-- Connecting the dots between our economy, government and business --
Summary and audio linked here.
Chicago’s political leadership is floating a pension buyout program as evidence it is seriously addressing the city’s thirty-six-billion-dollar unfunded pension liability, but Mark Glennon, founder of the Illinois policy research organization Wirepoints, said that the proposal moves debt from one column to another rather than reducing it, and that the broader fiscal picture facing the city continues to deteriorate across every measurable dimension. Audio here.
Expect no retraction or apology. This what they do.
The state’s existing buyout program for its own pensions is the precedent for Chicago, which should be a warning: Look out for similar exaggerated claims and shoddy analysis.
Full interview and summary linked here.
SIGN UP HERE FOR OUR FREE WIREPOINTS DAILY NEWSLETTER
Yup more reason than ever to switch to an interest only mortgage now. Declining value and a tax to sell, why pay principle each month on a home that is declining In value and is essentially being confiscTed by the state with properrty taxes anyway? Paying principle or pre paying down a mortgage in Illinois makes no sense at all to me. Am I wrong?
Regardless if it’s paid by buyer or seller any way you look at it’s a hit to value. May not affect the value of all transactions but it will for the ones where an institutional buyer/seller is involved. High transfer taxes are included in their return analysis which means if they’re buying they will offer less or simply not offer.
My thoughts it will affect both buyer and the seller as their is a new partner in the transaction despite having no equitable investment in the property being transferred. The only winner(s) in the matter will be the additional employees (relatives) hired to administer the program and the “free stuff army” who seems to win at everything in Illinois.
Shouldn’t these new taxes apply only to properties BOUGHT after the exit tax is enacted? Like a Tier 2 transfer tax? That way, the purchaser can account for this cost BEFORE they buy a property?
Too logical?