Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Harvey back in hot water after Supreme Court ruling
Next Post: McCann threatens to sue after staff services yanked
Posted in:
* This arrived late yesterday afternoon…
Speaker Michael J. Madigan, House Democrats and advocates for the middle class are calling out Gov. Bruce Rauner and Republicans for refusing to consider fair tax reform that would provide relief for the middle class while making the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share.
Madigan and Democratic lawmakers from across the state introduced House Resolution 1025 Wednesday, challenging Republican lawmakers to stop protecting millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations and instead work with Democrats to enact a fair system that cuts taxes on middle-class and low-income taxpayers. Rauner and legislative Republicans are defending a status quo that allows Rauner to pay at least $5 million less than he would in a state like Iowa.
“Governor Rauner is willfully misleading taxpayers because he doesn’t want anyone to see that he’s blocking tax relief for the middle class, all in an effort to protect a special deal for millionaires and billionaires like himself,” Madigan said. “Today, we set the record straight: A fair tax for Illinois is about putting more money in the pockets of middle-class families. If our Republican colleagues are serious about cutting taxes, creating jobs, and strengthening our economy, they will join us in creating a fair tax system that rewards families who work hard and play by the rules, instead of one that benefits Bruce Rauner, Donald Trump and their billionaire friends.”
Madigan’s resolution cites findings from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that Illinois’ constitutionally mandated “flat tax” is one of the most regressive tax structures in the country, forcing low- and middle-income residents to pay a larger share of their incomes in taxes than the very wealthy. A taxpayer earning less than $19,000 pays 13.2 percent of their income in state taxes, while those with an income of $498,000 pay only 4.6 percent of their income in taxes.
House Democrats are calling for a progressive tax like those currently in place in 33 other states—including Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri and Indiana—which would put more money in working families’ pockets, allowing them to reinvest in local economies and stimulate business growth and economic development.
“There’s no excuse for the current tax system that forces struggling families to pay more than the very wealthy,” said Roberta Lynch, executive director of AFSCME Council 31. “Illinois working families need fair tax reform. By standing in the way, Governor Rauner and the politicians who follow him are protecting a status quo full of loopholes for those who are already at the top.”
“Last year Democrats and Republicans stood together because they knew we cannot continue to follow Bruce Rauner’s agenda of slashing critical services for our communities so his billionaire and millionaire buddies can get a tax cut,” said Greg Kelley, president of SEIU Healthcare Illinois. “Their votes to end the Rauner budget crisis were votes to put middle-class families ahead of the ultra-wealthy. Now we need a tax system that reflects this same value. I applaud House Democrats’ stand for a fairer system, and we look forward to working with them to get a progressive income tax passed in the future.”
“Throughout our state, parents who want their children to receive a world-class education and homeowners who want relief from rising property taxes can agree on one thing: the system is unfair and needs to change,” said Dan Montgomery, president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers and a high school English teacher. “This is the change we need, and this is the opportunity for all who claim they’re on the side of taxpayers and educators to prove it.”
“As Donald Trump stacks the deck even more in favor of the ultra-wealthy, Governor Rauner and his allies can no longer pretend to stand with the middle class while also protecting a tax system that so clearly reinforces inequality,” said Clem Balanoff, chair of Our Revolution Illinois. “If they are ready to build an Illinois that works for everyone instead of just the top 1 percent, they will stand with us to enact a fair tax system that reflects that.”
The resolution is here. It picked up a bunch of co-sponsors this morning, including a couple of semi-targets (Marty Moylan, who is always an anti-taxer, and Deb Conroy).
* Rauner campaign’s react yesterday…
“The Pritzker-Madigan ticket has officially endorsed a graduated income tax hike because they want to take more money out of the pockets of hardworking Illinoisans. A vote for JB Pritzker is a vote to give Mike Madigan total control of the state and to raise taxes yet again.” -Will Allison, Rauner campaign spokesman
* Rauner campaign this morning…
The Pritzker-Madigan ticket has formally announced its support for a graduated income tax hike after Mike Madigan issued a statement supporting the policy yesterday. This follows months of JB Pritzker campaigning on a tax hike – even stating that it would be a central theme of his campaign.
