Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Pat Quinn finds his latest cause

Posted in:

Illinois

* Illinois Policy Institute back in May…

Illinois lawmakers put a trio of advisory questions about election workers, property taxes and insurance for fertility treatments on the Nov. 5 ballot.

That’s it. The ballot is full. Which leaves out a question about parental notification [and trans kids] that a [Jeanne Ives] group was collecting voters’ signatures to include on the ballot.

While advisory questions don’t directly change laws, the results could impact how lawmakers choose to pursue policies in the future based on documented public opinion. Senate Bill 2412, which was signed into law May 3, filled the three available spots with questions Democratic state lawmakers want answered. […]

Lawmakers’ questions:

• Election Worker Protection and Candidate Accountability Referendum Act: “Should any candidate appearing on the Illinois ballot for federal, State, or local office be subject to civil penalties if the candidate interferes or attempts to interfere with an election worker’s official duties?”
• Property Tax Relief and Fairness Referendum Act: “Should the Illinois Constitution be amended to create an additional 3% tax on income greater than $1,000,000 for the purpose of dedicating funds raised to property tax relief?”
• Assisted Reproductive Health Referendum Act: “Should all medically appropriate assisted reproductive treatments, including, but not limited to, in vitro fertilization, be covered by any health insurance plan in Illinois that provides coverage for pregnancy benefits, without limitation on the number of treatments?”

* Former Gov. Pat Quinn is using that statute for his next crusade. Press release…

RE: Press Conference to Kick Off the Taxpayer Campaign for the Illinois Property Tax Relief Amendment Referendum which will be on the Statewide Ballot on November 5

“Ben Franklin once said that the only things that are inevitable in life are death and taxes. But he didn’t say that it’s inevitable to be taxed to death by Illinois’ runaway property taxes!”

This Thursday, August 1, at 11:00AM on the stairs outside the Cook County Treasurer’s Office at 118 N. Clark, Chicago, former Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and a group of taxpayers will launch a taxpayer campaign to win passage of the Illinois Property Tax Relief Amendment Referendum which will be on the statewide ballot on November 5.

The referendum which was placed on the ballot by resolution of the Illinois General Assembly reads as follows:

“Should the Illinois Constitution be amended to create an additional 3% tax on income greater than $1,000,000 for the purpose of dedicating funds raised to property tax relief?”

Illinois has the second highest property taxes in the nation and Illinois taxpayers pay more in property taxes every year than income taxes and sales taxes.

The Illinois property tax is not based on ability to pay and is a complicated and unfair levy on the state’s 3,077,768 residential property taxpayers.

The Amendment would establish a dedicated property tax relief fund by requiring Illinois millionaires to pay a 3% surcharge on their annual income tax returns.

According to most recent data, Illinois has 77,323 millionaires whose annual returns account for more than $626 billion in adjusted gross income. A 3% surcharge on this millionaire income would fund at least $1.5 billion in annual property tax refunds for distribution to Illinois’ more than 3 million property taxpayers.

“The Illinois Property Tax Relief Amendment Referendum offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Illinois voters to reform an unfair upside-down tax code and give significant annual property tax relief to millions of Illinoisans who urgently need help,” said Quinn.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 7:49 am

Comments

His numbers are funny. He is counting all of the Adjusted Gross Income earned by non-residents with incomes of more than a million (not just AGI that is taxable by Illinois). Not sure how that is relevant. And his figure of $1.5 billion a year reflects that, since 3% of $626 billion is almost $19 billion… Slightly higher than his $1.5 billion figure.

If this were to become law, and all of that $1.5 billion went to residential property taxpayers, and not businesses, taxpayers would see about a 6% decrease. And then the next year, they would see their regular increase.

Comment by Numbers Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 8:36 am
When you drive out the high earners, you either have to replace that lost revenue or reduce spending. I’ve yet to see a unit of government interested in the latter.

