Illinois Income Tax to Jump 50 Percent?

[Texsox]

And I have no problem with the redistributing it to them, but if you honestly think it's stops there, then they've got you fooled. It also goes into the pockets of the gov/mayor/other elected officials, their friends companies pockets, and 50 other ways to skim the systems pockets. Then, it goes to the people who sit at home, have 8 kids and collect welfare with absolutely no plan nor ambition to ever get off of welfare. A first class country wouldn't allow that system to be exploited such as it is. It's called fiscal responsibility. Our government, federal, state or local has no fiscal responsibility. And why should they, they aren't paying for any of it anyway...we are!

 

They increase tax all the time, on everything, yet they're still in the hole. Fine, up the IL tax, I bet they're STILL in the hole and their budget deficit gets WORSE, not better as it should. Then, increase them some more...may as well, it's not like anyone will do much about it. Then, after that, increase them even more -- I look forward to 60% of my paychecks going to this kind of bulls***, because we're already headed that direction.

 

First I'm taxed on what I make...then I'm taxed again on the SAME MONEY when I buy something...and then, heaven forbid I sell something, they'll tax me AGAIN.

 

All good points. I disagree slightly about the severity, but we agree that there can be better cost controls in place.

 

It's the talking point about "wealth distribution" that I object to. We have created a disconnect about why we pay taxes. It is about "wealth distribution" and to "stimulate the economy" but never about actually paying for the world class services we receive. I have spent a fair amount of time in countries with much lower tax rates, and no one here really would swap that for the US. If we are going to live at the Hilton, you cannot pay Motel 6 rates. And yes, that means the employees there get paid better.

[Y2HH]

All good points. I disagree slightly about the severity, but we agree that there can be better cost controls in place.

 

It's the talking point about "wealth distribution" that I object to. We have created a disconnect about why we pay taxes. It is about "wealth distribution" and to "stimulate the economy" but never about actually paying for the world class services we receive. I have spent a fair amount of time in countries with much lower tax rates, and no one here really would swap that for the US. If we are going to live at the Hilton, you cannot pay Motel 6 rates. And yes, that means the employees there get paid better.

 

You hit on a very good point here. I've also traveled elsewhere, and I have to say I think the US is #1, not because I don't know, but because I DO know. What we accept as normal, others would EASILY see as living a 5 star lifestyle.

[Balta1701]

Where'd you get 17 from? Maryland was 7 in 2003 unless I'm looking at the wrong data. Our taxes have gone up since then so now we're 4. Sounds about right. Maryland's state motto should be "If you can dream it, we can tax it."

Check my post, I always include links to data.

[Cknolls]

seriously, Illinois has the lowest income taxing rate in the country. We've underpaid for decades. Now that the State wants to tax at a fair rate, you've got a problem??? Were you praising the State for undertaxing for the past 20+ years?

 

 

Well since you say its fair, debate over.

[Cknolls]

Undertaxing us? Now I have heard everything. No I don't want to praise a government that has overcommited its resources, and needs to lean on citizens during a recession because they can't control themselves. Live within your means, thats should work for the government too. I pay enough taxes.

 

 

 

 

[Cknolls]

As a State employee, I feel it important to let you know that.....

 

1. I am maxed out by FEDERAL LAW with what I pay into the pension plan from the last contract I worked under and my contributions come out of both my pay and OT pay checks. Further, to max me out FEDERALLY during my last contract, my raises were often not in my pocket but were sent right to the State's pension chest to shore up the State's pension system and to max me out.

 

2. Like with most pensions/SS, etc., most of the contributor's are living beyond in years what they contributed into the pension/SS, etc. But is the REAL problem? Could it be the State borrowing against the pension plan to pay for even more social programs and, furthermore, NOT paying their share into the pension system even after the borrowing? I'd say the borrowing and not paying their fair share has made the pension problems what they are today. No State employee has ever missed their pension deduction from their pay check.

