Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Property tax freeze roundup
Next Post: Republicans go on the attack against Pritzker over probe
Posted in:
* SJ-R...
Keith Staats of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce said the changed rates indicate what will happen under graduated tax system.
“There is no guarantee this legislation, if it is passed by the General Assembly this year, will ever go into effect and will not be modified,” he said. “In the few months since the governor made his proposal, there’s already been an increase in the rate as he originally proposed it. This illustrates what’s going to happen in a graduated income tax.”
Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon, also said it will be easier for lawmakers to raise taxes under a graduated system because the increase can be focused on only a small group of big earners.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Toi Hutchinson, R-Olympia Fields, said that wasn’t the case.
“I don’t agree that it is ever easy to raise taxes,” she said.
* Illinois News Network…
Hutchinson said the measure is fair for her constituents.
“In my district, in particular, it’s literally like 98 percent of my tax filers won’t see a difference unless they see a decrease,” Hutchinson said.
* Capitol News Illinois…
Sponsor Toi Hutchinson, an Olympia Fields Democrat, said lowering the threshold for the top rate of single filers was an attempt to address the so-called “marriage penalty” without drastically decreasing anticipated revenues.
She said a Center for Government Forecasting and Accountability analysis shows the tax will bring in an added $3.57 billion in revenue from individual taxpayers and $350 million from raising the corporate tax rate. These estimates were based on 2016 figures, Hutchinson added.
* Tribune…
While the property tax and the estate tax proposals may blunt criticisms from some Democrats and some pro-business groups, changing the rates from Pritzker’s original plan will offer ammunition to opponents. Already, Republican lawmakers and other opponents are arguing that the Democrats who control the General Assembly will eventually try to apply higher tax rates to lower incomes if voters approve constitutional amendment.
“They’re already creeping down … which is something we’ve been warning members of the General Assembly and the public about,” Illinois Manufacturers’ Association President and CEO Mark Denzler said Tuesday.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 9:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Property tax freeze roundup
Next Post: Republicans go on the attack against Pritzker over probe
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“changing the rates from Pritzker’s original plan will offer ammunition to opponents”
As if opponents have anything else other than opposition. More of the same.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 10:06 am
–“There is no guarantee this legislation, if it is passed by the General Assembly this year, will ever go into effect and will not be modified,” he said.–
You’re kidding?
You mean the current GA can’t prevent future GAs from changing legislation for all eternity?
That would be a radical change.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 10:09 am
Nevermind the decrease from the original proposal on middle class owners. Thanks Rebublicans for cementing who it is you’re truly concerned about here. Gaslighting didn’t work for Rauner, maybe learn from that experience.
Comment by Fixer Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 10:10 am
=== “I don’t agree that it is ever easy to raise taxes.” ===
Is this a joke? It is always easy to raise taxes on other people, and Democrats always consider the wealthy to be other people who don’t pay their fair share.
Comment by Just Me 2 Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 10:12 am
I think I would have rather seen a reduction in the marrage penalty than ‘hey lets tax single people more’ but that is me, a married guy.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 10:30 am
=the measure is fair for her constituents=
=literally like 98 percent of my tax filers won’t see a difference=
Nothing says “fair” like 2% carrying the burden.
Comment by Robert the 1st Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 10:35 am
Sevenhundredfiftythousandaire tax doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Comment by Phenomynous Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 10:45 am
== “changing the rates from Pritzker’s original plan will offer ammunition to opponents” ==
The opponents of the graduated tax are being duplicitous in asking for frozen or lowered school property taxes. To significantly increase State level support if education will require high rates than proposed.
So they need to decide which they want: lower State taxes with higher school property taxes OR lower property taxes with higher State income taxes (flat or graduated).
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 10:45 am
==“They’re already creeping down … which is something we’ve been warning members of the General Assembly and the public about,” Illinois Manufacturers’ Association President and CEO Mark Denzler said Tuesday.==
Ya know, if the worry is raising taxes on lower and middle income families is a concern, you could lobby for an amendment to the rate structure by recommending an amendment to:
a) lower the rate structure percentage for low and middle income earners (of course, to keep revenue number similar, the high income earners would have to pay more)
b) submit an amendment that freezes the rates for lower and middle income earners for X number of years.
c) submit an amendment that says lower and middle income earners must always pay less than higher income earners to the constitutional amendment proposal. That would be the strongest protection of government provided to low and middle income earners.
