Market Conditions: September Sales Fall 4.2% in Worst September Since 2012
The Illinois Association of Realtors numbers are out for September. It was another weak month for sales.
The city of Chicago saw year-over-year home sales decrease 4.2 percent with 1,954 sales in September, compared to 2,040 a year ago. The median price of a home in the city of Chicago in September was $292,750 up 2.7 percent compared to September 2018 when it was $285,000.
September sales for the last 11 years:
- 2007: 2172 sales
- 2008: 1816 sales
- 2009: 1918 sales
- 2010: 1403 sales
- 2011: 1498 sales
- 2012: 1845 sales
- 2013: 2395 sales
- 2014: 2242 sales
- 2015: 2414 sales
- 2016: 2398 sales
- 2017: 2355 sales
- 2018: 2040 sales
- 2019: 1954 sales
Median prices for the last 11 years:
- 2007: $267,750
- 2008: $268,600
- 2009: $225,000
- 2010: $180,000
- 2011: $190,000
- 2012: $188,900
- 2013: $230,000
- 2014: $249,000
- 2015: $250,000
- 2016: $260,000
- 2017: $275,000
- 2018: $285,000
- 2019: $292,750
“The fall market is in full swing and sales are stabilizing as a result,” said Maurice Hampton, president of the Chicago Association of REALTORS® and owner of Centered International Realty. “While we saw slight declines in closed sales for all properties, including single family homes and condos, we also saw slight increases in median sales prices. Buyers are benefiting from reasonable prices, low rates and increased market times.”
Statewide, average market time was 48 days which was unchanged from a year ago.
Could Chicago’s sales decline be due to a decline in the number of foreclosures?
“While month-to-month sales continued the usual decline at this time of the year, on an annual basis, September sales were slightly higher than last year,” said Geoffrey J.D. Hewings, director of the Regional Economics Applications Laboratory at the University of Illinois. “In Chicago, the year-over-year decline in sales of foreclosed properties by 10 percent overshadowed an almost 2 percent increase in regular sales. Consumer sentiment indices and the Fannie Mae Home Purchase Sentiment Index broadly reflected consumer uncertainty about the direction of the economy.”
Average 30-year fixed mortgage rate remained near all time lows at 3.61%. That’s down from 4.63% from a year ago.
The Chicago Association of Realtor comment above doesn’t sound alarmist. It sounds like this is a “normal” fall market.
But is it?
In the last 2 weeks there have been several media markets saying this is the worst market in years.
The market has clearly slowed. But is the panic overdone?
Illinois home sales, prices shift higher in September [Illinois Association of Realtors, Press Release, Oct 22, 2019]
I think there’s no way of knowing until the spring selling season.
The housing market is always delayed by several years if there is a recession. Look at what happened in 2008-2009. In 2009 and even 2010, there were still people on this board arguing that some neighborhoods (Lincoln Park, cough, cough) would NEVER see price declines.
It ultimately did.
Just posted my October update and sales were only down a little bit though the overall trend is down about 5% or so. Market times and inventory levels don’t look too bad: http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-real/2019/11/chicago-real-estate-market-update-october-sales-only-slightly-slower/
Illinois Association of Realtors will report a slightly higher decline of 2.8%.
“Market times and inventory levels don’t look too bad:”
Thanks Gary.
Inventory is rarely “bad” in October, no? Except maybe during the bust years.
Market times? Eh. I don’t believe the data, like I said. I see a ton of properties just sitting and am even seeing “incentives” again ($5,000 towards closing costs etc.) which I haven’t seen in about 7 or 8 years.
But the properties that are still on the market now ARE some of those that are “leftover” from the summer selling season so they are tired listings that will probably take some more reductions before they sell. The real health of the market won’t be known until next spring.
I’m looking at the inventory relative to other Octobers. And, as I’ve already explained, the market time data is good. It totally reflects relistings, which is what you were concerned about.
I’m dealing with data. You’re dealing with anecdotes.
Incentives are silly. Just lower the price.
It is vicious circle. Inventory is low because people are not moving due to high prices and property taxes. At the same time, low inventory sets a floor for the price and high property tax sets a ceiling for the price. I think interest rates will be the catalyst. Once they start increasing, prices will retreat 10-15%.
Ten year Treasury yields are up 33% since the end of august and mortgage rates are likely to rise for the coming winter time months at least, going to be a brutal selling season this winter in Chicago… well I hear winter has already started for you guys… lmao
“Ten year Treasury yields are up 33% since the end of august and mortgage rates are likely to rise for the coming winter time months at least, going to be a brutal selling season this winter in Chicago”
Winter is NOT the “selling season” as you know sonies. The properties on the market are those that were already on the market, for the most part. Mortgage rates haven’t gone up that much from the bottom. It shouldn’t be any different than 2016 into 2017. Was Chicago’s housing market impacted that year when rates rose almost 1%? No.
But 2019 IS different. Even with record low mortgage rates, the housing market has slowed and prices are actually falling in some neighborhoods.
Incomes are simply not keeping up with rising home prices and property taxes. We’re still a monthly payment nation. Even the low mortgage rates can’t keep that monthly payment low enough.
I’m not sure the ramifications of a declining housing market in major cities with unemployment still at 3.6%. That’s something that simply has never happened before.
By the way, Seattle, San Francisco, LA, San Diego and New York City have all seen a sharp slowdown and falling prices.
“well I hear winter has already started for you guys… lmao”
Yep. It’s going to suck in Atlanta and Nashville over the next week. Hundreds of records will fall.
“Incentives are silly. Just lower the price.”
Incentives are a sign of the slow market Gary. I haven’t seen “incentives” in the listings in years. Why would they need it? There were multiple offers and prices were soaring.
But not anymore.
Market is dead. Listings are sitting. Inventory will be really interesting this spring but I feel like a lot of sellers will just stay put rather than lose money. In some cases it’s been a dramatic decline.
I saw one short sale last week. But it will be interesting to see if there are a lot more of those next spring. Sellers under distress usually take a while to come to the surface so we’ll see. But with looser lending, and 5% and 10% down payments over the last 5 years, a LOT of homeowners are now underwater again.
” But with looser lending, and 5% and 10% down payments over the last 5 years, a LOT of homeowners are now underwater again.”
—————————
Those factors would increase demand/prices. How do they increase the number of current homeowners underwater?
“How do they increase the number of current homeowners underwater?”
Prices are falling again in the GreenZone johnc. That’s how they’re underwater. It doesn’t take much. We’re back to 2016 prices. Let’s say prices are down anywhere from 5 to 10%.
I just did my annual summary of home price appreciation in various neighborhoods based on the Depaul IHS price indices: http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-real/2019/11/chicagos-hottest-neighborhood-real-estate-markets-of-2019/
Unfortunately, they never have data on the Loop/ Near North Side. WTF? However, their Lincoln Park/ Lake View and Lincoln Square/ North Center data indicates flat prices the last 2 – 3 years, with maybe a 1 – 2% decline from the latest mini-peak.
“Prices are falling again in the GreenZone johnc. That’s how they’re underwater. It doesn’t take much. We’re back to 2016 prices. Let’s say prices are down anywhere from 5 to 10%.”
——————-
That may very well be, but my question was: How does looser lending and lower down payments reduce prices or demand? Declining prices have to be based on other factors, like maybe really nice apartments for rent that reduce demand even though there’s looser lending standards.
