The wave of the future

[sanityjones]

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (CBS) – Gov. Pat Quinn and the leaders of both houses of the Illinois General Assembly have agreed on raising the state income tax.

If the bill passes, the plan would raise the personal income tax rate from the current 3 percent to 5.25 percent. That’s a 75 percent increase. In real dollars, that would mean if you currently owe $1,000 in taxes, next year you would owe $1,750.



chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/01/06/tax-increase-plan-bigger-than-expected/

[traelin0]

Politicians will never get it. This will just increase the population drain of those with tax burdens.

[deziloooooo]

Are they also going to cut spending, entitlements, salaries for state workers, services state pensions, graft and burying opponents in land fills??

[deziloooooo]

...but you still got the Cubs and Wrigley and the best steaks in the country so not all bad ..

[handyman2]

Sorry Ratchets: The Bears won't win the super bowl this year. Better stock up on beer to wash the pain away.

[safeharbor37]

Taxes are required to pay expenses of government. It seems to me that to have the States taxing their populations to pay their own expenses is preferable to the Federal Government taxing North Carolina to fund expenses in South Carolina.
The idea that we don't need taxes or that it is always best to reduce taxes is shortsighted at best and the idea that expenses can always be reduced profitably is equally misguided.
Moving the tax burden to governmental units most directly responsible to the people seems to me to be an improvement [over the current system which taxes Peter to benefit Paul]. Taxes approved by the people who benefit from the programs supported by those taxes are OK by me. It is when taxes are approved by those who don't pay the taxes that it starts to become abuse, or to have the properties of abuse [of those from whom the taxes are extracted].
If it works in Illinois, maybe others will follow. If not, maybe Illinois will change its policies.

[sanityjones]

Safe, perhaps it has escaped my attention, but I see no reference to "we the people" of Illinois voting in favor of paying higher taxes in the article. When a government mismanages fiscal resources to the brink of insolvency and then arbitrarily raises income tax in order to fund the budgetary shortfall (15 billion) then there is a problem. Why is it that the only "solutions" revolve around either raising taxes on those who pull the cart or cutting the services of those who pull the cart?

[Deleted]

In a state like Illinois with MAJOR budget troubles...this would seem reasonable, even though tax increases are generally a bad idea, you have to make an attempt to 'spread the pain' as it were.

[burnsattornincan]

Taxes are required to pay expenses of government. It seems to me that to have the States taxing their populations to pay their own expenses is preferable to the Federal Government taxing North Carolina to fund expenses in South Carolina.
The idea that we don't need taxes or that it is always best to reduce taxes is shortsighted at best and the idea that expenses can always be reduced profitably is equally misguided.

Misguided? The only one misguided here is you. Government is so wildly out of control at all levels that even you Mr. safeharbor37 former administrator, are mesmerized. Federal government can be cut 80%, state 50% and local by about 30% without anyone even noticing. Well, you might see more people sitting by an upside down baseball cap at a street corner but thats about it. You seem to suggest people who work and produce approve of high taxes because they get something in return. The only thing producers need is a vibrant and unrestrictive business environment, law and order and of course a capable military for national security. How much would that cost? Right.

[billisonboard]

"The only thing producers need is a vibrant and unrestrictive business environment, law and order and of course a capable military for national security."

How about an educated work force and an infrastructure?

[burnsattornincan]

How about an educated work force and an infrastructure?

Infrastructure is self evident. I didn't think I would need to go there but maybe I was wrong. I do not know what you mean by "educated work force". A producer is probably educated to some degree. Yes, before they become producers they at least need to be educated to high school level paid for by local taxes. Anything beyond that is open market. I suppose you might move on to health care next. With all the money you save by eliminating the government as I've specified, you could buy the best health care the industry has to offer.

[billisonboard]

The only thing producers need is a vibrant and unrestrictive business environment, law and order and of course a capable military for national security."

And a self evident infrastructure and a basic education system. Anything else you have excluded?

[billisonboard]

A system to handle disputes between producers?

[deziloooooo]

With all respect , "Federal government can be cut 80%, state 50% and local by about 30% without anyone even noticing. "..that is as stupid a remark as I have hear posted here on these boards yet, and while I realize we are still infant's here in time, I wouldn't bet against it being within the top 10 for a long time.
Even a top tenner in our neighbor to the North.

