Last month I sent you a message asking whether I had your permission to raise the income tax either with or without property tax relief.
Having sent out over 5000 e-mails I’m happy to report nearly 500 of you responded. Thanks to all who had the courage to step up and be counted on such an important issue.
Now for the results: A clear majority, upwards of 61%, desired property tax relief even if they thought they would pay a higher income tax. Predictably, state workers and teachers – whose responses I did not include, were overwhelmingly in support of the income tax increase under either scenario. Their votes not withstanding there seems to be widespread support in the district for tax reform namely property tax relief.
As I stated in my earlier message, and have always maintained, before we look to increase taxes, the General Assembly must first consider spending cuts and property tax relief.
On May 30th the Illinois Senate passed HB 174, a balanced budget solution providing long awaited tax reform. Under the plan, as promised, we first made$2 billion in responsible, well-reasoned, cuts accompanied by a doubling of the property tax credit from 5% to 10%. This will provide $700 million in property tax relief to the people of Illinois. In addition, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was tripled from 5% to 15% of the federal EITC and the standard state income tax exemption was increased from $2,000 to $3,000. Furthermore, the Senate doubled the education expense credit from $500 to $1000. This is real tax relief for those needing it most!
Perhaps you’ve heard that the governor wants the General Assembly to return to Springfield to pass a budget he can sign. Please know this: The Senate has already passed a balanced budget solution – one that not only provides for our short-term needs but achieves true long-term budget stability. It is now up to the House of Representatives to do the same. Please call your State Representatives and ask them to call House Bill 174 and to vote ‘yes’ for meaningful tax relief and reform.
Senator Michael Noland
Illinois’ 22nd District
13 comments
Jun 17, 2009 at 5:09 pm
D Ableson
It’s a flawed poll. It’s not randomly selected. It’s unscientific. And frankly, if he’s going to use it for PR, maybe he should cover his tracks on the fact that he lied to District 300 about the Sears TIF that he sponsored a bill to extend.
He’s a liar and can’t be trusted.
Jun 18, 2009 at 10:11 am
T Schmidt
Maybe the poll wasn’t randomly selected, but as he (Senator Noland) explained to me when I asked him about this very issue, he polled those who had contacted his office via email. I can’t blame the Senator for not wanting to invade people’s privacy by gathering constituents email address against their will.
At least he asked and at least he gave both sides of the coin! I feel like I can trust Senator Noland, he specifically asked:
Do I have your permission to vote for an income tax increase with property tax relief? Then a second question asking if he had our permission to vote for it without property tax relief?
I kept a campaign promise to vote for property tax relief and he’s remained consistent in saying that he would ONLY vote for and income tax increase as long as property tax relief were part of it.
Jun 18, 2009 at 2:25 pm
T Schmidt
D Ableson- Please identify the bill that supposedly extended the Sears TIF because rumor has it that is an urban myth and does not exist.
Jun 19, 2009 at 10:21 am
At a Glance
D Ableson, I’m sure you could have contacted his office and made your views known. I was not part of the “poll” but I contact my representatives on a fairly regular basis, both the Democratic and Republican office holders. And, most respond to me in more than a mere form letter.
I believe nearly all of the states in the country are experiencing serious problems with their budgets due to the declining revenues as a result of the worst recession we have seen since the 30’s. California is on the verge of collapse and it has the equivelant of something like the 5th ranking economy in the world… Somethings need to be done to keep the services going especially when there are more people than ever that are relying on them. I just hope the “reform” we get doesn’t include more service and job cuts. We need to put people back to work even for the local or state government. It will help stimulate the economy or at least keep it from getting worse.
Jun 19, 2009 at 1:48 pm
D Ableson
1. SB1477. Not an urban myth.
2. Those are carefully staged questions on the part of a politician, one which I frankly don’t trust. Fact remains he’s been advocating for a “tax swap” for some time, and certainly long before he asked those two specific questions.
Now, as to the scientific nature of the “poll,” regardless if they’re people that provided email addresses or not – it’s not a random selection. There are plenty of public affairs agencies, and people with simple statistical skills, that could have conducted a far more thorough, accurate, and anonymous representation of public opinion.
Consider the people that are most likely to submit their emails to Sen. Noland’s office: 1) politically active conservatives, 2) politically active liberals, 3) supporters of Sen. Noland. Therefore, it’s going to be skewed.
3. There are clear philosophical differences in this site and myself in what the government should and is obligated to provide. It’s very clear by the general theme that the writers of this site are happy to let the state act as more of a provider of goods and services than I am. Cuts are more than warranted, and likely a lot more than we saw. The writer and purveyors of this site are likely to disagree, and in the end that’s all the discussion would come to.
Further, it doesn’t change the fact that our state government still spends a ridiculous amount of money for little to show for it. From roads to those “services” you talk about – we’re in far worse shape than many other states in this country with lower tax rights and better economic prospects.
4. I did contact / have contacted Sen. Noland’s office. I seem to get the same stuff over and over again.
Jun 19, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Chrysippus
As demonstrated by matters right here in Carpentersville government, those who are “politically active” get to make the rules and set the agenda; and those who don’t have to live with the consequences. That’s just the way the system works. Our government is not run simply “by the People”; but rather “by the People who vote“; by the “politically active”.
If Sen. Noland queried those who contacted his office at one time or another, I see nothing wrong with that. At least he took the time to do so. There are those who don’t even do that.
That it’s an “unscientific poll” is irrelevant.
Jun 22, 2009 at 10:00 am
Dave Reece
Nobody is more in touch with his constituents than Senator Noland, that is a fact. D Ableson just can not except the fact that Noland is a great Senator who listens to his constituents, it doesn’t matter if your Democrat or Republican, we are all in this together.
