Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** DeVore’s Quincy school mask lawsuit tossed
Next Post: Enviros want utility lobbying reforms, repeal of ComEd’s automatic rate law, social justice measures
Posted in:
* David Greising of the BGA today…
Voters have the option to hold them accountable. They can track which candidates accept Madigan campaign money. They can make the vote for Madigan as speaker in January a key issue at the ballot box.
They also can let Gov. Pritzker know that their decision on the so-called fair tax amendment this fall will rest on the governor’s stance on Madigan.
* David Greising of the BGA July 9…
But unlike Ogilvie, who fit his argument for an income tax into a case for holistic fiscal reform, Pritzker so far has left his graduated tax to stand mostly on its own.
He might have paired his tax initiative, which is popular with liberals, with a pension amendment, which would have appealed to conservatives. Meaningful property tax reform would have made the tax change more palatable to some. Pritzker did neither, offering little to voters who are skeptical of his plan.
Those working to defeat Pritzker’s tax plan can raise questions about whether Pritzker or some future governor might use the graduated tax to ratchet up taxes on middle-income voters, not just the top 3%. Once the Pritzker tax passes, they argue, nothing in the proposed constitutional amendment prevents that from happening.
* David Greising of the BGA February 20…
When Illinois voters go to the polls in November, the progressive tax amendment may be the most important question on their ballots. The issue will be up for grabs, more so than whether blue-state Illinois will want to back President Donald Trump for a second term.
Pritzker’s plan would replace Illinois’ flat tax with a graduated income tax projected to increase revenue by $3.6 billion a year, chiefly by hiking tax rates on the top 3% of all earners.
As a political matter, nothing means more to Pritzker’s future than getting voters to back the amendment. The graduated tax is the issue that got him elected, and a victory in November would help pave the way to reelection. It could even feed any aspiration Pritzker may have for even higher office.
* David Greising of the BGA April 5, 2019…
Adding a change to the pension clause, alongside the plan for reform of the tax system, would constitute a classic negotiating strategy: The progressive tax appeals to liberals and the pension fix to more fiscally conservative voters.
The pension fix also makes good policy in its own right. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel even called for it late last year, in the waning days of his mayoralty.
Pritzker may not need a package deal of constitutional reforms. He probably can get the votes to pass his tax amendment without a pension fix, too. But the progressive tax alone won’t solve the state’s fiscal problems. And passing both amendments together would be a good sign that voters in all income brackets can look forward to some measure of relief from their new governor.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:33 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** DeVore’s Quincy school mask lawsuit tossed
Next Post: Enviros want utility lobbying reforms, repeal of ComEd’s automatic rate law, social justice measures
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Soon he’ll be throwing the kitchen sink at our heads, hoping it keeps us from the ballot box.
Comment by Perrid Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:39 pm
==The graduated tax is the issue that got him elected==
Not Rauner got him elected.
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:41 pm
So much gibberish, lol.
“97% of Illinoisans will NOT see an increase in income tax”
That’s everything and then some in a message.
Can’t beat it? Talk it to death with gibberish.
Also…
Daylights a-burnin’, when y’all spending that $50 million? Early voting and VBM is right around the corner.
“Anytime” you’d like to start seemingly be involved, that could be… fun.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:41 pm
Used to listen to the BGA weekly appearance on WMAY Wednesday mornings. Jim Leach would provide a counterpoint to some of Andy Shaw’s nuttier pie in the sky stuff. Then Greising showed up. On the occasions when Leach wasn’t on, Greising would literally have the other host eating out of his hand, almost verbally committing to repealing the Constitution’s pension guarantee, just 1 step from reducing pensions being currently drawn (including those without Social Security). Have better uses for my time.
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:42 pm
Agree with City Zen.
Comment by Back to the Future Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:43 pm
When you only have one idea, beat it to death. (See: J.B. Pritzker’s toilets, Mike Madigan). Oh wait, that’s two.
