Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: When will the TV ads reappear?
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 *** Hearing today will look at why thousands were kicked off Medicaid
Posted in:
* The Center for Tax and Budget Accountability has a new report out about how a graduated income tax could be used to lower taxes for 98 percent of Illinoisans. Here’s the Tribune…
Under one model, the state would keep its current 4.95 percent rate for income of up to $300,000. It would raise the rate to 7.5 percent for income between $300,000 and $400,000; hike it to 8 percent for income between $400,000 and $500,000; increase it to 9.25 percent for income between $500,000 and $1 million. Income above $1 million would be taxed at 9.85 percent. The top rate is what is used in Minnesota.
In that plan, a $300 credit would be applied to lower incomes, and that amount would get smaller as a taxpayer’s earnings got higher.
A second model from the group would levy a 4.5 percent tax on income up to $100,000; 4.95 percent on income between $100,000 and $300,000; 8 percent on income between $300,000 and $500,000; 9.25 percent on income between $500,000 and $1 million; and 9.85 percent on income of $1 million or more.
The group said under that model, anyone making under $314,000 of taxable income would see a tax cut of up to $450.
* CTBA press release…
· It is textbook capitalist policy that to be fair, a tax system should impose tax burden according to ability to pay—that is, it should impose higher tax burdens on affluent households than it does on low- and middle-income households, when tax burden is measured as a percentage of income. Illinois fails this basic standard of fairness, in large part because of its flat rate state income tax.
· Illinois’ unfair, flat rate income tax contributes to structural deficits. This is because a flat rate income tax cannot—by design—respond to the significant growth in income inequality that has occurred over the last three decades. This in turn has forced decision makers to underfund or cut the core public services of education, healthcare, human services, and public safety, which collectively account for over 90 percent of all General Fund spending on current services.
· Illinois’ unfair, flat rate income tax harms the private economy. Overtaxing low- and middle-income families, who are both good spenders and have flat to declining real incomes over time, reduces their consumer spending. The research shows that for every dollar the state cuts in General Fund spending on current services, the private sector loses an average of $1.36 in economic activity. Since most General Fund spending on core services covers the wages of the teachers, social workers, health care professionals, correctional officers, and other workers who provide public services, when Illinois’ structural deficit compels the state to reduce spending, it is for the most part cutting the earnings of these workers.
· Illinois’ flat income tax rate is out of the mainstream. Of the 41 US states that impose an individual income tax, Illinois is one of just eight that impose the same flat rate on the income of all earners, regardless of how much they make or their ability to pay.
I’d tell you more, but the group’s website was apparently hacked this morning. Not a good sign if you believe in omens.
…Adding… The full report was just sent via e-mail and is accessible online, so click here.
* The Tribune editorial board is, of course, dead set against a progressive income tax, profiling a suburban “chief revenue officer for a financial services company” who has “bought property in Florida and likely will move there” in its latest screed…
Illinois is one of eight states with a flat income tax rate. Pritzker hasn’t disclosed his proposed income tax brackets, but the conversation has some Illinoisans looking at real estate websites.
The most recent Illinois Department of Revenue numbers for tax year 2016 show 1,111,515 filers reported adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 or more, for a total of $262.8 billion.
Note to everyone else: These people pay a lot in Illinois taxes. Rank-and-file taxpayers should be trying to keep them rather than sending them to Texas, Nevada, Florida and other states that don’t tax income. High-income earners help pay for the state services that the General Assembly loves to approve but not fund.
…Adding… Greg Hinz…
Similarly, the report disputes the notion that raising taxes to pay for needed services hurts the state’s economy, pointing to what happened in Kansas, which slashed taxes, and Minnesota, which raised them. When people earning more than $300,000 a year leave Illinois, they generally don’t go to low-tax states but higher-tax localities including New York and California, [CTBA research director Daniel Kay Hertz] told me. “In those income brackets, people leave for opportunity, not because of taxes.”
