Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: New Illinois unemployment insurance claims hit pandemic low, but news blackout will likely continue
Next Post: Show Your Work
Posted in:
* Press release excerpt…
In a recently released report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (https://itep.org/taxes-and-racial-equity/), Illinois was cited for “vast disparities in income across race and ethnicity” caused in part by “injustices” in the state’s revenue policies.
The Raise Up Illinois coalition will call for addressing these injustices by ending unfair state tax breaks and other advantages for big corporations and wealthy individuals so that Illinois can invest that revenue in housing, childcare, schools and other essential services crucial to an economic recovery from the pandemic that addresses the pre-existing problem of economic inequality in the state.
* So, I asked for their specific proposals…
Reduce Tax Exemptions and Advantages that Favor High-Wealth Individuals
1) Repeal the Estate Tax Exemption Increase - $98.7 million
IL increased the estate tax exemption from $2 million in 2011 to $4 million after 2013. Expanding a tax benefit to such a small group of the very wealthiest residents cost Illinois $98.7 million in FY 2020– lost revenue that cannot be justified on economic development or equity grounds. The state should repeal this expanded exemption and restore the $2 million exemption.
2) Close the Carried Interest Loophole - $1B
Illinois private equity partnerships and hedge funds earn an estimated $4.8 billion per year in income that is classified as “carried interest” and under-taxed. The Carried Interest Loophole is a federal tax loophole that benefits a small, but very wealthy and well-connected group of billionaires, who charge a fee for investing other peoples’ money – and call it “carried interest” to get a lower tax rate than kindergarten teachers and truck drivers. SB 2124/HB3476 establishes a “privilege tax” that recaptures the revenue lost through this loophole, providing an estimated $1 billion per year for for investment in schools, healthcare, housing, jobs and clean-energy infrastructure
3) Mark to Market (being determined)
Today, people pay taxes on stocks, bonds, and other assets only when they sell them. They do not pay annual taxes on the increased value of these assets, even as they may double or triple over time. The Mark to Market Tax would tax the increase in value of these holdings at the same rate as other income. The tax would apply only to Illinoisans with assets of over $50 million dollars in value. Stock and bond holders will pay it only when they see an increase in the value of their assets, as is currently likely since the stock market continues to rise even in the face of a historically deep recession.
Reduce Off-Shore and Domestic Tax Sheltering - Generates $250+ Million for FY22 Budget
1) Conform to federal GILTI provision and consider 50% of that income as really earned in the US.
The 2017 federal tax overhaul slashed the corporate income tax rate, but also enacted new anti-abuse provisions targeted at corporate tax planning that shifts reported profits to foreign tax havens or other foreign low-tax jurisdictions. One such provision is known as “GILTI,” which stands for Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income. GILTI uses a formula to identify suspiciously high foreign returns, half of which is then subject to tax at the federal level because that income is deemed to have been shifted. 12 states have already conformed to GILTI.
2) Tax income deemed repatriated under the Trump Tax Cuts at taxed at low rates
The 2017 TCJA deemed foreign earnings of US Corporations, which income was supposed to be taxed at 35% when repatriated, at a much lower tax rate. Taxpayers were also permitted to defer payment of this lower tax using a backloaded interest-free payment schedule. And so 75% of the deemed repatriation has not yet been taxed. Since much of these nominally foreign profits were really earned in the United States and shifted abroad, Illinois should tax 50% of the deemed repatriation that is still outstanding.
3) Shift from the Joyce to Finnigan model of combined reporting to combat domestic income shifting
Illinois currently uses the Joyce method of combined reporting, where nexus is determined separately for each member of a corporate group for certain purposes. This means a corporate group that is actually operating as one business could choose to organize its affairs so as to artificially depress the amount of income apportioned to Illinois. The Finnigan method treats the corporate unitary group as a single taxpayer for all purposes, which closes this loophole. 16 states already have the Finnigan method, which is more than half of the states that have combined reporting.
