Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Welch says graduated income tax “probably won’t happen anytime in the next couple of years”

Posted in:

Illinois

* Speaker Welch caused a bit of a stir back in February with these remarks…

New Democratic House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch suggested Wednesday that the state should again ask voters to approve a graduated-rate income tax, but this time target the new money toward paying down Illinois’ massive pension debt.

The call for a do-over came after voters in November overwhelmingly rejected Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s graduated income tax proposal. Opponents, including Republicans and business leaders, used distrust of Springfield to argue for keeping the state constitution’s flat tax requirement.

“We have to tell the voters what we’re going to do with that money,” Welch said during a virtual event hosted by the Economic Club of Chicago. “I certainly think tying that new revenue to pensions would be a winner.”

Whether there will be an appetite among other Democrats for another attempt at passing a graduated tax remains unclear. Pritzker did not immediately join Welch’s push.

* Chicago Sun-Times columnist Laura Washington and Washington bureau chief Lynn Sweet asked Welch about the topic again the other day…

We didn’t do it this year, likely not next year. We have a great budget that we did do some structural things in this year’s budget. Do I think that Illinois tax system is broken? I think so. I think that the wealthy doesn’t pay their fair share. I think at some point that it has to be revisited. But it probably won’t happen anytime in the next couple of years.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 10:42 am

Comments

” I think at some point that it has to be revisited”

Read this as after the next gubernatorial election in November 8, 2022.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:09 am
Speaker Welch. I think the voters were trying to tell y’all they want some restraint on spending as well as some increased revenue.

Comment by Blue Dog Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:16 am
=== restraint on spending===

You are consistently and continually comical when you think you use this phrase right “here”

As you know, with Rauner, “where ya cuttin’?” is something you lack an understanding to respond.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:28 am
Almost as comical as that worn out 60-30 line. There fed ya.

Comment by Blue Dog Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:30 am
To the post,

It was a colossal failure, and “failure is an orphan” it seems when looking at how the Fair Tax Flop… well, flopped…

As a cornerstone policy issue that was soundly and decisively beaten due to being out hustled, out messaged, and seemingly rudderless in responding, I don’t see this moving anytime soon… unless new eyes and new thoughts to running a campaign for it are realized.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:31 am
=== Almost as comical as that worn out 60-30 line===

It’s true, and yet you’re blind.

Happy Monday.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:31 am
It may require a change in reputation on the state’s spending level & a different argument than pay your fair share to get to 60% at the ballot. Going from the lowest bond rating of any U.S. state to top half without increasing percent of GDP going to tax collections would provide a lot of benefit to Welch’s cause here.

Comment by Blake Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:33 am
=this time target the new money toward paying down Illinois’ massive pension debt.=

Bad idea. That’s just fodder for another IPI anti-union propaganda campaign.
Target the money to schools/education/lowering property taxes.

Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:35 am
First pass a constitutional amendment making retirement income non-taxable. If you’re never going to tax it, might as well write it in stone and remove one of the arguments against a graduated income tax.

Comment by City Zen Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:39 am
I like TinyDancer’s point & should have pointed out that perceptions on state spending levels are largely built on state/local taxes combined. Some kind of safeguard to ensure increasing state revenue goes directly to lower local taxes without allowing the local governments to increase spending above where they’d be without additional state dollars, maybe some cap on local government spending increases as part of the amendment.

Comment by Blake Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:41 am
The idea that people will vote to raise their own taxes to fund the lavish state pensions of state employees seems like a stretch. But Speaker Welch is right. That’s why the revenue is needed.

Comment by Just Can't Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:47 am
OW. Apologies for being a bit mean spirited. I have listed here on numerous occasions modest cost reductions. Admittedly probably not politically popular. But I refuse to believe that the voters were bamboozled by a campaign message. We elect folks to make tough decisions.

Comment by Blue Dog Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 11:56 am
=== Apologies===

No need for any apology.

This…

===Admittedly probably not politically popular.===

See: 60/30 signature.

Again, no apology necessary

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 12:06 pm
State spending is flat, Rich just had a post like last week saying so, that in fact it wasn’t keeping up with inflation in many areas. JB’s proposed budget kept K-12 spending flat instead of the planned (and now executed) $300 million+ increase because he’s trying hard to “live within our means”. The facts are the we aren’t paying for what we want the State to do, and so the bill just keeps growing because some people (I’m talking directly to you here Blue Dog) are living in complete denial of reality.

Comment by Perrid Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 1:19 pm
“Lavish state pensions?”

Just like the “lavish” working conditions, secretarial help, travel budgets, etc most state employees enjoy, compared to the private sector.

Or the “simple” problems state employees face, trying to satisfy the public, elected officials, complicated state mandates, no-nothing political appointees, etc, compared to the private sector’s straightforward make a profit goal.

