Do they want to secede...or kick out Chicago? (Rockford: university, live)

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by riffle

The idea is fantasy - but if you want to understand the motivation, they probably look at Iowa or Indiana and think that Illinois minus Chicago could be similar.

Which federal agency develops this formula, and could you please provide a link? Thank you.

I'm assuming they are talking about how much IL residents pay in Federal Income Tax, vs. how much the state receives back in terms of road funding, agencies like the EPA, installations like Argonne and Fermi, etc.. I would also want to know if and how they count Federal payments to individuals (SS, welfare, food stamps, etc.). Also, part of the disparity may partly be due to the lack of military bases in IL (is Great Lakes Naval Air Station the last one, after Rantoul closed thirty-some years ago?). Yes, I would really like to understand the methodology behind this, as I've heard of the "donor vs. recipient states" argument before. No doubt that IL is a "wealthy" state, and wealthy states have historically subsidized "poor" states like Mississippi. You can imagine how complicated it can become when you take into account state exports like agricultural products, coal, etc., and how they are taxed and/or subsidized by the Feds.

[brodie734]

man why is every poster on the Chicago forum here some disgruntled Republican?

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by riffle

The idea is fantasy - but if you want to understand the motivation, they probably look at Iowa or Indiana and think that Illinois minus Chicago could be similar.

Which federal agency develops this formula, and could you please provide a link? Thank you.

Maybe they do. But I hope they realize that Indiana has a major city, Indianapolis, while Iowa has a decent sized one, Des Moines. Illinois minus Chicagoland would make the leading cities in state both Peoria and Rockford. Illinois minus Cook County makes (get this.....drum roll please) the two major cities Aurora and Naperville. That almost sounds like New Jersey where the largest city is easily seen from the top of towers in downtown and midtown Manhattan, namely Newark. And for the record, something else major to consider, the 9,000,000 citizens of 11th largest state live in a state with zero (0) (nada) (zilch) (bumkiss) media centers. That's right. If you want to advertise for your campaign for office in New Jersey, you're on the wrong side of the Hudson. And the Delaware. Your ad's will be far too expensive (though you'll take them) because you are paying them on broadcasting for all of metro New York and all of metro Philadelphia.

Thus New Jersey's only media markets are located in two cities in other states that are across two rivers, New York on the Hudson, Philadelphia on the Delaware.

The New illinois which for poetic justice I'll end on the west side of the Fox River in Aurora has its only media markets in two cities in other states across two rivers, St. Louis on the Mississippi, Aurora (part of Chicagoland) on the Fox.

Sounds like a plan.

https://www.governing.com/week-in-fi...-get-back.html

[riffle]

Originally Posted by edsg25

https://www.governing.com/week-in-fi...-get-back.html

Oh okay. You said "the federal government uses a formula" so I was wondering if there was a formula used by the federal government. Anyway, states don't pay federal taxes, and less than 20% of the federal spending counted in this report takes the form of grants to state governments. The implication that New York (or Illinois) is getting the short end of the stick is misleading.

A similar problem exists with performing this analysis for Illinois counties and the state budget, although to a lesser extent.
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/vie...ext=ppi_papers

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by riffle

Oh okay. You said "the federal government uses a formula" so I was wondering if there was a formula used by the federal government. Anyway, states don't pay federal taxes, and less than 20% of the federal spending counted in this report takes the form of grants to state governments. The implication that New York (or Illinois) is getting the short end of the stick is misleading.

A similar problem exists with performing this analysis for Illinois counties and the state budget, although to a lesser extent.
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/vie...ext=ppi_papers

I will more than agree with you that my explanation that you are referring to was poorly stated on my part. I had made it seem that I was talking about what states do, as opposed to the people within them.

I wasn't suggesting that states themselves pay any taxes to the federal government. What I was talking about is the average resident of each state's contributions to the federal government and the return from it.

I used states as my metric because the data collected has been used to support the notion that often it is the states where people are most receptive to the idea that taxation serves a purpose and have more of a degree of social concern actually are better off than the areas that are adverse to paying taxes and more concerned with keeping their own money. The irony being that people in places like Texas or Alabama complain about taxation, yet they are the beneficiaries of the states like New York or California which help give back to them the cost of federal benefits.

Do I have the statistics on hand. No. I'll go out of my way to say that this is a paradigm that I've read and heard through commentary. The sources I got them from are ones I find most reliable.

And, yes, the idea of $1 in and $.85 back correlated with $1 in $1.15 back was used as metaphor on how it works. You obviously would not agree with me and that's fine.

As for the paragraph I wrote about the people in those two groups of states, it was an awkward piece of writing because it is one that virtually is impossible to write without the sense that what I said was loaded. For the record: yes, it was loaded, but only because there was no way to phrase it that was not.

So you'd be right to think I'm saying that as a general rule, blue states contribute more in federal taxes than they get back and the reverse is true for red. And I am obviously very much a blue stater and my biased would obviously show.

[riffle]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I wasn't suggesting that states themselves pay any taxes to the federal government. What I was talking about is the average resident of each state's contributions to the federal government and the return from it.