Decouple from Trump Tax Cut Bill’s Federal Opportunity Zones Provision [Estimate pending]
The 2017 Federal Tax & Jobs bill gave individuals and corporations three types of tax breaks if they invest in opportunity zone funds: (1) deferral of any taxes on capital gains invested into OZs until 2026 (2) lower capital gains tax rates if invested for 5+ years, even lower rates for 7+ years (3) no taxes on any capital gains invested for 10+ years. Due to these tax breaks, Illinois uses the capital gain amount left over after these tax breaks for state taxes, so these investors benefit from two tax breaks and the state loses potential revenue.
IL should decouple its own individual and corporate income taxes from the opportunity zone capital gains breaks to avoid subsidizing investments in opportunity zone projects located outside the state. IL should not forgo vitally needed revenue to subsidize out-of-state investments that will provide no benefit to the state’s economy. Decoupling does not eliminate IL’s participation in the opportunity zone program - it just means that the federal government will subsidize investments in IL opportunity zones with capital gains tax breaks, not IL.
Several states, including Alabama, California, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania, do not conform to the opportunity zone tax breaks because their personal or corporate income taxes do not automatically link to the federal provisions. Four states plus the District of Columbia have proactively decoupled, some partially. North Carolina and New York have fully decoupled for both the individual and corporate income tax.
Legislation has been filed dealing with all of these proposals. Bill numbers are in the links. A bit late in the session for this, but here are the groups behind the plan…
Chicago Teachers Union, SEIU HCII, Grassroots Collaborative, The People’s Lobby, Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, Workers’ Center for Racial Justice, Jane Addams Senior Caucus, Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), ONE Northside, Illinois People’s Action, People’s Action, POWER-PAC IL, COFI, Indivisible Chicago, Jewish Council on Urban Affairs (JCUA)
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 9:38 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: New Illinois unemployment insurance claims hit pandemic low, but news blackout will likely continue
Next Post: Show Your Work
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Re: Mark to Market……….
So, do you also get a rebate when the market crashes?
And what if all your cash is in the market?
Where are you supposed to get the money to pay the tax?
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 9:52 am
==The Raise Up Illinois coalition will call for addressing these injustices by ending unfair state tax breaks and other advantages for big corporations and wealthy individuals so that Illinois can invest that revenue in housing, childcare, schools and other essential services crucial to an economic recovery from the pandemic that addresses the pre-existing problem of economic inequality in the state.==
To get anyone’s attention, Rise Up Illinois may need a new spokesperson/press release writer/editor. I nodded off a little there trying to read that sentence.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 9:55 am
I don’t understand why Pritzker and Biden want to remove the cap on state and local taxes (SALT). Currently, taxpayers can only deduct up to $10k of their state taxes and local property taxes against their federal taxes.
Repealing this will only help the wealthiest of taxpayers (those with high income and property taxes), while reducing revenue for the federal government.
And yet, that is what Pritzker has been arguing for.
Comment by WS CPA Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 9:56 am
===I don’t understand why Pritzker and Biden want to ===
And that has what to do with this post?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 9:59 am
=And what if all your cash is in the market?
Where are you supposed to get the money to pay the tax?=
The tax is for those with over $50 million in value. You really think they don’t have any cash or a means of getting it? Kind of nonsensical given their wealth. The few people I know with that level of wealth never have a problem getting cash. Anecdotal, but still true.
The Mark to Market seems unlikely given the ups and downs of a market and the fact that the value is only real at the time of sale.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 9:59 am
mark to market
Just how do they suppose individuals will prove/disprove they have the 50 Mill in assets? currently, IRS and IL Dept Revenue only look at things like earnings, rental income, dividends, capital gains, interest payments. They really have no clue as to the true value of underlying assets. Also, the uber wealthy can/will use trusts to avoid the 50 million cap.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:04 am
Thinking along same lines as tinydancer. I like these proposals except for the mark to market. My stocks can fluctuate all they want, but it’s not real money until I sell.
Comment by Steve Rogers Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:06 am
Well, that sounds like a good plan to encourage people to not want to live in IL. Thank you guys. Next, please.
Comment by ;) Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:11 am
Regarding #3, treating unrealized gains as if they were realized, I’m really hesitant to pretend people have more income than they do. And it’s not income, it’s wealth. If we want a wealth tax, let’s call it that and work that out, not try to shoehorn it into the same frame as the income tax. I’m also worried about whether targeting higher income people with it is constitutional.
