Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Gaming revenues took a tumble
Next Post: Millions being spent on cognitive dissonance
Posted in:
* Background is here and here. As I told subscribers this morning, this was not his best-ever idea, to say the least…
12 minutes before it was scheduled to begin, @ILTreasurer’s presser has been canceled. But he made sure to clarify that he opposes creating a retirement income tax. pic.twitter.com/T3lVbb40qd
— Hannah Meisel (@hannahmeisel) October 6, 2020
…Adding… The chutzpah demonstrated here. Wow…
Illinois Republican Party Chairman Tim Schneider today released the following statement after Governor JB Pritzker forced State Treasurer Michael Frerichs to call off his press conference to explain the details of Pritzker’s plan to tax retirement income if the constitutional amendment passes:
“Earlier today, Governor Pritzker put the muzzle on Treasurer Frerichs who was minutes away from telling the people of Illinois the truth: Pritzker has a plan to tax retirement income in Illinois and needs the constitutional amendment to get it done. Pritzker can muzzle Frerichs all he wants but the secret is already out. To protect retirement income from Pritzker’s tax plan, Illinois voters must vote no on the constitutional amendment.”
…Adding… Press release…
Today, Vote Yes For Fairness Chairman Quentin Fulks released the following statement:
“The facts are absolutely clear: the Fair Tax does not tax retirement income, nor does it make it any easier to do so. Treasurer Frerichs supports the Fair Tax because it helps our working families and like the Governor and the General Assembly, opposes taxing retirement income.
“Opponents of the Fair Tax are simply trying to confuse Illinoisans, while attempting to hide the fact that they, as recently as yesterday, have advocated for taxing retirement income and raising the flat tax on all Illinoisans by 20%. These attacks are nothing more than political rhetoric from those who are desperate to ensure millionaires and billionaires avoid paying their share and the burden stays on middle and lower-income families.
“The Fair Tax means 97% of Illinoisans will receive a tax cut, while millionaires and billionaires finally pay their fair share.”
…Adding… Tribune…
Democratic State Treasurer Michael Frerichs abruptly canceled a Tuesday news conference to rebut comments he made in June about taxing retirement income, an issue now being used by opponents fighting a proposed graduated-rate income tax amendment.
Ten minutes before he planned to speak at the downtown James R. Thompson Center, a Frerichs aide told reporters the event had been canceled. Asked for a reason, the aide offered none. […]
Before Frerichs called off his news conference, the lead group opposing the proposed amendment, the Coalition to Stop the Proposed Tax Hike, issued a statement contending the state treasurer had “admitted taxing retirement income is on the table.”
“No amount of backtracking can change the fact this is the worst possible time to raise taxes, and we simply can’t trust Springfield politicians,” said Lissa Druss, spokesperson for the coalition.
What a mess. lol
…Adding… Frerichs narrowly won his first statewide bid. From his 2014 victory statement…
“Tens of thousands of Rauner-Frerichs independents in Central Illinois were critical to this race”
…Adding… Press release…
“Today is a perfect example why retirees can’t trust Springfield Politicians with new taxing powers and why our bipartisan coalition against the Tax Hike Amendment is growing.
“The Illinois Treasurer admitted taxing retirement income is on the table, exposing just how devastating it would be for middle-class families, small businesses, and family farmers if the Tax Hike Amendment passes.
“No amount of backtracking can change the fact this is the worst possible time to raise taxes, and we simply can’t trust Springfield Politicians.”
Lissa Druss
Spokesperson for the Coalition to Stop the Proposed Tax Hike Amendment
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 9:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Gaming revenues took a tumble
Next Post: Millions being spent on cognitive dissonance
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“You want to learn the first rule? You’d know if you ever spent a day in your life: you never open your mouth until you know what the shot is.”
Comment by Jibba Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:05 am
Successful campaigns survive adversity and missteps that inevitably happen. Maybe it’s better that Frerichs cancels the presser to not help elevate the misstep.