Oh, what’s the use …

Comment by Sir Reel Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 1:25 pm
=== The idea that people will vote to raise their own taxes to fund the lavish state pensions===

Only the top 3% were going to see a tax increase.

Either you knew that and are being wholly disingenuous for your mouth breathing concern for “lavish pensions” or… you had no idea what was on the ballot last time and voted against your own best interests to the glee of Ken Griffin.

You choose.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 1:40 pm
“lavish pensions” was not my opinion. It’s how they are viewed by the public. It’s why people won’t vote for a tax increase - even if it’s on the top 3% - to pay for pension debt. That’s also my opinion. Always quick to the nasty response though, OW. If you think the public will vote for a tax increase based on that pension message, I submit your political read is way off. But you didn’t address that. You lashed out. With respect.

Comment by Just Can't Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 2:01 pm
==That’s also my opinion.==

Is that you Bruce Rauner?

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 2:13 pm
=== “lavish pensions” was not my opinion. It’s how they are viewed by the public.===

Speak for yourself. If you refuse to speak for yourself cite where it’s “everyone”.

=== It’s why people won’t vote for a tax increase - even if it’s on the top 3% - to pay for pension debt.===

The top anti-Fair Tax ads were around taxing retirement income. If you were utterly foolish by voting against your own self interests, I can’t help you.

===If you think the public will vote for a tax increase based on that pension message, I submit your political read is way off.===

(Sigh)

The idea that the Fair Tax would lead to taxing retirement income, as the ads put forth as a reason, made the Fair Tax toxic to any income, while ignoring only the 3% would see a tax increase.

Again, if you are not in the top 3% and voted against the Fair Tax… you got duped by Ken Griffin… and no amount of ridiculous mental gymnastics will make being duped seem smart.

Of course, Griffin masterfully had the crew out work, out hustle, out message, and outwit the Fair Tax folks, so there that too

=== But you didn’t address that===

I did. You didn’t like my response. lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 2:18 pm
After the $600+ million in business loophole closures are felt, I wonder if business would like to revisit the Fair Tax.

It’s been pointed out, revenue is needed.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 2:23 pm
Non Pension taxpayers are not going to give Illinois Politicians the flexibility to adjust the rates down the road with a simple majority vote to fund Pensions

Comment by Fed Up Taxpayer Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 2:38 pm
=== Non Pension taxpayers are not going to give Illinois Politicians the flexibility to adjust the rates down the road with a simple majority vote to fund Pensions===

Ironically?

The money is owed one way or another, so deciding not to increase taxes on the top 3% to own yourself is comically funny, but still leaves the state owing the same money before the Fair Tax was on the ballot.

You can’t twist it to seem “smart to one’s self” to have voted against the Fair Tax, even to own the pension crisis.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 2:44 pm
Back to the original post, and I’ll reiterate, despite all the emotion, lashing out, condescension and the emotional arguments about what should be or how voters should think:

Illinois voters will not approve a tax increase whose purpose is predominantly sold as solidifying state employee/university/teacher pensions.

Comment by Just Can't Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 3:09 pm
=== Illinois voters will not approve a tax increase whose purpose is predominantly sold as solidifying state employee/university/teacher pensions.===

Again…

If you buy into the Ken Griffin ridiculousness and you voted against your own best interests, that silliness makes sense.

Why is it silly?

Polling… has shown Illinois is a pro-labor state.

So there’s that too.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 3:15 pm
=== Illinois voters will not approve a tax increase whose purpose is predominantly sold as solidifying state employee/university/teacher pensions.===

This is also grossly inaccurate to the anti tax messaging which was about 1) “what will they tax next” and 2) “after they change it, they’re coming after you”.

At no time… at NO time was the anti-tax message about sticking it to those with pensions, if anything, a major prong later was the fear of pensions being taxed, lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 3:24 pm
=Illinois voters will not approve a tax increase whose purpose is predominantly sold as solidifying state employee/university/teacher pensions. =

OW - how are you not able to grasp the simple claim? It’s not about what arguments were used to defeat the fair tax, or how that played out. Yes, the fair tax was defeated on those arguments you mentioned. But that doesn’t mean those were the silver bullet. Maybe other arguments would have worked, too. I mean, it wasn’t even close.

I am simply saying that Speaker Welch’s idea of tying a tax increase to funding public pensions would be a loser. That’s all. It’s not a commentary on what happened before, or why Ken Griffin is bad or who we should call names.

Comment by Just Can't Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 3:53 pm
=== how are you not able to grasp the simple claim?===

Because if it were true, part of the $50 million used to message against the Fair Tax woulda included your premise.

It didn’t.

Why spend $50 million without what you see as “a real reason”.

