patrick.net

LeonDurham says

Widely panned as a meaningless measure that would not reduce the state's pension debt, it passed the House unanimously, with only two dissenting votes in the Senate. But only 56 percent of voters approved, falling short of the supermajority needed

Make a constitutional amendment to get rid of the supermajority. The people elected were voted in by those same people that will vote on the amendment at the polls. There's no need to have the supermajority for a constitutional amendment. Then you get the pension reform amendment on the ballot a year later or whenever.

There's a way to do this, just not the will. Madigan knew the voters wouldn't support it, at least enough to get it passed. He can say he tried. Actually trying would be making it easier to pass a constitutional amendment and get rid of the supermajority. He knew that. People will just vote yes for something like that (dumping supermajority). But he knows getting 50% of voters onboard for pension reform is realistic (heck it would have passed dumping the supermajority) so they didn't take the route needed to fix our states problems.

IL politicians love to say I tried all the time to cover their asses. At some point trying ain't cutting it. Get. Something. DONE.

WookieMan says

There's a way to do this, just not the will. Madigan knew the voters wouldn't support it, at least enough to get it passed. He can say he tried. Actually trying would be making it easier to pass a constitutional amendment and get rid of the supermajority. He knew that. People will just vote yes for something like that (dumping supermajority). But he knows getting 50% of voters onboard for pension reform is realistic (heck it would have passed dumping the supermajority) so they didn't take the route needed to fix our states problems.

Maybe, but I sure as heck wouldn't vote to make it easier for a Constitutional Amendment to pass without voter approval. I think that would have a really hard time passing.

lostand confused says

The reason the court voted int hatw at, was because the constitution was changed to forbid any changes for pensions for public thugs

Do you have a source for that? I've never seen any evidence of such an Amendment-what year did it pass?

LeonDurham says

lostand confused says

The reason the court voted int hatw at, was because the constitution was changed to forbid any changes for pensions for public thugs

Do you have a source for that? I've never seen any evidence of such an Amendment-what year did it pass?

Here is the paragraph from the constitution in the Chicago tribune.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/ct-illinois-constitution-judge-pension-20180202-story.html

This is why the reform by rahm and Quinn were bogus-they knew the law would not hold muster, because the constitution forbids any changes. At that time Quinn was under pressure and so the slimeballs worked on that law. It does not matter what law passes-the courts have no choice but to strike down any pension reductions. The dem slimeballs know that and hoodwinked the voters.

Real reform would be to amend the cosntituion to remove the language-the only ones needed are the democrats-they refuse to amend the constitution. Repubs will trip over themselves to sign it. I have attended several local dem townhalls to ask about this in particular and all are prepared with some cockymane answer-but not one has committed to make the constitutional change. if they do the pension crisis can be solved very quickly. Now this clause wa sput in place in the 1970s, so not new-but it ahs to go for any meaningful pension reform.

WookieMan says

FortWayne says

But that's CA fault, we as people allow government to raise taxes on us and squeeze us more every year, of course CA will have disadvantages. Liberal governments always lead to failure

One of my main points in my comments here. Everyone will likely get a cut in some form or another, great. This was a kick in the nuts to high property and income tax states. There's no disputing this. As I've said, it's one of the most brilliant political strategies by a political party that I've seen. High income Democrats, in blue state are going to be PISSED when they do their taxes the next two years. Some will blame it on Trump, many will wake up and realize their state taxes the fuck out of them.

CA won't be in play, but in 2020, assuming most republicans don't move, IL could turn red. Not predicting that, but we have a lot of Dems here in IL in some uppity areas that are going ...

So it's the CA Dems fault that Trump raised everyone's taxes. Pathetic politicizing. No wonder it took 80 comments to make you happy. I love how every economic issue in the country today can be traced to CA.

Sniper says

bob2356 says

You are free to post your schedule a any time and show us exaclty how you come up with your numbers.

Look at that, we have another brain surgeon here:

Still waiting to see your numbers. and waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

WookieMan says

Come to think of it, itemizing only $15k is kind of a joke in NJ. You'd have to be making like $75k and living in a 1 bed condo to only hit that amount, even without mortgage interest. That speaks volumes now that I think about it.

Funny I just did taxes for my mother who owns a 4 bedroom house in central jersey and coulldn't come up with anywhere near 15k. Essex, Bergan, and Union counties aren't the entire state.

RafiMaas says

Actually....
If you file form 1040 and your line 44 (taxable income) was exactly $200,000, then in 2017 you would owe $42,869 and if in 2018 tax year you hit line 44 at exactly $200,000 you would owe the IRS $36,578 a difference of $6,291 not $8,000.

That's married filing jointly. Singles are going to be more like 4k. I guess the "middle class" 200k taxable people are going to be disappointed if they are using the alternative math seen frequently here on patnet. .

bob2356 says

Funny I just did taxes for my mother who owns a 4 bedroom house in central jersey and coulldn't come up with anywhere near 15k. Essex, Bergan, and Union counties aren't the entire state.

I hear you. My comment wasn't about your mom though. It was involving another making a claim about X amount of savings due to the new tax cuts, that would be impossible if you were only itemizing $15k in 2017 and then using the new standard deduction in 2018. There's also the fact that there had been claims about success and income in the past, and only itemizing $15k does not indicate that, even with a paid off house and property taxes.

There certainly are people in NJ that don't itemize or they fall in-between $12k and $15k. Generally speaking, they likely have their house paid of (no MID) or they aren't making a whole lot of income. Not sure how NJ does it, but they may also have a senior property tax freeze, keeping their property taxes lower then the average.

WookieMan says

There certainly are people in NJ that don't itemize or they fall in-between $12k and $15k. Generally speaking, they likely have their house paid of (no MID) or they aren't making a whole lot of income. Not sure how NJ does it, but they may also have a senior property tax freeze, keeping their property taxes lower then the average.

Average property tax bill in NJ is something like 8500 including all the insanely high tax (20k average area's ) districts bubbled around NY. Median house price 250k. The number is 40% itemizing. That's third highest in the country. Which means 60% don't. Sorry but 60% of people in NJ don't live in a small condo on low income.

bob2356 says

Average property tax bill in NJ is something like 8500 including all the insanely high tax (20k average area's ) districts bubbled around NY. Median house price 250k. The number is 40% itemizing. That's third highest in the country. Which means 60% don't. Sorry but 60% of people in NJ don't live in a small condo on low income.

I think we're talking about different things here. My point is, in a high tax state like NJ (property tax and income), a $15k itemization is not representative of someone that is much better then middle class at best. Not a knock on anyone that itemizes less or takes the standard deduction (old one). It is what it is. My comment was directed elsewhere.

Here is a tax cut calculator:
https://www.ally.com/education/tax-reform-calculator/
I ran my numbers through it and it shows a slight decrease in taxes for me if I were using 2018 rates for my 2017 taxes. Note that it doesn't take into account the reduced rates for qualified dividends and long term capital gains so I question it's accuracy for my personal situation.