*** UPDATE *** Rauner campaign…
Remember when the Pritzker campaign said they had “detailed plans” back in early January? Those were great times.
Well, it’s been four months since that bold claim and JB Pritzker still won’t give a single detail about his plans for a graduated income tax.
Check out his impressive dodging in this interview with the Belleville News-Democrat.
* Pritzker did, however, give some hints in that video, saying people who make $40-60K a year shouldn’t “bear the brunt” of the need for revenue.
He also suggested that a “small increase” has “very little impact” on wealthier people. But, he said a decrease in taxes for those in the middle class and those trying to get there “has a big impact on their standard of living.” The video is here.
* I asked Galia Slayen at the Pritzker campaign for a response to the CTBA study…
JB believes we need a progressive income tax system that asks those who can afford it to pay more, while providing a tax cut for the middle class and those striving to get there. This study shows examples of how a progressive income tax can raise additional revenue and provide a tax break to almost all Illinoisans. It’s no surprise that Bruce Rauner is once again lying about a tax break for Illinois families after his failed leadership decimated our state’s economy.
…Adding… Illinois Policy Institute…
“The CTBA’s progressive income tax plan promises more tax revenue for a bloated state government in exchange for much weaker economic growth. From 2006 to 2016, states without a progressive income tax saw 36 percent more GDP growth than states with a progressive income tax, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Over the same time, employment grew 37 percent faster in states without a progressive income tax, and wages increased 21 percent more in states without a progressive income tax. Productivity (or output per worker) – a measure of the quality of jobs – increased 28 percent more in states without a progressive income tax.
“CTBA claims Illinois’ economy would see a boost under a progressive income tax because the proposal would stimulate consumption, but they are mistaken to believe consumption alone accounts for a truly strong economy. In reality, investment – in things like businesses and housing – does much more to strengthen a state economy than surface-level goods consumption. Tax hikes at any level are a huge deterrent to investment. From 2006 to 2016, states where a smaller share of household incomes went to consumption saw faster economic growth than states where households spent a larger share of their incomes on consumption, according to the BEA. Those latter states were more likely to be progressive tax states.
“In addition to proposing a plan that would tank the state’s economy, the CTBA also mistakenly assumes that Illinois politicians can be trusted not to go back to the well and hike the tax rates under a progressive income tax structure. That is a fatal error that could leave middle-class families in the lurch.
“The truth is Illinois doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. State government spending grew 25 percent faster than personal incomes from 2005 to 2015, which is unsustainable. The right way to get Illinois’ government spending problems under control while also encouraging economic growth is to cap state spending to what taxpayers can afford, a solution that has gained bipartisan support this legislative session and that can be adopted in principle immediately under the plan outlined in SJRCA 21 and HJRCA 38.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:08 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: When will the TV ads reappear?
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 *** Hearing today will look at why thousands were kicked off Medicaid
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
–The Center for Tax and Budget Accountability has a new report out about how a graduated income tax could be used to lower taxes for 98 percent of Illinoisans.–
I wonder if Pritzker could craft a couple of TV spots with that message?
“Tax Cut for the 98%.” Would that appeal to anyone?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:10 am
It appears the CTBA website has been been hacked and taken over.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:18 am
–Rank-and-file taxpayers–
Websters:
rank and file
noun
the ordinary members of an organization as opposed to its leaders.
So get back in line, you plebeian ingrates, and get your mouths shut. How dare you suggest your leaders be subject to a tax system like they have in Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, the United States, Planet Earth….
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:20 am
There ya go JB. Use this to further the progressive tax agenda. This will get support among voters.
Comment by Generic Drone Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:20 am
So high taxes impact low and middle income migration, but not business incestment decisions or migration for the wealthy? Got it.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:20 am
Investment*
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:21 am
A graduated or progressive income tax just makes sense, gone are the days when a union guy and a doctor live in the same neighborhood, so why are they paying the same income tax? The fact that 42 other states do it should reinforce that this is a good idea.
