http://www.msmagazine.com/Fall2009/paycheckfeminism.asp

A slightly higher tax on what I make would leave me with more at the end of the year than a rediculous sales tax on nearly everything I buy

High sales tax in Chicago...because of a low flat-rate income tax

Why are our sales taxes so high in Chicago, Cook County and Illinois?

Because we choose sales taxes more than income taxes in this state.

There's no such thing as a Chicago income tax. There is in New York City. And Washington, D.C. But not Chicago.

So the money has to come from somewhere. If we don't tax income, then we either tax sales or property.

That's it. Those are the choices. Income tax. Sales tax. Property tax.

And the state income tax is...low. So the state sales tax is high.

It's 6.25%. That's pretty high.

Here is a Wikipedia state-by-state comparison of sales taxes.

The state income tax is only 3%. That's pretty low.

It's the lowest income tax rate in the country. Check out Wikipedia.

There is no state property tax.

So Illinois uses a pretty high sales tax, a very low income tax and no state property tax.

If we had a higher income tax rate -- and if we used tax brackets like the federal government and like 30-some other states -- we could lower our sales tax.

So the next time you look at your receipt and wonder why the sales tax is so high, think about our low income tax and our lack of state income tax brackets.

Welfare

Last night my friend complained about this here project saying, "a small business is already taxed at about 40% by its 'business partner', the government, and now you want the business owner to pay higher taxes on personal income from said business because he/she/I make 'too much money".

No, anonymous-friend, it's not that I'm jealous of your money and want to punish you. I don't want you to pay for "women who pop out babies to collect welfare". Maybe welfare should get a revamp, but the majority of your taxes do NOT go to welfare... read this

grrr, republican-friend-with-sweet-moustache, let us again take a look at Quinn's list of where your Illinois taxes go. List! I imagine if every dollar that goes towards a woman with children counts as welfare then you could be right, friend-of-mine. But you know, gentle reader, that is a misrepresentation of the numbers.

And, close-friend-with-whom-I've-shared-great-adventures-and-who-has bought-me-many-generous-gifts, you too should be able to vote your conscience in 2010. So let's all contact our reps to get it on the ballot!

Thanks for the inspiration and whiskey talks, Keith.

Really!?

Where does Illinois get it's cash money? Hmmm. Notice how high the sales taxes are compared to income tax. No es bueno for poor peeps, ya'll.

Property Tax 37.1%
General Sales Tax 16.6%
Selective Sales Tax 17.2%
Individual Income 17.1%
Corporate Income 5.3%
Licenses & Other 6.6%

compare us to other states

The website is up!

taadaaa! This is the official website of Illinois Tax Bracketeers

Women and Taxes

The following is an excerpt from"Taxes are a Woman’s Issue: Reframing the Debate". It is a very comprehensive description of the necessity of a progressive tax system from the National Council for Research on Women. Though the research was specifically on women, the information applies to everyone who is not super-rich and is important for everyone to understand.

Women generally benefit from a progressive tax system that taxes people according to their ability to pay. They are disadvantaged by a tax system that doesn’t raise enough money for public services that support and help compensate for their patterns of paid and unpaid labor.

How Has This happened?
Significant changes in tax policy over the past quarter century have led to increasingly inadequate budgets at the local, state, and national levels and a decreasingly progressive tax system overall.

Taxes on wealth, the most progressive kinds of taxes, have been systematically rolled back. Capital gains taxes, which apply to profits made on the sale of financial assets like real estate or stocks, account for more than half of the income of the very wealthy, yet tax rates on that income have been more than halved since the 1970s. Likewise, the inheritance tax on large estates and taxes on dividend income from corporate stocks and bonds, both of which affect to a very large degree the very wealthy, have been slashed.

Add to this the great growth in more regressive taxes – like state sales taxes and payroll taxes – and you have a system that is taking less and less from those with more – and more and more from those with less.
Tax cuts since 2001 have accelerated this trend, lowering the combined federal, state and local tax rate for the top 1% of taxpayers by 12 % while low-income taxpayers enjoyed cuts of only 3 %. For women with low incomes, they pose devastating threats to their fundamental security and that of their families. This inequality is built into the ways the nation raises and spends its tax revenues. It is both systemic and structural, affecting all women but not in the same ways or to the same degree.

