..... While Lightfoot Twerks the night away
Another Large Company Announces Departure From Chicago
Tyson Foods announced last week that all employees in the
Chicago area would be relocated, rendering the meat and poultry
company one of multiple businesses to pull operations from the Windy City in recent months.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/another-l...om-chicago
Who would want to do business there? The second highest tax rate in the country for citizens and a corporate tax hike that cost millions to keep a few major ones from leaving.
Add in the crime rate, hostile environment in general and crappy weather and it's not difficult to see why people leave.
What got me is the 220K people who moved from Chicago and other cities to Florida between July 2020 and July 2021. That's a lot of people in one year. Hopefully they don't flip the state from red to blue.
In LA and NYC property tax rates are too low, which allows greater economic inequality and a shortage of housing. In Chicago they are far far too high - which tamps down on both prices and supply. LA and NYC have room to increase their property tax and lower their income tax and sales tax and still keep services the same. Chicago has no easy solutions. Depressing.
Their solution is to stop voting democrat. They've been in power far too long and they're running the city and it's people into the ground. NYC has had the benefit of having republican leadership to slow the decline. They were actually improving under R leadership.
THIS POST IS EXTREMELY MISLEADING.
Fact: Tyson is moving 500 employees from its Chicago office to it's Corp HQ in Arkansas.
Supplemental Fact that should be noted: Tyson Foods consists of 139,000 employees, meaning this move represents 0.3% of its workforce. That means 3 out of every 1,000 of their employees are impacted. That's kind of like Allstate announcing that they are shutting down its office on San Pablo Road Jacksonville and moving those employees to their HQ in Illinois
(10-11-2022, 05:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In LA and NYC property tax rates are too low, which allows greater economic inequality and a shortage of housing. In Chicago they are far far too high - which tamps down on both prices and supply. LA and NYC have room to increase their property tax and lower their income tax and sales tax and still keep services the same. Chicago has no easy solutions. Depressing.
LOL. The housing shortage in LA and NYC is caused by low taxes, but the shortage in Chicago is caused by high taxes??? Let me know when you make up your mind and I'll explain why you're wrong in either case.
(10-12-2022, 11:36 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2022, 05:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In LA and NYC property tax rates are too low, which allows greater economic inequality and a shortage of housing. In Chicago they are far far too high - which tamps down on both prices and supply. LA and NYC have room to increase their property tax and lower their income tax and sales tax and still keep services the same. Chicago has no easy solutions. Depressing.
LOL. The housing shortage in LA and NYC is caused by low taxes, but the shortage in Chicago is caused by high taxes??? Let me know when you make up your mind and I'll explain why you're wrong in either case.
Read up on Henry George.
(10-13-2022, 05:20 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022, 11:36 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. The housing shortage in LA and NYC is caused by low taxes, but the shortage in Chicago is caused by high taxes??? Let me know when you make up your mind and I'll explain why you're wrong in either case.
Read up on Henry George.
This is why you're so frequently incorrect in this forum. You unquestioningly accept and put forth as fact, economic models and theories that are a century (or more in this case) out of date.
1) Georgism was only a philosophy. When and where was it ever proven?
2) Even if correct at the time, it was before another Henry started experimenting in his garage. How relevant could it possibly be in today's world? Don't you think cars, instant global communications, organized labor, environmental regulations, building codes and ten times the population could all now be factors?
(10-12-2022, 05:29 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]THIS POST IS EXTREMELY MISLEADING.
Fact: Tyson is moving 500 employees from its Chicago office to it's Corp HQ in Arkansas.
Supplemental Fact that should be noted: Tyson Foods consists of 139,000 employees, meaning this move represents 0.3% of its workforce. That means 3 out of every 1,000 of their employees are impacted. That's kind of like Allstate announcing that they are shutting down its office on San Pablo Road Jacksonville and moving those employees to their HQ in Illinois
This is what the article says:
"Tyson, which employs 137,000 people worldwide, is one of several noteworthy companies to leave the Chicago area this year."
Where did you see the number of employees leaving? I read the whole article and didn't see a specific number.
(10-13-2022, 09:30 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2022, 05:20 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Read up on Henry George.
This is why you're so frequently incorrect in this forum. You unquestioningly accept and put forth as fact, economic models and theories that are a century (or more in this case) out of date.
1) Georgism was only a philosophy. When and where was it ever proven?
2) Even if correct at the time, it was before another Henry started experimenting in his garage. How relevant could it possibly be in today's world? Don't you think cars, instant global communications, organized labor, environmental regulations, building codes and ten times the population could all now be factors?
I'm not asking you to accept Georgism as a whole philosophy. A land value tax couldn't have been implemented then and can't be implemented now. Very difficult to assess land value apart from the structures and utilities adjacent to the land.
