Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day: 2022 Golden Horseshoe Awards
Next Post: *** UPDATED x7 *** Backgrounder on Pretrial Fairness Act changes
Posted in:
* Crain’s yesterday…
Just a year after passing major new tax incentives to lure electric vehicle makers here, the Pritzker administration is aiming to sweeten the pot.
Legislation introduced in Springfield today that [quickly passed the Senate 49-5] would both widen and extend to up to 30 years payroll tax credits for those who work here under the existing Reimagining Electric Vehicles in Illinois law, known as the Rev Illinois Act. […]
Mark Denzler, who heads the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association and worked on both Rev Illinois and the new plan, said the state has learned something from those losses and by talking to other companies whose plans are not yet final.
“We’ve seen we’ve come up short in some cases, so we’re tweaking,” Denzler said after testifying on behalf of the bill. “It means we’re listening to what we’ve heard from the companies that didn’t choose Illinois, and from companies that are still considering if they want to come here.”
Fact sheet from the Pritzker administration…
HB 5189, SA#3 is an initiative to provide improvements to the Reimagining Electric Vehicles in Illinois (REV Illinois) Act. The changes in this amendment are in direct response to conversations with industry stakeholders as we aggressively recruit companies in the rapidly evolving electric vehicle sector for Illinois investment.
Updates the Definition of “Component Parts Manufacturers” to Reflect Current Market Conditions
20 ILCS 686/10In response to the reality of market conditions, these changes support existing Illinois manufacturers in the ramping up of their production of EV component parts while giving them flexibility to decrease their more traditional lines as demand decreases.
• Removes the need for a component parts manufacturer under the Act to primarily produce EV component parts
• Removes the “substantially” portion of definition of “retained employee” for component parts manufacturers
• Allows production of any component part of an electric vehicle to be considered eligible for the creditSupports Existing Illinois Automakers to Transform Their Current Plants to EV
20 ILCS 686/30• Improves the REV retention credit by increasing the tax credit available against incremental income tax attributable to retained employees at applicant’s project to 75% (from 25%) statewide or 100% (from 50%) for those locating or expanding in an Underserved or Energy Transition Area
Allows for Renewal of REV Agreements
20 ILCS 686/15 & /40• Enacts a renewal clause that allows for businesses to renew the incentive for one additional term
• Allows the Department to put in parameters (i.e new & retained jobs, capital investment) for renewalAllows Businesses Flexibility in Determining Which Incentives Work Best for Them
20 ILCS 686/20• Provides the authority for EDGE recipients who are REV eligible to trade in their EDGE agreement for a REV agreement and receive REV benefits
• Provides that if a manufacturer falls out of compliance with REV because they are no longer producing EVs or component parts, but they are otherwise meeting employment and investment thresholds, then they can receive EDGE benefits without having to restart the processNote: HB 5189, SA#3 also includes a technical change to ensure 120% wage requirement is met utilizing quality data compensation calculation under REV
The Predatory Loan Prevention Act instituted a 36% interest rate cap on loans in Illinois, but some lawmakers say pawnbrokers are skirting the law.
A Sangamon County judge issued a preliminary injunction against the cap after pawnbrokers filed a lawsuit against the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.
Legislation is pending in Springfield that would close the loophole and require Illinois pawnbrokers to charge no more than 36% APR for their loans.
A Woodstock Institute investigation showed that Illinois pawnbrokers were overcharging active-duty service members on loans with interest as much as 240%. Federal law is also supposed to cap those interest rates for service members. […]
Kelly Swisher, president of the Illinois Pawnbrokers Association, said the loans they deal with are usually short term.
“Typically 30 to 60 days, so we are captured under [the Truth in Lending Act], so we have to put down the 240%, but in actuality, it is a very short period of time,” Swisher said.
Woodstock Institute notes that nationally, annual interest rates on pawn loans are as low as 12%, much lower than the proposed 36%.
SJ-R…
Moving to Chicago last year, content creator Jazmine Thompson needed some extra cash to cover rent and expenses. She pawned her laptop computer and three professional cameras, receiving with it two $800 loans.
The interest rate on the loans was about 150% requiring her to pay $8,000 in loan fees over the course of 12 months. Not able to cover those expenses, Thompson decided to stop paying back the interest on her loans and has not regained her property. […]
“I’d like to point out that during COVID, the shutdowns, we were considered an essential business by this government,” Swisher said, who owns a pawn shop in Arlington Heights. “Now, all of a sudden, we are the enemy.”
