The Bring Chicago Home initiative was propagandized in the same way as the eminently sensible idea of making Illinois' income tax system progressive (as is the federal income tax). First, you warn of dire but cloudy consequences for the majority of people who do not have high TAXABLE incomes (none of which wash at the federal tevel). Second, you go full Grover Norquist anti-tax--"they" will waste it, starve the government, et bloody cetera. Eh voila! (if you will pardon my French).
Sorry about the shouty capital letters. The anti-any-tax people always omit the "taxable" giving the impression that higher tax rates apply to all dollars earned,
I read that the dems are floating the idea of dropping the tax cap on Social Security payments and raising the amount paid to Medicare to 5%. A self-employed or small business owner in CA would be paying 37% in Federal Tax, 13.3% in State tax, 12% in Social Security tax, and 5% in Medicare tax on "all dollars earned" above $600,000. Thats over 2/3rds of every incremental dollar. Then you add in property taxes, 8.85% in CA state and local sales taxes, 78 cents per gallon tax on gas, liquor taxes, etc. Illinois/Chicago are not far behind...
I don't know, if that's a "fair share", but these business owners would increase their take home by over 40% by just moving to any of the states with no or little income tax and you are seeing this happen across the country.
I was writing about the flat tax on taxable incomes in IL. What the "plight" of someone paying a lot of tax on taxable income over $600,000 in CA has to do with the matter defeats me.
Republicans always talk about the Social Security "crisis" and always oppose wealthier people contributing more by raising the cap on on Social Security payments--one of the sensible and fair ways of averting the crisis. they deplore.
I was just trying to show the bigger picture on taxation and used CA as an example of a progressive tax. Progressive tax is harder for a state to do because it is so easy to relocate. If the progressive tax had passed, the IL number would have been 62% compared to CA 67%, but with higher sales taxes.
People may say good riddance to Ken Griffin and Citadel, but their move alone to Florida cost Illinois/Chicago hundreds of millions.
Blame it on the billionaires, but if you took every penny from all 700 billionaires in the US, you would pay down the national debt by about 15%.
We have a government spending problem and we are running out of ways to fund it.
My income in the later years of working was above the SS tax cap. I am very far from being a billionaire, barely a thousandaire. I thought it was unfair then and still think it is. The "tax all the billionaires out of existence" is a MAGA straw man not a serious argument. 'Nuff said.
People see what they want to see... First, I was using the billionaire total net worth as a comparison to the national debt and government spending, no reference at all to "tax all the billionaires out of existence". (I hope the quotation marks were not referring to me). Second, I hope the "Republican" and "MAGA" references were not directed at me, either.
There are other people who think government spending is out of control. Every individual and every company must pay their taxes, pay their bills and make hard choices on ways to be fiscally responsible. Why not governments? Cheerio!
I would favor not eliminating the cap completely but raising the maximum taxable income from the current $168,000 to perhaps $180,000. That would bring in more money without unduly "soaking the rich," so to speak.
I wish! Base goes up every year, Beth. Over $35,000 over last 5 years. That's an extra $4,000+ that every self employed person making $168,000 pays from 5 years ago. I hope that is what the dems are positioning for, though. Not unlimited, but a bigger annual jump. Let's say bigger is a $400,000 max. That would make a self employed couple making $400,000 combined only pay an extra $27,840 each year. :)
I would favor applying the SS tax to all income of any kind and eliminating the tax paid by the employer. The employer tax is a disincentive to hiring, and disproportionately affects the self employed.
I have NEVER understood the cap on social security income. Why wouldn't someone making $XXX or $XXXX etc. be subject to taxes on all their income when someone making $XX has every single dollar taxed?
A further injustice is that it is only WAGES that are taxed not that passive investment income that keeps the 1% at the top.
It has never seemed fair. But every regressive tax - i.e. flat tax - is unfair to the folks at the bottom.
Probably has something to do with the Social Security Act of 1935. FDR signed an act that would "address the long-range problem of economic security for the aged through a contributory system in which the workers themselves contributed to their own future retirement benefit by making regular payments into a joint fund." It was an insurance/retirement program, not a welfare program. I would love it if those $XXXX people would fund my 401K, but it's a retirement plan, not a welfare plan.
I think you are correct about the original theory, but it has evolved to a more comprehensive program with the addition of disability benefits, benefits to children of deceased parents, etc. When the decision was made to provide these benefits, they used this existing vehicle rather than create more bureaucracies. There's no denying this is now a redistribution program, which makes it bad in the minds of many conservative idealogues. Before SS and Medicare, about 75% of our senior citizens were below the poverty line. Now, 75% are above it.
Totally agree on what it has become, Jim. Some clarification though. Over 60% of all Americans were below the poverty line in the early 30’s. You also have other factors helping today's number such as public/private pensions, 401K's, IRA's, unions, an economy 10 times the size with a population less than 3 times the size, dual incomes and a rising retirement age.
It appears you, and anyone who agrees with you, doesn't understand Social Security. It's a defined benefit program, not a means-tested entitlement program.
Just as the taxed income is capped for SS, the benefit is capped. If you want 100% of income to be taxed to support social security, the rules of SS as it currently exists would require paying the top earners a commensurate retirement benefit.
Sounds like what you want is SS to be a means-tested entitlement program - good luck with that. But at least know what you're asking for, and acknowledge it accordingly.
I like your reply. With all due respect to Michael Gorman, who backs up his points with numbers, there comes a point when Democrtats must learn that more taxes is not the answer to everything, not even when people are wealthy. If this issue had passed, then what? What's next on the agenda? There's never enough money for all the demands. More special education teachers, nurses, and librarians in the schools. More street and buildings reparations. Replacement of lead pipes. The list is endless. Need I remind people of outstanding debts such as public pensions? People have a right to be wealthy. How many of you would turn it down if someone offered you a lot of money? If you received it, how many of you would simply give it all away? I freely admit I wouldn't. And no, Micheal, I wouldn't want to give it all to government, not in Chicago. The best that would happen is that they would have a huge argument over deserved it most. And believe it or not, some Chicago politicians have been known to pocket it, when not making their own side deals on private enterprises. Many of us cheer when the wealthy get hammered. What if it were you?
