https://www.wsj.com/opinion/chicago-brandon-johnson-head-tax-city-council-vote-budget-0ec40d41?st=eG4S9h&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Quote:

---

The City Council's finance committee voted 25-10 on Monday to reject his revenue package, amid criticism that included some of the Mayor's allies.

Mr. Johnson's idea is to levy a tax of $21 per employee on businesses with more than 100 workers. This would punish companies that are doing Chicago a favor by staying in downtown offices despite the city's dysfunctions, rather than fleeing elsewhere. Only three other big cities have a head tax, according to the Chicago Policy Center, and Mr. Johnson's plan has a far higher rate than the ones levied by Denver, San Jose and San Diego.

"This head tax is only going to make things worse," Alderman Brendan Reilly said. "The shift is being put on the homeowners, because commercial properties are paying less, because they're valued less, because they're empty. That's why."

---

Major Johnson confirms yet another Democrats complete non-understanding of basic economics:

Quote:

---

Yet Mr. Johnson is doubling down. "The corporate tax is in this budget. It will stay in this budget," he said. Asked in a press conference whether piling on more taxes would hurt the downtown economy, the Mayor blamed the vacancy rate on the lingering effects of Covid: "There is no correlation between taxation and the success, if you will, of corporations."

---

Kamala can put Chicago back on her places to live list.

Just when you think one blue city has elected the most incompetent and unqualified mayor ever, another one comes along to say "hold my beer and watch this!"

Dude makes Beetle Juice look like Einstein.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Just when you think one blue city has elected the most incompetent and unqualified mayor ever, another one comes along to say "hold my beer and watch this!"

---

It really is hilarious. NYC, Chicago, and Seattle are competing for who can reach the bottom first.

What a contrast between the rural and big urban areas in those states. Frankly, everywhere in this country. It's not red-vs-blue states... it's red-vs-blue counties all across the country, with the suburbs in purple middle ground.

Was a little surprised to see San Diego had a head tax since they have historically been one of the more conservative cities in CA, comparatively speaking.

Why are liberals sofa king stupid?

What was the head tax supposed to accomplish? Does Johnson want businesses to hire fewer workers?

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

What was the head tax supposed to accomplish? Does Johnson want businesses to hire fewer workers?

---

Realize this is likely rhetorical, but he was doing it because Chicago is already very underwater and like a typical dumbass Democrat he's trying to tax his way out of it.

Chicago has a structural budget deficit, not just a one off.

I read somewhere that like 50% of it is teachers Union pension. (No idea if that is accurate, but if so... Wow)

Logos Stick said:

---

Chicago has a structural budget deficit, not just a one off.

I read somewhere that like 50% of it is teachers Union pension. (No idea if that is accurate, but if so... Wow)

---

They've got a huge problem. A lot of these blue cities do. They're counting on federal bailouts. With the Dems in charge in the WH and Congress every few elections, it's likely they'll get what they want.

It's trickier than this.

A lot of the problem is lost revenue from TIF districts - these come from "blighted neighborhoods" 40% of Chicago is TIF, much less than this is blighted.

When the property values in TIF districts rise, the incremental tax generated does NOT go to schools, the city etc.

Instead these revenues go into a special fund that can be spent on a lot of different projects and what ever leftover is divided up between schools, city etc.

So, the city council has the final say on where TIF money is spent, and how much gets spent. The slush fund of slush funds.

Can you imagine a better environment for Dem politicians? I can't.

In any case, unsustainable and much worse than it looks.

As far as public schools, the "only" expense the city is on the hook for is part of the pensions for non-teachers. About half of school personnel are non - teachers. It is the TIFs that are the real problem, the cost to the city for its portion of the school pensions is not the budget buster.

His mistake is conflating success with presence. His feeble little mind can't comprehend a world outside Chicago where successful businesses might want to relocate.

If there is no correlation between the corporate tax rate and business performance, why doesn't he institute a corporate tax rate of 100%? I, for one, think he should go for it.

Alternative fundraising idea: Raise the city parking meter fees.

Oh wait, that won't help the city, because they foolishly decided to give all their parking revenue to a private investment firm for 75 years, 17 years ago.

(I'm not claiming that this would balance Chicago's budget, just wanted to point out a random example of the city government's bad long-term decision making.)