“Market is dead. Listings are sitting. Inventory will be really interesting this spring but I feel like a lot of sellers will just stay put rather than lose money. In some cases it’s been a dramatic decline. ”
Thanks Fritz Kaegi!
“That may very well be, but my question was: How does looser lending and lower down payments reduce prices or demand? Declining prices have to be based on other factors, like maybe really nice apartments for rent that reduce demand even though there’s looser lending standards.”
No, it’s Kaegi’s reassessments and it’s frozen the entire market. People are getting their 2019 reassessments and it’s freaking them out about the impending 2nd installment tax bill coming in the 2nd half of 2020. Kaegi has come up in every conversation I’ve had with every real estate professional I know or worked with in the last few months. So much so that people in my offices are posting memos on everyone’s desk about these reassessments and how to deal with it in every possible way related to real estate. It’s totally screwing up the tax proration escrows on properties that do sell and creating all kinds of issue. If I had to guess the market slow down is 85% Kaegi’s reassessment paralysis and 15% macro economic factors, of which 50% of that 15% is primarily issues with Illinois in general.
This is what you get when you hire a socialist progressive with zero experience as your assessor. At least you knew what you were getting with the corrupt guy who hired like 30 of his family members and reduced major landlord’s properties…this new guy, wow, he really is the talk of the town, and not in a good way.
“Thanks Fritz Kaegi!”
Is he controlling the property taxes for Elgin? St Charles? Barrington? Winnetka? Lake Forest? and on and on and on?
Because prices are falling there too.
Along with NYC, San Francisco, parts of Los Angeles, Seattle, San Diego. I can’t keep up with all the price declines.
“Declining prices have to be based on other factors, like maybe really nice apartments for rent that reduce demand even though there’s looser lending standards.”
We’re in a new situation.
If you recall, prices had not fallen in Chicago for over 70 years until the financial crisis. Even the crap market of the 1980s saw prices tread water, but they didn’t decline.
And now here we are again, with a legit price decline happening. With record low mortgage rates and unemployment at 3.6%.
And it’s all fine to say “the property taxes!” but in many cases that’s just a few thousand dollars more a year when some properties are down $100,000 or more. These are significant declines.
“However, their Lincoln Park/ Lake View and Lincoln Square/ North Center data indicates flat prices the last 2 – 3 years, with maybe a 1 – 2% decline from the latest mini-peak.”
I’m glad to see the data is matching up with what we’re seeing in a lot of properties.
Not everybody is seeing losses, but if you are trying to sell after just 3 or 4 years, good luck. It’s going to be really tough.
I wonder when we’ll start seeing short sales again? I’ve only seen a handful. But if the market gets worse by the spring, I’m sure they’ll be coming again.
Ugh.
“And it’s all fine to say “the property taxes!” but in many cases that’s just a few thousand dollars more a year when some properties are down $100,000 or more. These are significant declines.”
I’m in the trenches out there, maybe a slightly different view than you get on this blog, but still valid. And people are all telling me that the uncertainty with taxes, from the new assessments, to the income tax, to the $10,000 SALT cap, even to the new doubling of the gas tax – it’s really starting to affect households. All of Chicagoland went blue in 2018 and they passed every bond increase and every tax increase imaginable. And now the reality has set in. It’s paralyzed the market, no one wants to move up unless they have to, not knowing how much the taxes will be. Yes there are price declines everywhere, certainly, as housing in many locales has been unaffordable for a while, but this extreme paralysis seems to be unique to our area. Other areas in the state are facing other issues, like Peoria and Rockford with businesses leaving and high foreclosure rates (yes, still!).
““And it’s all fine to say “the property taxes!” but in many cases that’s just a few thousand dollars more a year when some properties are down $100,000 or more. These are significant declines.””
well first off, take a few thousand dollars a year of spending power and leverage that cost over a 30 year mortgage and voila! thats why you see declines in price… its not rocket science
probably doesn’t help that the spineless fat fuck governor you have won’t even knowledge the elephant in the room but he sure is anxious to raise your taxes and fees
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/gov-j-b-pritzker-rules-out-constitutional-change-to-address/article_e577ec8e-0b1c-11ea-92bd-1776f8a5ece4.html
I guess he doesn’t really care about the state at all and is just a useless madigan puppet, but hey he’s sure standing up to Trump! (like his campaign ads said) lmao
“Is he controlling the property taxes for … Winnetka?”
Um, yes?? Is this a trick question??
“““And it’s all fine to say “the property taxes!” but in many cases that’s just a few thousand dollars more a year when some properties are down $100,000 or more. These are significant declines.””
well first off, take a few thousand dollars a year of spending power and leverage that cost over a 30 year mortgage and voila! thats why you see declines in price… its not rocket science”
It’s not even finance science. It’s just basic finance.
“a few thousand” = $3k or more. Cap $3,000 at the current mortgage rates (lets just use 4%), and it’s $75,000. Add in the fact that none of the property tax is deductible (bc someone looking at a place in that price range likely has a $10k state income tax bill) and call that another $3k, and that’s suddenly a $150k shift in what you can have in principal.
“Controlling for Winnetka?”
____________________________________________
https://wgntv.com/2019/07/10/dramatic-rise-in-property-taxes-for-cook-county-chicagos-north-side/
One Family’s Story
Attila and Candice Farberg have lived in their Wilmette home since 1984. They have seen their property taxes modestly go up 2% to 3% to 6% over the years. They’ve even gotten refunds. But they told WGN News it has never been like this.
“The word legalized robbery comes to mind,” Attila Farberg said.
The Farberg’s tax bill went up $5,000 to a little over $21,000 in one year.
“The assessed value went up 30.79%” Attila Farberg said. “And the estimated market value went from $754,000 to a hair under a million.”
They said don’t believe their house is worth a million dollars.
The Farbergs said they want to pay their fair share but this all at once and 30% is unfair.
Fair share is for the people with more money to give it to the people with less money. Chicago voters were pretty clear that’s what they wanted. Well they got it.
I don’t know what the thesis is to buy in chicagoland when there are so many rental options that will let you move on without being exposed to normal market forces + new government wealth confiscation measures + 5% agent fees.
I saw Chicago wants to charge a couple points on the sale of every unit that sells over $3m. I wonder how that kind of talk is going to affect Vista and the couple other new condo towers. Can’t be good for business!
Regarding Kaegi…believe me I am the LAST person to argue for sticking it to the rich BUT I’ve been following property taxes really closely for years and Berrios is to blame. He had things so out of whack it was disgusting. Kaegi has fixed it. The problem is that owners of expensive homes got used to their free ride and don’t like that reality has set in. It’s like rent control. You give people a freebie and they get hooked on it. I know because my assessed value went up like 45%. Guess what? I had it coming! These articles rarely talk about the new assessed values vs. the market values but I look at them all the time and I can tell you that things are MUCH more accurate now.
