Why Are the Taxes So High in This State? (Chicago: real estate, health insurance)

[Mathguy]

Back to topic, but in looking around the total tax burden in Indiana looks just as high or HIGHER than Illinois.

State income tax is higher (3.4% in Indiana).

Also, most places don't raise property taxes as much on existing homes so if you live in a house 20 years and sell it for 150k the new owner may pay more property tax than you did the year before as it's re-evaluated.

[rtgglo]

Originally Posted by bellypotamus

We just moved here to Illinois from Indiana because of my husband losing his job and getting one over here.(His job is in Rantoul to be exact...but I DON'T want to live in Rantoul!) We are suffering from great sticker shock on the price of homes (especially newer ones) and the taxes here are astronomical here in Champaign county area. Can anyone explain this to me? We lived in a very nice area in Indy (Hamilton County) and the homes were much more reasonably priced, and the taxes were much lower than here. I just don't get it! Any thoughts would be appreciated!

State and local goverments with their entities they are employed at, are not for any one but themselves. The entitities such as fire departments, city water works, police departments, court systems etc, etc ;
These entities collect taxes, spend the taxes on other matters then what they are supposed too! They, the entities have to spend the money collected for taxes within certain time periods. They do this too create a false need for moneys from state and local goverments. They then are under
stipulations by the state and local guverments because they borrowed the money from them. Thus you really dont have the local entities running their municapalities under their own atthourity. The citizens of the city then are stuck paying the added cost of a mis- managed entities, in the form of taxes, that the entiies mis managed in the first place,,,,,,,along with greed, and the lack of serving the peoples for the betterment of prospering.

[mdz]

Nope, we were high even with the republicans in office. Birds of a feather.

[Mathguy]

Um, how is it that Illinois taxes are high relative to Indiana? Other than the Chicago\Cook sales tax thing....which doesn't impact the rantoul lady....I've seen that they are generally about the same. (Based upon posts here and what the internets tells me.)

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Here's the real answer to the OP's question: public schools in Illinois are mainly funded by local property taxes instead of the state - that's the single largest item you'll find on any Illinois property tax bill. Places such as Indiana have much more funding for public schools at the state level, so those costs aren't passed on as much to property tax bills.

Part of that answer is correct. The reason for very high taxes in Illinois is the funding required for the public school systems. Take a look at where the money goes on your tax bill. The largest chunk, by far, is probably going to the local public school district.

The problem isn't where the funding comes from. The bottom line is Illinois residents will pay much more than necessary for public schools regardless of whether the funding comes from the state or local property tax (taxpayers ultimately pay, either way).

The real reason Illinois taxpayers pay way more than they should to fund the public schools is that there are almost 900 different public school districts in our state. Each district has their own superintendent and administration, which are usually paid at pretty high levels.

Contrast those 900 Illinois school districts with only 135 in Virginia, for example. Virginia taxpayers pay 135 superintendents and administrations; Illinois taxpayers pay almost 900. Virginia school districts are divided by county boundaries or large metropolitan areas (for example, Fairfax County Public Schools include all of the public schools in the Northern Virginia, Washington, D.C. suburban towns in Fairfax County - instead of each town having their own school district). In Illinois, very frequently, each town has its own school district.

Illinois taxpayers are paying for a huge overlap and duplication of services in the name of what they perceive to be 'local control' of their public school systems. In reality, this leads to a great deal of inequity in the quality and calibre of education available in each town.

Some towns' residents are getting a good value for their tax dollars (Winnetka, Naperville, Hinsdale, etc.), but some towns with expensive homes and high tax bills aren't getting as good of a value as they should be (I've posted before that Elmhurst is an example of this, and there probably are a good deal more - Elmhurst's schools aren't performing as well as they should be considering Elmhurst's demographics - Elmhurst does not have a middle school or high school in the Illinois Top 50).

It's not just a money thing, either. The test results and rankings do not
correlate to the amount of money spent per student.

Bottom line... Illinois taxpayers are paying for a huge duplication and overlap of services in their very large number of individual school districts - and some local school boards are better than others at implementing a high quality education in their schools.

[InformedConsent]

It's interesting to note that school district administrator's salaries do not correlate to test results, either.

Illinois Top 100 School Administrator Salaries:
The Champion - Education Issues and School Reform (http://www.thechampion.org/teachers.asp?formAction=option&year=2006&string=En ter+Employee+Name&option=Top+100+Administrator+Sal aries - broken link)

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It's interesting to note that school district administrator's salaries do not correlate to test results, either.

Illinois Top 100 School Administrator Salaries:
The Champion - Education Issues and School Reform (http://www.thechampion.org/teachers.asp?formAction=option&year=2006&string=En ter+Employee+Name&option=Top+100+Administrator+Sal aries - broken link)

Could you explain to me why it should? Please think about this a bit prior to responding.

[InformedConsent]

Teaching is sometimes a low-paying career. But, look at what the Top 100 highest paid teachers in Illinois are making. Don't forget that when they retire, they generally earn a lifetime pension of about 75% of their highest working salary per year.

Our tax dollars are also going to support the Illinois Teacher's Retirement System.

Illinois Top 100 Teacher Salaries:
The Champion - Education Issues and School Reform (http://www.thechampion.org/teachers.asp?formAction=option&year=2006&string=En ter+Employee+Name&option=Top+100+Teacher+Salaries - broken link)

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Could you explain to me why it should? Please think about this a bit prior to responding.

I believe you missed the point. The point is that the amount of money spent per student, which includes teacher and administrator salaries, does not correlate to test results or educational excellence.

There is a general belief that school problems could be fixed if we just provided more funding for the schools. That isn't the case according to the NCES - "There is very little correlation between the amount of money states spend per pupil and the academic results they achieve whether measured by standardized test scores or high school graduation rates."

On a larger scale, the OECD reports that in international comparisons, U.S. schools spend the 2nd highest amount per student on average out of 26 countries, but U.S. students perform worse than 19 of those countries in math, reading, and science. Also, Luxembourg spends the most per student, more than $5,000 more than the U.S., but their students perform slightly worse than students in the U.S.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

I believe you missed the point. The point is that the amount of money spent per student, which includes teacher and administrator salaries, does not correlate to test results or educational excellence.

There is a general belief that school problems could be fixed if we just provided more funding for the schools. That isn't the case according to the NCES - "There is very little correlation between the amount of money states spend per pupil and the academic results they achieve whether measured by standardized test scores or high school graduation rates."

On a larger scale, the OECD reports that in international comparisons, U.S. schools spend the 2nd highest amount per student on average out of 26 countries, but U.S. students perform worse than 19 of those countries in math, reading, and science. Also, Luxembourg spends the most per student, more than $5,000 more than the U.S., but their students perform slightly worse than students in the U.S.

Attachment 8601

No, your point was that administrator salaries don't correlate to test scores. If you were trying to make the case about student expenditure and test scores then it would be LESS problematic but still a poor analysis without isolating other factors. If that is REALLY the point you are trying to make, then make it in the first place instead of telling me that I missed the point you didn't make in the first place.

So back to data analysis:

For your point to hold, each school district would need to be of comparable size.

You need to normalize for cost of living as it varies greatly within the state of IL.

You make the assumption that each area has no other socio-economic conditions that impact the test scores. ie) All areas are the same in terms of all the other factors that impact learning.

Have they normalized the school performances to account for external impacts of private schools in the area?

Don't get me wrong, I agree in general that throwing money at the situation doesn't solve everything as learning is a combination of school, parental involvement etc. and money only addresses a portion of the issue.