Double state taxes for the rich?

[min0 lee]

Daily Herald | Double state taxes for the rich?


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.

 

[DOMS]

That'll just drive the rich out of Illinois. Then all that tax money, even the money they'd have gotten even if they hadn't raised the taxes on the rich, will be gone.

A fitting punishment.

 

[BigDyl]

A progressive tax is a tax imposed so that the effective tax rate increases as the economic well-being increases.

 

[maniclion]

He fails to realize that out of those 95%, 92% think they will be in the 5% within a few years....thats why they keep pushing their credit to the limits...

 

[Big Smoothy]

Daily Herald | Double state taxes for the rich?


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.

What a laugh!

I have a better idea: have the state be more fiscally responsible.

It seems when government sees a "problem" the solution is to take more of people's money.

Tax breaks for everyone else? The majority of revenue comes from the so-called middle class. It would be a token tax cut, if it every happened.

My state sold the Lottery by saying the money would go to education, and restrain property tax increases.

It never happened.

Bureaucrats get together and decide where to spend the money on all kinds of things. This is called the "General Revenue" fund.

If the government takes more and more of peoples' money problems will be solved.

B.S.

 

[clemson357]

A progressive tax is a tax imposed so that the effective tax rate increases as the economic well-being increases.

Thank you, Mr. Dictionary.






I agree with the law. Just because you don't earn the money doesn't mean you aren't entitled to it.

 

[kbm8795]

Let the people decide.

 

[lnvanry]

I come from IL, I have a lot of family and close friends who fall in that that bracket...I assure you that this will not pass. I heard about this a while ago during Christmas...It's kind of a joke actually. The reps of poor Chicago districts along with some districts from the quad cities (northwest part of the state by Moline etc) and a few southern districts will vote for it...but the majority of the suburbs won't let this fly along with the rest of the state....the suburbs of Chicago are the districts that drive policy in the state.

 

[TwiloMike]

I agree with the law. Just because you don't earn the money doesn't mean you aren't entitled to it.

And that is the kind of thinking that makes me cringe. Oy vey....

 

[clemson357]

And that is the kind of thinking that makes me cringe. Oy vey....

Seriously, just because you aren't related to someone, don't know them, and probably will never meet them, doesn't mean that your money shouldn't be redistributed to them. Its all about equality and fairness.

 

[clemson357]

Let the people decide.

Is that your mentality on all things? If the majority vote to ban same sex marriage, your OK with it? After all, let the people decide.

 

[kbm8795]

Is that your mentality on all things? If the majority vote to ban same sex marriage, your OK with it? After all, let the people decide.

I thought that was the mentality of conservatives - especially when it has to do with the rights of other Americans. I pretty much quoted their own slogan concerning "marriage" amendments. Why dislike the concept now when it targets the rich for taxes? At least it doesn't try to make adults who can't be legally married permanent wards of the state.

 

[kbm8795]

Thank you, Mr. Dictionary.






I agree with the law. Just because you don't earn the money doesn't mean you aren't entitled to it.

It really depends on your definition of "earn." Does a CEO with a golden parachute landing with $100 million when the company goes belly-up "earning" it?

 

[DaMayor]

Yes.

 

[lnvanry]

kwality stuff tonight DM

 

[TwiloMike]

Seriously, just because you aren't related to someone, don't know them, and probably will never meet them, doesn't mean that your money shouldn't be redistributed to them. Its all about equality and fairness.

Why should my money be redistributed to others? I don't see how redistribution of wealth can create equality. Care to explain how that would work?

Also,we seem to view fairness very differently. I see allowing people to decide what to do with their money as fairness: if they want to be charitable, let them. If they don't, same.

That said, life isn't fair. I do agree that social programs are important and should be supported and this requires forced fund raising (read: taxes) but I prefer keeping these to a minimum to not encourage dependency on such programs.

 

[TwiloMike]

Let the people decide.

Mob rule is fierce.

 

[goob]

It really depends on your definition of "earn." Does a CEO with a golden parachute landing with $100 million when the company goes belly-up "earning" it?

