• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Illinois Lawmakers Propose 75% Income Tax Hike

haymarket said:
This story is an excellent example of a corporation whipsawing a state using tactics that amount to legal blackmail. It exemplifies why we need one national policy which forbids this very sort of chicanery. We are one nation, one people, one economy with more uniting us that mere state lines on a map. It is well beyond time that we accepted this and made the necessary changes. Or we will forever be subject to corporate blackmail.
Click to expand...

I do not view a corporation exercising its legal right to shop around for the best price (i.e. tax rates) as legal blackmail. After all, like it or not, this one nation, one people, one economy was founded under the principles of the free market and competition. The Federal Government has already done enough damage to the fragile ecosystem with which American businesses currently operate--why give them more power to pollute?
 
The Preacher said:
You wouldn't say that if you had worked thirty years to earn that pension. Typical of the 'have-nots' to be envious of the 'haves'.
You could have worked for the state & chose not to. Don't be sore that you missed your chance for a government pension. Maybe they should sieze your house to pay off the debt.
Click to expand...

Please explain exactly why a civil servant should be afforded the privilege of the 'haves'?
 
Nevergolfpar said:
Please explain exactly why a civil servant should be afforded the privilege of the 'haves'?
Click to expand...

"Civil Servant" is rather demeaning and old-fashioned, don'tcha' think? They're employees. Not servants. Everybody knows how I feel about public sector unions, but to say that we all shouldn't be able to be "haves" is kinda' elitist in my opinion.
 
Nevergolfpar said:
Please explain exactly why a civil servant should be afforded the privilege of the 'haves'?
Click to expand...

Simply put, they earned it. Why should their employer get to renege on promises that were made at the beginning of employment?
The trade-off for lower pay was benefits, including a pension.
It would be the same as you paying your mortgage for thirty years and the bank owning your home anyway.
 
MaggieD said:
"Civil Servant" is rather demeaning and old-fashioned, don'tcha' think? They're employees. Not servants. Everybody knows how I feel about public sector unions, but to say that we all shouldn't be able to be "haves" is kinda' elitist in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's not elitist, it's jealousy.
 
The Preacher said:
Simply put, they earned it. Why should their employer get to renege on promises that were made at the beginning of employment?
The trade-off for lower pay was benefits, including a pension.
It would be the same as you paying your mortgage for thirty years and the bank owning your home anyway.
Click to expand...

Contracts last a few years at best. When someone begins their career, it's not a lifetime contract commitment. To think it is is ridiculous. If one were to take this issue through the courts, the promises could not be enforced beyond the contract length.
 
The Preacher said:
It's not elitist, it's jealousy.
Click to expand...

Personally, I've find the accusation, "You're just jealous," more appropriate to the playground than in a serious discussion of fiscal responsibility.
 
MaggieD said:
Contracts last a few years at best. When someone begins their career, it's not a lifetime contract commitment. To think it is is ridiculous. If one were to take this issue through the courts, the promises could not be enforced beyond the contract length.
Click to expand...

That's why they renegotiate the contract every couple of years. That does not give the right to take back what has all ready been earned. Now, if I don't like what is in the new contract, I can opt to take my 'services' elsewhere.
 
The Preacher said:
That's why they renegotiate the contract every couple of years. That does not give the right to take back what has all ready been earned. Now, if I don't like what is in the new contract, I can opt to take my 'services' elsewhere.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. You can take your services elsewhere.

You're also right that it doesn't give anyone the right to take back what has already been earned. A two-year contract that promises a pension in 30 years requires that funding be done during that two-year period to begin to make that happen from an actuarial standpoint. That funding (whatever the dollar amount) cannot be taken away. It's a done deal. The next contract can take the entire pension away -- and the result would be that the employer would have to pay the employee that 2-year funding. Period.
 
MaggieD said:
Personally, I've find the accusation, "You're just jealous," more appropriate to the playground than in a serious discussion of fiscal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's the way I see it. The biggest crybabies are the ones who chose the higher pay of the private sector vs. the lower pay, but good benefits of public sector. I didn't see anyone crying while they were using the government services, just when the bill is due. Maybe jealousy is ia poor choice of words, hypocracy is a better fit. As far as fiscal responsibility, I kept up my end of the bargain, I expect you to keep up yours.
 