Comment by ItsMillerTime Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:24 am
Not that gradual. An honest and gradual increase would have been more preferred. Lower the rate for the lower earners to say 3.75% and then the increases be gradual. A huge jump for higher wage earners seems to be fixed to support the political narrative instead of good policy.
Comment by Paul Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:25 am
As the bank robber replied to the question of why do you rob banks?
You have to go where the money is.
Wait……you mean you don’t want to rob from low income people? What?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:26 am
=The fact that 42 other states do it should reinforce that this is a good idea.=
Except that’s not a fact at all.
Comment by Robert the 1st Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:29 am
Ctba got owned by xrobot. Lol.
Comment by Trump2020 Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:46 am
==The fact that 42 other states do it should reinforce that this is a good idea.=
=Except that’s not a fact at all.=
Oh I’m sorry, 35 states do it. It’s still a good idea.
Comment by ItsMillerTime Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:49 am
Kansas and Minnesota- that is the ballgame.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:53 am
because this raises taxes for a few, it’s all up to the message to explain this is beneficial to the many. message. message. message.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:57 am
This raises twice as much than Madigan’s millionaire tax would. Hits a lot more people though but still a small percentage of voters.
Comment by Been There Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 9:58 am
==The top rate is what is used in Minnesota==
I love the obsession with Minnesota. Not a top rate of 9.75%, not 9.95% to tie back to our current 4.95% rate. Just the arbitrary 9.85%.
But these are rates most will get behind. Someone making $500K would pay an effective tax rate of 6.07%. Will paying an extra $6K move the needle for these folks? Time will tell.
The next step is to tie it to a long term guarantee rates cannot increase. No bait and switch.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:00 am
This plan will provide real tax relief for those making more than $300,000 who are now in a quandary about how to spend their windfall from the Trump tax bill.
They can simply hand a portion over to the state for schools, mental health, and other social services and not have to worry about how to dispose of their money.
Comment by Truthteller Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:02 am
I am old and forget so forgive me if this is an old point: will the issue of a graduated income tax during the gubernatorial campaign encourage both candidates to release all their income tax records?
Comment by Enemy of the State Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:04 am
Wonder if this hurts the GOPies effort to protect GovJunk’s tax break? If he lived in his beloved Iowa he would pay about $5 million more….’splain Durkie.
Comment by Annonin' Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:07 am
Why is upending the flat tax provision the state constitution “not a big deal”, but voting out the pension provision is?
Comment by Downstate Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:18 am
The first model is definitely not revenue-neutral, it would collect a whole lot of extra tax dollars. Which wouldn’t be a bad idea if they were devoted to K-12 and lower real estate taxes - IMHO, the goal should be RE tax needs to be capped at 1% of actual property value, which should boost home values, home buying, upgrading, etc., while decreasing the foreclosure rate and helping places like Harvey. I can’t think of a better or more fair way to stimulate the economy of Illinois.
Comment by Stuntman Bob's Brother Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:20 am
=I love the obsession with Minnesota.=
Kansas too to be exact here. One works and pays its’ bills while providing services and the other doesn’t.
It is an obsession with working versus failing.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:20 am
Am I blind or does it not show how much revenue would be raised under that plan?
Comment by Stan Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:20 am
–When people earning more than $300,000 a year leave Illinois, they generally don’t go to low-tax states but higher-tax localities including New York and California, [CTBA research director Daniel Kay Hertz] told me.-
I would like to see the data on this, because it seems like they go to Florida where the income tax is 0.0
Comment by Ahoy! Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:21 am
If IL implements a graduated income tax, the Legislature should amend the IL income tax act to make it more difficult to claim IL non-resident status. All a person has to do now to claim non-resident status is get a drivers license, register to vote and complete some paperwork in the new state of residence. If IL doesnt change the definition of resident for tax purposes, very few high income earners will ever be subject to the higher rates. They’ll all “move” to Florida.
