How would cutting taxes five to eighteen cents per day reduce income inequality?

In Illinois, this week, we were treated to an advertisement posing as a news piece by the AP supporting a graduated income tax for the state.  The article quotes a study that says the graduated income tax would raise $3.1 billion, would lower the deficit, would lessen income inequality, would help the business climate in Illinois, and would lower property taxes and lower taxes on almost all people — among other magical things that tax increases always accomplish.

Those with taxable income below $10,000 would receive a huge tax cut of up to $20 per year, or a little over 5 cents per day.  Those with taxable income below $250,000 would have a huge windfall of up to $65 per year, or 18 cents per day.  What would they do with all that money?

How does raising taxes on the rich substantially, while reducing the taxes on the poor and middle class a nickel to 18 cents per day, reduce income inequality?  The federal income tax is highly progressive, so why hasn't that reduced income inequality?

Why don't the AP and other news outlets tell the poor and middle class how small the tax cuts are instead of repeating the talking point that almost everyone gets a cut?  The answer is that the truth hurts the Democrats' agenda.

How does taking $3 billion out of the private sector, to give to the government to plug a budget gap, help the slow economy grow and give the poor and middle-class economic opportunities to move up the economic ladder?  The answer is, it doesn't.

How does taking $3 billion from the private sector to plug the budget gap allow property taxes to go down 10%? T he answer is, it doesn't.  How many times have politicians promised and kept their word that property taxes would go down when they raised other taxes?  I can't think of any.

The authors of the study say they have seen no evidence that high taxes cause rich people to move.  That shows that the authors are illiterate, because there has been significant migration from high-tax states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois to low-tax states like Texas and Florida.

Of course, these minuscule tax cuts would be dwarfed by all the tax and fee increases being proposed today.  Why didn't the AP article or the authors of the study talk about all of Pritzker's proposed tax increases?  Wouldn't they increase the income gap if the 5-cent cut would decrease the gap?

Here is a non-inclusive list of regressive taxes that Pritzker supports.  These items he wants to tax take a much higher share from lower- and middle-income people:

- Marijuana

- Sports betting

- Sales

- Plastic bag

- E-cigarette

- Gas

And if the public changes the Constitution because it is misinformed, Katie, bar the door, because in the future, we will continuously be told that the only choice politicians have is to raise taxes again.  It is easy to talk the public into believing that the rich don't pay their fair share.  It is a shame that journalists have become advocates and talking heads for Democrat policies instead of just reporting the news.

Why haven't all the taxes and fees throughout the years ever reduced the deficits?  The answer is, politicians from both parties spend too much to buy votes, and a lot of the public have been indoctrinated to believe that the bureaucrats and politicians care when most politicians who have been in power for a while crave their power and like to buy votes by redistributing confiscated money. 

Have journalists spotted any proposals from Pritzker and other Democrats that would encourage businesses and the rich to stay in Illinois or move here?  I haven't spotted any.  I will keep a close eye out.  What I see is a party that likes big government wants more people to be dependent on government.  Those policies will never reduce income inequality and are courting disaster.

Every proposal I have seen nationally would also reduce economic opportunity in the private sector while making the government and D.C. area richer and more powerful.  Making the rich poorer will never make the poor and middle class richer — only the government, which seems to be almost all journalists' and other Democrats' goal.

APNewsBreak: Study finds tax plan would narrow income gap

A graduated income tax could narrow Illinois' growing income disparity, cut property — as well as income — tax bills and deliver billions of dollars in extra annual revenue to combat state deficits and underfunded public schools and infrastructure, a study to be released Monday shows .

The peer-reviewed exam by the Project for Middle Class Renewa l and the Illinois Economic Policy Institute constructed eight scenarios based partly on progressive income tax structures among Illinois neighbors. The Associated Press obtained the study in advance of its Monday release.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker has proposed changing the state's flat-rate income tax system, in which everyone pays 4.95 percent, to a progressive structure in which wealthier residents pay a higher percentage . It would start at 4.75 percent for the lowest wage earners, remain at 4.95 percent for those earning $100,000 to $250,000, and top out at 7.95 percent for incomes over $1 million.

Critics such as Todd Maisch, president and CEO of the Illinois Chamber, contend the rich will simply bolt the Prairie State. Bruno said there is no research to back up such an assertion.

