9 thoughts on ““Illinois Passes A Huge 66% Tax Hike, And Governors Around The Country Are Making Fun Of It.””

  1. I, for one, am looking forward to utilizing every legal means possible to reduce my taxable income, while reducing my expenditures in Illinois. All nice and legal, of course.

    I understand that in Italy, tax minimization, if not outright avoidance, is practically the national sport (after soccer). The Illinois legislature now may find such activities becoming as popular as following the Bears.

  2. Correct me if I am wrong. Whereas Wisconsin has much lower sales tax, I was of the impression that our income tax is at the level of Illinois after the big fat increase.

    As this blog is “Chicago Boyz”, are there some tax wonks out there to do some comparisons on relative tax rates between states?

  3. “The tax increases, which would take effect retroactively to Jan. 1, would raise an estimated $6.5 billion over a full-year period.” says the Trib. What do you want to bet they don’t even break 5B in 2012?

  4. Did my duty and called. Person on the other end polite, brisk, and quickly noted my concern. Didn’t take my name. I made sure to thank them for their service.

    – Madhu

  5. Gerry, that map is very helpful, thanks. For one, while Wisconsin is no oasis of low taxes, Indiana, Missouri and Tennessee all look very attractive.

    The other, and probably most infuriating, thing about this is the 2% cap on new spending. Not even a feint at austerity. So the probability that the tax increase will improve state finances is likely to be zero, and I bet you, dollars to doughnuts, that the 2% cap will be ignored.

  6. When we talk state income taxes I think it would be more effective to use the combined federal and state income tax to drive home how this punishes productive people.

    When people read that a tax was raised from 2% to 5% it doesn’t sound like much but if you put it in context and say that with the 35% federal and 5% state the taxed individual is now paying 40% of their income in taxes.

    It’s also important to note that if the Obama tax increases had gone through and raised the top bracket to 39%, top earners in States like California and Oregon (both 11%) would pay 50% of income in taxes. Plus whatever business and sales taxes they would owe.

  7. Shannon,

    You just proved my point about the need for long-term public education as to how the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes operates as a subsidy from red states to blue states, particularly blue states dominated by public employee unions such as Illinois and California.

    I have lived in California all my life and, when I determine my income for federal tax purposes, I can deduct what I’ve paid in State of California income tax, and local real property taxes, from my federal taxable income in just the same way that I can deduct interest paid on my home loan.

    I do NOT pay federal income taxes on what I’ve paid in state income taxes. While I do not get a federal tax CREDIT against my state income taxes, I certainly do benefit significantly from being in a lower federal tax bracket.

    The federal tax rate schedule for higher earners filing jointly is 25% – 35%, which means California higher earners subject to California’s maximum tax rate schedule (9.55%) pay federal taxes at a rate of 15.45% – 24.45%, not 25%-35%. This reduces federal revenue from states with high income and property taxes relative to states with low income and property taxes.

    I.e., people in red states pay significantly higher federal income taxes, and particularly higher marginal tax rates, than people of comparable income in blue states. The difference subsidizes the higher state government expenses paid to public employee unions in blue states.

  8. Oops, Shannon, I thought this was the other, more recent, thread on the subject where I had previously mentioned how the federal tax deduction for state & local taxes operates as a subsidy from red states to blue states. I apologize for my tone.

Comments are closed.