75% income tax hikes in Illinois just to keep the crappy government you already have

[Revere]

Yep, the same services at a higher price. Your kids will still get their heads caved in if you can't escape inner city public schools.

And it's "temporary." Ha ha. Ho ho.

Illinois Lawmakers Propose 75 Percent Income Tax Hike CBS Chicago – Breaking News, Sports, Weather, Traffic, and the Best of Chicago

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (CBS) – Gov. Pat Quinn and the leaders of both houses of the Illinois General Assembly have agreed on raising the state income tax.

If the bill passes, the plan would raise the personal income tax rate from the current 3 percent to 5.25 percent. That’s a 75 percent increase. In real dollars, that would mean if you currently owe $1,000 in taxes, next year you would owe $1,750.

LISTEN: Newsradio 780′s Dave Dahl Reports.





The increase is for four years. After that, the personal income tax would go down to 3.75 percent.

The Democratic leaders in the Illinois General Assembly believe this income tax increase, a corporate tax hike, and a $1-per-pack tax increase on cigarettes would erase the state’s $15 billion budget deficit.

 

[Mr. H.]

Quinn must stand up to unions. He cut a deal with AFSCME to secure the votes needed to win.
There's so much bullshit waste and fraud in this state it's pathetic.

 

[uscitizen]

Why not raise the tax on beer?

 

[Revere]

Ah, well, we need the usual suspects to check in and assure us all we need to do is crank up the revenue enema.

 

[Revere]

Why not raise the tax on beer?

For what? To pay for the same old shit?

 

[Trajan]

this is a perfect example of what many seem to forget, the fed. can give you a tax cut like oh the 2% fica forgiveness for the year, doesn't much matter when the state takes it back does it? And say, when the states start losing medicaid money in 3 years, then what?

That huge stupendous 50.00 dollar a month tax cut via the stimulus? bye bye birdy.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep the money will come from somewhere. If the feds cut spending the states will have to generate more tax revenue.
There is no free lunch.

 

[Revere]

If a beer maker can't charge more for the same shitty beer, why should government make you pay more for beer for the same shitty governmetnt?

 

[Revere]

Yep the money will come from somewhere. If the feds cut spending the states will have to generate more tax revenue.
There is no free lunch.

Excuse me, who, besides government, expects or is getting a free lunch?

 

[Trajan]

you'll also note that Oregon didn't fall for that 4 years or we'll hit the rich and leave the regular folks alone crap either, they would not vote for any state income tax, good for them. this rate will never ever go down. a 75% increase is ridiculous.

 

[uscitizen]

Yep the money will come from somewhere. If the feds cut spending the states will have to generate more tax revenue.
There is no free lunch.

Excuse me, who, besides government, expects or is getting a free lunch?

Lots of people. Many on both sides getting medicare, food stamps, Chips, Medicaid.
Subsidies to industries, earned income tax credits, Health care for retired public employees, the list is almost endless.
You name it. Most do now realize how much they actually get till it goes away.

And most all of that money rolls right back into the economy. Think about what it will do to the economy as well if the govt actually balanced it's budget?

A fine mess we have worked ourselves into.
Most of us very eagerly too.

 

[loosecannon]

yawn.

Move to Haiti if you don't like paying for what you consume.

Whiners.

 

[Mr. H.]

yawn.

Move to Haiti if you don't like paying for what you consume.

Whiners.

...or move to Dougerland.

 

[chanel]

There's no such thing as a temporary tax increase. Unless they elect a Republican. Which will never happen.

 

[editec]

Ouch!

Often when the FEDS cut back on spending or revenue sharing, all they're really doing to dumping the costs onto the states.

The states in some cases do very much the same kind of thing to the local communities.

For example, here in Maine, the state is expected to pick up some percentage of local school costs.

But for years the state has failed to pay the promised amount and the local taxpayers end up making up the difference.

There's three ways to deal with that

1. Cut spending (read cut social services)
2. Increase taxes
3 Some mix of the two approaches

 

[chanel]

NJ is in a similar predicament, however increasing taxes will not be on the table as long as Christie is in charge. The top income tax rate here was almost 11% under Corzine. This "temporary tax" expired and Christie refused to extend it. It's now around 9%.

We also enjoy the highest property taxes in the country with the average bill at $7300. There is a breaking point. And that's when states vote "R". Or should.

Cutting spending is the only way to go. And Dems have never met a tax they don't like.

 

[KissMy]

Illinois is loosing jobs, companies & population due to already high taxes. Even former Illinois democrat Governor Rod Blagojevich says this will ruin the state.

Rod Blagojevich video on CNBC

 

[Avatar4321]

They do realize people can move right?

 

[Revere]

They do realize people can move right?

You know, some classes of earners can, and some can't, or at least it's very difficult.

So the working class really can't vote with their feet.

 

[JohnA]

Yep the money will come from somewhere. If the feds cut spending the states will have to generate more tax revenue.
There is no free lunch.

Excuse me, who, besides government, expects or is getting a free lunch?

Lots of people. Many on both sides getting medicare, food stamps, Chips, Medicaid.
Subsidies to industries, earned income tax credits, Health care for retired public employees, the list is almost endless.
You name it. Most do now realize how much they actually get till it goes away.

And most all of that money rolls right back into the economy. Think about what it will do to the economy as well if the govt actually balanced it's budget?

A fine mess we have worked ourselves into.
Most of us very eagerly too.

While i agree with you for the most part I would,nt call medicare a free lunch
part A is free just covers basic care and you pay for it all the time you are working
PART B is voluntary and it costs $96.40 per month per person
i would nt call that free