CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by The North One

The main reason I usually hear from white middle-class families leaving Chicago are the high taxes.

They must not be moving to any other worthwhile major city then.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by The North One

The main reason I usually hear from white middle-class families leaving Chicago are the high taxes.

As compared with where, exactly? Seriously, I know of very, very few cities even remotely close to Chicago's caliber with respect to overall amenities with much lower overall tax rates. Chicago has no additional city income tax over the Illinois state income tax (which is pretty much middle of the road, honestly), and while property taxes certainly aren't low by any standard, they're not any higher than most other major cities I know of. Quite a bit lower in terms of percentage of assessed value than many, honestly.

I think it's the continual perceived crime issue that really does affect people leaving, especially white middle-class families. Keep in mind it's just the PERCEPTION of crime, not that they've actually been personally AFFECTED by said crime.

Look, I'm not trying to sugar-coat the actual real problem in Chicago when it comes to its criminal element. But let's be honest here, Chicago is FAR from the only large city with a crime problem, and Chicago's far from the worst in terms of per capital crime statistics.

One city that's quite notorious for crime is actually one that seems to get a lot of love from everyone not on SSP, that being Houston. Not just the city of Houston, but the entire metro area. And damn it, there are quite a few parts of Houston I would be just as, if not more worried about being in late in the evening than Chicago.

For some reason, it seems everyone loves to piss on this city. Not sure why, exactly. But speaking as someone who CHOSE to move here only 6 months ago, it's an amazing city, despite some annoyances. Maybe I'm seeing the best of Chicago since I'm on the north side in Lakeview East, but I've seen pretty fantastic areas all across the city.

Ah well, perception is perception. It's what keeps a certain percentage of people still liking our so-called "president."

Aaron (Glowrock)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rgolch

Except it’s not just African Americans leaving. It’s also suburban whites and other ethnicities.

Actually, no. The bolded is just not true at all if talking about the major racial groups. Literally the only major groups to lose population between suburbs, city, and total MSA were suburban whites (outside of the city) and blacks in the city. The population of black people outside of the city limits inside of the MSA increased.

This is all from the American Community Survey 1 year, comparing 2010 ACS to 2016 ACS (which is what you're supposed to do - the Census states that you shouldn't compare ACS to official Census, but you know...nobody listens because they don't actually know what they're doing with the data).

City
Hispanic (of any race): +39,508 people (+5.2%)
White, Non-Hispanic Alone: +28,444 people (+3.33%)
2 or More Races: +27,357 people (+58.2%)
Asian alone: +22,401 people (+14.9%)
Other race alone: +3670 people (+1.1%)
Hispanic Non-White Alone: +14,542 people (+4%)
Black alone: -103,342 people (-11.4%)

Only group to lose people in the city was Black alone population.

Suburbs (i.e. the area of the MSA outside of the city of Chicago)
Hispanic (of any race): +92,025 people (+7.6%)
Asian alone: +57,917 people (+15%)
Black alone: +39,697 people (+5.4%)
Hispanic, Non-White alone: +38,799 people (+7.3%)
2 or More Races: +38,027 people (+27.5%)
Other race alone: +26,114 people (+5.5%)
White Non-Hispanic Alone: -180,992 people (-4.2%)

Only group to lose people in the suburbs was white non-hispanic people. Not even the Black alone population lost population.


Total Metro Area
Hispanic (of any race): +131,533 people (+6.7%)
Asian alone: +80,318 people (+15%)
2 or More Races: +65,384 people (+35.3%)
Hispanic Non-White alone: +53,341 people (+6%)
Other race alone: +29,784 people (+3.7%)
Black alone: -63,645 people (-3.9%)
White Non-Hispanic alone: -152,548 people (-2.9%)

Only populations to lose people were Black alone (see above - suburbs gained in population for this) and white-non-hispanic population (only the suburbs lost population for this). What you say is inaccurate. Literally the only groups losing population in the entire area are blacks (just in the city) and suburban white non-hispanic (only in the suburbs). Everyone else has increased in numbers since 2010.

Originally Posted by glowrock

As compared with where, exactly? Seriously, I know of very, very few cities even remotely close to Chicago's caliber with respect to overall amenities with much lower overall tax rates. Chicago has no additional city income tax over the Illinois state income tax (which is pretty much middle of the road, honestly), and while property taxes certainly aren't low by any standard, they're not any higher than most other major cities I know of. Quite a bit lower in terms of percentage of assessed value than many, honestly.