The Preacher said:
Sorry, but that's the way I see it. The biggest crybabies are the ones who chose the higher pay of the private sector vs. the lower pay, but good benefits of public sector. I didn't see anyone crying while they were using the government services, just when the bill is due. Maybe jealousy is ia poor choice of words, hypocracy is a better fit. As far as fiscal responsibility, I kept up my end of the bargain, I expect you to keep up yours.
Click to expand...

And taxpayers are entitled to renegotiate contracts when they come up for renewal.
 
The Preacher said:
Sorry, but that's the way I see it. The biggest crybabies are the ones who chose the higher pay of the private sector vs. the lower pay, but good benefits of public sector. I didn't see anyone crying while they were using the government services, just when the bill is due. Maybe jealousy is ia poor choice of words, hypocracy is a better fit. As far as fiscal responsibility, I kept up my end of the bargain, I expect you to keep up yours.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I have to jump in for a moment. I am getting pretty disgusted with the people who post throwing around the word hypocracy. You can disagree but why do you have to be disagreeable?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The Tax Foundation - State Individual Income Tax Rates, 2000-2011

5.25% doesn't seems so bad when compared to other states.
Click to expand...

What does the 5.25% relate too? That certainly isn't the illinois corporate income tax. Illinois corporate tax rate is 7% + 2.5% personal property replacement tax for a total tax rate of 9.5%.

It's scheduled to drop to 5.25% in a couple of years - but since no spending has been cut, I wouldn't expect it. I know no one here (in Illinois) believes it will ever be dropped. Even the biggest dem supporters I know realize it's not true.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
What does the 5.25% relate too? That certainly isn't the illinois corporate income tax. Illinois corporate tax rate is 7% + 2.5% personal property replacement tax for a total tax rate of 9.5%.

It's scheduled to drop to 5.25% in a couple of years - but since no spending has been cut, I wouldn't expect it. I know no one here (in Illinois) believes it will ever be dropped. Even the biggest dem supporters I know realize it's not true.
Click to expand...

From post #86.

< Friday, January 28, 2011>
<Update on Illinois Big Corps Have Paid So Little in State Corporate Income Taxes>

State...Consolidated. Effective Tax Rate=Caterpillar…………..........315……...30,412……...1.04%
 
donc said:
From post #86.

< Friday, January 28, 2011>
<Update on Illinois Big Corps Have Paid So Little in State Corporate Income Taxes>

State...Consolidated. Effective Tax Rate=Caterpillar…………..........315……...30,412……...1.04%
Click to expand...

I can't help but point out that that rate represents a tax bill of $1.9 billion. Not chump change...
 
MaggieD said:
I can't help but point out that that rate represents a tax bill of $1.9 billion. Not chump change...
Click to expand...

Cats market cap is $69.69B,about a weeks pay for them.
 
donc said:
Cats market cap is $69.69B,about a weeks pay for them.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see any liberal talk about spending but they have no problem talking about taking someone one else's money. We are in a sad state when that happens. There is an obvious difference between a liberal vision of govt. and a conservative vision. The conservative vision is smaller govt. and less spending whereas the liberal version hasn't seen a dollar that it won't spend.
 
Conservative said:
I have yet to see any liberal talk about spending but they have no problem talking about taking someone one else's money. We are in a sad state when that happens. There is an obvious difference between a liberal vision of govt. and a conservative vision. The conservative vision is smaller govt. and less spending whereas the liberal version hasn't seen a dollar that it won't spend.
Click to expand...



Do you have anything to add to the subject that we were discussing? Which was Corp tax rate.:2wave:
 
donc said:
Cats market cap is $69.69B,about a weeks pay for them.
Click to expand...

Market cap has little to do with the topic being discussed.

Gross Profit: 11.31B
 
donc said:
Do you have anything to add to the subject that we were discussing? Which was Corp tax rate.:2wave:
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am talking about taking money from corporations without identifying spending problems. You don't have a problem with that? your vision for the role of the govt. seems to be one of spending, spending, and spending all in the name of compassion. Where are those compassionate results? Looks to me like all you are creating is an entitlement mentality that promotes dependence. Corporations can do more with their money than the govt. does with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom