[left of center]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

fair enough, i thought you were older. regardless, it dosent change the fact that throwing our money at "nice to haves" in the ritziest areas of the city dosent help us tackle our larger structural fiscal challenges. i wouldnt have as much of an issue if these funds were going to other local neighborhoods that lack parks in the first place...do they not qualify as taxpayers too, or are they not also entitled to these sorts of amenities? how many times over can we polish this exact same corner of the city?

Sprucing up downtown is investing in the economic engine of this city. Those improvements are not just for downtown rich residents (really all of Chicago is able to enjoy the riverwalk, much like a person like myself who isn't from a lakefront neighborhood finds himself by the lake often this time of year), but rather the tourism dollars the city so eagerly seeks. The Riverwalk attracts a very sizable portion of people who come to visit Chicago. Expanding it and making it more of a draw will increase the number of out of towners/staters spending highly taxed money at coffee shops, restaurants and hotels. This is one of those investments that pays for itself many, many times over.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Is there a legal problem with putting a 100% income tax on pensions for people who live out of state?

Probably. But they should try to implement something like this anyway, although 100% is probably too draconian for any politician to suggest. Something like 40% would work as an effective deterrent for retirees leaving the state, IMHO.