Well, the fact is that most people have no idea what they're talking about even if they do end up moving and can't actually calculate the full or close to the full picture monetarily. Now, not everyone needs a type of city that Chicago is. I work with a few people who grew up in Chicago or lived there for a long time and moved to Dallas recently. They don't seem to mind, but they soon find out that the property tax still sucks. But they could still make out better if they don't need a dynamic walkable city with everything a Chicago needs IF they own a car. If they don't own the car and require loan or lease payments, then it could end up pretty much being a wash between both areas.

Now with that being said, the people who complain about taxes but move to places like NYC, SF, LA, etc are pretty much ridiculous. They are attracted to the bigger paychecks without realizing the increase of income tax and housing. Not only is the COL more, but so too are the taxes such as income. When I moved from Chicago to NYC, my income tax went up by around 2.75X. With the new raise in Illinois tax, it's something like 2.1X. Still over double. My lifestyle is not that much different between both cities - actually I was more active in Chicago in everyday life and I think I enjoyed my life more just because the city was cleaner and I had access to a large, nice body of water everyday. Put it this way - my salary could be $35K lower in Chicago than here in NYC, and due to COL and income tax alone, I could still end up paying at least $500 per month in rent lower for a luxury apartment downtown in Chicago. My rent went up $1000/month after moving to Manhattan (compared to Chicago - I had a nice luxury unit with an amazing view downtown with a gym, doorman, etc) and I have no amenities other than an elevator and a few laundry machines in a dingy basement area. I would end up probably saving around the same amount of money per month but live in a nicer set up - and of course save even more per year. Put it this way - the difference of COL and income taxes are so great that if I made my New York salary in Chicago and lived in my previous apartment paying similar rent, I'd end up saving over $20,000 per year more in my pocket in Chicago than NYC.

It really depends on the situation, but the income tax in Illinois is moderate (not too high, but not too low), sales tax is high but most people overcompensate for how much it matters. If you are a $75K household, then 1.5% difference in income taxes is $1125 difference. If you spend $10,000 per year (i.e. 13% of your GROSS income) on things taxed at the highest rate, then 3% difference in sales tax is only $300 per year. Some people are literally so bad with money that they think that 3% extra in sales tax is actually worse off for them than the 1.5% difference of income tax, even though in this case the 1.5% income tax difference will save them 3.75X the amount that the 3% difference of sales tax would (probably more because $10K in this case is rather high).

With that being said, I think the real thing that is driving away some solidly middle class people is that the property tax is probably too high. Illinois is second highest in the nation (and first place New Jersey isn't that far above) - of course, even with rental housing, we don't feel it as much as other places. Places like NYC are much, much more expensive for housing even though the property taxes are much lower.

[the urban politician]

The property taxes are too high, and in a way that is driving down home values. People don’t want to build or buy an expensive home because the property taxes on it will be so high. Illinois made a huge mistake when it went in the direction of being a high property tax State.

The truth is, the benefits of being in a global city are less felt in the burbs. Sure we have nice malls/shopping centers, many neat suburban downtowns, the Forest Preserves, lakes, and the train system.

But for the majority of people, you might as well be in suburban Atlanta or Dallas. It’s all the same, but with colder weather and the aforementioned higher property taxes. Next to a mortgage, this is the highest carrying cost of your typical suburban homeowner.

So it’s no surprise that white suburbanites are leaving. The city, on the other hand, has a whole different value proposition.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The property taxes are too high, and in a way that is driving down home values. People don’t want to build or buy an expensive home because the property taxes on it will be so high. Illinois made a huge mistake when it went in the direction of being a high property tax State.

The truth is, the benefits of being in a global city are less felt in the burbs. Sure we have nice malls/shopping centers, many neat suburban downtowns, the Forest Preserves, lakes, and the train system.

But for the majority of people, you might as well be in suburban Atlanta or Dallas. It’s all the same, but with colder weather and the aforementioned higher property taxes. Next to a mortgage, this is the highest carrying cost of your typical suburban homeowner.

So it’s no surprise that white suburbanites are leaving. The city, on the other hand, has a whole different value proposition.

Yes, I agree with this. And a lot of people don't even care even if somewhere like Dallas versus suburban Chicago becomes a wash in prices. There are more people who will move down to Dallas because of weather alone. And Chicago is not alone in this either - other northern cities like NYC are facing the same thing. The only difference is that there's still a larger net difference.

