Illinois raises the personal income tax by 67%

[Nobel Hobos]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B7N620110112

Illinois business leaders bristle at tax hike plan

By Kyle Peterson
*snip*

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was quick to pounce on the potential benefits to his state.

"Wisconsin is open for business," he said in a statement. "In these challenging economic times while Illinois is raising taxes, we are lowering them."

Wisconsin's corporate income tax rate is 7.9% (pdf)

Now that's a politician.

[Tekania]

67%? WOWZERZ! Are you sure its not 6.7%?

It's called numbers fudging, he's reporting on the percentage increase of the percentage rate, since it allows him to use 67% rather than 2 percentile points as it makes it look far more sensational than it actually is.

[Political Spectrum]

67%? WOWZERZ! Are you sure its not 6.7%?

It's called numbers fudging, he's reporting on the percentage increase of the percentage rate, since it allows him to use 67% rather than 2 percentile points as it makes it look far more sensational than it actually is.

ON a $100,000 of income, the tax goes from $3000 (3%) to $5000 (5%). An increase of 67%. It makes it look exactly like it is.

[New Rogernomics]

How to balance the budget:

1) Cut military spending rather than increasing it.

2) Go hard on drug companies, one way is like state run Pharmac here in NZ, which bulk buys medicine thus radically decreasing the cost of health care.

3) Cut international aid, rather than increasing as there are some programs just wasting money for no good reason.

4) Demand the bailout money back faster, and increase the repayment rate if they fail to comply.

5) Penalize companies that move jobs offshore, through higher tax rates,etc.

[New Palikir]

Well, its either that or more cuts, and I don't really think that Illinois can afford any more of those. 66% seems a bit drastic, but when you think about the US has one of the world's lowest tax rates, despite what the Tea Party says.

[Tekania]

It's called numbers fudging, he's reporting on the percentage increase of the percentage rate, since it allows him to use 67% rather than 2 percentile points as it makes it look far more sensational than it actually is.

ON a $100,000 of income, the tax goes from $3000 (3%) to $5000 (5%). An increase of 67%. It makes it look exactly like it is.

Or it has increased by 2% ($2,000.00), which also makes it look "exactly" like it is. I'm merely pointing out that the usage of the expression to use larger appearing numbers is purely for the point of making it look far more sensational. It's a marketing strategy... Sib's good at marketing.

[Arkinesia]

What do you want me to say, Illinois raises taxes by 2%? Nobody would read it. And that's even more misleading.

So you're admitting you're purposely using a misleading statement for a title so to get viewers for an issue that most reasonable human beings wouldn't give a damn about?

Oh my god, do you people know anything about percentage math?!

3% —> 5% is a 67% increase. The baseline is 3%, ergo, any increase is based on 3% = 100%. If taxes went up to 9% it would be a 200% increase.

3% —> 5% is also a 2 percentage point increase. Percent is the raw value, percentage point is the visualized value.

[Sibirsky]

ON a $100,000 of income, the tax goes from $3000 (3%) to $5000 (5%). An increase of 67%. It makes it look exactly like it is.

Or it has increased by 2% ($2,000.00), which also makes it look "exactly" like it is. I'm merely pointing out that the usage of the expression to use larger appearing numbers is purely for the point of making it look far more sensational. It's a marketing strategy... Sib's good at marketing.

The increase is 67%. This isn't a marketing strategy, it's the fact.

You spend $200 on gas. It goes up in price and you spend $300. Gas went up by 50%. So in this case, taxes are going up by 67%. We don't compare price increases to income. We compare them to the old price.

[Tekania]

Or it has increased by 2% ($2,000.00), which also makes it look "exactly" like it is. I'm merely pointing out that the usage of the expression to use larger appearing numbers is purely for the point of making it look far more sensational. It's a marketing strategy... Sib's good at marketing.

The increase is 67%. This isn't a marketing strategy, it's the fact.

You spend $200 on gas. It goes up in price and you spend $300. Gas went up by 50%. So in this case, taxes are going up by 67%. We don't compare price increases to income. We compare them to the old price.

This increase is by 2%, that also is a fact... See, we can play these numbere games ALL day.

[Sibirsky]

The increase is 67%. This isn't a marketing strategy, it's the fact.

You spend $200 on gas. It goes up in price and you spend $300. Gas went up by 50%. So in this case, taxes are going up by 67%. We don't compare price increases to income. We compare them to the old price.

This increase is by 2%, that also is a fact... See, we can play these numbere games ALL day.

No it isn't. Prices increases are not compared to incomes. End of fucking story.

[Tekania]

This increase is by 2%, that also is a fact... See, we can play these numbere games ALL day.

No it isn't. Prices increases are not compared to incomes. End of fucking story.

I'm not comparing to income... An increase to 5% from 3% is an increase BY 2 percentage points.... That this is also the exact same thing, mathematically as saying an increase OF 60%, is of no actual consequence... they are both expressing the same end results from the same core numbers using slightly different yet equally accurate mathematical equations.... The use of either as being the sole way to express it is nothing short of a marketing ploy... I'm not bought in by marketing however.

[Areiviari]

As a cereal-eating reader, I think we all understand that there has been confusion over the numbers question, whether or not there should be, and that arguing about it detracts from the central topic of the thread; please consider this and return to debating the wisdom and justification and so forth of Illinois' tax increase.

Oh, and please try to be civil, me hearties.

[Sibirsky]

No it isn't. Prices increases are not compared to incomes. End of fucking story.