But we do have property tax, which can more easily be assessed based on real market activity. And these property taxes became more prominent during George's time largely due to his influence. So his ideas are part of our government's fabric similar to ideas of men like Madison and Jefferson. Ideas like this are never conclusively "proven" but they are implemented and shown to be beneficial, at least for us.
The essential lesson of Georgism is, up to a certain point, taxing land value is actually positive. It does more than fund the government, it promotes development and growth. Beyond that point, a land value tax becomes bad for the economy, just like any other tax. In NY and CA, property tax rates are lower than those in FL. In Chicago, they are higher. I happen to believe that FL is close to the optimum rate, and I think there's plenty of support for that idea if you look at our dynamic growth and relative equality and harmony compared to these other places. But that's just my opinion.
I have a feeling, within the next few years, The Census Cowboy may be able to take his census using only one hand.
(10-13-2022, 02:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2022, 09:30 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]This is why you're so frequently incorrect in this forum. You unquestioningly accept and put forth as fact, economic models and theories that are a century (or more in this case) out of date.
1) Georgism was only a philosophy. When and where was it ever proven?
2) Even if correct at the time, it was before another Henry started experimenting in his garage. How relevant could it possibly be in today's world? Don't you think cars, instant global communications, organized labor, environmental regulations, building codes and ten times the population could all now be factors?
I'm not asking you to accept Georgism as a whole philosophy. A land value tax couldn't have been implemented then and can't be implemented now. Very difficult to assess land value apart from the structures and utilities adjacent to the land.
But we do have property tax, which can more easily be assessed based on real market activity. And these property taxes became more prominent during George's time largely due to his influence. So his ideas are part of our government's fabric similar to ideas of men like Madison and Jefferson. Ideas like this are never conclusively "proven" but they are implemented and shown to be beneficial, at least for us.
The essential lesson of Georgism is, up to a certain point, taxing land value is actually positive. It does more than fund the government, it promotes development and growth. Beyond that point, a land value tax becomes bad for the economy, just like any other tax. In NY and CA, property tax rates are lower than those in FL. In Chicago, they are higher. I happen to believe that FL is close to the optimum rate, and I think there's plenty of support for that idea if you look at our dynamic growth and relative equality and harmony compared to these other places. But that's just my opinion.
Data makes you dumber. Look, I am sure if FL was taxing WAY too high or WAY too low, people might avoid moving here, but to try to reduce it to one issue is silly. Political, economic, and cultural forces all play a factor. MOST of the negative policies are being enforced by the left. Plain and simple.
(10-13-2022, 02:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2022, 09:30 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]This is why you're so frequently incorrect in this forum. You unquestioningly accept and put forth as fact, economic models and theories that are a century (or more in this case) out of date.
1) Georgism was only a philosophy. When and where was it ever proven?
2) Even if correct at the time, it was before another Henry started experimenting in his garage. How relevant could it possibly be in today's world? Don't you think cars, instant global communications, organized labor, environmental regulations, building codes and ten times the population could all now be factors?
I'm not asking you to accept Georgism as a whole philosophy. A land value tax couldn't have been implemented then and can't be implemented now. Very difficult to assess land value apart from the structures and utilities adjacent to the land.
But we do have property tax, which can more easily be assessed based on real market activity. And these property taxes became more prominent during George's time largely due to his influence. So his ideas are part of our government's fabric similar to ideas of men like Madison and Jefferson. Ideas like this are never conclusively "proven" but they are implemented and shown to be beneficial, at least for us.
The essential lesson of Georgism is, up to a certain point, taxing land value is actually positive. It does more than fund the government, it promotes development and growth. Beyond that point, a land value tax becomes bad for the economy, just like any other tax. In NY and CA, property tax rates are lower than those in FL. In Chicago, they are higher. I happen to believe that FL is close to the optimum rate, and I think there's plenty of support for that idea if you look at our dynamic growth and relative equality and harmony compared to these other places. But that's just my opinion.
You're wrong on multiple points.
Land value is not "very difficult to assess". It's called a real estate appraisal and it happens every day.
Property tax does not fluctuate on market activity the way you think it does. Municipal reassessments typically only occur every 5-7 years.
If you're equating the economic theory that a tax on real estate helps the economy, with the fundamental belief that all men are inherently entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you're hopelessly lost in this discussion.
Real estate tax, high or low, is not a insignificant factor in promoting growth and development.
The influx of people relocating here from Chicago, NYC and California has nothing to do with property taxes.
(10-14-2022, 08:08 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (10-13-2022, 02:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not asking you to accept Georgism as a whole philosophy. A land value tax couldn't have been implemented then and can't be implemented now. Very difficult to assess land value apart from the structures and utilities adjacent to the land.