Comment by Perrid Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:14 am
Mark-to-Market.
No hedge fund will be able to operate in the state. Also REITS will have great difficulty.
The aspect of valuing an individual’s net worth, for purposes of this tax, is problematic. Valuing a private business is not easy to do. In a similar way, what a great way to drive tech businesses from Illinois. Early hires at tech companies join for the options that they can get, hoping for a pop. The valuation on those options can rise dramtically, pre-IPO, as new funding comes on board.
So, one could have options worth more than $50 million and still be earning on $100k/year.
Comment by Downstate Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:29 am
It’s a start.
Comment by Ares Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:30 am
I have multiple problems with the Mark to Market proposal.
Tracking it will be a nightmare.
How will deal with market downturns? Rebates, future tax credits?
Will assets held in retirement accounts count towards the net worth?
Finally, the threshold is $50M today. What will stop the State from gradually lowering that threshold?
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:31 am
Estate Tax Exemption could hit small family farms or family businesses that haven’t done proper estate planning for tax avoidance (which is legal). There are ways to avoid it but there would need to be an outreach to educate those small operations.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:36 am
Seems like a healthy mix of revenue proposals. There are no-brainer lifts the GA can accomplish this year — the CME tax break for instance, which had record high earnings last quarter. Same with the retailers discount. It’s been on the table forever - and the small biz kickback is much needed for those mom-and-pop shops struggling. Big online retailers made huge profits last year despite a global pandemic, they can afford to chip in more and don’t need that outdated tax break.
I’m glad the long-term solutions are on the table too. Mark-to-Market is getting traction around the country. Of course there are questions to figure out, but we need to have grand ideas on the table to meet the grand crisis we’re finding ourselves in. It’s only reasonable.
Comment by Northsider Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:45 am
Mark to Market? Thought Jeff Skilling made that another “third rail” … /s ?
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:47 am
The “Mark to Market” idea screams of economic illiteracy. You do not earn an income when asset values increase - you only earn an income when you sell assets for a price that’s higher than what you paid for it.
Comment by California Guy Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:48 am
“The “Mark to Market” idea screams of economic illiteracy”
A Wealth Tax on households with net worth over 50M is more viable. In fact, California lawmakers have already started discussing how one would function.
Popularity of a wealth tax?
During the recent presidential primaries, no economic proposal garnered more bipartisan approval (I believe it was 70%+) than a national tax on wealth
Comment by Julian Perez Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:56 am
“The idea that the estate tax is somehow forcing farmer to sell their land, it’s wrong, just dead wrong. The tax system provides many tools to help farmers effectively transfer their assets to their heirs. Both times before now, in the 1960s and in 2001, when the estate tax repeal forces were at their strongest, Congress stepped in and rewarded farmers and small business owners with even more flexibility.”
Neil Harl, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Iowa State University, J.D., published on farming estate planning, 2017
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:57 am
“Carried interest”
Ordinary income and capital gains are subject to the same tax rate in Illinois—the loophole allows for (some) OI to be treated as capital gains for FIT purposes.
Also: are all those revenue numbers over 5+ years? Bc 5% of $4.8b is nothing close to $1b.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 11:09 am
There are problems with all of the proposals. But here are some highlights:
#2 There is no carried interest “loophole” under the Illinois income tax. All income, of whatever type is taxed by Illinois at the same rate. This is an attempt to address a federal tax issue at the state level. Imposing a surcharge on a particular type of income at the state level won’t work under the Illinois constitution which prohibits multiple income taxes and requires all income of a taxpayer of whatever nature to be taxed at the same rate.
#3 - Mark-to-market - Putting aside whether this makes any sense from a policy perspective - which in my estimation it does not - the introduced legislation also allows for the calculation of losses on a mark-to-market basis that may be carried forward to income years. This would just create a complicated system that would likely end up in the same place as far as tax revenues in the long term.
Second #2 - This would be an attempt to tax something 4 years after the fact. I suspect that when litigated, the state would be unlikely to prevail in a case involving that kind of retroactive taxation.
Second #3 - Joyce vs. Finnigan. this would lower the tax burden of unitary business groups that sell tangible property because of the operation of the throwback rule. The state gains revenue when the Joyce rule is applied to the throwback rule.
