Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup (updated)
Next Post: Live coverage
Posted in:
* From the governor’s news conference today…
Q: In your State of the State address you called for a permanent elimination of the 1 percent grocery tax. But the Illinois Municipal League has come out against this plan, and many mayors across the state have said this would result in significant revenue loss that would force them to either implement a local grocery tax or cut services. How do you respond to these concerns?
Pritzker: They have the ability, will have the ability to reinstate a grocery tax locally, if that’s what they want to do. But this is about local control. And also eliminating a regressive tax on everyone in Illinois, but especially those who are disadvantaged, those were often left out and left behind. So yeah, I think we need to cut taxes, but especially for people who are just trying to go get food at a grocery store. It is time for us to eliminate it.
I want to say one other thing. We’re one of only 13 states left in the country that has a grocery tax. All the other states have gotten rid of it. And you ought to go look at the map and see what states are remaining. But I mean, we’re behind West Virginia at getting rid of a grocery tax, just to give you an example. We should be leading in this country. We should, I mean, Illinois is a state where we care deeply about working families, about those who are low income families and frankly, those who don’t have a job and may just have a little bit of money and go to the grocery store. And yeah, it’s only a dollar for every 100 that you spend. But that means a lot to people at the lowest end of the spectrum in terms of income. And so I’m pleased and proud to have put this proposal forward. And you know, always happy to talk to people about how we can help them locally to replace revenue, but the reality is I put $1.3 billion of state money more than in past years into local hands. And that’s on top of billions of dollars that the state already sends to local governments.
Q: But does this put local governments local municipalities in a position of having to either give the appearance of raising a tax on their own or having to cut services?
Pritzker: So, they’re not willing to step forward and say that they want a grocery tax at the local level? They want the state government to do it so they don’t have to admit that that’s what they want? Is that what you’re asking?
Q: They’re going to look like they’re either raising taxes or they’re cutting services because the state has taken away…
Pritzker: Go talk to the Republican state legislators who, when I eliminated for a year - during the highest inflation time that we’ve had in my lifetime, or at least in a long time - when I eliminated the grocery tax for a year, the Republican legislators said you should make that permanent. They yelled at me, they held press conferences telling me that I had done something terrible by only eliminating it for a year. And I thought about it for a long time and thought, yeah, this is the most regressive tax, the tax on food. So we should eliminate it. I frankly, I took their advice.
* Several Senate Republicans did indeed file a bill last year that would’ve not only permanently killed off the grocery tax, but would’ve replaced lost revenues…
Beginning August 1, 2023, the State Comptroller shall order transferred and the State Treasurer shall transfer from the General Revenue Fund to the State and Local Sales Tax Reform Fund, the amount deposited into the State and Local Sales Tax Reform Fund for the same month in calendar year 2021 from items that were subject to a 1% rate of tax in calendar year 2021. On August 1 of each year thereafter, the amount transferred from the General Revenue Fund to the State and Local Sales Tax Reform Fund under this paragraph shall be increased by the percentage change, if any, in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers as issued by the United States Department of Labor for the most recent 12-month period for which data is available.
The big problem with this, of course, is what if a large grocery store closes in one town and reopens in another? A municipality would then be receiving state money it didn’t deserve and the other would get the shaft.
It’s not a workable bill as-is.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 2:44 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Isabel’s afternoon roundup (updated)
Next Post: Live coverage
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“But I mean, we’re behind West Virginia”
JB should refrain from throwing shade at other states.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 2:53 pm
Two separate thoughts, one about JB, one about Rich’s comment at the end.
RE JB: I really appreciate his no-nonsense approach with media. Just answer the question and get straight to the point. For most of my life Dems seem to dance around what they are doing and act almost embarrassed by their own policy choices. I never understood why, it isn’t like it helped them. If you believe in your actions, you should own them and be proud of it. I definitely appreciate that.
To Rich’s point: this is why local taxing and local control is actually a bad thing overall. It just ensures the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. We already see it with school and infrastructure funding. The best places to live have property values going up, meaning more money for local services. The worst places have population leave, property values go down, and either funding is lost or the remaining taxpayers have to pay a higher burden. Neither is great.
Yes, the local governments need to be accountable for their desire to tax their own constituents without facing any consequences for it. But also those local taxes in general have always been terrible ideas. This is why I supported a statewide graduated income tax and giving the state a better ability to redistribute resources from where they are to where they are needed.
Comment by Homebody Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 2:57 pm
The Governor’s proposal does much less than he thinks for low income shoppers because SNAP purchases are already exempt from sales tax. His proposal won’t do much for the folks he says he’s trying to help with it.
Comment by Philo Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 3:00 pm
I think the Governor really likes answering this question.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 3:02 pm
There are plenty of people who do not qualify for SNAP who top out at “getting by” who won’t mind the extra five bucks a month in their pockets.
Or how about we reinstitute the state grocery tax as a funding mechanism for expanded SNAP-type benefits?
