Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: On the road again
Posted in:
* Capital projects aren’t free, and the state obviously can’t pay for them out of existing revenues so we’ll see how all this works out. Erickson with the scoop…
With gasoline selling for less than $2 per gallon throughout much of the state, Gov. Bruce Rauner and his allies in the business community have launched behind-the-scenes talks with state legislative leaders to raise Illinois’ gasoline tax.
Although the governor’s office is not providing details on the negotiations, documents obtained by the Times’ Springfield Bureau outline the workings of a plan designed to finance an estimated $1.8 billion in road building and maintenance projects.
In addition to boosting the gasoline tax by 13 cents a gallon, the outline shows other revenue options on the table include a 2 percent sales tax on food and drugs, increasing the cost of registering and titling cars by $20 annually and boosting the cost of driver’s licenses by $5 a year.
But neither side is ready to discuss the tentative framework publicly. Under one scenario, the increases would be tempered with a decrease in the state’s 6.25 percent sales tax on motor fuel sales to 1.25 percent.
I woudn’t bet too much money on that huge gasoline sales tax reduction. Erickson reports it would cost the state’s General Revenue Fund $700 million. Unless that’s replaced by a different tax hike, it’s not affordable.
*** UPDATE 1 *** From Gov. Rauner’s spokesman Mike Schrimpf…
“The administration has not launched behind-the-scenes talks with legislators to raise the gas tax, or any other taxes or fees to fund a capital program. What’s being circulated by some advocacy groups is not the governor’s plan and does not have his blessing.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** Frpm the Transportation for Illinois Coalition…
“The Transportation for Illinois Coalition is committed to long-term, significant and sustainable investment in Illinois’ critical transportation infrastructure. TFIC is having many discussions around a menu of revenue options that could be used to fund such investment, but there are no negotiations going on at this point.
The Coalition looks forward to presenting a package of funding options and having serious negotiations with the governor and lawmakers to provide a meaningful fix this spring for the network of roads, bridges and transit systems that is so critical to our state’s economic success.”
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:34 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: On the road again
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This could easily be the path of least painful resistance. People are completely used to fluctuation in gas prices. If gas is still less than what it has been, there may be more acceptance to this idea. Places with high density of public transit would be even more pleased to support this I would guess.
If it’s gotta come from somewhere, this is one that a lot of people might consider less controversial. You collect it quickly too, unlike some other revenues. You could sell a long list of solutions to get some wide support in a bipartisan way. Timing is everything.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:41 pm
I think Rauner said 250,000 people left Illinois last year — the populations of Decatur, Champaign, and Springfield combined.
They’re not making much of an argument to stay.
Comment by Stuff Happens Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:42 pm
Something has to be done with roads and the gas tax is defensible. I would prefer they get ride of the sales tax on gas since it’s a form of double taxation. Keeping the 1.25 tax is good as that’s the share already going to cities and counties.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:44 pm
I’d bet the hikes on drivers licenses and car registrations will be hit harder than that…not the governor’s ox getting gored with those increases…
Comment by Kippax Blue Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:44 pm
Seems a bit strange to go after food and drugs for a capitol project that will, most likely, consist of lots of road building. Usually you fund that with stuff more or less related to it, like the other proposals listed.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:46 pm
===Seems a bit strange to go after food and drugs for a capitol project ===
Didja forget the candy tax? Non-flour candies were hit with a sales tax. Don’t remember? Most don’t. Wanna know why? Bipartisan vote.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:48 pm
===last year===
I think it was 12 years.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:51 pm
Those are incredibly regressive taxes. Very sad that we are heading in this direction.
Comment by Come on Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:52 pm
I personally don’t like the idea to raise the license plate fee…..if you want to raise money, tax consumption of fuel since it’s directly tied to the amount of wear & tear a driver puts on the roads. $20 per license plate is a 20% hike. Just add another penny and keep the license plate fee the same.
Comment by TCB Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:53 pm
13 cents seems a bit much since I recently heard of a plan to hike the federal gas tax 15 cents. Everyone needs to remeber oil wont be cheap forever
Comment by 2nd city Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:53 pm
Very regressive tax. What happens if and when gas prices go back up? Funny Rauner never talks about a progressive income tax amendment to the constitution.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:54 pm
Please ease my confusion — how can you boost a gasoline sales tax while reducing the motor fuel tax? Are these two different things?
And the regressive nature of this approach is very apparent. Taxes on gas, food, and drugs plus licensing charges will take a higher percentage of income from the poor. Seems like business and the uppers will have to ante up something to balance this.