Jun 22, 2009 at 2:05 pm
D Ableson
Don’t you have another election to lose, Dave, or are you just biding your time on here until the next one rolls around?
Jun 22, 2009 at 2:47 pm
At a Glance
Kind of interesting that D Ableson would ignore the positive comments made above and choose to “attack” the person rather than the message…Typical approach, it seems, when only the negative is seen as an alternative to those that have positive, constructive ideas.
Yes, philosophical differences are obvious. There are those of us that beleive helping our neighbors, families and friend is more important that making a few people wealthier. Programs paid for by taxes give us a more even playing field since we do not have equal opportunity as some would like us to believe. We all benefit from good education programs, healthcare programs for us and our kids, effective fire and police protection, a good infrastructure and people to make sure that our goods are produced with consideration for the safety of those that use them, just to name a few. But, we hear that having strong government programs of these types are too expensive and need to be cut. They say we can’t pay more in taxes and still we see our associates unable to live while others thrive. I’m not for socialism but there has to be a belief, an understanding, that the improvement of the common good benefits us all. And, I would venture to say that those that criticize the taxes the most benefit the greatest from our society and the improvement of the people.
We see what the Reagan, Bush, and Bush years have done to this country and the repeated Recessions we have experienced under their programs. We see the huge deficits that we have seen as a result of the policies they championed and what do we have to show for the $10+ Trillion in deficits created essentially under their approach to “smaller government”. Do we have the world’s best healthcare, or education, or anything other than the strongest military. Is this what we want to see continued? Not in my opinion!!!
Jun 23, 2009 at 8:53 am
D Ableson
In theory, that all sounds fantastic, Glance. In reality, heavy handed government provisions creates nothing but public ambivalence towards the less fortunate, and worse yet, a lack of desire to utilize the social mobility that exists within our country.
Again, I think – in theory – your statement is true. However, I don’t believe we’re talking about tax support for whether or not to fund a fire department or police precinct at all, but to what degree the state should provide “basic” provisions to people. More importantly, I get the sense that we would seriously disagree on what the concept of “basic” really is.
However, empirically evaluate instance where the government has stepped in to provide basic needs to the less fortunate – Chicago is a perfect example. Cabrini Green and the Robert Taylor Homes are just two examples of dozens of what government funded and provided subsistence entails. Those examples involved crime, sustained poverty, gang warfare, drug abuse, and zero to no hope for a better life.
Frankly, the government is not here to guarantee that your life will be successful. The government is here to guarantee that I can do what I please without hurting you, and vice versa. That takes a basic level of service, but it doesn’t take a “leveling of the playing field.”
As for Dave Reece, he’s a blowhard and just as dishonest as Sen. Noland. I stand by my comments. You can take it for what it’s worth.
Jun 23, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Chrysippus
D Ableson,
Social service programs may not provide “upward mobility” in the sense that some might want or expect it … and, in my opinion, that is a good thing. But, despite the problems with government housing projects like Cabrini and the Robert Taylor Homes, such government programs put people in a better situation than they might have otherwise been without them — which would likely have created even greater problems for the community; and, taken to the wider scale, our society as a whole.
While such government programs may not reach the idealistic level that they are originally established to bring (and some additional problems may surface), in reality most programs do provide solutions to issues that could affect us as a society on a greater scale, were they not in place.
The reality is that if more businesses acted with a deeper sense of ethics and responsibility toward employees, customers and partners, we might be able to eliminate many of the programs that the government provides … and would need less oversight and bureaucracy as well. Until that time, we all benefit as a society from the services and programs that are provided by the various levels and agencies of government (cleanup, re-organization and consolidation of some programs not withstanding).
Jun 23, 2009 at 3:50 pm
At a Glance
What I never hear from anyone is what is the cost for the “basic” services. How much does our government cost to exist and how much for the things it provides. What is “necessary” and what is not…To some, school costs are not necessary because they send their kids to private schools; to others, public education is a requirement and as long as it is, the taxpayers need to pay the costs.
Police and Fire protection are easily justified to most people. How about the inspectors for our food or consumer goods? Is it important to have that covered by government programs and laws as was the case for decades? How about the environment, or the forests or the water? Should government take a roll?
No one wants to pay more taxes but sometimes it’s actually a better, cheaper option than doing it in the private sector or not having it at all. So, what is the cost for our government? What is the purpose of government, I guess, is the first question. Sometimes the stated motives are not really the intended reasons for programs and that is when the public becomes distrustful of Government. That’s the kind of thing we need to understand and correct. But, there is a cost to government. it’s important to understand what that is….
Jul 6, 2009 at 11:54 am
Interesting math
On the 4th of July I saw Mr. Noland and questioned his vote on the tax increase and he responded that it comes with property tax relief. So I read his comments above and I am working on the math. Any help here would be welcome. In my case my property taxes are close to 5k for a typical Elgin house with a value typical for the US of 220k ish. So Mr. Noland proposes doubling the property tax exemption from 5% to 10%, wow what a relief. So of the $5,000 I currently pay in property tax I would save $250 of added income tax under the property tax relief plan, which if I made $12,500 a year would be a total wash, and I would not care. However if I made the average per capita income for a family of 4 in Illinois I would pay approximate $1500 more in income tax and recieve $250 in property tax relief. The EITC applies to families of 4 making 42000 or less, which is almost have of the Illinois average and low enough to not pay any federal income tax.
What a very dishonest proposal this is for residents of Illinois. Who keeps electing these people?