Comment by Roadrager Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 3:18 pm
==I think the Governor really likes answering this question.==
Exactly. There is absolutely no political downside to this. I’m not sure why politically people who are pushing back against this think that they have an argument. Regardless of the actual policy implications he’s getting rid of a tax, and a regressive one at that. You only look like an idiot when you are arguing for that tax.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 3:29 pm
“ So, they’re not willing to step forward and say that they want a grocery tax at the local level? They want the state government to do it so they don’t have to admit that that’s what they want? Is that what you’re asking?”
So you are only willing to step forward with a tax cut when it doesn’t come out of your budget? You believe that it would be better to have 1000 different taxing bodies instead of just one? You want to empower anti-tax wing nuts? Is that what you are saying?
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 3:50 pm
I have been puzzling over the grocery tax. What is its purpose? other than haphazardly giving money to villages and towns. I live in the country. The village of my mailing address does not have a grocery store, so they get nothing. (although I wonder if internet purchases tax goes to mailing address village). I do most of my grocery shopping in the same village for which I pay most property taxes (school, etc) but I also shop in the county seat for items my local store does not carry and twice a year I drive to Rockford to stock up on Italian staples. Plus the online (because I would have to drive to Chicago) stuff.
I do think the locals should adult-up and impose the grocery tax if they need the money. But if continue as a state collected tax, distribute on a per capita basis to municipalities counties.
Another idea to minimize the regressive aspect of the grocery tax is to make it a restaurant/bar tax. I bet there are many more of them in the state.
Comment by very old soil Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 4:35 pm
The Grocery tax is about as regressive a tax as I can think of.
The Governor is absolutely doing the right thing.
Comment by Back to the Future Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 4:41 pm
Freeport has a Food and Beverage Privilege Tax of 1 ¼%
Comment by very old soil Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 4:41 pm
I’m confused by the Governor’s statement that we need to cut taxes, especially for people who are just trying to go get food at a grocery store. Isn’t that pretty much the entire population?
Comment by Confused Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 4:42 pm
Municipalities want to have their cake and eat it, too by wanting the money but not the responsibility, or blame, for raising said money.
Comment by TJ Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 4:51 pm
I don’t understand why anyone would think the EBT users are the only ones with struggles that would benefit from the tax going away. There are services that could be taxed that would boost revenue without being so regressive.
Comment by Leo21 Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 5:17 pm
Hats off to JB on this one….Finally, a politician exhibiting responsible privilege……
Comment by Downstate Surveyor Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 5:22 pm
–Confused–
You must be confused about the fact that sentences fit together in a paragraph when they are all about the same topic. The previous sentence talks about disadvantaged people who are often left out and left behind. So yeah, this is a tax cut for everyone at the store but the tax cut would be proportionately more helpful to those who are more financially disadvantaged. Those financially disadvantaged people rarely get to take advantage of tax cuts in other areas.
Comment by Aaron B Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 5:36 pm
It cracked me up to read about my mayor - a man who never misses an opportunity to complain about Springfield and their “out of control taxing” complain about removing a tax.
Comment by Proud Papa Bear Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 6:42 pm
===You must be confused about the fact that sentences fit together in a paragraph===
Some people just assume everyone else is an idiot.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 10:46 pm
===“But I mean, we’re behind West Virginia”
JB should refrain from throwing shade at other states. ===
lol
He was saying that West Virginia, not exactly the most forward-looking state by any measure in the universe, is beating us.
Take a breath already.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 5, 24 @ 10:53 pm
Unintended consequences.
I live in a small town that is fortunate to still have a grocery store.
I’m guessing our small town mayor does not have to catch heat at her day job, church, sporting events about how she is the one to lobby for the tax to replace the state funding. I don’t blame her for that.
I assume that this would have to be passed by referendum? Not likely here in Maga-land. Lose/lose.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Wednesday, Mar 6, 24 @ 7:32 am
The elimination of the grocery tax isn’t all that we are behind West Virginia & Kentucky in saving taxpayers millions of dollars in drug price reforms by eliminating PBMs & cutting down to 1 Managed Care Organization for transparency. Several of our neighboring midwestern states have done this, and have not seen premiums or co-pays increase. They have seen access to medication increase, and WV & Kentucky reinvested the states’ savings on these reforms into statewide dental initiatives for low-income families & passed money through to local communities and small businesses.
Comment by UHCguru Wednesday, Mar 6, 24 @ 8:49 am
JB is spot on with the elimination of this tax. It is regressive. If all of the naysayers in municipalities had had the foresight/courage to vigorously support the graduated income tax, there would be more money for municipal services, a necessary and wise goal.
If enough of that tax revenue were directed towards reducing property taxes by funding schools at a fixed and adequate level, everybody would be better off. Even the high income earners would benefit from stronger communities and better services.
Comment by froganon Wednesday, Mar 6, 24 @ 9:33 am
this was always a local tax that the state collected and distributed–just like the personal property replacement tax that the state has also reduced to local gov’ts. You want to know why your property taxes are so high, it’s because the state continues to take their income, sales and other sources of revenue away from them. Strong Chicago mayors always protected the locals revenues, but no more.
Comment by ANON Wednesday, Mar 6, 24 @ 5:18 pm