OT: Illinois fair tax: yes or no?

[chitownsalesmen]

what personal benefit does pritzker get from raising taxes on himself? it could even hurt him politically

taxes are just surface level stuff, pritzker could easily raise taxes and still be profiting from being governor in other unforeseen ways, even legal ways.

In fact I would be surprised if he isn't profiting off of being governor in some manner, not dogging him or even really criticizing him thats just kinda how politics works.

So you have anything rooted in reality? This is vague, boogeyman kind of stuff, talking points that the anti-government rich republicans push onto the middle class.

I’m kind of surprised at the anti Pritzker rhetoric. I know people didn’t like him before he was elected. Legalizing marijuana quickly, a strong and effective Covid-19 response, raising the minimum wage, and now a tax on the rich, what is actually happening that has many people speaking this way? Like, actual facts? I’m not a political savant, so am more curious as to the thought process of many in this board.

I'm sorry I'm skeptical of billionaire politicians I know I need to be more open-minded.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

taxes are just surface level stuff, pritzker could easily raise taxes and still be profiting from being governor in other unforeseen ways, even legal ways.

In fact I would be surprised if he isn't profiting off of being governor in some manner, not dogging him or even really criticizing him thats just kinda how politics works.

So you have anything rooted in reality? This is vague, boogeyman kind of stuff, talking points that the anti-government rich republicans push onto the middle class.

I’m kind of surprised at the anti Pritzker rhetoric. I know people didn’t like him before he was elected. Legalizing marijuana quickly, a strong and effective Covid-19 response, raising the minimum wage, and now a tax on the rich, what is actually happening that has many people speaking this way? Like, actual facts? I’m not a political savant, so am more curious as to the thought process of many in this board.

I'm sorry I'm skeptical of billionaire politicians I know I need to be more open-minded.

I mean, based on this poll, the majority are with you.

And if a poll on a progressive tax rate on an NBA message board is against it, boy, that doesn’t bode well for the the Fair Tax passing. (Very small sample size obviously)

[chitownsalesmen]

So you have anything rooted in reality? This is vague, boogeyman kind of stuff, talking points that the anti-government rich republicans push onto the middle class.

I’m kind of surprised at the anti Pritzker rhetoric. I know people didn’t like him before he was elected. Legalizing marijuana quickly, a strong and effective Covid-19 response, raising the minimum wage, and now a tax on the rich, what is actually happening that has many people speaking this way? Like, actual facts? I’m not a political savant, so am more curious as to the thought process of many in this board.

I'm sorry I'm skeptical of billionaire politicians I know I need to be more open-minded.

I mean, based on this poll, the majority are with you.

And if a poll on a progressive tax rate on an NBA message board is against it, boy, that doesn’t bode well for the the Fair Tax passing. (Very small sample size obviously)

My statement was in-regards to Pritzker not specifically this bill.

Also, while this is an NBA message board the Bulls board is populated with a lot of long time posters, the demographic here might skew a touch older and thus more conservative then general Illinois voting base.

[WookieOnRitalin]

I am so glad I left Illinois years ago.

After living in TN for the last 11 years, it has been very rewarding to not deal with an incompetent state government. We do not have a state income tax and only a 9.25% sales tax. It's amazing how you can manage to run a state without taxing the hell out of the populace.

[Michael Jackson]

what personal benefit does pritzker get from raising taxes on himself? it could even hurt him politically

taxes are just surface level stuff, pritzker could easily raise taxes and still be profiting from being governor in other unforeseen ways, even legal ways.

In fact I would be surprised if he isn't profiting off of being governor in some manner, not dogging him or even really criticizing him thats just kinda how politics works.

So you have anything rooted in reality? This is vague, boogeyman kind of stuff, talking points that the anti-government rich republicans push onto the middle class.

I’m kind of surprised at the anti Pritzker rhetoric. I know people didn’t like him before he was elected. Legalizing marijuana quickly, a strong and effective Covid-19 response, raising the minimum wage, and now a tax on the rich, what is actually happening that has many people speaking this way? Like, actual facts? I’m not a political savant, so am more curious as to the thought process of many in this board.

Hard to like any politician elected in Illinois. Honestly as crooked as the Daley’s were they had the most impact for positive good imho.

