Looking for a 2/2 in Lakeview With Parking for Under $250,000? 3900 N. Pine Grove
This 2-bedroom in the Coronado at 3900 N. Pine Grove in Lakeview is priced at just $239,900.
The building was converted into condos in 2006, at the height of the condo boom.
This particular unit has most of the upgrades that were common in that era including a newer kitchen with cherry cabinets, granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances.
The bathrooms are marble.
It has hardwood floors in the main living area and berber carpet in the bedrooms.
There is an in-unit washer/dryer but no central air. There are wall units instead.
In addition to the two bedrooms, the unit also has a 13×10 den.
This property is in short sale and is now listed $95,100 under the 2006 price.
Is this a deal for someone looking for space and amenities in Lakeview?
Peter Tortorello at Koenig & Strey Real Living has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #903: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, den, no square footage listed
- Sold in August 2006 for $335,000
- Originally listed in June 2011 for $279,900
- Reduced several times
- Currently listed as a “short sale” for $239,900 (includes the parking)
- Assessments of $518 a month (includes heat and pool)
- Taxes of $5769
- No central air- wall units only
- In-unit washer/dryer
- Bedroom #1: 13×11
- Bedroom #2: 13×11
- Bedroom #3: 13×10
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-city-budget-options-20110927,0,4796874.story
The beginning of the end…
“Perhaps at the top of that list is the idea of a 1 percent city income tax, which Ferguson estimates could bring in $500 million a year. The city doesn’t have an income tax, and the Democrats who run state government just raised the Illinois income tax rate from 3 percent to 5 percent in January.”
Buy a condo in the city, pay a 1% tax? Hahhahaa
The exodus from the city has continued almost unabated since 1950 (with the exception of a minor blip in 2000) and they want a 1% income tax? Hahaha
Credit to the realtor for not pulling the “3BR” scam with this one.
Still a generic 2/2 dump more close to Uptown than prime LV.
Not a “deal” until $179.
Its the right side of Irving which makes it Lakeview to me.
“Still a generic 2/2 dump more close to Uptown than prime LV.”
the subject property is a good deal for someone who KNOWS they are going to live here long term. Those people are few and far between. Why would anyone else choose to buy a place like this instead of renting? I am honestly asking… I truly believe we have gotten to a point where, unless something is totally unique or someone has a LOT of money, there is absolutely no point in buying in chicago – no point at all. Renters in chicago do (and will) have the upper hand for years to come.
HD: “The exodus from the city has continued almost unabated since 1950 (with the exception of a minor blip in 2000) and they want a 1% income tax? ”
Christ, that is a supremely simplistic and silly way to look at it. You sound like John Kass. And that wasn’t a compliment.
“Christ, that is a supremely simplistic and silly way to look at it. ”
You sound like the Mayor trying to explain the implementation of a 1% income tax increase upon a smaller and smaller tax base…..
and I don’t mean that as a compliment either.
Historical populations
Census Pop. %±
1840 4,470
—
1850 29,963 570.3%
1860 112,172 274.4%
1870 298,977 166.5%
1880 503,185 68.3%
1890 1,099,850 118.6%
1900 1,698,575 54.4%
1910 2,185,283 28.7%
1920 2,701,705 23.6%
1930 3,376,438 25.0%
1940 3,396,808 0.6%
1950 3,620,962 6.6%
1960 3,550,404 ?1.9%
1970 3,366,957 ?5.2%
1980 3,005,072 ?10.7%
1990 2,783,726 ?7.4%
2000 2,896,016 4.0%
2010 2,695,598 ?6.9%
Before long they’ll be giving away these 2/2’s.
Just like detroit
Historical populations
Census City[115] Metro[116] Region[117]
1820 1,422 N/A N/A
1830 2,222 N/A N/A
1840 9,102 N/A N/A
1850 21,019 N/A N/A
1860 45,619 N/A N/A
1870 79,577 N/A N/A
1880 116,340 N/A N/A
1890 205,877 N/A N/A
1900 285,704 542,452 664,771
1910 465,766 725,064 867,250
1920 993,678 1,426,704 1,639,006
1930 1,568,662 2,325,739 2,655,395
1940 1,623,452 2,544,287 2,911,681
1950 1,849,568 3,219,256 3,700,490
1960 1,670,144 4,012,607 4,660,480
1970 1,514,063 4,490,902 5,289,766
1980 1,203,368 4,387,783 5,203,269
1990 1,027,974 4,266,654 5,095,695
2000 951,270 4,441,551 5,357,538
2010 713,777 4,296,250 5,218,852
HD –
It would also be interesting to see the demographics of the population still living in the city. I would bet that the normalized average income is significantly lower (ie poorer people are staying while the wealthier are heading to Oakbrook/Hinsdale/Winnetka/Kenilworth and other burbs).
Looks like Oak Brook is losing population too, Clio, so there is no stampede out of chicago to there. Oak Brook had a higher percentage leaving over ten years than Chicago.
http://www.cubitplanning.com/city/4381-oak-brook-village-census-2010-population
“ie poorer people are staying while the wealthier are heading to Oakbrook”
This is where they’ve all moved
http://www.cubitplanning.com/city/4423-oswego-village-census-2010-population
This condo building looks like the projects. Depressing.
I would consider leaving the city if they imposed a 1% income tax. I’m already being stretched thin with all the taxes. Plus, it’s not like the city is going to use the money for anything I would ever use. They are just going to give it to other people and services that I don’t care about.