Anecdotally, I have between 8 to 10 co-workers who bolted for Dallas, on purpose and on their own decision, from the NYC area once our division expanded there and people weren't stopped from transferring. Some of them were just tired of the urban lifestyle (of course, it was NYC so they were jaded but were ignorant enough to not know about nicer urban areas in the country) and some others were because they had families and could easily get a house for under $350K that was decently nice and fairly large. I know of a handful of other people still in the NYC area in my division who are interested in moving to Dallas from NYC, and a big factor is the fact that they can have a good sized house for their families at pretty minimal cost, relatively. When I show them Chicago/Chicago area prices, they become interested too. Some don't care about suburban lifestyle where some don't want it and in that case they say they'd prefer somewhere like Chicago based on what I show them. In the case of Chicago versus something like Dallas in this situation, weather might be a larger factor than you'd think ...although Dallas is colder in winter than people realize, but definitely not as bad as Chicago. Funny thing is that my boss visited Dallas on business a few times and told me he didn't understand. Of course, he's an executive who makes a bit of money and can afford to have his family live in Manhattan or in a nice suburb with a decently sized house, so he's a bit different than the person just 4 years out of school bolting for Dallas.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Yes, I agree with this. And a lot of people don't even care even if somewhere like Dallas versus suburban Chicago becomes a wash in prices. There are more people who will move down to Dallas because of weather alone. And Chicago is not alone in this either - other northern cities like NYC are facing the same thing. The only difference is that there's still a larger net difference.

Anecdotally, I have between 8 to 10 co-workers who bolted for Dallas, on purpose and on their own decision, from the NYC area once our division expanded there and people weren't stopped from transferring. Some of them were just tired of the urban lifestyle (of course, it was NYC so they were jaded but were ignorant enough to not know about nicer urban areas in the country) and some others were because they had families and could easily get a house for under $350K that was decently nice and fairly large. I know of a handful of other people still in the NYC area in my division who are interested in moving to Dallas from NYC, and a big factor is the fact that they can have a good sized house for their families at pretty minimal cost, relatively. When I show them Chicago/Chicago area prices, they become interested too. Some don't care about suburban lifestyle where some don't want it and in that case they say they'd prefer somewhere like Chicago based on what I show them. In the case of Chicago versus something like Dallas in this situation, weather might be a larger factor than you'd think ...although Dallas is colder in winter than people realize, but definitely not as bad as Chicago. Funny thing is that my boss visited Dallas on business a few times and told me he didn't understand. Of course, he's an executive who makes a bit of money and can afford to have his family live in Manhattan or in a nice suburb with a decently sized house, so he's a bit different than the person just 4 years out of school bolting for Dallas.

When it comes to property taxes, the overall situation tends to be a wash, though. Either you pay in income tax or you pay in property tax, period. Dallas and Houston, to name two, have VERY high property taxes, either in the city itself (which tend to be a bit lower), or in the suburban areas (higher than in the city for the most part.) Places like Denver, well the property values are so ridiculously high now that even though property taxes are low, property itself is simply unaffordable to many people. Not sure about places like Atlanta.

My point is, with the exception of a few very low-tax and a few very high-tax cities and regions, most areas are more or less an overall wash when it comes to overall taxes on overall income and cost of living. Chicago is somewhere in the middle of the pack, with property values keeping things moderated, especially outside of the most expensive areas, of course.

Places like Portland have pretty reasonable costs of living overall, but the potential income levels are drastically lower than places like Chicago. Their economy just isn't as diversified, just isn't as robust. And I speak from some experience on this, as most of my remaining family is in the Portland area.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Vlajos]

Definitely agree, if someone is going to live in the average US suburb Chicago is not particularly strong with the huge RE taxes. The city of Chicago though is hard to beat for the price.

[the urban politician]

All of these factors explain why the city is booming and the suburbs are kinda wavering.

I was in the doctors lounge the other day and two older Indian doctors were talking. They were both lamenting how they had bought their pricy homes in the north burbs 20 years ago, and both had lost value. They were talking about high property taxes, Madigan, and how disappointing it all was.

One commented how, when he came here 30 years ago, Chicago was such a “great city” but that now he has some regrets. His kids are in Boston and Seattle.

I didn’t like to hear this, and I’m sure you guys are rolling your eyes at some of those comments. But we can’t change the fact that a lot of suburban people feel this way. There is a visceral gut punch when your home loses value in 20 years. Period.

I know that not everybody experienced this, but I think the suburban market was probably a bit too frothy in the 90s/early 2000s when Chicagoland was on a major high. We just haven’t recovered. And now the bills are due—roof repairs, new kitchens, new siding, electric outlets, etc etc. Its gotta really suck for some people.

