OT: Illinois fair tax: yes or no?

[BigUps]

I'm a no and its solely based on how poorly this state is ran. Like many have already said, I think this is a gateway to play with tax rates as often as they want to. It feels like this is a crack dealer giving away the first hit for free knowing you'll be back for the second. I hate that I feel this way, but IL has done nothing to erase the last few decades worth of dirty politics from my mind.

Keep in mind, JB ripped the toilets from one of the million dollar homes he owned so that he would pay less taxes (the home was uninhabitable).

[Jcool0]

I'm a no and its solely based on how poorly this state is ran. Like many have already said, I think this is a gateway to play with tax rates as often as they want to. It feels like this is a crack dealer giving away the first hit for free knowing you'll be back for the second. I hate that I feel this way, but IL has done nothing to erase the last few decades worth of dirty politics from my mind.

Keep in mind, JB ripped the toilets from one of the million dollar homes he owned so that he would pay less taxes (the home was uninhabitable).

I mean it's not like mind blowing a rich person took advantage of loopholes in the tax law. Doesn't mean he is going to screw over low income voters as governor. He does after all want to get reelected.

[stl705]

So let me get this straight... the argument for NO is because middle/lower class families “could see tax increases in the future”, even though the current proposal will LOWER taxes for middle class and lower class families? Because we don’t trust our goverment?

I’m sorry that’s the most stupid argument I’ve ever heard. If you don’t trust your politicians vote for somebody else. Maybe I stop saving for retirement incase i win the lotto in the future. Never know...

Fk the billionaores and millionaires. If someone wants to leave the state, by all means GOODBYE. Chicago to turn into Detroit?? Lol, we’ve got an enormous economy, high diversity and education. Centrally located with some of the top cultural experiences in the country. Good riddance, more business opportunities for the rest of us!!

[jmajew]

So let me get this straight... the argument for NO is because middle/lower class families “could see tax increases in the future”, even though the current proposal will LOWER taxes for middle class and lower class families? Because we don’t trust our goverment?

I’m sorry that’s the most stupid argument I’ve ever heard. If you don’t trust your politicians vote for somebody else. Maybe I stop saving for retirement incase i win the lotto in the future. Never know...

Fk the billionaores and millionaires. If someone wants to leave the state, by all means GOODBYE. Chicago to turn into Detroit?? Lol, we’ve got an enormous economy, high diversity and education. Centrally located with some of the top cultural experiences in the country. Good riddance, more business opportunities for the rest of us!!

I'm all on board with a progressive tax, however, I am voting against this so called fair tax. My logic is rather simple.

1) It does not lower taxes enough for low income families.
2) It gives the government unlimited ability to tax, change rates, and brackets whenever they want.
3) Our state is broke. It is not broke because we do not tax enough. Even with this so called fair tax we would still run a deficit.

If they wanted to get me to vote for it they would do the following.

1) Make the brackets more progressive. I don't think a family of 4 with an income under 40k should pay any state taxes.
2) Set the rates in this amendment and not allow our elected officials to change it, without another amendment.
3) Pass a balanced budget amendment.

Pretty simple. A progressive tax is a great idea, the ability to raise taxes whenever they want is not acceptable. This means they will never be forced to actually run the government efficiently. Whenever they need/want more they will just raise taxes.

[TheStig]

So let me get this straight... the argument for NO is because middle/lower class families “could see tax increases in the future”, even though the current proposal will LOWER taxes for middle class and lower class families? Because we don’t trust our goverment?

I’m sorry that’s the most stupid argument I’ve ever heard. If you don’t trust your politicians vote for somebody else. Maybe I stop saving for retirement incase i win the lotto in the future. Never know...

Fk the billionaores and millionaires. If someone wants to leave the state, by all means GOODBYE. Chicago to turn into Detroit?? Lol, we’ve got an enormous economy, high diversity and education. Centrally located with some of the top cultural experiences in the country. Good riddance, more business opportunities for the rest of us!!

It lowers taxes like $10..... the tax decrease is .2%. That was after the temporary 5% rate became the permanent rate after they all promised it was temporary. See why people don't really trust them. Oh and that was after they were going to freeze property taxes and I got a giant increase. Until they fix their pension burdens and budgeting, all roads lead to more and more taxes.