 

3. My health insurance has been scaled back and I'm paying for more but less and, under the current contract I am now working under, the State can go back to the negotiating table after the 2nd year of a 4-year contract to "renegotiate" our current health insurance contributions.

 

4. You can only tax those that have to give MORE breaks to those who don't do a god damn thing for so long before those that have say enough's enough. I'm doing more than my part as a State employee.

 

As someone stated earlier, I'd like a Ferrari, but I can only afford a Kia. Time for the State to adopt a similar fiscal approach because those that the government are going to further tax are those that are already being taxed too much.

 

Oh yeah, and I hope your employer cuts your pay, asks you to pay more in medical, and tells you to start planning for your own retirement..... your's is costing him way too much after 12+ years of service to the company.

 

 

 

I am my employer. My boss is such an a**hole.

[Cknolls]

Yes, they take your taxes and redistribute it to cops, and teachers, and highway workers, firefighters, and etc. etc. etc. Everyone wants to live in a first class country but pay third world tax rates.

 

 

I love how everytime we talk about gov't being bloated, the response is to use the poor teachers,cops and firemen as examples. Give it a rest already. Everybody b****es and moans about how poorly companies are run, but when its the gov't doing a piss poor job its "Do we really want to lay off teachers,police and firemen?" No, that s not who we want to lay off. Does it really take three people or two for that matter to collect garbage in the city? How much money could be saved right there by having a one man garbage crew in the city?

 

Can somebody explain to me why gov't cannot shrink? When a company is losing money, they cut expenses, with their largest being payroll. Somehow that doesn't translate into the halls of capitols.

[Texsox]

I love how everytime we talk about gov't being bloated, the response is to use the poor teachers,cops and firemen as examples. Give it a rest already. Everybody b****es and moans about how poorly companies are run, but when its the gov't doing a piss poor job its "Do we really want to lay off teachers,police and firemen?" No, that s not who we want to lay off. Does it really take three people or two for that matter to collect garbage in the city? How much money could be saved right there by having a one man garbage crew in the city?

 

Can somebody explain to me why gov't cannot shrink? When a company is losing money, they cut expenses, with their largest being payroll. Somehow that doesn't translate into the halls of capitols.

 

We do not like shrinking our highway department, military, etc. (I know that is also Federal). Companies can cut back because demand drops, in these times, the demands for government services actually increase.

[mr_genius]

This data is from 2005 so slightly out of date but it's illustrative. It does not take in to account cost of living or the amount paid by the federal government (i.e. you kind of expect CA to have a higher tax burden than some other states because simply running a school out here costs more, and places like MI get more tax dollars back from the Feds than us) but it is illustrative.

 

The %age given is an attempt to average out over everything, not just income taxes but income, sales, property, hotel, fuel, etc.

 

Ah, here's the new data. In 2008 Illinois was still 30th.

 

some guy was in this thread ranting about how illinois had the lowest tax rates.

 

illinois is only 30th on the high tax list. lets go for #1!

 

Edited March 15, 2009 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

People keep wanting the greatest service from their government and pay bottom barrel prices.

 

i like the current format. pay super high prices and get lousy service

 

 

[BearSox]

I really don't care much about Illinois any more. First chance I get, I'm out of this sorry excuse for a state. It could be a great state and Chicago could be better than a "2nd city", but with the enormous amount of corruption here that's been going on for so very long, it's tough to see any light ahead. I view Pat Quinn as basically a lap dog being used to raise the taxes, get booted out of office after this term is up, and leaving the door wide open for Michael's daughter to become governor.

[mr_genius]

it's saying something when the new governor is actually worse than Rod Blagojevich

[vandy125]

I really don't care much about Illinois any more. First chance I get, I'm out of this sorry excuse for a state. It could be a great state and Chicago could be better than a "2nd city", but with the enormous amount of corruption here that's been going on for so very long, it's tough to see any light ahead. I view Pat Quinn as basically a lap dog being used to raise the taxes, get booted out of office after this term is up, and leaving the door wide open for Michael's daughter to become governor.

