Why JB got elected (Chicago: insurance, incomes, property tax)

[dtcbnd03]

1. I applaud Rauner for his efforts to stop Madigan, bring structural change and for being a fiscal conservative / social liberal but he was a total failure with his fake blue collar costumes (as Justabystander said) and I lost a lot of respect for him when he tried to give away the nomination to others cause he gave up.

2. JB won cause Rauner was ineffective and gave up...and cause of the Trump effect..and cause its easy to win as a democrat in Illinois

3. I'm all for the progressive income tax but ONLY if that constitutional amendment is tied to a pension reduction amendment

[CentralUSHomeowner]

Rauner couldn't get anything done because he was working with an "ineffective" general assembly and he strayed from the base that elected him.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by bobsell

How is taking money out of the economy with more taxes, will "infuse the economy with dollars"?
Oh wait, you're talking about infusing CRONIES with dollars. Not the regular folks.

An additional ten percent into the state coffers each year will allow for a large infrastructure spend, which is sorely needed. It should also allow the state to start paying down the pension ramp, and may even get our credit rating improved, which would save significantly on interest costs. But please don't get me wrong, it will be more of a "mask" than a "fix". The "fix" has to be making the state more competitive to business, and making it less repulsive to average taxpayers by bringing real estate taxes back toward the median US rates (maybe 1.5% of real property values). But paying off "cronies"? Unfortunately, that will happen as well, but Illinois wouldn't be Illinois without that.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

An additional ten percent into the state coffers each year will allow for a large infrastructure spend, which is sorely needed. It should also allow the state to start paying down the pension ramp, and may even get our credit rating improved, which would save significantly on interest costs. But please don't get me wrong, it will be more of a "mask" than a "fix". The "fix" has to be making the state more competitive to business, and making it less repulsive to average taxpayers by bringing real estate taxes back toward the median US rates (maybe 1.5% of real property values). But paying off "cronies"? Unfortunately, that will happen as well, but Illinois wouldn't be Illinois without that.

What if people and businesses start moving because they don't want to pay the tax? That's especially a concern given you'd be adding that extra 10% on to residents and businesses who are already pretty highly taxed, and being tempted by neighboring states which offer much lower tax burdens. You'd also have to convince them that money wouldn't be wasted.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by BRU67

What if people and businesses start moving because they don't want to pay the tax? That's especially a concern given you'd be adding that extra 10% on to residents and businesses who are already pretty highly taxed, and being tempted by neighboring states which offer much lower tax burdens. You'd also have to convince them that money wouldn't be wasted.

That's already happening, mostly among the poor and middle class. The "wealthy", I believe, are staying put, as they own the businesses and have professions they cannot reproduce anywhere else (school superintendents who make $200K per year, lawyers with good practices, surgeons, CEO's, etc.). Those six-figure incomes are darned hard to reproduce elsewhere.

The D's mantra is that everyone should "pay their fair share". The state obviously rejected Rauner's reforms, so now let them have what they have been endorsing for so long - especially Pritzker himself - a progressive tax that goes after the high earners. If it will reduce the burden on the middle class, I say let them go for it. I would personally like to see IL adopt the whole of CA's tax code - a moderate sales tax of about 5 or 6%, cap real estate taxes at 1% of real value, and make up the difference with a progressive tax that starts at 1% for the guys who work at 7-11, and max out at about 12% for those with incomes above $1 million. Earners making around $50K would hit a marginal rate of 5% (IL's current flat rate). But one other thing I would do, is tax all retirement income, with maybe a $40,000 exemption (as Georgia and Kentucky does).

Would this cause people to leave? Maybe, but it would also entice many of the folks who already intend to go (myself included) to stay. Anyone making $500K per year as a CEO isn't going to move to Florida and take a job fixing golf carts in a retirement community. One immediate effect, would be an overnight boost in real estate prices, which would entice many people (myself included) to purchase a more expensive home. Would the long term effect be positive or negative? Beats me, but what we're currently doing now sure isn't working. The D's have convinced me that it's time we eat the Rich and see how well that works.

[pvande55]

Originally Posted by CentralUSHomeowner

Rauner couldn't get anything done because he was working with an "ineffective" general assembly and he strayed from the base that elected him.

I suppose the GOP will be doing a "post-mortem" on Rauner for years. Some of it (Trump) couldn't be helped. Much, such as signing the abortion bill, was wholesale abandonment of the base and a total screwup. I think his biggest problem was inexperience, not knowing how legislative process works. Unlike the private sector, the Governor can't just fire everyone he doesn't like.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by pvande55

I suppose the GOP will be doing a "post-mortem" on Rauner for years. Some of it (Trump) couldn't be helped. Much, such as signing the abortion bill, was wholesale abandonment of the base and a total screwup. I think his biggest problem was inexperience, not knowing how legislative process works. Unlike the private sector, the Governor can't just fire everyone he doesn't like.

I don't know. I think if he would have put Trump in a proverbial bear hug, fought transgender people using the bathrooms, got tough on abortions, and built a rhetorical wall around Illinois in terms of immigration, he would have had one heck of a shot.

I literally dropped my drink on the floor when I watched Jeanne Ives' commercial. And the Chicago media got really shrill and indignant over it too. Yet that really played with the Republican base, to the point where she knocked him straight to the canvas with birds circling his head like in some kind of Warner Brothers cartoon.

The problem was he tried to go Democrat lite, which you can't do in today's polarized climate.

[BRU67]

Put metaphorically, he came out singing "Gimme Me Some Lovin'" and got boos and beer bottles from the conservatives. If he would have immediately switched to "Rawhide" like the Blues Brothers did at Bob's Country Bunker, that base would have embraced him and very possibly voted him back in.

"That ain't no Hank Williams song!!" LOL!

https://youtu.be/RdR6MN2jKYs

[dtcbnd03]

How can people fall for this?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ide/ar-BBRyfYP

[bobsell]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

An additional ten percent into the state coffers each year will allow for a large infrastructure spend, which is sorely needed.

Yes, infrastructure. That's the ticket. The contractors "fixing the infrastructure" will all be cronies. Do a crap job. Then we're back to the same problems as before.

I recall an expressway was rebuilt from the ground up. Looked great for a couple of years, then potholes started showing up after several years. Now that expressway is looking like trash.

Oh wait, they're also repaving the Tollway. The tollway that didn't need repaving, but hey, you know why they really did it.

But paying off "cronies"? Unfortunately, that will happen as well, but Illinois wouldn't be Illinois without that.

Of course. The question is how much of that "infrastructure spend" will enrich cronies.