My point is, your perspective on "the average resident" is skewed by the long upper tail of the personal income distribution. And, the contributions and returns in question are mostly on an individual level not based on state of residence.

[Curly Q. Bobalink]

Originally Posted by riffle

My point is, your perspective on "the average resident" is skewed by the long upper tail of the personal income distribution. And, the contributions and returns in question are mostly on an individual level not based on state of residence.

Riffle, if you download the whole Rockefeller Institute report from Ed's original link, it shows the methodology, listing the breakdowns of receipts and expenditures used in the report (mostly on the last pages): https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uplo...f-Payments.pdf

I just started going through the report, it was mostly written with New York state as the focus, with the other states listed for reference. My question (does the report count payments to individuals) is answered in the affirmative, which partially explains why Florida (with so many retirees collecting SS and Medicare) is tilted heavily to the "welfare" side. It's going to take me some time to go through it, but it is interesting reading. Ed's outlook may be a bit biased (as he said, he is clearly favorable to "Blue" states), but he is honest and credible, IMHO.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink

Riffle, if you download the whole Rockefeller Institute report from Ed's original link, it shows the methodology, listing the breakdowns of receipts and expenditures used in the report (mostly on the last pages): https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uplo...f-Payments.pdf

I just started going through the report, it was mostly written with New York state as the focus, with the other states listed for reference. My question (does the report count payments to individuals) is answered in the affirmative, which partially explains why Florida (with so many retirees collecting SS and Medicare) is tilted heavily to the "welfare" side. It's going to take me some time to go through it, but it is interesting reading. Ed's outlook may be a bit biased (as he said, he is clearly favorable to "Blue" states), but he is honest and credible, IMHO.

Thanks, Curly; much appreciated. We all stumble getting words out of our mouths nowadays. We discuss issues where it is virtually impossible to leave one's biases out. And that is why I do find it helpful to acknowledge mine.

Warning.....I may be all over the place here (I mean...more than normal)

The meme on the blue states being the contributors and the red states being the takers (and it is only put in those terms because there is a tendency on the right to think in terms of contributors and takers, with they being the contributors. The term has been used by commentators; I've heard it from a number of them, chiefly Thom Hartmann. And it is an argument that is brought up when the issues of taxes is on the table. Hartmann is the one who used the $1/1.15 and $1/.85 comparisons.

Here's the thing about biases: we all have them. and you can't keep them out of how you express yourself. That said, once in the nation we had better ways of being able to access the truth (or as close as one can come to it). More so on air than in print. Television being the best example. With a fairness doctrine in place in the first couple of decades after WWII and with only three major networks, there was a requirement that they had to air the news as a public service for they were using public airwaves. NBC, CBS, and ABC all broadcast a mere 15 minutes evening news. At the time, there could be no sponsors....which means $$ wasn't buying an influence on what stories were told.

If the press did not have such restrictions, in most cases papers were locally owned, not part of conglomerates. And the papers themselves tended to be tied to left or right. So during the time, the Trip tilted heavily right (as opposed to today where it is more centrist right) while the Sun-Times and its partner the Daily News leaned left.

Today we are in the unfortunate situation where all our news goes through filters: mainstream more than any others. That's money taking. Left and right no longer meet in shared media, particularly here on the internet. So we are all stuck trying to get a hold on a semblance of truthfulness during the incredible age of the explosion of knowledge and information....which has managed to make us dumber and dumber.

Sorry for going off on a tangent here. I did feel the above related to my perspective on givers and takers.

From a Chicago and Illinois perspective, I am fed up with the bashing of both city and state. And certainly my feelings about Illinois generated my use of Hartmann's paradigm/meme. IL gets bashed...yet we are more "the winners" than a lot of red states striped of taxes and social services which brings down the quality of their lives.

The Chicago bashing is a real sore spot for me. Others may see it differently, but here is my perspective on that is Chicago gets the barbs and the digs because it is such a big and major city. Chicago will get bashed for numerous conditions that are worse, sometimes far worse, in cities like Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland and the like.

And on this one, I will most definitely be showing a real serious case of bias. "Liberals" is a dirty word to the right and nothing could be more insulting than calling someone a liberal. And for cities perceived to be liberal, the bashing goes on big time: LA and SF are awash in homelessness, Chicago is crime ridden, New York is eliest and coastal to a fault.

I don't see anything comparable on the left. We certainly don't dislike "conservatives". And I'm not sure we are in the habit of taking pot shots at any city. To be fair, I would be hard pressed to find many cities that are noticeably right leaning (Cincinnati, Oklahoma City would be a couple), but the fact is that red state cities......Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Atlanta and the like are left leaning.

[pvande55]

Some downstate activists (maybe some in Chicago as well) have too much time on their hands. The State legislature wont do it, and Congress is not going to be carving up States.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by pvande55

Some downstate activists (maybe some in Chicago as well) have too much time on their hands. The State legislature wont do it, and Congress is not going to be carving up States.

Including California. This is just mental exercise.