The other downside of driving out high earners is their children (heirs) lose their ties to Illinois, and no longer consider it for their investment, housing and charitable dollars.

Comment by Downstate Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 8:37 am
Good luck with that, Pat. I think it will not be hard for folks to convince people that it will not really go to property tax relief or it will go to help other people with that.

The ‘who is going to get the relief’ ads would play well in the burbs and downstate.

Comment by OneMan Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 8:41 am
Well we are number one in the nation of people moving out of state. So can’t do any worse to our ranking by driving out a few more rich people. Too bad their income and capital will go as well.

Comment by 44 Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 8:46 am
“[…]$626 billion in adjusted gross income. A 3% surcharge on this millionaire income would fund at least $1.5 billion in annual property tax refunds”

Did Pat make a mistake with a decimal point? 3% of 626B is 18.7B. While it is true that 3% would fund a 1.5B refund, there’s an order of magnitude of extra money not being accounted for in this plan.

Maybe the math works out different if it only applies to income over 1M/yr. so lets take out 77B from the total(the first million for 77k millionaires). That leaves 549B, which at 3% would still generate 16.4B. That’s almost exactly a decimal place off from the quoted amount of ‘more than 1.5B’.

“The Illinois property tax is not based on ability to pay”

It kind of is though, in a second order type of way. It’s based on the value of your property. The assumption is that if can afford your property you can afford your taxes. Personally, my property taxes aren’t even more than my income taxes alone, much less when adding income and sales taxes together.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 8:56 am
If we drive out the high earners, trickle down economics will stop working!
I don’t care about Quinn’s stunt here but the kvetching about taxing the wealthy is always ridiculous. Money Hero Ken Griffin is so smart he moved to a city that’s already going under the waves. How can we lure him back?!? That should be the focus of Quinn’s next stunt.

Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 9:00 am
I don’t like this idea simply because the vast bulk of property taxes are county or local. Which means the county is deciding on spending. The income tax is state and so the state shouldn’t be raising revenue that it doesn’t decide on spending for. If this is needed let counties have their own income tax. North shore residents shouldn’t be paying for local spending in Logan county.

Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 9:09 am
== once-in-a-generation opportunity for Illinois voters to reform an unfair upside-down tax code ==

Not really. A similar advisory referendum was on the ballot in 2014 (Quinn was governor, he should remember that) and of course there was the the binding referendum that went down in 2020.

Comment by TNR Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 9:16 am
=== North shore residents shouldn’t be paying for local spending in Logan county. ===

Unless those funds become targeted spending, such as spending on education or other public services that smaller counties cannot afford or cannot equalize.

Comment by H-W Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 9:25 am
==North shore residents shouldn’t be paying for local spending in Logan county.==

So it sounds like you’re opposed to income taxes in general. smh

These sorts of arguments are ignorant.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 9:41 am
No I’m not against income taxes because the state is deciding on the spending. IF the state wants to improve education in Logan county fine. It can decide that and should have strings on what that money can be used for and limits on whether the county can then offset their own education spending. What should not, IMO, be done, is the state writing a blank check to the county.

Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 9:55 am
What Ben Franklin should have said “Illinois Democrats taxing you is inevitable”.

Comment by NotRich Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 10:00 am
Pat Quinn- he just won’t leave.

I don’t predict, if passed, that this relief will trickle down as real property tax reduction, it’ll be another bucket of money that Springfield will dip in to and use for swaps.

Comment by Frida’s boss Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 10:01 am
He moved on from his “no public funding for stadiums” referendum quickly.

Comment by DS Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 10:08 am
Pat Quinn is one of those people that is so annoying you hate him even though you sort of kind of maybe agree with some of what he’s saying.

Comment by DougChicago Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 10:18 am
I will probably be voting no on the property tax question not because I don’t think Illinois needs to tax the rich, but I cannot support further entrenching the property tax system when the land value tax system is far superior.