Comment by Resident Millennial Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:25 am
==A huge jump for higher wage earners seems to be fixed to support the political narrative instead of good policy.==
This is an example to show what is possible based on neighboring states. The thing people on this blog have been asking about for weeks. The numbers can be adjusted to achieve many different ends (lower property taxes, lower taxes for median earners, close budget gap, better fund the pensions, borrow for capital projects, pay off debts, etc.). Nothing is fixed, this is a stake in the ground and they have identified $2 billion to start.
Comment by supplied_demand Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:26 am
Looks like they got hit by script kiddies, didn’t even know that was a thing anymore.
Comment by OneMan Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:33 am
Told you so. Just $2 billion in revenue, which would be just a small dent. Though it’s probably just a bait and switch to get the amendment passed then soak the middle class, too. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20180413/ISSUE07/180419967/dont-count-on-a-progressive-income-tax-to-save-illinois
Comment by Mark Glennon Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:52 am
All examples should focus on effective taxes paid at various levels of income, not marginal tax rates. Every criticism I have seen, including the ILGOP and Republican House Resolution spin, mistakes one for the other, because it is so easy to mislead that way.
98% will pay less income taxes. Period.
Start there, and any criticisms will then have legitimacy.
Comment by walker Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:57 am
@ResidentMillenial
Such is the case here in California. Claiming out of state residency is a big problem, especially people that live in NorCal or near Lake Tahoe (Nevada has no income tax). The only solution (after many years of trial error) seemed to be a beefed up tax enforcement from our Franchise Tax Board, which is basically the State Dept. of Revenue.
The higher the tax rates, the greater the incentive to avoid them.
Comment by California Guy Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 11:14 am
Going to be an easier sell if it’s tied to some sort of property tax relief. And it should be.
Comment by Original Rambler Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 11:14 am
So, in other words, only the top 2% of Illinois taxpayers won’t see their effective tax rate lowered under this tax plan. Sign me up.
Comment by PublicServant Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 11:15 am
==Why is upending the flat tax provision the state constitution “not a big deal”, but voting out the pension provision is?==
Voting out the pension provision is not a big deal because it won’t save the state any money. The pension provision declares the current system to be a contract, and US and state constitutions contracts clauses prohibit the the state from “impairing” its contracts. You could enact a Tier 3 pension plan that is worse than Tier 2 (which can be done without repealing the pension provision), and even state that the new Tier 3 has no contractual protections (which cannot be done under the pension provision), but you can’t change the rights employees and retirees already have under Tier 1 and Tier 3.
Comment by Whatever Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 11:20 am
==Just $2 billion in revenue, which would be just a small dent.==
At least give them credit for not trying to fill the entire gap with tax hike revenue.
But it does show everyone that doubling the top rate on millionaires won’t solve our problems. That might frighten everyone in those lower income thresholds, especially since this plan does not address their obscenely high property taxes.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 11:28 am
Voting to eliminate public employee benefit protection from the state Constitutionwould prevent the current fiscal disaster from ever happing again.
That alone makes it of extremely high importance.
Comment by Ron Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 11:56 am
@mark Glennon
I cannot help but notice that no one on this blog has responded to your comment. I’ve read many of your articles and I appreciate the common sense and solid research.
- Original Rambler - Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 11:14 am:
“Going to be an easier sell if it’s tied to some sort of property tax relief. And it should be”
There’s absolutely no possibility of property tax relief under any solution. There’s not enough money. Good grief.
Comment by Sands Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 12:09 pm
—–All a person has to do now to claim non-resident status is get a drivers license, register to vote and complete some paperwork in the new state of residence…….——
With several friends now securing new residencies, it’s not that easy.
The requirement is that if one claims a new state residence (moving from Illinois), they have to show that they were out of the state for 183 days of the year. They have to show this with credit card receipts, etc.
