Illinois house approves 2% income tax hike from 3% to 5% (the amount you paid last year will increase by about 67% assuming everything else is the same)

Editorial comment:

I'm OK with it.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Duppie on January 12, 2011 at 7:50am

I fail to see why that would be considered douchy? That sounds like good policy to me: Create a climate that is attractive to businesses

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

And Wisconsin can use it do something kinda douchy.

notoriousDUG said:

The bold is the part that gets me; I would not have as much of an issue if the money was being used wisely.

I also have issue because the increase in business taxes is, in the long run, actually going to decrease the states income because new industry is not going to come Illinois to employ people and the business that are currently located here are going to move out of the state if they get the chance.

If Illinois wants more money and wants me to be happy about it they need to seriously get their spending in check and work to create a business envoirnment that will draw employers to the state, not drive them away.
Davo said:

I think that for too long the state has been writing checks that it can't cash. IMO there is too many people who are or will collect pensions. I have heard that most "public officials" will collect some sort of pension in addition to their own personal funds that they have invested. Now I have to pay extra for people who took a deal that they knew was too good to be true. I wish more attention would be put on how to cut spending rather then how to "generate" revenues. I would be more positive on tax increases if I believed that they would be spent wisely.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by SlyRed on January 12, 2011 at 7:59am

OK, I know I'll get flamed for this so I'm donning my Tweed (asbestos) suit. Saying that the tax rate is going up 66% is the number the media uses to make it seem outrageous. The personal tax rate is going from 3% to 5%, meaning if I make $1000 a week I pay $50 instead of $30. Yes, I'd like to keep my $20 per week, but such is life. Death and taxes, etc., etc., etc. . . .

I'm more interested in seeing the positive effects of what I pay out in taxes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan L on January 12, 2011 at 8:02am

Aw ^$^$*^&$ I read it wrong. Thought it was a property tax not income tax raise. Too much coffee this morning.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ad on January 12, 2011 at 8:03am

Although a formal announcement was never made (unlike the fed government and some other states), at least some Illinois state agencies are now under a de facto pay freeze, actually. City of Chicago employees are also under a pay freeze, which mixed with the mandatory unpaid furlough days has meant workers' salaries have actually decreased by close to 10% in some cases. That's not to say at least some City and State workers were grossly overpaid to begin with, though.

Duppie said:

I am failing to see what this tax increase does to control spending? I work for a public company and have not had a pay increase in 3 years. While I don't like that fact, I can understand, since we haven't tunred a profit in nearly 3 years either.

Yet government workers continue to get their automatic pay increases, and their double dipping pension, etc. Yet, the state of Illinois hasn't turned a profit in how long? Somehow that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

H3N3, I am interested to hear more about why you (and maybe others) are OK with the tax increase.

notoriousDUG said:

The bold is the part that gets me; I would not have as much of an issue if the money was being used wisely.

I also have issue because the increase in business taxes is, in the long run, actually going to decrease the states income because new industry is not going to come Illinois to employ people and the business that are currently located here are going to move out of the state if they get the chance.

If Illinois wants more money and wants me to be happy about it they need to seriously get their spending in check and work to create a business envoirnment that will draw employers to the state, not drive them away.
Davo said:

I think that for too long the state has been writing checks that it can't cash. IMO there is too many people who are or will collect pensions. I have heard that most "public officials" will collect some sort of pension in addition to their own personal funds that they have invested. Now I have to pay extra for people who took a deal that they knew was too good to be true. I wish more attention would be put on how to cut spending rather then how to "generate" revenues. I would be more positive on tax increases if I believed that they would be spent wisely.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by S on January 12, 2011 at 8:13am

The stuff I've read all shows that those working for the government are making less than similar people working for private companies. There's a trade-off with government work where the pay is usually quite a bit less but the benefits and job security is a bit more. However the overall compensation is still less.

Part of the bill includes spending caps and the tax rates go back to the current rates if the spending caps are exceeded.

Suchandra

Duppie said:

I am failing to see what this tax increase does to control spending? I work for a public company and have not had a pay increase in 3 years. While I don't like that fact, I can understand, since we haven't tunred a profit in nearly 3 years either.

Yet government workers continue to get their automatic pay increases, and their double dipping pension, etc. Yet, the state of Illinois hasn't turned a profit in how long? Somehow that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

H3N3, I am interested to hear more about why you (and maybe others) are OK with the tax increase.

notoriousDUG said:

The bold is the part that gets me; I would not have as much of an issue if the money was being used wisely.

I also have issue because the increase in business taxes is, in the long run, actually going to decrease the states income because new industry is not going to come Illinois to employ people and the business that are currently located here are going to move out of the state if they get the chance.

