Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Rauner issues executive order barring legislators from representing clients at PTAB
Posted in:
* The gubernatorial candidates were asked today what rates they’d like to see on a progressive income tax. JB Pritzker dodged the question. Chris Kennedy answered…
I think that people are entitled to understand what the brackets might look like. I think we need to make it clear that Governor Rauner’s leadership and lack thereof make it very difficult to predict will we have a budget this year or will we not. Will he rack up more unpaid bills and how do we fund that? I don’t think the high end of the range of a progressive income tax should go above a number that starts with a five. That’s what I’d say. I think it has to be somewhere between five and six percent at the high end of the range.
But this is all for naught. I mean, truthfully, we’ll never move to a progressive income tax unless we ban elected officials from being property tax appeals lawyers.
I don’t know how you make that work. How do you provide real tax relief for some while still being able to balance the budget at a top rate of less than 6 percent?
But, hey, maybe he’ll explain it later.
Also, I’m not quite clear on how passing a progressive income tax will first require banning legislators from being property tax lawyers (or how that’s even legal), but that’s his schtick, so whatevs.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 3:47 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Rauner issues executive order barring legislators from representing clients at PTAB
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“I mean, truthfully, we’ll never move to a progressive income tax unless we ban elected officials from being property tax appeals lawyers.”
This reads like a parody.
Comment by LXB Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 3:50 pm
If a law were passed stating that Assessors, Boards of Review and PTAB could not accept appeals from legislators, that would be upheld as constitutional under rational review.
I don’t think you could get away with banning them from doing it in court because the IL Sup Ct would say it’s up to them to decide who can do what in court.
Comment by Grand Avenue Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 3:50 pm
The primary goal of a progressive structure, I think, would be to bring in more revenue while lowering the rate for most taxpayers. Don’t think that can be done with a top rate below 6 percent.
Comment by Roman Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 3:52 pm
“I mean, truthfully, we’ll never move to a progressive income tax unless we ban elected officials from being property tax appeals lawyers.”
Maybe Bruce Rauner ordered a double batch of “Fire Madigan” swag. One set for himself and one set for Chris Kennedy.
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 3:55 pm
I think the wheels are about to fly off of Kennedy’s campaign wagon.
Comment by DuPage Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 3:55 pm
Kennedy likely knows his candidacy is on the ropes and is grasping at straws. He know the legislator part is not legal and is just pandering.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 3:56 pm
It’s like watching the Wicked Witch melting scene in Wizard of Oz.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:02 pm
I’ll take a stab. Not having a progressive tax means that there is a larger need for tax revenues and local government needs to go to the property tax payers since Illinois has a narrow tax schema. Therefore a progressive income tax would be economically disadvantageous to property tax appeal attorneys because they would no longer be needed to appeal high assessments. This is logically weak, but I think what he is going for.
Comment by Come on, Man! Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:04 pm
First off, that last comment is hysterical. Second, that dog won’t hunt unless you start the 6% really low. It’s just math.
Comment by Anon0091 Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:05 pm
=== I mean, truthfully, we’ll never move to a progressive income tax unless we ban elected officials from being property tax appeals lawyers. ===
Makes no sense on a number of levels.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:06 pm
What income levels would be included in that 6 percent bracket? It had better not be mine, because I was looking forward to a tax cut once the state can suddenly, miraculously constitutionally amend the constitution and jack up those taxes on everybody else.
Comment by JB13 Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:13 pm
At least Chris isn’t shying away from full coordination with the Rauner campaign.
Comment by DuPage Bard Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:14 pm
Jeez, JB, don’t dodge the question. Just say that Illinois’ top tax bracket could be at least as high as the 6% (out of ten brackets) in the great state of Missouri, home of Rauner’s blackmailing buddy, the top bracket could be even higher, at 7.65% (of four brackets), like in the great state of Wisconsin, home of Rauner’s pal Scott Walker.
Why won’t the Dem candidates talk about this?
Comment by Nick Name Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:21 pm
6% for everyone above 25k
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:24 pm
“How do you provide real tax relief for some while still being able to balance the budget at a top rate of less than 6 percent?”
$0-$50,000 = 4.50%
$50-75K = 4.95%
$75K+ = 5.95%
The over $50K crowd accounts for 80% of the tax revenue but only 33% of the tax filers. If the idea is to sequester the “higher” earners in a small group that they can’t impact voting if you raise taxes on them, this progressive bracket fits the bill.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:27 pm
This blow back is why folks try to avoid talking about specific rates as long as possible. Kennedy just threw out a number that makes no sense. With that limitation, you would be lucky to have a rate structure that is revenue neutral. It would probably decrease revenues. Get your ducks in a row and be able to back up your numbers before you start throwing around specific rates. Its another sign that Kennedy really is ready to be governor.
Comment by Montrose Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:28 pm
==Just say that Illinois’ top tax bracket could be at least as high as the 6% (out of ten brackets) in the great state of Missouri, home of Rauner’s blackmailing buddy, the top bracket could be even higher, at 7.65% (of four brackets), like in the great state of Wisconsin, home of Rauner’s pal Scott Walker.==
And could include retirement income, like the homes of Rauner’s pals…
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:29 pm
Illinois has one of the highest state and local tax burdens in the nation. How is that narrow?
Comment by Ron Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:32 pm
“Its another sign that Kennedy really is ready to be governor.”
I assume based on the rest of your comment that you mean “not ready?”
Comment by Anon0091 Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:36 pm
===$75K+ = 5.95%===
That would be a very, very tough sell.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:37 pm
I’d gladly take WI income tax rate, as long as I get their property tax rates and sales tax rates too.
Comment by Red Ranger Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:39 pm
….at least he didn’t say he was going to cut spending through pension savings and waste,fraud and abuse. Just sayin.
Comment by blue dog dem Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:43 pm
==That would be a very, very tough sell.==
Break even would be $97,500. Everyone below that would pay less.
Probably a moot point as I don’t think it would generate enough tax revenue.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 4:46 pm
The top 1 percent get 20 percent of all income. That is over half a million a year.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 19, 18 @ 5:03 pm