Less Public Money: Decreasing progressivity has meant that governments have a smaller pool of wealth available to fund our public services.
More Pressure on Low- and Middle- Income Earners: With changes in the tax system at all levels of government, the share of the national tax bill paid by low and middle income wage earners, disproportionately women, is increasing while the wealthy and corporations are seeing more of their incomes remain in their pockets after taxes.
Underfunded Public Services: With decreased tax revenues there is less money to sustain the quality and availability of public services that affect us all – like public education, roads, sanitation, environmental protection, and public safety.
Squeeze on Social Welfare: Need-based public programs like Medicaid, nutrition programs, and childcare on which low-income women particularly depend have been consistently squeezed. In February 2006, Congress and the President cut an additional $39.5 billion over 5 years from such programs as health care for the elderly and student loans.
A Widening Gap between Rich and Poor: In 2001, the richest 20% of households owned 83% of the country’s assets while the bottom 18% had zero or negative net worths – and this discrepancy is even more dramatic when race is considered. Nearly 31% of African American households had zero or minus net worth.

The report is co-authored by Mimi Abramovitz, a professor at the Hunter College School of Social Work, and Sandra Morgen, director of the Center for the Study of Women in Society and professor of anthropology at the University of Oregon, with the National Council for Research on Women and published by the Feminist Press. read the full article

How do tax brackets work?

mmmk, so it has come to my attention that some people don't understand how progressive taxes work. It's probably because you're in the lowest bracket and have never had to think about it. Let's say you are Cam Barker, a Black Hawk with a mid-range salary of 3,000,000 dollars. If Illinois switched to tax-brackets from the flat tax Cam would be taxed 3% on the first 20, 000, 5% up to 100,000, and 7% above that. Those numbers are arbitrary, but you can see that progressive taxes don't just take 7% of 3 million, but tax each level independently. Therefore, the percentage someone in a higher bracket really pays is not so high. This site has a thingy where you can put in your own numbers for your federal taxes, whoo fun!

"Ahhh, yes!" you say, "I get it! It really is a fair way of getting some money to service the fine citizens of Illinois." Don't you want a chance to vote about it? Go back in this blog a bit and you'll find a link to your state reps. shoot off a lil' email and feel good and smug for a while, yes?

Happy Holidays to me

I was recently informed that I have been overpaid at work for the last 5 paychecks. Essentially, taxes were added instead of subtracted. I have to pay it back now. This prompted me to find out where my money is going. Take a look at this.

There will already be one constitutional amendment on the November 2010 Illinois ballot (about recalling the governor)

Thanks largely to the advocacy of Governor Pat Quinn, voters in Illinois will have the chance in November to decide whether to add an amendment to the state constitution that gives voters the ability to recall the Governor.

So putting one more amendment on the November 2010 ballot isn't that big a deal. Voters will already have one amendment to consider. Putting an amendment on the ballot asking voters whether we should eliminate the no-tax-bracket mandate will provide for a little series of amendments for voters to consider.

If you'd like to read the amendment, it's HJRCA 31 .

Though I have been living above the poverty line for almost 2 years now,
I am certainly not rolling in it. Many of my friends think my lifestyle is extravagant, what with the rent I've been paying on time, eating in restaurants, purchasing lattes, and riding in cabs. I have friends on the other end of the spectrum. They are horrified that I don't have a savings account, health insurance, sicks days, or pictures from a vacation in Costa Rica. I am safely in the middle.

I am representative of many people in their mid twenties. I know that some of my peers will work their way up to making six figures and we will slowly drift apart. They will develop a taste for the finer things and we will have less common ground. When this happens, I hope that they will not loose their integrity, that greed does not creep in.

I've heard people say they don't want to pay for services for poor people, that progressive taxes aren't fair. Somehow it turns into a debate of poor vs rich and blue vs red. I try my hardest to see their point of view. If someone can clarify, please post a comment.

"I'm Just a Bill"

In case School House Rock didn't stick with you, here is a lovely map of how a bill to becomes a law.

Find your public officials

You can see who represents you here. You can search by address and follow the links to each official's contact information.

Have fun!

Can we vote on it?

It's more than a partisan issue, friends. Senator Frerichs proposed an amendment that would have allowed a vote on progressive vs. flat rate taxes (see Dan's post below). Everyone should be in favor of this amendment, regardless of party preference. We deserve to have our state tax structure represented on the ballot. Senator Kwame Raoul should be commended for his powerful plea to both parties to forget about their next election bids to do what is sensible and fair. Our elected officials need to put aside their own interests and represent ours by taking flat taxes out of the constitution and putting them up to the people of Illinois for scrutiny.

3% flat tax for all may sound fair, but when combined with consumption and property taxes it puts a huge burden on the middle and lower classes. Tax brackets do not take advantage of the wealthy and they are not a tax hike.

Tell your state representatives you want it on the ballot. We want to vote on it!

