Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner signs bipartisan bill packages addressing mental health and opioid crisis
Next Post: Lots of fingers pointing at CVS
Posted in:
* Ryan Denham at WGLT…
During a Q&A with reporters, Pritzker did not answer a question about whether he would flesh out his tax plan with specific rates and brackets before the election.
“I’ve been clear about what the principles are for a fair tax system,” Pritzker told GLT. “First of all, we need to ask people like Bruce Rauner and me to pay a slightly higher rate. We need to make sure there’s a graduated system so people in the middle class and those who are striving to get there actually get a tax break. He likes to say that other states aren’t creating jobs with a fair tax system. Tell that to New York and California and Minnesota. They’ve created lots of jobs.”
At what income level will people’s taxes go up?
“You’ve gotta negotiate this with the legislature—Republicans and Democrats,” he said. “We have to come up with a rate schedule that doesn’t penalize people who are striving to get to the middle class, cause they’re paying, frankly, the highest rates in taxes in general.”
Sigh.
Months of pounding on Pritzker to release his proposed rates clearly has not and will not work. So, after listening to Pritzker’s comments yesterday, I came up with a new idea and texted his campaign spokesperson this…
He says that the tax rates have to be negotiated. Fine. How much net new revenue (approximately) does a graduated tax have to raise to do things like up the pension payment, reduce property taxes, fund programs, etc.?
I’ll let you know how they respond.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:07 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner signs bipartisan bill packages addressing mental health and opioid crisis
Next Post: Lots of fingers pointing at CVS
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Don’t hold your breath.
Comment by SSL Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:11 am
Can he provide the wording of the Constitutional amendment he would propose? In otherwords would it be general saying Illinois may pass a graduated income tax or would it be specific tying in rates?
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:13 am
I’m not, SSL. But I’ll keep asking anyway. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:13 am
===would it be specific tying in rates===
Again, he’s said it would be negotiated.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:19 am
“It has to be enough.”
Comment by Bruce (no not him) Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:20 am
Why be specific when the drapes need measuring?
Comment by People Over Parties Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:21 am
This is really disappointing from Pritzker. I think the progressive income tax is probably the single most important part of Pritzker’s platform. The guy has basically infinite resources to spend on policy people, and there are already several proposals out there (from Ralph Martire and Don Harmon, for example) that would raise revenues while lowering or holding steady taxes for 90% of Illinoisans or better.
I understand the desire to not commit to a specific rate structure at this point, because any proposal is likely to tick someone off, but they could at least put out two or three models and explain the benefits.
It truly boggles the mind.
Comment by Actual Red Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:21 am
Most of the “Republicans” in the house that voted for the 32% tax hike will be gone if/when JB takes office. What Republican is ever going to negotiate for a tax hike?
Comment by Flat Bed Ford Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:22 am
Better than pretending there are details that don’t exist?
https://capitolfax.com/2014/10/06/steve-schnorf-on-bruce-rauners-pros-and-cons/
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:22 am
For a candidate who won’t release his tax returns and parks hundreds of thousands of dollars in the Bahamas, the Caymans, wherever there’s a beach and lax banking to hide money… Pritzker unable to give rates…
If Pritzker had to hide more money off-shore now, he’d know much he’d be saving in state taxes by doing it.
It’s a *wee* bit troubling…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:22 am
Until he starts losing, expect more of the same. He learned from Rauner’s last election to hide his intentions. To some extent, he is right that it will be a negotiation, but a more courageous politician might be more forthcoming. Rich’s second question is a better one. I might similarly ask how much total revenue is needed? Only then can you propose how to get it. Perhaps Rauner would be kind enough to answer as well.
Comment by Jibba Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:23 am
I don’t blame him.
Bruce Rauner campaigned on rolling back the income tax rate to 3 percent but never gave a detailed explanation for how he would cut $5 billion dollars in state spending.
Both are/were guilty of being intellectually dishonest, but it’s good politics.
Comment by Roman Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:23 am
===Most of the “Republicans” in the house that voted for the 32% tax hike===
… and yet, by a vote of 152-20… a bipartisan legislature voted and passed a budget this year using every dime of that 32%… and then some.
Will all but those 20 be gone, after voting to keep and use that 32% increase with this budget?
Think on that, get back to all of us.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:25 am
Dems could get creative by raising the state income tax rate from the current 4.95% to “X”% and then raise the EITC to a higher rate than the current 18% of fed, and or extend the credit to folks without dependent children. You get a work around that is effectively a graduated income tax without all the fuss of going directly to the voters
Comment by Texas Red Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:27 am
TR, Pritzker has said that would be his interim plan.
