3 ms·
I tend to agree, but there's a limit. Accepting a job where the payout promised requires an almost 50% property tax raise? You can't possibly claim surprise w
by x0x0 7y ago
I tend to agree, but there's a limit. Accepting a job where the payout promised requires an almost 50% property tax raise? You can't possibly claim surprise when those promises are reneged on.
- sokoloff 7y agoThe current pensioners didn’t recently accept their job. They accepted it decades ago and it’s on the municipality to manage the funding.
- x0x0 7y agothis so-called pension crisis has been clear for well over a decade, bare minimum. It was heavily discussed circa 2000.
- conanbatt 7y agoAnd apparently on the tax payer to eat it up.
- 9935c101ab17a66 7y agoA lot of the people paying these taxes never agreed to the other end of the bargain either? I mean, you can argue that this is an integral part of the social contract, but if everyone leaves Chicago because property taxes increase astronomically there won't be any tax payers to lecture about how they have to hold up their end of the one-sided bargain. And then the whole thing collapses anyway?
- sokoloff 7y agoWhen you move to or live in a city, you sign on to the things the city did/does. That you didn't personally agree to build a new library or hire Sally Jane as a Police Dispatcher is irrelevant. I think people are leaving Chicago over solvency/funding outlook issues. I have two barely wealthy (single digit millions, almost surely) friends in Chicago who are moving to Arizona and Texas because they worry they're among the juiciest targets to be squeezed in the upcoming years.