Exactly. These fuckers should be held accountable if circumstances dictate bad management....not fucking rewarded.

 

[Dale Mabry]

I don't think the answer is taxing the rich more, it should be about eliminating the money wasted by the gov, but that's not going to happen.

 

[clemson357]

It really depends on your definition of "earn." Does a CEO with a golden parachute landing with $100 million when the company goes belly-up "earning" it?

It is very easy to always argue your point with the extreme examples.

You and I both know that the people who are hit the hardest by taxes are those making between $80k and $350k per year. For the most part, those are the people who have taken substantial risk and made time investments in earning hard science degrees, law school, medical school, starting small businesses, etc. In short, the people who drive our economy and support our laundry list of social entitlement programs.

Moreover, the term "rich" used to mean something. Now it is simply thrown around by liberals as a justification for taxing people as an exorbitant rate. The large majority of the people who are taxed at 35% or higher have EARNED what they've got. Granted there are trust fund babies, such as Ted Kennedy, but they make up a small fraction of the top 1%.

 

[clemson357]

KMB8795, I'll ask you a direct question, but I know I won't get a direct answer:

Imagine a hypothetical person who went to public high school, financed their own college education, and financed their own graduate degree. This took eight years of working 40-70 hour weeks for $0/hour. Now they are a few years out of school, have about $100k of school loan debt, and make $95k/year. Is that person rich? What should their tax rate be?






If this person averages $100k/year over the five years after entering the work force, their average income since graduating high school minus their school debt is about $31k/year. Take into account a realistic rate of interest on the school loans, and they are averaging about $23k/year. Take into account taxes, this person's average take home income in the 13 years since graduating high school is $14.6k/year. They literally could have made that much working at WalMart.

Extend it out to 20 years since high school. Their average income minus what they will pay on student loans is $50k/year. They are taxed 21.9% under Bush, under Clinton it was 25.6%. That is a bottom line federal income tax only; their actual tax bracket is much higher. It also doesn't include state taxes, social security, medicare, property taxes, etc.

Thanks for playing "life in progressively taxed America," Jimmy. For all your hard work, for all your investment in your education, for all the substantial risk you have taken, you receive absolutely no reward except the knowledge that you subsidize the lower class, who categorize you as "rich" as justification for taking so much of your earnings.

 

[kbm8795]

It is very easy to always argue your point with the extreme examples.

You and I both know that the people who are hit the hardest by taxes are those making between $80k and $350k per year. For the most part, those are the people who have taken substantial risk and made time investments in earning hard science degrees, law school, medical school, starting small businesses, etc. In short, the people who drive our economy and support our laundry list of social entitlement programs.

Moreover, the term "rich" used to mean something. Now it is simply thrown around by liberals as a justification for taxing people as an exorbitant rate. The large majority of the people who are taxed at 35% or higher have EARNED what they've got. Granted there are trust fund babies, such as Ted Kennedy, but they make up a small fraction of the top 1%.

It is also quite easy to ignore the amount of corporate welfare rampant in this country. Is it an American company? Well, then the American taxpayers have to give the American company "tax breaks" in order for it to build an American plant on American soil and employ Americans.

Heck. . .is Wall Street a free market? Well, sure...until someone is too greedy, makes poor decisions and runs up too much debt - and then suddenly the American taxpayers are paying out corporate welfare to keep them afloat.

And how do you know that the large majority of the people who are "taxed at 35% or higher" have "earned" what they got? Almost any business and employment specialist will tell you that people achieve positions most frequently based on who they know - not what they know. And those people are hired most frequently because of the comfortability and compatibility of the owners/managers in interpersonal relationships. Now anyone who knows anything about American history understands there are still lingering misperceptions about divisive issues such as race, gender, sexual orientation in this country which has limited access for some groups of people to those positions, even if they are the most talented. It isn't smart business, it isn't good business, but in this country, it was and is business in many industries yet today. Are you really so naive as to believe that only the most talented automatically rise to the top, regardless of their station in life? That every single person with an advanced degree lands into a wonderful position for life?income level might be to do everything possible to maintain that personal standard of living knowing that everyone under them wants to get to the top?