I don't think it's really all that bad for the upper middle class and smaller millionaires. You can live a very nice lifestyle for midwestish prices. That's really not the case on the coasts or near other major cities.

[drosestruts]

So what I'm hearing is a lot of you are voting against this due to a belief that in the future your taxes will rise, so you'll be voting against progressive tax rates to keep flat tax rates which can be raised at any time already, and you think that the flat tax rate also wouldn't rise?

The proposed brackets are as follows:
1 Up to $10,000 4.75% marginal rate Up to $10,000 4.75% marginal rate
2 $10,001—$100,000 4.90% marginal rate $10,001—$100,000 4.90% marginal rate
3 $100,001—$250,000 4.95% marginal rate 100,001—$250,000 4.95% marginal rate
4 $250,001—$350,000 7.75% marginal rate $250,001—$500,000 7.75% marginal rate
5 $350,001—$750,000 7.85% marginal rate $500,001—$1,000,000 7.85% marginal rate

Really, this is a straight tax on the wealthy as stated now with no real tax break for anyone. The nominal tax break that is there for people of one tenth of a percent or one twentieth of a percent is just so they can say they are giving people a tax break which is kind of a joke. Of course unless you are wealthy, you don't really care about a straight tax on the wealthy because maybe it saves you money in the long run (which is probably a good idea, vote in your best interest).

My guess is that in a very short period of time they will ramp up bracket #3 to over 7%, but they wouldn't raise a flat tax to over 7% and that if you are middle class you will be hurt more by this passing than if it doesn't pass. I think the graduated tax is absolutely more fair, but my guess is everyone making over 100k a year will be worse off in five years if this passes than if it doesn't, but I could be wrong.

I also hate that their proposal creates a MASSIVE marriage penalty which is as bad a tax policy as flat tax is. If you removed the marriage penalty and doubled these numbers for married couples, then I would feel a lot more comfortable with it, but their plan day 1 is already to create a god awful new tax structure.

I won't hate it if it passes, there are obviously some good strengths to graduated tax in general, the fact that they're immediately making a really bad tax structure is a huge turn off though.

I think within 5 years our taxes are going up whether you vote for this or not.

And worse off how? by having more money for parks, schools, public works, roads, bike infrastructure, community programs.

As a married person in bracket 3, I too think the marriage penalty isn't good, but it doesn't outweigh my desire for Illinois to make some progress towards a better tax system.

I feel like i don't disagree with most of your points, I just don't mind them.

[stl705]

So let me get this straight... the argument for NO is because middle/lower class families “could see tax increases in the future”, even though the current proposal will LOWER taxes for middle class and lower class families? Because we don’t trust our goverment?

I’m sorry that’s the most stupid argument I’ve ever heard. If you don’t trust your politicians vote for somebody else. Maybe I stop saving for retirement incase i win the lotto in the future. Never know...

Fk the billionaores and millionaires. If someone wants to leave the state, by all means GOODBYE. Chicago to turn into Detroit?? Lol, we’ve got an enormous economy, high diversity and education. Centrally located with some of the top cultural experiences in the country. Good riddance, more business opportunities for the rest of us!!

I'm all on board with a progressive tax, however, I am voting against this so called fair tax. My logic is rather simple.

1) It does not lower taxes enough for low income families.
2) It gives the government unlimited ability to tax, change rates, and brackets whenever they want.
3) Our state is broke. It is not broke because we do not tax enough. Even with this so called fair tax we would still run a deficit.

If they wanted to get me to vote for it they would do the following.

1) Make the brackets more progressive. I don't think a family of 4 with an income under 40k should pay any state taxes.
2) Set the rates in this amendment and not allow our elected officials to change it, without another amendment.
3) Pass a balanced budget amendment.

Pretty simple. A progressive tax is a great idea, the ability to raise taxes whenever they want is not acceptable. This means they will never be forced to actually run the government efficiently. Whenever they need/want more they will just raise taxes.

Nice post and I agree, but gotta crawl before you walk. Just as taxes can be raised, citizens can vote for somebody who wants to lower them.

[dougthonus]

I think within 5 years our taxes are going up whether you vote for this or not.

And worse off how? by having more money for parks, schools, public works, roads, bike infrastructure, community programs.

As a married person in bracket 3, I too think the marriage penalty isn't good, but it doesn't outweigh my desire for Illinois to make some progress towards a better tax system.