Again, it would be nice to know how much money he wants to raise.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:30 am
I guess when one is running against a candidate that is not strong, one does not need to run a strong campaign.
Comment by Henry Francis Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:31 am
== would it be general saying Illinois may pass a graduated income tax or would it be specific tying in rates? ==
Don’t expect to see any rates in the amendment except, maybe, a definition specifying the maximum between the lowest and highest rate … kind of like the current definition of the corporate vesus personal rate. I don’t really expect that; it would be too limiting.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:34 am
Illinois schools are hurting. Stop the $3 Billion in payments to illegal immigrants and put the money in the schools.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:36 am
===You get a work around that is effectively a graduated income tax without all the fuss of going directly to the voters.===
You cant use a “work around” to do something the constitution explicitly prohibits. Fuss is required.
Comment by Langhorne Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:41 am
=== $3 Billion in payments to illegal immigrants===
Cite please.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:42 am
“You cant use a “work around” to do something the constitution explicitly prohibits.”
and yet retirees pay 0% on their income.
Comment by Person 8 Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:46 am
“When I look at the flat tax Illinois has, the wealthy like me… those individuals who are making out better with a flax tax need a realignment where the focus on who can pay pays. The model may look like other states that have progressive taxing, we may look at the fairness or unfairness of the federal rate of income tax. I can’t see or imagine going over any max rate anywhere in the country, and the lowest rate will give opportunity to those that need opportunity most. That’s the playing field, that’s the first step.”
That’s a tad better, but here’s the meat…
“I can’t see or imagine going over any max rate anywhere in the country, and the lowest rate will give opportunity to those that need opportunity most.”
At least a marker would be down(?)
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:51 am
What I would love to see is how much revenue would be under other states income tax plans. Specifically Wisconsin and iowa
Comment by Person 8 Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:51 am
““I can’t see or imagine going over any max rate anywhere in the country, and the lowest rate will give opportunity to those that need opportunity most.””
If I am Rauner, I take that line and instantly run ads with the highest rate in the country saying that JB wants to raise taxes to that rate (while leaving out that rate won’t apply to everyone).
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:56 am
I do not think Pritzker should propose any specifics before the election. Specifics would just be an open door for political pummeling.
Comment by Barrington Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 11:58 am
If I’m JB’s campaign manager I’m advising him not to give specifics until after the election. Its as simple as that. Why help Rauner out if you don’t have to.
Comment by The Dude Abides Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 12:00 pm
===If I am Rauner, I take that line and instantly run ads with the highest rate in the country saying that JB wants to raise taxes to that rate (while leaving out that rate won’t apply to everyone).===
With respect,
Rauner is already running ads saying as much, with a wide berth, and getting off easier with Pritzker’s Crew holding harmless the 32% tax increase Rauner uses in his signed budget, as Rauner gets a pass on the 32% tax increase, calling it, still, the Madigan Tax.
Here’s to the why, and I was waiting for a comment similar to yours…
Ya can’t say you’re pushing for a policy like a progressive income tax… which by its own design, has specific brackets and groupings, and give NO parameters within the plan… abd think that’s a position.
What the statement does, and it needs to be workshopped, is that it finally gives stability to a policy plan seen up to now as a phony talking point.
Pritzker already says his taxes should be higher. Already says it. So, backstop it with the lower “opportunity” statement that gives some sort of a policy and a semblance of knowing the taxing parameters.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 12:04 pm
@anonymous 11:36; hilarious, tell vladamir he’s probably going to hell.
Comment by Rutro Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 12:04 pm
“Tell that to New York and California and Minnesota. They’ve created lots of jobs.”
So has Tennessee.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 12:07 pm
Pritzker should not propose any specifics before the election. Only gives sound bites taken out of context to the Rauner campaign to twist into lies and deception on the boob tube.
Comment by DeseDemDose Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 12:09 pm
===So has Tennessee.===
We’re talking about jobs where the employee is not also on SNAP.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 12:12 pm
==Tell that to New York and California and Minnesota. They’ve created lots of jobs.”
So has Tennessee.==
Which states have median incomes above the national average - and which state has its median income below the national average?
