Big employeers in Illonoise get to keep their employees state income taxes.... WTF!

[wuliheron]

Since when did Illinois not have a problem with political corruption? To quote a cheesy line from a cheesy movie, "What this town needs is an enema!" Why some federal judge hasn't declared the entire state government a disaster area is the real mystery.

 

[sandorski]

So essentially, Workers are paying a Tax to their Employers to keep their Jobs. Do they also get a Representative to defend their concerns amongst the Board Members?

Assuming this is an accurate assessment of the situation.

 

[Atreus21]

Ausm is the mouthpiece for the Dem Party, they're one in the same. Pelosi eats, he shits, it's that simple.

Not to nitpick, but that means he's not the mouthpiece, but the...well...

 

[cubby1223]

Did they raise gas tax by another 40 cents this week?

Nothing in the news for the jump over $4 so maybe new tax???

I don't know about new gas taxes, except that gasoline out here in Woodstock is up 20 cents in the last two days. Irks me because I have had a near-empty tank all week

 

[shira]

This is totally different from a tax abatement and/or a tax credit. First of all the original link pointed out that many of these employers pay less in state taxes than they are getting back through this program. An abatement or credit would, at most, bring them to zero-here they are getting more.

Secondly, and the part that really burns me, is that this won't show up on the state's books as giving a $xxx,xxx,xxx payment to say Catepillar for staying in the state. Instead its totally hidden from public inspection (I doubt greatly that Catepillar's employees state income tax records are open to public inspection, and even if they were the kickback here is spread out over many thousands of tax returns).

It also burns me as a matter of principal that money taken out a paycheck for a designated purpose is in fact going to a completely different entity and not for the designated purpose at all. People blame IL for thier high income taxes when the money is not in fact ever received by the state.

This seems like a system very conducive to corruption, to put it mildly. Only IL or New Orleans would cook up such a system.

Are the employees exempt from filing state income tax? And if not, what happens if an employee is under-withheld? Presumably, the employee must then make a payment to the state; and the state in turn must make a payment to the company. And since the amount withheld for an employee is almost never the exact amount of the tax liability, there has to be some sort of reconciliation between the company and the state. In other words, the state doesn't get off with its hands clean at all.

 

[cubby1223]

But, bottom line in this whole thread, I just don't see the specific outrage here.

The company got a tax break from the state.

Does it matter if the tax break is set equal to how much the employees pay in income taxes?

I could just as easily reword the original post: "so employees are subsidizing the company they work for to keep them from moving away? " to

"so employees are subsidizing the company they work for to keep their job and their own income?"

Just be upset the company got a tax break. Being upset that this number matches another number is an irrelevant detail.

 

[K1052]

But, bottom line in this whole thread, I just don't see the specific outrage here.

The company got a tax break from the state.

Does it matter if the tax break is set equal to how much the employees pay in income taxes?

I could just as easily reword the original post: "so employees are subsidizing the company they work for to keep them from moving away? " to

"so employees are subsidizing the company they work for to keep their job and their own income?"

Just be upset the company got a tax break. Being upset that this number matches another number is an irrelevant detail.

This is pretty much the case. Since nearly every state is essentially in competition with every other state as to what kind of enticement they can provide employers to stay or relocate taxpayers somewhere get to pay.

I don't see any way to address this other than on the federal level but even that would probably run up against significant legal challenges.

 

[senseamp]

yay IL!!!

anyway whats the problem with that? tax dollars are wasted anyway, why not keep people employed. this is what obama meant by "creating" jobs, right?

Good to see you finally came to your senses. Government should spend money to keep people employed.

 

[soulcougher73]

schools and police protection? i thought those came out of property tax... so the state stands to lose a lot more revenue by letting these huge companies leave.

Yeah so instead they should just bow down to their corporate overlords.

 

[rudder]

Good to see you finally came to your senses. Government should spend money to keep people employed.

This! Because $287,000 per job is a bargain.