that. I’m a private citizen, one of the people who pays the taxes. I can’t stay up on all this stuff, and I don’t have my own lobbyist for my small business like the TOI has for their interests.

“I don’t get your point.” My point is get rid of the townships, especially the highway departments. The road plow trucks and graders are very expensive, ($200K- $300k) and duplicates of the equipment the county highway departments have. I don’t know everything about bills the TOI opposes or supports in Springfield, but I do know that the Union Grove Township building in Whiteside county where Arnold Vegter “works” has no signage, no notice of the board meetings, and no list of who is on the township board. They are an example of everything that’s wasteful and wrong with township government in Illinois.

Comment by Buford Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:16 pm
===I didn’t know that. I’m a private citizen===

Oh, please. You knew enough to find the press release, which had the bill number.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:18 pm
Anybody know a “rich person” who doesn’t already own a second home in another low/no income tax state? Upon passage of “fair tax” that other home just became their primary residence. Middle Class WILL pay the “fair” tax.

Comment by Broken Gov Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:27 pm
- Perrid -

You’d be amazed what the 14th Amendment is used for and how it’s been interpreted . All I’m saying is a federal judge might not allow a 7.99 tax from dollar one if all taxpayers aren’t treated that way. If others get tiered brackets why not the top people?

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:32 pm
=== Anybody know a “rich person” who doesn’t already own a second home in another low/no income tax state?===

Yes. Anything else?

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:33 pm
OW- The top 3% have every resource at their disposal to avoid paying the “fair tax” - including JB. So, the money will come from the working class. Same as it ever was. You think different?

Comment by Broken Gov Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:38 pm
=== The top 3% have every resource at their disposal to avoid paying the “fair tax” - including JB. So, the money will come from the working class. Same as it ever was. You think different?===

Not every rich person has another home in those states you say.

That’s the point. You don’t like that.

Having or not having this progressive income tax won’t change *human* nature, but the 3% will have a different taxing bracket, that is true, if passed.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:42 pm
“So, the money will come from the working class.” But under the progressive tax the “working class” get a [admittedly small] tax cut. So how exactly are they paying more?

Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 2:11 pm
==All I’m saying is a federal judge might not allow a 7.99 tax from dollar one if all taxpayers aren’t treated that way==

Has the wording for the ballot measure been released yet?

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 2:13 pm
@Skeptic- - The top 3% are the business owners, landlords, etc. and they will simply raise prices, fees, rents to cover the additional taxes they pay. And the “tax cut” - 100% that’s temporary to get the vote. That’s how.

Comment by Broken Gov Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 2:29 pm
- Broken Gov -

“Save the 3% to save us all” isn’t going to be a rallying cry for 2020, given the presidential cycle.

If that’s the argument…

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 2:39 pm
== The top 3% are the business owners, landlords, etc. ==

What kind of landlords are you hanging out with? This isn’t Montecarlo. Top 3% are people like Pritzker, Ken Griffin, Reinsdorf, the Ricketts’, Bruce Rauner, Howard Buffett, Khalil Mack and Jon Lester. I think they might just be able to swing a small increase

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 2:44 pm
- Lester Holt’s Mustache -

When you start mentioning the Forbes 400 members , they are in a league way beyond the upper 3%. No doubt they can afford higher taxes , but there’s no guarantee they will not get that Florida’s driver’s license.

Comment by Steve Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 2:50 pm
The argument is this- The focus on the 3% is a marketing scheme to get votes. In reality, the regular folk will pay for this and future tax hikes. IL government has no credibility to claim otherwise.

Comment by Broken Gov Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 2:52 pm
=== The focus on the 3% is a marketing scheme to get votes.===

Probably $20-25 million in that “scheme”.

=== the regular folk===

… saving the 3%… yeah, still not a winner with $20-25 million, but go on…

=== will pay for this and future tax hikes.===

No one can predict the future, and what money will there be to scare folks in a fallacy of an ad pretending to know the future what could happen. Heck, Bruce Rauner’s own closing argument was “before it’s too late”… that didn’t turn out well.

=== IL government has no credibility to claim otherwise.===

“Folks” wanna help the 3% because the wealthy will look out for others?

Hmm.

Going to take $25 million to sell it. Show me that cash.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:01 pm
“I think they might just be able to swing a small increase”

Easily, and it’s so overdue—decades of under-taxation. The richest have been gaining more income proportionally than anyone else, by far. Trump also cut their taxes.

The Fair Tax is a beautiful tax, maybe the best ever seen. Its a perfect tax. It’s so mild, compared with neighboring graduated income tax states. It might be the easiest tax to handle, maybe the easiest ever.

Maybe with super-heavy ad saturation, the amendment will hit the 50% voter threshold. So scream out a lot in opposition and gin up the people who would actually get a little tax relief and make them think they will be shoveling their money to Madigan and Springfield.

Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:11 pm
Top 3% is about 500k/year and higher. A good income, but that does include a lot of small business owners, landlords, etc.

