OT: Illinois fair tax: yes or no?

Dominator83 · Post #1 » by **Dominator83** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 9:30 pm

I know this is a little OT, but most of us here still reside in Illinois so this will effect most of us here. Personally, i'm on the fence with this one. Now between both my jobs, i gross roughly 60 grand a year before taxes. So supposedly this new proposal wouldn't effect me. But why do I think that there is more to this than meets the eye? 97% of everybody will pay the same or less, yet this is supposed to bring in billions of dollars? Im not really buying it. Im sure alot of you here are much more educated on this stuff than me though. So what are your guys thoughts?

Leslie Forman · Post #2 » by **Leslie Forman** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 9:37 pm

Dominater wrote:Now between both my jobs, i gross roughly 60 grand a year before taxes. So supposedly this new proposal wouldn't effect me. But why do I think that there is more to this than meets the eye?

You would be paying less in taxes in commie pinko hellhole California under their progressive tax system. Don't drink the billionaire Kool-aid. Our flat tax system is absolutely stupid and awful.

drosestruts · Post #3 » by **drosestruts** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 9:40 pm

I am in favor of progressive tax systems in general, this bill could be better but I'm not going to stop progress in the name of perfection, so I'll be voting yes.

Post #4 » by **dougthonus** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 9:42 pm

Dominater wrote:I know this is a little OT, but most of us here still reside in Illinois so this will effect most of us here. Personally, i'm on the fence with this one. Now between both my jobs, i gross roughly 60 grand a year before taxes. So supposedly this new proposal wouldn't effect me. But why do I think that there is more to this than meets the eye? 97% of everybody will pay the same or less, yet this is supposed to bring in billions of dollars? Im not really buying it. Im sure alot of you here are much more educated on this stuff than me though. So what are your guys thoughts?

I'm a no.

In principle, I agree with graduated income tax, but I don't trust anyone in Illinois to not use this as a method to unilaterally tax the **** out of everyone within a few years. You're removing something that places severe limitations in how they tax, once it is gone, they can use this to abuse the tax system however they want in the future. Based on the amount of corruption and idiocy with money in this state, I wouldn't want them to have that power while they have shown a complete lack of competency around budgetary work so far.

I was reading that we project to be 3rd highest tax burden state in the country if this passes, but I'm not sure how true that really is. That said, graduated tax systems are more fair overall. For disclosure, from my brief looking, I think I come out neutral financially whether it passes or not.

iqureshi · Post #5 » by **iqureshi** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 9:46 pm

it would be fair for a few years, till politicians realize the only way out of their debt hole is tax us more.

PaKii94 · Post #6 » by **PaKii94** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 9:48 pm

I don't see how anything other than flat tax is fair for all. I think a flat tax already proportionally takes more from billionaires vs working class

meekrab · Post #7 » by **meekrab** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 9:58 pm

Flat taxes are regressive and hurt low income people. Why should someone like OP who makes 60k pay the same income tax rate as Ken Griffin who made over 800 million in 2018?

TheSuzerain · Post #8 » by **TheSuzerain** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 9:58 pm

On its own merits, it's a clear "yes".

But there are certainly limits to how progressive/graduated you can be with a state-tax before the people at the top move out, as leaving a state is a lot easier than leaving a country. You can certainly be a bit graduated/progressive though which this amendment allows for.

bad knees · Post #9 » by **bad knees** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 10:15 pm

A required flat tax is regressive. A progressive tax rate is much fairer. If the problem is that we can't trust our politicians, then we should do something about that. If they are corrupt, they can and will do whatever they want now, regardless of this vote, including raising our taxes.

Jcool0 · Post #10 » by **Jcool0** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 10:16 pm

iqureshi wrote:it would be fair for a few years, till politicians realize the only way out of their debt hole is tax us more.

That is kind of the point of doing this. They want to be able to tax the people with money more than the people without.

League Circles · Post #11 » by **League Circles** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 10:32 pm

Illinois seems like they're trying to get innovative on how to most quickly get high tax payers to leave the state in increasing numbers. So smart.....

