Is there any way for the state or county to reduce property tax rates??? (Chicago: crime, house)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, it doesn't need to be overhauled. We just need to start complying with the Illinois Constitution:
A fundamental goal of the People of the State is the educational development of all persons to the limits of their capacities. The State shall provide for an efficient system of high quality public educational institutions and services. Education in public schools through the secondary level shall be free. There may be such other free education as the General Assembly provides by law. The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education.
Ill. Const., Art. X, Sec. 1
Do you think we're following this? LOL! I think if you intentionally tried to come up with something that would violate this provision in as many ways possible, you'd come up with pretty much what we have now.
We are definitely not following this. And dare I say controversially, yet respectfully that one of the causes in the past several decades has to do with IDEA - which pertains to the education of disabled children. "All persons to the limits of their capacities" is admirable however what is happening with alarming and routine frequency is massive amounts of expensive services being provided to some students in a noble attempt to "fix" what no human being can fix.
We are definitely not following this. And dare I say controversially, yet respectfully that one of the causes in the past several decades has to do with IDEA - which pertains to the education of disabled children. "All persons to the limits of their capacities" is admirable however what is happening with alarming and routine frequency is massive amounts of expensive services being provided to some students in a noble attempt to "fix" what no human being can fix.
It won't get solved in my lifetime most likely but I hope that after I'm gone, generations look back on what we're doing now with horror and outrage. Despite Constitutional guidance to the contrary, we are creating a system of "haves and have nots" that is not only unjust, but is going to cripple our State's competitiveness.
I realize that money alone does not fix problems of educating children who have disabilities, limited English proficiency, or who come from environments that put them at a huge disadvantage as to learning right out of the box. But why is it that the 1,700 kids who go to Northbrook D28 get $13,182 per pupil spent on them for instruction by teachers who make nearly $75k while the 12,900 kids who go to Cicero D99 only get $5,195 per pupil spent on them for instruction by teachers who only make $58k per year? If money means nothing to education, then why does the former get so much of it?
There are ways to address the imbalance in funding but the sad fact is that it is all but impossible to make these sorts of changes in a way that does not result in a "pie that gets re-sliced" at least in the short term. That re-sliced pie would have winners and losers, and if we look at the lessons of other states that have gone down this path the odds of the losers continuing to be kids in urban areas are extraordinarily high. What "winners" there are tend to be employees of the most financially imperiled districts that get their pensions and other benefits shored-up. The infuriating things about these sorts of effort is that there really is no longer term "bigger pie" as there might be if the school performance truly did result in a better educated workforce and subsequent uptick in population base / compensation levels. The limited example of places like Finland that have increased their investment in schools are also much more homogenous nations that do not have problems of chronic underclass, urban violence, and societal disintegration that already are rampant in US urban areas.
Perversely some of the folks that might end up getting hurt are very likely the kind of people that do have valuable homes, high incomes and are savvy enough to send their kids to the high performing selective admission public high schools inside CPS -- these are already some of the folks that Rahm's new property tax will hit the hardest and if there is also a move to earmark higher income taxes toward higher earners they'd be getting a double whammy.
Less clear is what sorts of things would happen to folks in suburban areas. While there is talk of some kind of suburban property tax freeze, so to do essentially all plans call for LESS state aid to flow to these well off districts, which would mean some combination of less generous compensation for teachers in these areas as well as cuts to the offerings of the schools -- inevitably this would result in such areas being less well regarded. Somehow I suspect the various towns that already have traditions of extracurriculars and such would have no problems making most of these reduced funds through things like booster clubs / educational foundations, but folks in the "in between districts" that are not so flat broke that they desperately need massive infusions of state aid yet not home to really well-off residents would likely be making the most cuts. In my view the very well paid teachers in larger multi-town districts like district 211 and 214 that cover huge portions of the NW suburbs would be hardest hit in such a scenario. It would be such a sea change to see this areas that have long benefitted from spreading taxes over not just home owners but high value malls and office buildings to switch to penny pitching and scaling back that could be real upheavals...