If I had “a lot” of money, I would not give it “all” away (and no system of taxation is requiring that, last I checked). But I would certainly be willing to kick in my fair share or more, and if some of that went to other human being, say, to provide shelter, or medical care, or food—you know, those basic things that so many people lack— that would be OK with me. Agree, no one trusts government to spend wisely— but what other system do we have? It’s incumbent upon all of us to make it better, not just shrug our shoulders and hoard what’s “ours” to the clear detriment of so many who are less fortunate. There’s only so much money one person really needs. I’d like to think I would be very, very generous and live my own life modestly no matter how much money I had.
You make good points. Some of the richer ones such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have been known to say that the rich need to pay more to help out. Actually, besides morality, there is practicality involved. How many houses can a person live in at the same time? How many cars can one drive? Unless a rich person is planning to save it all for his/ her descendants, they might as well use it or something. My point is that we shouldn't be trying, by law, to take it away from them simply because we can or think they don't deserve it. There are people in life that have chosen to make money. That's not illegal. Depending on how they do it, it's not immoral. We shouldn't be trying to dissuade people from doing this. Sometimes their methods and ideas actually benefit society. In real life, taking too much from them means they will take their riches elsewhere where there is less effort to take it from them. Then locally, no one any longer benefits. That's one of the reasons so many relicate to places like Texas and Florida. You and I can be judgemental and say they are greedy and these states don't provide the same level of services and education. But then we would be denying reality.
Ah yes. The law of unintended consequences. So true! I am, however, absolutely judgmental about tax avoiders who claim FL residence but own huge homes in, say, Lake Forest, and who BRAG about not paying taxes in IL. I have heard this with my own ears, so I’m not making it up. There’s got to be a balance. I do not see a problem with getting rid of the SS cap, or at least raising it substantially—and ALL income ought to be included, not just wages, which is classist and regressive, IMHO. But I’m no expert, for sure!! I do think if you are “that” rich, it shouldn’t be a big hardship to kick in a little more, and the only way to make that happen as fairly as possible is by laws that apply uniformly, to everyone. (And don’t even get me started on our Byzantine tax laws, which are 100% designed to help really rich people and corporations avoid paying their fair share!)
Yay I voted for all the tweets with the most votes.
As for March Madness, I totally ignore it, as I totally ignore all basketball. I really hate it! It's the only so-called sport where your commit a foul, in an attempt to improve your score. They need top change the rules, so that the team that shoots the free throws after being fouled, also gets to keep the ball, instead of the opponent getting the ball. Then the game might make sense! Plus I love Jimmy Kimmel's claim that Gonzaga doesn't exist! I wonder if Bing Crosby going to that very Jesuit school is why he beat the shit out of his four oldest sons regularly. All became drunks & all died early, deaths after terrible lives because of his violent attacks on them! I knew guys who went to Catholic high schools around Chicago run by various orders of priests & they all told me they too were beaten by the priest for minor infractions. That was back in the 1960s.
Regarding the concern about creating an echo chamber, I believe that linking to articles with a progressive viewpoint doesn't necessarily deter individuals with moderate or conservative views. These articles can simply be overlooked by those who prefer not to engage with them. Eric Zorn's contributions significantly shape the publication's tone. He has consistently aimed for objectivity and a fresh perspective on every topic, a method that has contributed to maintaining a respectful discourse within the comments section.
However, I must express my disapproval regarding the use of the term "cling" in reference to Italian Americans who oppose the renaming of Columbus Drive in this edition. This choice of word does more than just disagree with their stance; it suggests a kind of emotional fragility and lack of intellectual rigor, which is likely to alienate readers.
Well, seeing that so many Italian Americans' inability to accept the truth about Columbus - and framing it as an attack on their ethnicity - is in fact a kind of emotional fragility and a real lack of intellectual rigor, cling is the right way to frame it.
“Cling” is also good to describe what pseudo political fanatics do when they jump on a bandwagon and get themselves all excited about whatever outlandish idea it is they’re being told to get excited about, in this case, that Columbus was a ruthless barbarian with no redeeming virtues, and whose vestiges must forever be erased from our collective consciousness in the name of all that is pure. This idea might provide comfort for those who feel the need to constantly establish their wokeness street cred and declare their endless purity, but for the rest of us for whom the concept of “nuance” is quite a discernible construct, no such succor is required.
Oh, and as far as those other four names that Eric suggested as alternatives, all very accomplished and commendable to be sure, but the notion that any of them made any contributions to global history or the thrust of human progress that were anything other than a tiny fraction of what Columbus achieved is risible.
I think the scientist, who, along with his graduate student assistants, created the first man made self sustaining nuclear reaction, made a contribution to global history and human progress certainly equal to that of Columbus.
Well, you tell me all I need to know about you by jumping to the nonsensical tirade about "wokeness." I didn't make any suggestion that we erase Columbus from our collective consciousness, that's weird leap and not what anyone is doing. Even the so called "woke" bogeymen in your head. What most people are suggesting is telling the truth about him and not honoring him with statutes. It's a right-wing fantasy that stopping the honoring of men like Columbus or Robert Lee or Stonewall Jackson is "erasing" history. I want all Americans to know who those men were, and the crimes they committed. I also want them to stop being treated like heroes.
I mentioned two Italians in my comment that Eric quoted, that I think are far better people for Italians to honor as examples of the greatness of their ethnic heritage, and also better than Eric's suggestions - Galileo Galilei and Leonardo DaVinci.
Yes, Columbus made an amazing contribution to global history (though I say not to human progress). But so did Hitler, and I don't think anyone is arguing for statues honoring that fucking guy.
If you don’t think that the colonization of the Americas and the founding of our republic should be placed in the category of “human progress”, then there’s nothing I’m going to say that’s going to change your mind. Clearly, you’re one of those people that pretends to think that those events were among the great evils visited upon the human race (hence the ease with which you link Columbus with Hitler), and that’s certainly your right, but there’s something that I’ve always found to be rather curious about those who parrot this line of thought: they never seem to be in any hurry to pull up stakes and return to their ancestral homelands as atonement for the Original Sin of European settlement. Why is that?
While i respect EZ - enough to be a paid subscriber - and agree that his method promotes [if not maintains] respectful discourse, i'm afraid i disagree with your assertion that EZ '... has consistently aimed for objectivity ...'. EZ has his own opinions, and articulates them well. but many are far from objective - and i think he would agree. he has acknowledged being a progressive, and he shares his progressive opinions [hey, it's his substack!].