There’s a good Vote Yes ad on TV now, showing people saying they’d get a tax cut and such. The Vote No side doesn’t have much beside recycling lies like small businesses will be hurt, people will leave the state (most will get a tax cut), politicians will have new taxing power and the like.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:12 am
This woulda been his “Dan Rutherford” moment, trying to end discussion, but probably ending a career.
Mike Frerichs is tall.
Dan Rutherford’s “Friday Fiasco” not only ended Rutherford’s campaign, but ended Rutherford’s career. We’ll never see anyone foolishly throw away their career like that
Mike Frerichs, “Hold my water”?
But, smarter folks than Rutherford had stopped Frerichs from himself.
Honest?
Dunno how you could think about walking that back, Frerichs thinks it’s worth discussing. That’s his own thought.
How do you clarify when it’s something you already believe?
This will, and is, Mike Frerichs;
“Mike Frerichs, standing tall to tax retirement income.”
It’s who he is.
When you’re about yourself, and you pander to IPI, and you speak your “truth” to dorm room thinking, you get what Frerichs did.
Frerichs wants to be, not only relevant, Frerichs wants to seem to be the smartest in the room, and that room was one where IPI easily made a discussion about things Frerichs shoulda known were off the table of any discussion.
Seniors can’t trust Frerichs now. That’s for sure.
All that happened here was Frerichs looking in a mirror and remembering Rutherford… and that “Friday Fiasco”… and deciding there is no good in this today.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:12 am
After you let the cat out of the bag you can’t deny that you did it by trying to put the cat back into the bag. I imagine that there has been a lot of discussion behind closed doors on this matter and he forgot whom he was with when he let this slip out. Only raising taxes on the rich will not solve Illinois budget problems and pension problem.
Comment by Arock Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:17 am
=== After you let the cat out of the bag you can’t deny that you did it by trying to put the cat back into the bag. I imagine that there has been a lot of discussion behind closed doors on this matter and he forgot whom he was with when he let this slip out.===
(Sigh)
No.
What happened is pretty simple when you look at it as Frerichs;
Frerichs likes attention, likes to be the smartest in the room, likes to pander to achieve both.
Frerichs spoke to the audience, making it about a “discussion”
Here’s the quote, June 18…
=== “One thing a progressive tax would do is make clear you can have graduated rates when you are taxing retirement income,” he said. “And, I think that’s something that’s worth discussion.”===
It’s worth the discussion to tax retirement income… if you can show graduated rates.
It’s not some tin foil plot. It’s Frerichs trying, in dorm room stylings, show he can see discussion with parameters.
It’s Frerichs, no one else, no plot, no secret plans, just Frerichs
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:24 am
This is bad. I do think the press conference without any coordination, then canceling it minutes before makes it even worse. But how many non-politicos will hear about this news? I don’t know.
I do think Pritzker’s campaign have not been nearly as active as I thought they’d be. Was somewhat expecting the ad bombardment they implemented in 2018.I know this year has been crazy, but I think they started late to vote yes on this amendment.
If it doesn’t pass now there’s a scapegoat. We will find out in a month.
Comment by Almost the weekend Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:27 am
The “no” side is always the easier argument, no matter the issue, so I don’t want to give them too much credit. But the messaging war on the amendment has been a turkey shoot so far in favor of the opponents. Frerichs has certainly helped them, but man, did they play the media like a fiddle the last 24 hours. This lawsuit is so frivolous the IPI’s attorneys should probably be sanctioned, but headlines they got talking about retirement income were worth almost as much as a Ken Griffin media buy.
Comment by Roman Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:30 am
The more people I talk to, the less I think this will pass. Nobody I talk to is strongly for it, but plenty of people (including those making less than $250k) adamantly against it. No one trusts Springfield to do right with their money.
Comment by AD Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:35 am
If this fails it will be a huge loss for Pritzker. He needs better messaging and needs to get it out ASAP.
Comment by Powdered Whig Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:37 am
=== The more people I talk to…===
Anecdotal is not data.
