Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 04, 2008, 07:51:03 AM
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=165770&src=109
Double state taxes for the rich?
By John Patterson | Daily Herald StaffContact writer
SPRINGFIELD -- A state lawmaker wants voters to decide if people making more than $250,000 a year should have their Illinois income tax doubled, with the billions of new dollars paying for education, roads and tax breaks for everyone else.
If successful in Springfield, the question would be put to voters in November. If voters endorse it, the current 3 percent state income tax rate would double to 6 percent for individuals and joint tax filers making more than a quarter-million dollars.
Colleagues have already dubbed downstate Democrat Rep. Mike Smith's plan the "Robin Hood referendum." State tax data shows 107,000 people in the state made more than $250,000. That's roughly 5 percent of all tax filers.
"Let's take from the rich and give to the poor," said state Rep. Joseph Lyons, a Chicago Democrat.
Supporters hope the other 95 percent -- who'd pay nothing more and could see upward of $300 in state tax breaks -- would swamp polling places to vote for this.
"I'm not sure who would campaign against this other than those 107,000," Smith said.
But some suburban lawmakers were quick to oppose the plan. Not surprisingly, the greatest concentration of top earners is in the Chicago and suburban region. Cook County had 45,146 tax filers reporting income over $250,000 in 2005.
The numbers in the other suburban counties were: DuPage County, 15,054; Lake County, 12,846; McHenry County, 5,449; Kane County, 4,558; and Will County, 2,693.
Sen. Kirk Dillard, a Hinsdale Republican, said the low, flat income tax is "one of the last good economic tools" in Illinois.
"We should not get sucked into class warfare," said Dillard, who estimated his own income would fall short of the $250,000 threshold.
Dillard was among the Republican lawmakers who, also on Thursday, unveiled their own economic plan that calls for rolling back state taxes on gasoline and businesses.
Illinois now has a flat, 3 percent income tax regardless of how much someone makes. The state constitution requires a flat rate regardless of income, so an amendment would be needed to create an upper-bracket tax.
Under this tax plan, the increase would generate nearly $3 billion annually to be split equally among education funding, state-sponsored construction and tax relief in the form of doubling the personal exemption for those making less than $250,000 annually.
The proposal comes as lawmakers are again considering plans that raise income taxes and expand sales taxes to come up with billions of new dollars for school funding. They're also considering new casinos and other gambling expansion to finance road, bridge and school construction.
But Smith said he believes those plans are hopelessly stalled, and putting the income tax before voters is a better option. A proposed constitutional amendment also would skip Gov. Rod Blagojevich's desk and go straight to voters.
Blagojevich has repeatedly vowed not to raise the state income or sales tax. He did, however, recently agree to a higher Chicago and suburban sales tax to bail out mass transit agencies.
Of the 40 states with an income tax, Illinois is one of seven charging all taxpayers a flat rate. Indiana similarly has a flat, 3.4 percent income tax rate.
Wisconsin has four tax brackets ranging from 4.6 percent to 6.75 percent, Iowa's tax rates cover nine brackets ranging from 0.36 percent to 8.98 percent, and Missouri's 10 income tax brackets range from a low of 1.5 percent to a high of 6 percent.
To make the November ballot, the proposed tax question would need House and Senate approval by May 4. Smith said he hopes for initial approval in the House as soon as next week.
Post by: HankB on April 04, 2008, 08:03:46 AM
. . . Double state taxes for the rich?
As soon as I read that line, I thought "Democrats!!"So I read a little further . . .
. . . Colleagues have already dubbed downstate Democrat Rep. Mike Smith's plan the "Robin Hood referendum." . . .
"Let's take from the rich and give to the poor," said state Rep. Joseph Lyons, a Chicago Democrat.
"Let's take from the rich and give to the poor," said state Rep. Joseph Lyons, a Chicago Democrat.
Yep, Democrats. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Maybe they should call this the "Karl Marx referendum."
Post by: Manedwolf on April 04, 2008, 08:10:30 AM
Chicago will look just like Detroit, if not worse.
Brilliant plan. WHY THE HELL do people still live there? If you do, eject now!
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 04, 2008, 08:30:41 AM
Post by: Werewolf on April 04, 2008, 12:02:24 PM
So, all the rich will get the hell out of Illinois, leaving a third world country.
Chicago will look just like Detroit, if not worse.
Brilliant plan. WHY THE HELL do people still live there? If you do, eject now!
Those were my thoughts too.Chicago will look just like Detroit, if not worse.
Brilliant plan. WHY THE HELL do people still live there? If you do, eject now!
Imagine trying to recruit highly skilled and experienced engineers, doctors, lawyers and CEO's from out of state with this type of tax plan in place.
OTOH - not having ever earned a quarter mil a year I have to wonder if the difference between giving the state 3% and 6% in real cash dollars would be all that big of a deal. For example one earning a quarter mil gives the state $15,000 vs the $7,500 he would have under the old plan. $7,500 - real money to most folks but maybe not to those impacted.