With Pritzker it’s hard to believe his philanthropy is pure altruism. Not saying all he does is for his gain and evil by any means. Nothing is all this or all that. I also know people who do business with JB and since his governorship has started things have gone very well for them and they were not in need. With all government I just never buy at face value. I don’t expect clean politicians because it is an impossibility with how things are run. I don’t hate higher taxes at all to be honest because well I am one who believes the services we need absolutely have to be paid for. Are the services being paid for though or is the money going to overpay on jobs, for those who have taxation as a reward for paying their taxes. There isn’t really a side in this as far as political parties, it is how this works and in Illinois it is a bigger part of the machine than it is in other places.

It’s hard for me to trust a fair tax, while on paper it looks great. The problem is the wealthy always dodge the taxes, some way shape or form. The rest of us pick up the slack. Doesn’t matter who is in office honestly, I mean for one wealthy person to the next it might but if their friends are in it will be slanted for them. By saying we are taxing the rich, they can say they are increasing spending on many needed and positive things, yet the people supposedly funding these things find all the dodges or are granted them. The burden then does trickle down. I do agree making it harder for them to dodge taxes (because that is the problem the wealthy can afford good lawyers to avoid taxation) is super great, because they mostly aren’t paying their “fair” share. With this particular bill though I wonder what it does, I just feel we the people end up paying a higher rate because the ones paying always fin the loopholes.

The real issue for me with politics is that there is very little in actual causes, just a lot of pandering to groups of constitutes. You chose a side and pander to that group looking for their votes, not truly because it is what you believe. It’s he best chance to win. For one damn second does anyone really believe Trump truly cares deeply about religion or Roe v Wade or is he only concerned with what gets him in office? My gut tells me it is simply for votes. I think we can parse enough facts to prove that his stances are political means only. Same goes not for just the GOP but also Democratic Party.

AK loved the Denver Nuggets, now he loves the Bulls. Being disconnected from the actual emotions of these things is part of the political job. It’s not saying that there are no good intentions, there surely are and some have better intentions than others (like to believe Sanders does but that is just a guess) but there is such a cost to play the political game you can no longer really have your own thoughts, even at the highest office. You are always “playing”.

Yet Anarchy is not a solution. So we need government and for he most part it looks good on paper, it’s jut that the rich and powerful run the game no matter what mask they show us.

[PaKii94]

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

Wait, what? That's quite literally, wrong. How you came to that conclusion is baffling. It's a basic math equation. A flat tax disproportionately affects lower income earners.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

It is a basic math equation. The tax burden should be divided equally/proportionally among the citizens. You don't see how a graduated system IS the inequality? It's literally setup as an inequality:

If income < x: tax rate = y

If it's too high for the working class then the problem is the tax and system itself. Maybe the way taxes are distributed should be looked at instead. We have quite a bit of a big military industrial thing going on

[dice]

I am so glad I left Illinois years ago.

After living in TN for the last 11 years, it has been very rewarding to not deal with an incompetent state government. We do not have a state income tax and only a 9.25% sales tax. It's amazing how you can manage to run a state without taxing the hell out of the populace.

well, let's see...

total state tax burden:

9.62% illinois
6.18% tennessee

uninsured children:

4.03% IL
5.03% TN

uninsured adults:

8.45% IL
11.74% TN

college readiness ranking of HS graduates according to test scores:

3 IL
37 TN

seems to me that that extra 3.44% in taxes does some good

[Senor Chang]

I'm a hard no here. Why not instead try spending responsibly for a change? What we need is pension reform, or maybe making Cook county a separate state. That might solve the problem right there.

[Leslie Forman]

After living in TN for the last 11 years, it has been very rewarding to not deal with an incompetent state government. We do not have a state income tax and only a 9.25% sales tax. It's amazing how you can manage to run a state without taxing the hell out of the populace.

I mean, Illinois would probably have lower taxes too if everyone was cool with much worse education, crime rates, life expectancy, and a job market that pays 20% less salary…

It is a basic math equation. The tax burden should be divided equally/proportionally among the citizens. You don't see how a graduated system IS the inequality? It's literally setup as an inequality:

If income < x: tax rate = y

Do you seriously not understand why $4000 to someone who makes $40,000 is very, very different from $4,000,000 to someone who makes $40,000,000?

[MrSparkle]

I want a graduated state tax but have my concerns for what this state does with another few billion dollars. Also, can’t mega wealthy business owners just use their 2nd address in another state? Also, the timing is brutal. You’ve had city/state-ditchers due to covid, looting, downtown kind of looks like a shadow of its old self - dare I say hints of Detroit depending which block or expressway exit.

It’s very annoying that there was no mention of pension reform on the ballot, in the public-questions section. Anyway, curious to see which way this goes.

