Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** CTU slammed for “clearly racist” tweet
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
Posted in:
* Illinois Chamber CEO Todd Maisch and Illinois Treasurer Michael Frerichs spoke at the Mid-Year Economic Summit hosted by the Des Plaines Chamber of Commerce yesterday. From the Daily Herald’s coverage…
Both Maisch and Frerichs talked about the progressive tax referendum that will be on the Nov. 3 ballot. Maisch said the state chamber is against the change from the current flat tax because the top 20% of taxpayers already pay two-thirds of all taxes. In addition, he noted the current system provides “treatments,” such as the earned income tax credit, that favor low- and middle-income earners.
“Even though the rate is flat, you can actually graduate your system if you give some people tax treatments and not give others those treatments,” he said.
Frerichs added one argument for the progressive tax is the consideration of taxing retirement income of those who can afford it. He said he knows people who receive 6-figure yearly pensions and do not pay income taxes, but the current system doesn’t differentiate between them and retirees who barely get by on their savings or pensions.
“One thing a progressive tax would do is make clear you can have graduated rates when you are taxing retirement income,” he said. “And, I think that’s something that’s worth discussion.”
That’ll wind up in an ad.
* His suggestion plays right into the opposition’s rhetoric. Illinois Policy Institute…
The “fair tax” is being sold as a tax on the wealthy, but if voters on Nov. 3 remove the Illinois constitution’s flat tax protection they will be granting state lawmakers broad new taxing power that would make it easier to go after seniors and their retirement income.
Illinois lawmakers in 2019 approved a defining feature of Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s policy agenda by agreeing to ask voters to amend the Illinois Constitution and remove its flat tax protection. They also set introductory rates that start hiking taxes on residents making over $250,000.
Among several other negative policy outcomes, the adoption of a progressive income tax would make it significantly more likely that Illinois will adopt a retirement income tax in the future. That’s because removing the flat income tax protection also removes a key political barrier to imposing a tax on retirement income. […]
Public opposition has historically killed proposals to tax retirement income in the Prairie State. A 2019 poll from the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute found 73% of Illinoisans somewhat or strongly opposed eliminating the retirement exemption, while only 23% somewhat or strongly supported the change.
That poll is here.
* There was, however, this somewhat odd response…
Would you favor or oppose applying the state income tax to retirement income if it exempted from taxes the first $100,000 earned per year?
Favor 36%
Oppose 34%
Other/don’t know 3%
That adds up to only 73 percent.
…Adding… From comments…
Rich, the Paul Simon poll only added up to 73% because it was only asked of the 73% of respondents “who had indicated they were opposed to taxing retirement income in the previous question.” So the poll assumed that 59% of Illinois adults supported taxing retirement income over $100,000: the 36% yes to the specific question plus the 23% who were in favor of taxing all retirement income. Totals on that question are 59% in favor vs. 34% oppose vs. 7% other/don’t know.
*** UPDATE 1 *** From Quentin Fulks, Chairman of Vote Yes For Fairness…
Vote Yes For Fairness believes all seniors should have the opportunity to retire with dignity after years of hard work, and opposes any tax on retirement income. That’s why we are dedicated to passing the Fair Tax, which does not tax retirement income or make it any easier to implement a tax on retirement income. The Fair Tax is about fixing our broken tax system that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay the same rate as our working families, while updating it to the one used by a majority of states and the federal government that works for all Illinoisans.
*** UPDATE 2 *** AARP Illinois…
AARP Illinois supports the current graduated income tax proposal which, in no way, taxes retirement income or makes it any easier to implement a tax on retirement income.
Illinois state law continues to protect retirement income from taxation , including Social Security, pensions, 401(k)s, and IRAs.
In AARP Illinois surveys, 89 percent of older adults said they opposed taxing retirement income, and 71 percent of voters 25 and older were also against it.
With this in mind, AARP Illinois supports a graduated income tax as a step in the right direction toward addressing our state’s budget crisis.
A graduated income tax protects lower and moderate income taxpayers and their families by giving them a tax break. It also ensures that only those who can afford it – the wealthiest 3% — will pay more under this plan.
AARP Illinois continues to oppose taxing retirement income and will fight any efforts to do so.