Police, fire, infrastructure… I don’t care about anything else. I especially don’t care about funding workers’ pensions. I’m not going to get a pension, so I don’t see why I should pay for the pensions of others.
If they institute a 1% income tax, Chicago will be on a direct highway to becoming the New Detroit.
The population losses are already worsening, and there’s no way the city can thrive with the current situation. Has anyone been outside the Green Zone lately? Outside the GZ, Chicago has never looked worse.
IMO, a city income tax will be the death knell.
“Buy a condo in the city, pay a 1% tax? Hahhahaa”
You already do. It’s called the Real Property Transfer Tax and ironically I think It’s about 1% or around $10 for every $1,000 in the transfer price. The buyer and seller usually splits this.
The decline in this transfer tax has added to the loss of revenue for Chicago since transactions have been much lower the past 2-3 years than during the boom.
I re-read the first post and I see your’e commenting about the 1% income tax. Anyway, it’s all the same. A small perecentage of Chicago dwellers foots the bill for those with either a very low income job or no job.
I wonder what the heat bills are like in this place? Baseboards are the most expensive and inefficient way to heat there is. I had one brutal experience with them in a vintage rental about 25 years ago, where they were used in order not to deface the beautiful old apartment with furnace ducts. My heat bill for a 1100 sq ft 5 room apt was $250 for a month when it never got below 35 degrees.
This is a rental-grade box that should have stayed rental. The Housing Rampage was a godsend for landlords, giving them a chance to escape from aging rental properties that needed a lot of updating, at a massive profit.
bland and depressing unit and building. sub 200k
There will not be a City income tax. I guarantee.
HD, PLA, your predictions say alot about how you view the world in general and Chicago in particular, and your own respective places and futures within them.
Do you seriously see a 1% city tax causing Chicago to end up looking like Detroit? If you do, then you arguably believe that Chicago is already more akin to Detroit than, say, NYC. Is that the case?
NYC has a city tax. Higher earners hate it. Higher earners would hate Chicago’s city tax too. But folks making $200 or $300k+ aren’t going to make career/housing decisions on account of $2 or $3k (NY’s city tax doesn’t dictate high earners’ housing choices either). And, due largely in part to certain federal and state tax provisions, a city tax would have essentially zero impact on low earners and an immaterial (i.e., it won’t cause them to move) impact on middle income earners.
I’m not advocating a Chicago city tax. But it’s certainly not “the beginning of the end.”
A 1% city income tax would still leave you paying less taxes than you would in the suburbs if you own property. Especially if you move to Lake County where you can’t appeal taxes until you’ve lived in it for 3 Januaries.
It won’t happen, so it’s silly to discuss it. This is the IG’s report for options to close the deficit.
Hahaha. I’m actually bullish on Chicago.
Most of the people leaving the City were poor to lower middle income. The demographics will surprise many suburbanites. There new neighbors are poorer than the people who moved out.
What is with Americans and hating taxes? What baffles me most is how poor people are against even taxing folks that earn over a million. Cannot they see that there is no trickle effect? Tax cuts have been in place for a while now and it has not helped with job creation or the state of the economy. At times of austerity measures, one would think the richest folk can pick a bit of the tab as well.
As for this unit – I see a couple of other 2/2s for sale for quite a lot less, and although this place is a little larger and a little more updated, I’m not sure a buyer is really going to want to pay so much more monthly (assessment and taxes are lower too) for it. And of course the school sucks. I say $180.
“A 1% city income tax would still leave you paying less taxes than you would in the suburbs if you own property.”
Not true – no municipal real estate tax in Oak Brook. 500k condo in chicago = 8-9k in taxes. 500k condo in oak brook = 3k in taxes.
No issues with taxes – just public spending. Good example is the toll authority deciding to raise tolls to build new roads. The demographic is that the population in Chicagoland is steady to slight decline. So why do we need new roads? Pragmatism would be to maintain the ones we have but buildig roads to nowhere does not make much sense. Since 2007 public spending in the area increased 40%. How many of us have personally increased spending that much? My point is that most people are not against paying their fair share as long as those that are using the money are acting responsibly and that has simply not been the case
Oakbrook has VERY low overall property taxes compared to other suburbs and Chicago.
“What baffles me most is how poor people are against even taxing folks that earn over a million. Cannot they see that there is no trickle effect? Tax cuts have been in place for a while now and it has not helped with job creation or the state of the economy. At times of austerity measures, one would think the richest folk can pick a bit of the tab as well.”
Let’s get the facts straight. There has been way too much misinformation propagating from the Obama camp: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm
If you want fairness we should be getting more taxes from the 47% that don’t pay any income tax. And don’t tell me about payroll taxes because that’s a separate problem.
“The demographic is that the population in Chicagoland is steady to slight decline.”
Wrong, it’s steady with slight increase. In fact, Chicago metro grew faster (barely) than the LA or NY metro in the last 10 years.
Wow, black speckled granite, builder grade cherry cabinets and stainess steel appriances in this unit. Very now, very “it”.
LOL
Gary,
Do you understand how tax brackets work? You can’t raise taxes on the people who aren’t currently paying income tax without raising your own taxes.
You are not paying taxes on the same amount of income as those that don’t pay income tax. So how much more do you want to pay on your first $10,000 of earnings?
Every single tax payer works their way up the brackets. This also means that there is no such thing as a middle class tax cut. The rich get that one too.
