CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But that's just it--that never happens.

The wealthy, like JB Pritzker, convince the poor that the "rich don't pay their fair share" and thus need to pay more.

What they don't tell you is that it's the upper middle class and perhaps lower upper class, as well as the middle class, that pays more.

The extremely wealthy don't end up paying much more at all, mostly because they aren't dependent on a traditional income. Their wealth is in the form of equities, properties, options, etc etc. Totally different way of being taxed than regular W-2

Exactly. At a debate, JB said people like him and Bruce (Rauner) should pay their fair share - but yet his new tax plan increases taxes those making $250K+, I'm certainly not "like JB or Bruce"....

The left's strategy is to use the term "rich" or "wealthy" instead of an actual income amount (see the post I just quoted above)

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Yes exactly TUP!!!

I have an extremely rich family friend who probably has a net worth of around $100 million. Who was a doctor that founded several businesses. He earned it all himself, and created hundreds of jobs around the US. But since he started these businesses he makes his money from stocks and capital gains which is taxed at 15%, so I have to pay a higher tax rate even though I'm not a millionaire. That's what isn't fair. The rich should have to pay their fair share too.

DIdn't you just, on another thread, advocate for Mortgage companies being able to break a contract and increase payments if the owner has too much equity? You have some very interesting views...

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

The real issue is the extreme violence in the AA communities, literally 3rd world murder rates - AA's are not leaving because the police don't respect the community.

Houston and Atlanta, where many of these people have moved to, have high murder rates. Milwaukee and Indianapolis have very high murder rates and their black populations have grown since 2010.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

Exactly. At a debate, JB said people like him and Bruce (Rauner) should pay their fair share - but yet his new tax plan increases taxes those making $250K+, I'm certainly not "like JB or Bruce"....

The left's strategy is to use the term "rich" or "wealthy" instead of an actual income amount (see the post I just quoted above)

$250,000 household income puts you in the 95/96th percentile of Americans.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

North Korea and Yemen were the worst performing (most corrupt). Some of the least corrupt on the list were the countries we constantly hear referred to as "socialist" (Denmark, Sweden, Finland).

I never took any side and I'm certainly not a member of Democratic Socialists of America. I was just pointing out that your comment "socialism breads corruption" seems counter to the data provided by WEF.

True capitalists don't often lie - they know scarcity increases value.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

$250,000 household income puts you in the 95/96th percentile of Americans.

Exactly. What the bloated windbag is trying to do is steer the ire of the "poor" toward the top 5%. They are taking the hit, meanwhile the top 1%, or 0.1% still get away with paying far less. Problem is, we all know that a huge proportion of wealth gets concentrated among the richest classes in America.

So a 0.1% person has stashed away ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more wealth than a 5% person, the latter of whom the bloated windbag has scapegoated.

Pritzker is protecting his own wealth. He isn't paying substantially more taxes, if any at all, with his new graduated income tax proposal.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

$250,000 household income puts you in the 95/96th percentile of Americans.

My point exactly. $250k is certainly not wealthy on its own by any reasonable definition. Yet, JB lumps somebody making $250k with those making $30m a year, they’re all “wealthy” according to him and most of the left.
Wealth is not judged by your W2/income exclusively, I’m sure we can all agree to that.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

My point exactly. $250k is certainly not wealthy on its own by any reasonable definition. Yet, JB lumps somebody making $250k with those making $30m a year, they’re all “wealthy” according to him and most of the left.
Wealth is not judged by your W2/income exclusively, I’m sure we can all agree to that.

This makes zero sense. The current Illinois income tax literally lumps somebody making $30k with those making $30m by charging them the exact same tax rate. The proposed structure would tax all income over $1m at 7.95% and under 5% for everything below $250k.

I get the point you are making about wealth and income being different beasts, but your comment is counterfactual.

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

This makes zero sense. The current Illinois income tax literally lumps somebody making $30k with those making $30m by charging them the exact same tax rate. The proposed structure would tax all income over $1m at 7.95% and under 5% for everything below $250k.

I get the point you are making about wealth and income being different beasts, but your comment is counterfactual.

I’m not talking about current tax rates - I’m talking about the term “wealthy”, which gets thrown around a lot these days. My point is few define what the mean by wealthy, without numbers the word is useless. $250k is certainly not “wealthy” by most reasonable definitions - and shouldn’t be villainised as some extravagant, wasteful lifestyle.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

This makes zero sense. The current Illinois income tax literally lumps somebody making $30k with those making $30m by charging them the exact same tax rate. The proposed structure would tax all income over $1m at 7.95% and under 5% for everything below $250k.

I get the point you are making about wealth and income being different beasts, but your comment is counterfactual.

I think what you're missing is the fact that the guy worth tens of millions is far less likely to get most of his wealth from a standard salary than the guy making $250k.

The guy making $30MM per year just plain isn't getting paid a paycheck of $30MM cash per year divided into 26 paystubs, with 401K and health and dental and disability benefits taken out. The guy making $250k is.

This is a very important distinction to understand, because that is entirely how the extremely wealthy are hiding their gargantuan hordes of wealth from Uncle Sam.

