For millionaire, Ken Griffin, spending $54 million to guarantee that he and other wealthy Illinoisans wouldn’t be subject to higher taxes was well worth it.
Griffin, who was Illinois’ richest inhabitant at the time, made sure that voters had heard a lot of arguments against voting to increase taxes on him and other wealthy residents of the state by the time they flocked to the polls on election day in 2020.
His tens of millions of dollars went toward a relentless barrage of leaflets and ads opposing a referendum that year that would have allowed Illinois lawmakers to join 32 other states in raising taxes on the affluent at a greater rate than on everyone else.
Griffin eventually invested around $18 for each of the 3.1 million votes against the proposal. After initial excitement about its chances, the proposal lost by a margin of hundreds of thousands of votes.
Rarely does the general public get a clear picture of how affluent Americans who invest money to influence politics will be compensated.
But in this instance, ProPublica’s treasure trove of IRS data can offer an essential context for the electoral struggle. Griffin and many of his ultra-wealthy Illinois neighbours felt that even spending such a large sum was well worth it in comparison to what a tax increase may have cost them.
Griffin earned $1.7 billion years on average between 2013 and 2018, according to the figures. Only Bill Gates and other prominent Americans had higher incomes than that in the nation.
The new state tax increase, which aimed to raise the rate from 5 per cent to 8 per cent on the top earners, would have cost Griffin around $51 million extra in tax per year based on the average income as a benchmark.
Griffin may have been required to pay more than $80 million more in particularly prosperous years—in 2018, he recorded an income of approximately $2.9 billion.
Griffin’s response was provided by a Citadel representative who noted that, according to data previously disclosed by ProPublica, Griffin paid the second-highest amount of taxes of any American from 2013 to 2018.
In a statement, he said that “Ken has very certainly been the highest individual taxpayer in the State of Illinois over the previous decade, a state infamous for extravagant spending and chronic corruption.”
Griffin has stated that he is not opposed to tax increases, but in his statement, he also said that he opposed the proposal because “Illinois has to put its budgetary house in order before burdening hard-working people with yet more taxes.”
The state’s current flat tax rate of 5% is considerably lower than the highest rates in other sizable states governed by Democrats, such as California and New York and equivalent to those in certain states with a Republican majority, like Utah.
In Illinois, proponents of higher taxes on the wealthy argue that more money is needed to fund the state’s ongoing budget deficits and massive pension liabilities.
Not all of Griffin’s political wagers succeed. He contributed tens of millions of dollars to a governor’s race in Illinois who lost the Republican primary in June.
Griffin revealed last month that Citadel was moving its headquarters to Miami and that he was moving there as well, despite the income tax referendum being lost.
No other donor to the anti-tax movement came close to matching the tens of millions Griffin provided, although some gave more than the average Illinois household makes in a year.
Nine other extremely rich Griffin supporters’ tax records were examined by ProPublica. We project that this group of heirs and company owners, which includes some of the wealthiest individuals in Illinois, will enjoy a solid return on their investments and save millions of dollars in taxes over the ensuing years.
Our calculation is based on the straightforward assumption that wealthy Illinois residents will save around 3% of their income, as this was the amount of the proposed tax hike on the state’s wealthiest citizens.
For residents of Illinois, that effectively describes how state income taxes operate. The income reported on their federal returns is adjusted and subject to state taxation.
ProPublica contacted each of the 10 anti-tax donors listed in this article and the chart that goes with it. The method utilized to calculate their tax savings was not contested by any.
Given his recent average yearly income of $492 million, Richard Uihlein contributed $100,000 to the anti-tax campaign.
Together with Griffin, he has become a prominent conservative megadonor on the national scene.
Uihlein has also donated millions of dollars through his family foundation to the Illinois Policy Institute, a small-government organization that opposed the graduated tax scheme.
The annual tax savings from the ballot initiative’s loss would amount to $15 million based on Uihlein’s average income.
A leveraged purchase of the Tribune Company before its bankruptcy was organized by Chicago real estate tycoon Sam Zell, who contributed $1.1 million. He would save $1.6 million in taxes annually based on his most recent income.
Read more:-
- It’s “Offensive” for Her to Play the Victim, Says Ghislaine Maxwell Starz Doc Ep
- Four Items to Add to Your Financial Midyear Checklist
- The Great Win of Boris Johnson? He Defeated the Internal Revenue Service.
The football stadium and basketball arena at Northwestern University bear his family’s name as a result of the hundreds of millions Patrick Ryan has donated to the institution. Patrick Ryan made his billions in the insurance industry.
He gave $1 million. His most recent income indicates an annual tax savings of $2.1 million.
Our calculations show that Richard Colburn, whose billionaire family controls the manufacturer of electrical parts CED, donated $500,000 to the anti-tax movement, helping him avoid paying an estimated $5.5 million in taxes annually.
Colburn outlined his straightforward objections to the graduated tax in an email to ProPublica.
His investment income, part of which he donates to a nonprofit organization he oversees, would have been “significantly eaten” by it. He asserted, much like Griffin, that the state would not have used the money wisely.
Colburn stated, “Although I enjoy living in the Chicago region, I might save significantly by relocating to a lower-tax state, and as a result, I ‘invested’ to reduce the temptation on me to relocate.
Another component of my “investment” is motivated by my desire to stop the State of Illinois from misusing its funds, which happens every time Springfield has extra cash.
