4 ms·

And further one side of the equation (benefits) are constitutionally garaunteed but the other side (funding) isn’t. There is t a lot of room for corruption when

And further one side of the equation (benefits) are constitutionally garaunteed but the other side (funding) isn’t. There is t a lot of room for corruption when allocation doesn’t happen. My big question in all of this is why the mid & early career governmental union members keep going along with the strikes. They are out of luck regardless and should be negotiating for fallback positions.

scott00 9y ago
The unions simply want taxes to be raised to whatever level is necessary to pay them what they want. It's been a while since I did the math, but my recollection is the level of taxation required to balance Illinois' books is not completely insane (though it is high).
- tptacek 9y ago
  Doesn't that high number presume that businesses won't move over the WI and IN border to avoid the tax increase? Most of the economy of IL is minutes from those borders.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - scott00 9y ago
    It does. I'm sure some would move, but New York and California maintain high tax rates without turning into ghost towns. To be clear, I'm not arguing the union position is correct, just that it's not ridiculous on its face. It's feasibility depends on subtle second order effects like the one you describe, not on raising tax collection to obviously impossible levels.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      NYC is sui generis. California is geographically hard to flee from --- but people do flee SoCal for Vegas.
  - ghostly_s 9y ago
    Those borders aren't far, but it's not like Kansas City. No one should be worried about tens of thousands of people's jobs being relocated from central/suburban Chicago to rural Wisconsin. People live in a place like Chicago for a whole host of reasons beyond just 'the job is there' and we need to forget this lowest-common-denominator argument.

4 ms·

And further one side of the equation (benefits) are constitutionally garaunteed but the other side (funding) isn’t. There is t a lot of room for corruption when

by kasey_junk 9y ago

scott00 9y ago
The unions simply want taxes to be raised to whatever level is necessary to pay them what they want. It's been a while since I did the math, but my recollection is the level of taxation required to balance Illinois' books is not completely insane (though it is high).
- tptacek 9y ago
  Doesn't that high number presume that businesses won't move over the WI and IN border to avoid the tax increase? Most of the economy of IL is minutes from those borders.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - scott00 9y ago
    It does. I'm sure some would move, but New York and California maintain high tax rates without turning into ghost towns. To be clear, I'm not arguing the union position is correct, just that it's not ridiculous on its face. It's feasibility depends on subtle second order effects like the one you describe, not on raising tax collection to obviously impossible levels.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      NYC is sui generis. California is geographically hard to flee from --- but people do flee SoCal for Vegas.
  - ghostly_s 9y ago
    Those borders aren't far, but it's not like Kansas City. No one should be worried about tens of thousands of people's jobs being relocated from central/suburban Chicago to rural Wisconsin. People live in a place like Chicago for a whole host of reasons beyond just 'the job is there' and we need to forget this lowest-common-denominator argument.