HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2018, 9:38 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
?????

My mom has been retired for about 10 years now, but used to work for the federal government. She pays income tax on her pension. Social security payments are also taxed.

I don't know where you got the idea that retirement income is not taxed?
It's not in Illinois! And neither Gubernatorial candidate supported it. Crazy right? (or not, since old people vote a lot).
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2018, 9:47 PM
skyscraperpage17 skyscraperpage17 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
There is a slight difference between Detroit and Illinois's situation. The situation in Illinois is less clear than Detroit's because states cannot declare bankruptcy. So state pension obligations cannot be "wiped out" in federal bankruptcy court (nor can any other financial obligation).

Puerto Rico's situation started out under a similar to Illinois, but ended up being more analogous to Detroit, once the courts clarified that PR had the legal right to declare itself bankrupt. The courts clarified that territories are more like cities, and thus are able to declare bankruptcy.
Just because there's no existing procedure or precedent for states to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy doesn't mean it can't happen, although it will be a lengthy fight that goes straight to the Supreme Court.

That said, once it reaches the federal courts and assuming a state is give the green light to go bankrupt (certainly plausible, as there won't be a bailout), I highly doubt they will overturn a decision by a lower federal court with respect to whether pensions are guaranteed in a state's constitution, especially given what could be a Supreme Court that's conservative-leaning.

It would be an interesting legal battle for sure.

Last edited by skyscraperpage17; Dec 27, 2018 at 10:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2018, 9:52 PM
skyscraperpage17 skyscraperpage17 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
?????

My mom has been retired for about 10 years now, but used to work for the federal government. She pays income tax on her pension. Social security payments are also taxed.

I don't know where you got the idea that retirement income is not taxed?
There are some states that don't tax retirement income.

Arizona and Florida are two that come to mind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2018, 9:54 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
It's not in Illinois! And neither Gubernatorial candidate supported it. Crazy right? (or not, since old people vote a lot).
Oh, I guess you meant state income tax, right? There are some states that don't have a state income tax, but I would assume you still pay federal income tax, even on retirement income...
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2018, 11:43 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Oh, I guess you meant state income tax, right? There are some states that don't have a state income tax, but I would assume you still pay federal income tax, even on retirement income...
Yeah I believe you do. Illinois is one of 3 states with an income tax that doesn't tax retirement income.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 12:20 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
It's not in Illinois! And neither Gubernatorial candidate supported it. Crazy right? (or not, since old people vote a lot).
Some states tax pension income and some don't--it varies. But the Federal government does tax pension income and Social Security if you make more than a certain amount in total income (starting around $35K a year, I believe--I'm not sure exactly because 80% of mine--the maximum--is taxed). That's true even in Illinois (remember, some states don't even HAVE an income tax but the Federal income tax is the same in every state).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 12:48 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Some states tax pension income and some don't--it varies. But the Federal government does tax pension income and Social Security if you make more than a certain amount in total income (starting around $35K a year, I believe--I'm not sure exactly because 80% of mine--the maximum--is taxed). That's true even in Illinois (remember, some states don't even HAVE an income tax but the Federal income tax is the same in every state).
Yeah I'm talking about state income tax of course (since Illinois has no power to change Federal tax policies...). I don't understand why the Illinois legislature hasn't figured out that they can produce an approximately equivalent policy to reducing pension benefits (which was ruled uconstitutional) by applying a state income tax to the appropriate pensions. Since it would be Illinois source income, it would probably even apply to the 20% or so of pensioners who have moved to FL/AZ, although I'm not 100% sure about that...
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 2:01 AM
Qubert Qubert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
The article does not make this claim. The migration total is by MSA, not by city.

In the case of NYC, I'm almost certain there is still net migration inward (albeit propped up by immigration - which has been the case almost throughout NYC's history). The problem is that large portions of NYC suburbia are stagnating or outright declining in population.

NYC suburbia - even upscale suburbia - is caught in a weird place. Schools are often still top notch, but enrollment is dropping rapidly. Basically snob zoning ensures that new mixed-used areas where immigrants and lower-income people could move won't happen. But property values are still relatively high, even if they didn't recover fully from the Great Recession. When you factor in the urban bent of some young professionals these days, and the choice of many others to move to lower-cost metros, virtually no one youngish wants to move to these suburbs before, which means they're aging rapidly. The local residents by and large like this, because declining school enrollment means tax increases are held down.

The whole thing will likely come crashing down in another 10-20 years when too many of the boomers die off to maintain the housing values at their current rate, but it's going to be a hell of a transition.
I doubt LI, NJ or Westchester are going to face a crash apart from NYC. As long as NYC thrives they'll thrive, because NYC schools are probably always going to stink and there's always going to be people looking for the suburban lifestyle once they settle down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 4:28 AM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qubert View Post
I doubt LI, NJ or Westchester are going to face a crash apart from NYC. As long as NYC thrives they'll thrive, because NYC schools are probably always going to stink and there's always going to be people looking for the suburban lifestyle once they settle down.
My impression is that NYC schools don't really stink as far as big city schools go. If your kid is smart and/or talented, they'll get shuttled into gifted programs or merit based magnet schools, and basically not interact much with the vast masses in the NYC School District at all. Certainly the people I have known who had kids while living in NY mostly didn't leave do to concerns about public schools, but concerns about space.