It is more than a little ironic that some of the loudest voices from both sides have roots in the NW suburbs. There are some very militant teachers unions that get very "in-your-face" if you suggest that there is no way that the 10% or so put aside for their pensions would fund private sector eternal annuities that afford folks six-figure income for their mortal life plus survivors' benefits & health coverage. Similarly, there are folks facing the squeeze of increased taxes and decreased employment options in that same region that has seen the collapse of Motorola and similar once strong employers and have backed angry fringe candidates like Tea Party Joe Walsh or even the populist party line do-nothing candidates like Tammy Duckworth of "blow which ever the Democrats need her to get elected" lack of substance.
One need only look to places like California or Florida where it is exceedingly common to have many more people choose private schools when public schools are insufficiently funded to imagine what might happen taxes are frozen at such a low level as to be paralyzing. There is a depressingly familiar pattern of towns like Washington DC with infamously dysfunctional schools that are avoided by anyone that can rub two dimes together, the same could be said for the entire state of Louisiana. Of course there are also ridiculously affluent areas in NYC as well as the various religious sects that gravitate toward private schools too, so you need to carefully filter out what criteria is driving the trend -- Where Private School Enrollment Is Highest and Lowest Across the U.S. - CityLab
Say what you want about Republicans at least they keep the reins on tax increases and government spending. I also can't imagine anyone doing a worse job than the Dummycraps.
Since 1946 the Democratic Presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.7% per year when they were in office. The Republican Presidents stay at an average increase of 9.1% per year. Over the last 57 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by more than a two to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 57 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.47.
One simple fact Republicans understand, but many in the population do not, is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a previous administration’s budget approved by Congress. Republicans began their lying by counting 2009’s fiscal year budget as the President’s even though it began four months before he moved into the White House, and included spending increases of hundreds of billions of dollars in response to Bush-Republicans’ economic and financial catastrophe. In the 2009 fiscal year budget, the last of George W. Bush’s presidency, federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion, and the first budget attributable to President Obama (fiscal 2010), spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion. In fiscal 2013, the final budget of the President’s first term, spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and extended out means that over the President’s first four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%. Obviously, there has been no huge increase in spending under President Obama, and yet Republicans claim he has been on a spending binge that is the sole cause of the nation’s economic woes.
There are ways to address the imbalance in funding but the sad fact is that it is all but impossible to make these sorts of changes in a way that does not result in a "pie that gets re-sliced" at least in the short term. That re-sliced pie would have winners and losers, and if we look at the lessons of other states that have gone down this path the odds of the losers continuing to be kids in urban areas are extraordinarily high. What "winners" there are tend to be employees of the most financially imperiled districts that get their pensions and other benefits shored-up. The infuriating things about these sorts of effort is that there really is no longer term "bigger pie" as there might be if the school performance truly did result in a better educated workforce and subsequent uptick in population base / compensation levels. The limited example of places like Finland that have increased their investment in schools are also much more homogenous nations that do not have problems of chronic underclass, urban violence, and societal disintegration that already are rampant in US urban areas.
Perversely some of the folks that might end up getting hurt are very likely the kind of people that do have valuable homes, high incomes and are savvy enough to send their kids to the high performing selective admission public high schools inside CPS -- these are already some of the folks that Rahm's new property tax will hit the hardest and if there is also a move to earmark higher income taxes toward higher earners they'd be getting a double whammy.
Less clear is what sorts of things would happen to folks in suburban areas. While there is talk of some kind of suburban property tax freeze, so to do essentially all plans call for LESS state aid to flow to these well off districts, which would mean some combination of less generous compensation for teachers in these areas as well as cuts to the offerings of the schools -- inevitably this would result in such areas being less well regarded. Somehow I suspect the various towns that already have traditions of extracurriculars and such would have no problems making most of these reduced funds through things like booster clubs / educational foundations, but folks in the "in between districts" that are not so flat broke that they desperately need massive infusions of state aid yet not home to really well-off residents would likely be making the most cuts. In my view the very well paid teachers in larger multi-town districts like district 211 and 214 that cover huge portions of the NW suburbs would be hardest hit in such a scenario. It would be such a sea change to see this areas that have long benefitted from spreading taxes over not just home owners but high value malls and office buildings to switch to penny pitching and scaling back that could be real upheavals...