They don’t have to show that they were in a specific state for 1/2 the year, only that they were outside of Illinois for 1/2 the year plus one day.
Comment by Downstate Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 12:12 pm
Sands, any idea why your IP address is in Iran?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 12:23 pm
Iran? Is that a joke? If not, then no, I have no idea.
Comment by Sands Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 12:33 pm
Good, but needs to equally broadcast reduction in primarily education related property taxes.
Comment by VerySmallRocks Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 12:45 pm
- Resident Millennial -
For the most part that won’t matter. People are taxed on where they work (where business operations occur). If you work in IL, you are taxed in IL. If your business earns money in IL, you are taxed in IL. Even if claim to live in another state.
Comment by Dublin Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 1:00 pm
For job creators, you have to add 2.5 percent (C corps) or 1.5 percent for small businesses (LLCs, partnerships, Subchapter S, etc) so the top tax rate would even be higher.
Many retailers, hotels, and other small businesses have more than $1 million in revenue.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 1:23 pm
Superdog has more than a million in revenue. JB– Go double a hot dog stands income tax
Comment by Silicon Prairie Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 1:36 pm
==Superdog==
It’s Superdawg. Anyone who has eaten a Whoopskidawg would know that.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 1:44 pm
thanks too fast typing. Havnt been there this year.Good day for a visit
Comment by Silicon Prairie Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 2:02 pm
I am very pleased young well paid professionals continue to move to downtown Chicago. This and a graduated income tax is just what Illinois needs.
Comment by Cocoa Dave Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 2:11 pm
Let’s all remember this as the day venture capitalist Mark Glennon argued that a $2 billion tax hike was too small.
Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 2:22 pm
While we’re at it, can we institute a graduated(progressive), real estate tax as well? For homes with a real value at maybe 75% below the median in a given county, the tax would be one percent. For 75% to 125% of median value, make it two percent. And if you own a mansion on the Gold Coast, four or five percent may be in order, regardless of the number of commodes. The numbers could be made revenue-neutral. Show of hands?
Comment by Stuntman Bob's Brother Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 2:24 pm
=== The group said under that model, anyone making under $314,000 of taxable income would see a tax cut of up to $450.===
With this model, it would be hard for the GOP and IPI to credibly argue that it would hurt “the little guy” or the middle-class.
Comment by anon2 Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 2:37 pm
=== The Tribune editorial board is, of course, dead set against a progressive income tax ===
It was not always so. Twice in the 90s Trib editorials favored a graduated income tax:
“A state income tax with modestly graduated rates would be a move toward tax fairness.” (“The unspoken tax debate,” April 20, 1994)
“The rich, because they are able to, should pay a relatively larger portion of their income in taxes.” -(“What happened to ‘share the pain,’” Aug. 3, 1993)
Comment by anon2 Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 2:46 pm
Property taxes are usually considered regressive. The way Berrios was assessing properties made it even more so. Consequently, it would make sense to introduce some progressivity here.
Comment by anon2 Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 2:56 pm
==“The rich, because they are able to, should pay a relatively larger portion of their income in taxes.” -(“What happened to ‘share the pain,’” Aug. 3, 1993)==
Same article, next sentences:
But it’s one thing to demand progressivity as a matter of fairness. It’s quite another thing to exploit social resentment as an instrument of policy.
That article was about the US tax policy. And it also noted that “The compromise bill that passed Congress aims to hold down deficit increases by $496 billion over the next five years through a combination of $241 billion in tax hikes and $255 billion in spending cuts.”
Where’s our corresponding spending cut?
Comment by City Zen Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 3:10 pm
I look forward to a plan presented that will cut taxes on the vast majority of Illinoisans. Pritzker has the money to really push this issue. Why wouldn’t Republicans want to cut taxes on almost anyone? Rauner and Republicans, they’re not “change” people.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 3:10 pm
With the state and local exemption having been capped and the IRS likely to refuse any of the work arounds proposed by states so far a cripplingly high progressive tax will only expedite the process of high earners leaving.