.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 9:59 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** CTU slammed for “clearly racist” tweet
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
[Facepalm GIF]
Maybe he can use the rarified air excuse for his dumb comment.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:02 am
To be fair to Frerichs, he’s tall.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:03 am
He should ask Harmon to write a letter to Durbin on his behalf.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:07 am
It is so clearly overdue to end the almost $2B/year giveaway for retirement income that it would be nice if more thought leaders could encourage our elected officials to *discuss* the idea. It isn’t healthy for our state’s fiscal future to banish the most obvious solution to our structural deficits to the cellar of ‘never to be discussed’
It’s also not generally healthy to banish any topic to the never to be discussed bin, but particularly taxing retirement income as the least effective (in terms of generating economic activity) tax expenditure on the books.
I mean, it shouldn’t be courageous to say “we should discuss this tax concept”
And to the extent it is, then we should applaud Frerichs for doing so. Isn’t that what we expect from our chief fiscal officers? Honesty? Candor? etc.
Comment by Dan Johnson Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:09 am
Ok, to the post,
Mr. Frerichs has been a real disappointment as Treasurer. Misstep after misstep the only thing *I* can fall back upon of the “good” is… “he’s tall”.
The self-serving Frerichs, who couldn’t seem to find the right way to handle the Jay Doherty / City Club speaking, is one who, almost rabidly, seeks attention without realizing the political realities to his gaffes and in this instance shows a lacking of acumen how his words will be used to seem misunderstanding the voters of Illinois.
Counterpoint? He’s tall.
Let’s look at this;
=== “One thing a progressive tax would do is make clear you can have graduated rates when you are taxing retirement income,” he said. “And, I think that’s something that’s worth discussion.”===
Why would a rational thought to the progressive income tax lead him to this thought with that audience… or *any* audience in this state, given how property taxes are, given how the flat tax is framed as unfair, and given the one saving grace for seniors is that pension aspect of taxing.
Again, he’s tall, so there’s that.
If Mr. Frerichs sides with IPI, fine. Like it or not, IPI will side with Mr. Frerichs, can’t walk away from his own words.
The thing about being so self promoting, making things about yourself makes your gaffes about you too.
The saving grace for Mr. Frerichs is he’s tall, so when those ads with his words come out he can “stand tall” above all the unhelpful words that will be pushed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:17 am
Now I’m inclined to vote for the progressive tax amendment just so we can laugh and laugh in a couple years, when the state Supreme Court rules only private retirement income above $100,000 a year is subject to taxation, because, pensions clause.
Comment by JB13 Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:18 am
Way to go, Frerichs.
Bishop won’t even have to bother Dabrowski with this one.
Don’t trip walking this goofy comment back.
Comment by efudd Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:22 am
Frerichs isn’t wrong but that won’t get him very far. Truly the third rail of politics.
I am not That far from retirement and will retire with a good pension and have no issue paying income tax on it.
No taxes on retirement income sub $100k is fine and then standard rates apply to income above $100k.
To bad it will never get the time of day because it could save everyone else money and solve some issues for the state.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:25 am
I was going to vote for it. I will now vote against it. I will never make anywhere close to 100,000 in retirement but I have worked several decades with the knowledge that my retirement will not be taxed. At my age, I can’t go back and I can’t risk the State taxing my income in retirement
Comment by Jason Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:25 am
Let’s let all the cats out of the bag and admit that for the graduated tax to work you will tax retirement income at a far lower than $100,000 threshold. And within the the decade of passing that middle class taxpayers will also be included in those paying at a higher rate as the State Government will go into overdrive with new spending measures with all the potential revenue increases.
Comment by Arock Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:26 am
I will say from my perspective there should be a discussion of taxing retirement income. The Treasurer isn’t wrong from a policy perspective. He is just tone deaf from a strategic perspective. Way to give ammunition to muddy the waters for the Progressive tax. His comments reemphasis the argument that tax rates can change after the fact and the General Assembly can pick winners and losers at some point in the future.
Comment by Nagidam Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:33 am
=== Let’s let all the cats out of the bag…===
… that 97% of those filing income taxes will see no change.
That’s the ball game.