(If you read the question carefully you will see a hint)
Comment by Henry Francis Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 12:26 pm
It all boils down to trust. Do you believe JB when he says he will reduce taxes on the middle class. JB a person who has done his best to avoid paying taxes. Keep waiting on your reply Rich, cause it isn’t coming.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 1:00 pm
“What the statement does, and it needs to be workshopped, is that it finally gives stability to a policy plan seen up to now as a phony talking point.”
I hear what you are saying. My question is, and this is a serious question (not rhetorical) does the audience JB is trying to reach with that talking point care about the specific numbers? Does putting out numbers or the type of parameters you are suggesting, help him with the voters he is trying to persuade? I honestly don’t know. I know all of us that want to see them, but I don’t see us as his target audience.
My hunch is that he has polling that says it doesn’t help, but maybe not. Maybe they are going with their gut and it will hurt him down the road.
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 1:03 pm
===It all boils down to trust.===
And that, in a nutshell, is why Rauner can’t get anything done legislatively. It’s also why I’m voting for JB.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 1:11 pm
Based on the structural deficit story from this week his answer should be at least $1.2 billion revenue increase.
Comment by LTSW Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 1:12 pm
===we need to ask people like Bruce Rauner and me to pay a slightly higher rate====
And there it is. JB is a a billionaire and he only wants to pay a “slightly” higher rate. Probably why he is light on specifics…the upper tax rates will not be as high as they should be.
Comment by Big Jer Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 1:18 pm
We all know that he’s not going to say what his tax plan is. He’s going to run on the progressive tax, because it sounds good to his supporters. He won’t say how high the rates will be, however, because then some of his supporters will realize that they are “wealthy” and are going to get hit with a big tax. He also won’t say that, in reality, he won’t be able to get the constitutional amendment or rates he wants anyway. So, he’s better off just keeping quiet about it other than to say “progressive tax, progressive tax.”
Comment by Anon316 Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 1:24 pm
>Let’s try a new question
Hmm…perhaps more of a Barbara Walters approach: Candidate Pritzker, if your progressive income tax was a tree, what kind of tree would it be?
Comment by Earnest Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 1:49 pm
=… and yet, by a vote of 152-20… a bipartisan legislature voted and passed a budget this year using every dime of that 32%… and then some.
Will all but those 20 be gone, after voting to keep and use that 32% increase with this budget?
Think on that, get back to all of us.=
Apples to carp comparison OW. Under that theory a rep or senator could vote no on funding pensions simply because of disagreement with Thompson’s 3% COLA and Edgar’s ramp. They can’t go back decades to change those laws they may disagree with but must work within the current parameters or change said parameters in the now. Also, politically speaking, people remember who raised taxes and typically overlook the spend side of it all.
Comment by Flat Bed Ford Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 1:51 pm
===Apples to carp comparison===
Nope.
Voting for that budget, and Rauner signing it is…
100%
… exactly what your complaining about with the Perfect 10 and Brave 15. They just did it a year earlier. Keep up, please.
===people remember who raised taxes===
Rauner is using every dime and then some of the 32% tax increase.
Where i agree, if Pritzker’s Crew is grossly inept in pointing that out on the political end, that’s on them.
Good thing Pritzker is up 16 points with a field operation… and spending over $200K a day to keep it running.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 2:07 pm
===Most of the “Republicans” in the house that voted for the 32% tax hike will be gone===
And some, like David Harris and Mike Fortner, could very well be replaced by Dems.
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 2:21 pm
Howl all you want, it ain’t happening. During the 2014 race with Quinn we all wanted specifics from Rauner on how he was going to do everything he claimed he could even if his demands for the tax rate to expire were met, and never got anything from him. We were told at the time that a future candidate would do exactly this if Rauner was elected without giving voters some kind of specific plan, other than a vague promise to “Shake up Springfield”. And yet most of you voted for him anyway.
Team Rauner can claim whatever they want to about Pritzker’s plan for tax rates - and it won’t matter. Why will it not matter? Because the man is a proven liar and no one believes a word that Rauner or his campaign says.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 2:23 pm
Public servant. What’s your point? In Seattle you are SNAP Eligible at $117k/yr.