I'm not comparing to income... An increase to 5% from 3% is an increase BY 2 percentage points.... That this is also the exact same thing, mathematically as saying an increase OF 607%, is of no actual consequence... they are both expressing the same end results from the same core numbers using slightly different yet equally accurate mathematical equations.... The use of either as being the sole way to express it is nothing short of a marketing ploy... I'm not bought in by marketing however.

You sir (or ma'am), have no idea how increases are measured. Something costs $3. And then goes up in price to $5. It has increased by 67%. The income of the purchaser is irrelevant. And what you continue on insisting to do, is to compare price increases to incomes.

[Sdaeriji]

I'm not comparing to income... An increase to 5% from 3% is an increase BY 2 percentage points.... That this is also the exact same thing, mathematically as saying an increase OF 607%, is of no actual consequence... they are both expressing the same end results from the same core numbers using slightly different yet equally accurate mathematical equations.... The use of either as being the sole way to express it is nothing short of a marketing ploy... I'm not bought in by marketing however.

You sir (or ma'am), have no idea how increases are measured. Something costs $3. And then goes up in price to $5. It has increased by 67%. The income of the purchaser is irrelevant. And what you continue on insisting to do, is to compare price increases to incomes.

You say this as if there's some agreed-upon standard for reporting tax rates.

[Tekania]

I'm not comparing to income... An increase to 5% from 3% is an increase BY 2 percentage points.... That this is also the exact same thing, mathematically as saying an increase OF 607%, is of no actual consequence... they are both expressing the same end results from the same core numbers using slightly different yet equally accurate mathematical equations.... The use of either as being the sole way to express it is nothing short of a marketing ploy... I'm not bought in by marketing however.

You sir (or ma'am), have no idea how increases are measured. Something costs $3. And then goes up in price to $5. It has increased by 67%. The income of the purchaser is irrelevant. And what you continue on insisting to do, is to compare price increases to incomes.

I'm not comparing to incomes, I'm not actually comparing to anything, a percentile point is a percentile point, it's only when you factor in what something is a percentage of that it means anything. I can deal with percentiles without dealing with income, the same way I can add 2x and 3x to get 5x without needing to give a damn about what the value of x is.

[Arkinesia]

No it isn't. Prices increases are not compared to incomes. End of fucking story.

I'm not comparing to income... An increase to 5% from 3% is an increase BY 2 percentage points.... That this is also the exact same thing, mathematically as saying an increase OF 60%, is of no actual consequence... they are both expressing the same end results from the same core numbers using slightly different yet equally accurate mathematical equations.... The use of either as being the sole way to express it is nothing short of a marketing ploy... I'm not bought in by marketing however.

2% = 67% of 3%. The end.

[Sibirsky]

You sir (or ma'am), have no idea how increases are measured. Something costs $3. And then goes up in price to $5. It has increased by 67%. The income of the purchaser is irrelevant. And what you continue on insisting to do, is to compare price increases to incomes.

I'm not comparing to incomes, I'm not actually comparing to anything, a percentile point is a percentile point, it's only when you factor in what something is a percentage of that it means anything. I can deal with percentiles without dealing with income, the same way I can add 2x and 3x to get 5x without needing to give a damn about what the value of x is.

No, apparently you can't.

[Sibirsky]

You sir (or ma'am), have no idea how increases are measured. Something costs $3. And then goes up in price to $5. It has increased by 67%. The income of the purchaser is irrelevant. And what you continue on insisting to do, is to compare price increases to incomes.

You say this as if there's some agreed-upon standard for reporting tax rates.

As % of income, generally.

[Risottia]

67%? WOWZERZ! Are you sure its not 6.7%?

Positive. 3% to 5%. An increase of 67%.

OMG, I'm sure the average Illinois taxpayer will be bleeded to death by the terrible fiscal pressure of 5%.

Wusses.

[Sdaeriji]

You say this as if there's some agreed-upon standard for reporting tax rates.

As % of income, generally.

This statement runs directly counter to your continued insistence throughout this thread.

[Tekania]

I'm not comparing to income... An increase to 5% from 3% is an increase BY 2 percentage points.... That this is also the exact same thing, mathematically as saying an increase OF 60%, is of no actual consequence... they are both expressing the same end results from the same core numbers using slightly different yet equally accurate mathematical equations.... The use of either as being the sole way to express it is nothing short of a marketing ploy... I'm not bought in by marketing however.

2% = 67% of 3%. The end.

2x = 5x - 3x as well

[Sibirsky]

As % of income, generally.

This statement runs directly counter to your continued insistence throughout this thread.

No, it doesn't.

[WWII History Geeks]

Go Illinois! You SUCK! *sticks out tongue*

Seriously, you just have a bad history. I live about 30 miles from the border between Iowa and Illinois, and this is just another reason I'm glad for those miles...

[Sibirsky]

Positive. 3% to 5%. An increase of 67%.

OMG, I'm sure the average Illinois taxpayer will be bleeded to death by the terrible fiscal pressure of 5%.

Wusses.

They still have Federal taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, communications taxes and on and on and on. You guys make it sound like this is their only tax.

[Arkinesia]

2% = 67% of 3%. The end.

2x = 5x - 3x as well

Congratulations, you pointed to something that has nothing to do with what I said.

Go Illinois! You SUCK! *sticks out tongue*

Seriously, you just have a bad history. I live about 30 miles from the border between Iowa and Illinois, and this is just another reason I'm glad for those miles...

You know what's bad though, is you live in Iowa, which is actually more boring than Illinois.