Comment by vole Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:55 pm
===Are these two different things? ===
Yes.
Google it.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:56 pm
All the above proposals disproportionately affect lower income people than it does richer individuals. How about a constitutional amendment for the millionaires tax? More Illinois voters voted yes on that ballot question than voted for Mr. Rauner for Governor.
Comment by Say It Ain't So!! Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:57 pm
until rauner talks about progressive tax and closing loopholes not much room to get things done on the tax side. optics optics — must change the constitution so don’t have to keep pension promises to our retirees, but no proposal for progressive income tax. Need to hold the line on salaries except for my staff etc. etc.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 1:59 pm
Facts, a progressive income tax is probably number 304 on Rauner’s agenda. He’ll get to it.
13 cents, something is needed but I’m just thinking about when gas goes back to $3.75 a gallon.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:03 pm
Sounds like a good idea. Raise the gas tax on working people. All the sudden, Bruce agrees that we have a revenue problem. Imagine that.
Comment by On the border Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:10 pm
With a federal mandate to increase fuel economy by 2025 (to 50+mpg), plus electric cars slowly the coming trend, why are they still taxing gas per gallon? Dump the MFT altogether, increase license and title fees and increase the state sales tax.
Comment by Bogey Golfer Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:13 pm
===What’s being circulated by some advocacy groups is not the governor’s plan and does not have his blessing.===
Well, that’s that.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:15 pm
===All the above proposals disproportionately affect lower income people than it does richer individuals.===
Get so sick of this argument. Any economic policy will be less difficult for people with more money than people with less. Life in general is easier if you have more money.
There are many lower income people who don’t own or drive cars, so they don’t purchase gas or license plates. No one’s suggesting a surcharge on them. Fuel prices being very low is offering an opportunity. It’s also a tax you could reduce if need be.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:16 pm
Easy to state what the governor’s plan is not…quite different stating what it is, eh?
Comment by Kippax Blue Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:17 pm
Ixnay on food and drugs. Most regressive of all sales taxes.
The smart money says gasoline is going to stay down for a while.
The WSJ reported yesterday that independent oil producers in the U.S. have already cancelled $64 billion worth of planned capital expenditures for 2015. They’re going to leave the oil in the ground until the price goes up.
Also in the WSJ: Keep an eye on Russia, because they’re in for a world of hurt due to low oil prices and sanctions. They’re down to their last $385 billion in hard reserves, the ruble is worthless, western loans are due this summer, they can’t refinance due to sanctions and capital flight is rampant.
The ruling kleptos are trying to keep a lid on it by promising the Army more money and cutting the price of Old Ivan Skullpopper vodka to narcoticize the masses.
But, the WSJ reported, thousands of the apartchiks are working on their outs, to London, Spain, and Goa, anywhere they stashed what they’ve been stealing.
Could get hot there this summer when those lines for black bread start forming again.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:17 pm
How about keeping all the MFT for the roads and bridges. Bikeways and rapid transit are nice, but not at the expense of the infrastructure.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:19 pm
Just one more way to hurt workers and their families.
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:20 pm
If Bruce raises the gas tax in Illinois, will my tax assessment go up? i live in a border town./
Comment by Stateline Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:20 pm
The media has been taking some serious hits lately. Too bad for him that Erickson jumped the gun and got called out on just making stuff up, but the Rauner people now know the identity of at least one more unreliable reporter.
Comment by qcexaminer Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:23 pm
The fairest tax would never be considered. That would be a road usage tax: toll roads.
Comment by a drop in Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:24 pm
TCB, need to think about electric and hybrid cars that impact road wear and tear without using as much gas and therefore are not contributing a proportionate amount for road construction and maintenance.
Comment by Original Rambler Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:24 pm
What we can do is give tax returns this year in the form of Illinois Lottery tickets!
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:26 pm
Here we go again….another “Build Illinois” type program with a little pork for everyone. We will be paying on the last one for the rest of our lives! Would be nice to see an accounting of just what those funds were actually spent for. We would not need more MFT money if they would just spend what they get now on real infrastructure projects instead of bikeways in the middle of nowhere, high speed trains that almost no one is going to ride, etc. This state is drowning in debt, and these clowns want a new spending program! Give me a break!
Comment by logchain Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:31 pm
the average Illinois driver currently pays $8.25/month in gas taxes. The $.19/gal level hasn’t been raised since 1991. Adjusted for inflation that $.19 is worth $.35 cents today. An inflation adjusted MFT (coupled with some expansion to the earned income tax credit to address regressivity) is like asking people to kick in the cost of a cheeseburger and fries every month towards the state’s transportation system. That sounds reasonable to me.