Graphic credit: formulanone (cropped).

In Illinois, this week, we were treated to an advertisement posing as a news piece by the AP supporting a graduated income tax for the state.  The article quotes a study that says the graduated income tax would raise $3.1 billion, would lower the deficit, would lessen income inequality, would help the business climate in Illinois, and would lower property taxes and lower taxes on almost all people — among other magical things that tax increases always accomplish.

Those with taxable income below $10,000 would receive a huge tax cut of up to $20 per year, or a little over 5 cents per day.  Those with taxable income below $250,000 would have a huge windfall of up to $65 per year, or 18 cents per day.  What would they do with all that money?

How does raising taxes on the rich substantially, while reducing the taxes on the poor and middle class a nickel to 18 cents per day, reduce income inequality?  The federal income tax is highly progressive, so why hasn't that reduced income inequality?

Why don't the AP and other news outlets tell the poor and middle class how small the tax cuts are instead of repeating the talking point that almost everyone gets a cut?  The answer is that the truth hurts the Democrats' agenda.

How does taking $3 billion out of the private sector, to give to the government to plug a budget gap, help the slow economy grow and give the poor and middle-class economic opportunities to move up the economic ladder?  The answer is, it doesn't.

How does taking $3 billion from the private sector to plug the budget gap allow property taxes to go down 10%? T he answer is, it doesn't.  How many times have politicians promised and kept their word that property taxes would go down when they raised other taxes?  I can't think of any.

The authors of the study say they have seen no evidence that high taxes cause rich people to move.  That shows that the authors are illiterate, because there has been significant migration from high-tax states like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois to low-tax states like Texas and Florida.

Of course, these minuscule tax cuts would be dwarfed by all the tax and fee increases being proposed today.  Why didn't the AP article or the authors of the study talk about all of Pritzker's proposed tax increases?  Wouldn't they increase the income gap if the 5-cent cut would decrease the gap?

Here is a non-inclusive list of regressive taxes that Pritzker supports.  These items he wants to tax take a much higher share from lower- and middle-income people:

- Marijuana

- Sports betting

- Sales

- Plastic bag

- E-cigarette

- Gas

And if the public changes the Constitution because it is misinformed, Katie, bar the door, because in the future, we will continuously be told that the only choice politicians have is to raise taxes again.  It is easy to talk the public into believing that the rich don't pay their fair share.  It is a shame that journalists have become advocates and talking heads for Democrat policies instead of just reporting the news.

Why haven't all the taxes and fees throughout the years ever reduced the deficits?  The answer is, politicians from both parties spend too much to buy votes, and a lot of the public have been indoctrinated to believe that the bureaucrats and politicians care when most politicians who have been in power for a while crave their power and like to buy votes by redistributing confiscated money. 

Have journalists spotted any proposals from Pritzker and other Democrats that would encourage businesses and the rich to stay in Illinois or move here?  I haven't spotted any.  I will keep a close eye out.  What I see is a party that likes big government wants more people to be dependent on government.  Those policies will never reduce income inequality and are courting disaster.

Every proposal I have seen nationally would also reduce economic opportunity in the private sector while making the government and D.C. area richer and more powerful.  Making the rich poorer will never make the poor and middle class richer — only the government, which seems to be almost all journalists' and other Democrats' goal.

APNewsBreak: Study finds tax plan would narrow income gap

A graduated income tax could narrow Illinois' growing income disparity, cut property — as well as income — tax bills and deliver billions of dollars in extra annual revenue to combat state deficits and underfunded public schools and infrastructure, a study to be released Monday shows .

The peer-reviewed exam by the Project for Middle Class Renewa l and the Illinois Economic Policy Institute constructed eight scenarios based partly on progressive income tax structures among Illinois neighbors. The Associated Press obtained the study in advance of its Monday release.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker has proposed changing the state's flat-rate income tax system, in which everyone pays 4.95 percent, to a progressive structure in which wealthier residents pay a higher percentage . It would start at 4.75 percent for the lowest wage earners, remain at 4.95 percent for those earning $100,000 to $250,000, and top out at 7.95 percent for incomes over $1 million.

Critics such as Todd Maisch, president and CEO of the Illinois Chamber, contend the rich will simply bolt the Prairie State. Bruno said there is no research to back up such an assertion.

Graphic credit: formulanone (cropped).