Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pritzker administration on defense over rising healthcare costs for undocumented immigrants
Next Post: A modest proposal
Posted in:
* Daily Journal…
For the second time, the village of Bourbonnais’ proposed Non-Home Rule Sales Tax referendum for property tax relief was voted down. […]
The village was asking residents to increase its local sales tax by 1 percentage point, or one cent, going from its current 7.25% sales tax to 8.25% in its three business districts.
Outside of those business districts, the rate would increase from 6.25% to 7.25%.
If residents had approved the referendum, funds collected would have provided property tax rebates to single-family, owner-occupied homeowners on the municipal portion of their tax bill for at least 10 years.
Back when the state income tax for property tax swap idea was all the rage, some folks believed that voters just wouldn’t go for it, despite the obvious benefits. There was so little trust in government, the fear was voters would focus solely on the tax hike and totally reject the premise that they’d ever get a tax cut.
I don’t know if that’s what happened in Bourbonnais, but I’m just sayin’.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 10:42 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pritzker administration on defense over rising healthcare costs for undocumented immigrants
Next Post: A modest proposal
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
You are correct. Free tollways at some point hard to trust I guess
Comment by Tom Potter Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 11:01 am
== There was so little trust in government, ===
The more things change, etc etc
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 11:12 am
If this is true (probably more than a kernel of truth), then I wonder if it were structured so that any increased taxes are only triggered after the promised tax cuts. Just spitballing.
Comment by Lt Guv Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 11:17 am
If only SFH owners were going to benefit I can see why anyone renting would object.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 12:07 pm
“I don’t know if that’s what happened in Bourbonnais”
The number of local landlords might move the needle if there is a large enough number of them. Since this is only for owner-occupied homes landlords would see an increase in sales taxes without any property tax changes to their rental properties.
–935 voted against implementing the sales tax and 896 voted in favor of it–
That’s pretty close. If there are 39 landlords who voted according to their rentals not getting a tax break, that’s enough to change the outcome.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 12:11 pm
They should have sold this idea as a way to let people from Kankakee, Bradley, Manteno and rural K3 County subsidize Bourbonnais property taxes. There isn’t much to do in Kankakee County, but most of it is in Bourbonnais.
Fun fact: When I grew up near there, it was pronounced “Bur-bone-ess.” They changed it to the fancy (and accurate) French pronunciation in the late 70s or early 80s. I think it was Mayor Ernie Mooney’s idea. Took a while to catch on.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 12:31 pm
===The number of local landlords might move the needle===
Why would landlords be against a property tax cut?
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 12:34 pm
===should have sold this idea as a way to let people from Kankakee, Bradley, Manteno and rural K3 County subsidize Bourbonnais property taxes===
An excellent point.
===I think it was Mayor Ernie Mooney’s idea===
As I recall, the pronunciation became an issue in France, somehow. Also, the township name is still pronounced the old fashioned way.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 12:36 pm
===I don’t know if that’s what happened in Bourbonnais===
It’s an incredibly regressive tax proposal that favors the wealthiest members of the community. Advocates of these kinds of proposals are often people who own large houses themselves who pretend as if these higher taxes will be paid by other people who don’t live in town.
A quick check of some records show that the median income in Bourbonnais is not enough to even come close to paying the mortgage on median valued home in Bourbonnais. This might just be something that people are not interested in.
Comment by Candy Dogood Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 12:39 pm
–Why would landlords be against a property tax cut?–
Because they wouldn’t get a property tax cut on their rental properties. Owner-occupied only. They would pay the increased sales tax.
The renters also wouldn’t have any incentive, because they aren’t paying the property taxes either. But they too would pay the sales taxes.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 1:50 pm
If voting on a plan like this, I’d be wondering if/how the next village board could be held to the promises of this one.
Comment by yinn Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 1:53 pm
Answer: If voters had passed the sales tax increases, the village board would have had to approve the property tax rebate annually. https://www.villageofbourbonnais.com/images/content/residents/news/VOB_Referendum_2023_FAQ.pdf
Comment by yinn Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 2:31 pm
===The renters also wouldn’t have any incentive, because they aren’t paying the property taxes either.===
Actually, when Rostenkowski and Reagan did the “tax reform” in 1985, it was acknowledged that non-subsidized renters pay property taxes, just not directly.
Comment by Anyone Remember Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 2:35 pm
Anyone Remembers,
That’s just it. Since this piece of legislation only covered Single family owner occupied houses, it wasn’t going to cover the landlords who would then not pass on the savings (ha) to the renters. This leg was literally just going to benefit one group while the entire group would pay more sales tax.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Apr 21, 23 @ 2:52 pm