As for screwing up tax prorations on closings…How? Every single realtor and attorney should have been factoring this in for the last 6 months. What’s the surprise? Hell, I wrote about this months ago and told buyers to factor the new assessed values into their proration ask. And for years I have told buyers to ignore current taxes and focus on what taxes would be in the long run.
the graduated real estate transfer tax is dead (for now)
https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2019/11/12/20961778/chicago-budget-real-estate-transfer-tax-lightfoot-aldermen-property-taxes
meanwhile these disgusting aldercritters just got a bigger allowance…
“Mayor Lori Lightfoot agreed Monday to raise the annual aldermanic expense — from $97,000 to $122,000 — to appease aldermen demanding more staff for their ward offices and build support for her 2020 budget.
Instead of budgeting $4.85 million for the annual aldermanic expense allowance, the city will spend $6.1 million — about a 26% increase. The additional $1.25 million will come from unspecified spending cuts and revenue increases, officials said, as the City Council’s Budget Committee approved the mayor’s $11.65 billion spending plan.”
oh and by the way, she lied about a property tax increase to fill the gap, its happening… lame duck mayor already getting destroyed by the politics of these aldercritters
“I’ve been following property taxes really closely for years and Berrios is to blame. He had things so out of whack it was disgusting. Kaegi has fixed it. The problem is that owners of expensive homes got used to their free ride and don’t like that reality has set in.”
Bingo!!
“to appease aldermen demanding more staff ”
Hope we can gin up some support for reducing the number of wards by half, or more. Should appeal to the aldercritters desire for more power.
“I saw Chicago wants to charge a couple points on the sale of every unit that sells over $3m. I wonder how that kind of talk is going to affect Vista and the couple other new condo towers. Can’t be good for business!”
Nothing has been decided yet, has it?
There are similar “luxury” taxes in other cities.
How many properties sell each year over $3 million? Yeah- the Vista would be hit. But it’s a lot less than you might think. I don’t think anyone is concerned about 40 to 50 sales a year in a city with over 15,000 sales a year.
“All of Chicagoland went blue in 2018 and they passed every bond increase and every tax increase imaginable. And now the reality has set in.”
What “reality”? That the Republicans fucked it up in the suburbs and now it has to be fixed?
You concede that the Republicans have controlled the suburbs for the last 30 years, right?
Then who is to be blamed? They are.
The same thing is happening on the Federal level. When does the spending stop? We’ve given $28 billion to the farmers and they’re going to need yet ANOTHER injection. You know what we could get for $42 billion? My god. New airports. Real railroads. New bridges. Just to start.
“You concede that the Republicans have controlled the suburbs for the last 30 years, right? ”
The Chicago suburbs went blue for one reason and only one reason: unfettered, unrestricted immigration over the last 30 years. It has nothing to do with the R’s fucking up the suburbs. It has everything to do with 80% of post 1965 immigrants, and their children and grandchildren, voting reliably blue.
Ann sums it up pretty nicely later in the article when she says:
“They [Immigrants] were brought in to vote for the Democrats. That’s the real job immigrants are doing that Americans just won’t do.”
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2017-11-15.html
“Hey, Republicans! Did you enjoy Election Night last week? Get ready for a lot more nights like that as immigration turns every last corner of the country blue.
When Ed Gillespie lost in Virginia, liberals crowed about how they’re winning the war of ideas. The country has thoroughly, emphatically rejected Trumpism!
Republicans, being idiots, played along, arguing only about whether Gillespie’s problem was that he didn’t embrace Trump enough or embraced him too much.
Gillespie’s campaign was fine. No cleverer arguments, community outreach or perfectly timed mailings would have changed the result. Contrary to The New York Times’ celebratory article in last Sunday’s magazine, “How the ‘Resistance’ Helped Democrats Dominate Virginia,” it wasn’t Democratic operative Kathryn Sorenson’s savvy use of Facebook, Google and Eventbrites that carried the day. “The Resistance” didn’t win.
What happened was: Democrats brought in new voters. In 1970, only one out of every 100 Virginians was foreign-born. By 2012, one in nine Virginians was foreign-born.
The foreign-born vote overwhelmingly, by about 80 percent, for Democrats. They always have and they always will — especially now that our immigration policies aggressively discriminate in favor of the poorest, least-educated, most unskilled people on Earth. They arrive in need of a LOT of government services.
According to the Pew Research Center, 75 percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government, compared to just over 40 percent of the general public. Even third-generation Hispanics support bigger government by 58 percent.”
Oh, lookie here:
https://chicagomonitor.com/2016/03/chicagos-foreign-born-population-moving-to-suburbs/
“Chicago has long been a city of immigrants, and the foreign-born still make up 21 percent of the city’s population. But as Chicago’s and Illinois’- overall population continues to decline, so has the foreign born population, dropping nearly 10 per cent since 2000 to nearly 568,000 people, according to 2014 Census Bureau figures.
Despite Chicago’s population dip, the foreign-born population in Cook County has risen 3 percent to almost 1,100,000 since 2000, thanks mainly to growth in several of the area’s suburban regions.
Places like Wheeling, Naperville and Bolingbrook have seen impressive growth in their immigrant populations. Foreign-born Chicagoans continue to move to the outer regions and newly arriving immigrants bypass the city altogether and head straight for suburban areas.”
Think about that Sabrina, 1,100,000 people of Cook County’s 5,200,000 people are foreign born. Bet they vote Democrat?
The point of the article is that they are moving to the suburbs too, and they are voting Democrat.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/naperville-sun/ct-nvs-midterm-results-by-precinct-st-1111-story.html
How a blue wave rolled through historically Republican Naperville, leaving the GOP in its wake
”
In Tuesday’s midterm election, a blue wave rolled across the county with the Democratic Party winning all six congressional races that reach into DuPage.
The flood of blue swept through Naperville, too, with Democratic candidates winning 80 percent of the precincts in the city.
“I believe that there’s been a fundamental change,” said Kerr, a former Naperville Township committeewoman.”
Well Sabrina, when 25% of Naperville is foreign born right now, and foreign born citizens (and their children, and grandchildren) vote Democrat at rates of 80% or higher. Yeah, it’s not the R’s F’in it up as you naively believe, but rather, the Republican voters have all left or have been replaced.
“How many properties sell each year over $3 million? Yeah- the Vista would be hit. But it’s a lot less than you might think. I don’t think anyone is concerned about 40 to 50 sales a year in a city with over 15,000 sales a year.”
This narrative is toxic. It’s OK if it only affects a few people. That sucks. Why is it OK to hit a few people with higher taxes? It’s tyranny of the majority. Not a good idea to allow the masses to vote for benefits for themselves that someone else pays for.
“Not a good idea to allow the masses to vote for benefits for themselves that someone else pays for.”
You mean like deficit spending during economic growth cycles?
everyone always votes to benefit themselves… thats why I voted with my feet last November and got the fuck out of a state trying to steal all the money I make.
people that vote democrat are just sad people and complete morons… Imagine being such a loser that you think communism and income equality is going to happen and make your life better, or that helping other people by some complicated government program is going to do fuck all other than line a few peoples pockets.
Vote for the government to leave you the fuck alone because everything they touch becomes a corrupt money grab one way or the other.
“Not a good idea to allow the masses to vote for benefits for themselves that someone else pays for.”
You mean like deficit spending during economic growth cycles?
——————————–
But when we have tax “reform” that puts literally 90 percent of the benefit to the top 1/2 of 1 percent of the people, that’s okay?
everyone benefited from the recent tax reform, not just rich people… come on
“everyone benefited from the recent tax reform”
I did NOT. My taxes went up, which was by design.