Still, even in best times, a 2 in 5 chance is pretty good, as i saw it when it passed the GA, it’s probably 1 in 3 now
If it were easy to change the constitution, we’d have folks trying to change it constantly.
Yep, it could be a colossal loss if it fails. They’ve had time, resource, the financial means… we’re voting right now, as i type this, Illinoisans are voting.
We’ll see how it plays.
Frerichs, this called off presser, the IPI inserting Frerichs, all unhelpful to the governor and the fair tax proponents.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:42 am
==No one trusts Springfield to do right with their money.==
This, so much this.
Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:44 am
Stand down and stand by, Treasurer.
Shelter in place.
Comment by Lew Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:51 am
If the Fair Tax fails, brace yourselves for the howls of outrage when the rate goes from 4.95 to 6%…particularly from the Baby Boomers (and those they elected) that got us into this mess.
Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:53 am
It’s great that the messaging and ad has been put out, that we will probably get a flat tax hike without the CA. Then voters will really give more of their money to Springfield politicians. The Vote No people don’t care about this, only that the rich are not taxed more than everyone else. Some say they like the flat tax better, meaning that lower/middle income people continue to shoulder the tax burdens of the wealthy.
Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:54 am
= No one trusts Springfield to do right with their money. =
I have to say that I do NOT get this as a reason to vote against the graduated income tax.
Do these folks trust Springfield with their money now, with the flat tax?
Flat or graduated, we’re going to get taxed, and it makes more sense to do it in a way that the burden falls more heavily on those who can best afford it.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 10:57 am
Taxing retirement income is a great idea, IF you are in a grad school public finance class. In the real world, not so much.
This is Mikey trying to be relevant to the “discussion”.
Instead, he made a mess all on his own. There is no explaining it away. Just sit down and be quiet. Contemplate how your career peaked. Start planning the next phase of your career.
Comment by Langhorne Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:12 am
Lots of money yet to be spent on this issue. Your eyes and ears will be bleeding from the pounding they will take in the coming month. I never really saw this as a progressive tax. Not enough tiers and doesn’t raise enough revenue, and boy do we need revenue. Even worse, if it doesn’t pass, you still have a lot of collateral damage and a bunch of angry people, all for nothing. Oh well, nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Comment by SSL Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:15 am
== If the Fair Tax fails…==
Also be ready for a lot of talk about “closing loopholes.” Farmers and manufacturers in particular might be in for a rough ride.
Comment by Roman Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:19 am
1. Do not step on the 3rd rail.
2. See number 1.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:19 am
=== Anecdotal is not data ===
Next sentence, “. . . It’s probably 1 in 3 now”
(Ugh)
(Sigh)
(Ugh)
Comment by Bad Habits Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:24 am
== Flat or graduated, we’re going to get taxed, and it makes more sense to do it in a way that the burden falls more heavily on those who can best afford it. ==
^^ This. ^^
Comment by Northsider Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:28 am
- Bad Habits -
Context is key;
=== Still, even in best times, a 2 in 5 chance is pretty good, as i saw it when it passed the GA, it’s probably 1 in 3 now
If it were easy to change the constitution, we’d have folks trying to change it constantly.===
So there’s that.
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:30 am
” when the rate goes from 4.95 to 6%…particularly from the Baby Boomers (and those they elected) that got us into this mess” Baby Boomers won’t howl. Most of them now receive retirement income, so if the rate increases it won’t affect them. Lower income households who are less able to move to other states will be the ones hurt. The Ken Griffins of the world can live where ever they want and like Rauner is able to call Florida home.
Comment by illinifan Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:30 am
=== Anecdotal is not data.===
I don’t disagree, but I haven’t seen polling on this issue, so I’m going by the data I do have which is the people I talk to. And, it’s been pretty much a no hitter on supporting the fair tax including multiple people who work W-2 jobs and make less than $100k.
Comment by AD Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:32 am
I am old enough to remember for example that we were told that if we get the lottery in Illinois that it would take care of school funding and I don’t think that happened. Just because they are only planning to tax higher income folks now doesn’t mean that they will stop there. More has never been enough as is seems that the more they get the more they spend on things we suddenly need that we didn’t realize we needed before.