[burnsattornincan]

that is as stupid a remark as I have hear posted here on these boards yet

Mr. deziloooooo, I think we all know what kind of "stupid" has been on display here and the other board since around.... well since you've been around. Could be just coincidence though.

< If your friend disappeared from the bar late one night and his car was gone, ask him if he's ever heard of me. If he hasn't, he's lying. >

canattornyyou

[burnsattornincan]

A system to handle disputes between producers?

Guns.

[billisonboard]

Jan 8, 2011 10:24:19 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

A system to handle disputes between producers?

Guns.

Dispute on provisions of a contract handled with guns. Okay.

What about a common currency. Government need to provide that for producers?

[burnsattornincan]

What about a common currency. Government need to provide that for producers?

Gold.

[billisonboard]

Jan 8, 2011 10:39:05 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

What about a common currency. Government need to provide that for producers?

Gold.

I see. Okay.

Gold and guns. I think we all have a better understanding of the world we would be living in under your vision of the future. Anyone interested?

[burnsattornincan]

I'm glad you're enjoying the show Mr. billisonboard but let me be a little more realistic for you. You asked about disputes between producers. That one is easy. You can keep your ridiculous "justice" system as is, you know, the one with a new frivolous lawsuit being launched every second of the day. The only slight change would be that the loser would pay all court costs.

The elimination of 80% of federal government would require some changes in how things are handled. Take some useless agency overseeing some sort of commerce. If eliminated it gives a little more room for abuse, fraud or whatever appropriate infraction. If an entity was found guilty of any such infraction, the penalty would be severe. Kind of like the honor system. There is no one looking over your shoulder but if you are caught you are in serious trouble. This is more or less how China operates. They have stolen a page from your playbook in the area of business capitalism. I think it is time you stole a page from their playbook in the area of government regulations concerning business.

[billisonboard]

Okay, so we have:

"The only thing producers need is a vibrant and unrestrictive business environment, law and order and of course a capable military for national security."

And then:

And a self evident infrastructure and a basic education system.

And now:

"...You can keep your ridiculous "justice" system ..."

Anything else you are excluding?

And yes:

I am enjoying the show.

[deziloooooo]

To early for popcorn but....

[burnsattornincan]

If you are going to ask about everything under the sun which is, yes, self evident, then how about you just keep all your government, head into total insolvency and plunge into chaos and civil war. Or just be ruled under martial law. It sounds like you are not interested in discussing viable solutions to (possibly) head off these likely scenarios so just keep on refuting anything that might help and enjoy the "real" show, coming to you soon.

[Deleted]

In a state like Illinois with MAJOR budget troubles...this would seem reasonable, even though tax increases are generally a bad idea, you have to make an attempt to 'spread the pain' as it were.

The problem with tax increases is that it takes "spendable" money out of the pockets of those who could spend (& stimulate the economy). Even if we elect an all new government they will have much the same problems as we have now because we are already in trouble (we've spent too much for too long). I can see the reason for raising taxes & agree with it (it is time to pay the piper). My only problem with higher taxes is that I don't believe that our representatives will also cut spending (more taxes will equal more spending). So in the long term nothing will change. That I have a problem with.

[billisonboard]

"It sounds like you are not interested in discussing viable solutions..."

It was you that posted in message #12:

"The only thing producers need is a vibrant and unrestrictive business environment, law and order and of course a capable military for national security."

Quite a declaration. But, as you indicated yourself in message #14, it is bullshit.

[burnsattornincan]

I can only surmise you need to have your hand held when discussing matters of great importance. Let me make a slight alteration in order to help with your comprehension of the matter;

"The only core things producers need is a vibrant and unrestrictive business environment, law and order and of course a capable military for national security."

[billisonboard]

[billisonboard]

Do only "core things" cost tax money?

[deziloooooo]

Jan 8, 2011 15:52:35 GMT -5 burnsattornincan said:

I can only surmise you need to have your hand held when discussing matters of great importance. Let me make a slight alteration in order to help with your comprehension of the matter;

Do you always have to fall back to snotty comebacks that add nothing to the discussion.... to you they may seem to be witty, for a lot of us , it just shows your ignorance and lack of ablility to discuss issues intelligently

[burnsattornincan]

Mr. dezilooooo, did you miss the last sentence of #28? It doesn't affect your credibility much because, well you know.