The rest is a nuanced pushing of “maybe this” or “possibly that” or my favorite… “just wait, in a couple years… “
Frerichs’ utter ignorance to political acumen by stepping on the third rail of the “taxing pensions” discussion doesn’t change that 97% will see no change.
Mr. Frerichs is tall, but you have to think the proponents of the progressive income tax, including the governor, are probably thinking “Thanks, tall man, we’ll take it from here”
Mr. Frerichs has in one gaffe sidelined himself from the progressive income tax discussion *within* his party.
Anyone want Frerichs speaking to the CA now?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:34 am
“the adoption of a progressive income tax would make it significantly more likely that Illinois will adopt a retirement income tax in the future“
Blah, blah, blah. Fear, fear, fear. They’ll remove the retirement exemption. It’s a pretext to raise taxes on the middle class, they’ll raise taxes on “small businesses,” etc. Just typical fear mongering.
“Vote No” on the graduated income tax PAC has $1,000, while “Vote Yes” has $1 million. When are the out of state big right wing funders going to step in?
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:34 am
===have worked several decades with the knowledge that my retirement will not be taxed===
See, that right there is the key. So, working under that guarantee, a newly retired person would be whacked into a new reality if that pension income was now less than they spent their whole career planning for. Then what? Ask for your job back at age 65 to get the income back? Few employers want seniors……
Younger people have options and time.
Comment by AnonymousOne Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:36 am
It is nice to see a politician being intellectually honest about something. All of the people shilling for the “fair” tax completely disregard that almost everyone, will be paying higher taxes if this passes. Some sooner than later, but this will impact almost everyone. The “cut” for the middle and lower end of the spectrum will be temporary. The floodgates will be open.
Comment by essentially working Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:38 am
===… that almost everyone, will be paying higher taxes if this passes.===
Narrator: only 3% will be paying a higher tax.
Good try. No.
Aw. Here it is, it’s truly my favorite, LOL
===Some sooner than later===
Find 71 and 36 because no Governor in the next 5 years is gonna raise these rates with a signature. Nope.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:41 am
He is so, so, right that it is long past time to talk about taxing retirement income, although the graduated rate amendment is (probably) unrelated. Today we exempt all of it; we could exempt the first $100K under the existing constitutional language. In other words, there was no reason to insert his foot into his mouth at that particular time.
Comment by notsosure Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:45 am
“Narrator: only 3% will be paying a higher tax”
If the constitutional protections that require that the state personal income tax be a flat rate are removed, future rates/brackets are very uncertain.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:48 am
=== future rates/brackets===
(Sigh)
Again, the comedy of this thought is priceless.
Like I said… it’s my favorite;
“just wait, in a couple years… “
Find the 71 and 36
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:51 am
“…no Governor in the next 5 years is gonna raise these rates with a signature. Nope.”
I might believe this… if it were codified in the law…
Comment by essentially working Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:53 am
=== I might believe this… if it were codified in the law…===
You’re showing the same lack of political acumen shown by Mr. Frerichs.
You need to show the 71 and 36 first… then fake “worry”
No Governor in these next 5 years will sign any tax change. The politics to it is a loser.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 10:56 am
It’s a common ailment of democrats. Pandering to people who never and will never vote for you. The Republicans tend to be the opposite extreme.
Comment by Not a Billionaire Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:03 am
He’s not wrong, I pay zero in state income tax, I don’t know the right number is but I am pretty clear that zero is not the right answer. If you want to see the lest needy group of seniors paying no tax just look at the north line Metra trains coming in from Lake Forest, Winnetka and Wilmette.
Comment by Banish Misfortune Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:08 am
“No Governor in these next 5 years will sign any tax change. The politics to it is a loser.”
I completely agree; if the change is broad like it is forced to be now. If done piecemeal however, it can be done and I believe it will be done. The higher end will be gouged and the middle will see creep upwards. Only my prediction. Hopefully it will fail and I can stop fake worrying.