Comment by PJS Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:33 pm
To the update:
I don’t care who’s plan it is. Hope it picks up some steam. Could raise a lot in a short time with people not feeling it the way they feel other taxes.
With Sling on the taxes on food and meds. Especially meds. Except that new smelly med that’s all the rage.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:43 pm
How about a sliding scale between motor fuel sales tax and motor fuel tax? Set a “baseline” of perhaps $3.50 a gallon, and make the combined sales and motor fuel tax a constant amount. That addresses lost revenue while gas prices are low and protects consumers when gas prices are high.
I guess that idea is too fair and has too much common sense for it to have a chance in Springfield……
Comment by Arizona Bob Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:52 pm
It’s all talk until Madigan decides what he wants to do.
Comment by Mokenavince Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:56 pm
The lower price of gasoline has been one of the few good things to happen for low and middle income workers. Stagnant wages have eroded spending. Now workers finally have a few extra dollars to spend on other other needs so the goverment wants to take it away???
In a word this is really heartless.
Comment by Enviro Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:58 pm
Bob, that is a great solution
Comment by anon Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:58 pm
BTW, why is it a “given” that road maintenance is underfunded? I have yet to see any report that indicates that the motor fuel, fuel sales tax, truck fees, sticker fees, and license tag fees are insufficient to fund necessary safety road maintenance…provide that pork AND THINGS LIKE BIKE PATHS are deferred or left to local communities to fund as they should be!
Of course, as long as motor fuel funds are “swept” for other purposes, let’s be honest that the tax increase isn’t for roads, its for other things voters might consider less palatable than road safety…
Comment by Arizona Bob Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 2:59 pm
==if you want to raise money, tax consumption of fuel since it’s directly tied to the amount of wear & tear a driver puts on the roads.==
Higher mileage cars and electric cars pay less for the same usage.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:00 pm
==the Rauner people now know the identity of at least one more unreliable reporter==
LOL Actually, they are learning that word will get out when they float ideas.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:01 pm
Taxing food doesn’t have to be regressive at all. People at the lowest end of the income spectrum, those with SNAP, aren’t going to be affected one bit. Provide a food rebate/exemption for filers with, say, $50,000 or so in AGI, and you could adjust even further based on dependents aka mouths to feed. End result, the middle class and poor wouldn’t pay a dime.
We’ve got a $9 billion hole in the budget and a $100 billion deficit in the pension funds. The money has to come from somewhere. Making folks pay taxes on imported lobster and artisanal cheese from designer supermarkets–same as the poor pay taxes on discounted Happy Meals–is hardly regressive. You really can make this work. Better that than jacking up property taxes, either directly or indirectly.
But any revenue from taxes on food shouldn’t go to roads and infrastructure.
Comment by Tax Food Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:02 pm
===those with SNAP, aren’t going to be affected one bit===
Most don’t rely on SNAP for all food purchases.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:09 pm
No one likes taxes, but MFT funds to local governments have been flat or dropping for the past several years as the economy has contracted and vehicle mileage has grown. That coupled with higher input costs for materials means less road work is getting done at a higher price. I think people would put up with a little higher tax if they can see an impact.
Comment by BW Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:09 pm
There wasn’t a referendum for a tax increase on gasoline in the November election.
But there was a referendum on a tax increase on income over one million dollars that was wildly popular with the voters. IMO we should go with that idea.
Comment by Enviro Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:13 pm
Maybe we should float a referendum on raising the taxes of everyone named Enviro. Since most people aren’t, I suspect it would be even more wildly popular.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:42 pm
No State Motor Fuel Tax is used for separated bike paths in Illinois. A small portion of the vehicle registration fee is. However as was mentioned, a big portion of the vehicle registration fee goes towards paying off the bonds from Ryan’s Illinois First program which included lots of non transportation projects.
Bike as well as pedestrian accommodations such as bike lanes and wide shoulders are sometimes paid for with MFT.
Most bike paths are funded with federal funds.
For some people, bicycling is their only transportation. For many, it’s an alternative that reduces congestion on roads.
The total amount spent on bike accommodations of all kinds is a small fraction of total transportation spending.
Comment by Sir Reel Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:47 pm
Sounds like more REGRESSIVE taxes. The gap will only widen more and continue to set more modern-day records.
Comment by forwhatitsworth Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:49 pm
Just wait until Saudi Arabia cuts back on production!
Comment by forwhatitsworth Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:53 pm
How about if you make more, like Bruce does, you pay more in taxes!