I love how the agent takes a picture of himself in the bathroom mirror and posts it to the MLS. Top notch quality work
“a $250,000 condo isn’t even worth the effort to take a decent picture…gawd.”
“Its the right side of Irving which makes it Lakeview to me.”
Yes it is in the LV community area but this is not prime LV. Uptown is one block away. “Prime LV” is more than a block away IMO. I think most here would agree.
Sorry, your argument fails if we are looking at total taxes paid as a percentage of income, payroll taxes included. You don’t get to leave that part out. A tax is a tax. But lets just keep milking the middle class until we have a population ready to accept third world living conditions as a fact of life.
“If you want fairness we should be getting more taxes from the 47% that don’t pay any income tax. And don’t tell me about payroll taxes because that’s a separate problem.”
“It won’t happen, so it’s silly to discuss it.”
2!
If we’re going to talk about federal taxes, I’m out.
Someone text me when y’all have gotten it out of your systems.
I remember when I graduated from grad school and only worked at a low paying job for a few months towards the end of the and the government actually GAVE me free money. It went beyond paying no federal tax at all – they gave me money. It was ridiculous. There are people who get this credit every single year. They could probably save a lot if they didn’t give people money.
Uptown is not what it used to be. It’s improved significantly.
“You don’t get to leave that part out. A tax is a tax.”
I agree that it is a tax that needs to be acknowledged. But you have to also acknowledge that it is paid back to the worker in retirement (at least on average in the long term, even though different generations benefit disproportionally). At least some portion of it is returned later.
Regardless, tax as percent of income is only one view. Tax as a percent of wealth would probably show the rich paying a MUCH lower percentage. It all depends how you frame it.
If the city enacts a 1% tax it will give me more incentive to head to Texas (my company has an office there). I think 6% of our income is a lot of money, plus lower cost of housing there.
“Yes it is in the LV community area but this is not prime LV. Uptown is one block away. “Prime LV” is more than a block away IMO. I think most here would agree.”
Uptown is one block away. The area of Uptown near this place, aka Buena Park, is a pleasant, quiet area. It’s not like it’s one block from Broadway and Wilson, which is 3 blocks from me.
This place is lipstick on a pig though.
http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/2010/inc/nyc_tax_rate_150_201.pdf
NYC has had a municipal income tax for as long as I can remember. Didn’t seem to stop population growth there. And it’s about 3.5% or higher for most.
Guys, Im originally from the Detroit area and I can tell you that Chicago is at least 3 decades from becoming anything like Detroit. Thats how long it took. It started in 1967 with the race riots. A lot of people (my family included) got scared after that and started moving out. That created a snowball economically where stuff got bad, people moved out, stuff got worse, more people moved out. No businesses wanted to be headquartered where nobody lived, so they moved out to the burbs too.
Fast forward to 5 years ago, when people started noticing how bad things have gotten.
I agree with The Doctor, same story with my family. BUT if the economy continues to be terrible or get worse for a few more years, you can’t rule out “poor” riots.
“NYC has had a municipal income tax for as long as I can remember. Didn’t seem to stop population growth there. And it’s about 3.5% or higher for most.”
cue west loop……
1) Chicago is not New York, and never will be
2) Chicago is not Detroit, and never will be
History is full of things that were “never” going to happen.
1) Chicago is not New York, and never will be
2) Chicago is not Detroit, and never will be
correct
Never say never!
“Sorry, your argument fails if we are looking at total taxes paid as a percentage of income, payroll taxes included. You don’t get to leave that part out.”
Payroll taxes cover a PORTION of social welfare programs meant to benefit people that pay them. The shortfall is covered by income taxes. The reason the wealthy pay a smaller portion of their income towards these programs is that their benefits are capped so their contributions are capped. The problem with 47% not paying any income taxes is that they have no vested interest in the government responsibly spending this money and every interest in electing politicians who will continue their favorable treatment.
I’m just going to have to agree with bettyboop, homedelete, you are getting dumber by the day, i’m going to chalk it up to lack of sleep from your recent progeny and being overworked due to fear of job loss.
Don’t worry, I’m positive things will get better for you! I know you really need the positive reinforcement these days so I hope I made your day buddy!
“1) Chicago is not New York, and never will be
2) Chicago is not Detroit, and never will be”
I agree. My point is that the population decline obviously has to do with other factors (many, I’m sure). Simply stating that some more taxes will drive folks away is simplistic and mostly wrong. The highest tax rates in the country are found in the most densely populated cities.
the general american population is moving from north and east to south and west, its no surprise that chicago and other cold weather climates have “lost” population over the years, don’t worry higher taxes are most certainly coming to those sun states
“The highest tax rates in the country are found in the most densely populated cities.”
Yes – but those cities provide much more than Chicago does……..especially for the people paying those taxes. It is the same thing as mcdonalds charging 20 for a cheeseburger just because the ritz carlton does “and people pay there”….idiotic argument.
“don’t worry higher taxes are most certainly coming to those sun states”
yep
I tried to click on the link to this place on my work computer and it was blocked as “pornography.” Fitting.
Isn’t this proposed tax to be collected on INCOME EARNINGS from employers located within Chicago municipal boundaries, collected from suburbanites as well as Chicago residents. Similar to New York City’s income tax; collection not based on residency location. When you factor in large Chicago population which doesn’t work, doesn’t earn applicable “income”, and not likely to be concerned/outraged, then it’s a relatively easy tax to pass after a certain amount of public relation-related chest-beating by aldermen. I’d give this tax proposal a better than 50:50 chance of passing within two years.
