Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Lightfoot: Martwick bill “absolutely untenable and a nonstarter”
Posted in:
* Illinois News Network…
Gov. J.B. Pritzker has staked his future budgets on convincing lawmakers and voters to change the state’s constitution to allow for a progressive income tax with higher rates for those who earn more, but not enough members of his own party in House are prepared to put the question to voters.
Fewer than 60 lawmakers in the House are in favor of asking voters to change the state’s flat income tax to a graduated one, according to a report from Politico. That means Pritzker could have to look to other sources to come up with the more than $3 billion he said the state needs to stabilize its finances.
Pritzker ran on changing the flat income tax to a progressive one. For that, there would need to be a constitutional amendment approved by voters. The House would need 71 votes to pass it to voters. Multiple roll call votes on the progressive tax proposal registered support “in the 50s,” Politico reported. To pass just the rates, if there were ever a constitutional change from the flat tax to the progressive tax, it would require a simple majority of 60 votes in the House.
“Leaders are having difficulty getting to 60 votes because some Democrats are pushing back on the measure. So the vote may be moved to April 30,” Politico reported.
Pritzker remained optimistic about his graduated tax plan on Thursday.
“I wouldn’t believe everything you read, but I would say, especially a few of you out here,” Pritzker said in Springfield Thursday.
State Rep. La Shawn Ford, D-Chicago, confirmed Democrats don’t have the supermajority needed to get the constitutional amendment question on the ballot for voters.
“What we have now is a roll call that is short of the 71 votes, but we’ll see how the governor convinces the public and legislators and see things the way that many people do,” Ford said.
Ford said it’s important the governor doesn’t attempt to force his will on the legislature and voters. The governor needs to hear their concerns.
I went over this with subscribers yesterday and earlier today, but suffice it to say there were no hard roll calls taken and there was never a set, scheduled early April House vote to “move.” That’s just nonsense.
* WUIS…
But a Democrat in the House said there’s been “grumbling” and “a fair degree of hesitation” in the caucus, particularly over the details of the rates.
Another Democrat, state Rep. Mike Zalewski of Chicago, said it should be relatively easy for lawmakers to put a graduated income tax on the ballot. But he says there’s more resistance on the question of what the tax rates should be.
Pritzker is proposing a modest tax cut for every income bracket below $250,000 dollars a year. In some cases, that tax cut could be $100 dollars.
State Rep. Kathleen Willis, a member of the House Democratic leadership team, said there was some concern that trumpeting such a small amount as a tax cut could be perceived as “almost insulting” by some constituents.
Still, another Democrat involved in negotiations on the tax, Rep. Robert Martwick of Chicago, says he’s not worried yet.
In this case, I’m gonna agree with Martwick. They are definitely short in the House right now. But aren’t they always short before a big vote? Yes. They keep those House Democrats afraid of their own shadows, so they have never started with a comfortable surplus of income tax votes in that chamber as long as I’ve been around. Remember marriage equality? Same sort of thing.
Also, is it common for legislators to grumble before a big and important vote like this? Always. Heck, it’s common for them to grumble on good days. That’s just what they do.
* Austin Berg…
Pritzker needs lawmakers to pass a constitutional amendment eliminating the state’s flat income tax protection, which would then head to voters on the 2020 ballot. But scheduling in the General Assembly indicates Pritzker will fail to get his amendment before a key deadline: April 12, when lawmakers leave Springfield for a two-week spring break.
April 12 is not a “key deadline” for anything but moving substantive bills to the other chamber.
The time to worry is if Speaker Madigan ever takes a walk. I don’t yet see any evidence of that on this particular topic.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:09 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Lightfoot: Martwick bill “absolutely untenable and a nonstarter”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If any Democrat is not going to support a graduated income tax, after what we just went through and considering other options where key Democratic voters would get hurt, such as a flat tax hike or harsh cuts, this legislator should seriously question why she or he is a Democrat.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:17 pm
Legislators have three choices: 1) Forego revenue and make massive budget cuts. 2) Raise the necessary revenue by asking all taxpayers to pay more. 3) Raise the necessary revenue by requiring the wealthiest among us to pay more.
It shouldn’t be a hard decision to make.
Comment by Truthteller Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:23 pm
Truthteller, we can both make cuts and raise revenue. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
If there is balking at the rates, fine. Change them. It would be the height of silliness to refuse to pass a CA because you don’t like the proposed rates.
Comment by Perrid Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:30 pm
Raising to 6 percent and doubling the exemptions gets the same revenue and affords more equal sharing of the problem which if people are honest needs to be paid for by more then 3 percent of the population
Comment by Sue Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:30 pm
===eliminating the state’s flat income tax protection===
The only people the flat income tax structure protects are the rich, who get pay less than their fair share. It’s not their income that’s stagnant. IPI spewing nonsense again, I see.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:30 pm
Lots to be gained by not signing on too early. Goodies for back home, et. al. to be garnered by holding out.