 

Just a point off of this, I would hope that you know where the term "2nd city" came from...

 

From Wikipedia:

Due to its population being second to New York, many people^[who?] incorrectly believe this is the source of the nickname Second City. In fact, the moniker "Second City" was created after the Great Chicago Fire devastated the original city and from the ashes was built the new Chicago—the second Chicago.^{[citation needed]} The name is a sense of pride for Chicagoans heralding their success in the massive rebuilding of the city and is no way meant to refer to Chicago as being secondary to New York in population.^{[citation needed]} However, in the 1980s, Chicago was displaced by Los Angeles as the second largest city in the United States (if considering the metropolitan area, it could be argued that this had taken place in the early 1970s). Chicago has embraced its "Second City" moniker and has widely accepted it as a shorthand name for the city; this is the origin of the name of The Second City comedy troupe.

 

And back to the tax discussion... Iowa is 31st as far as taxes go, right behind Illinois. I think that the government was looking at laying off a bunch of people because they also were unprepared for the stock market plummet (as many people were).

[BearSox]

Just a point off of this, I would hope that you know where the term "2nd city" came from...

 

From Wikipedia:

 

I do know that, but we are indeed a 2nd city. New York and LA are always considered the tops, then Chicago. While it actually means something else, Chicago is a 2nd city.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think there are a couple really good areas for discussion here. One, at a given tax burden level, what is the fairest, and most economically viable, tax distribution (over property, income, sales, etc.). Two, how much government spending is worthwhile with the economy in the tank.

 

But what I don't get, and never will, is this idea that because Illinois' tax levels are lower than average (which is good), that means we have been "underpaying", or getting away with something. You are basically saying we should raise taxes because everyone else is, which makes no sense at all. Taxation should be at the level necessary to fund government in doing what government NEEDS to do, or can do MORE EFFICIENTLY than individuals or localities. That's it.

 

The Adler Planetarium just got almost a million bucks from the federal government for a projector. Now, I happen to think the Adler is cool as hell, and I happily pay an admission fee when I go. I'd also seriously consider donating to it. I do not, however, see how government NEEDS to provide that, or can provide it more EFFICIENTLY than private sponsorship. It just doesn't fit either one.

 

I'm glad IL's tax burden is in the lower half. In a state where much doesn't work, I think that actually is a positive.

 

[Texsox]

I think there are a couple really good areas for discussion here. One, at a given tax burden level, what is the fairest, and most economically viable, tax distribution (over property, income, sales, etc.). Two, how much government spending is worthwhile with the economy in the tank.

 

But what I don't get, and never will, is this idea that because Illinois' tax levels are lower than average (which is good), that means we have been "underpaying", or getting away with something. You are basically saying we should raise taxes because everyone else is, which makes no sense at all. Taxation should be at the level necessary to fund government in doing what government NEEDS to do, or can do MORE EFFICIENTLY than individuals or localities. That's it.

 

The Adler Planetarium just got almost a million bucks from the federal government for a projector. Now, I happen to think the Adler is cool as hell, and I happily pay an admission fee when I go. I'd also seriously consider donating to it. I do not, however, see how government NEEDS to provide that, or can provide it more EFFICIENTLY than private sponsorship. It just doesn't fit either one.

 

I'm glad IL's tax burden is in the lower half. In a state where much doesn't work, I think that actually is a positive.

A couple thoughts on Adler, and I think we will agree it is a quodlibet. I see a couple areas in which it would be a fair expense. #1, and it seems unlikely, but if Adler is conducting research, this may tie in. Also, I believe the definition of public education could be expanded to allow small expenses for public education beyond traditional K-12, and especially to kids that are home schooled. Finally, tourism still fuels a great deal of the economic engine in Chicago.

 

I agree, comparing taxes state by state is just not accurate. There are just so many taxes, comparing state to state is innaccurate. Texas has no personal state income tax, yet we manage to keep the government running. Gee, I wonder if perhaps Texans pay higher taxes in other areas.

