If a small tax increase on the rich is enough, most people would want their taxes lowered, right?

And if you actually stacked the deck so that, say, 97 percent would get a tax cut and only 3 percent would get a tax increase, voters would definitely approve of that idea, right?

But so far the answer has been no. Twice in the last four years, Illinois voters looked beyond their own immediate interests and rejected proposals to shift tax bills onto wealthier Illinoisans.

In 2020, Illinoisans resoundingly rejected the “Fair Tax Amendment,” which would have allowed higher tax rates for high-income earners, reducing it from 55 percent to 45 percent. Ninety-seven percent of Illinoisans would receive a tax cut, at least as originally promised.

Earlier this year, Chicago voters also easily rejected a “Mansion Tax” proposal that would have increased property transfer taxes on higher-priced properties but reduced them on 94 percent of lower-priced properties.

Apparently Illinois’ political establishment doesn’t believe that, so they’re back again with an advisory referendum that you’ll see on the ballot in November. This time, it is stated that the honey presented for the “yes” vote is the so-called property tax reduction. The referendum includes the following statements:

Should the Illinois Constitution be amended to impose a 3 percent surtax on income over $1,000,000, with the aim of dedicating the funds collected to property tax relief?

Supporters claim the income tax increase would raise about $4.5 billion a year for property tax relief. Approximately 77,000 Illinois taxpayers report income over $1,000,000 per year; This amounts to approximately 1 percent of taxpayers.

At first glance, this may seem appealing and different from previous measures that voters rejected. This is because the new one appears to be revenue neutral; It is said that general taxes will not be increased, but will simply be shifted from property taxes to income taxes on the rich. The previous proposal went further by increasing total taxes collected.

But things are not as they seem. Passing the referendum will open the door to increasing overall tax collections.

Because the new money that will go to “property tax reduction” does not mean that these taxes will not be increased. Local authorities benefiting from the transfer will feel the pressure is off, and many will undoubtedly spend more than they normally would. Moreover, the money is fungible and there is no real assurance that the money going towards property tax relief will stay there. Implementing the referendum would therefore amount to little more than a backdoor approval of the progressive income tax that voters rejected.

There is also nothing in the referendum about which local governments will receive the new money. It seems we need to trust them to come up with a formula that doesn’t pick political favorites.

The referendum is advisory and non-binding, so it is not yet known exactly how the language implementing it will be implemented. But there is no way the language would guarantee that local property taxes would not be increased. This would require an outright tax cap, which is not part of the proposal.

By voting against the previous two proposals, Illinois voters showed a level of knowledge their politicians did not expect. They seemed to be saying that they knew the real problem was that Illinois’ overall tax burden came from spending too much. And they seemed to openly say that they no longer trust their politicians with money, even if it comes from the rich.

Let’s hope they show the same wisdom in the new referendum.

Mark Glennon is the founder of Wirepoints, an independent research and commentary nonprofit.