The tax base combined covers social programs that differentiate our economy from third world economies. The social contract keeps our economy running as taxes get spent on consumption. The wealthy spend less, as a percentage, on the kind of consumption that makes our economy healthy. A few less kings would be better for everyone. I think the majority of voters would probably agree. And majority still counts.
Now, if you want to talk about inefficiency, waste and corruption in government, fine. But I won’t dismiss the ideal of safety nets because the apparatus stinks.
“Payroll taxes cover a PORTION of social welfare programs meant to benefit people that pay them. The shortfall is covered by income taxes. The reason the wealthy pay a smaller portion of their income towards these programs is that their benefits are capped so their contributions are capped. The problem with 47% not paying any income taxes is that they have no vested interest in the government responsibly spending this money and every interest in electing politicians who will continue their favorable treatment.”
Crains did a long article several years ago which actually compared Detroit’s economic decline to similar conditions present in Chicago and concluded that Chicago would experience similar if not so catastrophic economic decline. Chicago certainly isn’t immune; look at degree of disinvestment, property abandonment, and long-term unemployment (and unemployability) in many southside and westside neighborhoods.
There is no proposal for an income tax in Chicago.
Do you guys even read these things? The inspector general just put out a report with all sorts of ideas as to deal with the deficit, most of which will never happen let alone be proposed.
” look at degree of disinvestment, property abandonment, and long-term unemployment (and unemployability) in many southside and westside neighborhoods.”
yeah and thats where the largest percentages of people leaving the city are located… good riddance, and i’d gladly pay 1% of my income to keep dumbasses and their crew of gangbanging idiots shooting each other far far away from my neighborhood too
McDonalds = crap. Chicago = World Class City.
Idiotic argument.
“I’d give this tax proposal a better than 50:50 chance of passing within two years.”
Agreed.
Exactly! It was just a report, with 62 other “ideas.” HD forgot to mention this one:
“Taxing suburbanites also is an option, Ferguson writes. Imposing a commuter income tax of 1 percent to non-Chicago residents who work in the city is one idea.”
” good riddance, and i’d gladly pay 1% of my income to keep dumbasses and their crew of gangbanging idiots shooting each other far far away from my neighborhood too”
moron – these are NOT the people who will be leaving – the tax payers are the ones who are going to leave the riff raff behind.
before calling me a moron you might want to look at the stats
NYC’s income tax doesn’t apply to just residents, it applies to anyone who works in the city as well. I work for a company with a NYC presence and I have to fill out a form every year stating either that I spent less than 15 days in NYC or if more than that, what percentage of time I spent in NYC.
‘Crains did a long article several years ago which actually compared Detroit’s economic decline to similar conditions present in Chicago and concluded that Chicago would experience similar if not so catastrophic economic decline. Chicago certainly isn’t immune; look at degree of disinvestment, property abandonment, and long-term unemployment (and unemployability) in many southside and westside neighborhoods.’
Good lord, I know it’s rainy and gray outside, but lets not put our heads in the oven… just yet.
I can’t think of one place in the country that *doesn’t* suck right now. Okay, maybe ND if you want to work in the oil sands (as suggested by Bob months ago when I asked the same question), but seriously… WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GO??
NYT did a piece yesterday about the depressed south/sun states. You think your economic problems are going to be solved by opening a pilates studio in Tampa ala 1998? I have family in FL (with some money, so their odds of playing the waiting game are better than most), and they’d love to move back north *if* they could sell their garish McMansion in the middle of a foreclosed suburban swamp; same with friends that left Chgo for AZ or CA in the 90’s… what, being a life coach didn’t work out like you planned?
When I fly into Chicago and see all the *in-place* infrastructure, fresh water, fields, I can’t help but think that *long* term, the odds of at least treading water are much greater here than in all of those service industry states. Chicago may be a cow town, but it ain’t no one-horse town, lots of economic diversity (and real universities) here that the sun belt would kill to have… maybe they will (?).
‘midwesterners know that times could be worse… and they’re waiting for it to happen’. Garrison Keillor
“moron – these are NOT the people who will be leaving – the tax payers are the ones who are going to leave the riff raff behind.”
So, you think if they move out of the city, they will avoid the city tax? AFAIK city taxes are generally applicable to people that WORK in the city, not the ones that live there.
i really just do not understand this redistribute the wealth thing. Why give poor people stuff? They are poor. By definition they are not supposed to have stuff.
Just give them free alcohol or something and that’s enough.
and by alcohol… Something along the lines of 180 proof. Help end things quicker.
Can I get free alcohol even if I’m not poor?
talk to bob
” Something along the lines of 180 proof”
180 proof wood alcohol, no?
i think the stuff we mixed in the garbage can, with a few dozen oranges and a few bags of sugar, was called Everclear. Oh those were good days!!
I think it would be easier if they just un-insured drug addicts die of overdoses instead of “saving” them.
best part is the garbage can gets dual use as a pillow. Definetely passed out and woke up with my head in a few. Shame we all get so lame that we have to act like we wouldnt like to bust out a beer bong at the corporate X-mas party.
exactly jenny… If i knew that extra 1percent was getting heroin to help end the life of a crack whore. I figure, long-term, money well spent.
