Property Taxes and Population Decline in IL (Chicago, Wheaton: homes, buy)

[Di3s3l_Pow3r]

Originally Posted by Grlzrl

We fall in the tied by family and career camp.

I have NEVER seen people as mad as they were in 2017 after the tax increase on top of the property tax increase in 2016. I can't imagine what it will be like as the new property tax assessment notices start trickling in in a couple of weeks along with a state tax increase from 4.95 to just under 8%.

what makes you think will be 8%? perhaps will be 3% a decrease in taxes

[MSchemist80]

Originally Posted by di3s3l_pow3r

a decrease in taxes

rotfl

[wjj]

Originally Posted by Di3s3l_Pow3r

what makes you think will be 8%? perhaps will be 3% a decrease in taxes

Grlzrl is referring to the new proposed graduated income tax boondoggle being pushed by Pritzker, not RE taxes. Ain't no way income taxes are going negative, let alone back to the 3% rate that was in place for many years. Get ready to be fleeced. Hopefully voters will smarten up when the graduated income tax constitutional amendment question is on the ballot and vote it down.

[OKParker]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

The question of whether Oak Park is an outlier (high) in its tax rates appears to have been settled here (they are not). I never thought of O.P. having particularly high taxes, but I never saw the advantages to living in O.P. that others have to begin with, I see that suburb as crowded and on the receiving end of crime from its Chicago neighbor to the east. I have read that the schools are good, but that would not undo the negatives.

But to me, the argument is false on its face; why would you want to move into ANY area that has real estate taxes in the range of 2.5 - 5% annually? The claim that Chicago, even with its high real estate taxes, is a "bargain" among other "first class" cities in the U.S. (due to the fact that residential prices are suppressed due to the high RE tax rate), is only valid for two classes of people, IMHO; those with enough disposable income such that the onerous taxes are manageable; and those who can obtain a high enough income in the area such that the tax penalty is offset vs. living elsewhere (and that would have to be a six-figure job, in my opinion). What remains to be seen, is whether the area will continue to create relatively high paying jobs in the future to maintain the draw of the latter group, especially as more people move out than move in.

With respect to the former of the two groups, I simply don't understand the draw. What exactly does Chicago offer that much lower cost second or third tier city does not, that you could not enjoy by traveling to the city for short jaunts, vs. living here? Professional sports teams? Indianapolis and Denver have those. World-class medical facilities? Madison, WI, Rochester, MN, Sioux Falls, SD, and Overland Park, KS likely equal anything you can find in Chicago. World-class restaurants? Las Vegas. Museums and Arts? How much of that occupies one's day-to-day existence? Shopping? Most people I know have never purchased anything from the Mag Mile. Great weather? Well, that would be just about anywhere else, LOL. The only thing I can think of, is simply "bragging rights". I guess I just don't live in a rich person's world, and don't understand their motivations.

But what about the rest (90%) of the population? Do they stay because they are so rooted in by family, friends, and career that the though of moving outweighs the continual buggering from Illinois and Cook Count government? Or, as the poll from approximately 2013 claimed, that "50 percent of the population would move if given the choice?" still holds true? I'd love to see a re-run of that poll, my guess is that the numbers have gone up, and will continue to increase, in the future, especially as the taxes and crime increase, and the quality of services, infrastructure, and employment opportunities decrease. To me, the question is not, "Is Chicagoland a Bargain?", it's "What's going to save Chicagoland in the long term?"

The transit options/walkability of oak park surpasses most suburbs.

As for your 'what does chicago offer' - i think you are spot on that many other cities offer one of the great qualities that our city has.. but none offer the quality in all of those categories that we have. Personally, I love the great midpriced restaurants and the cheap alcohol.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by OKParker

The transit options/walkability of oak park surpasses most suburbs.

As for your 'what does chicago offer' - i think you are spot on that many other cities offer one of the great qualities that our city has.. but none offer the quality in all of those categories that we have. Personally, I love the great midpriced restaurants and the cheap alcohol.

I didn't consider the transit options, you're likely correct. I would think it's easy to get downtown from there as well. Yes, the Chicago area does have a lot of advantages, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, the knucklehead politicians have mucked it up so badly in the past thirty years that it is much less attractive than it used to be, at least for me, especially now that I'm retired. I read a while ago that IL's deferred infrastructure expenses are approximately equivalent in size to the can-kicked-down-the-road pension debt (130 billion with a capital "B"). I was just out today, the pothole dodging was mandatory and worse than any year in memory - I should have taken some photos. Add this to the pension ramp, the public service employee (state, county, municipal) health care costs, and whatever other unknown unknowns are lurking out there, and you're looking at New York State level of taxation in IL in the not-too-far-off-future. Buyer Beware.

[Hiruko]

I don't like the politics, but I love the state. Very simple.

[Grlzrl]

Originally Posted by Di3s3l_Pow3r

what makes you think will be 8%? perhaps will be 3% a decrease in taxes

The proposals are out there. Just under 8%.

[Grlzrl]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

I didn't consider the transit options, you're likely correct. I would think it's easy to get downtown from there as well. Yes, the Chicago area does have a lot of advantages, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, the knucklehead politicians have mucked it up so badly in the past thirty years that it is much less attractive than it used to be, at least for me, especially now that I'm retired. I read a while ago that IL's deferred infrastructure expenses are approximately equivalent in size to the can-kicked-down-the-road pension debt (130 billion with a capital "B"). I was just out today, the pothole dodging was mandatory and worse than any year in memory - I should have taken some photos. Add this to the pension ramp, the public service employee (state, county, municipal) health care costs, and whatever other unknown unknowns are lurking out there, and you're looking at New York State level of taxation in IL in the not-too-far-off-future. Buyer Beware.

The roads are HORRIBLE.

[OKParker]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

I didn't consider the transit options, you're likely correct. I would think it's easy to get downtown from there as well. Yes, the Chicago area does have a lot of advantages, no doubt about it. Unfortunately, the knucklehead politicians have mucked it up so badly in the past thirty years that it is much less attractive than it used to be, at least for me, especially now that I'm retired. I read a while ago that IL's deferred infrastructure expenses are approximately equivalent in size to the can-kicked-down-the-road pension debt (130 billion with a capital "B"). I was just out today, the pothole dodging was mandatory and worse than any year in memory - I should have taken some photos. Add this to the pension ramp, the public service employee (state, county, municipal) health care costs, and whatever other unknown unknowns are lurking out there, and you're looking at New York State level of taxation in IL in the not-too-far-off-future. Buyer Beware.

Roads are bad, but this past season was especially tough on them. A road in Chicago that I have property on was mostly fixed and then the frost cycle broke up some new places in the last couple of months.

The politicians and debt here are definitely worse than any city you mentioned.. and it scares me. There is a chance we can get out of this, but it isn't guaranteed and is somewhat risky as an investment city/state.

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by tolovefromANFIELD

The value of most Chicago suburbs is unparalleled. I look at high property taxes as a positive. It puts a cap on housing appreciation. I think that looking at one's primary home as some sort of an ATM is unhealthy and unsustainable. Neither do those high taxes go to waste. Naperville, for example, has a public school/library/park system that puts towns twice, three times its size to shame.

Life is all about trade-offs. I've known few families who've gone to cheaper locales (Indiana, Iowa, Arizona), and some to much more expensive ones (NYC suburbs, LA, SF), and it ain't exactly all coming up roses.

My Apologies if this sounds harsh, but your statements are so ridiculous I'm not sure if you are serious or pulling our legs? "High property taxes are a positive bc it puts a cap on home appreciation"-- tell me you're joking!!