Comment by essentially working Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:12 am
=== Hopefully it will fail and I can stop fake worrying.===
(Sigh)
Do us both a favor and don’t look under your bed… there could be something there, probably not, hopefully…
=== If done piecemeal however, it can be done and I believe it will be done.===
Show me your sponsors in the House, the Senate, and the 71 and 36… and note why it’s those numbers… those 71 and 36 will not only have to pass it, “piecemeal”… they’ll need to vote for it one more time in an override vote to raise the rates.
Welp…
To the post,
How does Frerichs walk this back, I mean, he sidelined himself now, he’s a talking point for IPI, and seem to be on the side of the Dems in the House, Senate, and an ally of the Governor in this CA fight?
I wouldn’t use Frerichs this cycle for anything pertaining to the CA, taxes, or seniors. Might as well go spend time changing really high light bulbs…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:28 am
I get so frustrated when people talk apples oranges just to muddy the waters.
A graduated tax is a totally separate concept from taxing retirement income. We could theoretically pass a law to tax retirement income now under the flat tax. We could pass a graduated tax and not touch the retirement income exemption.
We could (and have done so) raise the flat tax percentage in the future so that saying the graduated income tax rate could be raised is a non-issue with me.
Having said all that, we need to re-examine why the retirement income tax exemption was done in the first place. Presumably it was done to allow people on a fixed income to retain their income because their expenses would only raise during retirement. That is still true. Those who live long enough end up in assisted living and beyond- and they need every penny of their income to pay that fee.
Comment by thoughts matter Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:33 am
looks like they either transposed “Favor 36%” which was supposed to be “Favor 63%” or “Other/don’t know 3%” might have actually been 30%.
Would you favor or oppose applying the state income tax to retirement income if it exempted from taxes the first $100,000 earned per year?
Favor 36%
Oppose 34%
Other/don’t know 3%
Comment by natty lite Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:37 am
== I was going to vote for it. I will now vote against it. I will never make anywhere close to 100,000 in retirement but I have worked several decades with the knowledge that my retirement will not be taxed.==
Frerichs isn’t in the legislature so he can’t vote for taxes on retirement income.
Comment by 17% Solution Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:40 am
Rich, the Paul Simon poll only added up to 73% because it was only asked of the 73% of respondents “who had indicated they were opposed to taxing retirement income in the previous question.” So the poll assumed that 59% of Illinois adults supported taxing retirement income over $100,000: the 36% yes to the specific question plus the 23% who were in favor of taxing all retirement income. Totals on that question are 59% in favor vs. 34% oppose vs. 7% other/don’t know.
I’m not sure that’s satisfying, but that’s the explanation.
Comment by IL4Life Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:42 am
Ah, OK, thanks IL4Life.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:43 am
Not taxing retirement income is one of the few incentives to stay in Illinois in retirement.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:46 am
This is so frustrating. Frerichs is substantively 100% right that retirement income over 100k should be taxed. It’s a huge amount of potential revenue when we desperately need it. That said…
Obviously in the middle of the fight over the fair tax, when we know it will only affect the richest 3% of the population, saying this was dumb, dumb, dumb.
Comment by Southern Skeptic Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:49 am
Rather than a gaffe, Treasurer Frerichs’ comfort in talking about taxing retirement income is evidence that it is very much in the ongoing conversation within the circles he travels. We should applaud his honesty about this, although the analysis of RNUG @11:46 is correct.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 12:47 pm
===within the circles he travels===
You mean his top staff? lol
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 12:49 pm
=== within the circles he travels.===
If that premise is at all true to something then he travels in IPI circles?
I dunno if you’re helping him with that idea, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 12:53 pm
He never should have said it.
We don’t know what the budget bogey will be in coming years, but one is going to exist with or without the progressive tax. JB knows he is going to need additional revenue, but he doesn’t know how much. While he may very well have to consider taxing retirement income, that’s such a toxic issue it shouldn’t be mentioned until necessary.
Perhaps the revenue from gambling and weed will suprise to the upside. Regardless, as RNUG rightfully points out, some retirees stay here due to the fact that Illinois doesn’t tax retirement income. Unless the population trend reverses, giving more people a reason to leave may be unwise.
Comment by SSL Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 1:01 pm
==have worked several decades with the knowledge that my retirement will not be taxed==
Tax deferred, not tax exempt.
I haven’t paid any state income taxes on my 401k contributions. Shouldn’t the state be able to tax my withdrawals?