“But when we have tax “reform” that puts literally 90 percent of the benefit to the top 1/2 of 1 percent of the people, that’s okay?”
Uh, how did they “pay” for the tax cut? MORE DEFICITS!!
Do try to keep up, john. I know that tilting at the bucktown windmill is basically 2 FTEs, but still. It’s not like we’d been paying down the debt *before* the tax cut.
““everyone benefited from the recent tax reform”
I did NOT. My taxes went up, which was by design.”
Anon(tfo), you benefited from the new tax bill, just not financially. And the financial aspect isn’t everything. The benefit is more ideological. Just like every candidate last night at the (D) debate said, the rich aren’t paying their fair share, and certainly you agree that you should owe more taxes too – the new tax bill was a step in the right direction, but you should be paying ALOT more taxes. You live in an expensive house in an expensive city and earn a great income. You’re part of that 9.9%, so stop complaining and pay up.
(unless you plan on holding your nose and voting MAGA next year…)
“Do try to keep up, john. I know that tilting at the bucktown windmill is basically 2 FTEs, but still. It’s not like we’d been paying down the debt *before* the tax cut.”
This is one issue I have with the new republican party, that deficits and debt don’t matter. It’s total BS the crazy spending on both sides of the aisle….which is even crazier because the progressives also say that debts and deficits don’t matter. They say that as a sovereign nation being the reserve currency, taxes don’t actually fund the government!
Taxes just redistribute wealth and achieve social policy and to some level, control (or unleash) inflation. They say that Government is funded by the printing presses which creates money from this air. So deficits don’t really matter because we can just print money to pay it off. Now that theory doesnt work for the IL budget….
“But when we have tax “reform” that puts literally 90 percent of the benefit to the top 1/2 of 1 percent of the people, that’s okay?”
If by benefit you mean less confiscation from the parties who fund the government, then yes, the reform is great. The top 1% pays 40% of the federal income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% and the top 10% pay 70%.
how much tax is enough for you people? Would the top 1% paying 80%, top 5% paying 90% and the top 10% paying 100% of federal taxes be enough? Should we tax all income over $100k at 100% – no one needs more than 100k per year? how much is enough?
Anon, who did you think they are talking about when they say “the rich?”
The insidious thing about tax the rich progressives imho is that they love to drag out billionaires when making a speech, but when they actually write tax policy it is some how always starts at $250k/yr household income.
Any professional DINK couple or successful single professional is considered rich nowadays.
I’ve just learned to accept when I start hearing about taxing the rich, it means me….
“Do try to keep up, john. I know that tilting at the bucktown windmill is basically 2 FTEs, but still. It’s not like we’d been paying down the debt *before* the tax cut.”
——————————-
You missed the point anon (tfo). The post you responded to mentioned it not being a good idea for the MASSES to vote benefits for themselves. Since 90 percent of the benefit of the tax cuts went to the top 1/2 o 1 percent, I was inquiring if it was a good idea to vote benefits for the few.
exactly, you’re rich anon, who cares? You’re an Obama millionaire who’s HHI is in the top 5%, time to pay up!
“You missed the point anon (tfo). The post you responded to mentioned it not being a good idea for the MASSES to vote benefits for themselves. Since 90 percent of the benefit of the tax cuts went to the top 1/2 o 1 percent, I was inquiring if it was a good idea to vote benefits for the few.”
Well considering that the top 3% of all income earners paid 50% of all federal taxes….maybe, just maybe, they deserve a little relief for supporting the likes of you!!!! Wouldn’t that be more fair an equitable?
If anything, we should be taxing the 50% of people who don’t pay any federal tax! They receive refunds and then the government borrows to make up the difference.
(Top 3% of U.S. Taxpayers Paid Majority of Income Tax in 2016 – Bloomberg, October 14, 2018)
I’ve been posting here for a long time, and I’ve read the evolution of anon(tfo) over the years (as he’s likely read the evolution of mine). But it seems to me that even he is freaked out with the current crop of democratic socialists infesting the Democrat party making the party essentially unrecognizable to the mainstream and establishment centrists. Anon(tfo) may agree with them on abortion and LBGTQ+ rights but gets freaked out when he reads about taxing the rich, and job guarantees, and medicare for all, and housing is a human right that ‘rich’ people should pay for. He didn’t leave the D party, it left him. But how will he evolve by November 2020? Will he hold his nose and vote for Warren who just promised to increase FICA taxes to 15% on all income w/o limitations including capital gains/profits/interest because Orange Man Bad? or will he hold his nose and for the first time in his life vote R on the top of the ballot (but just not tell anyone about his heresy)…I don’t know, I don’t know. That’s the problem a lot of people are concerned about. it’s time to decide is your ideology or your pocket book more important to you. At least with Trump you know how your tax bill went up … and with Warren, it will only increase exponentially…
“or will he hold his nose and for the first time in his life vote R on the top of the ballot”
hahahahahahaha.
I’d vote for goddam Mussolini over Trump. Trump gets my vote in a match-up with Mao or Pol Pot, and that’s about it from the post-wwi world.
Again, I don’t really vote my pocketbook. I’m just pointing out the fallacy of “Trump cut *everyone’s* taxes”. He raised mine, so his own could be reduced *more*.
The funny part will be watching liberal city pension funds like Chicago’s explode if warren gets elected. She literally wants to destroy the stock market and wall street for no good reason at all.
“wants to destroy … wall street for no good reason”
C’mon. You know more than that. You can disagree with her reason, but it is a reason: wall street exercises disproportionate influence over government policy.
You 99%+ disagree, I mostly disagree, Goldman Sachs execs are brought to tears by the proposition, and know-nothing bern-bros love it.
But it is a “good reason” from her perspective. Which is, unfortunately, too much about competing with Bernie for a similar slice of the D primary electorate. A lot of her proposals are typical politician BS–her assertion of “no middle class tax increase” to pay for M4A is bunkum, as it relies on not calling ‘insurance premia’ paid to the federal government, on a mandatory basis, ‘not a tax’, when it clearly is. I like Liz (liked her better when she was Liz), but she’s putting herself into a place where the Trumpkin could tear her apart.
“You missed the point anon (tfo).”
You quoted me, and started with “But”, and ending with “that’s ok?”, indicating a question to me.
As the proposition you presented was a subset of what I wrote (a policy effecting an increase in deficit spending, during an economic upcycle), I’d already answered the question with “no, it’s not ok”, and there is no reason for it to be couched as a “but” statement. IMO, policies that increase deficit spending during upcycles (except for bona fide emergencies) are bad.
Deficit spending should be used for national (state, local) emergencies and to soften the effects of economic downcycles (both for the immediate welfare of the individuals suffering the downcycle, and the preservation of economic activity for the next upcycle). In the good times, the debt should be reduced, so the government is in a better position for the next emergency.
What has been done for the past 40 years–by every combination of federal lawmakers, EXCEPT Impeached Clinton + Gingrich congress–is simply politicians giving their voters something that their grandkids will have to pay for.
“You mean like deficit spending during economic growth cycles?”
If you are referring to the fact that some future generation is going to pay for the spending then you are correct and that’s a good example of the problem.
“Anon, who did you think they are talking about when they say “the rich?””