I feel like i don't disagree with most of your points, I just don't mind them.

I think they're not going to do that though. They're going to use the extra money to pay off pension funds and avoid the problem of dealing with spending (particularly on pension funds).

I think giving the government more money while they refuse to deal with the massive spending problems they have is not going to create better services for us or solve the financial problem.

I also don't think our taxes are nearly as likely to go up without this, because democrats will be very hard pressed to increase taxes on their base, which they have to do on the current system.

[keloms]

Absolutely not. It's bad enough King Pritzker gets away with everything he does now. The last thing he and IL government needs is more unchallenged arbitrary power.

[ThreeMileAllan]

I think mentally people need to separate the pension crisis with "out of control" spending.

Both parties are responsible for the kicking the can down the road on the pension crisis, with honestly Republican leadership making the initial domino decisions.


The pension crisis was the result of a few bad projections, bad luck in timing the markets and setting pension policy at a time when the markets seemed guaranteed to be fruitful. And it happened TWICE before each recession, further compounding the mistakes.

Most likely, the state will have to find a way to bring everyone to the table and resolve it more meaningfully by asking for concessions from people receiving the pension. It is just not realistic to think raising taxes or cutting spending will even come close to making a difference. I think and hope people who have done the research in Springfield understand this.


Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[dice]

I hate that they branded it "fair tax" by the way, but I'm not going to vote against something because I don't like their marketing strategy

it's actually a pretty brilliant usurping of the right wing "fairtax" proposal, which aims to reduce the tax burden on the wealthy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

[dice]

In Minnesota they have a graduated tax with the highest tax rate at 9.85%, they currently have 5.64 million people & are projected to have over 6 million by 2032.

There are countless things that are different about the states. In many ways Minnesota has much more to offer. Comparing one factor doesn't tell us much. The bottom line is that the state is trying to increase taxes notably, and particularly on people that have the easiest time relocating (whether on paper or altogether), while already losing people at a concerning rate.

California, Illinois and New York have all experienced bigger per capita personal income gains than the nation as a whole since the beginning of 2010, and all saw taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 overrepresented among the leavers from 2011 through 2018. These departures may indicate failures of governance as well, but it’s a different set of governance failures, presumably related more to housing costs, commutes and job opportunities than taxes per se.

There also isn’t much evidence in the IRS data — yet — of an exodus of high-income taxpayers hit by the state-and-local-tax-deduction limits imposed by the 2017 tax bill. That is, the number of taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more leaving for other states actually fell in high-tax California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey and New York from 2017 to 2018, the year the cap went into effect. Those who ended up with higher tax bills due to the change generally didn’t find out exactly how much higher until 2019, though, so it may just be too early to tell.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-01-09/where-people-leaving-new-york-california-and-illinois-are-going

the "rich people will leave the state if their taxes are raised too much" argument against the fair tax is a dumb one. will SOME rich people leave? of course. that's common sense. every tax hike will motivate some people to leave. but every tax hike also...wait for it...RAISES REVENUES! that's why they are enacted!

refraining from tax hikes is almost ALWAYS a political consideration rather than a broad economic one. liberals want higher taxes (skewed toward the wealthy) to fund more social services. conservatives don't. that's the push and pull

if liberals raise taxes too high they will not get elected. if conservatives take away too many social services they will not get elected. it's as simple as that

if democrats were advocating for tax hikes that, when enacted, didn't accomplish the revenue objective, it would be political suicide. you can bet your ass that they're as confident as they can be that the "fair tax" would result in substantially more revenue as opposed to causing enough people to leave the state so as to mostly/entirely offset the revenue increase. and on the off chance that there were ("oh ****") unforeseen circumstances arising from a tax hike, you can also bet your ass that that tax increase would be rescinded

california's recent history of changes in their top tax rate and impact on revenues:

-fiscal '04-'05 revenue 82 bil
-2006 top bracket hike from 9.3% to 10.3%
-'05-'06 revenue 93 bil
-'06-'07 revenue 95 bil
-'07-'08 revenue 103 bil
-"great recession"
-'08-'09 revenue 83 bil
-'09-'10 revenue 87 bil
-10-'11 revenue 93 bil
-'11-12 revenue 87 bil
-2013 top bracket hike from 10.3% to 13.3%

subsequent revenue:

'12-'13 100 bil
'13-'14 103 bil
'14-'15 112 bil
'15-'16 116 bil
'16-'17 120 bil
'17-'18 131 bil
'18-'19 139 bil
'19-'20 146 bil

did millionaires throw their arms in the air exasperated and flee the state en masse when an already very high tax rate was significantly increased? no they did not

[MisterRoy]

So what I'm hearing is a lot of you are voting against this due to a belief that in the future your taxes will rise, so you'll be voting against progressive tax rates to keep flat tax rates which can be raised at any time already, and you think that the flat tax rate also wouldn't rise?

