CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[Near North Resident]

I can show you two charts showing massive financial success for the citizens of the united states during that exact time frame... what is your point other than parroting some garbage the ignorant Bernie Sanders told you to do

here's a fancy chart for ya

[left of center]

"Aw, you can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that." -Homer Simpson

[XIII]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

I can show you two charts showing massive financial success for the citizens of the united states during that exact time frame... what is your point other than parroting some garbage the ignorant Bernie Sanders told you to do

The top 10% of earners in the US hold 76% of the country's wealth. So the fact that they only paid 68% of the taxes shows that they aren't carrying their fair share.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/18/pf/wealth-inequality/index.html

It's important to note that the current tax code (especially after the tax cuts) punishes people who are earning money far more than people who are already rich. The people working aren't the problem. The people who are already wealthy and sitting on it or handing it off to their kids are a massive issue. Those numbers don't show up in your chart because those earnings don't get reported as "income" (i.e. dividends, stock options, equity distributions, capital gains, "loans" against equity, deferred income)

Its pretty amazing that the non-working wealthy have been able to convince high earning individuals that poor people are putting the tax burden all on them. What do you think that new 20% pass through and corporate tax rate is? Its a giant giveaway to people who aren't getting W2s.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/18/business/dealbook/tax-bill-wealthy.html

Poor people aren't the reason you're being taxed. It's the lazy rich that are screwing you and you've taken the bait by fighting their battle to let them keep doing it.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by left of center

Yeah, this can all be moved to the Chicago Economic Discussion thread. It's a worthy discussion, but in the wrong spot.

We're all Chicago and want to see the city at its best, so it's definitely worthwhile to have the discussion. Economic Discussion thread is a better place for sure.

I think that most here are of the mindset that Chicago's actually a very affordable global city and the push for things like mandated "affordable" housing and rent control can be/are overreaching.

Most of us aren't sitting comfortably in the 1%, so I don't quite understand the animus towards the poor. Most of us could have very easily found ourselves in poverty in the event of a job loss or premature death of our providers.

There are quite a few posters who've shared their family stories about themselves, parents, grandparents, or great grandparents arriving in Chicago with nothing to their name and building a better life for themselves. I have great grandparents that came here from Ireland broke and "unskilled", but they were able to find jobs, buy property, and become successful property managers/tradesmen in the city. They were able to save enough money to send some of their (male) children to college at U of I.

Had my great grandparents been nonwhite immigrants or black Americans migrating from the south, they'd have never been awarded those opportunities and would not have been able to provide a middle class lifestyle for their children. They'd have arrived in Chicago, found themselves shut out from the more desirable jobs, and trapped in the same impoverished conditions they left behind in Ireland. I think that's something we should all keep in mind when discussing and assigning "blame" for the the less glamorous side of our great city.

[ardecila]

Well, regardless of what you think about the NRA or gun rights generally, the relationship between Delta and the NRA wasn't a "special" one. Airlines have a long-standing practice of offering volume discounts to large convention groups regardless of what convention it is. How is it fair to deny this discount to only one group, especially when that group primarily advocates for a right that is enshrined (for now) in the US constitution?

Anyway, if the added taxes are so onerous that Delta decides to move, it would probably just be the corporate HQ. Their hub operations at ATL are too entrenched to relocate. Delta has other smaller hubs, of course, but does their HQ even need to be located in a hub city?

[left of center]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Well, regardless of what you think about the NRA or gun rights generally, the relationship between Delta and the NRA wasn't a "special" one. Airlines have a long-standing practice of offering volume discounts to large convention groups regardless of what convention it is. How is it fair to deny this discount to only one group, especially when that group primarily advocates for a right that is enshrined (for now) in the US constitution?

Anyway, if the added taxes are so onerous that Delta decides to move, it would probably just be the corporate HQ. Their hub operations at ATL are too entrenched to relocate. Delta has other smaller hubs, of course, but does their HQ even need to be located in a hub city?

If the thing you and a group of like minded people fetishize about happens to also be a tool used for killing school children/innocent bystanders/otherwise unarmed Americans on a near industrial scale across the country, I'm pretty sure people can request companies pull their support for previously aforementioned group, and companies being privately owned and having their own prerogatives, have every right to listen and deny any group of a discount if they feel it would negatively affect shareholder value (so long as it isn't discriminatory based on age, race, gender or sexual orientation).

I wouldn't think that Delta would necessarily need to locate to a city with substantial operations, although it might make more sense for them to do so. As an example, US Cellular is hq'd in Chicago, even though they sold their network in the Chicago area years ago.

[XSpringfieldGuy]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

It's funny how these charts always begin with the tax rates right after WWII.

Did you need to cherry pick the highest point of personal income tax and pretend that's the starting point?

It's so disingenuous.

Sure he does. Wouldn't fit his agenda if not..isn't it all about each of our own agendas? Nobody is in it for the greater good..look at politicians as a prime example..only for themselves. Its human nature.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by XSpringfieldGuy

Sure he does. Wouldn't fit his agenda if not..isn't it all about each of our own agendas? Nobody is in it for the greater good..look at politicians as a prime example..only for themselves. Its human nature.