We will never see such proposals from the GOP because this isn’t about protecting low and middle income earners. This is about protecting high income earners.
Comment by MG85 Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 10:47 am
Per the legislation: “Joint returns by spouses husband and wife….if spouses file a joint federal income tax return for a taxable year…ending on or after December 31, 2021, they shall file a joint return under this Act for such taxable year…”
Under the original tax proposal, spouses could file separate returns to take advantage of the lower tax brackets. Looks like this has been eliminated. If so, this is a huge tax hike for many dual-income professional households.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 10:59 am
==Nothing says “fair” like 2% carrying the burden.==
Nothing says fair like someone making 50,000 paying the same tax rate as someone making $500,000
Sounds pretty fair to me that those with money pay more.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 11:06 am
— with money pay more.—
Last time I checked, 4.95% of 500k was more than 4.95% of 50k, quite a bit more actually. But, let’s never miss an opportunity to punish success.
Comment by Circling the Drain Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 11:38 am
Circling, 4.95% of $50k has a lot more of an impact on those individuals paying it than it does on those paying 4.95% of $500k.
Comment by Fixer Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 11:42 am
== Nothing says “fair” like 2% carrying the burden. ==
When it comes to taxation, I agree with FDR: “Taxes should be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.” Adam Smith also agreed in The Wealth of Nations.
Comment by anon2 Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 11:52 am
==But, let’s never miss an opportunity to punish success==
Nobody is punishing success. Stop being dense.
Taxes should be based on ability to pay. The federal system is set up that way. So are several states.
Your argument is simply whining
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 12:04 pm
==Nothing says “fair” like 2% carrying the burden.==
==The federal system is set up that way.==
The federal system results in high earners carrying most of the burden, but It is much broader than the highest 2%. When taxes go up, all taxpayers rates are increased, not just 2%
Comment by Old Illini Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 12:27 pm
When it comes to taxation, I agree with FDR: “Taxes should be levied according to ability to pay.”
“Taxes should be based on ability to pay.”
“Nothing says “fair” like 2% carrying the burden.”
Different views and no one has a monooply on what is “Fair.”
As to whom is paying taxes:
RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 1:01 pm:
Latest available report is 2016.
0-25k - 1.96m returns - $0.56b paid
25k-50k - 1.28m returns - $1.31b paid
50k-100k - 1.33m returns - $2.68b paid
100k-500k - 1.04m returns - $5.47b paid
500k-more : 0.06m returns - $2.96 paid
All numbers rounded.
Source: 2026 Final report PDF format
https://tinyurl.com/y5jpmp7
So 1% of the taxpayers are saying about 22.8% of the state income taxes.
Again, opinions as to what is fair are just that- opinions.
Comment by Nonbeleiver Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 12:33 pm
==lowering the threshold for the top rate of single filers was an attempt to address the so-called “marriage penalty”==
And what better way to address a penalty than to double the penalty on the other guy. Sure, you’re still penalized, but at least you’re not that guy.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 12:59 pm
=== So 1% of the taxpayers are saying about 22.8% of the state income taxes.===
That’s a reflection of widening inequality and the growing concentration of wealth.
When all state and local taxes are added up, however, it’s the bottom 20% that pay the highest effective tax rate. For some reason, regressivity arouses less opposition than proposals to make the system less regressive.
Comment by anon2 Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 1:28 pm
- anon2
When all state and local taxes are added up, however, it’s the bottom 20% that pay the highest effective tax rate. For some reason, regressivity arouses less opposition than proposals to make the system less regressive.
Please provide source for this data. And how do you define ‘highest effective tax rate’.
Comment by Nonbeleiver Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 2:20 pm
==Please provide source for this data. And how do you define ‘highest effective tax rate’.==
These are ITEP stats that should be taken with a grain of salt. If you’re a state with a flat or no state income tax, ITEP hits you hard. On the flip side, they ranked Oregon, a state with the some of the most progressive income tax brackets and no sales tax, as regressive. There’s no pleasing them.
They also exclude the elderly, which paints a different picture on fairness. According to ITEP stats, if you’re part of the retired middle class in IL with income between $20-$100K, you have a lower “effective tax rate” than someone working with income of a half million dollars.
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, May 1, 19 @ 2:53 pm