Chicagoist: A Taxing Day in Springfield

Hascat

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:46:03 -0600

"Have you driven today on a road (even a toll road)?" No, I use transit and I pay for it. I wouldn't mind paying the increased fares if they cut the sales taxes supporting it, either. "Have you used electricity from a nuke plant?" If that's what ComEd has got, then yes. I'm pretty sure I get a bill every month for the electricity I use, so I pay for that too. "Do your parents or grandparents take medicine?" Yes, they do. They pay for it out of their retirement savings. "Use YOUR brains, you wanna-be libertarian dolt. Perhaps study some history while you are at it." With history as an example, out-of-control state spending has always been a failure. If you could point me to any instances of government providing better than the free market, I'd be glad to read about them. Calling me a dolt doesn't help your argument! What is your argument, exactly? You've challenged me in a number of ways but you haven't presented any ideas of your own. Let's hear them!

rich

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:29:50 -0600

Taxation is theft? YES! Services you do not need or want? MOSTLY. I want a miltery that can kick some butt. Have you driven today on a road (even a toll road)? We really have to finish paying those toll roads off (HAHAHAHA). But I will agree we need those crumbling bridges, trains and buses. Have you used electricity from a nuke plant? ComED is own by the govt, that is news to me. Maybe if it was not a govt regulated monoploy that we can have cheaper energy. Do your parents or grandparents take medicine? Rod did a great job wasting money on 200000 doses of Aventis.

vise77

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:57:14 -0600

Taxation is theft? Services you do not need or want? Have you driven today on a road (even a toll road)? Have you used electricity from a nuke plant? Do your parents or grandparents take medicine? Use YOUR brains, you wanna-be libertarian dolt. Perhaps study some history while you are at it.

hascat

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:33:28 -0600

Taxation is theft any way you slice it. The state has no business taking more of my money to provide more services I do not need or want. Taxes drain capital from individuals and businesses alike, reducing tax receipts across the board. When it costs more to spend, spending goes down. When it costs more to own, ownership goes down. It amazes me that politicians to this day still pass tax increases with ZERO regard for the wider consequences of these increases. Adam Smith explained this all very well in his seminal text over two hundred years ago. The guys we have in office now are in serious need of an economics education. Rod is taxing us to pay for healthcare, education, and retirement. Rod's taxes will grow unemployment and shrink tax revenue, forcing more people into government healthcare, education, and retirement programs. This is stupidity bordering on insanity. His plan will fail. "requiring more of the tax burden be placed on Illinois business relative to the amount paid by individuals" I hate hearing statements like this. Where do you think businesses get the money they use to pay taxes? Hint: it's from individuals like you and me. The burden rests with the individual any way you slice it. Use your brains, people. This is a bad idea from top to bottom.

rich

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:30:54 -0600

There has been a drop from 6.3% on June 2003 to 4.5% December 2006 using the federal numbers. The capital gains began a April of 2003. Unemployment has been going straight down ever since. That is the fact. People in Illinois will be better served in a tax cut than a tax increase.

tom

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:07:08 -0600

sorry, that last bit of the second paragraph is wrong. the most recent 0.2% drop in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate took place between september and october of 2006, not august and september. i hope i never have to look at such a boring table again.

tom

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:51:09 -0600

my links are to the federal government's bureau of labor statistics, NOT the state of illinois. seriously-look at the FEDERAL monthly numbers under bush (use the second link i provided). there is NEVER a 2% monthly drop in unemployment under bush. the largest drop is 0.3%, which took place betwen August and September of 2002 and August and September of 2004 (in the not seasonally adjusted table). in the seasonally adjusted table, the largest drop is 0.2%, which most recently occurred between august and september of 2006. and you say you love facts, but the last two links you posted are to OPINION pages. there is an argument to be made for tax cuts in certain cases, but you haven't provided it.

rich

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:23:56 -0600

I love facts. My data is monthly not the averaged yearly numbers from the State of Illinois. www.ides.state.il.us/economy/cps.pdf Her some other good read. www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008699 www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm543.cfm

tom

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:09:39 -0600

rich, where are you getting your numbers? you're lying, according to the federal bureau of labor statistics. here's a yearly tally: www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm to get a monthly tally, you can go here: www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm and fill out the forms accordingly by clicking in the "unemployment rate" boxes (you can do both seasonally adjusted and not seasonally adjusted). as far as i can tell, there's no 2% monthly drop in unemployment EVER under the bush administration, and unemployment under bush is higher than under (gasp!) clinton. but don't let the truth get in the way of a good argument...

rich

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:20:56 -0600

And one more post. Almost to the month of the GW tax cuts, the national unemployment rate did a u-turn and went down 2.5% to 4.0% from 6.0%. Tax cuts = more jobs. I am not full of shit, you are just mad that I AM RIGHT and I have facts to back up every piece of my argument.

rich

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:13:47 -0600

Again, higher taxes = less jobs for the poor. It will be nice to give free health care to the unemployed but I would rather have them have a job. Democrats have basically given up trying to get businesses to come to Chicago to give the poor jobs. But they will be health.

