Chicagoist: Wisconsin's Sales Pitch

joseph_dunphy_in_chicago

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:24:59 -0600

"Like "The Coalition of the Wooing"?" How about the Alliance of Dreamers? Milwaukee is an ambitious day trip by car, and these places are way to the north of there. Factor in gasoline prices, and there is no way that shopping up there even begins to make sense unless one is already up there on vacation. And if one is on vacation, in one way or another, storage space is probably going to be limited for the traveller, cutting into the practicality of his would-be buying in bulk to take advantage of those low sales taxes.

plumbum82

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:02:01 -0600

"Wisconsin! Come for the cheap sales tax, stay for the fact we used melted cheese as a beverage!"

Sears Tower

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:52:11 -0600

I'll drive up if they donate $1 from every purchase I make to an anti-Stroger re-election campaign. Otherwise, the extra gas won't be worth it.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:18:16 -0600

The use of pension funds as a way of delaying compensation and keeping costs off of the books has been woefully abused by corporations and public institutions alike. I fail to see why these institutions are still permitted to enroll new members of pension funds when the current funding obligations aren't being met. Take the CTA as an example. Back when there was all the hoopla over doomsday after doomsday, Chicago Tonight had an all transit edition. Two of the heads of the transit unions were on and, to show how flexible they had been with the CTA, pointed to the fact that they had permitted the CTA to underfund the pension for a few years. So, back in the 80s, the union negotiated what was essentially a balloon obligation, then in the 90s agreed to a funding arrangement that ensured that the obligation couldn't be met. The unions and the Authority worked together against the employees' interests. So, specifics... apart from reasonable tax increases and using 401(k)s, I think that the state should be buying out the pension fund members with cash for those over retirement age and with bonds (inflation linked treasuries, for example) for the rest. There are all kinds of details that would have to be worked out (financial advice for the recipients, structuring it to minimize tax penalties to those being bought out, size of the bond issuance with which to pay for it, maintaining the state's credit rating). Every public institution seems to be complaining of unexpectedly high pension costs and healthcare. It seems to me that the former could be taken care of and replaced with a predictable payment stream (interest on the bond issue).

matilda

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:31:44 -0600

"As far as state health care costs, I don't see how that is even a governmental issue. I pay for my own health care I shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's. Might sound harsh but it's not my responsibility. The government wasn't designed to provide shelter, food, health services or anything else. You don't have a right to these things and it is theft to take my money to pay for somebody else. I worked for it, I earned it and it's not my obligation to provide for anybody other than myself and my family." That's a fine view, an arguable point, a wonderful question for a poly-sci seminar or a discussion over beer, but it doesn't help the state pay bills it is obligated to pay under current law. And I see nothing in public opinion that will result in a drawback of government services in these areas--I see no big public desire to kill Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, or similar programs. Do you? If not, I think we are best served by dealing with realism, not idealism.

Getreal

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:25:54 -0600

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2288&GAID=9&GA=95&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=36213&SessionID=51 Well you could see 5% and 8% in about two months. I know some of those things aren't state issues. The problem is salaries and benefits. Most tax dollars go to those two things. There already is a tax on gas suppose to go to maintaining roads. Where is all of that money going. As far as state health care costs, I don't see how that is even a governmental issue. I pay for my own health care I shouldn't have to pay for anyone else's. Might sound harsh but it's not my responsibility. The government wasn't designed to provide shelter, food, health services or anything else. You don't have a right to these things and it is theft to take my money to pay for somebody else. I worked for it, I earned it and it's not my obligation to provide for anybody other than myself and my family. Besides health care costs so much now because the government is so involved in it. Get them out and costs will come down and be more affordable for everybody.

fed up

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:24:41 -0600

Getreal good points but this is chicago,crook co Il. and the lemmings vote for who there told to by the precinct capt. Yes the income tax is going to go up. we have to pay for blago to fly back and forth to springfield, and we the taxpayers have to pay for all the lawsuits from blagos stupid ideas not to mention the bills from all the federal investigations. pensions and a decaying infastructure are going to be expensive. I wonder how many of these pothole filled roads were built by companys that made campaign donations to get contracts and then just did shit work.

matilda

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:16:26 -0600

Getreal: I'm with you on the con-con, and the 401 (k), and the cap, though I would need to investigate the numbers. I suspect in about two years you will see a 4% personal rate and perhaps a 6.5% corp rate, but that's just a semi-educated guess. I think everyone agrees with patronage--well, most people here at least. And the county does need to collect those bills, though this has nothing to do with the state, at least not directly. How would you pay for statewide infrastructure needs, I wonder? Or the state's health care costs? Thanks, by the way, for offering some specifics.

Getreal

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:08:38 -0600

Sure, well the proposal is to increase the income tax from 3 to 5 percent and the coporate from 4.8 to 8. The number one way to cap spending to approve of a con con and put in the new constitution a provision that all new government hires have private 401(k)s instead of publicly funded pensions. Second would be to cap all current pensions. Right now there are 4000 retirees making more than 100k a year in pensions. That number will continue to increase. Why do I have to pay for their retirement if I'm having a hard enough time funding mine. Stop all the patronage. Why is Stroger's cousin receiving a 16% pay increase. Makes you wonder why he was pushing so hard for a tax increase. They increase taxes to get rid of the budget deficit and the first thing they do is increase spending. They could actually try collecting hospital bills from Cook County instead of just giving everyone free treatment.

matilda

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:57:05 -0600

I doubt at this point they can cut enough spending to meet pension and healthcare obligations, not to mention infrastructure needs. I just don't see it happening in this state. I would bet on a state income tax rate increase of up to a percentage point within 2-3 years. But if you have specifics about how to cut spending to meet those obligations, I urge you to share them with your lawmakers and with us.

Getreal

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:51:47 -0600

Why don't they try curbing their spending instead of trying to fleece taxpayers?

matilda

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:48:49 -0600

Getreal: I think within a few years this state will see an income tax increase, as we are running out of ways to pay our debts. I doubt it will happen in a election year, though.

Getreal

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:44:16 -0600

Wisconsin might have lower sales tax but they have a higher income tax and they tax retirement income which is why retirees flee the state. Michigan has a 6% sales tax and doesn't allow any local taxes to be added on top. Illinois is trying to raise the income tax now with Senate Bill 2288. So now we have higher sales tax and might have higher income tax. hopefully this bill gets shot down.

Dave!

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:30:42 -0600

I wish they *would* target the tax rate directly... maybe then the commissioners would get the hint. As for me, I'm with smussy, I'll save my big ticket purchases for when I'm visiting family elsewhere.

matilda

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:17:48 -0600

Ont: I think the point is to have Chicagoans who might be on vacation up there to buy goods there. Sounds reasonable to me.

Ontology

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:10:17 -0600

What does Green Bay have that anyone from Chicago would want to buy? What about Door County? If I'm interested in buying some flavored olive oil or antique whale-bone wall sconces, odds are I can afford the extra tax dollars in Illinois. Seems an awfully long jaunt to save $25-50.

smussy

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:49:06 -0600

i bought my macbook up at the apple store by my parents' house. i was going up there anyway, and it dawned on me that it would behoove me to do so with the sales tax sucking ass down here. sorry, chicago. i have now lived 17 years of my life in 'sconsin and 17 of them in the land of lincoln, but ... when it comes to the K, i'm going to the WI.