The fallout of capping the state and local deduction has not entered the equation yet for high tax states who want to keep pushing taxes higher.
Starting next year tax payers will be hit with bills they will actually feel, and that will stop alot of this in it tracks I suspect.
Comment by Anon Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 3:45 pm
==The fallout of capping the state and local deduction has not entered the equation yet for high tax states who want to keep pushing taxes higher.==
Good point. It’s like when folks claim the 2% state income tax hike had no impact when it took effect but forget that President Obama simultaneously decreased the payroll tax 2% for 2 years.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 3:59 pm
== “Tax Cut for the 98%.” Would that appeal to anyone? ==
It appeals to me “One of the 98%”.
Comment by Mama Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 4:05 pm
Gotta love the Glennon drive-by technique.
1) Create straw man - Progressive income tax won’t solve all our financial woes (umm, who said it would?).
2) Then when data emerges that proves his straw man was bogus, he declares victory. Umm, you didn’t “tell us so” because nobody thought just moving to a progressive tax would solve all our problems. But thanks.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 4:07 pm
==”Illinois doesn’t have a revenue problem”==
IL definitely has a revenue problem. Look at how much our debt went up since Rauner requested the tax increase to end 3 years ago.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 4:08 pm
Illinois, the state with the 5th highest state and local tax burden right now has a massive spending problem.
Comment by Ron Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 4:29 pm
==IL definitely has a revenue problem.==
Retirees are standing by, waiting to accept that taxation call.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 4:39 pm
The report’s executive summary on Page 4, states that, “Illinois can: simultaneously cut taxes for 98 percent of taxpayers, reduce its structural deficit by $2 billion, and promote private sector economic growth by adopting a Constitutional amendment that permits a graduated rate income tax.
Replace “can” with “won’t” reduce taxes to 98% of Illinoisans because the $2 Billion deficit reduction is not enough. Of course lawmakers can continue to ignore the Illinois Constitution and maintain a structural deficit in the $6 Billion range.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 4:40 pm
==The truth is Illinois doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.==
Actually, the truth is that it has both. Those that believe otherwise are simply ignoring reality.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 4:44 pm
Any one with a calculator can figure out this article is BS. The State needs more revenue yet the tax plan will collect less from 98 percent of all taxpayers. What will the rate be on the other 2 percent 200 percent? Come on. We all know that everyone other then those making under 40k are going to be paying more- lots more
Comment by Sue Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 5:18 pm
Sue - The article isn’t BS, it’s a legitimate exercise to show how much revenue can be generated under such a plan. It clearly shows that just taxing the rich won’t solve all our problems.
The effective tax rate on $1M is increased 50% to 7.65%. At $2.5M, the effective rate is 9%. Even with such substantial increases on such wealth, it’s still not enough to cover current expenses, let alone any service enhancements JB has proposed. People need to understand that. Many do not.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 6:18 pm
The shocking thing is even with this proposed graduated tax, JB still does not realize you cannot continue down the road Illinois is on. Just not sustainable. Less taxpayers every year-that is not debatable. Spending is never cut. At some point something needs to be cut. Plus he wants to expand all sorts of programs
Comment by Silicon Prairie Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 8:11 pm
This report from the CBTA isn’t surprising seeing as it is funded by public unions, its board is almost entirely made up of individuals that worked for public unions or have something to be gained from said unions, and CBTA was paid to lobby on behalf of the IL Education Assoc.
Comment by KevinF Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 8:51 pm
Kevin, what is somewhat surprising is that even though epublic union backed organization can’t demonstrate how to pay for the massive public employee benefits. Even after creating a state with the highest tax burden in the nation.
Comment by Ron Monday, Apr 30, 18 @ 10:06 pm
Want a graduated income tax?
Here’s a petition:
https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/illinois-tax-reform
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, May 1, 18 @ 12:50 am