Read the Senate debate on Mike Frerichs constitutional amendment to allow for tax brackets

On April 29, 2008, the Illinois Senate debated and voted on a bill that would have let us use tax brackets for our state income tax instead of keeping the mandate in the constitution that we use a flat rate income tax with no brackets. The bill didn't pass (19 Senators voted for it, 35 voted against it one 1 voted present ), but you can read the entire debate . Senator Mike Frerichs introduced the constitutional amendment and made his opening statement here:

What this bill simply does is remove a

mandate that we, in Illinois, have to have nongraduated rates

for income taxation.  This is about giving voters a say -

allowing this to be put on the ballot for them to have a choice

whether or not they want to have this.  And really what I think

happens, if they ultimately approve this, is we have tax

fairness.  Right now, we have a very regressive system in

Illinois.  And I’ve had people ask me, “Well, if it’s the same

rate for everyone, how can that be regressive?”  Because our tax

structure includes consumption taxes and excise taxes that put a

greater burden on the lowest earning people in the State of

Illinois.  What we have in Illinois: In recent years, the

poorest eighty percent of Illinois families faced tax

liabilities above the national average, while the wealthiest

twenty percent paid taxes well below the national average.  And

that comes from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Illinois’ consumption tax structure is equivalent to an income

tax of 7.8-percent rate for the poor, a 4.7-percent rate for the

middle class, and a one-percent rate on the wealthiest Illinois

taxpayers.

We’ve seen a lot of changes in our economy in this

country and the State over the last thirty years.  Since 1979,

the majority of growth that occurred in Illinois went to the

wealthiest ten percent of taxpayers.  In 2005, the bottom forty

percent of income earners in Illinois actually took home less

money in adjusted-for-inflation dollars.  I think this Body will

determine what those rates may or may not be.  This Body may

determine to not change our tax system at all.  But I believe

that the voters of the State of Illinois deserve the opportunity

to weigh in on this issue, which I think is ultimately an issue

of tax fairness.  I know there’s a lot of disinformation out

there.  I know there’ll be many questions.  I would be happy to

attempt to answer them.

Then, after a lot of questions from Republican Senators who all opposed the amendment (and they are worth reading from pages 18-68 of the Journal of the Senate ), Senator Kwame Raoul made his statement (who worked closely with Senator Frerichs the entire time on the bill).

I first want to commend and thank President Jones for allowing

this -- this amendment to be debated.  I want to also commend

Senator Frerichs for displaying the -- displaying the courage to

put this forth.  And I -- I kind of just wish that courage was a

little bit contagious.  Everybody in this Chamber knows that the

poor and the middle class is overburdened by our ever-increasing

consumption taxes and property taxes, and thereby creating an

overall tax structure that is unfair to the poor and the middle

class, that’s the majority of each and every one of our

districts.  Everybody in this Chamber knows that.  Nobody can

dispute that.  People have said, “Well, will the people trust

us?”  “Will the people trust us to act after this?”  Well, guess

who gets to decide if we do this?  The people get to decide.

This gets put to the people.  Use your common sense.  If the

people trust us, they will, with sixty percent of the vote,

approve this.  If the people don’t trust us, they won’t.  But,

obviously, you all don’t trust the people to make that judgment.

I’ve often heard over the last three and a half years of how the

decisions we make will chase people into the states of -- like

Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin.  Guess what?  In Missouri, Iowa,

Wisconsin, they have a progressive income tax structure.  Guess

what?  Since 1913, our federal income tax has been progressive.

Apparently we thought it fair on the federal level for almost a

hundred years.  If you sense frustration, I have been a little

frustrated.  You know, over the past few weeks, I’ve been trying

to promote this and I’ve spoken to most of you and I thank all

of you all on both sides of the aisle for having the

conversation with me.  I’m really thankful.  I’m -- I’m

particularly thankful to Senator Righter, who gave us input as

to how we can improve this.  And what we’ve done with this is

we’ve made it neutral.  We’re neither endorsing, with the

language of this, a progressive, flat or regressive tax.  I’ll

concede that I prefer a progressive tax.  But with the language

of this, we’re saying neither.  And there was a Senator who

spoke earlier who said, you know, he’s not sure which one is

fair, whether it’s a flat or a progressive tax.  He’s not sure.

In that we’re not sure which is fair, why should we be mandated

to have a flat tax, if we’re not sure?  If we lift this -- I

don’t care to what extent you use Karl Rove-type politics and

say this is an income tax increase, no matter how many times you

say it, it does not make it the truth.  You all know the truth.

The truth is that this is not an income tax increase.  If you

can read, and everybody in this Chamber can, and the people who

would vote for this can, they know that this is not an income

tax increase.  And it’s not as if this is some magic pill that

could enable us to put forth an income tax increase.  We can put

that forth right now.  There’s a pending bill right now.