In theory this should help the middle class. But IL/Chicago fiscal policy has basically just been a long-time rise to make it more expensive living here while 60yo retirees collect 4+ pensions at a time. It’s not even comparable to NYC.

Yes, ideologically a graduated tax makes sense at every level. What’s annoying is all the revenue Chicago generates which rural red IL benefits from. Maintaining a 1st rate city isn’t like baking a pie; it has its complications. And its huge socio-economic benefits. Frankly I don’t know - the language on the ballot and for the bill doesn’t really tell you what the IL gov has in mind for the next 3 years. Is the goal to make life in Chicago as expensive as NYC, while having 1/10th of the glamor and economic ceiling? Who knows.

The problem is IL and Chicago already get you with so many high taxes across the board, with a diminishing quality of life the last few years IMO. I understand that developments boost property values yada yada, but I do miss pre-2010 Chicago and feel like 2020's impacts are gonna make it more of a large-scale Winnetka on the East side, a large-scale Roger's Park on the Northwest side, and the Southside is gonna continue having a drought of opportunities. Lot of outside money is coming in, and a lot of inside money is moving out. Thing is, I don't think we're gonna see that outside money in the form of graduate high-bracket taxes, cause investors keep their bank accounts in tax havens.

Everyone keeps saying the pensions are a separate problem.. as far as I see it, they are the loudest exclamation mark of the problem with IL taxes. I'm all for public school and Chicago, but geez - you guys have any friends on Chicago payroll? I know it's changed a bit, but I've met people with 5 active pensions, some for things like being on a commission board where you went to a meeting twice a year. It's insane. Like I said, even New Yorkers gasp when they look at the Chicago pension budget. It is insane.

[Jimako10]

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

Wait, what? That's quite literally, wrong. How you came to that conclusion is baffling. It's a basic math equation. A flat tax disproportionately affects lower income earners.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

It is a basic math equation. The tax burden should be divided equally/proportionally among the citizens. You don't see how a graduated system IS the inequality? It's literally setup as an inequality:

If income < x: tax rate = y

If it's too high for the working class then the problem is the tax and system itself. Maybe the way taxes are distributed should be looked at instead. We have quite a bit of a big military industrial thing going on

I'm not an economist but I don't think it's that simple. You have to take into account buying power, which would disproportionately affect the lower/middle class.

[drosestruts]

I'm a hard no here. Why not instead try spending responsibly for a change? What we need is pension reform, or maybe making Cook county a separate state. That might solve the problem right there.

Why can't we have a progressive tax scale, spend more responsibility, and tackle pension reform?

The new tax system would be good - let the other issues be other issues you continue to advocate and vote on. Why are so many here hung up on what this doesn't do?

Also your last point, not sure what side of the fence you're on there as it's kind of unclear to me, but making cook county it's own state would be great for cook county. The rest of the state however...... would be in shambles.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

I'm a hard no here. Why not instead try spending responsibly for a change? What we need is pension reform, or maybe making Cook county a separate state. That might solve the problem right there.

Why can't we have a progressive tax scale, spend more responsibility, and tackle pension reform?

The new tax system would be good - let the other issues be other issues you continue to advocate and vote on. Why are so many here hung up on what this doesn't do?

Also your last point, not sure what side of the fence you're on there as it's kind of unclear to me, but making cook county it's own state would be great for cook county. The rest of the state however...... would be in shambles.

Well said.

To spin it back to Bulls basketball, it's like someone saying we shouldn't improve through the NBA draft because the best route to improve is through Free Agency. Why not try multiple avenues for improvement?

[MrSparkle]

I'm a hard no here. Why not instead try spending responsibly for a change? What we need is pension reform, or maybe making Cook county a separate state. That might solve the problem right there.

Why can't we have a progressive tax scale, spend more responsibility, and tackle pension reform?

The new tax system would be good - let the other issues be other issues you continue to advocate and vote on. Why are so many here hung up on what this doesn't do?

Also your last point, not sure what side of the fence you're on there as it's kind of unclear to me, but making cook county it's own state would be great for cook county. The rest of the state however...... would be in shambles.

Well said.

To spin it back to Bulls basketball, it's like someone saying we shouldn't improve through the NBA draft because the best route to improve is through Free Agency. Why not try multiple avenues for improvement?

I don't think I buy the analogy. Reinsdorf has been on the small NBA's extreme end of frugality considering his excess income since the Jordan days. Chicago has been on the extreme end of spending since the dawn of time, squandering many spikes of handed wealth and economic prosperity with reckless fiscal decisions - primarily having to do with pensions.