IPA represents more than 200 pawnbrokers with a variety of specialties throughout the state, including three in Springfield, which makes setting a statewide standard a challenge. Above all, Swisher claims the measure will cause many shops to go out of business.
* Center Square on a bill that has been stuck in House Rules Committee since April…
A measure some at the Illinois statehouse hope to advance would give voting rights to incarcerated individuals serving time in county jails or state or federal prisons.
Senate Bill 828 is sponsored by state Sen. Mike Simmons, D-Chicago, and, if passed, would overturn current law that states anyone serving a sentence in a federal or state prison, county jail, or on work release is ineligible to vote. […]
State Rep. Adam Niemerg, R-Dieterich, claims the legislation was brought forward for the wrong reasons.
“A voter block such as this raises some questions about the unintended consequences of this piece of legislation,” Niemerg said. “Perhaps, they are the intended consequences of this being a Democratic voter drive, so to speak.”
By framing it this way, isn’t he also saying he’s opposed because he’s protecting Republican political interests?
* Politico on the measure to implement the unemployment insurance trust fund agreed bill…
As we mentioned Wednesday, this would be a supplemental budget that might prompt lawmakers to try to tack on additional goodies. But Republicans are saying they won’t be on board unless the measure is strictly focused on paying off unemployment debt. That will be fine with Pritzker. He wants the measure to have bipartisan support and doesn’t need the drama of add-ons.
Watch for hiccups: The proposal will be part of a supplemental budget, which could become a Christmas tree for lawmakers who want to negotiate items or bills for their own purposes.
This is an agreed bill. There’s no mucking around with agreed bills. And it’s also not an appropriations bill, supplemental or otherwise. We’ll see a supplemental approp next year.
…Adding… There is an approp bill, and the Senate is debating it now. However, there was no mucking around with it.
…Adding… The actual implementation bill passed the House by a wide, bipartisan margin.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 10:19 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day: 2022 Golden Horseshoe Awards
Next Post: *** UPDATED x7 *** Backgrounder on Pretrial Fairness Act changes
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
===There’s no mucking around with agreed bills===
There’s also no actual reporting from Politico suggesting this might happen. No lawmaker says they’re going to cause a “hiccup,” and no supporter of the deal is predicting one. It’s random, unsourced speculation, which is bad enough on its own. But this particular reporter seems to have a roughly West Wing Season 1-level understanding of the legislative process.
Comment by vern Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 10:47 am
There is actual a supplemental appropriation necessary for the UI agreement.
Comment by Not a Leader Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 11:11 am
===actual a supplemental appropriation necessary===
Depends on when they want to put the $400+ million in, but likely. Even so, this bill ain’t that. But, thanks, actually person.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 11:16 am
I’m glad to see we aren’t just shooting for a participation trophy in the EV sector. Let’s play to win. Nice job JB!
Comment by levivotedforjudy Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 11:52 am
Rep. Niemerg’s concern about incarcerated person’s voting for Democratic candidates may be misplaced. With domestic terrorists like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers headed for prison, more of the jail population will vote for Republicans. It could be that the majority of jail house voters move into the Republican column, just sayin….
Comment by froganon Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 12:08 pm
===By framing it this way, isn’t he also saying he’s opposed because he’s protecting Republican political interests?===
“Look, don’t make us have to ignore insurrectionists or insurrection apologists by having possible ‘Democrat Voters’ given the ability to vote… don’t make us keep doing it”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 12:21 pm
-up to 30 years payroll tax credits-
If it was such a profitable industry it wouldn’t need to rip off Illinois taxpayers for 30 years.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 1:39 pm
Congratulating JB before any actual accomplishments in attracting investment in the EV sector in Illinoisis the definition of a participation trophy
Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 1:41 pm
The bipartisan support received means that Illinois needs to do this
Comment by notafraid Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 2:12 pm
I am not sure what their thoughts are on that approps bill. It’s a Senate bill still in the Senate. I guess they will get it over to the House today for first reading then 2nd reading in lame duck. Then might have to have a lame duck session on the morning before swearing in to read it a third time.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 3:19 pm
===I am not sure what their thoughts are===
The agreement is that the approp bill will stay clean. And if for some unforeseen reason that it doesn’t, the agreement is that all four leaders have to sign off, per Senate President Harmon today.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 3:30 pm
====The agreement is that the approp bill will stay clean.====
Sorry, I wasn’t questioning that. I was wondering about using a Senate bill still in that chamber and the time needed. Thanks for the clarification. I guess now that it looks like there will be plenty of time in lame duck my point is moot.
Comment by Been There Thursday, Dec 1, 22 @ 4:09 pm