The Rs want to tax me so that the tier above me gets a big cut while they give a sou to the proles, and the Ds want to tax a much broader swath (and, except for the goofy wealth tax proposals, still exempt the really rich) to fund some things I believe would (over time) improve the lives of my theoretical grandkids. I’ll take the shared sacrifice for $2,000, Alex.
Plus the current Ds put the sorts of judges I like on the bench, and support my general views on society, while the current Rs do not. So the first part is really pretty immaterial to me.
Here is the data on who got the tax cut benefits. Of course, not everyone benefited. You can only look at averages. https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-filed-returns-the-irs-compiled-the-data-heres-how-the-new-tax-law-is-working-11562059803
Of course, the rich are going to save more because they pay more. 47% of the country pays no income tax anyway so how could they get any benefit from a tax cut?
“If you are referring to the fact that some future generation is going to pay for the spending”
Yep. I always say that a dollar of deficit spending is simply a deferred tax increase.
Yes, we can repay it with “tiny future dollars” (and that is a good idea in many case), but the future tax rate would be LOWER but for the debt incurred now. Ergo, tax increase.
“Of course, not everyone benefited.”
What? Sonies keeps telling us that EVERYone (and yes, I am aware and acknowledge that he ain’t talking about EITC folks, nor am I) did??
We are certainly in the D candidates’ “rich” category based on income (being a Hinsdale gym teacher/coach, and a CFD/CPD lieutenant with a lot of OT). Our tax bill was higher, not a lot higher, but higher.
“Well considering that the top 3% of all income earners paid 50% of all federal taxes….maybe, just maybe, they deserve a little relief for supporting the likes of you!!!! Wouldn’t that be more fair an equitable? ”
——————————————
What makes you think I’m not in the top three percent of income earners?
“At least with Trump you know how your tax bill went up … and with Warren, it will only increase exponentially…”
———————–
Given a choice between Cheeto Jesus and the Harridan, I’ll go with a third party.
“Deficit spending should be used for national (state, local) emergencies and to soften the effects of economic downcycles (both for the immediate welfare of the individuals suffering the downcycle, and the preservation of economic activity for the next upcycle).”
————————-
The only time the US did not have a national debt was in the early 1840s if I remember correctly. the economy promptly went into a recession.
cc’s lyin’ mischaracterizin’ troll hd posted “..The top 1% pays 40% of the federal income taxes, the top 5% pay 60% and the top 10% pay 70%.
how much tax is enough for you people? Would the top 1% paying 80%, top 5% paying 90% and the top 10% paying 100% of federal taxes be enough? Should we tax all income over $100k at 100% – no one needs more than 100k per year? how much is enough?”
Of course hd ignored the salient part of his selected & misquoted sourced info from 2016 IRS filings (before dt & r’s lowered rates substantially for wealthy filers): Per IRS in 2016 the avg tax rate paid by top 1% of filers was 26.87% of their adjusted gross income (AGI hereafter).
2016 tax rate paid by top 10% of filers was 21.2% of AGI.
2016 tax rate paid by top 25% was 17.84% of AGI.
I don’t recall what tax rate % IRS charges above $100K of AGI but it’s clearly a long long long long way from a 100% tax rate.
Finally when hd posted “..welcome to the republican party..” to anon(tfo) a short while ago imo hd addressed the wrong prospective republican. Imo hd should have instead welcomed the Lincoln Park stick up artist to the party which has few qualms if any re r party member’s criminal behavior. jmo
Southbound, you are confusing tax rates with actual taxes paid…
HD is referencing total taxes paid in dollars to federal govt. Regardless of the actual tax rate percentage, the top percentiles pay damn near all the taxes collected. 10% of $1,000,000 is more than 15% of $100,000 even though the $100k guy may have a higher tax rate percentage.
We can argue about why rates may vary, but the FACT is that top percentiles pay practically all the federal taxes.
“The only time the US did not have a national debt”
You do understand the difference between deficit and debt…
It was in 1835 that the debt was paid off, and there isn’t any reasonable basis for tying the event with the Panic of 1837.
Anon(tfo) you would vote for Mussolini who turned over jews to hitler over Trump? I get your hyperbole but it’s a really F’in stupid thing to say. As stupid as Jenny a few years ago saying that republicans should be rounded up into camps. I called her for that. I don’t think she’s ever posted here again after that. TDS finally drove her into the mental facility in Elgin I guess.
It’s been three years and other than a few isis terrorists (who also hate Jews), there’s been no fascist genocide. The Republican Party can cure you of your TDS. Trump is a scumbag but a great president and a lot of people think this way. But he’s still getting 95% of our vote. Welcome to the republican part anon(tfo).
I prefer to not get fleas, HD.
PS: Trump turning the Kurds over to the Turks doesn’t offend you?
Per Russ: “Southbound, you are confusing tax rates with actual taxes paid…”
No Russ I responded to hd’s attempt to conflate tax rates with taxes paid when hd suggested ‘us people’ wanted 100% of income above $100K ‘confiscated’ by IRS despite large % of US total tax collected coming from our most wealthy tax payers.
To me it’s irrelevant what % of total IRS taxes collected comes from top 1% or top 5% or top 10%. What matters to me is their total taxes paid as % of their AGI should be equitable. Fwiw the top marginal US tax rates were 90% earlier in my life and are now 37%. It doesn’t seem inequitable to me that the top 10% US tax payers were previously paying on average 26.87% of their AGI.
I’m concerned but not outraged by the concentration of wealth in the US in the top few % but I hope we don’t turn into Great Britain/Europe. Like all parents I hope our offspring earn their way (or stumble) into that strata. Anyone fortunate and/or successful enough to succeed imo should pay an equitable tax rate on their incomes. And they/their heirs should also pay an equitable amount of tax on their estate to allow others their shot.
I’m happy for the success of our nation’s wealthiest & top earners and I believe they should pay their equitable share of what our system requires to continue to thrive and support the conditions which allows & allowed them to prosper.
typo correction : In 2016 top 1 % of taxpayers paid 26.87% of AGI in tax and top 10% of taxpayers paid 21.2% of AGI (tax rates on top 10%+ taxpayers were lowered greatly in 2017 by dt/republicans)
southbound: Russ is correct, you are wrong. Your TDS is making you irrational again. Admit you were wrong, I do often, and move on. My comment speaks for itself, other people understood it exact as it was written. Only in your warped mind does it mean something. Like all those dog whistles you hear that no one else seems to hear….
anon(tfo): “PS: Trump turning the Kurds over to the Turks doesn’t offend you?”
Again, absurd irrational comment due to TDS. The Kurds at issue here are the PKK communist organization Kurds that use terrorism to form a communist state. They were only our ‘friends’ because they hated and fought ISIS. And there is more or less a cease fire too now too. It’s not just you, the TDS brings out the crazy in people. There is no genocide of the Kurds by Turkey – they were trying clear the Kurds out of the way so they could safely return the millions of undocumented refugees back to their own country – something the United States should do with our illegal immigrants. Except The Syrians want to go home, our central american neighbors want to make America their new home.
“What makes you think I’m not in the top three percent of income earners?”
We have another internet billionaire here folks! Well we know you’re not Rickets, or Griffin.
Penny, is that you using the name johnc?
“What matters to me is their total taxes paid as % of their AGI should be equitable.”