A lot of people here already made the points I would have about Chicago’s census figures. Yes, they’ve been falling for most of the last 50-60 years, but what does that mean for the city’s future and who, exactly, is leaving. As much as I disagree with clio, I largely agree with him that GZ hoods will remain desirable and that, for desirable neighborhoods, the overall trend is more people, not less.
And this is a salient point, IMO: “Most of the people leaving the City were poor to lower middle income. The demographics will surprise many suburbanites. There new neighbors are poorer than the people who moved out.”
The pure “how many people live here” figure for Chicago shows you only a slice of what’s going on. Long term, the city has a bright future, especially compared to most suburbs and the region in general. Don’t even get me started about “rust belt” vs. “sun belt”.
Long term, Chicago will be just fine, income tax or not. But keep channeling your inner Kass, HD. Everybody loves that guy…
“i think the stuff we mixed in the garbage can, with a few dozen oranges and a few bags of sugar, was called Everclear”
190 or 151?
“As much as I disagree with clio, I largely agree with him that GZ hoods will remain desirable and that, for desirable neighborhoods, the overall trend is more people, not less.”
I would also add that the desirable areas have actually expanded from the past. Areas that people 15 years ago wouldn’t have dreamed of moving to are now filled with hipsters and others.
everclear is 190 proof
“everclear is 190 proof”
Not everywhere it ain’t.
180-190.. C’mon guys…when u get to the point your discussing that…. Is there really any difference? All i remember were the oranges made all the difference. I think they outlawed/restricted the stuff anyway?
“180-190.. C’mon guys…when u get to the point your discussing that…. Is there really any difference?”
38, 39, whatever it takes.
“I think they outlawed/restricted the stuff anyway?”
Right, part of the distinction bt 151 and 190–some states allow 151, but not 190.
Not everywhere it ain’t.
ok
anon I believe you are confusing bacardi rum 151 proof and actual everclear which is 190 proof moonshine, which yes, typically gets mixed up with kool-aid in a garbage can at college parties, usually people get laid or killed or a really bad headache or red puke as an end result. Good times! We had one of those parties in our dry co-ed dorm, jeez what a mess afterwards! yeah our RA was the coolest
“anon I believe you are confusing bacardi rum 151 proof and actual everclear which is 190 proof moonshine”
he got it right, everclear is a brand, it’s 190 proof where allowed, and 151 elsewhere. I believe back in the day you couldn’t get it in Chicago but had to go out to the burbs. I might be wrong on that though, it’s been a minute since I had any interest into vile shit like that.
Sonies, I understand you may have some considerable experience with everclear, but unless you are really sure, you gotta at least use the google before attempting to correct anon (or maybe there is some school of thought that 151 is not *really* everclear).
Also, interesting origin of “proof”, which I maybe had some vague awareness of but couldn’t really remember, so I just googled it for myself.
” I believe back in the day you couldn’t get it in Chicago but had to go out to the burbs.”
Believe that’s still the case, but I also haven’t looked for it in a looong time.
Everclear that’s not 190 proof is worthless.
“Everclear that’s not 190 proof is worthless.”
That’s not true. The 151 is worth about 1.88x Popov (or Phillips/Wolfschmidt/whatever).
You can’t make a proper wop without 190.
Hope Juliana is still around:
“The tax base combined covers social programs that differentiate our economy from third world economies. The social contract keeps our economy running as taxes get spent on consumption. The wealthy spend less, as a percentage, on the kind of consumption that makes our economy healthy. A few less kings would be better for everyone. I think the majority of voters would probably agree. And majority still counts.”
I have several issues with this argument: 1) You can’t exempt 47% of the population from paying income taxes. Everyone needs a stake in the decisions being made in Washington – no matter how small it is. 2) Consumption is overrated. This country consumes way too much, which is how we got ourselves in the mess we did. In fact, I think the whole notion of income taxes is bizarre. Resource usage should be taxed – i.e. sales tax. Income that doesn’t get spent goes towards investment which pays future dividends. Why should income be taxed? 3) If you provide the majority with exemption from income taxes then the majority will vote to continue their preferential treatment. Eventually it creates economic problems. Bad ideas don’t last forever and neither will this one.
they are paying. payroll taxes. taxes are taxes, you can’t pick and choose which ones you want to count.
“1) You can’t exempt 47% of the population from paying income taxes. Everyone needs a stake in the decisions being made in Washington – no matter how small it is.”
Consumption of Chinese crap is overrated. I’m for more nationalization, finding a way to bring production back home. We already have consumers, they will just have to learn to not have a television in every room or have the latest cell phone. If paying a bit more for products which provide employment in the US is the answer, its a sacrifice I am ready to make. Lots of the income that doesn’t get taxed gets spent overseas and profits sit there until Washington provides another tax holiday for the multinationals, maybe all dressed up in an infrastructure birthday suit. Meanwhile, no new jobs for us. We’ve been waiting for the trickle down for too long. Consumption tax is too regressive to be the only answer.
“2) Consumption is overrated. This country consumes way too much, which is how we got ourselves in the mess we did. In fact, I think the whole notion of income taxes is bizarre. Resource usage should be taxed – i.e. sales tax. Income that doesn’t get spent goes towards investment which pays future dividends. Why should income be taxed?”
I think the majority want what is fair. If we ever get representatives that aren’t only looking out for special interests, maybe we could figure out a way to provide a safety net without losing incentives to succeed. Economic problems come from too much inequality, which is where we are.