That revenue would be lost if the state switches to the Finnigan rule. (I’ll spare you the discussion of the arcane details of the throwback rule.)
Comment by Facts Matter Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 11:10 am
Chris & Facts Matter make a good point about carried interest. Where did they get the $1 billion? Did they not know ordinary income & capital gains are already treated the same by the Illinois Income Tax?
Comment by Blake Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 11:19 am
A follow up on the “deemed repatriation” -the second #2 Contrary to their description, the income was taxed federally in 2017. The federal legislation allowed taxpayers to pay the tax bill over a period of years. I’m not clear what the proponents are suggesting here. It sounds like they wish to tax 50% of the portion of the amounts taxed federally in 2017 that have yet to be paid.
Comment by Facts Matter Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 11:19 am
This is all the state constitution says about non-property income taxes.
SECTION 2. NON-PROPERTY TAXES - CLASSIFICATION,
EXEMPTIONS, DEDUCTIONS, ALLOWANCES
AND CREDITS
In any law classifying the subjects or objects of
non-property taxes or fees, the classes shall be reasonable
and the subjects and objects within each class shall be taxed
uniformly. Exemptions, deductions, credits, refunds and other
allowances shall be reasonable.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
SECTION 3. LIMITATIONS ON INCOME TAXATION
(a) A tax on or measured by income shall be at a
non-graduated rate. At any one time there may be no more than
one such tax imposed by the State for State purposes on
individuals and one such tax so imposed on corporations. In
any such tax imposed upon corporations the rate shall not
exceed the rate imposed on individuals by more than a ratio
of 8 to 5.
(b) Laws imposing taxes on or measured by income may
adopt by reference provisions of the laws and regulations of
the United States, as they then exist or thereafter may be
changed, for the purpose of arriving at the amount of income
upon which the tax is imposed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Comment by Dan Johnson Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 11:22 am
“A Wealth Tax on households with net worth over 50M is more viable”
The Department of Revenue or IRS is going to appraise Ken Griffin’s art collection, real estate holdings, and perform valuation analysis on his private ownership in Citadel? They are going to go to fly to Chicago, Florida, London, NYC and appraise anything valuable in his home? What treaty will require the Caymans or Bahamas to provide JB’s Family Trust information and offshore accounts? When their lawyers appeal and it takes 3 years to settle on a correct valuation each year how’s that going to work for the budget? Always budgeting in arrears? France already tried this. Failed measurably. Classic dorm room liberal think that a wealth tax is even feasible. The IRS Commissionaire testified last week that over $1 trillion in taxes goes unpaid each year. Maybe figure out that issue first.
Comment by 1st Ward Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 11:41 am
=== IL increased the estate tax exemption from $2 million in 2011 to $4 million after 2013. Expanding a tax benefit to such a small group of the very wealthiest residents cost Illinois $98.7 million in FY 2020 ===
The folks benefitting from this are not the very wealthiest of Illinois residents. If there is an estate that is about 3.5 million, that does not mean that the beneficiaries of that estate are all wealthy at all. For example, my uncle from another state died leaving behind his home, other real property, and some retirement accounts. I would not say that he was wealthy, as most of his net worth was tied up in real estate and retirement accounts that he did not yet access. When he died, he left his estate to several nieces, nephews and friends. After expenses, they all received a nice chunk of money from the estate, but they themselves were not wealthy and by making this change, it is only hurting the heirs in that they would receive less money from the estate and move themselves up the socioeconomic ladder.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 12:07 pm
*** and PREVENT THEM FROM moving up the socioeconomic ladder. ***
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 12:08 pm
Mark to market is a bookkeeping nightmare. Plus it only seems to change the timing of revenue, not the total amount. Presumably the gains and losses from each year would add up to the total gain at sale.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 12:24 pm
It’s worth repeating. I know four households who have moved their primary residency(in the last 3 years), with an approximate $30 million combined taxable income annually. That’s just the ones I know. Just be careful progressives is all I’m saying.
Comment by Blue Dog Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 12:34 pm
Dan Johnson, the “objects within each class shall be taxed uniformly” bit is where I think Mark to Market falls short. I don’t see how treating a middle class person asset’s one way and the rich’s another is uniform.
