Graduated Income Tax - is this true? (Chicago: sales, real estate)

[TBideon]

Nothing is more important than pension relief. The state has to change the constitution and renegotiate those legacy costs. Everything else is just pennies and ineffective.

[jonnynonos]

TBH I don’t know much about Illinois state finances. From what I have seen in Chicago, I find the idea of taking close to 10% of anyone’s income and commandeering it for living in the state of Illinois reprehensible. My impression of state spending, while not overly nuanced, is not positive.

Yet state services cost money, and gutting them is not good for anyone.

It seems we and many others are in or close to a chickens coming home to roost phase for decades upon decades of irresponsible spending.

I’ll probably reject the graduated income tax.

Yes, my personal taxes could go up marginally as a result, but maybe that would be a good thing. Maybe the more skin we all have in the game the more we’ll pay attention to who we elect and how they are spending our money.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by ChicagoDavid

I think part of all of this is their avoidance of pension reform. It’s about as likely as 20% income tax. Back to the drawing board, again.

A 20% increase. Meaning 20% of 4.95, 1.19, moving the flat tax to 6.14.

That said, it is likely a scare tactic in that a) they are counting on people misinterpreting it, and b) it probably wouldn’t be that high.

[deeman7]

Originally Posted by ChicagoDavid

20% income tax hike? Yeah, I'd like to see that.

Well the tax rate is 5% right? So 20% of that is 1% so they'd raise it up to 6%.


Which sucks, because its like 'vote for our proposal where we promise to only tax the rich more' or we'll tax everyone more. It stinks any way you slice it.

[deeman7]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

A 20% increase. Meaning 20% of 4.95, 1.19, moving the flat tax to 6.14.

That said, it is likely a scare tactic in that a) they are counting on people misinterpreting it, and b) it probably wouldn’t be that high.

Originally Posted by deeman7

Well the tax rate is 5% right? So 20% of that is 1% so they'd raise it up to 6%.


Which sucks, because its like 'vote for our proposal where we promise to only tax the rich more' or we'll tax everyone more. It stinks any way you slice it.

<IMG>Spider-man pointing meme.jpg</IMG>

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by TBideon

Nothing is more important than pension relief. The state has to change the constitution and renegotiate those legacy costs. Everything else is just pennies and ineffective.

Even if you believe in the premise of graduated income tax (personally I'm open to the general idea but do not support it here due to the well-established financial irresponsibility of our government), voting "no" means they'll have to go back to the drawing board, and include pension reform possibly, which is what we need. If you just give them the power to tax in absence of other reforms, then the most likely result will be a loss of jobs and revenue as wealthy people (who pay high property taxes and often run businesses that provide jobs) flee to more tax-friendly states. That'll then move the definition of "rich" downward.

So I say strongly consider voting "no" for the "Fair" tax. Fair my butt, LOL!

[Kmanshouse]

Originally Posted by wjj

What she is saying is that the current flat rate could rise by 20%, up to a 6% flat rate. Clearly a scare tactic especially knowing people are not so good at math these days (say perhaps CPS students?). She could have said a 1 percentage point rise in the rate, but that would not be so scary, would it. What she doesn't say is that approving the tax hike opens a Pandora's box where the legislature can both raise rates and compress brackets at the same time, at will, to greatly increase taxes on everyone. Just as an example, look at what California has done with their graduated tax that makes the "rich" pay their fair share. The threshold to get to the 9.3% tax bracket (far above the Illinois proposed Illinois millionaire bracket) is income of just under $58,000! Yeah, that is really rich. It is a very slippery slope and Illinois politicians cannot be trusted to not do the same thing. People just do not understand what happens when a nominal rate is increased a little to sell it to voters while compressing brackets a lot at the same time. Again, look at what California did. The next bracket up from 9.3% does not kick in until about $300,000. To get more money from the vast majority of residents they compressed brackets all the way down to capture the majority of middle class residents which is where the real money is. You need volume especially after the people of means get out of Dodge leaving behind mostly those $60K/year people who are newly defined as rich and not paying their fair share. You may say that Illinois and California is comparing apples and oranges. It is not when you look at the primary reason this happens. A stranglehold on all levels of government by tax and spend democrats.

This, right here, is exactly why I'm voting NO on the "fair tax".

If they really wanted to change the constitution to allow for pension cut backs, ahem, reform, then they should have proposed a different bill to do so.

Just killing the pension COLA would go a long way. Most pensions don't have COLAs.

[BRU67]

I'd also like to add that if you're a staunch Democrat with confidence in your national ticket, then it is likely you're going to end up with a Federal bailout if they do as well as the polls are saying. So there's no need to vote for this referendum, even if you bleed Democrat blue.

[Grlzrl]

Originally Posted by wjj

What she is saying is that the current flat rate could rise by 20%, up to a 6% flat rate. Clearly a scare tactic especially knowing people are not so good at math these days (say perhaps CPS students?). She could have said a 1 percentage point rise in the rate, but that would not be so scary, would it. What she doesn't say is that approving the tax hike opens a Pandora's box where the legislature can both raise rates and compress brackets at the same time, at will, to greatly increase taxes on everyone. Just as an example, look at what California has done with their graduated tax that makes the "rich" pay their fair share. The threshold to get to the 9.3% tax bracket (far above the Illinois proposed Illinois millionaire bracket) is income of just under $58,000! Yeah, that is really rich. It is a very slippery slope and Illinois politicians cannot be trusted to not do the same thing. People just do not understand what happens when a nominal rate is increased a little to sell it to voters while compressing brackets a lot at the same time. Again, look at what California did. The next bracket up from 9.3% does not kick in until about $300,000. To get more money from the vast majority of residents they compressed brackets all the way down to capture the majority of middle class residents which is where the real money is. You need volume especially after the people of means get out of Dodge leaving behind mostly those $60K/year people who are newly defined as rich and not paying their fair share. You may say that Illinois and California is comparing apples and oranges. It is not when you look at the primary reason this happens. A stranglehold on all levels of government by tax and spend democrats.

Maybe she should mention how they already raised it 67-100% back in 2016. 100% on higher earners by eliminating property tax deductions on people making over $500k.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by wjj

What she is saying is that the current flat rate could rise by 20%, up to a 6% flat rate. Clearly a scare tactic especially knowing people are not so good at math these days (say perhaps CPS students?). She could have said a 1 percentage point rise in the rate, but that would not be so scary, would it. What she doesn't say is that approving the tax hike opens a Pandora's box where the legislature can both raise rates and compress brackets at the same time, at will, to greatly increase taxes on everyone. Just as an example, look at what California has done with their graduated tax that makes the "rich" pay their fair share. The threshold to get to the 9.3% tax bracket (far above the Illinois proposed Illinois millionaire bracket) is income of just under $58,000! Yeah, that is really rich. It is a very slippery slope and Illinois politicians cannot be trusted to not do the same thing. People just do not understand what happens when a nominal rate is increased a little to sell it to voters while compressing brackets a lot at the same time. Again, look at what California did. The next bracket up from 9.3% does not kick in until about $300,000. To get more money from the vast majority of residents they compressed brackets all the way down to capture the majority of middle class residents which is where the real money is. You need volume especially after the people of means get out of Dodge leaving behind mostly those $60K/year people who are newly defined as rich and not paying their fair share. You may say that Illinois and California is comparing apples and oranges. It is not when you look at the primary reason this happens. A stranglehold on all levels of government by tax and spend democrats.

Great post.

This actually cuts through the issue far more clearly than any media coverage I have seen/read.

The media so often “qualifies” things or just spits the party lines without adding context when it suits them.

All news coverage should be cutting to the chase like this.