“3) If you provide the majority with exemption from income taxes then the majority will vote to continue their preferential treatment. Eventually it creates economic problems. Bad ideas don’t last forever and neither will this one.”
“they are paying. payroll taxes. taxes are taxes, you can’t pick and choose which ones you want to count.”
I’m counting them both but everyone needs to contribute fairly. If you want social security and medicare then people need to contribute to those programs to cover their costs. If you want government spending beyond those programs you need to tax everyone to cover those costs. The two types of spending are very different. In one case you are contributing to something for yourself. In the other case you are contributing to the general well being of the nation (in theory).
“Consumption of Chinese crap is overrated. I’m for more nationalization, finding a way to bring production back home. We already have consumers, they will just have to learn to not have a television in every room or have the latest cell phone. If paying a bit more for products which provide employment in the US is the answer, its a sacrifice I am ready to make. Lots of the income that doesn’t get taxed gets spent overseas and profits sit there until Washington provides another tax holiday for the multinationals, maybe all dressed up in an infrastructure birthday suit. Meanwhile, no new jobs for us. We’ve been waiting for the trickle down for too long. Consumption tax is too regressive to be the only answer.”
If that 47% consumed less crap they could pay income taxes. But there is nothing special about domestic production. If we choose to buy Chinese crap then we run up debt and create jobs overseas. If we want to produce crap here we need to come up with more efficient production. It’s not the government’s problem to solve. In fact, I would argue the government creates the problem by subsidizing the consumption of that 47%.
“I think the majority want what is fair. If we ever get representatives that aren’t only looking out for special interests, maybe we could figure out a way to provide a safety net without losing incentives to succeed. Economic problems come from too much inequality, which is where we are.”
Inequality is the result, not the cause. It comes from a broken labor market, dysfunctional education system, a paternalistic government, and poor parenting skills. But I’ll agree with you on the special interests.
Spiritus is the polish version of Everclear and iirc its got the higher proof. You can buy that at any liquor store on the n side worth its own.
“If you want social security and medicare then people need to contribute to those programs to cover their costs.”
I can’t help myself- but you do know that on SS the rich actually pay a smaller portion of their income than the middle class or the poor? It’s because of the way it is structured. Middle class people pay the full 4.2% but if you’re someone who makes $210k a year, you pay much less as a percentage of your income because it is capped at $106,800.
They can solve the funding problem with SS just by making it the same percentage of income for everyone. So if you’re Brad Pitt and your income is $10 million- then you pay the 4.2%. And if you’re Joe Pitt and you make $75,000, then you pay the 4.2%. Social security is a regressive tax.
“I’m for more nationalization, finding a way to bring production back home.”
In a capitalistic economy- you can’t bring it back home. If you’re Reuters, you can hire 10 Indian writers to write about the latest snow storm in New York for $50,000 total- or you can hire 1 writer. Which would you choose?
The salaries aren’t even close- and usually for the same job. Ditto if you’re paying factory workers. There’s no health insurance to pay for in China. There’s no matching 401k. And to top it off, the average income is $1,000 a year.
“They can solve the funding problem with SS just by making it the same percentage of income for everyone.”
Then they need to also stop making it means tested. As in no cap on benefits. Social security is means tested in that those who make out best, (aside from the first generation of benefit recipients who were grandfathered in and paid nothing), are those who earn less. Towards the high end of the cap what is the increase in benefits for each dollar taken? Isn’t it something like 15c on the dollar?
“I would also add that the desirable areas have actually expanded from the past.”
But then look at the south, west, and sw side, vast foreclosures. For every single hipster artist that moves to a studio apartment, a whole family moves out somewhere else. Can’t expect artists with low income to run the whole city. And look at Uptown, too.
Can’t just expect “the rich” and “the creative community” to cover the whole city, need more than “the GZ”.
“When I fly into Chicago and see all the *in-place* infrastructure, fresh water, fields, I can’t help but think that *long* term, the odds of at least treading water are much greater here than in all of those service industry states. Chicago may be a cow town, but it ain’t no one-horse town, lots of economic diversity (and real universities) here that the sun belt would kill to have… maybe they will (?).”
Thanks Jay. We have water- they don’t. It will win in the end.
Also- we are way more diverse. We have some of the major agriculture companies headquartered here like CF Industries and Corn Products. We also have a great tech culture with GroupOn and the other 40 or 50 companies like them that are all in Chicago because that infrastructure is here. We also have companies like GrubHub- which is growing quickly and dominates its industry.
It is NOT doom and gloom in Chicago. It’s very vibrant despite the the poor economy.
“Social security is means tested in that those who make out best.”
What? The max you can make even if you’re Bill Gates is $24,000 a year (or thereabouts). If you don’t have any earnings and make just $20,000 for 40 years you’ll get way less. One of my relatives worked like 6 years when she was young and then was a stay at home mom. She gets $800 a month. That is all.
“What? The max you can make even if you’re Bill Gates is $24,000 a year (or thereabouts). If you don’t have any earnings and make just $20,000 for 40 years you’ll get way less. One of my relatives worked like 6 years when she was young and then was a stay at home mom. She gets $800 a month. That is all.”
It’s means tested and towards the higher end of the wage cap those earners earn 15c in increased benefits per dollar paid in.
The SSA intentionally tries to make this information difficult to get at. But it basically means the closer you are to the wage cap (in both directions) the more you’re getting screwed by SS.