Comment by Rabble Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:33 am
=== so I’m going by the data I do have which is the people I talk to.===
That’s not data
It’s the definition of anecdotal
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:34 am
== No one trusts Springfield to do right with their money. ==
I don’t trust them but I still plan to vote for the graduated tax.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:35 am
Frerichs was simply suffering from a low oxygen dip…due to his height.
Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:38 am
===No one trusts Springfield to do right with their money===
True, but the choice here is making upper-income pay or making everyone pay. At least for now. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:39 am
=== Governor Pritzker put the muzzle on Treasurer Frerichs who was minutes away from telling the people of Illinois the truth: Pritzker has a plan to tax retirement income in Illinois and needs the constitutional amendment to get it done.===
Raunerites tell misleading things.
If that were at all true, what is Schneider’s source? Was he in the room?
Total buffoonery, why Raunerites will lose more seats in the General Assembly, and why dishonesty is a Raunerite calling card.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:39 am
==brace yourselves for the howls of outrage when the rate goes from 4.95 to 6%==
Then the legislature can increase the personal exemption or other tax credits. They can do that today, you know.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:44 am
Doubling down on announcing your data less guess on 1 in 3 after calling DA out on “Anecdotal is not data”?
I can’t argue with that
Comment by Bad Habits Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:44 am
The GOP must be crying right now because they won’t get all that good content that Frerichs would’ve spoon fed them if he went through with this. He didn’t do this effort any favors when he opened his mouth over the summer and it wouldn’t have done any today either. Maybe the only smart thing he did was cancel this thing.
Comment by Shytown Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:46 am
=== I can’t argue with that
===
Yeah, about that…
Right now, 230,000 plus voters, they’ve cast ballots.
Are you aware of the benchmark needed for passage? How about how it works in concert with turnout?
Let’s talk about voters voting to even *have* a constitutional convention and that vote.
It’s not me asking my in-law uncle married to my favorite aunt and speculating off if the Bears beat the Packers at home not on Sunday type of look…
It’s difficult enough to pass, even getting folks to have a convention failed.
So, if someone’s neighbor thinks something, no matter the criteria of what higher turnout, or a moving threshold, or past history measured…
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:53 am
===True, but the choice here is making upper-income pay or making everyone pay. At least for now. lol===
Don’t disagree with you for year 1, but let’s say that Covid hurts State revenues for all of 2021, what stops the legislature from coming back and putting a 7.5% tax on all income over $50k or retirement income if this passes. Nothing.
Comes back to the trust issue, people tend to trust the devil they know over the one they don’t.
Comment by AD Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 11:54 am
=== There’s a scapegoat ===
Really, that’s what this is about.
=== IF you are in a grad school public Finance class. ===
Is it 38 or 40 other states that tax retirement income?
=== brace yourself when the flat rate goes from 4.95% to 6% ===
Of all possible outcomes, that seems the least likely. Democrats are not going to raise the tax rate alone. The GOP is not going to raise the tax rate without pension cuts — there are only Raunerites and Trumpkins left — and that is not going to happen.
Democrats will end up making deep cuts that disproportionately impact Republican districts, and put the amendment on the ballot again in 2022, or perhaps try for the millionaire’s amendment, but make it 5% surcharge instead of 3% this time.
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:06 pm
===The facts are absolutely clear: the Fair Tax does not tax retirement income, nor does it make it any easier to do so.===
Not exactly true. I agree that imposing a flat tax on retirement income would be political suicide, but a tax that kicks in at, say, $100K of retirement income and above would become possible and would be acceptable to the vast majority of taxpayers, including most retirees.
Comment by retiree Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:26 pm
=== ===The facts are absolutely clear: the Fair Tax does not tax retirement income, nor does it make it any easier to do so.===
Not exactly true.===
It is true.
The process of passage is not easier. It’s the same. Same process. That’s the point.