Comment by Del Clinkton Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:59 pm
As long as Blankenhorn is the Secretary of Transportation, bikepaths will be part of the transportation mix. Again long term the per gallon gas tax needs to be replaced with a revenue stream for this century.
Comment by Bogey Golfer Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 4:34 pm
If you want to raise the license and/or plate registration fee why not base the fee on the value of the vehicle?
Comment by Dinsdale Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 4:34 pm
[snark on] I guess a sales tax on Schwinns and Nikes could be proposed to pay for sidewalks and bike paths. Never saw a tolled bikeway, but I’ll bet someone has thought of it. [snark off]
bogey Golfer, it’s not Blankenhorn’s call. Complete Streets (which requires bike and pedestrian accommodations in most urban areas and some qualifying rural areas) is, as our former Gov would have put it, “the will of the people and the law of the land”.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0665
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 4:44 pm
==Most don’t rely on SNAP for all food purchases.==
This is true, Rich, but read what I wrote. I also said that you can, and should, provide an exemption/rebate to make up for the food tax for low income and middle class filers. The only way that someone with SNAP would end up paying the tax on food would be if they didn’t file an income tax return. If they did file a return, they’d get the credit/rebate/exemption–whatever you want to call it.
I’m not saying it’s perfect, but nothing is. Right now, poor people who live in food deserts are paying taxes on food because there are often no real grocery stores in these neighborhoods, and so they’re eating fast food, which is taxed.
It is certainly much fairer than giving all retirees a free pass on income taxes or continuing to jack up my already exorbitant property taxes. Again, the money has to come from somewhere. I would rather have it come from a lot of somewhere’s instead of the same usual suspects.
Comment by Tax Food Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 4:55 pm
At a million per mile, bike paths are expensive and bring no revenue to help fund them. Not particularly fair to have someone else pay for your benefit isn’t
It?
I support localities be used for local amenities
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 5:14 pm
Why not charge fares for public transport that reflect the true cost of of providing the service.
People that do not have access to public transport are footing the bill.
Comment by Dano Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 5:33 pm
The Blago diversions from the Road Fund have been eliminated. The remaining diversions are statutory requirements (i.e state boating act, vehicle inspection fund).
TFIC has been promoting increased funding for transportation for several years. The $1.8 billion dollars (same number as introduced last year) is based on allowing IDOT to maintain the highway system at 90% favorable and the bridge network at 93% favorable. It also contains funding for local highways and transit Unlike past capital bills, TFIC proposal is largely based on pay-as-you-go rather than bonded.
The highway system that was built by previous generations is crumbling. Both the federal and state governments need to determine how to continue to fund transportation infrastructure. This will mean new revenue (call it a tax or user fee). If gas tax is mentioned, it is called regressive or unfair to border areas; if mileage tax is mentioned, it is called big brother tracking your movements; if registration/license fees are mentioned, it impacts the elderly on fixed incomes. Basically, no one likes new taxes or fees.
Everyone benefits from a good transportation system whether you drive on the roads or not. Students would not be able to get to school reliably, emergency responders would not be able to reach you in an emergency, farmers would not be able to get their product to market; amazon would not be able to deliver packages in 2 days. This is possible because of past investments in infrastructure. We need to maintain the most valuable asset in this country.
If you do not like the funding proposed, offer suggestions on how else to raise $1.8 billion.
Comment by Highway Engineer Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 5:35 pm
Six Degrees of Separation:
Wisconsin state parks have a user fee
For bike paths. Chicago could pretty easily require bicycle licenses. They have dog licenses.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 5:36 pm
- Del Clinkton - Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 3:59 pm:
How about if you make more, like Bruce does, you pay more in taxes!
Unless you don’t understand math. If you make more in Illinois you do pay more in taxes. 3.75% is more of a million dollars than it is of 50k.
Comment by Chicago cynic Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 5:42 pm
The cost of a license plate sticker is a ridiculous $101. George Ryan changed it from $48 just before Jesse White took over. I just renewed my driver’s license and it is now a ridiculous $30. These are high enough do not increase!
Comment by Kathryn Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 6:21 pm
–
The smart money says gasoline is going to stay down for a while.
–
That’s dumb money. Oil is at the bottom. It’s only going to go up. And when it does — it’s going to rocket back to $4.75 a gallon.