But we do have property tax, which can more easily be assessed based on real market activity. And these property taxes became more prominent during George's time largely due to his influence. So his ideas are part of our government's fabric similar to ideas of men like Madison and Jefferson. Ideas like this are never conclusively "proven" but they are implemented and shown to be beneficial, at least for us.
The essential lesson of Georgism is, up to a certain point, taxing land value is actually positive. It does more than fund the government, it promotes development and growth. Beyond that point, a land value tax becomes bad for the economy, just like any other tax. In NY and CA, property tax rates are lower than those in FL. In Chicago, they are higher. I happen to believe that FL is close to the optimum rate, and I think there's plenty of support for that idea if you look at our dynamic growth and relative equality and harmony compared to these other places. But that's just my opinion.
You're wrong on multiple points.
Land value is not "very difficult to assess". It's called a real estate appraisal and it happens every day.
Property tax does not fluctuate on market activity the way you think it does. Municipal reassessments typically only occur every 5-7 years.
If you're equating the economic theory that a tax on real estate helps the economy, with the fundamental belief that all men are inherently entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you're hopelessly lost in this discussion.
Real estate tax, high or low, is not a insignificant factor in promoting growth and development.
The influx of people relocating here from Chicago, NYC and California has nothing to do with property taxes.
I dated a girl like you. No matter what I said, she interpreted it the worst possible way, and threw the strawman back at me.
The value of developed land is not assessed as such. It's always the value of the land plus the value of the structures on the land. And yes, the tax man and the home developer sometimes put the land value as a line item, but it's usually a round number that doesn't mean anything. It's like the shop fees at the oil change place. The tax rate is based off of the sum. Now if there was a different tax rate for the land, you can bet there would suddenly be lots of controversy about what the right value was, and few people would feel sure about it.
I didn't say property tax fluctuates instantly based on market activity. I didn't say anything about how quickly it reacts. Obviously you wouldn't want it to be too slow or too fast, but that's also obviously besides the point.
If you think the totality of Madison and Jefferson's contributions to our form of government begin and end with the second sentence of the declaration of independence, you're hopelessly lost in this discussion. First of all, that idea actually comes from Locke during the conclusion of the English Revolution in the 1600s, secondly, they obviously made many more lasting contributions to the United States than that.
(10-13-2022, 10:34 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-12-2022, 05:29 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]THIS POST IS EXTREMELY MISLEADING.
Fact: Tyson is moving 500 employees from its Chicago office to it's Corp HQ in Arkansas.
Supplemental Fact that should be noted: Tyson Foods consists of 139,000 employees, meaning this move represents 0.3% of its workforce. That means 3 out of every 1,000 of their employees are impacted. That's kind of like Allstate announcing that they are shutting down its office on San Pablo Road Jacksonville and moving those employees to their HQ in Illinois
This is what the article says:
"Tyson, which employs 137,000 people worldwide, is one of several noteworthy companies to leave the Chicago area this year."
Where did you see the number of employees leaving? I read the whole article and didn't see a specific number.
Exactly -- here you go. 500 employees from its Chicago office are being moved. Tyson Foods also shut down the South Dakota office which impacts another 500 employees (but that is not mentioned in the biased DailyWire article as well)
https://www.dailyitem.com/business/tyson...2c5d0.html
https://www.fooddive.com/news/tyson-clos...es/633434/
Sweet. We know the amount people leaving. What's the taxable income loss?
(10-11-2022, 05:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In LA and NYC property tax rates are too low, which allows greater economic inequality and a shortage of housing. In Chicago they are far far too high - which tamps down on both prices and supply. LA and NYC have room to increase their property tax and lower their income tax and sales tax and still keep services the same. Chicago has no easy solutions. Depressing.
Mike, honest questions…. Why do you consider yourself to be Republican? What conservative positions do you hold? Not that anyone needs to be lock step with a party, but what are your hot button issues and do they align with conservative ideals?
I’ve just never heard a self proclaimed Republican lament income inequality or taxes being too low and lower taxes are generally a hallmark position of conservatism.
Chicago’s situation aside. I wouldn’t consider New York property taxes to be “low”.
(10-14-2022, 10:38 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (10-11-2022, 05:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In LA and NYC property tax rates are too low, which allows greater economic inequality and a shortage of housing. In Chicago they are far far too high - which tamps down on both prices and supply. LA and NYC have room to increase their property tax and lower their income tax and sales tax and still keep services the same. Chicago has no easy solutions. Depressing.
Mike, honest questions…. Why do you consider yourself to be Republican? What conservative positions do you hold? Not that anyone needs to be lock step with a party, but what are your hot button issues and do they align with conservative ideals?
I’ve just never heard a self proclaimed Republican lament income inequality or taxes being too low and lower taxes are generally a hallmark position of conservatism.
Chicago’s situation aside. I wouldn’t consider New York property taxes to be “low”.