Let's try starting at 1980, well after WWII. Is this disingenuous or is there some other way it should be tweaked to fit your agenda?

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

It seems the proper way to tweak it was by changing the parameters (top 1% instead of top 0.1% or 0.01%). That being said, the trend is still pretty clear and this group just got another tax cut.

Related headline from yesterday: US monthly deficit largest in 6 years.

Why didn't you show data for the effective corporate tax rate?

[aaron38]

I heard an amusing interview with gubernatorial candidate Robert Marshall talking about his plan to split Illinois into 3 states. Chicago would be a state, IL north of I-80 a state, and all of Downstate a state.

I thought Bliss was doing better in the polls, but it looks like the anti-Pritzker vote is getting split too much.

[the urban politician]

Pritzker is a complete tool.

If he gets elected, it will be the Democratic machine all back in power.

Look for even sweeter pension deals for unions, even more crony contracts, and ever higher taxes to pay for it all.

No thanks.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Pritzker is a complete tool.

If he gets elected, it will be the Democratic machine all back in power.

Look for even sweeter pension deals for unions, even more crony contracts, and ever higher taxes to pay for it all.

No thanks.

Honestly, I think this is why I don't mind keeping Rauner in office. A relatively moderate Republican governor isn't necessarily a bad thing in an otherwise heavily Democrat-leaning state. Illinois has had a pretty bad history with its governors over the decades (to put it mildly!), so as long as Rauner's pretty clean when it comes to not being a completely corrupt, criminal SOB, what's the huge harm in keeping him?

Yeah, I know. Not exactly great reasoning. But this state really does need someone who will at least make an attempt at working on the multiple pension crises, not to mention the overall general fiscal trainwreck that exists.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Honestly, I think this is why I don't mind keeping Rauner in office. A relatively moderate Republican governor isn't necessarily a bad thing in an otherwise heavily Democrat-leaning state. Illinois has had a pretty bad history with its governors over the decades (to put it mildly!), so as long as Rauner's pretty clean when it comes to not being a completely corrupt, criminal SOB, what's the huge harm in keeping him?

Yeah, I know. Not exactly great reasoning. But this state really does need someone who will at least make an attempt at working on the multiple pension crises, not to mention the overall general fiscal trainwreck that exists.

Aaron (Glowrock)

I completely agree and I'm a Democrat.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I completely agree and I'm a Democrat.

I agreed with this in 2014 and voted for Rauner as a check on the Machine. Unfortunately, he has accomplished almost nothing as Governor. The pensions are the biggest issue, and he has not communicated any plan to fix it in his first 3 years. He has not presented a plan that has a chance to pass the legislature or even a balanced budget.

Does he think we need a constitutional amendment for pensions? If not, how can we work within the existing constitution? If Rauner wins, will Madigan magically disappear or will he still need to work with him to find solutions? I want solutions and all Rauner has brought is blame.

[the urban politician]

Chicago leads U.S. in underwater homes

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestat...omeowners-than-new-york-and-l-a-combined

Meanwhile legions of morons parade around bitching about Chicago's "affordable housing crisis".

I'm sure they are grabbing selfies, posting on Twitter and Instagram, gaining street cred as fighting the "good fight". Great way to meet women

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

I agreed with this in 2014 and voted for Rauner as a check on the Machine. Unfortunately, he has accomplished almost nothing as Governor. The pensions are the biggest issue, and he has not communicated any plan to fix it in his first 3 years. He has not presented a plan that has a chance to pass the legislature or even a balanced budget.

Does he think we need a constitutional amendment for pensions? If not, how can we work within the existing constitution? If Rauner wins, will Madigan magically disappear or will he still need to work with him to find solutions? I want solutions and all Rauner has brought is blame.

I agree, but at least with Rauner we won't be giving huge pay increases and benefit boosts to state workers.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I agree, but at least with Rauner we won't be giving huge pay increases and benefit boosts to state workers.

that's kinda where i am.

i won't be voting for rauner this fall.

i'll be voting against the illinois democratic party.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's kinda where i am.

i won't be voting for rauner this fall.

i'll be voting against the illinois democratic party.

I'll be voting against more dead veterans in Quincy.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I agree, but at least with Rauner we won't be giving huge pay increases and benefit boosts to state workers.

Meanwhile, Rauner has a new ad where he is criticizing Ives for wanting to layoff union workers. This guy stands for nothing.

“When I served on Wheaton city council, the only thing that union membership understood were layoffs. It’s the only thing they understood. So if you can’t impose your final, best offer because the courts have blocked it, then you just start laying people off.”

The tagline at the beginning and end is: “Jeanne Ives isn’t for real reform. She’s for laying off real people.”

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's kinda where i am.

i won't be voting for rauner this fall.

i'll be voting against the illinois democratic party.

Glad I'm not the only one lol. I just mailed in my Democratic primary ballot, and it took me a week to end up not voting for any one of the Dem candidates for governor.

This Nov I plan on voting Rauner only because he is the lesser evil. The fact that he is openly against Mike Madigan doesn't hurt.