Comment by Macbeth Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 6:51 pm
More taxes for the little guy to pay….the working people. Maybe the reason the economy is looking up is that the average person has a few more dollars in his pocket now that gasoline isn’t eating up so much. I sure have notice a difference in our household. It’s just ridiculous that people with 9 houses can’t find a few more dollars to pitch in….oh no, let those making 50k shoulder all the burden. Funny how the vast majority of states aren’t in this financial pickle and expect those who have more to pay more state tax. So does our federal government. What is our problem?
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 6:56 pm
The sales tax on services is a good idea at heart, although the details will be tricky to work out. It’s just leaving money on the table. Google the COGFA report, which says Illinois could gain $3 to $8 billion a year depending on the rate and which services were taxed.
Consumption taxes are regressive to the degree that necessities are taxed, hence the easy treatment of food and drugs for basic sales taxes. But some services (tax accounting, interior decorating, architecture) are inherently focused on higher-income individuals, so taxing those becomes at least somewhat progressive.
Comment by DuPage Dave Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 7:19 pm
=== In addition to boosting the gasoline tax by 13 cents a gallon, the outline shows other revenue options on the table include a 2 percent sales tax on food and drugs, increasing the cost of registering and titling cars by $20 annually and boosting the cost of driver’s licenses by $5 a year. ===
Every one of them a regressive tax or fee! At least he is consistent in soaking the poor.
Comment by anon Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 8:02 pm
Infrastructure costs money, which has to come from somewhere. Personally, I’d rather see all of it on the gas tax because it provides an incentive for the continued move toward fuel efficient vehicles. Raising fees are just increases to taxes that are less convenient to pay.
Comment by AC Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 8:24 pm
The Blago diversions from the Road Fund have been eliminated
BS! CMS owns all IDOT buildings now and they have all the building janitors and maintenance men under them gladly billing IDOT fact!!!!!!!
Comment by foster brooks Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 9:38 pm
==I guess a sales tax on Schwinns and Nikes could be proposed to pay for sidewalks and bike paths. ==
I think the DNR restructuring a few years ago included fees on bikes to pay for stuff like paths in parks.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 9:39 pm
You don’t need to tax shoes or bikes to pay for paths, etc.
OSLAD grants would normally pay for things like bike paths, parks, etc. The funds are dedicated via the collection of the state real estate transfer fee.
Local dollars that are supposed to go back to the local communities.
But Rauner froze them. All. Even though they are dedicated and the fees were already collected for one purpose and one purpose only - to fund local recreational open space and facilities.
Now our local dollars sit in Springfield and collect dust while Rauner keeps it in the hopes of pulling a Blagojevich with our towns’ local dollars.
Comment by A. Nonymous Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 10:02 pm
–
. I sure have notice a difference in our household. It’s just ridiculous that people with 9 houses can’t find a few more dollars to pitch in….oh no, let those making 50k shoulder all the burden.
—
Come on, dude. You voted for Rauner. People like you — exactly like you — voted for this guy. Now you suffer the consequences.
So be it. Next time, don’t vote according to Fox New rage. Vote for the guy or gal that’s actually the smart choice.
Comment by Macbeth Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 10:19 pm
Schrimpf stayin’ or going?
Comment by walker Thursday, Feb 5, 15 @ 11:01 pm
=== Life in general is easier if you have more money. ===
So true, which is all the more reason tax policy should not make life even harder on those with less ability to pay.
Comment by anon Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 4:16 am
===If you do not like the funding proposed, offer suggestions on how else to raise $1.8 billion. ===
How about the surcharge on millionaires that voters approved? The choices are either progressive or regressive taxes. Basing taxes on ability to pay is fairer than basing them on inability to pay.
Comment by anon Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 4:28 am
Jacking up taxes to pay for new projects seems immoral, while slashing health care for the poor, daycare for the working poor, and various other safety net programs because BR refuses to raise taxes to fund core services. Better to keep the road builders happy.
Comment by anon Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 4:33 am
Any for m of tax hike is out of the question. I have to stay within my budget or I go bankrupt. Maybe a fresh start is what’s needed for this state before everyone leaves.
Comment by concerned Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 6:56 am
@MAcbeth
=Next time, don’t vote according to Fox New rage. Vote for the guy or gal that’s actually the smart choice.=
So “What spending problem?” Quinn was the “smart choice”? To quote that icon whose intelligence was far beyond the average Illinois voter (IQ of 75) “Stupid is as stupid does, sir”
Comment by Arizona Bob Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 7:22 am
Maybe we should require a chip in each car that will vary the amount of tax at the pump based on the value of the car. Another option would be to vary the licence fee based on the weight of the vehicle.
Comment by St. Louis Bob Friday, Feb 6, 15 @ 9:04 am