Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pritzker’s “other” speech
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Crain’s…
Pritzker proposed spending another $200 million out of this year’s budget to supplement the state’s pension payment, something that will cut costs in the long run. But he pretty much rejected a proposal from the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club to sharply ramp up state pension contributions via a 10-year income tax surcharge, telling Rich Miller in a Capitol Fax interview that things the big business group is proposing are “not likely to come to fruition and that I would oppose.” But Pritzker says he is willing to talk about it if the group wants to revive his proposed graduated income tax. [Emphasis added.]
That’s not what I told subscribers…
I asked Gov. Pritzker yesterday about the plan put forth by the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago to raise income taxes for ten years, cut state agency budgets by 2-3 percent and use that money to accelerate pension funding.
“I think there are many things they are proposing that are not likely to come to fruition and that I would oppose, but I also think that there are some ideas in there, like the one I proposed four years ago, that are reasonable to talk about.”
Pritzker said increasing the amount of money that goes to pensions is something he would support, as well as discussing “whether we should keep the [pension debt] amortization schedule as it is.” He said he opposed the group’s proposal to eliminate the estate tax. And, the governor said, “I would be concerned about any additional tax burden on middle class and working class people in Illinois.”
I attempted to obtain a correction, but was rebuffed.
* So, I’m gonna post the transcript. Click here for the audio…
Q: Okay, last thing, real quick. I don’t know if you can answer it real quick, but this Civic Committee recommendation, cut 2 to 3 percent across budgets and agencies and raise taxes on everybody by half a point, and then use all the money for pensions and rainy day fund. What do you, what do you make of that?
Pritzker: I think you may recall that I was on the Civic Committee before I became governor. I was a businessman and appointed to that committee. And now I am a ex officio member of it as governor. I only point that out because I’m well aware of how the Civic Committee puts its plans together.
And, look, it’s their job to put forward ideas for solving our fiscal challenges. That’s part of what it views as its important contribution. And I value the fact that they put those things forward.
I think, you know, there are many things that are proposed in that that are not likely to come to fruition and that I would oppose. But I also think that there are some ideas in there, like the one I proposed four years ago, that, you know, are reasonable to talk about. Which are, you know, increasing the amount that we’re putting into pensions and and then, you know, it is a question whether you can, you know, whether we should keep the amortization schedule as it is.
[Crosstalk]
Q: OK, and then but, but what you would oppose? [Crosstalk]
Pritzker: …increasing the amount of putting, that we’re putting into pensions.
Q: Right. But when you said ‘there are some things I would oppose,’ what would that be? Would that be the the increase in the flat tax for 10 years, or the cuts to the agencies, or both?
Pritzker: The estate tax [laughs, crosstalk] is not something that I think, is one example. And I think we, look, I think I would be concerned about any additional tax burden on middle class and working class people in Illinois.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 9:34 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pritzker’s “other” speech
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It is nice and refreshing to see an affluent politician come out and specifically oppose a policy idea that would directly and personally benefit him and his family, when it would be bad for the State as a whole.
Comment by Homebody Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 9:38 am
===directly and personally benefit him and his family===
I think most of his wealth is shielded offshore.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 9:39 am
===I only point that out because I’m well aware of how the Civic Committee puts its plans together.===
I’m imagining this process is something like the Roman Senate in History of the World Part 1
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 9:52 am
“I think most of his wealth is shielded offshore.”
Or in the domestic tax haven of South Dakota.
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:01 am
It’s accurate reporting if you ignore the opening clause that includes “some ideas in there” since a graduated income tax wasn’t “in there” from the Civic Committee, and if you only focus on “like the one I proposed four years ago” and assume the governor is referring to a graduated income tax, and then you stop reading so you miss him explaining what he is talking about, which is putting more into pensions now and extending the life of the payment plan, which is what he proposed four years ago.
See? Perfectly accurate reporting.
It’s much easier to never be wrong if you only read/see what you want to read/see.
(Yes, this is snark)
—
“But I also think that there are some ideas in there, like the one I proposed four years ago, that, you know, are reasonable to talk about. Which are, you know, increasing the amount that we’re putting into pensions and and then, you know, it is a question whether you can, you know, whether we should keep the amortization schedule as it is.”
—
Comment by Huge Gesture Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:29 am
Reporters sometime try to create news interest by over-stating or over-defining what pols actually said. Good for Rich to critique them.
Crain’s is usually pretty good though.
Comment by walker Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:31 am
Plus JB doesn’t want to see any more wealthy tax payers continue to flee to states where they don’t feel penalized for being successful
Comment by Sue Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:32 am
==they don’t feel penalized for being successful==
Yeah. We certainly wouldn’t want the rich paying their fair share of taxes now would we? Forgive me for not feeling the least bit sorry for them.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:37 am
But - Sue -, the Fair Tax Flop was the reason Griffin was *not* going to leave… and Griffin left anyway.
Even you said it was good the Fair Tax failed, keeping wealthy folks here. Gleefully.
Welp, here we are.
To the post,
Reminds me of the “upstate/downstate” messaging where saying one place and something else in the other rarely got checked, or was sadly ignored.
The clarity isn’t here. That’s the point, and the point of two different thoughts.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 10:40 am
== “whether we should keep the [pension debt] amortization schedule as it is.” ==
They are going to reset the Edgar Ramp at some point, probably around 2030 - 2035. That was part of the original ramp, except the author’s envisioned the reset in the 2040 - 2045 timeframe; no way are they making the 2045 balloon payment.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 11:19 am
Shall we egg Crains? I’m down.
Comment by Boone's is Back Thursday, Feb 16, 23 @ 1:13 pm