EZ's opinions are almost always articulate, usually thoughtful - but seldom objective.
Thanks for the kind words! I try to come at each issue with an objective mindset -- that is "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations," as the dictionary defines "objective." So that, when, say, the progressives/liberals are expressing a strong view I don't automatically embrace that but I look for the evidence and examine the ramifications. My conclusions sometimes disappoint my friends on the left.
But I concede that it's almost impossible for any of us to set aside "personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations" and approach every issue totally fresh. My goal tends more to be approaching each topic fairly.
I think this is an excellent self-assessment and that you are quite successful in your goal of fairmindedness. It is why I enjoy your writing, even when it sets my hair on fire. We all have philosophical foundations and experiences that inform our views and sharing them informs entertaining and useful discussion. You provide a great service to your tribe.
Objectivity is a relative term. Everyone's perception is influenced by prior belief, but some people are more objective than others. EZ's welcomes diverse opinions, and I have never seen him disqualify someone's input solely due to their opinion. That is why I reacted to his use of the term "cling".
Any, of course, people individually are going to choose the communities and states to live that best reflect their values and preferences.
But collectively, the US population is making a very strong statement however. The largest population loss states in 2023 by a fair amount were bright blue New York, California and Illinois. Conversely, the two states that were by far the largest population gainers were robust red Texas with almost 500,000 population gain in just 2023, and Florida with over 350,000 population gain. People voting with their feet.
It does seem people are voting with their feet, but I am curious of Lynne's statement above your comment. Are the red states taking more money from the federal government so they can keep their own taxes disproportionately low? They criticize the blue states tax rates but are more than happy to take federal dollars from those tax rates in the blue states. I wish Eric could publish the numbers in a future issue.
This does remind me of the story of Ron DeSantis voting no to provide the state of New York with disaster relief funds when serving in Congress. Then while governor he came begging the federal government for disaster relief money. This example seems to define Ron DeSantis perfectly.
I do not think the numbers or intent of federal spending programs support the notion that some states can 'free ride'. Very few state and local spending programs are predominantly funded by the federal government. The major categories of federal spending include:
1) Social Security and Medicare (34% of federal spending)- the $1.6 trillion in payroll taxes, plus deficit spending, goes directly to pay the $2.1 trillion in payouts to beneficiaries. Retirees are spread pretty uniformly across states, with about 16% of the population in total and by state.
2) Medicaid and Income support programs (16% of federal spending) - $1 trillion of federal spending has base spending for benefits. Then some programs like Medicaid have additional payments that match the state payments. So higher spending states get more.
3) Discretionary (15% of spending) - $917 billion, goes to transportation, veterans' health care, education, and grants. Generally follows population with most grant/transportation spending requiring matching state spending. Only 7.8% of education funding is federal. It is allocated by population and income level, so it skews to low-income areas. California and New York are the top recipients, followed by Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Combined, California, New York and Pennsylvania receive more than twice as much as Texas and Florida combined.
4) Defense (13% of spending) - $805 billion, goes to locations with military bases and defense contractors. Not related to state spending. Mostly coastal states and split pretty evenly between red and blue.
5) Interest on the Debt (11% of spending) - $660 billion, not related to states.
6) Federal pensions (8% of spending) - $500 billion follows the person, not related to state spending.
7) the remaining 3% is miscellaneous and includes disaster relief. Hard to believe any state intentionally wants to attract this spending. The spending is also not predicated on state spending.
Finally, federal personal and business taxes do not vary by the primary residence location of the person or corporation. The states do not pay taxes to the federal government. The federal tax system does subsidize high income people in high tax states and high average mortgage amount states. The top states for this subsidy are New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, and Illinois. These subsidies are very low in low tax, lower mortgage amount states.
I'm not sure how this negates the fact that blue states are donor states of federal money, i.e. pay more in federal taxes than they receive from the federal government, and the red states are donee states. Thus has been a consistent pattern for decades. The latest tax code which limits the amount of local taxes which can be deducted from the federal tax return (such as property and sales taxes) was clearly directed at blue states. It would be interesting to do a demographic study of the population loss of blue states cited . Illinois has lost population but Chicago and suburbs has not. The Chicago population has become younger. It appears that as the population ages, they move to lower priced states with warmer climates, while younger people want what a vibrant city has to offer? Just a speculation. I happen to be in Arizona with some Chicago expats and they certainly meet these criteria😄. As an aside, Arizona is helping to keep its taxes low by drastically cutting funding to its flagship university. Old people 1, young people 0.
And now everyone that moved to Flor-i-duh is now discovering they can't get home insurance at a reasonable price, due to recurring hurricanes which keep destroying the poorly built homes in Flor-i-duh, due to decades of lax building codes, which have only been strengthened in the last few years. Plus the climate in most of that state is too hot in summer, too much humidity there, along with alligators eating people, large snakes everywhere, due to morons getting tired of feeding pythons they thought were cute, but when they got too big & needed too much food, so they just dumped them in a swamp & now they're everywhere, eating up all the native animals.
And Texas is now having electrical supply problem, due to the idiots in their state government who insist that Texas be its own electrical grid & not connect to either of the two main grids in this country, so when they're short of power, as happened a few years ago, due to their utilities being so incompetent they didn't bother to think of winterizing their equipment, they couldn't buy power from the other grids, which had plenty to sell!
Yep, and even with all of these things, people are leaving New York, California and Illinois in droves and flocking to them. Your opinion is very valid for you, but people are indeed voting with their feet by the hundreds of thousands.
I escaped Illinois upon retirement a few years ago, live in a nicer home on a much larger property, and pay about 25% of the property taxes I was paying in the People's Republic of Evanston, and about 50% of the sales tax. And guess what? The schools here are a great, the roads and infrastructure are beautiful and there is a very high level of services provided.
The too-big-Big 10 solution: limit your interest to the pre-expansion Big 10, exactly 10 of them. Goodbye Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Nebraska. If that feels too small, add original member U of C when they’re competing for Division III glory.
I am a big fan of ranked voting. Why not use that method for your March Madness Tweets? It would help people understand the system and why it is a good idea.
