This is from the weekend, but follows up on a blog post from last week with a few (but just a few) more details.
It won't be an easy task. The Illinois Constitution specifies that "a tax on or measured by income shall be at a nongraduated rate." Frerichs and state Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, are forming a committee to work on changing that provision of the constitution.
"This isn't going to happen with just me and Sen. Raoul; we are looking to build a much larger coalition," Frerichs said.
Getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot requires a three-fifths majority vote in both the House and the Senate or a petition with nearly 280,000 signatures – enough to equal at least 8 percent of the total votes cast in the last election for governor. Once it gets on the ballot, it needs approval from 60 percent of those voting on the question or a majority of the people who voted in that election.
Of the hundreds of amendments proposed since the 1970 constitution was adopted, fewer than 20 made it onto the ballot – and only 10 received the required voter approval. The 1980 cutback amendment, which ended cumulative voting and reduced the size of the Illinois House, is the only one that was the result of a successful petition drive.
"It's a big hurdle, but I also think I was elected to do what is right, not what is easy," Frerichs said.
Back in May, Dan Johnson-Weinberger had a long, detailed blog post discussing ways to make Illinois tax system more progressive without a constitutional amendment by playing with exemption levels. That post may or may not be relevant here, but Sen. Frerichs' efforts made me think of it.
Regardless, discuss if you like.
And as always, I simply cannot support any increase in the legislature's power to tax until they demonstrate more responsibility and control with what they already have. Force them to first find more money by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.
"Force them to first find more money by eliminating fraud, waste and abuse."
Noble Goal PB however, they were raised and supported by an IL GOP/DEM party systems with these as SOP's. Unfortunately IL voters have become jaded by so many years of this in state government, up until now (my hope for reform), they seem to tolerate it in chosing canidates and when voting.
It won't be an easy task. The Illinois Constitution specifies that "a tax on or measured by income shall be at a nongraduated rate." Frerichs and state Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, are forming a committee to work on changing that provision of the constitution.--Not as hard as you think there is a Con-Con coming up as some like to say. With the democrats in charge they can change the Constitution to what ever they want.
"Not as hard as you think there is a Con-Con coming up as some like to say. With the democrats in charge they can change the Constitution to what ever they want."
Con-con delegates are elected, if the referendum to have one passes. It's not a given that the Democrats would be in charge of an Illinois Con-Con.
"It's a big hurdle, but I also think I was elected to do what is right, not what is easy," Frerichs said.
HA, HA, HA
Did he say that on April, 1?
As I read this, I see no reference to any political parties currently holding either a majority or a minority of the legislative seats.
"(b) If the question of whether a Convention should be
called is not submitted during any twenty-year period, the
Secretary of State shall submit such question at the general
election in the twentieth year following the last submission.
(c) The vote on whether to call a Convention shall be on
a separate ballot. A Convention shall be called if approved
by three-fifths of those voting on the question or a majority
of those voting in the election.
(d) The General Assembly, at the session following
approval by the electors, by law shall provide for the
Convention and for the election of two delegates from each
Legislative District; designate the time and place of the
Convention's first meeting which shall be within three months
after the election of delegates; fix and provide for the pay
of delegates and officers; and provide for expenses
necessarily incurred by the Convention.
(e) To be eligible to be a delegate a person must meet
the same eligibility requirements as a member of the General
Assembly.
Con-con delegates are elected--So was the GA and the rest of state Government do you think we can get a majority of those office's also?
Thanks for remembering, Illinipundit. I think it would be best to get rid of a constitutional provision that requires a flat tax.
I've been perplexed why Republican strategists insist on cuts in the marginal tax rate for the wealthiest 1% of the population as orthodoxy when there are so many potential votes to gain from advocating from low-income tax cuts (and so relatively few votes to gain from, say, cutting the estate tax or the 35% tax rate on income above $200K or so). Any ideas?
Mr. Johnson-Weinberger,
According to Fenno, most politicians devote their time to the 10% of their constituency who contribute 90% of the money to their campaign funds. Does that answer your question?
If you have two last names, do you get taxed twice?
"I've been perplexed why Republican strategists insist on cuts in the marginal tax rate for the wealthiest 1% of the population as orthodoxy when there are so many potential votes to gain from advocating from low-income tax cuts (and so relatively few votes to gain from, say, cutting the estate tax or the 35% tax rate on income above $200K or so). Any ideas?"
I'm a fan of tax cuts for everybody (especially at the Federal level), but the problem we run into is that there's a large and growing percentage of the population that doesn't pay any Federal income taxes whatsoever, and so a tax cut for everybody doesn't offer much benefit to that poorest segment of the population.
That said, I'd be in favor of a massive increase in the personal exemptions for Illinois, as long as the current rate remained as it is. And I know we'll disagree about this, but I think there's so much waste and extraneous garbage in the Illinois budget that we can afford to cut everyone's state income taxes, and be able to "afford" to raise exemption levels and probably send a refund check, too. The Illinois budget has what - doubled? - in the last decade or so. Would anyone argue that the State is doing a better job of serving its citizens and educating its children than it was doing ten years ago? At best, it's gotten no better.
As it is, all we get is talk about how the State can't afford to do this or do that, and that we "need" a tax increase. Revenues have roughly doubled in ten years. Have "needs" doubled? Or have "wants" doubled?
Prairie Biker: I didn't want to say it......