If Illinois wants more money and wants me to be happy about it they need to seriously get their spending in check and work to create a business envoirnment that will draw employers to the state, not drive them away.
Davo said:

I think that for too long the state has been writing checks that it can't cash. IMO there is too many people who are or will collect pensions. I have heard that most "public officials" will collect some sort of pension in addition to their own personal funds that they have invested. Now I have to pay extra for people who took a deal that they knew was too good to be true. I wish more attention would be put on how to cut spending rather then how to "generate" revenues. I would be more positive on tax increases if I believed that they would be spent wisely.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on January 12, 2011 at 8:18am

A free and public K-12 education system is overrated. Close the schools and let me keep my relatively inconsequential sum.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Davo on January 12, 2011 at 8:22am

If only I had a family connection, then I'd work at one of those gov't jobs and get a pension that other people would pay for me. This (to me) is the biggest drain on the state economy. They should do away with pensions for gov't employees with the only exceptions maybe being police and fire departments.

Oh and thanks for pointing out my naive wish for taxes to be spent wisely. I know that this is an improbability.

I don't mind paying city taxes because I can directly see some of it at use. Bike lanes, park maintenance, streets plowed, free zoo.....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 12, 2011 at 8:42am

Among other things, state funding helps to support the RTA. Don't we all benefit from this, whether or not we're riding public transit on a particular day? Think about how many more cars would be on the roads without our public transit systems.

Davo said:

If only I had a family connection, then I'd work at one of those gov't jobs and get a pension that other people would pay for me. This (to me) is the biggest drain on the state economy. They should do away with pensions for gov't employees with the only exceptions maybe being police and fire departments.

Oh and thanks for pointing out my naive wish for taxes to be spent wisely. I know that this is an improbability.

I don't mind paying city taxes because I can directly see some of it at use. Bike lanes, park maintenance, streets plowed, free zoo.....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by S on January 12, 2011 at 8:50am

Sure, if you're willing to take a pay cut and give up social security (a lot of state and local government workers aren't eligible for social security). Oh, Illinois and Chicago haven't been paying into the pension funds for workers for a while so those pensions that the workers are depending on for retirement funds may not have the money needed to meet their obligations.

Suchandra

Davo said:

If only I had a family connection, then I'd work at one of those gov't jobs and get a pension that other people would pay for me. This (to me) is the biggest drain on the state economy. They should do away with pensions for gov't employees with the only exceptions maybe being police and fire departments.

Oh and thanks for pointing out my naive wish for taxes to be spent wisely. I know that this is an improbability.

I don't mind paying city taxes because I can directly see some of it at use. Bike lanes, park maintenance, streets plowed, free zoo.....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on January 12, 2011 at 8:54am

That's correct. And I am not against taxes, or even against raising taxes.

Being childless by choice, I am not against property taxes, because I know that part of that money goes to funding CPS. And I think every kid deserves a chance at a good education. Even though it will never benefit me or my family directly

But what does strike me as odd is that a 66% increase (darn media!) does not lead to an equivalent increase of services. It just goes to pay off the existing hole. Yet, we refuse to discuss ways lower the state's expenses an a meaningful way.

Anne Alt said:

Among other things, state funding helps to support the RTA. Don't we all benefit from this, whether or not we're riding public transit on a particular day? Think about how many more cars would be on the roads without our public transit systems.

Davo said:

If only I had a family connection, then I'd work at one of those gov't jobs and get a pension that other people would pay for me. This (to me) is the biggest drain on the state economy. They should do away with pensions for gov't employees with the only exceptions maybe being police and fire departments.

Oh and thanks for pointing out my naive wish for taxes to be spent wisely. I know that this is an improbability.

I don't mind paying city taxes because I can directly see some of it at use. Bike lanes, park maintenance, streets plowed, free zoo.....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by milesperhour on January 12, 2011 at 9:09am

That's because it IS outrageous! Someone making $50,000/year will be paying $83/month more. For anyone fortunate enough to receive a pay raise, this hike pretty much cancels it out. And for those who haven't been getting annual raises, they will have to make do with less....something the government needs to learn how to do.

Our economy is in the hole. All city, county and state services are on the decline, we won't be attracting any new business, and any businesses that can leave, will. They're also looking at taxing internet purchases. This tax hike will solve absolutely nothing. Spending is still out of control and there is no accountability. And for as much as they emphasize the rates will go back down, I have a hard time believing it.

SlyRed said:

OK, I know I'll get flamed for this so I'm donning my Tweed (asbestos) suit. Saying that the tax rate is going up 66% is the number the media uses to make it seem outrageous. The personal tax rate is going from 3% to 5%, meaning if I make $1000 a week I pay $50 instead of $30. Yes, I'd like to keep my $20 per week, but such is life. Death and taxes, etc., etc., etc. . . .

I'm more interested in seeing the positive effects of what I pay out in taxes.