Gov Pritzker threatening to raise taxes by 20% (credit, how much)

[MSchemist80]

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

What a classic. I remember the original "Lampoon" cover from when, Thanksgiving 1978? Well done, IPI.

My only criticism is that a pistol without rear sights makes the front sight pretty much useless. Which is even funnier because IL is rated as something like the tenth-worst state for gun rights, and one of my main reasons for planning a departure. Lightfoot's next campaign ad should read, "Chicago - very strong gun control, very weak gun-crime enforcement", her constituents would eat that up. Maybe Pritzker figures that if he increases taxes enough, residents won't be able to afford bullets. Or hamburger.

[MSchemist80]

It is just amazing the attitude of arrogance from the Dems to threaten the people either voluntarily vote them more money or they will take it. They just have no clue that they are supposed to be working and serve us the people.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by MSchemist80

It is just amazing the attitude of arrogance from the Dems to threaten the people either voluntarily vote them more money or they will take it. They just have no clue that they are supposed to be working and serve us the people.

You've got to fell at least a little bad regarding their predicament, especially when the effects of Covid are not fully understood yet. I myself have only driven about four thousand miles this year, half of what I expected and only a third of what I did when working. Extrapolated (if similar for most people), really hits fuel taxes tolls, and vehicle sales tax revenue. Not to mention reduced income tax collected om 2020. But the part of Pritzker's threat being "We'll have to cut services 15%" is intriguing, I have to wonder how many people would even notice a fifteen percent cut in services, provided the cuts were concentrated among those services no one is using due to Covid (janitorial for schools, teaching aids, excess number of teachers while online teaching is occurring, etc.) is where I'd start. But I guarantee you that Pritzker and Lightfoot would concentrate on cuts that would hurt the upper and middle class the worst - police, fire, DMV, etc., to "punish" them for not agreeing to new taxes, or to coerce them into asking for new taxes themselves.

But one point that bears repeating is how silly their "Make the billionaires pay their fair share" campaign is. I've read there are only 18 billionaires in Illinois, and I can guarantee you that most of them have taken Pritzker's cue, and have most of their assets tied up in businesses, in Trusts, or in the Caiman Islands. Make no mistake, most of the individuals making more than a quarter million a year, are small business owners. And guess who they will be passing down the additional cost of new taxes to?

[genesiss23]

Originally Posted by Grlzrl

Also, Illinois is no slouch in the estate tax bite either.

. You need to have an estate worth at least $4 million to have to worry about that. Most who are in that area have taken measures to avoid it.

[wjj]

Originally Posted by genesiss23

. You need to have an estate worth at least $4 million to have to worry about that. Most who are in that area have taken measures to avoid it.

When you add up everything you own, including 401(k)s, IRAs (both kinds), all investments, homes, cars, personal property, life insurance, small business, farm, etc. at fair market value, it is not that hard to get there with inflation and investment returns factored in. I think it would be an eye-opener for many who think they would never hit that threshold if they were to do an estate plan that runs out until they are at least 90 and see when it crosses the threshold, even with an assumption of below average investment returns. And you are right, when people see that they can hit that threshold they plan - but the easiest plan is to leave Illinois for one of the 32 states without an estate or inheritance tax. Remember, the threshold is not indexed for inflation and could be lowered at any time by the legislature. Far better to be in a state that has no estate or inheritance tax at all so that politicians are not tempted to grab hard-earned assets.

[SonySegaTendo617]

Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil

No, because...

A) We are in a recession.
B) It did not include any property tax reforms or protection, which in my opinion, are the taxes that are most out-of-line. Actually, our income and sales taxes are the same, or lower than those across the Missouri border. If they had included some constitutional cuts for property tax payers, I would've called it a fair trade and voted yes.

For me, the lack of any reform of the high cost of Illinois pensions in exchange for a graduated income tax was what drove me to vote no last month. Tackle two birds with one stone the next time this amendment is attempted, and I'll vote yes.

But if this is tried a 2nd time without pension reform done in exchange for a graduated tax, then darn right I'll vote no. Illinois state government Democrats, what's so f-ing hard to understand that pension reform should've been done long ago?!? And hopefully Illinois State House Dems do indeed pick a new speaker in 2021, since Madigan should've stepped down long ago.

[MSchemist80]

Originally Posted by SonySegaTendo617

For me, the lack of any reform of the high cost of Illinois pensions in exchange for a graduated income tax was what drove me to vote no last month. Tackle two birds with one stone the next time this amendment is attempted, and I'll vote yes.

But if this is tried a 2nd time without pension reform done in exchange for a graduated tax, then darn right I'll vote no. Illinois state government Democrats, what's so f-ing hard to understand that pension reform should've been done long ago?!? And hopefully Illinois State House Dems do indeed pick a new speaker in 2021, since Madigan should've stepped down long ago.

I haven't seen any sign from the other Dems that they are willing to stand up to the govt unions and make the necessary reforms. Therefore getting rid of Madigan may be a victory, it is probably just a token one.

[Liledgy]

Originally Posted by SonySegaTendo617

For me, the lack of any reform of the high cost of Illinois pensions in exchange for a graduated income tax was what drove me to vote no last month. Tackle two birds with one stone the next time this amendment is attempted, and I'll vote yes.

But if this is tried a 2nd time without pension reform done in exchange for a graduated tax, then darn right I'll vote no. Illinois state government Democrats, what's so f-ing hard to understand that pension reform should've been done long ago?!? And hopefully Illinois State House Dems do indeed pick a new speaker in 2021, since Madigan should've stepped down long ago.

Pension reform? Quin passed tier two in 2010-11. Every new hire since then , unless you were Ruiners buddy is getting a 40% haircut from what an existing employee recurves ( very common in most Fortune 500 company’s, mine included).

[dtcbnd03]

Originally Posted by Liledgy

Pension reform? Quin passed tier two in 2010-11. Every new hire since then , unless you were Ruiners buddy is getting a 40% haircut from what an existing employee recurves ( very common in most Fortune 500 company’s, mine included).

That doesn't help out the existing pension debt that can't be canceled and continues to grow without pension reform and requires tax dollar funding.