But the Pritzker-Madigan ticket still doesn’t want to say how high taxes will go. Pritzker has repeatedly dodged on specifics and Madigan responded with a firm “NO” when asked if he had any rates in mind.
How can Illinois families trust Pritzker and Madigan when they have provided no details for their plans?
* Attached video…
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 9:35 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Harvey back in hot water after Supreme Court ruling
Next Post: McCann threatens to sue after staff services yanked
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===How can Illinois families trust Pritzker and Madigan when they have provided no details for their plans?===
LOL
They should just say they’ll shake up Springfield and bring back Illinois.
That’ll work.
Right? Exactly right.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 9:38 am
Rauner campaigned on a specific agenda–worker’s comp reform, pension reform, union concessions/changes, term limits, etc. He said more than simply “Let’s shake up Springfield” Let’s be fair….
Comment by Peoria Guy Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 9:42 am
Big Deal. It’s a Resolution. It means pretty much nothing.
I will believe Madigan is serious when he sponsors and calls a vote on a Constitutional Amendment. Perhaps Madigan will sign on to cosponsor HJRCA0039…when that happens, I might think he is serious.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 9:45 am
Also…
I do understand “going on the offensive” thingy, staking your positions and all… but Rauner is 20+ points under water by numbers, tuning into voters at a 26 favorability clip, now seen as the most vulnerable incumbent governor in America, while also seen as the worst Republican governor in America.
My point? What reason is Rauner giving to be re-elected? How is a progressive income tax polling these days? Look above, what Dem group leader or group itself is missing? Rauner has unified Illinois Dems (and labor too) like no one in recent memory, and those not on board will get left behind.
Rauner has serious GOP base issues, both fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives aren’t coming home too quickly, and the more Rauner reminds conservatives he’s not their candidate, “fightin’ taxes” that may be polling better… tough to surf against a wave with a wooden sled.
===How can Illinois families trust Pritzker and Madigan when they have provided no details for their plans?===
Rauner has no signed full fiscal year budgets, and may sign a budget that requires that 32% tax increase to balance to appease Rauner.
How is this full frontal and full throated Dem position… and being against it… helps Rauner’s own numbers?
But, Rauner has to do… something.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 9:50 am
===union concessions/changes===
… not in the General Election, if we’re being fair and all.
Oh… when did we find out that agenda was really a 1.4% savings, to the tune of $550 million?
May 2014?
I mean, if we’re being fair and all.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 9:52 am
A progressive income tax will just create an even bigger exodus of people out of the state. I guess this is what the Dem party is going to run on in November and they are doubling down
Comment by Silicon Prairie Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 9:54 am
Michael J Madigan
“Taxation can be fair or not fair one or the other, and I think the discussion of a progressive tax is designed to be more fair”
Gotta love a lecture from an insider a man who exploits the system to make 7 figures a year from the inequities of the property tax system.
What is “progressive” about his wealthy clients paying a lesser percentage than poor Cook County residents?
No thoughts about what the rates should be?
Not a serious proposal
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 9:54 am
=Let’s be fair=
Ok, you are right, we should be fair.
“But the Pritzker-Madigan ticket still doesn’t want to say how high taxes will go.”
We are being fair so find me a ballot or a yard sign from the Pritzker-Madigan ticket.
Those created by the Rauner-whoever campaign don’t count.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 9:56 am
If Rauner is against it, I’m for it.
Comment by Generic Drone Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 9:58 am
Interesting that the leader supports progressive income tax but has no idea what the level of taxation should be.
Comment by Texas Red Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 9:58 am
==A progressive income tax will just create an even bigger exodus of people out of the state.==
Evidence?
A bunch of rhetoric that conflates tax structure with tax rates doesn’t count.
Comment by Nacho Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 10:07 am
Peoria Guy, during the 2014 campaign, Rauner ran against the pension bill that was passed saying it was unfair to retirees, he was absolutely vague on what changes he wanted to see with workers comp (and continues to be pretty vague, since I don’t think he has much of an understanding of how the system works, what other states do, or the Illinois constitution and how that could impact changes he wants to make), and said he was opposed to right to work laws or making any major changes to collective bargaining in Illinois.