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 1:13 pm
- City Zen -
You believe that pensions should be taxed?
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 1:15 pm
==Treasurer Frerichs’ comfort in talking about taxing retirement income is evidence that it is very much in the ongoing conversation within the circles he travels.==
Those North Shore cocktail parties have been the ruin of many an Illinois politician I guess.
Comment by Abby Normal Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 1:19 pm
==You believe that pensions should be taxed?==
Yep. Always have. If you already paid taxes on your retirement contributions (like social security or some IRAs), those should be exempt. If your contributions are tax deferred (like 401k or pensions), that should be taxed. Tax deferred.
There is no good reason why someone schlepping themselves into work every day has to pay state income taxes and another person of the same exact means but retired pays nothing.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 1:32 pm
=== Yep. Always have.===
That’s not happening anytime soon, as discussed.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 1:38 pm
==Those North Shore cocktail parties have been the ruin of many an Illinois politician I guess.==
Might want to stick with those Gifford cocktail parties instead.
Comment by Chatham Resident Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 1:49 pm
== It’s a huge amount of potential revenue … ==
Actually, in the overall scheme of $30B to $40B budget, it isn’t. Let’s take a couple of different looks at it.
The average state pension is only about $32,000. Add in Social Security of about $14,000. That gets the average retirement income for a person up to about $46,000 … a long ways from the suggested $100,000 exemption. A lot of private pensions (yes, they do still exist in some businesses) don’t pay that well.
From 2014 - 2018 census records, the average per person income is about $34,500. The median household income is $63,600. That’s quite a ways from the suggested $100,000 (presumably $200,000 if joint filing). Right at 16% of the population is age 65 or older; we can presume a large portion of those are retired. Using the 16% of the population of 12.8M and assuming 10% are earning over $100,000, that is about 208,000 persons you could potentially affect with a tax on retirement over $100,000. And if you assume the exemption per person and filing jointly, that knocks out a portion of those.
Instead of looking at $2B in tax revenue, you are probably looking at more like $0.5B. Not that the State couldn’t use the revenue, but it’s not the revenue windfall you might think it would be.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 2:06 pm
“Find the 71 and 36“
Will it take supermajorities to change the brackets and rates in the future?
Comment by Phenomynous Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 2:55 pm
=== Will it take supermajorities to change the brackets and rates in the future?===
To take “immediate effect” or if any governor decides not to sign the change.
As to the “future”, the only thing I know about the future is the politics of the next 5 years will be impossible, politically, to think about changing the rates, especially the next 2 years as we will have no real measure to the differences the rates will make in a “normal” economy… so would it make any sense in that climate to raise rates?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 2:59 pm
==Actually, in the overall scheme of $30B to $40B budget, it isn’t. Let’s take a couple of different looks at it.
The average state pension is only about $32,000. Add in Social Security of about $14,000. That gets the average retirement income for a person up to about $46,000 … a long ways from the suggested $100,000 exemption. A lot of private pensions (yes, they do still exist in some businesses) don’t pay that well.
From 2014 - 2018 census records, the average per person income is about $34,500. The median household income is $63,600. That’s quite a ways from the suggested $100,000 (presumably $200,000 if joint filing). Right at 16% of the population is age 65 or older; we can presume a large portion of those are retired. Using the 16% of the population of 12.8M and assuming 10% are earning over $100,000, that is about 208,000 persons you could potentially affect with a tax on retirement over $100,000. And if you assume the exemption per person and filing jointly, that knocks out a portion of those.
Instead of looking at $2B in tax revenue, you are probably looking at more like $0.5B. Not that the State couldn’t use the revenue, but it’s not the revenue windfall you might think it would be. ==
Presumably, people like City Zen are looking to tax 401k and deferred comp income, seeing as many people’s 401ks are up to $500,000+ at retirement. However, those of us with common sense will try not to remove so much money from those 401lks/deferred comp that we cross that $100,000 mark. Taking into account the pension and social security numbers you reference too.
I don’t have a problem with taxing retirement income with a healthy exemption - I just agree with RNUG that its not a big moneymaker.
