Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Meisel takes a deep-dive into progressive income tax history

Posted in:

Illinois

An hourlong virtual rally in support of a proposed state constitutional amendment to change Illinois’ income tax system to a graduated-rate tax was sidetracked Friday night by Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle delivering a lengthy pitch for State’s Attorney Kim Foxx’s reelection and for voters to reject two judges up for retention.

She only spoke about Foxx for like two minutes.

* Hannah Meisel…

In the dueling campaigns for and against Gov. JB Pritzker’s signature plan to implement a graduated income tax structure in Illinois are the echoes of past attempts at tax reform.

The players have changed and the policy proposals are different, but what remains constant are both Illinois’ underlying structural revenue imbalance and the element of mistrust of Springfield politicians.

The Nov. 3 vote to amend Illinois’ constitution and allow for a graduated income tax — instead of the flat income tax structure the state has had since 1969 — is not just the culmination of Pritzker’s three-year-long campaign for the change he vowed as a gubernatorial candidate, but also the reverberation of decades of fiscal policy and messaging.

Trips back to the 1990s, the 1970s and the 1930s may be instructive.

It’s a really good piece (of course), so go take a look. You might learn something.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 12:29 pm

Comments

==An hourlong virtual rally==

After a day full of hour-long Zoom meetings, here’s another hour-long Zoom meeting.

Comment by City Zen Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 12:43 pm
===here’s another hour-long Zoom meeting===

lol

I was actually a bit surprised that 3100 people watched it.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 12:45 pm
The most bizarre aspect of this whole Fair Tax debate is we are essentially arguing over what the General Assembly will or should do after it passes. The language of the actual amendment has nothing to do with graduated rates, or making anyone pay more taxes.

It merely removes any impediment stopping the General Assembly from increasing taxes or enacting new taxes, beyond collecting enough votes in the capitol.

That’s it. So go ahead and tell people they’ll get a tax cut. Maybe they will. But there is nothing in the amendment guaranteeing anything of the sort.

Oh, and kudos to Hannah for acknowledging that rate creep is real, and distinctly possible, and not just a silly IPI talking point.

Comment by JB13 Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 1:12 pm
Looking at the research that shows Illinois residents supported a progressive tax by some pretty big margins consistently in the past, it seems hard to believe the CA amendment will fail.

Comment by Back to the Future Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 1:36 pm
If you won’t honestly try to fix the major problems first(and first and foremost pension) then you really shouldn’t be talking fair anything. Should have been at least three Constitutional Amendments on the ballot, pension reform, fair maps and if you are going for progressive tax put everything in writing along with restrictions. Let’s be fair to everyone.

Comment by Arock Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 1:38 pm
=== and first and foremost pension===

Ok. How?

Remember the ILSC rulings.

Thanks.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 1:39 pm
=== Should have been at least three Constitutional Amendments on the ballot, pension reform, fair maps and if you are going for progressive tax put everything in writing along with restrictions.===

Show me your 71 and 36.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 1:41 pm
The only CA on the ballot involves a progressive tax system in Illinois.
You either favor that idea or you don’t. Fair Maps and pension reform are not on the ballot.

Comment by Back to the Future Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 1:51 pm
==Should have been at least three Constitutional Amendments on the ballot, pension reform, fair maps and==

pension reform? I think you mean to say ‘pension reneging’

Comment by Jocko Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 1:58 pm
Interesting read on the history of the graduated income tax, and that we had one around 90 years ago but the ILSC struck it down. That was during the Great Depression, so it must have really hurt.

There’s no doubt that the graduated income tax will help us, by reducing budgetary strain. The people poised to suffer the most due to harsh budget cuts are those who can least afford it. That’s pretty cut and dried.

If middle class taxpayers vote against this amendment they’re just going to continue to burden themselves when a probable flat tax hike comes. We can justifiably criticize what Vote Yes has done wrong in messaging, but it’s also on us, the voters, to be reasonably educated on this issue.

Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 2:01 pm
To the post,

Hannah is aces. This is one of those deep dives I’ll go back to to have as a touchstone on not only institutional knowledge, but to the politics to that knowledge, and clarity to the ramifications.

It’s what I’d expect from Hannah Meisel, she doesn’t disappoint, to the contrary, another impressive piece of her work.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 2:05 pm
The 1933 case is Bachrach v. Nelson, 349 Ill. 579 (1933).

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3416818/bachrach-v-nelson/

Comment by Steve Rogers Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 2:54 pm
You couldn’t possibly get any kind of CA on pensions for at least four more years. Governor Pritzker won’t allow it and then if by some miracle the Republicans managed to flip the Governor and the GA, it would take at least two more years.

In three years, the last of the baby boomers will turn 60. They are the majority of Tier one active employees. Once they retire, they are locked in.

The pension grab boat has sailed. Adios, pension grabbers.

Comment by A Jack Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 3:03 pm
“3100 people watched it.”

Or at least had it streaming… If it’s anything like my “watching” of NFL they were watching it on their tablet, while checking out messages, etc. on their phone.

Comment by Downstate Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 3:21 pm
“and first and foremost pension”

Edgar Pension Ramp? Tier 2?

We are next to the point of “reform” = “reneging” …

Comment by Anyone Remember Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 3:24 pm
==Edgar Pension Ramp?==

That was a great reform…for Edgar.

Comment by City Zen Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 3:57 pm
=== You couldn’t possibly get any kind of CA on pensions for at least four more years. Governor Pritzker won’t allow it…===

There’s no 71 and 36 clamoring for it

If anything? If anything it would be a governor (like a Rauner) wanting pension reform, but can’t cobble 71 and 36

Your false premise ignores the 71 and 36 reality.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Nov 2, 20 @ 6:03 pm