IlliniPundit, that's not true. Everyone pays federal taxes -- particularly the payroll tax. Most Americans pay more in the payroll tax (FICA for Social Security and Medicare than they do in the federal income tax). I don't think it makes any sense to divorce those two major revenue sources for the federal government from each other and analyze either in isolation. A tax cut in the payroll tax so the FICA tax doesn't apply to the first $10K earned, for example, would be a significant boost in purchasing power for most Americans. I don't understand why Republicans don't broaden their tent to appeal to lower-income (in other words: most) Americans.
But, as to the state budget, you tell me what you want to cut. The budget is online. I appreciate your point that the state budget has grown quite a bit, but somehow, higher education has taken a beating and K-12 has not done very well either. The expansion of state-financed health insurance has been very significant in the last 5 years and I'd imagine the health outcomes of the state's population has justified most if not all of that expense. Perhaps that's debatable. But aside from your presumed interest in cutting back on Medicaid spending, what would you dramatically cut? Where, exactly, is the waste?
"I don't understand why Republicans don't broaden their tent to appeal to lower-income (in other words: most) Americans."
Guess that would really depend on your definition of "lower-income." If it's everything below the guy one penny over the median than most people will always be lower income. If you consider that the median income in the US is pretty high relative to the rest of the planet then I doubt one could say that most of us are lower-income with a straght face. I think states should take a more proactive stance on poverty as it seems to have major repurcussions on crime, violence, drug abuse, education, opportunity, etc... but it's difficult to sit idly buy while someone says that most americans are lower-income which seems to have little basis in fact according to the IRS, the Census bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Everyone pays federal taxes -- particularly the payroll tax. Most Americans pay more in the payroll tax (FICA for Social Security and Medicare than they do in the federal income tax).
I keep hearing that arguement. And then I also hear the Soc Security is not a welfare program, it is a savings plan - people are getting money that they paid in. As it is, Soc Sec provides better benefits to low wage earners than high wage earners.
That said, I'd be in favor of a massive increase in the personal exemptions for Illinois, as long as the current rate remained as it is.
I'll disagree with you IP, philosophically. I think it is good for everyone to be paying some tax - it makes people care about how its spent.
Maybe the real issue is whether people pay in more than they take out of the system. I'm not sure whether that can ever be calculated, but if you continue to expand benefits to increasing numbers of people, even increasing taxes on those who don't receive those benefits won't help.
Anyone below the median income of $42K or so is, as you say, by definition lower-income.
Those are the people who should have their taxes cut. Not the people who are earning $500K.
Medicare isn't a savings plan. It's just Rod Blagojevich-style Illinois Covered for old people. It's a government program. Same with Social Security. It's a government pension that is paid for with taxes. We use the rhetoric of "your money" and "getting back what you paid in" as a political device to build support for maintaining the program. But it's just a government program and if the people wanted to abolish it tomorrow, the Congress could do so by changing the law.
Same with Social Security. It's a government pension that is paid for with taxes. We use the rhetoric of "your money" and "getting back what you paid in" as a political device to build support for maintaining the program.
Then lets just get rid of the Soc Sec tax altogether, increase income taxes a little, and start means-testing for retiree welfare.
And, when you say '"we" use the rhetoric', do you mean the same big-government folks who then turn around and say that our tax code is not progessive enough? If so, then you agree with me completely.
"Most Americans pay more in the payroll tax (FICA for Social Security and Medicare than they do in the federal income tax)."
I have to disagree with this statement unless there is some basis cited. I base my disagreement on the percentages of FICA & Medicare i.e. payroll tax, being close to 7.5% an individual American and their employer pays another almost 7.5%.
On what more people pay more... SS/FICA or Federal Income Tax it really comes down to what you include in what "they pay."
If you include the employer contribution in what "they pay" because it's part of the cost of labor for the employer: People making below roughly 50k/yr pay more in SS/FICA taxes. People making more than 50k/yr pay more in Federal income tax. This is of gross income, and most people make below 50k/yr in gross income so most people pay more in SS/FICA taxes.
If you do not include the employer contribution but instead chalk it up to the non-pay costs of labor, like other taxes and supplies (ie. desks, pens, computer terminals, etc) that are considered employer costs that come out of their profit margin: The median income by AGI is right around 30k/yr from the latest IRS data... and the cut off point where you start paying more in federal income taxes is lower than that. Then it appears that most people may pay more in federal income taxes. To say this with absolute certainty is a bit difficult due to the variance in how many other deductions/exemptions/credits/etc a person files for who otherwise would be paying more in federal income taxes as a single filer with a standard deduction. The variances in taxable income could push the figure closer to half and half... those who pay more SS/FICA and those who pay more federal income tax.
I'm more of the line of thinking that the employer contribution for these payroll taxes is part of the cost of labor, but not an actual out of pocket expense to the employee since it would not necessarily translate to a raise for the employee if the employer didn't have to pay it. But it does translate to a loss of revenue for the employer's profit margin either way so I'd consider it a business expense as opposed to an employee's expense. That said, it appears to me that most people pay more in federal income tax than SS/FICA, but it is very close to 50/50.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Here's a rough, by the seat of my pants graphic (NOT to scale or intended to be absolutely accurate by any means)...
The SS/FICA tax increases at a steady rate until 90k, but the federal income tax starts below zero due to exemptions, EIC and other Credits and the rate increases with income until it becomes stead at around 35% (off the chart).
For the second perspective (employee contribution only) the intersection would be much sooner because the SS/FICA rate would be cut in half
--
Glock21 Op/Ed