Apparently you regard such things as bridges, levees, highways that aren't crumbling, aging water systems with leaky infrastructure, affordable electricity and housing, and food and drug safety as a laundry list of "entitlement" programs. After all, you have no problem with the American taxpayer forking over billions of dollars every month to pay some rather corrupt private contractors to build and modernize and rebuild again the Iraqi infrastructure, even if the people living there blow it up themselves and have their own $60 billion surplus this year that is sitting nicely in the bank. You don't have any problem with using American tax dollars to bribe rebels in Afghanistan to help us overthrow the Taliban. Those are, in the conservative mind, "entitlement" programs for Halliburton, for non-American tribesmen, for special interest groups with connections to the White House. And I don't really even need to mention the billions of dollars that just disappeared in the sandy desert over there or the money we handed out to individual homes to replace farm animals and equipment. Who pays the taxpayers back for that incompetence?

But spend one American tax dollar on or in the U.S.,especially on people and businesses that intend to stay here, and Republicans start screaming "socialism" - as if there are no projects for the collective community to handle. Hell, Republicans refused the bulk of aid from other governments to deal with Katrina, after conservatives publicly whined about how other countries "never helped us." You don't want to pay for the war, you don't want to pay for infrastructure, you don't want to pay for education, you don't want to pay for the poor, you don't want to pay for natural disasters in our own country, but the Republicans love voting for welfare benefits for the most corrupt, poorly performing utility or corporation. The airlines losing money? Taxpayer bailout. Sub-prime mortgage lending driving the largest lenders to the brink? Taxpayer bailout. Utilities want a rate increase on several of their newly-designed multiple tiers of special fees? Rubberstamp the lobbyist recommendations. Charge the public twice as much for pharmaceuticals? Hey, we aren't going to moniter any price gouging.
Let the medical facilities and insurance companies compete with each other over who can milk the most money out of the simplest five minute exam and dispensation of a band-aid? Absolutely - it's the "free" market and anyone with an angle to raise a profit margin well beyond its real worth gets the old GOP boost.

And the standard Republican answer: "Let's give the public another tax cut." Of course, the war still ain't being paid for, the state and local governments have little money for infrastructure, the number of people declaring bankruptcy over a medical bill continues rising, but the public still owes a bank executive a few million bucks cuz he was willing to take greedy risks and eventually fell on his ass.

 

[clemson357]

Almost any business and employment specialist will tell you that people achieve positions most frequently based on who they know - not what they know. And those people are hired most frequently because of the comfortability and compatibility of the owners/managers in interpersonal relationships.

I guess that is the largest difference between my mentality and that of the average liberal. I believe that people largely earn what they get, liberals believe that it is all happenstance and "opportunity."

I suppose it makes life easier to blame your shortcomings on others. As for myself, even though I have achieved more than most people I grew up with, so far I am only moderately successful. I am proud of what I have so far because it came from my own efforts, but I also realize that I could be farther ahead if I had worked harder. I don't point the finger at some bullshit "societal conditions," or "institutional racism," or "interpersonal connections." But if that makes you feel better about yourself, by all means go ahead.

 

[clemson357]

Now anyone who knows anything about American history understands there are still lingering misperceptions about divisive issues such as race, gender, sexual orientation in this country which has limited access for some groups of people to those positions, even if they are the most talented.

At least we can agree on something.

I grew up in the 49th state in the country in terms of education, and went to public school. I currently work with a guy who went to private school in the North, his parents made more money than mine, he had a lower GPA than me, lower test scores, and received a full scholarship to a better college. I got into better schools than Clemson, Virginia Tech was my first choice, but I wasn't able to go there because of financial limitations. Now we work at the same place, despite the fact that he went to a lower third tier law school because of an abysmal LSAT score. I've got school debt, he doesn't.

You were talking about race-based scholarships and hiring initiatives, weren't you?