We can have legitimate discussion over this issue without personal attacks. I believe that equitable = fair = treat everyone the same. progressive taxes are not fair, I believe everyone should be treated the same. once you open the door to equitable, it really does go down the slippery slope, which is not just a theoretical argument. From progressive taxes came affirmative action, to wealth redistribution, and now the mini-Maos in city council want to make utility rates equitable – and they get to decide what is equitable.
“Fwiw the top marginal US tax rates were 90% earlier in my life and are now 37%. ”
FYI no one ever paid that 90% marginal tax rate, no one. Just like no one is ever put in jail for jaywalking or any of those other blue laws that are never enforced.
“Except The Syrians want to go home, our central american neighbors want to make America their new home.”
By next year, there will be more refugees from Venezuela than there were in the Syrian War (more than 6.5 million.) Most of those refugees have stayed in South and Central America, including over a million that are now in Colombia.
“Trump is a scumbag but a great president and a lot of people think this way.”
Can a “scumbag” be “great”?
I would argue no.
He has never gotten above a 50% approval rating. Ever. He is the first president of the modern era to have that happen. And it’s only gotten worse as the con is exposed.
I thank god every day that the President is too narcissistic to be an actual dictator/fascist. Pelosi is 100% correct. Trump will do something dumb to blow himself up. Who in the hell would ever “hire” someone like Rudy Guiliani or Sondland to do these stupid shenanigans? Come on! You can’t even make this shitshow up.
If he was actually doing what he ran on and saving coal and steel jobs (he’s not, they continue to decline), helping the rural workers find better jobs (trade war is killing that), fixing healthcare (doesn’t even care about that but if the Court of Appeals throws out Obamacare then he’s really in trouble because there is NO plan ready to go), spending money on infrastructure (airports, bridges, roads, rail continue to be third world) then he would be over 50% with the economy muddling through as it is.
Oh yeah, what ever happened to 6% GDP growth?
Lol!
It’s comical.
The economy never even sustained 3% with that massive tax cut. And now it’s back under 2%. Even Obama’s economy did better in certain spurts. Obama had at least one 5% GDP quarter. Trump isn’t even going to get that.
Who would support such a failed party? What working class or middle class person would vote for this? Just wait until the insurers stop covering pre-existing conditions again.
But the results in Kentucky and Louisiana have already made it clear that the cities and suburbs will NOT support these policies. And the educated women certainly won’t. The outcome in 2020 is already obvious. It’s only a matter of how overwhelming the Democratic victory will be. It was a crush down in 2018. It will likely be even greater in 2020, even if Pence is on top of the ticket.
“She literally wants to destroy the stock market and wall street for no good reason at all.”
She does?
I think we can agree that not a single bank executive, not even the mortgage guys, went to jail during what was one of the worst, corrupt times in Wall Street history. At least after the Great Depression there was the SEC and banking reform which really tapped down on the wealth and influence of Wall Street.
It didn’t have the shine again for another 40 years.
But the party days have returned to NYC within 10 years this time. What’s wrong with making sure it doesn’t blow up again? Every other industry gets regulated, they should be too.
“Anon(tfo), you benefited from the new tax bill, just not financially.”
The top 20% benefited from the tax bill because they own stocks. The vast majority of the tax cuts went to dividends and buybacks. There was NO trickle down. There was little added investment. The companies already had budgets and plans. Then suddenly the extra cash was plopped down on them so they literally had nothing else to do with it (as the Fed was already giving away money for basically nothing so they could already borrow easily) so it just got plowed back into the shares.
I’m still laughing my ass off at Paul Ryan’s stupid proclamations of “trickle down.”
Yet, in the 2020 election, Trump will probably try to convince “the base” about how much it benefited them.
“Imagine being such a loser that you think communism and income equality is going to happen and make your life better, or that helping other people by some complicated government program is going to do fuck all other than line a few peoples pockets.”
Imagine voting for people who think a massive corporate tax cut would “trickle” down?
Imagine voting for people who believe if there’s no immigrants allowed in, the country’s GDP and productivity actually increases? (with 7 million job openings)
Imagine voting for people who want women back in the kitchen: barefoot and pregnant?
Imagine voting for people who want to take healthcare coverage away from poor Americans?
Imagine voting for people who allow social security to run low on money so benefits must be cut?
Imagine voting for people who continue to raise the defense budget when our bridges are failing?
Imagine.
Just imagine.
CC’s resident propagandist posted “..FYI no one ever paid that 90% marginal tax rate, no one. Just like no one is ever put in jail for jaywalking or any of those other blue laws that are never enforced.”
Wow a self described officer of the court claims IRS tax regulations were just a suggestion which was ignored by absolutely every tax filer – it is clear hd has severe derangement symptons and I hope none of his clients ever take his legal advice re tax filing strategy.
I’m done interacting with a fool who just makes crap up & quotes ‘experts’ like Ann Coulter as if she would be a source of reliably factual information re voting patterns of immigrants – it gives me no pleasure to have matched wits with a half wit.
“Why is it OK to hit a few people with higher taxes?”
They’re trying to find the money from somewhere.
Lightfoot wants to tax sales all the way down to $500,000, I believe. But the higher up properties would pay a larger percentage of tax.
“Well Sabrina, when 25% of Naperville is foreign born right now, and foreign born citizens (and their children, and grandchildren) vote Democrat at rates of 80% or higher. Yeah, it’s not the R’s F’in it up as you naively believe, but rather, the Republican voters have all left or have been replaced.”
This is why the Republican party is failing nationwide and will become the minority party for years to come (although the Dems were failing in the 1980s in the same way and had to reinvent themselves, which they did, under Clinton so I have hope that when the Republicans are at THEIR low point, then the party will adjust to the new reality and figure out a way to survive.)
Given the demographics of the country, NO party can win without:
1. Latinos
2. Women
So why are the Republicans basing their ENTIRE platform on white men?
HD: if Naperville is 25% foreign born now, and for some reason they’re all now US citizens and able to vote, why isn’t the Republican Party trying to win those voters with their platform? Why have those votes been conceded to the Democrats? Why can’t the Republicans compete?
The Mexican vote should be Republican. In Texas, it used to be. They are overwhelmingly Catholic and conservative. But now? They are lost. They are voting Democratic. And will be for at least a generation.
Who within the Republican Party is willing to take the blame for that? Who lost Naperville? Who lost Downers Grove? Heck, who the hell lost Wheaton? WHEATON!
If you can’t answer those questions, then the party is never going to figure out how they lost the Cincinnati suburbs in Kentucky. Or the suburbs of Baton Rouge. Or Orange County in California.
“Think about that Sabrina, 1,100,000 people of Cook County’s 5,200,000 people are foreign born. Bet they vote Democrat?”
But why?
If you don’t see the problem, how can you fix it?
What is the Republican Party doing wrong that they do not appeal to all of these millions of voters? And not just in Chicago and its suburbs. But in Austin and its suburbs. In Dallas and its suburbs. In Richmond Virginia. In Bucks County Pennsylvania.
I really encourage people to look at the 2016, 2018 and now the 2019 results in Louisiana by parish. It’s really eye opening. If the Republicans really want to figure out why they continue to lose, the numbers are pretty obvious.
By 2040, European descendant whites will be a minority nationwide. Shouldn’t the Republican Party have a plan to attract Latinos, Asians and African Americans to their platform?