Comment by Perrid Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 12:46 pm
==It’s a start.==
Exactly, and overdue.
Most changes would be at the federal level but some things can be done in Illinois. Kudos to Raise Up Illinois for having some ideas.
Comment by Anonanonsir Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 12:58 pm
It looks like with carried interest what they’re proposing is that the difference in the federal ordinary income rate and the federal carried interest/capital gains rate is paid to Illinois.
Comment by 61820 Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 12:59 pm
Proposed statute: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/102/HB/10200HB3476.htm
(p) Surcharge on low-taxed investment income. For tax
12 years ending on or after December 31, 2021, a surcharge is
13 imposed on an Illinois resident’s low-taxed investment income
14 as follows:
15 (1) As used in this subsection, “low-taxed investment
16 income” means the amount of an individual’s Illinois
17 adjusted gross income attributable to long-term capital
18 gain, dividends, or any other type of income taxed under
19 the preferential rates of Section 1(h) of the Internal
20 Revenue Code.
21 (2) The surcharge imposed under this subsection shall
22 be equal to (i) the difference between (A) the applicable
23 federal income tax rate that would be imposed on an
24 individual’s low-taxed investment income if it were
25 subject to the federal income tax rates imposed on
26 ordinary income under Section 1 of the Internal Revenue
1 Code and (B) the applicable federal income tax rate
2 imposed at the preferential rates under Section 1(h) of
3 the Internal Revenue Code, multiplied by (ii) the amount
4 of an individual’s low-taxed investment income.
Comment by 61820 Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 1:02 pm
Thanks Perrid (and other tax lawyers). I just don’t see why the assessor can’t assess all holdings not just property. It’s not like stocks are hard to assess. They have a market price.
Comment by Dan Johnson Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 1:04 pm
After rereading most of these proposals….who are these loonies?
Comment by Blue Dog Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 1:15 pm
== It’s not like stocks are hard to assess. They have a market price. ==
A price that, literally, changes every second in some cases.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 1:16 pm
Dan, the short answer is that the assessors deal in real property and have no training or expertise in the valuation of personal property. More importantly, the Illinois constitution forbids personal property taxes. As I read the proposed legislation, it attempts to get around that by amending the income tax act to modify what will be deemed income.
Publicly traded stocks have a market price at any particular date. (Whether or not the market price on a particular date is a true indication of a change in value, and hence “income,” under the legislation is open to debate.)
However, attempting to value stock in a corporation that is not publicly traded isn’t so easy.
Comment by Facts Matter Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 1:29 pm
The challenges that some here have raised are valid questions - but I’d ask where the other options are that raise revenue from those who can most afford it, particularly those with investment wealth and income that has skyrocketed during the pandemic.
Comment by 26th Ward Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 1:38 pm
==The state should repeal this expanded exemption and restore the $2 million exemption.==
Why not go back to the $1 million exemption like it was prior to 2004? Wouldn’t that produce more revenue?
Comment by City Zen Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 1:46 pm
Mark to Market? Isn’t that literally the Enron approach? What could go wrong there?
Comment by duck duck goose Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 1:49 pm
I think these proposals are long overdue. On the wealth tax - this is an idea that I supported when Elizabeth Warren was pushing it - of course I support it for the super wealthy in Illinois.
Comment by Red Cat Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:11 pm
These are the same orgs that recycle themselves under a new name every time they find a new cause. Some good stuff in here, but just sayin.
Comment by Shytown Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:17 pm
== … go back to the $1 million exemption … ==
Between retirement savings and a nice house in the suburbs, $1M could start to hit a upper middle class to middle class estate if they haven’t done proper planning.
As people become more tax savvy, I see these proposals being a windfall for accountants and lawyers, but not generating the predicted revenues. Done properly, a good chunk of a million dollar plus estate can be passed on outside of Probate and the hands of the various taxing agencies.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:33 pm
Hey Rich, there are two more bills that weren’t included. Here they are:
SB2127/HB3424
Roll back a tax break for the Chicago Monetary Exchange and Board of Trade
Illinois should repeal a tax break extended to the Chicago Monetary Exchange (CME) and Chicago Board of Exchange (CBOE) in 2011 that changed the share of electronic trading income apportioned to the state from 100% to 27.54%, which results in a loss of $85 million annually. IL should restore the rate to 100%. CME achieved record high volumes and saw strong, double-digit growth in 20201 despite a global pandemic.