In fact, Eric, here's your perfect opportunity to create a rank choice vote for all your readers to choose what form of voting they want for the Tweet & Visual Tweet of the Week contests. :-)
Please. No more streets named after Roman Catholic clerics. Fermi and Chicago can claim the first chain reaction but Fermi had to be dragged kicking and screaming from Columbia to do it here so not a willing Chicagoan. Of course, Columbus never got here at all. I love the Wabash Avenue suggestion.
"The problem was that America didn't really have any American history distinct from that of Britain upon which it could draw. There were the Native Americans – and indeed many Native American place names dot the map east of Ohio – and some admiration for the French who had aided us during the Revolution (Lafayette and King Louis both became popular naming inspirations). There were also living American icons, primarily Washington, but one could only name so many things after a man who was still living and around whom many feared the development of a cult of personality. So that is how Americans at the time seized upon an Italian mariner of bewilderingly little talent, sailing for the Spanish crown, as a national icon. Columbus, who had very rightly been completely ignored and forgotten in this country up to the American Revolution, suddenly became America's founding saint for the sole reason that he was untainted by any association with England."
I respectfully disagree with you David. The judge's opinion was equal to the absurdity of the request. The petitioner is abusing the court for political gain and is not making a serious argument. If the petitioner didn't know that he should have and he got what he deserved. Good for the judge for using a steamroller of humor when plain legalese would have sufficed.
Richard Mills, a Justice of the Illinois Appellate Court, and later a Judge on the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, used to put pithy quotations or subtly humorous vignettes at the beginning of his judicial opinions.
1) Kanye - even before he lost it, I couldn't get behind the hype. Creative at times, but not 'genius'.
2) Bob Fioretti - showed some promise a few years ago, now just throwing his hat in any ring seemingly without consistent beliefs. Long past time to take a hint, there are other ways to support your community.
Did a little research and Italy did not exist as a nation state until 1861.
So the concept of Columbus being “Italian” does not hold water. There was no Italy during his lifetime, Italy was made up of city states.
If you asked Columbus if he was “Italian”, he would scratch his head and say no I am from Genoa.
Next, Columbus did all his explorations for Spain and wrote about his exploits in Spanish.
He lived in Spain or in Spanish colonies (which he founded and claimed for Spain) for the rest of his life.
Reading his biography, it does not appear he ever reestablished an identity or relationship with Genoa once he left. And he NEVER considered himself Italian in any way because that concept did not exist.
So to be accurate, one must say he was Genoan by birth and then explored for Spain and lived out his remaining life in Spain or Spanish colonies. He was in no way Italian, that label came retroactively via propaganda.
Eric, the other folks you suggest to replace Columbus all make sense. They were outstanding people who identify as Italian or Italian American because the concept of Italian now existed in their lifetimes.
And I also agree with the folks who point out Columbus was kind of a “Smuck” who did little or nothing to make the world better. He probably killed way more people than Al Capone, a man and legacy most Italians want to forget.
So yes, change the name to a real Italian who contributed positive things to this world.
I love Rick Weiland's suggestion for ranked-choice voting for Tweets and Visual Tweets. I, too, find myself not keen on "meh" match-ups. But then again, it strays from the "bracket" idea of the contest - which is derived from March Madness. Nevertheless, I'd rather the "meh" Tweets drop out as early as possible.
When the city says they are looking for a tax (or tax increase) to serve a particular purpose, it is always a political charade. Pensions, kids, homelessness, mental health, failing bridges, etc are just conveniently appealing props. Telling the story better won't help, because it is still just a story. Many voters no longer believe these fairy stories and look to the total tax burden and question total spending. The issue for Johnson is to propose taxes that make sense in the context of the $16.7 billion dollar city budget.
Fermi is my choice. While he may have wanted to stay ay Columbia University in New York City in the early 1940s, he did move to Chicago at that time. His most significant contributions to science took place when he was in Chicago, and he died in Chicago in 1954. He and his team at the University of Chicago achieved the first man made self sustaining nuclear reaction, which changed the world forever. (And like another great scientist, Marie Slodowska (Curie), his experiments with radioactivity probably led to his early demise.) I also like the story about his conversation with other physicists that gave rise to what today is called the Fermi Paradox. “But where is everybody?” And I also like the story of his prescient warning to Louis Slotin about the cavalier way in which Slotin conducted tests to verify the closeness to criticality of the plutonium core which later became known as the “demon core.” Instead of using shims between the hemispherical neutron reflectors, Slotin used a flat tipped screwdriver to keep the neutron reflectors apart. Fermi allegedly warned Slotin that he and others would be “dead within a year” if they continued to perform the test in that manner. And Fermi was right. See the Wikipedia entries below for the Fermi Paradox and the Demon Core. So Fermi Drive?
EZ provided a good example of entrenched government inefficiency in the election boards. There are many more. They rarely get enough attention, and even when they do, they are shrugged off by politicians.
The story of excessive police overtime has been around for a very long time and was one of the campaign issues for Mayor Lightfoot in her successful run for office. When she ran the overtime bill for police was $150 million. In 2023 it was $293 million. One might think that excess overtime is from insufficient staffing. Mayor Johnson cut total police staffing in his budget, and no one asked how less staff could have less overtime.
The city has over $6 billion in uncollected fees and fines. It is hard to believe that they are all uncollectable, or unjust, when it took the Sun-Times a few phone calls to collect over $1 million.
Two thoughts. It sounds from all the comments here like the referendum failed because of who the mayor is. On Myerson: has Eric ever heard a complaint about including comments and articles from the right? It makes you wonder which side is open minded.
The Bring Chicago Home initiative was propagandized in the same way as the eminently sensible idea of making Illinois' income tax system progressive (as is the federal income tax). First, you warn of dire but cloudy consequences for the majority of people who do not have high TAXABLE incomes (none of which wash at the federal tevel). Second, you go full Grover Norquist anti-tax--"they" will waste it, starve the government, et bloody cetera. Eh voila! (if you will pardon my French).