[Baronvonellis]

The best way is to have a graduated Capital Gains Tax. So that people making $3 million+ a year in stocks have to pay more than their secretary in taxes. If you make less than $250,000 in capital gains a year it could stay at 15% but then go up from there. That's the fair way to go about this.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Investing In Chicago

My point exactly. $250k is certainly not wealthy on its own by any reasonable definition. Yet, JB lumps somebody making $250k with those making $30m a year, they’re all “wealthy” according to him and most of the left.
Wealth is not judged by your W2/income exclusively, I’m sure we can all agree to that.

There are three separate brackets for those making over 250K, and they are not lumped in with those making 30M.

Also if you make any amount over $250K you are in the top 2% of IL earners, so it's a bit of a stretch to classify that as anywhere near the suffering middle class.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think what you're missing is the fact that the guy worth tens of millions is far less likely to get most of his wealth from a standard salary than the guy making $250k.

The guy making $30MM per year just plain isn't getting paid a paycheck of $30MM cash per year divided into 26 paystubs, with 401K and health and dental and disability benefits taken out. The guy making $250k is.

This is a very important distinction to understand, because that is entirely how the extremely wealthy are hiding their gargantuan hordes of wealth from Uncle Sam.

I understand your argument, but I think you are overstating it a bit. Rauner and Pritzker both made $55 million in taxable state income in 2017, that is a substantial amount. They were still able to use loopholes to lower their liability. Pritzker used tax breaks due to his venture capital investing and Rauner through carried interest and capital gains.

I think it is more of a problem of (1) how we tax capital gains and other income streams and (2) tax breaks only available to the hyper-wealthy. This analysis of Rauner's taxes really stood out to me:

The millions Rauner netted as a chairman at GTCR were submitted to the IRS as "capital gains taxed at a preferential 15 percent" including money from fee waivers frequently employed by firms as a way to reduce managers' tax tabs. As a result, Rauner saved a ton on his portion of investment fees paid to the company and was able to dodge Social Security and Medicare payments.

He didn't have to pay SS or Medicare taxes on any of his income! Meanwhile, I'm paying $8k/year to SS and $2k/year to Medicare (that doesn't even include my wife's contributions).

[Steely Dan]

* posts deleted *


a not so gentle reminder to keep this thread to local chicago politics only.

if you want to talk about hillary and trump and all of that other 2016 bullshit, there are 8 billion other places on the internet to do so. go there.

[Vlajos]

A family in metro Chicago making $250K should not be taxed at a higher rate, than a family making $200K or even $150K. That is not a large income for the cost of living. The income tax proposal unfairly targets the Chicago area, which already subsidizes downstate. Of course Pritzker can't cut any government spending AND ran on increasing spending.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

The best way is to have a graduated Capital Gains Tax. So that people making $3 million+ a year in stocks have to pay more than their secretary in taxes. If you make less than $250,000 in capital gains a year it could stay at 15% but then go up from there. That's the fair way to go about this.

The problem with capital gains taxes is that they’re relatively more harmful to society by discouraging investment. Labor income taxes are second-worst. In general, we need to avoid taxing income.

IMO, the best way is through some form of progressive consumption taxes. Make all the money you want, because that helps society. But when you go to buy that second yacht, that’s when you pay.

[Vlajos]

Elected school board measure picks up speed in Springfield

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...ed-springfield

"Under the bill as now drafted, beginning in 2023, on the same date as the next mayoral and aldermanic elections, Chicagoans would elect a 21-member school board to four-year terms. They'd repeat the process in 2027, before the mandatory legislative review.

Twenty of the 21 members would be elected from single-member districts initially drafted by the Legislature. The 21st member, the chairman, would run citywide."

21 elected board members? AND we have a 50 member City Council? This is crazy! I am not opposed to an elected school board, but why on earth do we need 21 members? We have far too many politicians as it is.

[Hourstrooper]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

A family in metro Chicago making $250K should not be taxed at a higher rate, than a family making $200K or even $150K. That is not a large income for the cost of living. The income tax proposal unfairly targets the Chicago area, which already subsidizes downstate. Of course Pritzker can't cut any government spending AND ran on increasing spending.

I view Pritzker as basically the Rahm of the state ina good pro developmental way.

[emathias]

Short but interesting commentary on why Lightfoot won. Lines up pretty well with my perception of what happened v

Sun-Times article

...
“She was on the wrong side of both some people — like [former Cook County Assessor] Joe Berrios and [14th Ward Ald.] Ed Burke — and on the wrong side of some issues — it wasn’t clear she had any important ideas about police reform … or curbing aldermanic privilege,” Simpson said.

“She had sort of a half-step progressive platform rather than a pretty pure one. She is legitimately progressive, but much more moderate than Lightfoot, much more cautious.”

Still, Simpson doesn’t believe the loss will affect Preckwinkle’s ability to get things done in the county.

Ken Snyder, who worked on Preckwinkle’s first run for the board president spot and helped launch Lightfoot’s mayoral run, said the defeat is not likely to stop Preckwinkle from going forward with her agenda at the County Board. But he said there is no question she was politically weakened.

