Replies

Are we supposed to give more credibility to tax-the-rich proposals coming from employees of the Federal Reserve Bank just because of their profession?

Economists are sometimes good at figuring out, after the fact, that something went wrong in the economy and we now have a recession, or inflation, or shortages of toilet paper as a result.

They are notoriously unable to predict with any degree of accuracy or timing what effect a general tax increase will have. Some will say it helps put more money in circulation; others will say that's bunk: it's not the government's money to begin with, so you have to look at the effects on those paying the tax, too.

What could happen over time, if Illinois were to follow through with this 30-year penalty for owning property in the state is a proportionate drop in real estate prices as the state's population ages and retirees move to Florida and Texas and other places where they can live in relative luxury cheaply.

Existing home prices will likely be impacted by an across-the-board fixed percentage property tax increase. The delicate balance of sellers and buyers would have to tip. More sellers than buyers means lower selling prices. A ten percent drop in home prices would mean a commensurate drop in property taxes collected, if assessments are made honestly. (In Illinois? Is that even possible?)

There are lots of economists who doubt the Laffer Curve because it goes against their political leanings. They dismiss it, call it "trickle-down" and refuse to concede that the Reagan tax cuts generated billions in additional tax revenue than expected simply by lowering federal income tax rates. (Of course, the budget deficit increased during those years also, due to the Democrats going on a spending spree while they were still in control of Congress.)

Should Illinois implement the 1% tax proposal, we could see proof that the Laffer Curve is a valid model, even at the state level.

Too bad for the public employees. Tough luck.