Can Rauner save Illinois? (contractor, DMV, wage)

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Liledgy

Bru, I can assure you I will pay more in taxes. I recieve quite a bit in capitals gains too. And I am under taxed on those too.

I think higher taxes are only part of the answer. Reform is the other part. I agree with Rauner in that any tax increase should be accompanied by a serious plan for reform.

[frostopsy]

Originally Posted by BRU67

I think higher taxes are only part of the answer. Reform is the other part. I agree with Rauner in that any tax increase should be accompanied by a serious plan for reform.

We are one of the highest taxed states in the country, and the 5 years of increased business and corporate income taxes didn't do a damn thing to fix the budget problem. Quinn and the Dems just spent more money. Illinois has a spending problem, and it's mostly due in part to public employees taking in overly generous pensions. Like in the high 5s and a 6 figure mark.

[compactspace]

Originally Posted by frostopsy

We are one of the highest taxed states in the country, and the 5 years of increased business and corporate income taxes didn't do a damn thing to fix the budget problem. Quinn and the Dems just spent more money. Illinois has a spending problem, and it's mostly due in part to public employees taking in overly generous pensions. Like in the high 5s and a 6 figure mark.

I think Illinois might be the highest taxing state, all told, although that's difficult to verify since different classes of people are taxed at different rates all over the country.

And I'd like to emphasize that that's not necessarily at all a bad thing. With a well-run government (yes, there are many of them out there), taxes provide quality infrastructure and services with an economy of scale that's simply impossible under a more 'every man for himself' regime. I'm probably not taxed enough where I live and I'd be fine paying more... but not if I were in Illinois.

Because Illinois indeed has a spending problem. Now that doesn't mean it needs to spend less. It does mean it needs to spend better. There is so much sand in the gears that the state needs a thorough cleanout. If Illinois spent its taxes on actually improving the state, instead of lining the pockets of pensioneers and the pals of office-holders, it would raise the standard of living for everybody inside its borders -- and I'd say that most people wouldn't be so upset about handing over a piece of their income.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by compactspace

I think Illinois might be the highest taxing state, all told, although that's difficult to verify since different classes of people are taxed at different rates all over the country.

And I'd like to emphasize that that's not necessarily at all a bad thing. With a well-run government (yes, there are many of them out there), taxes provide quality infrastructure and services with an economy of scale that's simply impossible under a more 'every man for himself' regime. I'm probably not taxed enough where I live and I'd be fine paying more... but not if I were in Illinois.

Because Illinois indeed has a spending problem. Now that doesn't mean it needs to spend less. It does mean it needs to spend better. There is so much sand in the gears that the state needs a thorough cleanout. If Illinois spent its taxes on actually improving the state, instead of lining the pockets of pensioneers and the pals of office-holders, it would raise the standard of living for everybody inside its borders -- and I'd say that most people wouldn't be so upset about handing over a piece of their income.

Then why won't voters in this State elect people who will run a more balanced budget? That's what I don't understand. Madigan has proven he's an utter failure, having presided over the facts that led to the situation we're in now. Yet he won in a landslide. Do these people really believe that Rauner caused the present issues?

[Maintainschaos]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Then why won't voters in this State elect people who will run a more balanced budget? That's what I don't understand. Madigan has proven he's an utter failure, having presided over the facts that led to the situation we're in now. Yet he won in a landslide. Do these people really believe that Rauner caused the present issues?

One important point here is that Madigan is only elected by the voters of his district (in 2016, he captured only ~16,000(!!) votes in the primary, and only ~22,000 votes for his reelection in 2012). Crazy that the presence of such a powerful curmudgeon was decided by the number of people roughly living in Belvidere. If there were a referendum such that the entire state voted for/against Madigan, he'd be gone.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

One important point here is that Madigan is only elected by the voters of his district (in 2016, he captured only ~16,000(!!) votes in the primary, and only ~22,000 votes for his reelection in 2012). Crazy that the presence of such a powerful curmudgeon was decided by the number of people roughly living in Belvidere. If there were a referendum such that the entire state voted for/against Madigan, he'd be gone.

This is a legitimate problem. Far too many of his constituents vote for him because he's "their guy" and "looks out" for them. Madigan doesn't give a flying **** about the well-being of his constituents. The sooner they realize this and that we're all on the same sinking ship, the better. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Just for clarity: Your property won't be worth more because you have a crook as a State rep. In actuality, your property may well end up being worth less because of him and his unsustainable governing practices.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Maintainschaos

One important point here is that Madigan is only elected by the voters of his district (in 2016, he captured only ~16,000(!!) votes in the primary, and only ~22,000 votes for his reelection in 2012). Crazy that the presence of such a powerful curmudgeon was decided by the number of people roughly living in Belvidere. If there were a referendum such that the entire state voted for/against Madigan, he'd be gone.

Well, that's not how it works so it's kind of an irrelevant point. The bottom line is the voters elected him back in. What ifs really don't matter.

[Liledgy]

Useing your logic, over 69% of the state voted in favor of the millionaires tax (the whole state). Over 64% (of the whole state) voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour. So, that's what should be done because the whole state voted for it overwhelmingly.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Liledgy

Useing your logic, over 69% of the state voted in favor of the millionaires tax (the whole state). Over 64% (of the whole state) voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour. So, that's what should be done because the whole state voted for it overwhelmingly.

Under who's logic?

The voters approved a non-binding advisory referendum in November 2014 to raise the MW from $8.25 to $10/hour. That same election, they also approved an advisory referendum supporting a 3% tax increase on income over $1 million to help fund education in Illinois. The vote was about 65%, not 69%. Your reporting errors aside, what do these non-binding advisory referenda have to do with our discussion here?

[Liledgy]

Originally Posted by BRU67

Instead of raising taxes, I think it would be a better idea to lower our cost of labor, live within a balanced budget, and attract skilled employees, capital, jobs and investment through low taxes. If it takes a bankruptcy to do that, so be it.

Ha lower the cost of labor, and in your next breath,attract skilled employees. Your are special.