And the high property taxes are the second gut punch. They are up a lot—even though home values are not. Today’s Crains just reported that Chicagoland property taxes are higher than in over 95% of the nation. This is real.

Homeownership makes less sense in this region unless you buy a smaller home. It’s better to own a 2 flat and draw rent to help pay the mortgage. We need more multi family, I think. But for sure, Madigan and the State really screwed things up with the property tax scam.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The truth is, the benefits of being in a global city are less felt in the burbs. Sure we have nice malls/shopping centers, many neat suburban downtowns, the Forest Preserves, lakes, and the train system.

But for the majority of people, you might as well be in suburban Atlanta or Dallas. It’s all the same, but with colder weather and the aforementioned higher property taxes. Next to a mortgage, this is the highest carrying cost of your typical suburban homeowner.

So it’s no surprise that white suburbanites are leaving. The city, on the other hand, has a whole different value proposition.

This pretty much nails it.

All of us know people in the Chicago area who live in the suburbs, and hardly ever go into the city. What’s more, people with conservative world views are sort of fed up with the IL, for taxes, corruption, crime, etc. The honest truth is that the cities in the south are probably better personality matches for a lot of these people.

But for those of us who still love urban life.... Chicago is a great city. It may not have that center of the universe feel that NY does. But it also doesn’t have a ridiculous cost of living.

[Halsted & Villagio]

When I lived in DuPage Co (Naperville).... back in 2006/7/8 (seems like a lifetime ago) if I recall correctly I paid roughly $15,000 a year in taxes - not super high to some, but more than I was willing to keep paying. Paying that much caused many sleepless nights and was not worth the extra space that I was paying for. And that was many years ago. I am sure that taxes have gone up since then. The shear amount going out in taxes per year was one of the main drivers that caused me to relocate my family back into the city. The other motivation - I missed the action of city living.

Taxes are not cheap in Chicago but comparatively speaking the taxes are about what you should expect. In mean, I was just in Atlanta on business... a few years ago vacationed in Tampa... briefly lived in Miami after graduation... and I have traveled to Houston/Dallas in the past... all cities that are actually (or just perceived to be) lower in taxes than Chicago... no knock on those cities but there is an obvious and distinct difference between the amenities you get in those cities versus Chicago.

I found those cities largely disheveled, unkempt, not well lit, lacking sidewalks, a good amount of garbage, lots of broken pavement, lacking mass very good mass transit, etc. Like big country towns that have grown too big too fast. Sure, I imagine living in those cities can be an acquired taste but there is no amount of acquiring in the world that will ever get my wife to agree to live in one of those cities

My wife likes clean... super clean... and orderly... that is one of the things she really loves about Chicago. In many ways, with Chicago, you get what you pay for.
.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yeah anyone who thinks Illinois is a "moderate tax state" is out of their minds. We are also about to be on the receiving end of the biggest fiscal disaster in American history. I was just at an event in Lincoln Park last night where the organization Truth in Accounting was speaking. We have been kicking the can so hard and vigorously that there is basically no way out of this mess. Here's some facts:

Even with our astronomically high CURRENT tax rates Illinois owes $235,000,000,000 in liabilities. That's BILLION with a B. Over $180 billion of that is unfunded pensions and healthcare for retirees.

On a per person basis that's a bill of $50,400 for each Illinois taxpayer.

In Chicago the situation is just about as bad. The city has about $40 billion in liabilities that need to be paid which adds up to $45,200 per resident. Again, that's a number that only rises as we lose population. Oh and that number doesn't include the massive gaping holes at the Park District or CPS...


Is anyone really surprised that people are leaving Illinois when Madigan has painted a $50,000 target on the back of everyone's heads? Our only hope is insolvency and a hard default locking the State out of debt markets so we are forced to have a truly balanced budget (because our Balanced Budget amendment apparently allows us to count proceeds from debt as "revenue"). Funny that the courts don't uphold the balanced budget amendment, but they do uphold the bullshit pension amendment.


I can't wait for rates to spike upwards and finally blow this whole situation up. We will see how long Madigan is in office when a Federal Bankruptcy judge ejects all of this pension bullshit and voids the pension amendment. There is no way to tax their way out of this mess anymore, the money simply isn't there. The taxpayers have already stepped up their game paying wayyyy more in taxes and fees. The inevitable result now is for all the retirees to take a big ass haircut when the Federal government inevitably gets involved in what is essentially a total breakdown of governance.