 

[kbm8795]

KMB8795, I'll ask you a direct question, but I know I won't get a direct answer:

If you already "know" what the answer is going to be, then it's a leading question.

Imagine a hypothetical person who went to public high school, financed their own college education, and financed their own graduate degree. This took eight years of working 40-70 hour weeks for $0/hour. Now they are a few years out of school, have about $100k of school loan debt, and make $95k/year. Is that person rich? What should their tax rate be?

No one completely finances their own college education. The taxpayers foot the bulk of it. Moreover, students receive many welfare benefits that other members of society have little access to - subsidized health care, very inexpensive health insurance, sometimes discounted dental coverage, inexpensive access to diet and health/recreation help, subsidized meals and housing, reduced interest on education loans. On large campuses, they have subsidized public transportation. The classrooms are built and maintained on public campuses by taxpayer dollars - students only contribute to facilities for entertainment and recreation. They weren't working for $0/an hour - the public was paying the bulk of the bill.


If this person averages $100k/year over the five years after entering the work force, their average income since graduating high school minus their school debt is about $31k/year. Take into account a realistic rate of interest on the school loans, and they are averaging about $23k/year. Take into account taxes, this person's average take home income in the 13 years since graduating high school is $14.6k/year. They literally could have made that much working at WalMart.

So why didn't they choose to work at WalMart?

Extend it out to 20 years since high school. Their average income minus what they will pay on student loans is $50k/year. They are taxed 21.9% under Bush, under Clinton it was 25.6%. That is a bottom line federal income tax only; their actual tax bracket is much higher. It also doesn't include state taxes, social security, medicare, property taxes, etc.

It also doesn't include tax write-offs, like special forgiveness for assignments or service to the country using those talents, (but you don't want those wages), deductions for loan interest, deductions for professional materials to advance their careers or to move for a better position, continuing education, travel expenses, consultation expenses, etc. A WalMart worker hardly gets access to those write-offs. The professional also tends to get better health care insurance, better access to wellness programs, investment programs, access to a social and professional network to better their income and position, and increasingly better retirement programs.

Thanks for playing "life in progressively taxed America," Jimmy. For all your hard work, for all your investment in your education, for all the substantial risk you have taken, you receive absolutely no reward except the knowledge that you subsidize the lower class, who categorize you as "rich" as justification for taking so much of your earnings.

And what did the public receive as a return for their investment in your education? The constant whining that you don't want to pay taxes to provide the same opportunities for others who might eventually compete with you, that the government owes you some guarantee against your "substantial risk" by reducing your obligations to the same public who provided the schools, and the arrogant demand that you are entitled to be recognized as infinitely more valuable, and therefore less responsible as a member of the community, than someone who spent 7-8 years building cars while you were receiving public welfare in school.

 

[kbm8795]

At least we can agree on something.

I grew up in the 49th state in the country in terms of education, and went to public school. I currently work with a guy who went to private school in the North, his parents made more money than mine, he had a lower GPA than me, lower test scores, and received a full scholarship to a better college. I got into better schools than Clemson, Virginia Tech was my first choice, but I wasn't able to go there because of financial limitations. Now we work at the same place, despite the fact that he went to a lower third tier law school because of an abysmal LSAT score. I've got school debt, he doesn't.

You were talking about race-based scholarships and hiring initiatives, weren't you?

Not necessarily. And unless you scoured for scholarships provided by a multitude of organizations, you likely weren't slighted in the handouts - you just didn't apply for all of them. Now if the percentage of straight white males in professional jobs was LESS than their percentage of population in society, you might have a beef here. It isn't. On the other hand, most minority groups and women in this country are generally aware of what companies they are least likely to get a chance to succeed in - for example, you don't think a gay PhD or a woman is going to be hired by Bob Jones University, do you? Yet you wouldn't have those limitations in searching for a position.

It's the same with older people of any persuasion. If you are over 40, senior services actually list companies which are more prone to hire the worker, generally admitting that many other companies will reject them. What incentive do they have to go to school, after years of paying the taxes to support the universities? I know someone right now who is over 50, graduated number two in her advanced degree accounting class, and has been TOLD in interviews that they were looking for someone "younger."