These aren't laments. I think there is an optimum property tax rate, and it's not so much that NYC and LA suffer because theirs is too low, it's that they are missing out on growth opportunities that they could unlock if they lowered their income and sales tax and raised their property tax to make up the difference.
As for income inequality, we know from history that there are few better predictors of coups and revolutions than income inequality. And we know, when we look at places like Brazil and Mexico, that our small-d democratic Presidential form of government is not immune to coups or revolutions. It's better than a monarchy or dictatorship, but it's not immune to problems.
So don't misunderstand me. I don't mention inequality as a concern out of a bleeding heart or any misplaced sympathy - "the poor will always be among us." I only mention it because I want to, conservatively, preserve our present form of government.
(10-14-2022, 11:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2022, 10:38 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Mike, honest questions…. Why do you consider yourself to be Republican? What conservative positions do you hold? Not that anyone needs to be lock step with a party, but what are your hot button issues and do they align with conservative ideals?
I’ve just never heard a self proclaimed Republican lament income inequality or taxes being too low and lower taxes are generally a hallmark position of conservatism.
Chicago’s situation aside. I wouldn’t consider New York property taxes to be “low”.
These aren't laments. I think there is an optimum property tax rate, and it's not so much that NYC and LA suffer because theirs is too low, it's that they are missing out on growth opportunities that they could unlock if they lowered their income and sales tax and raised their property tax to make up the difference.
As for income inequality, we know from history that there are few better predictors of coups and revolutions than income inequality. And we know, when we look at places like Brazil and Mexico, that our small-d democratic Presidential form of government is not immune to coups or revolutions. It's better than a monarchy or dictatorship, but it's not immune to problems.
So don't misunderstand me. I don't mention inequality as a concern out of a bleeding heart or any misplaced sympathy - "the poor will always be among us." I only mention it because I want to, conservatively, preserve our present form of government.
Help me understand this statement and allow me to elaborate the question. My wife and I purchased our dream home in 1997 for a tidy sum back then of 110k. Through self control, prudent spending, and personal home improvements we were able to pay off our 30 year mortgage in less than 15 years. We did this while living on one income and banking/doubling our mortgage payments. Since then we have invested in personal improvements and upgrades that satisfy us. As such the property value has quadrupled. As we enter our retirement years there will be a day under your statement that we will no longer be able to afford the taxes on something we worked a lifetime to achieve by doing everything right. We have paid taxes on every board, nail and drop of paint on our home. Yet you want us to pay even more because we had the audacity to pay off our mortgage early (saving interest payments) because we upgraded our purchase into a personal paradise. Punishing people for being responsible is, nor will ever be a conservative principle. I await your clarification.
(10-14-2022, 02:49 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (10-14-2022, 11:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]These aren't laments. I think there is an optimum property tax rate, and it's not so much that NYC and LA suffer because theirs is too low, it's that they are missing out on growth opportunities that they could unlock if they lowered their income and sales tax and raised their property tax to make up the difference.
As for income inequality, we know from history that there are few better predictors of coups and revolutions than income inequality. And we know, when we look at places like Brazil and Mexico, that our small-d democratic Presidential form of government is not immune to coups or revolutions. It's better than a monarchy or dictatorship, but it's not immune to problems.
So don't misunderstand me. I don't mention inequality as a concern out of a bleeding heart or any misplaced sympathy - "the poor will always be among us." I only mention it because I want to, conservatively, preserve our present form of government.
Help me understand this statement and allow me to elaborate the question. My wife and I purchased our dream home in 1997 for a tidy sum back then of 110k. Through self control, prudent spending, and personal home improvements we were able to pay off our 30 year mortgage in less than 15 years. We did this while living on one income and banking/doubling our mortgage payments. Since then we have invested in personal improvements and upgrades that satisfy us. As such the property value has quadrupled. As we enter our retirement years there will be a day under your statement that we will no longer be able to afford the taxes on something we worked a lifetime to achieve by doing everything right. We have paid taxes on every board, nail and drop of paint on our home. Yet you want us to pay even more because we had the audacity to pay off our mortgage early (saving interest payments) because we upgraded our purchase into a personal paradise. Punishing people for being responsible is, nor will ever be a conservative principle. I await your clarification.
It sounds like you have lived the "American Dream" much like my wife and I. We purchased a modest home on the West side of Jacksonville in the early 1990's. We worked hard, paid our mortgage off in a bit over 15 years. Saved up money for several years then finally bought our "retirement" place. We were able to both retire early (well before 60) and after turning 35+ acres of woods into an "estate" our property taxes are much higher than we ever paid.
The thing is, property taxes, especially for my place are way too high. We have a modest 2000 sq. ft. home, a garage, a couple of barns and some fields with fruit and nut trees. Suddenly this patch of woods is so "valuable" that our property taxes reflect that we live in a "mansion" or something.