Comment by cmgiulini Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:44 pm
BGA is about as non-partisan as IPI. Guys there’s only so much right wing moolah out there.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:46 pm
==Once the Pritzker tax passes, they argue, nothing in the proposed constitutional amendment prevents that from happening.==
What prevents a tax hike from happening now?
Comment by Fly like an eagle Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:48 pm
=== What prevents a tax hike from happening now?===
60/71, 30/36, a signature or an override of, again 71 and 36…
… and the political will.
“Other than that”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:50 pm
===BGA is about as non-partisan===
I don’t think they’re partisan. They do some good work. But, intentionally or not, this focus on the graduated income tax most certainly aligns with the group’s wealthy donor base.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:50 pm
Still waiting for someone to explain exactly what this pension reform constitutional amendment they want would do. Let’s say the Pension Clause is revoked. How does this negate the existing fact that pensions are a contract protected by the US Contracts clause? How does it cancel or reduce the existing pension debt? It doesn’t.
In fact, the only thing it would do is potentially let the State off the hook for funding retirement for new hires. I think the IRS would make the State pay for SERS / JRS / GARS but the State could potentially duck out on funding TRS / SURS and leave the local school districts on the hook.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:51 pm
Hey “fly like…”
I think the point he’s making is that those who are to be exempt from the statutory tax increases (the 97 percent who won’t pay more) under the fair tax can be hit with increases in their lower tax brackets anytime if amendment passes. surprised a commenter o this site wouldn’t understand that. hope this helps.
Comment by jim Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:52 pm
===can be hit with increases in their lower tax brackets anytime===
Meh. The real worry opponents have isn’t about the middle class. They ain’t gonna spend money on them.
The real worry is it makes it MUCH easier to raise taxes again and again on the wealthy.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:53 pm
“He might have paired his tax initiative, which is popular with liberals, with a pension amendment, which would have appealed to conservatives”
Why would Pritzker do that? The very essence of the graduated income tax is to get more revenue from the wealthiest so that pensions can be funded better and preserved.
The pension-cutting position is a loser and should be abandoned. But if it helps pension opponents get through the day better to keep holding onto this delusion, so be it.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:54 pm
=== “He might have paired his tax initiative, which is popular with liberals, with a pension amendment, which would have appealed to conservatives”===
* “Conservatives” can find their own 71 and 36
* The ILSC has made clear, even if changes are made, what’s owed is owed.
* The Fair Tax folks found their 71 and 36 without “conservatives”, so who gets the free ride, and why?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 2:58 pm
Anytime I see the argument “no property tax relief” it annoys me. Buried in the legislation with the proposed tax brackets is a change to the property tax credit one can claim when filing income taxes. Sure, they only bumped it from 5% to 6%; but it’s something. Of course the tax credit phases out to $0 for earning $250,000/$500,000. So I suppose that’s maybe why there are still complaints on the topic.
And as Rich (and others) have reminded us in the past, any break in taxes in one area needs to be picked up somewhere else unless a program(s) is cut. With sooooo many State agencies/services hollowed out and a large bill back log (thanks, Rauner), there’s really not anything to cut.
Comment by From DaZoo Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 3:12 pm
“How does this negate the existing fact that pensions are a contract protected by the US Contracts clause?”
Constitutional amendment on COLA. Arizona did this.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/crains-forum-pensions/how-arizona-rhode-island-broke-mold-pension-dispute
To the Post:
The wildcard may be Washington. If relief does not meet expectations/needs there will be a lot of tax increases coming at the local level which could be proposed the weeks before the election. Does this help/hurt support for the fair tax? Especially if a property tax increase occurs.
Comment by 1st Ward Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 3:20 pm
== can be hit with increases in their lower tax brackets anytime if amendment passes.==
They can be hit with increases now, if the Senate and GA vote for it and the governor signs it.
They can be hit with increases if the graduated tax passes, if the Senate and GA vote for it and the governor signs it.
I’m surprised you don’t understand that Jim.
Comment by Fly like an eagle Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 3:21 pm
Going after the 3% won’t raise the money that this state will spend. Might as well write a blank check for 2022 now. All this does is facilitate an easier path for state government to raise taxes one bracket at a time.