You are right on term limits though. He did campaign on depriving the right of the people to vote for whoever they want.
Comment by Juice Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 10:15 am
==A progressive income tax will just create an even bigger exodus of people out of the state.==
To where? Only 10 states have flat taxes. Take us out and that’s nine. 3 set the rate at the local level, so who knows what you’re getting. An additional 3 have rates higher than IL’s. And there’s “Taxachusettes” in the mix, too.
Comment by Arsenal Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 10:22 am
==A progressive income tax will just create an even bigger exodus of people out of the state.==
Has the graduated income tax in Wisconsin led to a bigger exodus from the Dairy State? How about in Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, and Kentucky?
Comment by anon2 Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 10:49 am
=A progressive income tax will just create an even bigger exodus of people out of the state.=
To where? Other states that already have a progressive income tax? It’s not exactly a novel idea. Heck, the federal government has operated that way for years.
Comment by Pundent Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 10:52 am
To the issue of Rauner’s support or non-support of various items …
If you attended more than one of his primary speeches, it was obvious the man would say whatever he thought that audience wanted to hear. I actually went to three … and heard different versions,including statements 180° from previous statements. So pulling out a campaign quote about supporting this or that doesn’t mean a thing; you can probably find another quote from the campaign that is exactly the opposite.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 10:53 am
I agree with -pot-. This resolution doesn’t mean very much, although it is a signal Madigan can get behind a progressive tax.
Put up an actual bill to amend the State Constitution.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 10:55 am
Excellent. Madigan and Democrats are framing this correctly, as reform and job growth. That’s how to do it. We don’t have to go the Rauner/IPI/Koch way of gouging savings out of the working class and ripping away at their labor protections.
Democrats must come up with a plan that cuts taxes on many people and raises them on people like Pritzker, Rauner and Griffin. I don’t support a plan that just raises taxes on everyone. We need to give relief, and I’m glad that’s the apparent plan.
I saw a Pritzker social media post in which he said it’s time for him and Bruce Rauner to pay higher taxes. I agree very much with his framing of the issue.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 10:58 am
If you attended more than one of his primary speeches, it was obvious the man would say whatever he thought that audience wanted to hear
Sounds like JB Pritzker telling everyone he has always wanted to pay higher taxes and the fact he removed toilets and parked his fortune in the Caymans was just an oversight
Trust him now, he is totally above board
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:11 am
==House Democrats are calling for a progressive tax like those currently in place in 33 other states—including Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri and Indiana==
Indiana has a flat state income tax.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:14 am
And put the progressive income tax together with mandated local property tax relief. Increase the State’s level of school funding and decrease the local school property tax levy by the same dollar amount the State funding increases. Include a 10 year freeze on the school district increasing their percentage of school funding unless approved by voter referendum. After 10 years, put a cap on the school property tax levy increase at 1% or 1/2 of CPI-U.
That’s real property tax relief. And done / marketed properly, you will have most the property owners behind you. No different than when the State switched from Personal Property, etc. taxes to the income tax; build in extra funds for the school property tax relief.
I’m going to throw out some brackets off the top of my head without any idea how the numbers would generate revenue. Have a 0% rate up to $25,000, a 4% rate from $25,000 to $75,000, a 6% rate from $75,000 to $250,000 and a 9% rate over $250,000. That should put over half the current taxpayers at a lower average rate than today. And index the brackets to CPI-U.
BTW … I’m open to whatever numbers the various budgeting groups come up with but I think it should be only 4 or 5 brackets at most.
And although it wouldn’t be that much money, I would be open to taxing ALL retirement income at 1/2 the above rates. But that should probably be a later, separate proposal since the goal is to get a progressive tax in place.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:17 am
==Indiana has a flat state income tax. ==
Technically, yes; functionally, no. Indiana has county income taxes on top of the state income tax. The county taxes range from 1-3.5%.
https://www.payroll-taxes.com/state-tax/indiana-counties
Comment by supplied_demand Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:19 am
So if a a progressive income tax won’t create an even bigger exodus of people out of the state, neither will taxing retirement income.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:19 am
“The Pritzker-Madigan ticket”
Must be news to Madigan that he is running for lite gov. Wonder when petitions were circulated.