I think it’s a foregone conclusion that the cap will be lifted just as the medicare one was in the 1990s. However it will be too bad if the progressives accomplish this without moving SS away from a means tested system for those above the poverty line.
When you talk about your friend earning “only” $800/month that is a subjective statement on her amount and not related to the IRR of her SS calculation, which is a much higher IRR than those with incomes closer to the cap.
And you can actually earn closer to 52k in SS benefits per year if you earn near the cap for 35 years and retire at 70. Yeah I know it’s an uncommon scenario but possible.
“In a capitalistic economy- you can’t bring it back home.”
Yes you can- greed is universal. Those people in India and China may do it for a little, but they will catch on real fast and start demanding more and more – it is already happening (or middle men will intervene to try and get the cut). It is going to get increasingly expensive to outsource and things will then come back to the US.
“you do know that on SS the rich actually pay a smaller portion of their income than the middle class or the poor? ”
It’s not an income tax. It shouldn’t be proportionate to what you make but proportionate to what you take out. The reason the contributions are capped is because the payouts are also capped. The program should have never been structured as a Ponzi scheme. It should have been structured as a mandatory contribution to your own retirement account.
“And you can actually earn closer to 52k in SS benefits per year if you earn near the cap for 35 years and retire at 70. Yeah I know it’s an uncommon scenario but possible.”
The only way is with a husband and wife both getting SS. You can’t make $52k a year from a single earner. Again, I personally know retirees who worked for 40 years. Their income was $150k a year or more since the 1980s with no interrupations. They didn’t take the payment early and they “make” $2300 a month. Whoop-de-doo.
It was meant to keep people out of poverty- which it does for my friend (of which, a portion of her $800 is from her husband’s income.) If she was getting SS based only her work history it would have been $300 a month. Good luck with that.
They will eventually get rid of SS payments to those who are considered “rich” (not sure how they will determine this because at one time Ruth Madoff was very, very rich and now her only income is her SS payment which amounts to about $24,000 a year.)
“Those people in India and China may do it for a little, but they will catch on real fast and start demanding more and more – it is already happening (or middle men will intervene to try and get the cut).”
Of course. Maybe you should read a newspaper. They already are. Wages are up 10% or 20% in many Indian cities over last year. Average income in China used to be $200 a year. Now it is $1000. But until it is $22,000 – then they are still cheaper than the US. And they won’t get to $22,000 for another 30 or 40 years. (in the meantime, some manufacturers are starting to leave China and setting up shop in Vietnam where the average salary is $100 a year.)
Oh- and if you make $10,000 a year in India- that is considered upper middle class. So, yes, they are demanding more, but within the constraints of their own society and culture. It still makes no sense for US companies to hire just 1 employee in the US when they can hire 5 or 10 or however many in another country to do essentially the same job (read the xray, do the tax preparation, write the story.)
“Maybe you should read a newspaper”
what’s a “newspaper”?
“The program should have never been structured as a Ponzi scheme.”
It was NEVER structured this way. When it was created the average life expectancy was just 65 years old. So if you started collecting it at 62, you were only going to be on it for a few years. There were plenty of workers in the system to pay for it- especially with the baby boomers starting to arrive (the largest generation ever.)
But then something happened- people started living longer! Hooray! And then in 1983 they had to restructure it to make sure there would be money in there since the payments were now going to people for much longer and the Baby Boomers were having fewer children (Generation X.) (That was a bipartisan commission that actually got the deal done.) Now- we’re going to have to restructure it AGAIN because life expectancy has gone up (again) and the numbers don’t work because there are fewer workers in the system and the baby boomers are just too massive.
It’s easy to fix SS. You can either (1) raise the cap on the richest tax payers (which if you just raise the cap to around $250,000 it would cover most of the short fall) (2) means test- but that won’t solve everything (3) raise the age to 70 for maximum benefits.
SS isn’t the problem. Medicare is the gigantic hole in the system and I haven’t heard many people saying that they should raise the age and/or make people pay more. But likely they’ll have to means test that as well.
“Wages are up 10% or 20% in many Indian cities over last year. Average income in China used to be $200 a year. Now it is $1000. But until it is $22,000 – then they are still cheaper than the US. And they won’t get to $22,000 for another 30 or 40 years”
American and European middle managers are taking over and they are taking a HUGE chunk of the pie (not passing it down to the workers). The wages of the worker don’t have to get to 22,000 – the overall cost per employee just has to equalize – and that is going to happen a lot faster than you think because these companies that provide the outsourced labor are making millions/billions (and they are not about to stop).
“what’s a “newspaper”?”
We know what you don’t read Clio: the WSJ, the NYT, the Economist or any other publication over the last several years that has documented that Asian salaries are soaring (due to inflation.) Why admit your ignorance?
“and that is going to happen a lot faster than you think because these companies that provide the outsourced labor are making millions/billions (and they are not about to stop).”
They don’t have health insurance Clio. What don’t you understand?
Average cost for a family of four for an employer this year: $15,000 (that is more than the average Indian upper middle class salary!).
Projected cost of same health insurance by 2021: $32,000 a year!
Ha! ha! I won’t be alive by the time the costs “equalize”.
“It should have been structured as a mandatory contribution to your own retirement account.”
It needs to be restructured entirely. The statists put too many rules in an attempt to dictate societal outcomes and it has a very distortive, and ultimate detrimental effect, on labor markets.