Comment by Rural Survivor Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 3:22 pm
If you trust politicians who tell you 97% of the tax payers will not pay more in the future, vote for it. I for one do not believe it, with the debt this state has.
Comment by Chichi55 Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 3:22 pm
=== I for one do not believe it,===
Show your 60 and 30… and that the Governor will sign it.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 3:24 pm
The BGA has done such good work over the years. This does not help its reputation.
Comment by Keyrock Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 3:30 pm
The BGA is a disaster. They have totally lost their way.
For an organization who says they push for transparency, they haven’t listed their donors on their website since 2016 (despite a section labeled “Our Donors”.
Their “Directory of Policy” has never worked on policy before. Instead, she’s the former Deputy Editor of the Tribune Editorial Page. Should tell you everything you need to know.
Just another once useful organization that has taken a rightward turn. I’m guessing that if they showed their donors, we’d understand why.
Comment by Rahm's Middle Finger Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 3:30 pm
Hey Willy, Governor Cuomo of New York begging rich taxpayers to come back to the state and pay their “fair share” of state taxes.
Be careful what you wish for.
Comment by Yucko Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 3:57 pm
=== Governor Cuomo of New York begging rich taxpayers to come back to the state and pay their “fair share” of state taxes.
Be careful what you wish for.====
With the new rate, where will the 3% be, compared to neighboring states, and income taxing states?
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 3:59 pm
Also…
=== Governor Cuomo of New York begging rich taxpayers to come back to the state and pay their “fair share” of state taxes.
Be careful what you wish for.===
… so your only argument against the Fair Tax is… “save the millionaires”?
I can see why they keep changing the angle of the politics, LOL
Dunno, politically, “save the millionaires” will be a strong battle cry… to the unemployed, homeless recovering from Covid-19, but…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 4:02 pm
“Hey Willy, Governor Cuomo of New York begging rich taxpayers to come back to the state and pay their “fair share” of state taxes.”
The plea was more in regards to go back to NYC. The wealthy go to the second homes (Hamptons) to escape the city tax not the state.
Comment by 1st Ward Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 4:10 pm
‘ Not Rauner got him elected.’
That’s fair.
Not Quinn got Rauner elected.
Comment by Morty Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 6:59 pm
== Constitutional amendment on COLA. Arizona did this. ==
The Arizona Pension Clause was phrased differently and not as clearly / strongly coupled as the Illinois one. I’ve covered this in the past.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Aug 6, 20 @ 7:53 pm
I would vote for the amendment in a heartbeat if it SAID that only the top 3% would pay more. It does not. It allows the legislature to set any rate on any amount of income, rather than a fixed rate on all taxpayers. Sadly, those of us not in the 3% will end up paying more after it is discovered that the 3% cannot bear the burden of the spending habits of the State of Illinois. Take a look at Oregon’s tax brackets, essentially everyone with a 20 hour a week job at minimum wage pays 9% with two lower brackets for those making less than $8900 (7%) and less than $3550 (5%). If you make more than $125k, you pay 9.9%
Comment by slippery slopes Friday, Aug 7, 20 @ 8:00 am
===in a heartbeat===
Would you? Yet by not supporting it, you guarantee the 97% will pay more, and soon. Not logical.
Comment by Jibba Friday, Aug 7, 20 @ 8:23 am
=== Would you? Yet by not supporting it===
Reason?
They may raise taxes, yet ZERO support to show how that will occur, and ignoring political will and political realities.
How many times has the income tax been raised in 30 years, and what was the very last movement on income tax… increase or decrease?
You can’t help the “conspiracists”
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Aug 7, 20 @ 8:46 am
“Arizona did this.” No it didn’t. The article says they were careful to not violate the US Contract Clause.
Comment by Mayo sandwich Friday, Aug 7, 20 @ 9:32 am
== “Arizona did this.” No it didn’t. The article says they were careful to not violate the US Contract Clause. ==
Read the actual decision. They related on it being 2 sentences.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Aug 7, 20 @ 12:39 pm