 

SS convinced me many years ago that the graduated income tax is the fairest system. I wish we could expand in that area, reducing or eliminating all of the hidden taxes.

[NorthSideSox72]

A couple thoughts on Adler, and I think we will agree it is a quodlibet. I see a couple areas in which it would be a fair expense. #1, and it seems unlikely, but if Adler is conducting research, this may tie in. Also, I believe the definition of public education could be expanded to allow small expenses for public education beyond traditional K-12, and especially to kids that are home schooled. Finally, tourism still fuels a great deal of the economic engine in Chicago.

 

I agree, comparing taxes state by state is just not accurate. There are just so many taxes, comparing state to state is innaccurate. Texas has no personal state income tax, yet we manage to keep the government running. Gee, I wonder if perhaps Texans pay higher taxes in other areas.

 

SS convinced me many years ago that the graduated income tax is the fairest system. I wish we could expand in that area, reducing or eliminating all of the hidden taxes.

You are certainly correct that if this was part of beneficial scientific research in the national interest (like mapping potentially dangerous asteroids for example), or if it was educational monies, then that is a slightly different discussion.

 

[Texsox]

You are certainly correct that if this was part of beneficial scientific research in the national interest (like mapping potentially dangerous asteroids for example), or if it was educational monies, then that is a slightly different discussion.

 

I had never really considered the education angle before, especially as it could tie into home schooled kids.

 

But, we agreem it is an expense that I would question.

[jasonxctf]

some guy was in this thread ranting about how illinois had the lowest tax rates.

 

illinois is only 30th on the high tax list. lets go for #1!

 

 

 

that some guy was me... and Illinois currently does have the lowest income tax level in the country. There are 7 states that dont have an income tax, so we are the lowest of the 43 that do.

 

#30 was a tax formula that computed federal taxes, income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc, i believe.

[jasonxctf]

State Income Tax from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax

[mr_genius]

overall taxation including fees, sales tax, state income tax and such is a better way to look at it.

 

raising the state income tax by 50% in Illinois obviously raises the total tax burden for a state resident.

 

from your cited wiki page

As of 2007, the highest rate of state income tax is that of California, with a maximum rate of 10.3%.

 

and we all know that has fixed their budget issues

 

Edited March 17, 2009 by mr_genius

[jasonxctf]

overall taxation including fees, sales tax, state income tax and such is a better way to look at it.

 

raising the state income tax by 50% in Illinois obviously raises the total tax burden for a state resident.

 

from your cited wiki page

 

 

and we all know that has fixed their budget issues

 

 

understand, but the topic referenced income tax. so i kept to the subject.

 

[Balta1701]

overall taxation including fees, sales tax, state income tax and such is a better way to look at it.

 

raising the state income tax by 50% in Illinois obviously raises the total tax burden for a state resident.

 

from your cited wiki page

 

 

and we all know that has fixed their budget issues

 

You JUST undermined your own data! You told me how overall taxation was a better way to look at it, and then you cited California's Income tax level to point out its budget problems!

[Dick Allen]

This data is from 2005 so slightly out of date but it's illustrative. It does not take in to account cost of living or the amount paid by the federal government (i.e. you kind of expect CA to have a higher tax burden than some other states because simply running a school out here costs more, and places like MI get more tax dollars back from the Feds than us) but it is illustrative.

 

The %age given is an attempt to average out over everything, not just income taxes but income, sales, property, hotel, fuel, etc.

 

Ah, here's the new data. In 2008 Illinois was still 30th.

Instead of the state average, I wonder where Chicago ranks. It seems everytime you buy from a store, its like Ticketmaster is being used at the register.

[mr_genius]

You JUST undermined your own data! You told me how overall taxation was a better way to look at it, and then you cited California's Income tax level to point out its budget problems!

 

Because overall is better. As I clearly stated a high income tax increases the burden when used with everything else. Not really that tough a concept.

 

So california has no other taxes, just state income tax?

Edited March 17, 2009 by mr_genius