Talk:Illinois Fair Tax

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Illinois Fair Tax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131105060451/http://www.communityrenewalsociety.org:80/newsroom to http://www.communityrenewalsociety.org/newsroom

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
I noticed the Arguments section received a neutrality tag. I am wondering what we need to do so we can take it down, whether that means addition, subtraction, or reorganization of information. User:Kumarhk, since you placed it there, do you have any feedback on this? Thanks, -TenorTwelve (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for flagging me! Here are my main concerns:
 * Proponents and opponents are often not defined (there's a lot of "they" without clarifying who this means), with the exception of the Illinois Opportunity Project
 * Vague use of newspaper sources: the Sun-Times as a whole is attributed the perspective of one editorial board piece, and confusing citation of SouthtownStar (with a broken link)
 * More generally, the section could be more clearly organized
 * I've been working on the page more broadly and was planning to rewrite this section soon. Would appreciate any help! Kumar (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Kumar Someone keeps adding something to the arguments section and I don't know if it should be there or not. Are they trying to talk about the pass-through income thing? https://news.wttw.com/2020/09/15/what-voters-need-know-about-fair-tax-amendment I don't know whether the things being alleged by the editor are true or not as there is not a citation and there are wordings that might not be the most encyclopedic. If this is a legitimate talking point, maybe it could be added. I'm still new to tax policy... -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am the guy adding to the arguments section. The point I am trying to highlight is that the news media is only talking about the change in rates. The problem is they are not pointing out the other change - the ability to multiple income taxes in Illinois. In other words, currently, Illinois can only have one law establishing a single tax with one tax rate. What this amendment does is allow the current law to a graduated rate,and then add a second (or more) income taxes, with separate rules, separate rates, and separate use of funds. For example, Many years ago, when the State wanted to fund the CTA, one f the ideas floated was to have a state income tax on everyone in the state, create a "public transportation" fund, and give almost all the money to the CTA. It died a quick death because of the constitution. That is why the RTA was created. What I am really finding interesting is how everyone who is pushing the graduated tax rate, either tells me that multiple tax issue isn't going to happen, or that I should just shut up! As an accountant, I've only been dealing with the Illinois Dept. of Revenue for 50 years (just retired), and I can tell you that this change is the most scary I've seen. I will be putting the changes back in, and i have found a link to this issue. Please, who ever keeps taking this out, let it stand. We need everyone to be fully informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b06a:a70a:db8:dbfa:30a8:5603 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2020 time, day month year (UTC)


 * I re-wrote the arguments section and made the following changes:
 * I moved the section after the "support and opposition" section providing information on the 501(c)(4) organizations formed to campaign for and against the proposal, and tried to reduce the level of detail.
 * I sought to add more and newer sources from a range of proponents and opponents and from major news publications to reflect the arguments being made in public discourse.
 * I retained the source added by the unsigned contributor and formatted it as a reference, summarizing the argument about multiple taxation in more encyclopedic language. The other two points (legislature's ability to raise taxes in the future + corporate tax changes) are detailed elsewhere in the article.
 * I tried to be clearer about who "proponents" and "opponents" refers to, but this could be improved.
 * After making these changes, I removed the neutrality tag. I hope this helps to clarify some of the key arguments being made while not turning this Wikipedia article into a ground for confrontation. Most importantly, I hope that the use of clear and relevant sources will allow readers to follow through to those sources. Kumar (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well done. Thank you. Good job. -TenorTwelve (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Polling?
I found a poll and I'm not sure whether it should be included. It is of only Chicago executives and the Fair Tax is leading with 55% in favor and 45% opposed. It did not survey the entire populace. It was published September 2, 2020. Currently all of the polls listed are pre-pandemic. I'm looking for more polls and haven't found them yet. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should include it in the polls table since it's not a poll of the electorate. I think it's fine to include a sentence about the poll elsewhere in the article, though, since it is providing meaningful information. I'm also keeping an eye out for polls, so hopefully we'll catch any that are released between the two of us! Kumar (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How about this poll? I will note that Ideas Illinois is opposed to the Fair Tax and commissioned the poll. It also appears to be push-polling where the questions are written in an attempt to influence its outcome. This poll suggests 51% support the Fair Tax. It's also from May and is not pre-pandemic. I'm also a little confused if this was statewide or if this was just the Champaign area or if it polled multiple areas including Champaign. (also obviously it's more than us two :) -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like the results at the very beginning (the first chart) are from the n=800 statewide survey. I agree that this has some push-polling characteristics so I think it's reasonable to exclude from the table. If we include, we should add a note with some information about the organization and the questions. What do you think? Kumar (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it shouldn't be included? Not sure either; it does have biased questioning, though it does show that it is closer than the other polls say it is. A potential concern I have is that the polls shown might overinflate the amount of support the Fair Tax has which could potentially lead to complacency/or create perceptions of an underdog? I kinda want more polls to be released. Currently I'd lean against including said poll. -TenorTwelve (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with the desire for more polling! That actually makes me think we should maybe include it since there is such little information on this available. The opposition number from that poll tracks closely with the other 2019 polls listed (33% compared to 31% and 33%). My suspicion is that the question not naming the amendment meant that many respondents weren't sure what it was about and said "don't know". I looked at the question wording for the other polls and this one's not too far off; it just doesn't specify that it's asking about the upcoming constitutional amendment referendum. All that considered, we should still point out that the pollster is an opponent of the referendum in a note. I added the poll with this note, but I am happy to defer to your judgement here, so feel free to revert the edit if you disagree. Kumar (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it. While it may potentially embolden some, it may be a wake up call to others. Granted I don't always trust my own judgment. But at the end of the day it's about presenting information. Meanwhile, I thought the poll was from 2020, but nope, it's from 2019. -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting a source and data to include in Arguments section
Hello, I wanted to drop a source and potential information to include in the Arguments section. The section currently starts:
 * Proponents argue that a tax structure which includes lower rates for lower-income residents and higher marginal rates for higher-income residents would be fairer

I would like to propose:
 * Proponents argue that with Illinois being the least tax friendly state, a tax structure which includes lower rates for lower-income residents and higher marginal rates for higher-income residents would be fairer

Thanks and feel free to let me know if you have any questions.SBCornelius (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC) SBCornelius (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @SBCornelius--I don't think that this phrasing contributes anything substantive to the article. Additionally, it doesn't include any context explaining what constitutes a "tax friendly" state versus a "non-tax friendly" state. Frankly, I don't know what it means myself. Also, not sure that MoneyGeek.com can be considered a reliable source. Lastly, even according to that source, Illinois is not the "least tax friendly state." New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Hampshire are ranked lower. JohnHawkinsBois (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)