I think you have to have a healthy sized exemption because the elderly retired need that first $100,000. my parents two bedroom in a reasonably priced (compared to others) is $60,000 a year. Yes, they get utilities, services, meals, and medication management for that. But its still $60,000 a year and they have all the same non-house expenses the rest of us have (insurance, medical bills, clothing, etc).
Comment by thoughts matter Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 3:40 pm
Poor form in saying it out loud on the part of the Treasurer.
The reality is that this is the difficulty in getting to the 60% threshold . . .the it won’t stop here message will be palpable.
The “sell” is the simple 97% won’t pay more . . . . .period.
The entire ballgame is how many believe this will be the long term dynamic? Those who don’t will be “no” votes (regardless of the threats of draconian cuts, et. al.). It is kind of a human nature thing.
Stick to the bumper sticker language.
Comment by Upon Further Review Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 3:49 pm
==the elderly retired need that first $100,000…==
No more than everyone else does.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 4:13 pm
To BOTH updates;
Mr. Frerichs,
Seniors vote.
Oswego Willy
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 4:53 pm
He’s always been very open about his desire for much higher taxes, even when he was Champaign County auditor and state sen.
Comment by jim Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 5:26 pm
OW is right. Seniors can be counted on to vote, and they will not vote to tax their pensions. RNUG, I don’t know about you, but my Social Security pension is already taxed. Therefore,I do not understand why you would include S.S. in your calculation for taxing pensions.
Comment by Mama Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 5:27 pm
Run for office Willy…. Frerichs did and won
Comment by May Soon Be Required Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 5:30 pm
===Run for office===
I’m good.
===Frerichs did and won===
Mr. Frerichs is tall.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 5:32 pm
RNUG:
CTBA did the math a decade ago. As I recall a little over 3 percent of retirees collect more than $100K in retirement, and under the 3% tax rate back then the state would have collected a little more than $100M.
So, it’s not a lot of money, maybe $200 million tops, nor does it affect many people, which reminds me of the old joke about why university department politics is so vicious … because the stakes are so small.
Is this a great general debate for Frerichs to be in? Clearly not.
But we’re in the middle of a global pandemic, a global economic crisis, and a national crisis of conscience on racism and police brutality. I am sure if you polled seniors today, “retirement tax policy” is not even on their radar.
I would not bet it is an issue in the fall or in 2022 either.
Comment by Winston Wifflebean Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 6:06 pm
As a current retiree who worked for almost 50 years gladly paying the taxes for retirees before me so they could relax in their sunset years, you now want me to pay taxes on my retirement income too? That sounds fair…not. You want to tax retirees before we tax the rich hiding behind the flat tax rate? Give me a break. If we want to tax retirees going forward this needs to be grandfathered in allowing those retirees that have paid towards previous retirees taxes to be exempted, and then , only after we claw back the wealth of the 1 percenters who have been hiding behind the middle class and poor for decades.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 6:36 pm
Which is more likely as a new revenue stream?
Tax on Services or tax on Seniors.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 8:48 pm
== RNUG, I don’t know about you, but my Social Security pension is already taxed. ==
-Mama-, your SS retirement benefit payment is NOT State taxed. NO, repeat, NO payment from a IRS recognized retirement fund of any kind is subject to Illinois income tax.
Not pensions
Not Social Security
Not IRA’s of any kind
Not 457’s
Not Deferred Compensation plans
Etc …
Now all of these are subject to Federal Income Tax, with the exception of Roth and Roth conversion IRA’s which ARE Federal tax exempt.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jun 18, 20 @ 11:05 pm
== Which is more likely as a new revenue stream?
Tax on Services or tax on Seniors. ==
Services … it will net more revenue.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 19, 20 @ 12:24 am
you can see the exact amount of state revenue lost to this exemption every year in data from the Illinois Department of Revenue. It’s $2billion. And growing.
Comment by notsosure Friday, Jun 19, 20 @ 8:32 am
Oops. It’s published in the Comptroller’s annual tax expenditure report. $2.2B in FY18. https://illinoiscomptroller.gov/financial-data/find-a-report/tax-expenditure-report/fiscal-year-2018/
Comment by notsosure Friday, Jun 19, 20 @ 8:36 am