Comment by BlueDogDem Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 2:33 pm
JB, almost everyone agrees that Illinois’ tax system (income, real estate and sales) is pretty much a failure, I believe you’ve said it yourself in your commercials. But, we don’t have to invent something new, there are 49 other states whose tax systems can be evaluated using Illinois’ inputs as to population, income, income diversity, property values, etc.. My guess is it would take someone with access to the Illinois-specific numbers maybe a week to plug those into the other 49 states’ systems, and calculate a rough estimate of how much revenue would be produced, the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget could likely crank it out even faster (Heck, my guess is JB has accountants on his payroll that could get it done in three days). We (the voters and our elected officials) can then review which state’s philosophy is the most fair, successful, and sustainable, and if that particular system generates a billion-two more than we’re generating right now, then that would be a great starting point for future negotiations.
JB, I understand you don’t want to pin yourself down by citing tax specifics. But if you can’t put forth a simple study as I’ve outlined above, and at least pick your favorite five states as a starting point to bargain from, then you’re not ready to lead the state. And the same goes for Rauner.
Comment by Stuntman Bob's Brother Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 2:39 pm
Now that we have a 32% permanent income tax that Governor Rauner and Republicans said would not solve Illinois problems, Democrats are back at it with even more tax increases but zero reforms of our business environment or state government.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 2:53 pm
===Now that we have a 32% permanent income tax that Governor Rauner and Republicans said would not solve Illinois problems===
… and yet Raunerites voted for it in the GA for this fiscal budget, and Rauner signed a budget with a 32% tax increase included… go on…
===Democrats are back at it with even more tax increases but zero reforms of our business environment or state government.===
Bruce signed a budget with no reforms too.
Maybe your beef is with “I’m not in charge” Bruce Rauner?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:00 pm
When comparing states relative to taxes, it is important to compare the total tax burden, not just income taxes. Illinois already has a high relative tax burden. All JB plans to do is raise it higher.
People just want to know how high. It’s not unreasonable to ask how much you will be paying if JB gets to put his plan in. Surely he has a plan, so why not share it?
Comment by SSL Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:04 pm
===Apples to carp comparison===
OW = Nope.=
Yep.
I cannot fix the fact that you fail to comprehend the difference.
I will give you credit for being relentless in your heaping every state problem back to the Governor. I certainly hope you stay the course under a Pritzker administration.
Comment by Flat Bed Ford Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:17 pm
===Yep.===
lol.
I explained, and all you have is yep? Why?
Oh… now I know…
===I will give you credit for being relentless in your heaping every state problem back to the Governor.===
As a Rauner apologist, ignoring Pat Quinn failed, logic is lost in your victimhood.
===I certainly hope you stay the course under a Pritzker administration.===
Guessing you weren’t around for Quinn or Rod… lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:21 pm
Why is it that perfect 10 or brave 15 who voted for the tax increase without desperately needed reforms get constant price from you OW?
Their constituents mostly disagree as most are not running for reelection.
If Governor Rauner was in change, badly reforms would be passed along with revenue and Illinois would attract more jobs and investment.
Democrats control 2/3 of state government and they block all common sense reforms
The only way to reform Illinois is elect more Republicans
Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:31 pm
===Why is it that perfect 10 or brave 15 who voted for the tax increase without desperately needed reforms get constant price from you===
To paraphrase.
“I’m frustrated too but taking steps to get Illinois a budget and saving our state from Raunerism is more important than the Raunerbucks holding Illinois hostage.”
Capiche?
===If Governor Rauner was in change, badly reforms would be passed along with revenue and Illinois would attract more jobs and investment.===
If Rauner isn’t in charge, what would be different in a Rauner second term?
===Democrats control 2/3 of state government and they block all common sense reforms===
Rauner also blocked 66 of 67 veto overrides.
Rauner worked to keep hurting Illinois instead of finding 60 or 71. Very telling.
===The only way to reform Illinois is elect more Republicans===
Rauner is not a Republican.
Calling Rauner a Republican, he’s the worst Republican governor in America.
What else ya got?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:40 pm
== Now that we have a 32% permanent income tax that Governor Rauner and Republicans said would not solve Illinois problems, Democrats are back at it with even more tax increases but zero reforms of our business environment or state government ==
The 4.95% rate was a political number, not one based on the reality of budget math.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 3:45 pm
==Public servant. What’s your point? In Seattle you are SNAP Eligible at $117k/yr.==
bdd - His point is there is an economically thriving state with no state income tax and a sizable African American population…and then there is Minnesota.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 4:48 pm
P8–“You cant use a “work around” to do something the constitution explicitly prohibits.”
and yet retirees pay 0% on their income.===
Exemption of retirement income is statutory. You want to tax it, 30/60. At flat rate.
Comment by Langhorne Thursday, Aug 23, 18 @ 6:21 pm