Sorry about the shouty capital letters. The anti-any-tax people always omit the "taxable" giving the impression that higher tax rates apply to all dollars earned,
I read that the dems are floating the idea of dropping the tax cap on Social Security payments and raising the amount paid to Medicare to 5%. A self-employed or small business owner in CA would be paying 37% in Federal Tax, 13.3% in State tax, 12% in Social Security tax, and 5% in Medicare tax on "all dollars earned" above $600,000. Thats over 2/3rds of every incremental dollar. Then you add in property taxes, 8.85% in CA state and local sales taxes, 78 cents per gallon tax on gas, liquor taxes, etc. Illinois/Chicago are not far behind...
I don't know, if that's a "fair share", but these business owners would increase their take home by over 40% by just moving to any of the states with no or little income tax and you are seeing this happen across the country.
https://www.pionline.com/legislation/bill-reintroduced-eliminate-federal-taxes-social-security-benefits-extend-solvency
I was writing about the flat tax on taxable incomes in IL. What the "plight" of someone paying a lot of tax on taxable income over $600,000 in CA has to do with the matter defeats me.
Republicans always talk about the Social Security "crisis" and always oppose wealthier people contributing more by raising the cap on on Social Security payments--one of the sensible and fair ways of averting the crisis. they deplore.
I was just trying to show the bigger picture on taxation and used CA as an example of a progressive tax. Progressive tax is harder for a state to do because it is so easy to relocate. If the progressive tax had passed, the IL number would have been 62% compared to CA 67%, but with higher sales taxes.
People may say good riddance to Ken Griffin and Citadel, but their move alone to Florida cost Illinois/Chicago hundreds of millions.
Blame it on the billionaires, but if you took every penny from all 700 billionaires in the US, you would pay down the national debt by about 15%.
We have a government spending problem and we are running out of ways to fund it.
https://www.efinancialcareers.com/news/citadel-miami
My income in the later years of working was above the SS tax cap. I am very far from being a billionaire, barely a thousandaire. I thought it was unfair then and still think it is. The "tax all the billionaires out of existence" is a MAGA straw man not a serious argument. 'Nuff said.
People see what they want to see... First, I was using the billionaire total net worth as a comparison to the national debt and government spending, no reference at all to "tax all the billionaires out of existence". (I hope the quotation marks were not referring to me). Second, I hope the "Republican" and "MAGA" references were not directed at me, either.
There are other people who think government spending is out of control. Every individual and every company must pay their taxes, pay their bills and make hard choices on ways to be fiscally responsible. Why not governments? Cheerio!
David O, you speak rationally. your opponent in this debate does not.
I would favor not eliminating the cap completely but raising the maximum taxable income from the current $168,000 to perhaps $180,000. That would bring in more money without unduly "soaking the rich," so to speak.
I wish! Base goes up every year, Beth. Over $35,000 over last 5 years. That's an extra $4,000+ that every self employed person making $168,000 pays from 5 years ago. I hope that is what the dems are positioning for, though. Not unlimited, but a bigger annual jump. Let's say bigger is a $400,000 max. That would make a self employed couple making $400,000 combined only pay an extra $27,840 each year. :)
I would favor applying the SS tax to all income of any kind and eliminating the tax paid by the employer. The employer tax is a disincentive to hiring, and disproportionately affects the self employed.
I have NEVER understood the cap on social security income. Why wouldn't someone making $XXX or $XXXX etc. be subject to taxes on all their income when someone making $XX has every single dollar taxed?
A further injustice is that it is only WAGES that are taxed not that passive investment income that keeps the 1% at the top.
It has never seemed fair. But every regressive tax - i.e. flat tax - is unfair to the folks at the bottom.
Probably has something to do with the Social Security Act of 1935. FDR signed an act that would "address the long-range problem of economic security for the aged through a contributory system in which the workers themselves contributed to their own future retirement benefit by making regular payments into a joint fund." It was an insurance/retirement program, not a welfare program. I would love it if those $XXXX people would fund my 401K, but it's a retirement plan, not a welfare plan.
I think you are correct about the original theory, but it has evolved to a more comprehensive program with the addition of disability benefits, benefits to children of deceased parents, etc. When the decision was made to provide these benefits, they used this existing vehicle rather than create more bureaucracies. There's no denying this is now a redistribution program, which makes it bad in the minds of many conservative idealogues. Before SS and Medicare, about 75% of our senior citizens were below the poverty line. Now, 75% are above it.
Totally agree on what it has become, Jim. Some clarification though. Over 60% of all Americans were below the poverty line in the early 30’s. You also have other factors helping today's number such as public/private pensions, 401K's, IRA's, unions, an economy 10 times the size with a population less than 3 times the size, dual incomes and a rising retirement age.
It appears you, and anyone who agrees with you, doesn't understand Social Security. It's a defined benefit program, not a means-tested entitlement program.
Just as the taxed income is capped for SS, the benefit is capped. If you want 100% of income to be taxed to support social security, the rules of SS as it currently exists would require paying the top earners a commensurate retirement benefit.
Sounds like what you want is SS to be a means-tested entitlement program - good luck with that. But at least know what you're asking for, and acknowledge it accordingly.
I like your reply. With all due respect to Michael Gorman, who backs up his points with numbers, there comes a point when Democrtats must learn that more taxes is not the answer to everything, not even when people are wealthy. If this issue had passed, then what? What's next on the agenda? There's never enough money for all the demands. More special education teachers, nurses, and librarians in the schools. More street and buildings reparations. Replacement of lead pipes. The list is endless. Need I remind people of outstanding debts such as public pensions? People have a right to be wealthy. How many of you would turn it down if someone offered you a lot of money? If you received it, how many of you would simply give it all away? I freely admit I wouldn't. And no, Micheal, I wouldn't want to give it all to government, not in Chicago. The best that would happen is that they would have a huge argument over deserved it most. And believe it or not, some Chicago politicians have been known to pocket it, when not making their own side deals on private enterprises. Many of us cheer when the wealthy get hammered. What if it were you?
If I had “a lot” of money, I would not give it “all” away (and no system of taxation is requiring that, last I checked). But I would certainly be willing to kick in my fair share or more, and if some of that went to other human being, say, to provide shelter, or medical care, or food—you know, those basic things that so many people lack— that would be OK with me. Agree, no one trusts government to spend wisely— but what other system do we have? It’s incumbent upon all of us to make it better, not just shrug our shoulders and hoard what’s “ours” to the clear detriment of so many who are less fortunate. There’s only so much money one person really needs. I’d like to think I would be very, very generous and live my own life modestly no matter how much money I had.