Revenue Est. $170 million
SB2483/HB3426
Modernize retailer’s discount by capping the amount retailers can recoup to $1,000 per year, affecting only the 15% highest earning retailers, and raising the discount to 2% for all other retailers
The Retailers’ Discount allows Illinois retailers to keep 1.75% of the sales taxes they collect from consumers. In addition, retailers that collect certain selective sales taxes are allowed to keep a percentage of the receipts for the same reasons, such as the Cigarette Tax, Telecommunications Excise Tax, and Gas Use Tax. These laws date back to the 1940s, but modern accounting methods have made them obsolete. Today it is a massive giveaway to “big box” stores; as one example,corporate giant Walmart keeps over $8 million2 each year through this tax break.
Revenue Estimate. $55 million
On a different note, we see the strong response to the Mark to Market. Just to clarify, it only applies to assets over $50,000,000. So MOST people would not be affected. In any event, it’s one of 8 ideas we’re proposing as sources of revenue to generate investments in childcare, housing, immigrant services, senior care and other programs to build a strong foundation so communities can have a just recovery and thrive.
Comment by Raise Up IL rep Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:46 pm
=== The challenges that some here have raised are valid questions - but I’d ask where the other options are that raise revenue from those who can most afford it, particularly those with investment wealth and income that has skyrocketed during the pandemic. ===
Maybe the people of the State of Illinois don’t want additional revenues? They had an opportunity to vote for additional revenues through the Graduated Income Tax referenda and voted against it. So maybe we have to show people cuts to compensate for the lack of revenue. Elections have consequences (and for the record I voted for the Graduated income Tax)
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 4:39 pm
“So MOST people would not be affected.”
Until the cap is lowered in future bills when you don’t raise what you think you will raise. This is nothing more than an estate tax while you live. No thanks. Awful idea.
Comment by 1st Ward Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 4:43 pm
Imagine living in a state without chronic deficits and mounting debt, with a decent bond rating, able to meet the needs of its residents. Good for Raise Up Illinois for thinking outside the box to find a way to get there. Changing the retailers discount, it’s high time. What else should be on the table asap?
Comment by pro bono Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 5:19 pm
Can’t understand how they missed raising the utility and boat trailer license fees to $1,118.00
Comment by SIU Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 6:22 pm
@JulianPerez
It’s popular because populism. How will the Dept of Revenue even know if someone has a current net worth (including value if assets owned) during the filing period? Are they going to fly around appraising real estate? Are stock values somehow tracked in real time? It’s administratively unfeasible.
The State will eventually get their tax once the assets are sold at a profit.
Comment by California Guy Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 7:52 pm
=== Until the …===
This isn’t even done and your “worry” still is apparent. Geez, Louise.
To the post,
Cuts, revenue, that’s budget speak.
Complaining on either side of this proposal must first have all sides agree;
Rauner showed with no budgetS what exactly can be cut, what *must* be paid… and what we have here is showing that *wants* need revenue… here are some places to look.
A budget is a weighing and measuring of priorities via price tax.
The seriousness to those priorities also begins and ends by showing how those monies are gotten.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 8:29 pm
“On a different note, we see the strong response to the Mark to Market. Just to clarify, it only applies to assets over $50,000,000. So MOST people would not be affected. In any event, it’s one of 8 ideas we’re proposing as sources of revenue to generate investments in childcare, housing, immigrant services, senior care and other programs to build a strong foundation so communities can have a just recovery and thrive.”
Translation - Oopsie, despite that “strong” response, please let us do a taksie backsie on the mark to market and take us seriously on the rest of our expert and comprehensive proposals.
Comment by ESR Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:10 pm
Waiting for the state to miss out on the only new sizable revenue certainty on the horizon: the legalization of online casino gambling in IL. The state can easily set up and operate its own online casino website given its experience with video gaming. No doubt however, the state will instead probably turn that entire “goody”operation over the IL casinos to do and just settle for peanuts in tax revenues.
Comment by Larry Saunders Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 11:09 pm