Paranoid? Maybe. But just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean there isn’t an invisible boogeyman ready to tax you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:30 pm
===The process of passage is not easier. It’s the same. Same process.===
There’s more to “ease of passage” than the process. There’s the political backlash.
Comment by retiree Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:33 pm
===There’s the political backlash===
Huh?
The GA voted to raise taxes, Rauner vetoed, it was overridden, the Dems later gained seats, Rauner, who vetoed it, lost by the largest margin a sitting Republican has in 100 years.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:35 pm
The political backlash of a flat tax on retirement income is why one on will touch it with a ten foot pole. Taxing only huge levels of retirement income becomes politically palatable.
Comment by retiree Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:39 pm
one on = no one
Comment by retiree Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:39 pm
===on retirement income===
Oh. You got sponsors for that? You think that the GA is going to pass a change to tax retirement income, that it?
Facebook is a bit down the dial, make a right.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:41 pm
Such an oddly hostile response to what I consider a very reasonable expectation of how the fair tax amendment might play out.
Comment by retiree Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:47 pm
=== Such an oddly hostile response to what I consider a very reasonable expectation of how the fair tax amendment might play out.===
Here’s the thing;
The third rail in Illinois taxing is taxing retirement income.
It polls terrible, unelectable if you vote for it, terrible.
The mere fact Frerichs is pushing back so hard… he will be unelectable to higher office if it’s seen he favors taxing retirement income.
It’s not a possibility. The politics make it impossible.
Of anything, that is the least likely outcome, no matter how the CA goes.
It’s not hostile, it’s a tiring of possibles that are impossibles
Be well, stay safe, wear a mask.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:51 pm
=== There’s the political backlash ===
Was that a turnip truck whizzing by?
You honestly believe that Ken Griffin spent $47 million because he wants to keep taxes from going up on people making $50K a year? Or do you think the 51 year-old is worried about retirement taxes?
The Republicans are telegraphing through their proxies that they won’t oppose a retirement tax and flat tax hike. Although we can assume some strings would be attached like pension cuts, there would be no political backlash. Why? Any such plan would have GOP votes on it, and its hard to muster backlash against a tax hike supported by both parties.
I guess we could keep repeating a 12 year cycle, Pritzker limps along for two terms, then we elect another Rauner, who promises to fix everything with magic beans, instead driving us another $20 billion into debt, then eight more years of Democratic patchwork, rinse, repeat.
Does not seem like a very good plan. A graduated tax is better for business that another Governor Rauner.
Comment by Thomas Paine Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 12:59 pm
== I am old enough to remember for example that we were told that if we get the lottery in Illinois that it would take care of school funding and I don’t think that happened. ==
About 10 years ago I was in Springfield with a gifted Ed group and Quinn staffer came and spoke to the group about education funding, and that was the first comment/question someone in the group brought up.
Again, this is anecdotal (sorry I don’t have money for polling) but lots of people don’t fundamentally trust Springfield to get anything right. Heck one of the pro-groups was running ‘Springfield is screwed up who is going to pay to fix it’ ads.
You run an ad that says ‘They say you are going to pay less in taxes under this, do you trust them that will always be the case’. It’s accurate (since there is nothing in the amendment that says they can’t raise taxes on everyone if they chose to do so) and it plays to ‘you can’t trust Springfield’ thought. Which between governors doing perp walks, guys pleading guilty and ComEd isn’t a hard sell.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 1:10 pm
===The Republicans are telegraphing through their proxies that they won’t oppose a retirement tax and flat tax hike. Although we can assume some strings would be attached like pension cuts, there would be no political backlash. Why? Any such plan would have GOP votes on it, and its hard to muster backlash against a tax hike supported by both parties.===
Where is this happening?
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 1:18 pm
==what stops the legislature from coming back and putting a 7.5% tax on all income over $50k or retirement income if this passes. Nothing.==
Nothing but some massive reprisals from those voters, which is why the target with the CA in the first place is the ultra-rich. But other than that, yeah, nothing…
Comment by John Deere Green Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 2:12 pm
John Deere Green is correct. Some of y’all live in a very weird world.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 2:36 pm
I have no idea as to whether this will pass or not.