In a race that became “entirely about change and reform,” Lightfoot became the perfect fit, Snyder said.

“Toni Preckwinkle made her bed,” Snyder said. “She decided to be an apologist for Joe Berrios [and become] the successor of the Democratic machine.”
...

[LouisVanDerWright]

It's really a shame Lightfoot is lesbian...

Because I think I'm in love:

Lightfoot tells Burke to forget Council Wars 2: ‘That’s not going to happen’

Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot on Friday accused Ald. Edward Burke (14th) of attempting to organize the City Council against her and threatened to expose aldermen who dare to conspire with him.

“Any alderman who’s gonna try to align themselves with Ed Burke at this time — we’re gonna make sure that gets very public and exposed . . . I’m going to do everything I can to shine a light on that,” Lightfoot told the Sun-Times.


“They’re gonna have to explain to the public why they’re aligning with him against the voters of this city.”

Burke could not be reached for comment


Lightfoot likened Burke’s behind-the-scenes mischief-making to what he and former Ald. Edward Vrdolyak (10th) did to Mayor Harold Washington.

Their mostly white coalition, better known as the Vrdolyak 29, thwarted Washington’s every move. The stalemate ended only after special aldermanic elections in 1986 finally gave Washington control over the City Council.

“We’re not gonna resurrect the Vrdolyak 29 in the form of Ed Burke. That’s not going to happen. He can try all he wants. He’s not going to be successful,” Lightfoot said.

Lightfoot was alerted to Burke’s Machiavellian maneuvers by fellow alderman who have been approached by the deposed chairman of the City Council’s finance committee, sources familiar with the matter. Some of those same aldermen confirmed the maneuvers to the Sun-Times.

She wasn’t surprised. Lightfoot is a longtime Burke nemesis who targeted Burke and did battle with him long before the alderman was charged with attempted extortion.

“Of course he is [conspiring against her]. That’s what he does . . . It’s always power,” she said.

“He’s been very successful in accumulating power despite the odds and he’s not gonna give up on that easily. But beware.”

Burke was forced to relinquish the Finance Committee chairmanship that was his primary power base for decades after being charged with attempted extortion for allegedly shaking down a Burger King franchise owner for legal business and for a $10,000 campaign contribution to vanquished mayoral candidate Toni Preckwinkle.

Those Jan. 3 charges were a turning point for Lightfoot’s campaign. Preckwinkle never recovered from being dragged into the Burke scandal.

On Friday, Lightfoot noted that her former colleagues in the U.S. attorney’s office face a May 3 deadline to indict Burke.

“He’s going to have bigger fish to fry. I have every confidence that charges are gonna be brought in an indictment against him before I’m sworn in. So he needs to focus on his own personal circumstances and stop trying to meddle around,” she said.

Earlier this week, veteran aldermen urged Lightfoot to tread softly with the new, emboldened and more progressive City Council or risk derailing her ambitious legislative agenda.

They invited her to weigh in, but urged her to let them choose their own committee chairmen.

Two of the City Council’s most senior African-American aldermen — Transportation Committee Chairman Anthony Beale (9th) and Budget Chairman Carrie Austin (34th) — also warned Lightfoot to soften her promise to end aldermanic prerogative, the unwritten rule that gives a local alderman iron-fisted control over zoning and licensing in his or her ward.

But Lightfoot said Friday she’s not backing off from ending the longstanding tradition at the heart of the Burke scandal and nearly every other aldermanic conviction over the years.

She plans to issue an executive order on May 20 — inauguration day — ending aldermanic privilege and establishing a two-term limit for the mayor and committee chairmen.

“If you’ve got 50 separate fiefdoms that you have to deal with on issues like affordable housing, [or] just getting a sign on your building, it makes doing business with the city of Chicago damn near impossible,” she said.

“If we’re gonna really be true to the mandate for change . . . we cannot have a circumstance where an individual alderman can exercise unilateral control over virtually everything that goes on in their ward . . . We cannot have 50 separate aldermen having unchecked power to play Caesar on everything that goes on.”

As for the line-up of committee chairmen, Lightfoot said it’ll be a give-and-take. She’s prepared to work with aldermen to strike a balance between identifying council leaders she can trust and committee chairmen aldermen can swallow.

She refused to pinpoint a choice for Finance Committee chairman. But pressed to identify the aldermen she trusts, she mentioned several of her early supporters.

In addition to Beale, they include: Progressive Caucus Chairman Scott Waguespack (32nd); Hispanic Caucus Chairman Gilbert Villegas (36th); Aviation Committee Chairman Matt O’Shea (19th); Special Events Committee Chairman Tom Tunney (44th); and Aldermen Derrick Curtis (18th) and Michael Scott Jr. (24th).


https://chicago-suntimes-com.cdn.amp...against-her%2F

Lightfoot has an absolute mandate to put a stop to this bullshit and isn't fucking around. We are done with aldermanic perogative, resist at your own peril. I already made it known to my alderman that I expect full cooperation with Lori's agenda. If he doesn't comply I will oppose him both financially and by volunteering for whoever is running against him in the next election.

Good riddance, these scumbag alderman can all go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.