Do you have any idea how many people have to disguise otherwise positive things on their resume, like their age, the fact they were in a Union once in another job, their marital status (even in states with laws protecting discrimination)? And how many of those jobs/scholarships/positions are almost exclusively dependent upon one glorified recommendation by someone who liked you who knows someone else in the company/department you are working? Hell, my first teaching job, I was TOLD by the interviewing committee that I was hired because I had a superb recommendation from the Dean at my graduate school - who I worked my ass off for over a year - and not my dozen years experience as a professional in the goddamn field, or my high grade average, or my reputation as a journalist. Those traveling in the right schmoozing circles - or who happen to meet the right "mentor" - are the ones who most often receive the best opportunities. Dumping affirmative action isn't going to do one damn thing to correct that inequality, which historically is an advantage for straight white men. That isn't a sniping point - it's just reality. People tend to be attracted to other people on multiple levels, especially in a workplace, and they tend to bring someone onboard who they feel shares their most common experiences and interests. Most diversity programs have been most effective at increasing the number of people involved in the hiring process so that it minimizes the effectiveness of hiring based on social comfortability. In my own industry, it has only been in the last decade that leaders of professional associations have decided that having a diverse workplace actually benefits the quality of their product. Before then, it was dominated (and management still is) by one minority social group - even though there are more women in the lower positions of the industry.
Conservatives regularly miss the boat on this issue by complaining about race or gender based "preferences" without acknowledging that often the industry or the school is still disproportionately representing the straight white male minority. And while conservatives will claim that wasn't intentional, most positions, especially on the professional level, are more subtly decided and those factors did mean something in perpetrating that dominance. Do you have any idea how difficult it must have been for a minority student, or a black student, to invest in their education only to discover they only had white male professors who were more apt to recommend white male students for positions in white male-dominated companies? Or a woman who managed to get into medical school only to be told that women doctors could only be educated for certain kinds of positions? Unethical? Yep. But I can also remember when I was told that even doing any RESEARCH on gays in my industry could cause career problems. ONE research paper, which ended up getting some national attention anyway. Did it cause a problem? In two instances, no. . .in one instance - yes.

 

[danzik17]

Don't want to quote that entire thing, but no shit dude. Social networking has always been one of the keys to advancement. People don't want to promote the douche down the hall who never talks to anyone, they want to promote people who make it known that they have a passion for the job and are willing to do what it takes to reach the top. They want to promote the go-to guy who gets things done. If someone gets hired because of a recommendation, that organization obviously recognized the recommender as a person who gets things done and they respect his or her opinion enough to act on it.

As for raises taxes of any kind, no. We don't need any more fucking welfare programs, and we also don't need to be fighting costly and stupid wars. Stop spending money on this shit and stop stealing it from our pockets through taxes. With the surplus from not blowing money cut taxes by 25%, spend another 25% on repaying this absurd national debt that we have and stop borrowing from fucking China.

As for whether or not one minority gets hired or another I don't give a shit and no I am not a racist. Hiring practices should be done on merit and experience, not on the color of your skin or your nationality. Affirmative action is STILL racism no matter how you look at it.

Bottom Line: People need to stop fucking whining about everything and take control of their own lives.

 

[clemson357]

Not necessarily. And unless you scoured for scholarships provided by a multitude of organizations, you likely weren't slighted in the handouts - you just didn't apply for all of them.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy. The fact that you can turn a blind eye to facially racist policies makes you and your entire idealized victim culture a fucking joke.

 

[kbm8795]

Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy. The fact that you can turn a blind eye to facially racist policies makes you and your entire idealized victim culture a fucking joke.

That's interesting, especially coming from a member of a minority group which is still racially overrepresented in every management, business ownership, and government position in this country.

 

[DOMS]

That's interesting, especially coming from a member of a minority group which is still racially overrepresented in every management, business ownership, and government position in this country.

Are you trying to imply that whites are a minority in the US?