Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Rush Limbaugh wrote an article yesterday saying that statewide property we’ve been covering is a done deal. The “Federal Reserve in Chicago is instituting new massive property taxes as a stopgap way of helping to fund at-present unfunded pensions and liabilities in the state.”

Hardly. It’s just a proposal by three economists at the Chicago Fed. As we wrote, it’s important for several reasons, but very unlikely to become law. Outside of the three economists at the Chicago Fed, nobody, to my knowledge, is actively pushing for its implementation. And does Limbaugh really think the Chicago Fed could levy that tax?

We have enough problems in Illinois without Rush Limbaugh or anybody else exaggerating.

By the way, Limbaugh had an earlier article on the proposal that was accurate. That would be because he mostly lifted what we wrote in our initial article, and gave us no attribution.

Mark Glennon is founder and Executive Editor of Wirepoints.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
nixit

Got a sneaking feeling this state property tax will be presented as an either/or option for a progressive income tax. The more publicity this tax gets, the more it feels like a bait and switch.

Mark

Mark Glennon is wrong! Just ask Chicago homeowners who have just received their recent tax bills. Rush is right, as he usually is. Chicago is just like many other cities lead by liberals for decades. They spend more than they have, make promises of lucrative pensions, which can never be met, and think the only solution is to raise taxes. Where do the folks who own property in these towns get this money? It doesn’t grow on trees, as they seem to think. I would bet that had this measure been put up for a referendum it would have failed.… Read more »

Bob

How bout the “fraud tax”? A term I coined. That is the billions lost each year to cheating – Link Cards (sold 50 cents on the dollar, PIN included), Comp, Unemployment —. One Chicago fellow convicted for stealing 100 million. 26 million to dead people. Funny how you, in fact nobody wants to talk about it.1,000 pension studies and not one COMPREHENSIVE study on the cheating. Why is that? Simple ,Much easier (and less dangerous) to go after the elderly retired than the grifters. How brave you all are! Remember “contractual” was approved by he voters. Cheating is NOT a… Read more »

danni smith

these idjets have said, 1. We want property values to decline 2. People will still come to Illinois because property purchase are so low they won’t mind paying the Real Estate taxes. 3. We need the money to pay the gub pensions (and that includes the idjet gubs) The idjets didn’t mention which poll yielded the results from number 2 statement. I followed the bouncing ball. Property values decline; banks raise rates to cover the risk of rapidly declining property values; people cannot get mortgages causing further property value declines; more people underwater and either walk or are foreclosed; a… Read more »

Raines

If you don’t think the ruling majority Democrats(also if Pritzker is elected) won’t take this suggestion and pass this 1% increase in prop tax and say it was the suggestion of the Chi Fed, you are sorely mistaken.
If Pritker is elected, this WILL happen. And we won’t be able to sell our homes and GTFO of this Illinois cesspool

Bob

Progressive income tax – better watch for that one. 1% surcharge, no way. You can take that to the bank, just not the Federal District (note the FEDERAL part – they need to work on the MANY federal problems).

Rush get the story mixed up? Surely not ———–

Jake

I heard this on Rush’s radio show prior to his article, and I don’t know if he was suffering from a brain freeze or what, in thinking the Fed can levy taxes, but I believe that any publicity about higher taxes in Illinois is good publicity. Now it may never happen, as it has become a toxic subject for lawmakers (maybe). Maybe some folks will get woke about it. On the other hand, the Fed in general, levies taxes on the population by it’s control over short-term interest rates and its effect on the cost of money. But about that… Read more »

Raines

Another broadcast has Limbaugh saying it was a proposal. He does tend to get ahead of himself.
But if you think the majority Democrats aren’t going to try to push this through, you are fooling yourself.