However the language to be on the ballot is ridiculous and sounds more like a campaign ad for it:
=The proposed amendment grants the State authority to impose higher income tax rates on higher income levels, which is how the federal government and a majority of other states do it. The amendment would remove the portion of the Revenue Article of the Illinois Constitution that is sometimes referred to as the “flat tax,” that requires all taxes on income to be at the same rate. The amendment does not itself change tax rates. It gives the State the ability to impose higher tax rates on those with higher income levels and lower tax rates on those with middle or lower income levels. You are asked to decide whether the proposed amendment should become a part of the Illinois Constitution.=
https://www.ift-aft.org/post/official-fair-tax-language-on-the-ballot
Absolutely nothing about any actual tax rates and a far cry from the language that would be in the Constitution:
The amendment to be voted on in November, 2020, would replace Article IX, Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution with the following language:[28]
Section 3. Limitations on Income Taxation
(a) The General Assembly shall provide by law for the rate or rates of any tax on or measured by income imposed by the State. A tax on or measured by income shall be at a non-graduated rate. At any one time there may be no more than one such tax imposed by the State for State purposes on individuals and one such tax so imposed on corporations. In any such tax imposed upon corporations the highest rate shall not exceed the highest rate imposed on individuals by more than a ratio of 8 to 5.
(b) Laws imposing taxes on or measured by income may adopt by reference provisions of the laws and regulations of the United States, as they then exist or thereafter may be changed, for the purpose of arriving at the amount of income upon which the tax is imposed.=
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Fair_Tax
Comment by Unconventionalwisdom Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 3:14 pm
- John Deere Green - Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 2:12 pm:
==what stops the legislature from coming back and putting a 7.5% tax on all income over $50k or retirement income if this passes. Nothing.==
You have actually made a good overall point but then you way overstated the case with a rather extreme example. The more obvious way For the GA to move is do exactly what they stated they would do about the rates and then let inflation move more and more people into the higher tax rate (as there is not inflation adjustment) Over a period time this has real impact. Negative for the taxpayer and great for government revenues.
Comment by Unconventionalwisdom Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 3:23 pm
=However the language to be on the ballot is ridiculous and sounds more like a campaign ad for it:=
I second that emotion.
Comment by Rabble Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 4:11 pm
==For the GA to move is do exactly what they stated they would do about the rates and then let inflation move more and more people into the higher tax rate (as there is not inflation adjustment) Over a period time this has real impact. Negative for the taxpayer and great for government revenues.==
Given the inflation rate in recent decades, that may take a while. Just the thought that someone would believe our legislators (who usually cannot see past the next election) have that kind of time horizon for raising taxes is a little amusing.
Comment by Whatever Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 4:54 pm
Can we not entertain any cost reduction policies?
Comment by Just Sayin' Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 7:16 pm
What is the big deal about Illinois switching to a graduated income tax? What do you think you pay in April for US income tax?
A flat tax?
No. It is a graduated income tax that we pay to the US government.
What is good for US taxes ought to be good for State taxes - a graduated income tax.
If the advocates for keeping the flat tax are saying it is good for Illinois, why aren’t they yapping to change the US tax code to a flat tax?
Seems like a bit of cognitive dissonance.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 9:17 pm
What is good for US taxes ought to be good for State taxes - a graduated income tax.===
I always thought this should be pounded as the message. Not fairness, but modernization. The Illinois tax is bizarre and archaic and we need to get with the Feds and the majority of the states.
Comment by Jibba Tuesday, Oct 6, 20 @ 9:48 pm
Let’s face it, what Frerichs said makes sense logically and policy-wise, but not politically. Why shouldn’t higher income folks pay a tax on their retirement income. With Fair tax Amendment you can do this. Could also do it now with a very high exemption.
Comment by truthtopower Wednesday, Oct 7, 20 @ 1:02 am