Comment by Huh? Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:23 am
===neither will taxing retirement income===
It’s not the exodus of retirees legislators are concerned about. It’s their own forced exodus from office if they pass it.
I mean, for crying out loud, didn’t you see what that issue did to Kennedy and Biss in the Democratic primary?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:24 am
There comes a point where free-market neoliberal economics is too destructive to economic systems to allow it to continue, nearly unfettered. Tax policy is a good tool.
Jeff Bezos, Bruce Rauner, and JB Pritzker are poster child examples of taxing policies which have encouraged indefensible levels of income inequality.
I think a free-thinking conservative could back this, especially IF tax swap language was included. Cut a deal.
(Don’t be confused by this. I am not for a minimum wage, or any other more socialistic or norm-disruptive policies, I am just not supportive of any frameworks which give globalizing oligarchs increasing power.)
Comment by cdog Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:25 am
==Indiana has a flat state income tax. ==
This is technically true, but in reality Indiana counties have an additional income tax of 0.5-3.5% on top of the flat state rate. It’s 1% in Carmel, South Bend is 1.75% and Rensselaer is 2.86%.
Comment by supplied_demand Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:26 am
===If you attended more than one of his primary speeches, it was obvious the man would say whatever he thought that audience wanted to hear===
… but enough about Rauner abd his race against Ives…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:33 am
==It’s not the exodus of retirees legislators are concerned about. It’s their own forced exodus from office if they pass it.
I mean, for crying out loud, didn’t you see what that issue did to Kennedy and Biss in the Democratic primary?==
In other words, the generation who created the problems for our generation still don’t want to pay their bill?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:39 am
==neither will taxing retirement income==
Yep. That (and Social Security) is the 3rd rail of politics. That’s why I said at 11:17am that you get the progressive income tax in place first … then try to tax retirement income.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:40 am
@supplied_demand - Indiana’s county rates are flat, just like their state income tax.
For a press release (was it?), saying Indiana has a progressive income tax is a pretty large miss for what would be a substantive change in tax policy. If they can’t perform the basic analysis, why should I have any confidence in implementation?
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:45 am
Team Rauner, madigan is listening to the 3% millionaire tax the voters wanted in 2014
Comment by Rabid Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:45 am
From Illinoispolicy.org :
“Four of the five states that surround Illinois tax incomes at progressively higher rates. And every one of those states punishes workers earning $50,000 – the starting salary for a Chicago public school teacher – when compared with Illinois.
That’s the problem with progressive tax schemes across the nation. Sold as a tax on the rich, the reality is that higher tax rates creep down into lower income levels.”
Illinois is already a high tax state. Residents face the highest property taxes in the country and some of the nation’s highest sales taxes. Illinois’ flat income tax structure is one of the only competitive features of the state’s tax system
Comment by Silicon Prairie Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:46 am
Any rate proposal? Or typical political posturing.?
Comment by Ron Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:51 am
RNUG - Your tax plan would be a tax cut for any household under $240,000. A $1 millionaire would pay an effective rate of 8%. That’s probably a plan a majority of folks on the progressive fence could get behind. Now you just have to tell JB.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:51 am
==Illinois’ flat income tax structure is one of the only competitive features of the state’s tax system==
One of the only ways you are going to be able to reduce property taxes is to increase taxes at the state level, whether it is a higher flat tax or a progressive tax. You’re not going to be able to have a low income tax and low property taxes, at least in near to mid term, without increasing state revenues to replace what will be lost at the local level.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 11:55 am
== RNUG - Your tax plan would be a tax cut for any household under $240,000. A $1 millionaire would pay an effective rate of 8%. That’s probably a plan a majority of folks on the progressive fence could get behind. ==
-city zen-, but does it generate more revenue than today? Significantly enough to increase school funding to force property taxes down?
Comment by RNUG Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 12:02 pm
Illinois’neighbor to the west has progressive rates with the top rate starting at $9k income.