I'd say this is more like the Dolan Knicks, who think the only way to make their basketball team better is to continue adding long guaranteed max contracts: Marburys, Eddy Currys and a fat MLE for Jerome James.

Chicago/IL does have a legitimate budget problem. The politicians I've personally preferred (Daniel Biss) acknowledge it, and talked about figuring out a way to address pensions. Pritzker and Lightfoot seem to think that paying out of it is the only way - of course they simply said whatever would get the city unions to vote for them. Then they challenged them. Then they succumbed again. Sounds like a 4-year re-election plan rather than a 10-20 year investment into the city.

FWIW I don't think Pritzker is an enemy of the state. I prefer him to Bruce Rauner, who seemed like a jerk personally, but honestly but I don't think Rauner was wrong in theory to challenge the IL/CHI internal Democratic machine. He also tried to make term limits, which freaked the hell out of our many pension-earning IL politicians. Not all so rosy.

[FecesOfDeath]

Basically it would compel all the businesses in the border parts of the state that can move move to its more tax-friendly neighbors Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, or Wisconsin, which would lower Illinois' tax base and ultimately lead to lower tax revenues for the state. It's a proposal that's meant to appeal to the most ignorant of masses who can't forsee the unintended consequences of its potential passage.

[dougthonus]

It is a basic math equation. The tax burden should be divided equally/proportionally among the citizens. You don't see how a graduated system IS the inequality? It's literally setup as an inequality:

If income < x: tax rate = y

If it's too high for the working class then the problem is the tax and system itself. Maybe the way taxes are distributed should be looked at instead. We have quite a bit of a big military industrial thing going on

This gets into a philosophical debate, but I would disagree.

Because people can make money in two basic ways:
1: Labor
2: Capital

Having a tax split evenly stops people with less money from earning capital, which means over time, they will make less and less relative to the people whom can earn on capital.

Also, over time, the earnings of laborers has reduced significantly relative to the earnings of capital holders (ie, the wealthy are getting increasing more wealthy). This is especially true relative to inflation. Laborers today face much greater costs of college, housing and ohter things without significant wage rises to accompany those costs.

Now if you are okay with a society where the wealthy get increasingly more wealthy and the poor lose increasing amounts of power and that most wealth is generated through ownership of capital rather than labor (and thus, we can ignore there being a meritocracy, because at this point the only merit is already having money) then you should push for taxes which regressively harm the lower class (such as flat taxes and sales taxes) instead of ones that redistribute money from wealthy to everyone else (wealth taxes, higher capital gains taxes, graduated income taxes, estate taxes).

Granted, as you try and change this equation, you take on other consequences that may not be desirable, super wealthy people may spend money to create / avoid tax and may take money out of the country or hide it. You may discourage people from living in your area (if it is a state tax), you may cause a lack of investment or drying up of capital which leads to loss of jobs/labor or other negative outcomes. It isn't an entirely cut and dry solution no matter what anyone thinks, but over time our poor are getting poorer with fewer options while our wealthy are getting wealthier and hoarding that wealth. That's a trend that I think is bad and should be reversed. How you want to do that is obviously complicated though.

[PaKii94]

It is a basic math equation. The tax burden should be divided equally/proportionally among the citizens. You don't see how a graduated system IS the inequality? It's literally setup as an inequality:

If income < x: tax rate = y

If it's too high for the working class then the problem is the tax and system itself. Maybe the way taxes are distributed should be looked at instead. We have quite a bit of a big military industrial thing going on

This gets into a philosophical debate, but I would disagree.

Because people can make money in two basic ways:
1: Labor
2: Capital

Having a tax split evenly stops people with less money from earning capital, which means over time, they will make less and less relative to the people whom can earn on capital.

Also, over time, the earnings of laborers has reduced significantly relative to the earnings of capital holders (ie, the wealthy are getting increasing more wealthy). This is especially true relative to inflation. Laborers today face much greater costs of college, housing and ohter things without significant wage rises to accompany those costs.

Now if you are okay with a society where the wealthy get increasingly more wealthy and the poor lose increasing amounts of power and that most wealth is generated through ownership of capital rather than labor (and thus, we can ignore there being a meritocracy, because at this point the only merit is already having money) then you should push for taxes which regressively harm the lower class (such as flat taxes and sales taxes) instead of ones that redistribute money from wealthy to everyone else (wealth taxes, higher capital gains taxes, graduated income taxes, estate taxes).