You’d think so.
But there’s never anyone taking responsibility for the collapse of the Republican Party. There’s no one saying, “yeah, our policies really suck for Latinos which is why we can’t win them over.” At least ADMIT that you’re not trying to win over those voters.
The demographics will continue to get worse for the Republicans. And college-educated women have been completely alienated from the Republican Party as well. You’re not going to win in the cities if 65% of those women are voting Democratic.
Who HAS a plan to extend the tent? What happens when those old white voters die off? No one seems to want to address the obvious.
“It has nothing to do with the R’s fucking up the suburbs.”
But you said the suburbs were fucked up and blamed the Democrats.
But if the Republicans have been in control of the city/congressional seats of the suburbs for 30 years and the pensions/finances of those areas are fucked up, then, it seems the only conclusion is that the Republicans have fucked up the suburbs and now the Democrats are in there to try and fix the mess.
“The foreign-born vote overwhelmingly, by about 80 percent, for Democrats. They always have and they always will — especially now that our immigration policies aggressively discriminate in favor of the poorest, least-educated, most unskilled people on Earth. They arrive in need of a LOT of government services.”
Again, you seemingly have NO PLAN HD.
Who cares if all the immigrants vote Democrat? Good for them for extending their tent and winning over those voters. That was the Democrats’ intent.
It is a complete failure of the Republican party that it doesn’t have a message to attract voters other than old white men. So what are they going to do about it?
If what you cite is true, it indicates that the Democrats will win the White House, the Senate and the Congress in 2020 and possibly hold it for the next 20 or 30 years.
But who wants that?
The country is better off when there is divided government. So I really hope and pray that after the Trump disaster is over, that the Republican Party has a true reckoning (and only a complete crushing will probably do that) and starts down a new path to truly be a competitive party over the next decade.
We are going to need the best ideas, from both sides of the aisle, to save Social Security and Medicare over the next 20 years. This happened in the 1980s so I believe it can, and will, happen again. But the GOP really needs to figure it out after 2020.
” Fwiw the top marginal US tax rates were 90% earlier in my life and are now 37%. ”
And before 1913 it was zero. So obviously zero is the right number.
Comments on various posts above:
“‘everyone benefited from the recent tax reform’
I did NOT. My taxes went up, which was by design.”
Same here.
“how much tax is enough for you people? Would the top 1% paying 80%, top 5% paying 90% and the top 10% paying 100% of federal taxes be enough? Should we tax all income over $100k at 100% – no one needs more than 100k per year? how much is enough?”
Well, when Romney released his taxes I could see that, as expected, I paid way more as a percentage than he did. Given that Trump probably pays about nothing (one of the many reasons he won’t release them), I’m sure that’s true of him too.
I don’t (usually, except on days I’m filling out the tax returns) begrudge the amount I pay, as I am well off as compared to the American average (not rich, and my neighborhood is a mix of middle and upper middle class), but I do think it’s absurd to give tax relief that primarily goes to the very rich and to increase taxes on me (since by location and income I am likely to vote Dem, no doubt) and not on those much, much richer than me.
“Anon, who did you think they are talking about when they say ‘the rich?'”
Depends on who “they” is. Until recently I lived near Blaine (now I am in an area that actually is more middle class, although the area has plenty of upper middle too). During the last (but one) teacher’s strike, they had signs about how the city can afford whatever, just tax the rich, and everyone passing (including most locals) would honk in support. I found that insane — don’t you know they are meaning you, they think you are “the rich?” I don’t think they got that.
But also from the current RW rhetoric, the “rich” (i.e., the elite) is not actual rich people at all, but those of us who have post college degrees whether we are middle, upper middle, or actually rich. And truly rich people in many cases deny being “the elite” (Trump, obv, and many others, such as Josh Hawley).
The Dems are all over the place. Some affected horror at Biden’s question as to whether “middle class” folks like teachers and others making $100K would have a tax increase (a question I was asking in my mind). They suggested that teachers never make $100K, that’s absurd, Biden is out of touch (he might be, but even so in Chicago plenty seem to make $100K and since the issue is household income, many many must).
But then Warren’s wealth tax (and I’m skeptical about Warren personally) seems to genuinely hit the actual rich. It certainly would not hit me. Going back to a time of a more progressive tax similarly would not bother me.
The people who last attacked the $250K+ family when it comes to taxes seems to me to be the Rs.
When thinking about the wealth tax everyone needs to remember the history of the AMT. It was originally enacted to make sure that 155 people pay “their fair share”. We all know how that turned out.
“they were trying clear the Kurds out of the way so they could safely return the millions of undocumented refugees back to their own country ”
Jeebus, you’re gullible.
“And before 1913 it was zero. So obviously zero is the right number.”
Well, that’s how we define what Bucktown is, so it makes sense to me, Gary.
“We have another internet billionaire here folks! Well we know you’re not Rickets, or Griffin.
Penny, is that you using the name johnc?”
————————————————
Actually, top 3 percent in annual income only requires an income of maybe $250,000, hardly billionaire status
“in Chicago plenty [of teachers] seem to make $100K and since the issue is household income, many many must”
A couple that is two *first year* teachers would have gross income over $100k, but would probably not be there on AGI, and would get the $24k deduction. But that’s more politician speak–they say “$100k income”, they legislate “$100k taxable income”.
“the current RW rhetoric, the “rich” (i.e., the elite)”
I don’t get much exposure to the RW media for the masses–do they actually say “rich” or do they say “elite”?? Last I was following, they stuck with Elite–bc rich = good (Prosperity Jesus sez so!!), while elite = bad (Regular Jesus sez so!!).
” top 3 percent in annual income only requires an income of maybe $250,000,”
most recent stats easily located by gthooi:
In Illinois:
Top 5% = $217,500
top 1% = $456,377
For Chicago:
Top 5% = $221,200 (seemingly city only)
top 1% = $524,009 (metro)
So probably more like $300-$350k threshold for top 3%. Still (a) not a billionaire, and (b) more taxable income than DJT.
Per johnc: “Actually, top 3 percent in annual income only requires an income of maybe $250,000, hardly billionaire status”
Per IRS summary of 2016 filings AGI of $480,804 (and above) qualified as top 1% of tax filers & AGI of $197,651 (and above) qualified as top 5% of tax filers so johnc’s post sounds reasonably accurate
“When thinking about the wealth tax everyone needs to remember the history of the AMT. It was originally enacted to make sure that 155 people pay “their fair share”. We all know how that turned out.”
——————————
The problem with the Alternative Minimum Tax is that it was not updated to reflect changed conditions. First, when AMT was enacted, filers did not have to list the social security numbers of their dependents. Now they do. Guess what? The first year the IRS required dependent SSNs, five MILLION “dependents” disappeared. So the idea of not allowing the personal deduction — in the AMT to minimize fraud from ficticious dependents exemptions — is now gone. The AMT was never updated. Ditto the income levels at which AMT was originally set — never updated. That’s why you have fundamentalist salesmen earning $100k a year but with 8 kids subject to AMT — and they’re trotted out each year as examples of the “unfairness” of the AMT. Why not simply adjust the AMT? It’s not rocket science, but if we did that, the right-wingnuts could no longer demonize the IRS.
