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)
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Including, apparently, Illinois.
Michael Perz said:
The principle behind this is sometimes referred to as the Laffer curve and is commonly dismissed as laissez faire hokum by people that support increased taxes. It is also this very same laissez faire hokum that is commonly blamed whenever the economy takes a massive shit as a result of said tax increases. Then the cycle repeats anew.
notoriousDUG said:
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on
-
But we already have one of the largest sales taxes in the country so now we have an income tax as well?
-
-
So I have to man up and pay more because the guys who run things in Springfield have been unable, for years, to keep spending under control? Seems wildly unfair to me; I know how to spend less than I make.
The federal tax cuts did not put Illinois in this situation and I, personally, do not think they put the nation in this position. What put Illinois here was horrible mismanagement of it's resources.
Jeff Schneider said:What *massive tax increase* caused the "shit" (i.e., the depression) that began in early 2008? We had tax *cuts* in 2001 and 2003...
Re. the so-called Laffer curve, it just points out the obvious - that the government collects maximum revenue if the tax rate is more than 0% but less than 100%. Duh. As for exactly what rate leads to maximum revenue, nobody really can or does know.
Again, I would prefer lower rather than higher taxes. But we have to get there by cutting spending, not just borrowing forever. Time to man up.
notoriousDUG said:Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Including, apparently, Illinois.
Michael Perz said:
The principle behind this is sometimes referred to as the Laffer curve and is commonly dismissed as laissez faire hokum by people that support increased taxes. It is also this very same laissez faire hokum that is commonly blamed whenever the economy takes a massive shit as a result of said tax increases. Then the cycle repeats anew.
notoriousDUG said:
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.
-
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on
-
You don't have to run for re-election to keep your job. These "law" makers are spending your money to buy themselves votes. Bread and Circus man, Bread and Circus...
notoriousDUG said:
the guys who run things in Springfield have been unable, for years, to keep spending under control? Seems wildly unfair to me; I know how to spend less than I make.
-
Permalink Reply by millenial removing Bernie tattoo on
-
Michael Perz said:The principle behind this is sometimes referred to as the Laffer curve and is commonly dismissed as laissez faire hokum by people that support increased taxes. It is also this very same laissez faire hokum that is commonly blamed whenever the economy takes a massive shit as a result of said tax increases. Then the cycle repeats anew.
notoriousDUG said:
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.
This has nothing to do with the Laffer curve, its the observation that if you have 50 states in the Union, companies will gradually locate to states with laws more favorable to business. This is an empirically verified fact.
-
-
It's the "money flows downhill" curve.
envane x said:
This has nothing to do with the Laffer curve, its the observation that if you have 50 states in the Union, companies will gradually locate to states with laws more favorable to business. This is an empirically verified fact.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on
-
So according to your understanding of it, revenue collection stands as good of a chance at a 99% rate as it does at a 1% rate? On what planet is this possible?
Jeff Schneider said:
Re. the so-called Laffer curve, it just points out the obvious - that the government collects maximum revenue if the tax rate is more than 0% but less than 100%.
-
-
Nothing could possibly be more fun than reading discussions involving people who don't know what they're talking about arguing over things they actually haven't looked into with other people who may or may not agree or disagree but who are equally ill-informed.
Thank god for the internets.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether or not it has any basis in fact, logic, theory, theology, ideology, or anything else. That's why we live in America, and not on Mars. Which is my opinion, and is about as sensible a statement as (almost) any others made in this thread.
-
-
Oh, the "you are all ignorant & stupid" argument lifted from the Skip Logos, pass directly through Ethos without stopping, and end up squarely in Pathos school of rhetoric.
Alex said:
Nothing could possibly be more fun than reading discussions involving people who don't know what they're talking about arguing over things they actually haven't looked into with other people who may or may not agree or disagree but who are equally ill-informed.
-
Permalink Reply by Davo on
-
http://http://www.cracked.com/article_16605_8-most-obnoxious-intern...Number 5
Alex said:Nothing could possibly be more fun than reading discussions involving people who don't know what they're talking about arguing over things they actually haven't looked into with other people who may or may not agree or disagree but who are equally ill-informed.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack on
-
The issue really isn't the state income tax rate they just upped to 5%. Its that combined with the huge sales tax increase in the last few years and the property tax assessments that have been climbing rapidly as property values have been falling. So, Springfield says this will balance their budget... What happened to that being possible for the hike in sales tax or property tax? Also, if this truely was the correct thing to do, and cuts to the "system" were not possible... Wouldn't you not have to push this through a lame-duck session in the 11th hour?
The already high cost of living in Chicago just was upped a little. For the statement that we have lower income taxes than Wisconsin and other surrounding states, what is their sales tax? What is their property tax? And how much of your income do you need to spend to live there?
It costs a premium to live in Chicago and I think we all know that. In my mind, the premium is offset by infrastructure such as public works (i.e. Lakefront Path, CTA, etc). However, the ever increasing premium isn't yielding any better quality of life for Chicagoans. I am close to bidding Chicago farewell and good luck. I don't need to get paid 10% higher for working here and have a cost of living be 20% higher than surrounding areas. You don't get out what you put in.
-
Permalink Reply by Rowbike Mike on
-
When I lived in the District of Columbia, the "district" income tax was 9% so I too was shocked (and relieved) that the Illinois rate was 3% when I arrived. I'm with others who would be comfortable paying a higher income tax rate if I felt confident that it resulted in greater government services and a belief that this money would be spent on things that actually yield net benefits to the populace at large. However, the history of corruption and the influence of special interests (both private and public) is undeniable. Also, while it's true that there some government services that can't and shouldn't be curtailed, irrespective of the economic climate, there are many others that should be.
When a company's revenues drop off, that company has to make hard decisions in order to survive. With government, especially Illinois' state government, those hard decisions aren't being made.
Does anyone know of a good resource that lists the steps the state government has taken to reduce government spending in the last 2-3 years?
Groups
-
Chicago Ride of Silence
118 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