Also, some human service champions will need to hold out until sufficient funding is in place to cover the minimum wage hit to their agencies. This is the easy year, the minimum wage dynamic for agencies gets ugly about 2021z
Comment by You Bet Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:31 pm
I hope JB and his communications office hits back quickly and directly whenever these distortions and/or outright falsehoods are put out as press releases. It is essential that this deception not have the opportunity to become the prominent narrative.
Comment by don the legend Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:34 pm
they’ll have the votes — it’s just a matter of which House Ds will be allowed to vote no when the time comes
it’ll be another profile in cowardice by our elected elite
Comment by jim Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:41 pm
It is a joke, as sales taxes increase, as real estate taxes increase, as gas(motor fuel) taxes will soon increase, etc. the middle class will see a miniscule income tax decrease, if at all.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:42 pm
New property tax assessment notices from Kaigi are starting to roll out in north suburban Cook and people are getting sticker shock. I can see Democrat reps from that area getting pressured not to raise income tax rates too.
Comment by Skokie Swifty Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:43 pm
–a key deadline: April 12–
Anyone who would write that is either ignorant or dishonest.
The only “key deadline” is adjournment. If you can round up the votes any time before then, even the most controversial proposal can move like stuff through a goose.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 12:55 pm
What Rich said.
Comment by walker Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 1:00 pm
Any holdout dems should demand language limiting the frequency with which (or some kind of limit on) the tax rates could be played with.
Every single progressive tax in human history always started as a small increase on only the top few percent.
Human nature however takes over and in-veritably the definition of who is “rich” goes down, and the rates payed always go up.
Legislatures seemingly can’t help themselves with the spending when they get easier access to taxpayer money, and making it easier to raise rates might as well be giving them a blank check.
I also think there is blood to be drawn on how minuscule the tax cut is for the 97% to compared to the now and future ease with which rates can be raised going forward on those in the 97%.
Comment by Anon Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 1:02 pm
We have also seen massive “fee” increase proposals in almost every area of our lives so far.
Giving people a $100 tax cut while simultaneously jacking up rates on everything else (well surpassing the cut the received) is the kind of thing that people get irritated about.
Comment by Anon Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 1:07 pm
= gets the same revenue and affords more equal sharing of the problem =
“more equal” Lol, tell me what is more equal when you have someone who is making $250,000 to $999,999 and someone making $25,000? Who has benefitted more equally?
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 1:14 pm
The marriage penalty needs to be removed. JB’s own calculator proves the marriage penalty exists.
A person making $130,000 will a decrease of $65. But two married people making $130,000 have an increase of $91.
Why do we want our tax code to penalize marriages?
Comment by Matt Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 1:19 pm
Sue:
You’re still charging the same rate to everyone which is anything but fair. Someone making $50K a year should not be paying the same percentage in income taxes as someone making $500K a year. But you keep on defending the rich and see how far that argument gets you.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 1:27 pm
==The only people the flat income tax structure protects are the rich==
And the retired. Here, at least.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 1:28 pm
- Matt -
If 3% will see an increase in their taxes, how many folks, what percentage, will be effected with the marriage penalty?
My point? There can be a fix, sure, and a way to get those “close” to the “penalty whole, but if a spouse makes $220K and another makes $215K, what is the advantage of filing with the state jointly at $435K?
We’re arguing protecting a small group…
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 1:30 pm
== what is the advantage of filing with the state jointly==
For civil unions, the state requires that your filing status matches your federal return. And as I’ve stated before, a household with two working adults, regardless how much each makes, pays a marriage penalty at all income levels.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 1:46 pm
===And as I’ve stated before, a household with two working adults, regardless how much each makes, pays a marriage penalty at all income levels.===
97% of Illinoisans will see no increase
Illinois also has SSM as well as civil unions.
How many folks are going see this increase?
3%?
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 1:49 pm
If - City Zen - wants to protect millionaires… who am I to stop it?
lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 1:51 pm
Every legislator should be willing to vote for the CA; all it does is let the voters (who elected them) decide if they want a progressive or flat income tax. Straight democracy.
I can understand the reluctance to vote for specific rates. But how are they going to explain to the folks back home they have to raise the flat rates on everyone because they wouldn’t tax just the rich?
Comment by RNUG Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 2:02 pm
===that tax cut could be $100 dollars…a tax cut could be perceived as “almost insulting”===
My Trump tax cut was about $100, and the GOP trumpeted that to the moon. Dems need to take a lesson from the GOP and own it and say it loud and proud.