It is more than a little ironic that some of the loudest voices from both sides have roots in the NW suburbs. There are some very militant teachers unions that get very "in-your-face" if you suggest that there is no way that the 10% or so put aside for their pensions would fund private sector eternal annuities that afford folks six-figure income for their mortal life plus survivors' benefits & health coverage. Similarly, there are folks facing the squeeze of increased taxes and decreased employment options in that same region that has seen the collapse of Motorola and similar once strong employers and have backed angry fringe candidates like Tea Party Joe Walsh or even the populist party line do-nothing candidates like Tammy Duckworth of "blow which ever the Democrats need her to get elected" lack of substance.
One need only look to places like California or Florida where it is exceedingly common to have many more people choose private schools when public schools are insufficiently funded to imagine what might happen taxes are frozen at such a low level as to be paralyzing. There is a depressingly familiar pattern of towns like Washington DC with infamously dysfunctional schools that are avoided by anyone that can rub two dimes together, the same could be said for the entire state of Louisiana. Of course there are also ridiculously affluent areas in NYC as well as the various religious sects that gravitate toward private schools too, so you need to carefully filter out what criteria is driving the trend -- Where Private School Enrollment Is Highest and Lowest Across the U.S. - CityLab
Pension and collective bargaining reform would have to be a critical part of this. And you'd have to make it so wealthy communities (who like to spend 13k per pupil while some other districts who need more than they do spend 5k) couldn't opt out. Perhaps force school districts to account for booster money (like campaign donations) and reduce their state funding accordingly. It would take political stones but we could do it if we wanted to.
Well off parents want the ability to "upgrade" their schools through cash infusions, and they will find a way to do it no matter what. Or they will flee to private schools. To me a bigger issue is bringing every school system up to a minimum level of funding that is at least sufficient, and this should primarily come from state sources for every school district.
No I don't think we ever will see cheaper property taxes. The most we can hope for is slowing of increases. You can protest your taxes and some have been successful at this.
Or you can watch as people continue to flee (especially retirees who don't need jobs here) and housing prices stagnate and decline because who wants to be on the hook here. I personally refuse to buy in Illinois I'd rather rent a cheap apartment as it makes more sense to pay $1200 a month in rent than pay $500+ a month in just property taxes.
Or you can watch as people continue to flee (especially retirees who don't need jobs here) and housing prices stagnate and decline because who wants to be on the hook here. I personally refuse to buy in Illinois I'd rather rent a cheap apartment as it makes more sense to pay $1200 a month in rent than pay $500+ a month in just property taxes.
Well...We are some that HAVE flown. From Chicago to Flossmoor (ridiculously high property taxes) to Arizona (ridiculously low property taxes) to Georgia (low/moderate level of taxation for property). While we like working and do not plan on retiring in the traditional sense, who wants to pay 10K in property taxes? Absurd. Our son is in college so we don't have school concerns directly. Clearly good schools make neighborhoods desirable and stable - not arguing with that.
I do miss all that Chicago offers and for a few brief moments toyed with and justified the idea of returning especially with the lower cost housing in many areas but I balk at the property taxes, mismanagement, and declining schools everywhere but much more so in my beloved Flossmoor.
If you are older and don't need a big house you can buy either a smaller home, a townhouse or a condo and your property taxes will not be 10 k. They would be more like 6 k or even 4 k depending on where you live and the actual property. I own a two flat in Berwyn and the property taxes are somewhat over 6 K. If you buy a two flat you can rent out the top floor and then your tenants will really end up paying the taxes!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