Comment by Macon Bakin Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 10:30 am
A 3% surcharge on income over $1M in a given year doesn’t cause anyone to move unless they already want to move. When you are making that kind of money, the surcharge is not a life changing number in any way. I’d be happy to pay a 5% surcharge to make a $1M this year.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 10:37 am
And remember what happened when the referendum for a 3% surcharge on incomes over a million that were to be used for education funding passed.

Comment by Numbers Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 10:42 am
“Well we are number one in the nation of people moving out of state” Haven’t we had this discussion like a million times, and the whole “out-migration” thing was hyperbole? The actual number was, what, 80,000 and a substantial amount of that was a lower birth rate?

Comment by Skeptic Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 10:43 am
Pat Quinn and clipboards again. Never ends. These type of tax the wealthy concepts haven not been successful in the past and i dont think this will fly.

Comment by Regular democrat Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:02 am
My Pat Quinn story: about 30 years ago I shared a cab from the Springfield airport to downtown with Quinn. Didn’t say a word except to state that we would be splitting the cost 50/50. He was State Treasurer and I was a Social Service Program Planner IV. I guess that was some sort of effort at fiscal responsibility with public funds, but not really, since the state paid both his half and my half.

Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:24 am
We couldn’t get a Progressive Tax passed because the rich people didn’t want it. I don’t see this having any better luck.

=====Pat Quinn is one of those people that is so annoying you hate him even though you sort of kind of maybe agree with some of what he’s saying.=====

That is the absolute truth right there.

Comment by Name Withheld Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:36 am
While I also oppose the substance of the policy, I think that non-binding referenda are a terrible idea and should be heavily discouraged. We don’t live in that world, but it’s galling to put informal polls on ballots. It’s confusing, and seemingly purposefully so.

Comment by Garfield Ridge Guy Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:42 am
Quinn is exactly right on this one. I’ll be voting yes.

Comment by low level Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:50 am
====Pat Quinn is one of those people that is so annoying you hate him even though you sort of kind of maybe agree with some of what he’s saying.=====

Also very true

Comment by low level Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:52 am
- We couldn’t get a Progressive Tax passed because the rich people didn’t want it. -

The campaign for the progressive tax was terribly run and the ballot question itself was terribly worded and confusing. This may or may not have any real world effect but I’m glad Quinn is at least keeping the idea out there.

Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 11:57 am
Dismissing the argument for or against charging high earners more taxes, could a plan like this even pass constitutional muster? This sounds an awful lot like a graduated income with different rates below and above $1 million which is not allowed by the Illinois constitution. Is calling it a ’surcharge’ a valid way to get around the constitution?

Comment by Aaron B Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 12:34 pm
===Is calling it a ’surcharge’ a valid way to get around the constitution? ===

Nope.

The main idea here was to crowd out Jeanne Ives in case she was able to collect enough signatures.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 12:35 pm
The idea that property taxes should be based on ability to pay is actually baked into the process in a way. As most here know, property taxes are based on the value of the house. If you can afford the house you should be able to afford the tax obligations that gop with it. Some may take issue with that because the value has gone up, I struggle with that thought process since everyone wants their home to appreciate. It is a good thing.

I don’t have a problem with a progressive income tax, I think everyone should pay accordingly. But I do not agree with a property tax surcharge. I think an argument could be made (maybe not a great one) that those paying the additional property tax on behalf of someone else should then reap the benefits of that additional value somehow. I know what it sounds like.

Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 12:36 pm
It’s always popular to raise taxes on somebody else.

Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 3:27 pm
@ JS Mill -

Appreciation in your home’s value is a good thing, until you can no longer afford to stay there because of high property taxes. It’s a particular problem in gentrifying urban area, where many people who have lived in their homes for decades absolutely do NOT want to see significant appreciation, as they do not want to be forced to move.

Comment by JoanP Thursday, Aug 1, 24 @ 3:28 pm