Comment by Jibba Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 2:02 pm
They could structure the amendment to require a super majority to increase taxes, but a simple majority to decrease taxes. I don’t want to see tax rates in the Illinois Constitution since those rates would be harder to change up or down. The tax rates need to be flexible, but it would be more desirable to make it harder to raise taxes than to lower taxes.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 2:03 pm
===…how are they going to explain to the folks back home they have to raise the flat rates on everyone because they wouldn’t tax just the rich?===
This is why the ads keep focusing on 97%
Take it to the voters.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 2:04 pm
“Every legislator should be willing to vote for the CA”
Or at least the vast majority of them. In that way, if it fails, it could empower opponents. If it doesn’t get on the ballot, that just further paints the ILGOP as the party for the rich—not that they mind, because blowing this up is probably more important than winning elections. That’s what happens when the rich are protected at all costs, even self-preservation.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 2:09 pm
CZ tiltin’ at the retired windmill again, I see.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 2:12 pm
===But a Democrat in the House said there’s been “grumbling” and “a fair degree of hesitation” in the caucus, particularly over the details of the rates.
Another Democrat, state Rep. Mike Zalewski of Chicago, said it should be relatively easy for lawmakers to put a graduated income tax on the ballot. But he says there’s more resistance on the question of what the tax rates should be.===
Then put it on the ballot and let the citizens of this state decide whether they want to allow for a graduated tax structure.
As for resistance to what the rates should be, that has nothing to do with putting the question on the ballot, and the decision on rates comes after the graduated tax is put to a vote. Even if a graduated tax is allowed, there’s nothing that would force any politician to vote for a graduated tax structure, but I wouldn’t want to be the legislator that is for maintaining a flat tax after a graduated tax is allowed.
Comment by PublicServant Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 2:21 pm
===So we shouldn’t care about how policies impact people if the group is small in numbers.===
If you want to protect and stop the millionaire tax… have at it, lol
===What other issues do you feel this way about? Same sex marriage? Bathrooms?===
You think protecting the wealthiest 3% need your protection?
LOL
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 2:27 pm
===This is why the ads keep focusing on 97%===
You mean the ads that now claim the 97% will see no increase in their income taxes? Those same ads that came out after claims the 97% would see some small income tax refunds or smaller income taxes?
Which is it?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 3:35 pm
===Those same ads that came out after claims the 97% would see some small income tax refunds or smaller income taxes?===
… and yet, only one ad made it to air with one claim.
You think 97% with no increase is a bad message?
Protecting millionaires isn’t a winning message.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 3:47 pm
Demoralized- the 3 percent didn’t exclusively cause the States fiscal issues do where is the fairness of shifting the Fox to solely : percent of taxpayers. Everyone benefitted from lower rates which is what caused the problem in the first place. Our elected geniuses in both parties ran the state as if we always had 5 percent tax rates in terms of the spending and used the pension contributions as the cushion. Now that the fraud has been recognized why should only 3 percent of payers be penalized?
Comment by Sue Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 3:49 pm
===why should only 3 percent of payers be penalized?===
This won’t be a winning argument.
Protecting the top 3% will be the argument the Dems will enjoy hammering.
But, please, make it about protecting the top 3%…. lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 3:51 pm
I support a graduated tax. I would prefer that the upper rate be tied to the lowest rate. But I won’t have the best be the enemy of the good.
JB’s problem is that the requested tax increase is not enough. That is not a reason to oppose the request. But it will cause problems in 2022.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 3:53 pm
Sue is advocating that 100% pay more in taxes
so that the
wealthy and privileged 3%
not pay
What they can easily pay
and ease the burden
of the 97%
That’s very simply
greed
selfishness
Solipsism
(and perfidy to confuse us)
Comment by Honeybear Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 4:05 pm
A really savvy play, although the GOP of Illinois today don’t think this way, would be to get that marriage penalty “fix” whatever shape it would take, claim victory for illinois families, (not 3% families), and passively work to make this about turnout and the percentage threshold.
The GOP now isn’t remotely savvy, thinking that to get that money bags donor they need to be about protecting the wealthy. Why? There aren’t too many deep thinkers.
To get this passed, the ballot threshold is the key, so work to seem to be in favor of families, get Pritzker and Dems to concede a point or two and then work on logistics and percentages, not ignorant messaging out of tune with fiscal divides in this state.
It’s truly disappointing how much the GOP now panders to the wealthy so overtly, when savvy politics to both message and process would be the smarter play.
But… you have - Louis G Atsaves -, - City Zen -, - Sue -, so willing to make the losing message the message of choice.
It’s no wonder Dems have now made Raunerite-Republicans irrelevant.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 5, 19 @ 4:11 pm