I know a retiree who would’ve liked to keep working and he enjoyed his job, but basically he would have to work for a fraction of what his wages were when you factor in the SS penalty for working in. So now he sits at the bar and drinks which is probably killing him a lot faster.
Since when did we let bureaucrats in DC sculpt our society to such a degree? I look forward to the dismantling of SS.
“It should have been structured as a mandatory contribution to your own retirement account.”
I’m fine with them restructuring it like Chile or Australia (both of which have very rich retirement systems.) But right now, with all the other reforms they’ll have to make to Medicare (specifically)- I doubt they’ll completely reform both programs at the same time. There is no political will to do so when they can simply raise the retirement age by 2 years for SS and “fix” it (at least for another 25 years or so.) It’s going to be hard enough to touch/reform Medicare.
“They don’t have health insurance Clio. What don’t you understand?”
uhhh- either will americans – and then you will see the equalization. Sabrina, what don’t YOU understand? Honestly, employers are already starting to cut back on health care insurance costs (shifting the burden to the employee). The government is doing the same with medicare. Good grief – do you know anyone who is on medicare? Everyone thinks it is free insurance – it’s not. My healthy parents (no medical problems at 80 – no drugs, etc.) pay 700/month for their health insurance (combined). It is out of control and going to get a hell of a lot worse.
Maybe the reason Oakbrook’s residents are “low-tax” is because the city makes mucho bux off that fabulous MALL (one of the first “luxury shopping centers” as I recall) and surrounding businesses?
“It was NEVER structured this way. When it was created the average life expectancy was just 65 years old. So if you started collecting it at 62, you were only going to be on it for a few years. There were plenty of workers in the system to pay for it- especially with the baby boomers starting to arrive (the largest generation ever.)”
Paying old participants with the money from new participants is the definition of a Ponzi scheme. When they created this God forsaken program they didn’t think it through. The contributions started at like 1% and were quickly raised. The reason the inversion of the demographics caused a problem was precisely because it was a Ponzi scheme.
“SS isn’t the problem. Medicare is the gigantic hole in the system and I haven’t heard many people saying that they should raise the age and/or make people pay more.”
Correct. And the way to fix Medicare is to raise the contributions across the board. People need to pay for what they use. They should pay higher Medicare taxes before they buy that fancy cell phone with the data plan or all that useless crap in the mall.
“Average income in China used to be $200 a year. Now it is $1000. But until it is $22,000 – then they are still cheaper than the US. And they won’t get to $22,000 for another 30 or 40 years.”
And why, pray tell, would one assume the 22k part of the equation is not under assault. Once arbs are exploitable, they close fast. Almost invariably, from both sides.
And anon.. 38.. 39.. what’s the difference? I was applying ‘Sonies Law of Diminishing Differences of Alcohol’, which applies to both taste and strength. Said law dictates that whatever difference exists will diminish to 0 with the more you drink. Deserves a f’n Nobel right there!
“And anon.. 38.. 39.. what’s the difference?”
Okay, so not a Keaton/Garr fan. Got it.
“Okay, so not a Keaton/Garr fan. Got it.”
Missed the reference, but let’s not go that far. Garr.. such nice knockers.
Fun fact: this building, back in the 80’s was a “mixed-income subsidized rental” without the balconies; went condo some time in the late 80s/early 90s, probably around the same time that similar, larger buildings (one was near Belmont/Broadway) saw their federal subsidies run out and had to figure out how to keep the place viable.
“But then look at the south, west, and sw side, vast foreclosures. For every single hipster artist that moves to a studio apartment, a whole family moves out somewhere else.”
Poor families.
” I was applying ‘Sonies Law of Diminishing Differences of Alcohol’, which applies to both taste and strength. Said law dictates that whatever difference exists will diminish to 0 with the more you drink. Deserves a f’n Nobel right there!”
hahaha ze, oh man now that the weather is getting worse I think I need to get back to drunken blogging again
Sonies, we tried Magic Hat’s “Summer Wacko” at the last Warm Up party at PS1 in Queens over Labor Day weekend. Don’t know if it’s still available, but it was scrumptious.
I’ll keep my eyes out for it, mostly fall beers on sale now, thanks for the tip!
With China playing the global game unfairly with their currency peg, I am willing to go with a little economic nationalism to even the playing field. Like incentivising “buy USA” with tariffs or subsidies. And maybe we could focus on quality to differentiate ourselves from “made in China”. Its all about job creation needed to save our economy.
“If we want to produce crap here we need to come up with more efficient production. It’s not the government’s problem to solve. In fact, I would argue the government creates the problem by subsidizing the consumption of that 47%.”
No, the way we fix medicare is medicare for all. Then our businesses won’t need to worry about their insurance premiums going up more than 9% this year, eating into their profits. Not only will it provide a social safety net, it will help our businesses compete.
Premiums for a family now run more than $15,000 per year. And with people using the system less because of higher copays, all that translates to bigger profits for insurers. Another happy special interest group, thank you Obama. Single payer is the way to go, imo.
“Correct. And the way to fix Medicare is to raise the contributions across the board. People need to pay for what they use. They should pay higher Medicare taxes before they buy that fancy cell phone with the data plan or all that useless crap in the mall.”
One would think that most businesses now paying for their employee’s health insurance would benefit from Medicare for all.
Funny, I though Everclear was the name of a rock band.