You make good points. Some of the richer ones such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have been known to say that the rich need to pay more to help out. Actually, besides morality, there is practicality involved. How many houses can a person live in at the same time? How many cars can one drive? Unless a rich person is planning to save it all for his/ her descendants, they might as well use it or something. My point is that we shouldn't be trying, by law, to take it away from them simply because we can or think they don't deserve it. There are people in life that have chosen to make money. That's not illegal. Depending on how they do it, it's not immoral. We shouldn't be trying to dissuade people from doing this. Sometimes their methods and ideas actually benefit society. In real life, taking too much from them means they will take their riches elsewhere where there is less effort to take it from them. Then locally, no one any longer benefits. That's one of the reasons so many relicate to places like Texas and Florida. You and I can be judgemental and say they are greedy and these states don't provide the same level of services and education. But then we would be denying reality.
Ah yes. The law of unintended consequences. So true! I am, however, absolutely judgmental about tax avoiders who claim FL residence but own huge homes in, say, Lake Forest, and who BRAG about not paying taxes in IL. I have heard this with my own ears, so I’m not making it up. There’s got to be a balance. I do not see a problem with getting rid of the SS cap, or at least raising it substantially—and ALL income ought to be included, not just wages, which is classist and regressive, IMHO. But I’m no expert, for sure!! I do think if you are “that” rich, it shouldn’t be a big hardship to kick in a little more, and the only way to make that happen as fairly as possible is by laws that apply uniformly, to everyone. (And don’t even get me started on our Byzantine tax laws, which are 100% designed to help really rich people and corporations avoid paying their fair share!)
Yay I voted for all the tweets with the most votes.
As for March Madness, I totally ignore it, as I totally ignore all basketball. I really hate it! It's the only so-called sport where your commit a foul, in an attempt to improve your score. They need top change the rules, so that the team that shoots the free throws after being fouled, also gets to keep the ball, instead of the opponent getting the ball. Then the game might make sense! Plus I love Jimmy Kimmel's claim that Gonzaga doesn't exist! I wonder if Bing Crosby going to that very Jesuit school is why he beat the shit out of his four oldest sons regularly. All became drunks & all died early, deaths after terrible lives because of his violent attacks on them! I knew guys who went to Catholic high schools around Chicago run by various orders of priests & they all told me they too were beaten by the priest for minor infractions. That was back in the 1960s.
Regarding the concern about creating an echo chamber, I believe that linking to articles with a progressive viewpoint doesn't necessarily deter individuals with moderate or conservative views. These articles can simply be overlooked by those who prefer not to engage with them. Eric Zorn's contributions significantly shape the publication's tone. He has consistently aimed for objectivity and a fresh perspective on every topic, a method that has contributed to maintaining a respectful discourse within the comments section.
However, I must express my disapproval regarding the use of the term "cling" in reference to Italian Americans who oppose the renaming of Columbus Drive in this edition. This choice of word does more than just disagree with their stance; it suggests a kind of emotional fragility and lack of intellectual rigor, which is likely to alienate readers.
Well, seeing that so many Italian Americans' inability to accept the truth about Columbus - and framing it as an attack on their ethnicity - is in fact a kind of emotional fragility and a real lack of intellectual rigor, cling is the right way to frame it.
“Cling” is also good to describe what pseudo political fanatics do when they jump on a bandwagon and get themselves all excited about whatever outlandish idea it is they’re being told to get excited about, in this case, that Columbus was a ruthless barbarian with no redeeming virtues, and whose vestiges must forever be erased from our collective consciousness in the name of all that is pure. This idea might provide comfort for those who feel the need to constantly establish their wokeness street cred and declare their endless purity, but for the rest of us for whom the concept of “nuance” is quite a discernible construct, no such succor is required.
Oh, and as far as those other four names that Eric suggested as alternatives, all very accomplished and commendable to be sure, but the notion that any of them made any contributions to global history or the thrust of human progress that were anything other than a tiny fraction of what Columbus achieved is risible.
I think the scientist, who, along with his graduate student assistants, created the first man made self sustaining nuclear reaction, made a contribution to global history and human progress certainly equal to that of Columbus.
Well, you tell me all I need to know about you by jumping to the nonsensical tirade about "wokeness." I didn't make any suggestion that we erase Columbus from our collective consciousness, that's weird leap and not what anyone is doing. Even the so called "woke" bogeymen in your head. What most people are suggesting is telling the truth about him and not honoring him with statutes. It's a right-wing fantasy that stopping the honoring of men like Columbus or Robert Lee or Stonewall Jackson is "erasing" history. I want all Americans to know who those men were, and the crimes they committed. I also want them to stop being treated like heroes.
I mentioned two Italians in my comment that Eric quoted, that I think are far better people for Italians to honor as examples of the greatness of their ethnic heritage, and also better than Eric's suggestions - Galileo Galilei and Leonardo DaVinci.
Yes, Columbus made an amazing contribution to global history (though I say not to human progress). But so did Hitler, and I don't think anyone is arguing for statues honoring that fucking guy.
If you don’t think that the colonization of the Americas and the founding of our republic should be placed in the category of “human progress”, then there’s nothing I’m going to say that’s going to change your mind. Clearly, you’re one of those people that pretends to think that those events were among the great evils visited upon the human race (hence the ease with which you link Columbus with Hitler), and that’s certainly your right, but there’s something that I’ve always found to be rather curious about those who parrot this line of thought: they never seem to be in any hurry to pull up stakes and return to their ancestral homelands as atonement for the Original Sin of European settlement. Why is that?
While i respect EZ - enough to be a paid subscriber - and agree that his method promotes [if not maintains] respectful discourse, i'm afraid i disagree with your assertion that EZ '... has consistently aimed for objectivity ...'. EZ has his own opinions, and articulates them well. but many are far from objective - and i think he would agree. he has acknowledged being a progressive, and he shares his progressive opinions [hey, it's his substack!].
EZ's opinions are almost always articulate, usually thoughtful - but seldom objective.
Thanks for the kind words! I try to come at each issue with an objective mindset -- that is "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations," as the dictionary defines "objective." So that, when, say, the progressives/liberals are expressing a strong view I don't automatically embrace that but I look for the evidence and examine the ramifications. My conclusions sometimes disappoint my friends on the left.