I just wish we could drag Madigan et al out of the Statehouse and tar and feather them in public like the good ole days when this shit finally blows up.

[rgolch]

^^ and of course, that burden won’t be shared equally amongst everyone. They’ll target successful people who “aren’t paying their fair share.”

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Actually, no. The bolded is just not true at all if talking about the major racial groups. Literally the only major groups to lose population between suburbs, city, and total MSA were suburban whites (outside of the city) and blacks in the city. The population of black people outside of the city limits inside of the MSA increased.

This is all from the American Community Survey 1 year, comparing 2010 ACS to 2016 ACS (which is what you're supposed to do - the Census states that you shouldn't compare ACS to official Census, but you know...nobody listens because they don't actually know what they're doing with the data).

City
Hispanic (of any race): +39,508 people (+5.2%)
White, Non-Hispanic Alone: +28,444 people (+3.33%)
2 or More Races: +27,357 people (+58.2%)
Asian alone: +22,401 people (+14.9%)
Other race alone: +3670 people (+1.1%)
Hispanic Non-White Alone: +14,542 people (+4%)
Black alone: -103,342 people (-11.4%)

Only group to lose people in the city was Black alone population.

Suburbs (i.e. the area of the MSA outside of the city of Chicago)
Hispanic (of any race): +92,025 people (+7.6%)
Asian alone: +57,917 people (+15%)
Black alone: +39,697 people (+5.4%)
Hispanic, Non-White alone: +38,799 people (+7.3%)
2 or More Races: +38,027 people (+27.5%)
Other race alone: +26,114 people (+5.5%)
White Non-Hispanic Alone: -180,992 people (-4.2%)

Only group to lose people in the suburbs was white non-hispanic people. Not even the Black alone population lost population.


Total Metro Area
Hispanic (of any race): +131,533 people (+6.7%)
Asian alone: +80,318 people (+15%)
2 or More Races: +65,384 people (+35.3%)
Hispanic Non-White alone: +53,341 people (+6%)
Other race alone: +29,784 people (+3.7%)
Black alone: -63,645 people (-3.9%)
White Non-Hispanic alone: -152,548 people (-2.9%)

Only populations to lose people were Black alone (see above - suburbs gained in population for this) and white-non-hispanic population (only the suburbs lost population for this). What you say is inaccurate. Literally the only groups losing population in the entire area are blacks (just in the city) and suburban white non-hispanic (only in the suburbs). Everyone else has increased in numbers since 2010.



Well, the fact is that most people have no idea what they're talking about even if they do end up moving and can't actually calculate the full or close to the full picture monetarily. Now, not everyone needs a type of city that Chicago is. I work with a few people who grew up in Chicago or lived there for a long time and moved to Dallas recently. They don't seem to mind, but they soon find out that the property tax still sucks. But they could still make out better if they don't need a dynamic walkable city with everything a Chicago needs IF they own a car. If they don't own the car and require loan or lease payments, then it could end up pretty much being a wash between both areas.

Now with that being said, the people who complain about taxes but move to places like NYC, SF, LA, etc are pretty much ridiculous. They are attracted to the bigger paychecks without realizing the increase of income tax and housing. Not only is the COL more, but so too are the taxes such as income. When I moved from Chicago to NYC, my income tax went up by around 2.75X. With the new raise in Illinois tax, it's something like 2.1X. Still over double. My lifestyle is not that much different between both cities - actually I was more active in Chicago in everyday life and I think I enjoyed my life more just because the city was cleaner and I had access to a large, nice body of water everyday. Put it this way - my salary could be $35K lower in Chicago than here in NYC, and due to COL and income tax alone, I could still end up paying at least $500 per month in rent lower for a luxury apartment downtown in Chicago. My rent went up $1000/month after moving to Manhattan (compared to Chicago - I had a nice luxury unit with an amazing view downtown with a gym, doorman, etc) and I have no amenities other than an elevator and a few laundry machines in a dingy basement area. I would end up probably saving around the same amount of money per month but live in a nicer set up - and of course save even more per year. Put it this way - the difference of COL and income taxes are so great that if I made my New York salary in Chicago and lived in my previous apartment paying similar rent, I'd end up saving over $20,000 per year more in my pocket in Chicago than NYC.