There’s been a bill in every General Assembly that I’ve

participated in, and there’s probably been one for years and

years prior to that, proposing an income tax increase.  So this

doesn’t turn the key to allow all the sudden for people to

introduce an income tax increase.  We’ve been doing that year

after year after year.  And perhaps the reason it hasn’t

advanced is, because if we do it, it further increases the

burden on the middle class and the low-income population in our

State.  You know, I -- I -- I recently went before the Tribune

editorial board to discuss graduated tax and was bombarded with

questions on recall.  And I thought it was unfair, but I

answered each and every question with regards to recall and

explained why I was opposed to the recall, because I believed it

was bad public policy because already people are afraid of the

shadow of their next election.  And we’re -- we’re afraid to

make decisions in this Chamber and the Chamber across on the

other side, because we’re afraid of the shadow of our next

election.  And we throw recall in the mix, we’ll never get

anything done and we’ll never confront the fact that low-income

people and moderate-income people pay overwhelming percentage of

their income towards public services.  Perhaps we don’t confront

that because they don’t have a lobby.  They don’t have

aggressive, well-paid lobbyists, and perhaps that’s all who we

want to listen to down here.  Not me.  I ask you all to do

what’s right by the majority of the people in this State that

pay taxes.  I ask you to lift this unfair mandate that does not

change our current three-percent flat rate.  We still would have

to present any sort of bill, whether it’s, as Senator Murphy

might propose, a progressive tax cut.  We could even propose

something regressive.  But let’s move the obstacle out of the

way, the unfair obstacle out of the way.  I agree with the

previous speaker that said, you know, we should be able to

debate which is right, whether it’s a flat tax, whether it’s a

progressive tax.  We can’t do that right now because -- we can’t

really do that because we have a mandate that it’s a flat tax.

We have a mandate, and that’s wrong.  Everybody in this room

knows that’s wrong.  Finally, there’s been talk about the

previous bill that was presented in the House that put tax rates

in -- that would seek to put tax rates in the Constitution,

would seek to create a cliff at two hundred and fifty thousand

dollars.  This does not do that.  That bill, I think, only got

fifty-two, fifty-three votes.  I would have voted against that

bill had that bill made it to this Chamber, because I’m not

interested in gouging the rich.  I’m interested in tax fairness,

and I think if -- if we open our hearts, if we -- and allow some

courage to come in, we will -- we will do what we know is right

and lift the mandate of the flat tax.  Thank you.

Then Senator Frerichs made his closing remarks. 

We’ve had a lot of discussion on this.  I’ll try and

be brief.  One of my colleagues mentioned you should take some

time to read what delegates said before in 1970.  I concur.  I

think you should take time to read this, because it’s

interesting reading.  There’s some really interesting

characters, interesting debate.  But, quite frankly, this was

nearly thirty years ago and times have changed.  You’ve seen

consumption taxes increase dramatically.  You’ve seen property

taxes increase dramatically.  We are living in a different time.

And I think, just like you shouldn’t ask a man to wear the same

coat he wore as a child, ‘cause he’s obviously grown out of it,

you shouldn’t ask us to be held in perpetuity.  The founders of

the Constitution, the writers -- the framers of this

Constitution realized that this needs to be a living, breathing

document.  They put an amendment process in place.  They

believed the voters ought to have the opportunity to change

this.  And what I’m asking you to do is to -- not to vote for a

tax increase, but to vote to remove this mandate - to vote to

allow the public, the citizens of this State, to have a voice,

to have some say in this issue.  I know that this is a radical

concept in Illinois.  There are obviously a lot of people scared

about what’s going to happen.  I mean, I can’t answer all their

questions.  I am not a tax expert.  But I can say that at the

federal level - I mean, we’ve even heard that this is a -- a

killer on small business - we have had a graduated income tax at

the federal level for ninety-five years.  Thirty-four other

states have progressive income taxes.  I don’t think this

concept is radical.  I think -- there are people who have talked

about how this administration can’t be trusted.  We have had a

progressive income tax for ninety-five years in this country.

And in that time, we have gone through a great depression, we’ve

had a President assassinated, we’ve had a President impeached.

We’ve gone through plenty of turmoil in this country and this

country has not fallen apart.  And it hasn’t fallen apart

because we are more than just our laws and our tax structure.

We are a fabric, a system of government in place and

relationships and families that make this a great country, that

allow people to earn great amounts of money through the sweat of

their brow and the might of their intellect.  But those people

ought to be able share in funding the society in a similar

percentage as everyone else, as the people who have been dealt a

bad hand.  And so that’s why I ask that you join me today in

voting Yes on this, to allow the people of Illinois to have a

say in amending their Constitution.  Thank you.