But I concede that it's almost impossible for any of us to set aside "personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations" and approach every issue totally fresh. My goal tends more to be approaching each topic fairly.
I think this is an excellent self-assessment and that you are quite successful in your goal of fairmindedness. It is why I enjoy your writing, even when it sets my hair on fire. We all have philosophical foundations and experiences that inform our views and sharing them informs entertaining and useful discussion. You provide a great service to your tribe.
Objectivity is a relative term. Everyone's perception is influenced by prior belief, but some people are more objective than others. EZ's welcomes diverse opinions, and I have never seen him disqualify someone's input solely due to their opinion. That is why I reacted to his use of the term "cling".
By the way, even though I dig at you for defending Columbus' legacy, I absolutely love the first part of your comment.
I’d choose a blue state over a red state in a heartbeat. Just sayin.
Yep, and they keep their taxes low by sucking up federal money provided by blue states. See also porkmeister Richard Shelby from Alabama.
Any, of course, people individually are going to choose the communities and states to live that best reflect their values and preferences.
But collectively, the US population is making a very strong statement however. The largest population loss states in 2023 by a fair amount were bright blue New York, California and Illinois. Conversely, the two states that were by far the largest population gainers were robust red Texas with almost 500,000 population gain in just 2023, and Florida with over 350,000 population gain. People voting with their feet.
It does seem people are voting with their feet, but I am curious of Lynne's statement above your comment. Are the red states taking more money from the federal government so they can keep their own taxes disproportionately low? They criticize the blue states tax rates but are more than happy to take federal dollars from those tax rates in the blue states. I wish Eric could publish the numbers in a future issue.
This does remind me of the story of Ron DeSantis voting no to provide the state of New York with disaster relief funds when serving in Congress. Then while governor he came begging the federal government for disaster relief money. This example seems to define Ron DeSantis perfectly.
I do not think the numbers or intent of federal spending programs support the notion that some states can 'free ride'. Very few state and local spending programs are predominantly funded by the federal government. The major categories of federal spending include:
1) Social Security and Medicare (34% of federal spending)- the $1.6 trillion in payroll taxes, plus deficit spending, goes directly to pay the $2.1 trillion in payouts to beneficiaries. Retirees are spread pretty uniformly across states, with about 16% of the population in total and by state.
2) Medicaid and Income support programs (16% of federal spending) - $1 trillion of federal spending has base spending for benefits. Then some programs like Medicaid have additional payments that match the state payments. So higher spending states get more.
3) Discretionary (15% of spending) - $917 billion, goes to transportation, veterans' health care, education, and grants. Generally follows population with most grant/transportation spending requiring matching state spending. Only 7.8% of education funding is federal. It is allocated by population and income level, so it skews to low-income areas. California and New York are the top recipients, followed by Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Combined, California, New York and Pennsylvania receive more than twice as much as Texas and Florida combined.
4) Defense (13% of spending) - $805 billion, goes to locations with military bases and defense contractors. Not related to state spending. Mostly coastal states and split pretty evenly between red and blue.
5) Interest on the Debt (11% of spending) - $660 billion, not related to states.
6) Federal pensions (8% of spending) - $500 billion follows the person, not related to state spending.
7) the remaining 3% is miscellaneous and includes disaster relief. Hard to believe any state intentionally wants to attract this spending. The spending is also not predicated on state spending.
Finally, federal personal and business taxes do not vary by the primary residence location of the person or corporation. The states do not pay taxes to the federal government. The federal tax system does subsidize high income people in high tax states and high average mortgage amount states. The top states for this subsidy are New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, and Illinois. These subsidies are very low in low tax, lower mortgage amount states.
I'm not sure how this negates the fact that blue states are donor states of federal money, i.e. pay more in federal taxes than they receive from the federal government, and the red states are donee states. Thus has been a consistent pattern for decades. The latest tax code which limits the amount of local taxes which can be deducted from the federal tax return (such as property and sales taxes) was clearly directed at blue states. It would be interesting to do a demographic study of the population loss of blue states cited . Illinois has lost population but Chicago and suburbs has not. The Chicago population has become younger. It appears that as the population ages, they move to lower priced states with warmer climates, while younger people want what a vibrant city has to offer? Just a speculation. I happen to be in Arizona with some Chicago expats and they certainly meet these criteria😄. As an aside, Arizona is helping to keep its taxes low by drastically cutting funding to its flagship university. Old people 1, young people 0.
And now everyone that moved to Flor-i-duh is now discovering they can't get home insurance at a reasonable price, due to recurring hurricanes which keep destroying the poorly built homes in Flor-i-duh, due to decades of lax building codes, which have only been strengthened in the last few years. Plus the climate in most of that state is too hot in summer, too much humidity there, along with alligators eating people, large snakes everywhere, due to morons getting tired of feeding pythons they thought were cute, but when they got too big & needed too much food, so they just dumped them in a swamp & now they're everywhere, eating up all the native animals.
And Texas is now having electrical supply problem, due to the idiots in their state government who insist that Texas be its own electrical grid & not connect to either of the two main grids in this country, so when they're short of power, as happened a few years ago, due to their utilities being so incompetent they didn't bother to think of winterizing their equipment, they couldn't buy power from the other grids, which had plenty to sell!
Yep, and even with all of these things, people are leaving New York, California and Illinois in droves and flocking to them. Your opinion is very valid for you, but people are indeed voting with their feet by the hundreds of thousands.
I escaped Illinois upon retirement a few years ago, live in a nicer home on a much larger property, and pay about 25% of the property taxes I was paying in the People's Republic of Evanston, and about 50% of the sales tax. And guess what? The schools here are a great, the roads and infrastructure are beautiful and there is a very high level of services provided.
The too-big-Big 10 solution: limit your interest to the pre-expansion Big 10, exactly 10 of them. Goodbye Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Nebraska. If that feels too small, add original member U of C when they’re competing for Division III glory.
I am a big fan of ranked voting. Why not use that method for your March Madness Tweets? It would help people understand the system and why it is a good idea.
Great idea!
In fact, Eric, here's your perfect opportunity to create a rank choice vote for all your readers to choose what form of voting they want for the Tweet & Visual Tweet of the Week contests. :-)
excellent idea!