Really though, in general, less people have kids these days, and even those people who have kids often wait until their mid 30s, meaning they might be pushing 40 before a Kindergarten enrollment arises. And in my experience people who leave NYC are just as likely to disembark for another lower-cost metro (meaning nearly anywhere else in the country) as the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 4:49 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
My impression is that NYC schools don't really stink as far as big city schools go. If your kid is smart and/or talented, they'll get shuttled into gifted programs or merit based magnet schools, and basically not interact much with the vast masses in the NYC School District at all. Certainly the people I have known who had kids while living in NY mostly didn't leave do to concerns about public schools, but concerns about space.
NYC public schools are generally considered the "best" of the legacy cities (which isn't saying much). They've traditionally had the highest big-city test scores (probably due to higher proportional presence of certain high-achieving immigrant groups).

The district is gigantic (over 1.1 million students) and bureaucratic, and has failing ghetto schools like everywhere else, but there are also tons of test-in magnet schools, and good opportunities if you know how to navigate the system. My wife and I could comfortably afford private school, but we plan on public for our child. We both have advanced degrees from "elite" schools and have similar expectations for our child.

And, yeah, pretty much everyone I know who moves to the burbs is motivated by more space for the money, and access to "child care" (aka grandparents). A lot of the really "hot" suburbs (Montclair & Maplewood in NJ, the Westchester Rivertowns) don't have terrific schools, while a lot of the lagging ones way the hell out (Dix Hills, St. James, Stony Brook, Wilton, Weston) have the highest test scores.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 5:13 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leveled View Post
Let’s see it by income.


People moving to Dallas to man call centers ain’t something to brag about.
Yeah, what a bunch of uneducated poor losers, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 5:41 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17 View Post
There are some states that don't tax retirement income.

Arizona and Florida are two that come to mind.
I think people on this site overlook such "common sense" reasons people move to these places.

My dad is a perfect example. Jewish dude born in Brooklyn, moved to Miami when he was 12. Will have two retirement pensions, SS, and TSP checks every month when he retires in 8 years for the last time. His plan? Hes moving from DC straight to Florida. Its all costs to him(well, he loves the beach too, but costs come first).

Saving thousands a year(or even month) in taxes is really important when youre on a fixed income, even if that fixed income is high. Also, weve beat this to death, but warmer weather just attracts older people. It just does.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 8:39 AM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
Yeah you can't stop paying pensions, that's not fair. Incentivizing pensioners to remain in Illinois would help defray the cost though (since they'd pay property/sales tax to Illinois rather than to Florida and Arizona).

It's probably fairer to just tax retirement income, which is currently exempt, unless it would be found unconstitutional.
You can't just stop paying, but I wouldn't have an ethical problem with altering the way pensions are calculated, eliminating any minimum COLA adjustment (I'd even better okay eliminating it retroactively by freezing pension levels until actual inflation caught up to the outrageous guarantee of any minimum COLA above inflation. Forcing private citizens to supplement above-average pension COLA payments during a recession that saw real wages actually decline was and is not only unsustainable but outright immoral, contract or not. Writing such a contract should have been illegal in exchange for any constitutional guarantee for pension payments. The wording of the constitutional requirement in Illinois is terriblely unfair. A guarantee of pension value should absolutely have been allowed only with the inclusion of actuarial requirements making it impossible to underfund those pensions. That's the way to guarantee payments, not putting taxpayers on the hook for absolutely anything politicians decide to grant to labor negotiators. I'm not anti-Union, and think that workers should be paid what they were promised, but some of the promises made should have been illegal to even offer, *especially* without the law forcing full funding annually so that politicians literally couldn't make promises they either can't keep or will break the economic viability of the State.
__________________
[SIZE="1"]I like travel and photography - check out my [URL="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericmathiasen/"]Flickr page[/URL].
CURRENT GEAR: Nikon Z6, Nikon Z 14-30mm f4 S, Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S, Nikon 50mm f1.4G
STOLEN GEAR: (during riots of 5/30/2020) Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm F2.8G, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D
[/SIZE]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 1:37 PM
Leveled Leveled is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
TIL Chicagoans are sociopaths.
Everyone outside of Chicago is a leech. That includes the burbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 2:02 PM
skyscraperpage17 skyscraperpage17 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
I think people on this site overlook such "common sense" reasons people move to these places.