Robbing the rich to buy votes from the poor sucks but who knows - in IL it may just work with minimal impact.
Post by: El Tejon on April 04, 2008, 12:52:30 PM
Bring your businesses, bring your payrolls, bring your dreams, and bring your guns!
/s/ Tippecanoe County Chamber of Commerce
Post by: taurusowner on April 04, 2008, 05:48:27 PM
Quote
So, all the rich will get the hell out of Illinois, leaving a third world country.
Chicago will look just like Detroit, if not worse.
Chicago will look just like Detroit, if not worse.
That is exactly what will happen.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 04, 2008, 05:55:35 PM
So, all the rich will get the hell out of Illinois, leaving a third world country.
Chicago will look just like Detroit, if not worse.
Brilliant plan. WHY THE HELL do people still live there? If you do, eject now!
Those were my thoughts too.Chicago will look just like Detroit, if not worse.
Brilliant plan. WHY THE HELL do people still live there? If you do, eject now!
Imagine trying to recruit highly skilled and experienced engineers, doctors, lawyers and CEO's from out of state with this type of tax plan in place.
OTOH - not having ever earned a quarter mil a year I have to wonder if the difference between giving the state 3% and 6% in real cash dollars would be all that big of a deal. For example one earning a quarter mil gives the state $15,000 vs the $7,500 he would have under the old plan. $7,500 - real money to most folks but maybe not to those impacted.
Robbing the rich to buy votes from the poor sucks but who knows - in IL it may just work with minimal impact.
$7,500 is always real money. What exactly should he be forced to give up to pay it, and with what justification?
Does he drive on special extra roads? Use more schools? Call the police twice as much?
Why is he, based on some arbitrary number, now responsible for paying twice as much when he uses the exact same amount of services that his taxes are supposedly going for?
Post by: taurusowner on April 04, 2008, 06:15:22 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 04, 2008, 06:21:52 PM
I never understood the liberals' desire to punish those who ear success.
Forget "earn", I don't care if it was handed them on a platter. If they got it legally, it's their's, same as anything anybody else got legally, rich or poor.
Post by: Bigjake on April 04, 2008, 06:47:50 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 04, 2008, 06:55:34 PM
Post by: taurusowner on April 04, 2008, 07:52:59 PM
Post by: Ken C on April 05, 2008, 06:15:27 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 05, 2008, 06:26:26 AM
Post by: WeedWhacker on April 05, 2008, 07:11:33 AM
Paddy, what if I got some people to outnumber you and decide you have too much and I deserve to take some of it from you?
Ah, yes. The debunked supply side trickle down myth. Let's not devolve back to the voodoo economics of the '80's, please.
Ooh. Nice dodge! (Not to mention the fact that costs to businesses are passed along to customers.)
Post by: seeker_two on April 05, 2008, 07:21:08 AM
Post by: ilbob on April 05, 2008, 07:49:54 AM
personally, i would prefer to see the income tax eliminated, along with most of the things it funds.
raise the sales tax rate to whatever it has to be to support the minimum level of government actually needed.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2008, 09:19:11 AM
how many people making $250,000 a year can there be in Illinois?
There will certainly be less if this passes.
Boss Daley apparently wants a tinpot dictatorship complete with third-world masses to push around.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 05, 2008, 12:03:12 PM
In theory, it's a progressive income tax, so why not? Take some of the tax burden off the wage earners. In practice the fatcats will find the loopholes/shelters and dodges and avoid paying it.
It's not a progressive tax. Progressive would be setting up brackets so that everyone pays 3% up to $250K and then only income over that amount is taxed at 6%.
This law states that if you make $250,001 you pay twice as much on the total amount as someone who makes $249,999.
Not "progressive" at all. Just punitive and arbitrary.
Post by: Scout26 on April 05, 2008, 01:39:46 PM
Quote
The debunked supply side trickle down myth. Let's not devolve back to the voodoo economics of the '80's, please.
Yep, just keep on repeating that lie, eventually someone will believe it.....
Post by: lee n. field on April 05, 2008, 04:56:25 PM
Quote
Illinois now has a flat, 3 percent income tax regardless of how much someone makes. The state constitution requires a flat rate regardless of income, so an amendment would be needed to create an upper-bracket tax.
We've made up for that oversight by a series of "temporary" sales tax hikes.
Post by: lee n. field on April 05, 2008, 04:57:22 PM
Quote
Yep, Democrats. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his meds.
Ah, dislexica!
Post by: The Annoyed Man on April 05, 2008, 05:14:04 PM
Post by: Scout26 on April 05, 2008, 07:41:18 PM
Oh wait, they didn't control it....
Post by: zahc on April 05, 2008, 09:26:38 PM
Quote
"I'm not sure who would campaign against this other than those 107,000," Smith said.
Wow. So bold. IOW "We can get away with anything as long as it only affects a minority"
Post by: Manedwolf on April 05, 2008, 09:32:11 PM
Can't tax that, now, can they.