The proposed brackets are as follows:
1 Up to $10,000 4.75% marginal rate Up to $10,000 4.75% marginal rate
2 $10,001—$100,000 4.90% marginal rate $10,001—$100,000 4.90% marginal rate
3 $100,001—$250,000 4.95% marginal rate 100,001—$250,000 4.95% marginal rate
4 $250,001—$350,000 7.75% marginal rate $250,001—$500,000 7.75% marginal rate
5 $350,001—$750,000 7.85% marginal rate $500,001—$1,000,000 7.85% marginal rate

Really, this is a straight tax on the wealthy as stated now with no real tax break for anyone. The nominal tax break that is there for people of one tenth of a percent or one twentieth of a percent is just so they can say they are giving people a tax break which is kind of a joke. Of course unless you are wealthy, you don't really care about a straight tax on the wealthy because maybe it saves you money in the long run (which is probably a good idea, vote in your best interest).

My guess is that in a very short period of time they will ramp up bracket #3 to over 7%, but they wouldn't raise a flat tax to over 7% and that if you are middle class you will be hurt more by this passing than if it doesn't pass. I think the graduated tax is absolutely more fair, but my guess is everyone making over 100k a year will be worse off in five years if this passes than if it doesn't, but I could be wrong.

I also hate that their proposal creates a MASSIVE marriage penalty which is as bad a tax policy as flat tax is. If you removed the marriage penalty and doubled these numbers for married couples, then I would feel a lot more comfortable with it, but their plan day 1 is already to create a god awful new tax structure.

I won't hate it if it passes, there are obviously some good strengths to graduated tax in general, the fact that they're immediately making a really bad tax structure is a huge turn off though.

I think within 5 years our taxes are going up whether you vote for this or not.

And worse off how? by having more money for parks, schools, public works, roads, bike infrastructure, community programs.

As a married person in bracket 3, I too think the marriage penalty isn't good, but it doesn't outweigh my desire for Illinois to make some progress towards a better tax system.

I feel like i don't disagree with most of your points, I just don't mind them.

Pritzker ready said he is going to raise the state income tax from just under 5% to just under 6% if this doesn't pass. So, he is a bully. Gimme want I want or I will punish you. Perhaps if he and all the others would actually fix what is broken this wouldn't be necessary.


Sent from somewhere you’ve never been.

[League Circles]

every tax hike also...wait for it...RAISES REVENUES!

This is false.

Regarding California, consider that California has a ton of tremendously unique characteristics that draw people that Illinois doesn't. In fact, other than the decreasingly unique appeal of the city of Chicago, Illinois has virtually nothing that would draw people to it.

[drosestruts]

every tax hike also...wait for it...RAISES REVENUES!

This is false.

Regarding California, consider that California has a ton of tremendously unique characteristics that draw people that Illinois doesn't. In fact, other than the decreasingly unique appeal of the city of Chicago, Illinois has virtually nothing that would draw people to it.

Other than this thing that's a draw there's no draw.

Declining appeal? Chicago was just named best city in the country by Conde Nast for the 4th year in a row

article - https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/conde-nast-traveler-names-chicago-best-big-city-in-u-s-for-4th-straight-year/2350031/

[League Circles]

every tax hike also...wait for it...RAISES REVENUES!

This is false.

Regarding California, consider that California has a ton of tremendously unique characteristics that draw people that Illinois doesn't. In fact, other than the decreasingly unique appeal of the city of Chicago, Illinois has virtually nothing that would draw people to it.

Other than this thing that's a draw there's no draw.

Declining appeal? Chicago was just named best city in the country by Conde Nast for the 4th year in a row

article - https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/conde-nast-traveler-names-chicago-best-big-city-in-u-s-for-4th-straight-year/2350031/

Oh well if Conde Nast says so loooooooool......