My dad is a perfect example. Jewish dude born in Brooklyn, moved to Miami when he was 12. Will have two retirement pensions, SS, and TSP checks every month when he retires in 8 years for the last time. His plan? Hes moving from DC straight to Florida. Its all costs to him(well, he loves the beach too, but costs come first).

Saving thousands a year(or even month) in taxes is really important when youre on a fixed income, even if that fixed income is high. Also, weve beat this to death, but warmer weather just attracts older people. It just does.
All good points.

Part of the reason I moved to GA is because I couldn't deal with the constant overcast skies that you see in the Great Lakes region, outside a few weeks in the Summer.

Also, there's a lot to be said about economic diversity and cities with healthy/growing industries for young professionals like myself. I don't have to kiss the ass of the 2 or 3 companies in the same mature/shrinking industry for employment. In Atlanta, there are major employers in just about every industry you can think of, and they don't suddenly decide to kick 15,000 - 25,000 of their hard-working employees to the curb at Christmas time despite making record profits "just because." In fact, I'm doing a lot better financially and stability-wise because companies in Atlanta/Georgia aren't afraid to hire good workers permanently and pay them good wages when they're needed.

Last edited by skyscraperpage17; Dec 28, 2018 at 2:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 2:47 PM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,049
I think those cities are being hit by two main populations that are leaving - middle class people (mostly younger) that have decent jobs but cannot afford housing in those cities but can get new big houses in sunbelt cities in places like Texas, GA, NV, and AZ. A second group is older retiring persons that want cheaper locales with lower taxes on their fixed income. As a person about to retire in 1-2 years, I'll be moving to a lower tax state from the DC area. DC still is getting an influx of younger people since the jobs pay well enough to afford the high housing costs and taxes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 3:01 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17 View Post
Part of the reason I moved to GA is because I couldn't deal with the constant overcast skies that you see in the Great Lakes region, outside a few weeks in the Summer.
the great lakes is one of the cloudier regions in the country (particularly during winter), but which side of a lake a given city is on does make a difference in how much sunshine it gets (ditto for lake-effect snow).


city - mean annual sunshine hours - % possible sunshine

pittsburgh - 2,021.3 - 45% (cloudiest major city in the country)

seattle - 2,169.7 - 49%

buffalo (downwind of lake) - 2,206.6 - 49%

cleveland (downwind of lake) - 2,280 - 51%


portland - 2,340.9 - 52%

detroit (upwind of lake) - 2,435.9 - 55%

milwaukee - (upwind of lake) 2,483.6 - 56%

chicago (upwind of lake) - 2,508.4 - 56%

new york - 2,534.7 - 57%

houston - 2,577.9 - 58%

atlanta - 2,738.3 - 62%

denver - 3,106.6 - 70%

miami -3,154 - 71%

phoenix - 3,871.6 - 87% (sunniest major city in the country)

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page


atlanta definitely receives more sunshine than the great lakes region (a lot more in the winter and actually a little bit less in the summer), but it's not like we're comparing pittburgh to phoenix here, especially for the the upwind lake cities.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Dec 28, 2018 at 3:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 3:19 PM
skyscraperpage17 skyscraperpage17 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
the great lakes is one of the cloudier regions in the country (particularly during winter), but which side of a lake a given city is on does make a difference in how much sunshine it gets.
Very much true.

Chicago for example sees fewer cloudy days than areas downwind of the lakes.

The depiction in the map below is most accurate, IMO.

https://ibb.co/0KZq14S
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 6:37 PM
Minato Ku's Avatar
Minato Ku Minato Ku is offline
Tokyo and Paris fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Paris, Montrouge
Posts: 4,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Point taken, though in the case of Paris my sense it went from a city of teeming masses to the high-brow place that banished the paupers outside the walls (for quite some time), and the increasing "pauperization" of the northern and northeastern arrondissements is more of a contemporary thing, due to demographic "spillage" from the banlieues outside the city limits on the other side of the Périphérique.
Quite the oposite, the northeastern side is wealthier than ever, gentrification is strong there. Districts have been renovated, old decaying housing replaced with newer buildings.
Inner Paris as a place dominated by upper middle and upper class is a recent phenomenon (the City of Paris is actually a place where you see the both oposite of the spectrum, it's middle class famillies that are lacking, they are too poor to afford an house in the private market but too wealthy to have a social housing), the City of Paris used to be very working class even in very central districts like Les Halles, le Marais, Quartier Latin.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2018, 7:06 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato Ku View Post
Quite the oposite, the northeastern side is wealthier than ever, gentrification is strong there. Districts have been renovated, old decaying housing replaced with newer buildings.
Inner Paris as a place dominated by upper middle and upper class is a recent phenomenon (the City of Paris is actually a place where you see the both oposite of the spectrum, it's middle class famillies that are lacking, they are too poor to afford an house in the private market but too wealthy to have a social housing), the City of Paris used to be very working class even in very central districts like Les Halles, le Marais, Quartier Latin.

Thanks for the updates!
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:45 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.