Please. No more streets named after Roman Catholic clerics. Fermi and Chicago can claim the first chain reaction but Fermi had to be dragged kicking and screaming from Columbia to do it here so not a willing Chicagoan. Of course, Columbus never got here at all. I love the Wabash Avenue suggestion.
Well, his wife Laura stayed here after he died, so she liked it here!
About that Columbus thing:
"The problem was that America didn't really have any American history distinct from that of Britain upon which it could draw. There were the Native Americans – and indeed many Native American place names dot the map east of Ohio – and some admiration for the French who had aided us during the Revolution (Lafayette and King Louis both became popular naming inspirations). There were also living American icons, primarily Washington, but one could only name so many things after a man who was still living and around whom many feared the development of a cult of personality. So that is how Americans at the time seized upon an Italian mariner of bewilderingly little talent, sailing for the Spanish crown, as a national icon. Columbus, who had very rightly been completely ignored and forgotten in this country up to the American Revolution, suddenly became America's founding saint for the sole reason that he was untainted by any association with England."
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2016/02/26/npf-hail-columbia/
Judge Seeger's take on Dr. Seuss was funny but completely inappropriate in a judicial opinion.
I respectfully disagree with you David. The judge's opinion was equal to the absurdity of the request. The petitioner is abusing the court for political gain and is not making a serious argument. If the petitioner didn't know that he should have and he got what he deserved. Good for the judge for using a steamroller of humor when plain legalese would have sufficed.
Richard Mills, a Justice of the Illinois Appellate Court, and later a Judge on the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, used to put pithy quotations or subtly humorous vignettes at the beginning of his judicial opinions.
Mooney nominees:
1) Kanye - even before he lost it, I couldn't get behind the hype. Creative at times, but not 'genius'.
2) Bob Fioretti - showed some promise a few years ago, now just throwing his hat in any ring seemingly without consistent beliefs. Long past time to take a hint, there are other ways to support your community.
Did a little research and Italy did not exist as a nation state until 1861.
So the concept of Columbus being “Italian” does not hold water. There was no Italy during his lifetime, Italy was made up of city states.
If you asked Columbus if he was “Italian”, he would scratch his head and say no I am from Genoa.
Next, Columbus did all his explorations for Spain and wrote about his exploits in Spanish.
He lived in Spain or in Spanish colonies (which he founded and claimed for Spain) for the rest of his life.
Reading his biography, it does not appear he ever reestablished an identity or relationship with Genoa once he left. And he NEVER considered himself Italian in any way because that concept did not exist.
So to be accurate, one must say he was Genoan by birth and then explored for Spain and lived out his remaining life in Spain or Spanish colonies. He was in no way Italian, that label came retroactively via propaganda.
Eric, the other folks you suggest to replace Columbus all make sense. They were outstanding people who identify as Italian or Italian American because the concept of Italian now existed in their lifetimes.
And I also agree with the folks who point out Columbus was kind of a “Smuck” who did little or nothing to make the world better. He probably killed way more people than Al Capone, a man and legacy most Italians want to forget.
So yes, change the name to a real Italian who contributed positive things to this world.
I love Rick Weiland's suggestion for ranked-choice voting for Tweets and Visual Tweets. I, too, find myself not keen on "meh" match-ups. But then again, it strays from the "bracket" idea of the contest - which is derived from March Madness. Nevertheless, I'd rather the "meh" Tweets drop out as early as possible.
When the city says they are looking for a tax (or tax increase) to serve a particular purpose, it is always a political charade. Pensions, kids, homelessness, mental health, failing bridges, etc are just conveniently appealing props. Telling the story better won't help, because it is still just a story. Many voters no longer believe these fairy stories and look to the total tax burden and question total spending. The issue for Johnson is to propose taxes that make sense in the context of the $16.7 billion dollar city budget.
Fermi is my choice. While he may have wanted to stay ay Columbia University in New York City in the early 1940s, he did move to Chicago at that time. His most significant contributions to science took place when he was in Chicago, and he died in Chicago in 1954. He and his team at the University of Chicago achieved the first man made self sustaining nuclear reaction, which changed the world forever. (And like another great scientist, Marie Slodowska (Curie), his experiments with radioactivity probably led to his early demise.) I also like the story about his conversation with other physicists that gave rise to what today is called the Fermi Paradox. “But where is everybody?” And I also like the story of his prescient warning to Louis Slotin about the cavalier way in which Slotin conducted tests to verify the closeness to criticality of the plutonium core which later became known as the “demon core.” Instead of using shims between the hemispherical neutron reflectors, Slotin used a flat tipped screwdriver to keep the neutron reflectors apart. Fermi allegedly warned Slotin that he and others would be “dead within a year” if they continued to perform the test in that manner. And Fermi was right. See the Wikipedia entries below for the Fermi Paradox and the Demon Core. So Fermi Drive?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
I am a big fan of Fermi, but I think that Woodlawn or Cottage Grove would be better candidates to rename, as they are both near the campus.
EZ provided a good example of entrenched government inefficiency in the election boards. There are many more. They rarely get enough attention, and even when they do, they are shrugged off by politicians.
The story of excessive police overtime has been around for a very long time and was one of the campaign issues for Mayor Lightfoot in her successful run for office. When she ran the overtime bill for police was $150 million. In 2023 it was $293 million. One might think that excess overtime is from insufficient staffing. Mayor Johnson cut total police staffing in his budget, and no one asked how less staff could have less overtime.
https://news.wttw.com/2024/03/12/chicago-spent-524m-overtime-2023-including-293m-police-setting-new-records
The city has over $6 billion in uncollected fees and fines. It is hard to believe that they are all uncollectable, or unjust, when it took the Sun-Times a few phone calls to collect over $1 million.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/the-watchdogs/2024/03/21/chicago-traffic-control-payments-live-nation-united-center-chasse-rehwinkel-c3-biggest-loser-chitown-rising
I also have to wonder how much of the fees are related to police overtime, and if the city has set the fees properly to reflect the costs.
Funny how 'waste and inefficiency' get shrugged off as conservative tropes whenever a new tax or tax increase is proposed.
Two thoughts. It sounds from all the comments here like the referendum failed because of who the mayor is. On Myerson: has Eric ever heard a complaint about including comments and articles from the right? It makes you wonder which side is open minded.