rich

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:02:24 -0600

I agree with Joe. It is a global market and capital will find places were is would be maximize. Making Illinois a stable business environment is key in attracted more jobs. Having all these stupid bans, higher taxes, regulation of businesses, govt health care, poor city services and corruption makes Chicago a very hostile place to do business. Detroit uses to be the auto manufacturing capital of the world, now all the cars in the US is being built in the south. Raising taxes means less jobs and the first people that loses their jobs are the low skilled workers. period.

rich

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:54:28 -0600

I know how much you might like Paul Krugman and Keynesian economics. Keynesian has been discredited, It was called the 70's. Supply side have never been discredited (maybe in your eyes) but it lives well here in the states. In every case which taxes was reduce, tax revenues and the economy grew. The main problem with supply side is that the government bureaucrats grew the government faster than the increase revenues. If the government showed a little restraint and budget well, the govt will can grow a small modest level that does not interfere with our rights and wallets. Why does the Chicagoist want the govt to grow bigger? Can you give me answer to either: one example that the govt has done better with more money or cure for cancer? I think the cure to cancer would be easier.

Joe

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:47:44 -0600

The logic behind the Laffer curve is indisputable. If the tax rate is 0% you collect nothing. If it's 100% you collect little as production would plummet. Somewhere along the continuum is the tax rate that maximizes revenues, if that is the goal. The debate is over which tax rate would maximize revenues. As for the GRT I believe it could drive manufacturers and service providers who have thin profit margins out of Illinois.

Kevin

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:16:21 -0600

Rich: Aurthur Laffer, just like you, is full of shit. Supply side economics has been discredited. While I agree that the state, and Blago, need to figure out better and more sustatinable ways to fund state government, let's not try and turn this into a debate about Reganomics. The 80's are over, dude.

JohnR

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:12:26 -0600

For those who are interested in finding out more about the new tax, we did a good roundup of what a gross receipts tax is, what are some of the potential negative side effects, and how you can mitigate or solve those potential problems. On the surface, it looks like the Governor (or his tax people) actually did do a good job structuring the tax correctly so it helps small businesses, exporters, start-ups and others. Hope you don't mind the shameless plug, but we will have much more on the tax, healthcare and education plans over at www.Wonkish.com.

rich

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:53:55 -0600

John, I understand than you really just to look at the blame on GW but your argument is just example of an another successful Democratic brainwash. You need to understand the Laffer curve and look at the facts. The CBO original estimates that there was going to be a loss of $125 billion between 2004 and 2005 because the tax cuts. In reality capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So doing the math, you get a $26 billion revenue than projects. The tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra from the rich. Since these numbers are always two years behind, it takes one year for people to get capital gains and the next year they pay, the next two years are going to bigger gain in taxes. For education, GW increased the budget average of 7% annually. Where is your facts? I can random statements too. Like the Democrats are controlled by the mafia.

Kevin

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:56:00 -0600

Thad, you are in rare form today, and I couldn't agree with you more!

John

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:50:39 -0600

But simplistic attacks on Bush are so much more fun! :)

vise77

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:41:47 -0600

John: I'll join you in blaming Bush for many things, including the idiotic tax cuts, but let's not let the state off the hook. This budget crisis has been building for many years. In the 90s, for instance, instead of setting aside a healthy rainy day fund, this state, along with many others, simply pissed away too much money. And this state has failed to raise its relatively low taxes in a while, including the state income tax, to help offset the rising cost of services, or the addition of more. As well, the pension problems have been building long before Bush ever took office, thanks to our state's usually short-sighted leaders. And the leaders of this state have been too cowardly to reform the property tax system, which I think is one of the many indirect causes of the current budget crisis we are in (yes, it is a crisis, according to many experts). The thing about Rob, despite being a corrupt slug, is that he has good general ideas (I can agree with expanding health care, but not sure he is doing it the right way). Unfortunately, some of his good ideas are ideas the state can ill-afford at this point. I suspect he is pushing them mainly because they make for good politics, though I am encouraged by his initial steps to shore up pensions. I urge you to learn more about the last two decades of government and politics in this state before blaming Bush. I also would urge you to better explore the relationship between fed and state tax revenues, as well as the mechanism of bond issues and bond ratings. You may find some surprising things that have nothing do with your simplistic attack on Bush.

John

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:31:40 -0600

This is the inevitable biproduct of the Bush Administration's unproductive tax cuts in a time of war, thus lessening the amount of money available to the states for things like education and capital projects, thus forcing states to make tough decisions about raising taxes themselves. I don't fault Blago for going back on his word on this one. This has to be done.

rich

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:06:04 -0600

Tax increases, spending increase and selling the lottery. When can we change the name of Chicago to Detriot. Businesses do leave because of higher taxes. If your businesses is getting a this new tax then they might think about moving. History has shown that this is true. By the way, looking into the revenue part of the Budget, it looks like the increase of cigarette tax did not produce the revenue increases that Blago promise. In fact, it was down $600,000,000. Raising taxes does not mean higher revenue. If 100% of taxes is slavery, what is this?