It really depends on the situation, but the income tax in Illinois is moderate (not too high, but not too low), sales tax is high but most people overcompensate for how much it matters. If you are a $75K household, then 1.5% difference in income taxes is $1125 difference. If you spend $10,000 per year (i.e. 13% of your GROSS income) on things taxed at the highest rate, then 3% difference in sales tax is only $300 per year. Some people are literally so bad with money that they think that 3% extra in sales tax is actually worse off for them than the 1.5% difference of income tax, even though in this case the 1.5% income tax difference will save them 3.75X the amount that the 3% difference of sales tax would (probably more because $10K in this case is rather high).

With that being said, I think the real thing that is driving away some solidly middle class people is that the property tax is probably too high. Illinois is second highest in the nation (and first place New Jersey isn't that far above) - of course, even with rental housing, we don't feel it as much as other places. Places like NYC are much, much more expensive for housing even though the property taxes are much lower.

Thanks, these are great stats.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Actually, no.

City
Hispanic (of any race): +39,508 people (+5.2%)
White, Non-Hispanic Alone: +28,444 people (+3.33%)
2 or More Races: +27,357 people (+58.2%)
Asian alone: +22,401 people (+14.9%)
Other race alone: +3670 people (+1.1%)
Hispanic Non-White Alone: +14,542 people (+4%)
Black alone: -103,342 people (-11.4%)

Only group to lose people in the city was Black alone population.

Yeah, I admitted my mistake to TUP in another post. But let’s tease this out. Based on your numbers, the city actually gained population, right? I don’t remember seeing that in the Tribune, or Crain’s.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by rgolch

Yeah, I admitted my mistake to TUP in another post. But let’s tease this out. Based on your numbers, the city actually gained population, right? I don’t remember seeing that in the Tribune, or Crain’s.

Both the city and msa are still up population comparing 2016 to 2010. The population has been coming down since 2014 or 2015 (latest estimates are for 2017) which is what the media has focused on.

[MayorOfChicago]

There's a big reason Illinois' property taxes are so high that people don't readily point out.

Illinois funds 20% of public education (K-12) in the state. The national average is between 45% and 50%.

This is not only 50th ranking among the states, but Illinois is quite a far outlier I believe and very much below the next lowest states.

The state keeps shaving away at education funding as the state budget has been blown to bits by unpaid bills, pension obligations and interest on pension obligations. Those billions get dumped right into property taxes. The amount of interest Illinois pays just to its pile of outstanding bills each year - not even actual debt obligations - is enough to fund a full 10% of all state education funding. Around $1 billion. In the past five years the number of students enrolled in the state has gone down, yet the expenses for education spending have gone up by 13%.

Illinois also just has SO many local juristictions, townships and pension plans. The state has 650 pension plans, New York has 6, Arizona has 3, California has 58. That's 650 plans with 650 sets of amin and workers, 650 offices, 650 sets of overhead.

25% of Illinois' budget goes directly to interest and pensions. State average is 15%

[The North One]

The middle class doesn't care about Chicago's "caliber", the fact is Illinois has high taxes and the state offers little outside of Chicago's urban core so they move to somewhere like Texas or Ohio the second they get a decent job opportunity.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

There's a big reason Illinois' property taxes are so high that people don't readily point out.

Illinois funds 20% of public education (K-12) in the state. The national average is between 45% and 50%.

This is not only 50th ranking among the states, but Illinois is quite a far outlier I believe and very much below the next lowest states.

The state keeps shaving away at education funding as the state budget has been blown to bits by unpaid bills, pension obligations and interest on pension obligations. Those billions get dumped right into property taxes. The amount of interest Illinois pays just to its pile of outstanding bills each year - not even actual debt obligations - is enough to fund a full 10% of all state education funding. Around $1 billion. In the past five years the number of students enrolled in the state has gone down, yet the expenses for education spending have gone up by 13%.

Illinois also just has SO many local juristictions, townships and pension plans. The state has 650 pension plans, New York has 6, Arizona has 3, California has 58. That's 650 plans with 650 sets of amin and workers, 650 offices, 650 sets of overhead.

25% of Illinois' budget goes directly to interest and pensions. State average is 15%

Wow, 650 plans in Illinois vs. 6 in NY?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by The North One

The middle class doesn't care about Chicago's "caliber",

be careful with your broad brush.

i'm middle class, and i certainly care about chicago's "caliber".

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

be careful with your broad brush.

i'm middle class, and i certainly care about chicago's "caliber".

Yes but you are an exception and you own multiple properties so you're really the upper middle class. I'm sure the average Joe living in suburban Chicagoland isn't going to miss much moving to suburban Texas if they don't care about walkable neighborhoods and want lower taxes.