Comment by Chili Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:14 pm
== but there’s no guarantee they will not get that Florida’s driver’s license.==

You think Maisch and Blaise are going to be able to convince over 40% of Illinoisans that they should vote to raise their own taxes, either through a flat tax increase or through Nowlan’s plan, because some very wealthy people *might* move to Florida? Considering that raising taxes on the rich polls almost as well among trump supporters as it does with dems, that seems highly optimistic.

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:18 pm
“Thoughtful” people like Jim Nowlan??? Formerly thoughtful people like Jim Nowlan. Like most republicans, whichever were formerly “thoughtful” threw that trait overboard. The “Vote No” argument is empty. What the “No” people argue is really what Russell Long used to argue: “Don’t tax me. Don’t tax thee. Tax that man behind the tree!”

Comment by formerpro Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:26 pm
== small business owners, landlords, etc.==

What landlords are clearing over half a million per year in personal earnings? A majority shareholder in an LLC that does commercial property in downtown Chicago *might* clear $500K per year, but those guys couldn’t honestly be described as “landlords”.

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:30 pm
“If others get tiered brackets why not the top people?”

Steve, I’ll do you one better. “If other people only have to pay 3.95% of the income, at most, why not the top people?”

Taxing people differently based on income is legal. I really doubt any court is going to split the hair you are so desperately trying to split.

Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:34 pm
==The Fair Tax is a beautiful tax, maybe the best ever seen==

A tax not indexed to inflation and doesn’t recognize dual income households is the best tax ever?

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:45 pm
=== doesn’t recognize dual income households===

… and yet, it’s *still* 3%.

“Save the 3%”… gonna need some real money to sell that.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:48 pm
==doesn’t recognize dual income households==

I think you’ve beaten that horse to death enough.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:57 pm
To Steve’s comments about federal courts - 28 U.S. Code 1341 know as the Tax Injunction Act - “The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.”

Comment by Facts Matter Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 3:59 pm
==I think you’ve beaten that horse to death enough==

Voters should be aware of all the pros and cons of the Fair Tax. If inflation or the financial recognition of their marriage is not important to voters, they can vote accordingly. But they should be aware. Local representatives should explain this to their constituents.

Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 4:20 pm
=== Voters should be aware of all the pros and cons of the Fair Tax.===

lol

Still 3%, pro or con… hasn’t changed.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 4:23 pm
“The top 3% are the business owners, landlords, etc.” The argument was that the 3% was going to leave Illinois altogether to avoid the taxes, so why would they raise prices?

Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 4:30 pm
@Skeptic- When you increase the costs on the top, the top will act to recoup their costs to maintain their margins by cascading increased costs down level.The tax gets passed down. And, they can do that while living in FL or AZ.

Comment by Broken Gov Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 5:34 pm
=== When you increase the costs on the top, the top will act to recoup their costs to maintain their margins by cascading increased costs down level.The tax gets passed down. And, they can do that while living in FL or AZ.===

And how many of these folks will do that?

“Dozens”?

lol

“Save the 3%” isn’t a winning argument.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 5:38 pm
OW- Nice work continuing to distort the reality. It’s not “save the 3%”- It’s “save yourself” since the legislation as written provides broad latitude to expand taxes above and beyond the 3% going forward. Corruption has costs and this is a blank check for the criminals to keep lining their pockets.

Comment by Broken Gov Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 5:44 pm
=== Nice work continuing to distort the reality. It’s not “save the 3%”- It’s “save yourself” since…===

You need to save the 3% … or else.

LOL.

===… Corruption has costs and this is a blank check…===

Is that you Todd Maisch?

Saving the wealthy to “save yourself” is not going to be heard over $20-25 million

How many “dozens” are moving again… away from family, friends, business associates…

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 5:48 pm
===…broad latitude to expand taxes above and beyond the 3% going forward.===

The earliest, maybe is 2024, and you need 60/30, or 71/36 and a governor to sign it.

This is the most silly, since the future can’t ever be predicted, and you’re ignoring political will.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 6:02 pm
Broken Gov - Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 1:27 pm:

“Anybody know a “rich person” who doesn’t already own a second home in another low/no income tax state? Upon passage of “fair tax” that other home just became their primary residence. Middle Class WILL pay the “fair” tax”

If they have to have a business or profession in Illinois they will stay. Others, including such retirees you identified will do as you point out.

I keep saying this. Many do not want to hear that reality. Glad someone else sees that reality also.

Comment by OpentoDiscusssion Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 6:04 pm
Jim Nowlan was a liberal Republican legislator during the 3-member House days and running mate of Richard Ogilvie, the father of the state income tax. He generally supports tax increases and is a serious student of state government finances. I would have pegged him as a a lock for yes on the fair tax amendment. His columns run in a lot of Downstate weeklies. I’ll be curious to see how much he focuses on this in 2020.

Comment by Oldtimer Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 6:35 pm
“==doesn’t recognize dual income households==

I think you’ve beaten that horse to death enough.”

There’s treatment for OCD.

Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Dec 18, 19 @ 10:05 pm
“When you increase the costs on the top, the top will act to recoup their costs” Again, the argument is that the 3% will leave Illinois to avoid paying the progressive income tax. How does that increase their costs? If you’re talking about *other* taxes that are being levied, that’s a completely different discussion.

Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Dec 19, 19 @ 8:23 am