Comment by Ron Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 12:02 pm
Anyone naive enough to believe state income taxes will be lower for many people, 8 years after the adoption of a progressive income tax, should put down the crack pipe. Illinois has a giant spending problem that prevents all taxes from going down.
Comment by Steve Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 12:17 pm
I’m starting to think someone’s polling on a progressive income tax way, way off.
Madigan and JB are doubling down in favor of it, while Rauner and the GOP are almost giddy in their attacks against it — as if they can’t believe their good fortune that the Dems have embraced it.
Policy aside, someone is getting the politics completely wrong here. Unless both side think this is a strictly get-out-the-base election.
Comment by BC Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 12:24 pm
-BC-, the concept of a progressive income tax (without details) sells well. It pretty much matches the citizens desires for more services without more taxes. Everyone believes it will be someone else paying the higher tax rate.
Rauner seems to be counting on a general anti-tax sentiment to prevsil and help him.
I don’t think the polling is wrong, per se, but I suspect the R and D sides are asking significantly different phrased questions.
And I have to question how much of a push poll both sides are using.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 1:18 pm
It is an election year and it is all talk again as usual. Madigan and his cronies had complete control of the State before Rauner and did not push a progressive tax, did not push minimum wage increases and did not fund education properly. What they did give us was high property taxes, new fees, increased fees and poor fiscal management of the State. They gave a gerrymandering so they control who get elected and not the people of the State. Only Democratic candidates that align with Madigan need apply to run for State Offices.
Comment by Stand Tall Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 1:48 pm
72% in favor….what is to argue about? The time has come.
Comment by wondering Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 1:48 pm
==the concept of a progressive income tax (without details) sells well.==
I’d wager the concept of no income tax would sell just as well.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 1:49 pm
Where actually is this 72% in favor approval from?
Illinoispolicy.org poll:
” A poll conducted by Illinois Policy found 42 percent of active likely voters in Illinois oppose a progressive tax, with 29 percent unsure or having no opinion, and 29 percent supporting.”
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/madigan-files-resolution-supporting-progressive-tax/
Comment by Silicon Prairie Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 2:15 pm
==” A poll conducted by Illinois Policy found 42 percent of active likely voters in Illinois oppose a progressive tax, with 29 percent unsure or having no opinion, and 29 percent supporting.”==
If Illinois Policy couldn’t even find a majority against you know it’s popular. They probably asked something like “Do you support the Madigan machine’s attempts to raise your taxes?”
Comment by Angel's Sword Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 2:22 pm
==They probably asked something like “Do you support the Madigan machine’s attempts to raise your taxes?”==
The Simon Poll was vague:
Would you favor or oppose a proposal to change the Illinois Constitution to allow a graduated income tax – that is, tax rates would be lower for lower-income taxpayers and higher for upper income taxpayers?
A little over half of the state tax filers make under $50,000. That makes everyone else “upper income taxpayers”. Would 72% approve if they said everyone making over $50K paid more in taxes? Doubtful.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 3:01 pm
The chicago metro area median household income is $66k and median family income in the metro area is $84.6k.
Comment by Ron Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 3:17 pm
== I’d wager the concept of no income tax would sell just as well. ==
Not to those of us old enough to remember the Personal Property tax.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 3:23 pm
== Would 72% approve if they said everyone making over $50K paid more in taxes? ==
It’s always everybody else who is in the upper income bracket. That is the beauty of a progressive income tax proposal without explicitly cut rates defined.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 3:25 pm
==That is the beauty of a progressive income tax proposal without explicitly cut rates defined.==
Exactly. Clever and devious. How many schemes in mobster and Wall Street movies have included the phrase, “That is the beauty of…”
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 3:52 pm
Before I am for or against it, what are the rates going to be? Remember when there was a 2% decrease in the Fica tax, Il increased taxes 2% to pay bills. To pay bills, well, Judy baar Topinka called that one, they increased spending. I xan not see increasing taxes unless there is spending reform on pensions and other wasteful government expenditures.
Comment by Rebelblue Friday, Apr 27, 18 @ 4:28 pm