The city, and the state, have lost population during the time that Conde Nast praises the city haha.

Illinois is a state. Other than the city, which is losing people and is thus a decreasing draw, the state has little to offer. It's incredibly flat and has very little diversity of landscape or population centers (no real cities outside of the Chicago metro area). Most states have notably more physical beauty, and/or multiple better medium sized cities sprinkled around, are better run, and/or have lower taxes, and have better weather.

[Michael Jackson]

So let me get this straight... the argument for NO is because middle/lower class families “could see tax increases in the future”, even though the current proposal will LOWER taxes for middle class and lower class families? Because we don’t trust our goverment?

I’m sorry that’s the most stupid argument I’ve ever heard. If you don’t trust your politicians vote for somebody else. Maybe I stop saving for retirement incase i win the lotto in the future. Never know...

Fk the billionaores and millionaires. If someone wants to leave the state, by all means GOODBYE. Chicago to turn into Detroit?? Lol, we’ve got an enormous economy, high diversity and education. Centrally located with some of the top cultural experiences in the country. Good riddance, more business opportunities for the rest of us!!

I'm all on board with a progressive tax, however, I am voting against this so called fair tax. My logic is rather simple.

1) It does not lower taxes enough for low income families.
2) It gives the government unlimited ability to tax, change rates, and brackets whenever they want.
3) Our state is broke. It is not broke because we do not tax enough. Even with this so called fair tax we would still run a deficit.

If they wanted to get me to vote for it they would do the following.

1) Make the brackets more progressive. I don't think a family of 4 with an income under 40k should pay any state taxes.
2) Set the rates in this amendment and not allow our elected officials to change it, without another amendment.
3) Pass a balanced budget amendment.

Pretty simple. A progressive tax is a great idea, the ability to raise taxes whenever they want is not acceptable. This means they will never be forced to actually run the government efficiently. Whenever they need/want more they will just raise taxes.

On your 2nd point does it actually change the brackets and rates? I mean don’t they already have that power. I am asking because through all the rhetoric I am not clear on that point if it gives them more power. Fair tax is OK doesn’t really impact most of us I would assume, and does work in a lot of other states. I deal with other codes where Illinois is antiquated and the rest of the country is more progressive and it is frustrating. That being said if JB has a cloak and dagger approach, I do not want to give him any more ability to tax than he already does. Illinois politics are the ugliest thing I have ever seen. Just filthy. I have spent 4+ decades just watching what goes on here and it is soooooo amazing. I can at the same time be appalled by the moves and also have a respect for what has been gotten away with.

[dougthonus]

On your 2nd point does it actually change the brackets and rates? I mean don’t they already have that power. I am asking because through all the rhetoric I am not clear on that point if it gives them more power. Fair tax is OK doesn’t really impact most of us I would assume, and does work in a lot of other states. I deal with other codes where Illinois is antiquated and the rest of the country is more progressive and it is frustrating. That being said if JB has a cloak and dagger approach, I do not want to give him any more ability to tax than he already does. Illinois politics are the ugliest thing I have ever seen. Just filthy. I have spent 4+ decades just watching what goes on here and it is soooooo amazing. I can at the same time be appalled by the moves and also have a respect for what has been gotten away with.

The fair tax doesn't change the brackets itself just gives them the ability to do so, but they've already said how they will change them if it is to pass. That will be a separate action, but the initial likely outcome is known (I posted it above).

[chitownsalesmen]

is there any polling data on this?

[dice]

every tax hike also...wait for it...RAISES REVENUES!

This is false.

provide some scintilla of evidence for your statement that flies in the face of common sense, please. just one example of a state raising income taxes and not getting a revenue bump out of it will be sufficient to continue the conversation. otherwise, i'm out

the "laffer curve" has been proven false time and time again in practical application. "trickle down" economics (raising revenue by cutting taxes) DOES NOT WORK. the right wing has been selling that line of BS since reagan was running for president. yet every time they cut taxes, revenues drop and deficits/debt increase. bush rightfully called it "voodoo economics":

Watch on YouTube

once again, politicians don't raise taxes unless they're very confident that revenue will increase. because raising taxes is politically risky to begin with, so not getting the increased revenue in exchange for spending political capital on a tax hike would be a political catastrophe. there's simply no way around that logic