=== But that doesn’t mean those were the silver bullet.===

LOL

Again, how can your silly be true if one of the major prongs later was taxing pensions too? Can’t be both. Also, organized labor as an entity polls well. You keep forgetting that

=== Maybe===

No amount of “maybe” when $50 million… that’s $50 million… neglected and at times worked against your premise.

===I am simply saying that Speaker Welch’s idea of tying a tax increase to funding public pensions would be a loser.===

Organized labor seemingly sat on their hands (granted, it was a pandemic) working for the Fair Tax.

The CA all but enshrining labor rights into the constitution that will be in the ballot might show where things could play out, as you ignore exactly the post mortem in hopes to show “folks are against funding pensions” on a Spidey-Sense.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 4:01 pm
==Illinois voters will not approve a tax increase whose purpose is predominantly sold as solidifying state employee/university/teacher pensions.==

Money is fungible. The state could use the extra money from a graduated income tax for pensions then subtract that same amount from the general budget for other things. We’d still be in the same boat.

Which brings us back to where this all started: trust. If voters don’t trust the state to do what they say they’ll do, it will go nowhere. Again.

Comment by City Zen Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 4:27 pm
Nobody could possibly think it would happen in the 2022 election year. And if you look at the statement that’s all Welch specifically rules out. Will a fair tax re-do or more likely some other graduated income tax proposal happen in 2023 or beyond? Maybe maybe not. But all that has been taken off the table is 2022. So literally no news has been made,

Comment by Advocate Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 4:34 pm
=== If voters don’t trust the state to do what they say they’ll do, it will go nowhere.===

… which is why the $600+ million in closed loopholes, “promised” as what would happen if failed… happened.

What impressed me more after the failure was the follow through to take it to those who helped defeat the Fair Tax, as was promised.

I don’t think in a couple years it will matter to re-run this, as the saturation that the Fair Tax needed… is overwhelmed now the saturation… of the narrative that defeated it.

That anti-fair tax narrative is still going to be fresh. When you out work and out hustle on messaging, that saturation has staying power.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 4:35 pm
Likely the only messaging that would work would be to tie a significant portion of the tax increase to reduced property taxes; the catch will be exactly how it gets done.

I see 2 ways:

1) a direct, fully refundable, credit on the State income tax filing

or

2) mandating direct dollar for dollar reduction by the local property tax authority in exchange for matching State funds.

Personally, I think #1 may be the better way because it is more within State control and less likely to be fungible.

Comment by RNUG Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 4:53 pm
At no time… at NO time was the anti-tax message about sticking it to those with pensions,

Non Pensioners are not out to “stick it to Pensioners”, they are just not going to fund those Pensions that they didn’t have a say in, are by even the lowest standard more generous than the rest of taxpayers retirement options.

No matter how the Politicians package it.

Comment by Mad Hatter Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 5:18 pm
=== they are just not going to fund those Pensions that they didn’t have a say in, are by even the lowest standard more generous than the rest of taxpayers retirement options.===

Welp, lol… what is owed IS owed… no matter how the
phony speaking for “others” package it.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 5:21 pm
We’ll see when the majority of taxpayers will decide when the “revenues” can’t cover them without significant tax increases.

Comment by Mad Hatter Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 5:25 pm
=== We’ll see when the majority of taxpayers will decide===

There’s nothing to decide. It’s owed, lol

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 5:31 pm
There’s nothing to decide. It’s owed, lol

A Constitutional change is an option, that many Non Pensioners would consider, and there is always default.

Comment by Mad Hatter Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 5:33 pm
=== A Constitutional change is an option===

“Asked and answered”… unanimously.

Good try.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 5:35 pm
===there is always default===

Nah. No judge is going to see the state of Illinois as insolvent, given the refusal to raise taxes.

Any other Wirepoints things you wanna consider?

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Jun 21, 21 @ 5:37 pm
Well since Kaegi doubled property valuations in Rogers Park based on his super duper computer program and according to Crain’s he intends to pretty much up valuations across the board in the future one can anticipate much pushback against another round of fair tax. My Rogers Park SFD went from 440,000 to 950,000. Oddly other than Crain’s it’s silence all round. No response from either my state senator or rep on pushing for a RE tax deduction.
The economic diversity in RP will vanish. Investors and hedge funds are scooping up local RE and they have the huge advantage of deducting the taxes as a business expense. (Building across the street just sold to a foreign investment group) Mom and Pop landlords are agnozing over huge rent increases for their tenants (My neighbors are in shock). Seniors like me who been around long enough understand the while RM Daley didn’t gentrify RP with his Loyola marina plan because of citizen revolt; Kaegi is about to accomplish just that under the banner of fairness.

Comment by dd Tuesday, Jun 22, 21 @ 1:51 pm
===Well since Kaegi===

The people of Cook County voted for this.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jun 22, 21 @ 2:04 pm