Likewise, Congress should adjust the $3,000 limit to the long-term capital loss carry over. That hasn’t been adjusted since the early/mid 60s when it was first imposed.
And Bucktown ends at Armitage, by the way.
“So probably more like $300-$350k threshold for top 3%. Still (a) not a billionaire, and (b) more taxable income than DJT.”
——————————
The originating post did not limit the top three percent of income to Illinois, so I took it to be the national level. Top three percent nationally is about $224,000.
I’m in the top three percent.
“Top three percent nationally is about $224,000”
Cite, please.
“Congress should adjust the $3,000 limit to the long-term capital loss carry over. That hasn’t been adjusted since the early/mid 60s when it was first imposed.”
Why should they adjust it? That’s what it was when I lived there, sonny, and anything that changes it is BS.
““So probably more like $300-$350k threshold for top 3%. Still (a) not a billionaire, and (b) more taxable income than DJT.”
——————————
The originating post did not limit the top three percent of income to Illinois, so I took it to be the national level. Top three percent nationally is about $224,000.
I’m in the top three percent.”
So go ahead and write a check to the IRS and IDOR and pay more tax. no one is stopping you from donating your money. I just don’t believe that they should be confiscating any more of your money than they already are.
““they were trying clear the Kurds out of the way so they could safely return the millions of undocumented refugees back to their own country ”
Jeebus, you’re gullible.”
If I had time (and I don’t this afternoon), I’d go back and see if I you’ve ever posted any comments alluding to the Russian Collusion hoax.
Interesting to read Fox News, I mean homedelete’s, astute political observations.
And to Sonies for telling me that Democrats want communism. Gee, now I know where to go for some really factual stuff. Please, let’s stick to lucid conversation. Preferably about housing.
“Please, let’s stick to lucid conversation. Preferably about housing.”
——————–
‘Bucktown ends at Armitage’ is pretty lucid.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mary-kate-cary/2009/10/14/fox-news-less-biased-than-cnn-msnbc-in-white-house-coverage-
“Interesting to read Fox News, I mean homedelete’s, astute political observations.”
Thanks, homedelete. But why should I care what a blogger said? I already know MSNBC and CNN are biased against Trump.
“‘Bucktown ends at Armitage’ is pretty lucid.”
If that’s your test, you really do need professional help.
“Thanks, homedelete. But why should I care what a blogger said?”
IN 2009!! TEN F’ING YEARS AGO!!
Also of note: She was Bill Barr’s spox the first time he was AG (after being a speechwriter for 41 for 3 years). So, not exactly a non-partisan voice.
@ johnhc
about bucktown…
the funny things about Jenny and turtles and for that matter number of bathrooms is that OTHER posters reference the turtles and bathrooms.
when you keep mentioning bucktown, people end up glazing over it like a corporate email signature or google play term and conditions.
just an opinion from a random internet poster
School question and subsidized housing
@ Gary
Gary
so this video – do you not believe there are benefits to having teachers / police etc who have lower wages to have the ability to live in / near / close their working communities?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF5VAIf56F4
“about bucktown…
the funny things about Jenny and turtles and for that matter number of bathrooms is that OTHER posters reference the turtles and bathrooms.”
—————————
Turtles? I confess that I don’t think I ever saw a turtle in Bucktown. Come to think of it, I don’t believe I ever saw one in Wicker Park either, nor in the un-named area South of Armitage for that matter.
What’s turtles got to do with anything?
“do you not believe there are benefits to having teachers / police etc who have lower wages to have the ability to live in / near / close their working communities?”
Benefits? Yes. What is the economic value of those benefits? I think they are teeny tiny. I had a really good education and never knew where any of my teachers lived nor did I care. Same for my kids. It makes no sense to spend hundreds/ thousands of dollars per month per teacher to subsidize their housing for some vague benefit.
I’d like to know the rest of this story because these types of reports are so shallow. If teacher turnover is so high then how do they keep the schools staffed? Why do new teachers take these jobs? Who’s leaving and why exactly?
I could see a slightly greater value in policemen living in the communities that they police but that’s not practical from a staffing aspect. I’m sure they need to move police around regularly.
There is a bit of a hint of an answer to my question at the end of the video. Teachers are leaving in the first 3 years. So maybe they have unrealistic expectations about how they can make ends meet or what the challenges of the job are. Notice that, like Chicago, they have more trouble staffing the schools with a higher minority demographic. What is it about those schools that make them harder to staff? Do they need to pay more to get teachers to work in those schools?
I’d rather see school districts pay teachers what they need to pay them to staff the schools properly than for the government to decide that cheaper housing is the answer.
If I remember correctly, the entire idea of having employees live in the City was two-fold. First, knowing that your wage demands were going to wind up in your property taxes (or rent) would cause you to moderate your wage demands from the jump. Second, the City would get any incidental benefit from your local spending.
The whole idea of residency requirements mean middle-class stability in the City came later.
“Interesting to read Fox News, I mean homedelete’s, astute political observations.”
There’s a difference between Fox News’ news division and its opinion division. Just as there is a difference between MSNBC and NBC Nightly News.
Fox News’ news division is Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith (recently ousted). It’s opinion division is everyone else. The news division does its job.
“If I had time (and I don’t this afternoon), I’d go back and see if I you’ve ever posted any comments alluding to the Russian Collusion hoax.”
The President of the United States is participating in a Russian disinformation campaign even as I type this. And it gets worse every day.
He’s literally using Russian propaganda against the American people.
Trump got help from the Russians in the 2016 election. The Russians hacked into the DNC and stole e-mails. Then the Russians ran ads on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and every other social media platform they could talking about how “crooked” Hillary was and “Benghazi.”
This is why we now have a lunatic in the White House.
Hi Gary
from this statement
“I’d rather see school districts pay teachers what they need to pay them to staff the schools properly than for the government to decide that cheaper housing is the answer.”
I kind of think your position – correct me if I am reading this incorrectly – that all housing should be market rate?
so then what would you do instead of say student housing?
https://offices.depaul.edu/housing/housing-options/loop/university-center/Pages/default.aspx
or housing for faculty?
https://www.nyu.edu/faculty/faculty-housing/Rentals.html
wow should rename this place TDS central
“I kind of think your position – correct me if I am reading this incorrectly – that all housing should be market rate?”
Correct. Now, with regard to universities there are a lot of layers to this. First of all I don’t care what a private university does. It’s the state schools I would be concerned about. With regard to the state schools…well, their finances are so convoluted I would probably have a hard time discerning the economics of most of their decisions. Student housing makes sense because you want to offer students a package deal. An 18 year old doesn’t need to be trying to figure out where they’re going to live and you want the housing to be convenient to the school. The school owns the land and the buildings and so they have to figure out how to best allocate their real estate resources. However, frankly, I would think that there comes a point where the real estate that a school sits on becomes so valuable that you have to question whether or not that location continues to make sense for the school. Yeah, I know…can of worms.
I think the notion of faculty housing is a bit weird though. Is that really the best use of the university’s real estate? In an age where college tuition has skyrocketed for decades you have to question these decisions. I suspect that university real estate is the most mis-allocated resource within universities. I’ve watched my alma maters build, and build, and build and I think the student population is static. WTF? I would love to see an aggregate graph of real estate assets per student over time. It has to be skyrocketing.