Jcool0 · Post #12 » by **Jcool0** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 10:36 pm

League Circles wrote:Illinois seems like they're trying to get innovative on how to most quickly get high tax payers to leave the state in increasing numbers. So smart.....

34 states have some kind of graduated income tax.

League Circles · Post #13 » by **League Circles** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 11:00 pm

Jcool0 wrote:
League Circles wrote:Illinois seems like they're trying to get innovative on how to most quickly get high tax payers to leave the state in increasing numbers. So smart.....

34 states have some kind of graduated income tax.

And?

Illinois has been losing people in part because of how poorly our state government has been run, well, forever. In the numbers I was able to see, we were only 1 of 10 states to lose people in 2019. I can easily see this trend becoming worse with tax reform, to the extent that we actually lose tax revenue. We have to reduce spending.

Post #14 » by **Ice Man** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 11:10 pm

League Circles wrote:We have to reduce spending.

Perhaps, but that's a different topic than the best way to generate tax revenue. As for the Fair Tax amendment, it proposes to change from a flat tax rate, which is unusual in that most states and the federal government have graduated rates, to a graduated rate. There's nothing strange or nefarious about the proposal, this is a mainstream idea.

League Circles · Post #15 » by **League Circles** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 11:25 pm

Ice Man wrote:
League Circles wrote:We have to reduce spending.

Perhaps, but that's a different topic than the best way to generate tax revenue. As for the Fair Tax amendment, it proposes to change from a flat tax rate, which is unusual in that most states and the federal government have graduated rates, to a graduated rate. There's nothing strange or nefarious about the proposal, this is a mainstream idea.

It's a questionable way to try to increase tax revenue for a state that was already losing people before the proposed change.

Spending is really half of the topic of the budget, with tax revenue being the other half. They're fundamentally linked.

Post #16 » by **dougthonus** » Thu Oct 8, 2020 11:49 pm

PaKii94 wrote:I don't see how anything other than flat tax is fair for all. I think a flat tax already proportionally takes more from billionaires vs working class

Flat tax, as a percentage of disposable income, is often orders of magnitude more painful for people with less money. Beyond the fact that it takes a much greater percentage of their disposable income, as our society moves towards rewarding capital rather than labor, it also prevents people from generating capital.

ArmTriangle · Post #17 » by **ArmTriangle** » Fri Oct 9, 2020 12:29 am

Voting yes. If I'm ever fortunate enough to make more than $250,000, I'll have no problem with them taking 3 additional pennies from my $250,001st dollar and every one beyond.

4.8% for 0-250k and 7.8% for $250,001+ is much better than 6% for all.

TheStig · Post #18 » by **TheStig** » Fri Oct 9, 2020 1:21 am

Do you really trust the state government with more taxation authority? I don't. I still remember the temporary raise to 5%. Opppsss.

And it's not like there is some sort of noticeable cut for those in the lower bracket.

And please don't get me started on the property taxes. They keep pushing this stuff and there will be no one left to pay it.

TheStig · Post #19 » by **TheStig** » Fri Oct 9, 2020 1:26 am

League Circles wrote:Illinois seems like they're trying to get innovative on how to most quickly get high tax payers to leave the state in increasing numbers. So smart.....

Eh, it's really quite nice here for the rich. You can live in an A+ suburb that is low crime, excellent schools and quiet for a real nice price here. A fraction of what it would be in NY or CA or WA. If you want to be in/near a major metro it's really quite nice.

However for the average person, with sky high property taxes, income tax and misc regressive taxes, it pushes them out more.

Jcool0 · Post #20 » by **Jcool0** » Fri Oct 9, 2020 2:12 am

League Circles wrote:
Jcool0 wrote:
League Circles wrote:Illinois seems like they're trying to get innovative on how to most quickly get high tax payers to leave the state in increasing numbers. So smart.....

34 states have some kind of graduated income tax.

And?

Illinois has been losing people in part because of how poorly our state government has been run, well, forever. In the numbers I was able to see, we were only 1 of 10 states to lose people in 2019. I can easily see this trend becoming worse with tax reform, to the extent that we actually lose tax revenue. We have to reduce spending.

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.

What are you planning to vote?