Granted, as you try and change this equation, you take on other consequences that may not be desirable, super wealthy people may spend money to create / avoid tax and may take money out of the country or hide it. You may discourage people from living in your area (if it is a state tax), you may cause a lack of investment or drying up of capital which leads to loss of jobs/labor or other negative outcomes. It isn't an entirely cut and dry solution no matter what anyone thinks, but over time our poor are getting poorer with fewer options while our wealthy are getting wealthier and hoarding that wealth. That's a trend that I think is bad and should be reversed. How you want to do that is obviously complicated though.

I understand all of that. However to me this kind of stuff is putting a bandaid on a broken bone. Yes it provides some structural support/improvement from doing nothing but it doesn't address the core problem (the increasing wealth inequality) and it causes some complacency. "We already addressed the broken bone with a bandaid do we really need to do more?"


I completely agree that the wealth inequality is getting out of hand but that's not going to be solved by a graduated tax. The time is better used addressing the loopholes people with capital take advantage of to gain that wealth.

Also as other people have said, the rich can much more easily get up and leave, leaving the working class to deal with a negative feedback loop

Fundamentally I want lower taxes for all, better tax revenue management, and hopefully ( probably too idealistic) the wealthy investing their money back into society to help humanity advance for the better. Unfortunately the natural state of the world is greed and hoarding as much as possible which causes forced redistribution of wealth but at that point again the game becomes loopholes and dodges that only the wealthy have access to

[jnrjr79]

I am so glad I left Illinois years ago.

After living in TN for the last 11 years, it has been very rewarding to not deal with an incompetent state government. We do not have a state income tax and only a 9.25% sales tax. It's amazing how you can manage to run a state without taxing the hell out of the populace.

well, let's see...

total state tax burden:

9.62% illinois
6.18% tennessee

uninsured children:

4.03% IL
5.03% TN

uninsured adults:

8.45% IL
11.74% TN

college readiness ranking of HS graduates according to test scores:

3 IL
37 TN

seems to me that that extra 3.44% in taxes does some good

Don't forget TN had one of the dumbest responses to COVID in the country.

[meekrab]

I am so glad I left Illinois years ago.

After living in TN for the last 11 years, it has been very rewarding to not deal with an incompetent state government. We do not have a state income tax and only a 9.25% sales tax. It's amazing how you can manage to run a state without taxing the hell out of the populace.

You're joking right? Tennessee is living off other states' prosperity, you leeches get the third most federal money in the country, only behind Mississippi and Louisiana, two other cesspools of financial dishonesty.

https://ballotpedia.org/Tennessee_state_budget_and_finances

https://ballotpedia.org/Illinois_state_budget_and_finances

[dice]

Basically it would compel all the businesses in the border parts of the state that can move move to its more tax-friendly neighbors Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, or Wisconsin, which would lower Illinois' tax base and ultimately lead to lower tax revenues for the state. It's a proposal that's meant to appeal to the most ignorant of masses who can't forsee the unintended consequences of its potential passage.

the ignorant masses buy into the idea that a higher PERSONAL INCOME TAX on the wealthy will somehow drive away a lot of businesses. the very same people who bought into the baseless fearmongering about obamacare ("it'll ruin the economy!")

again, please at least present an example of a personal income tax hike leading to decreased revenues if you're going to pretend that's a real world possibility

i already showed how california's exorbitant top income tax rates have greatly increased revenue. so now let's pick a state completely at random...ohio...

ohio implemented a progressive income tax in 1972, partly in order to keep business taxes low and PREVENT businesses from leaving. by that completely sound logic, illinois passing the fair tax reduces the chance that taxes/fees will be raised on businesses instead, which would obviously be bad for the economy. in other words, passing the fair tax would be GOOD news for businesses wary of having to pay more in taxes

as for the revenue, ohio, in contrast to california, has been steadily cutting their income tax rate over the last 15 years. the results in personal income tax revenue:

2005 7.2% 9.6 bil
2006 6.9% 9.7 bil
2007 6.6% 9.8 bil
2008 6.2% 8.3 bil (economic devastation)
2009 6.2% 7.9 bil (ditto)

2010 6.2% 8.8 bil (recovery)
2011 5.9% 9.0 bil
2012 5.9% 9.9 bil
2013 5.4% 8.4 bil
2014 5.3% 8.9 bil
2015 5.0% 8.2 bil
2016 5.0% 8.0 bil
2017 5.0% 8.8 bil
2018 5.0% 9.3 bil
2019 4.8% 8.3 bil (best economy in 60 years)

from 2010 through 2019 the economy went from horrific to terrific. yet ohio's income tax collections have been stagnant. because the rate declined from 6.2% to 4.8%. completely predictable, common sense outcome