Illinois Raising Taxes Again

[mlblack16.]

From my own personal view I looked long and hard at a couple of academic medicine appointments. One of the major selling points is the pension (with the director of the Oregon health sciences system retiring with a 72K/month pension). You make less than the private sector, but if you put in your 20-30 years the pension benefits can nearly make up some of the difference depending on some factors.

So I took a deep dive into some of these state pension plans and thought they were not sustainable. I don't know how they get fixed but I'm sure high earners will be first on the chopping block. Some of my friends in academics save extra on top of their pension for retirement because they're nervous and they should be.

Hell, I work for tOSU and most PhD professors with a decade or less of experience make over $100K annually. Not bad for such a cushy job.

I haven't quite figured out how that works for the MD Professors who see patients at the medical center and appear to work pretty much like any other physicians at a non-academic medical center. Do they get to bill insurances of the patients they see and earn revenue or are they only allowed their pay from the University?

 

[-CarlHungus-]

Hell, I work for tOSU and most PhD professors with a decade or less of experience make over $100K annually. Not bad for such a cushy job.

I haven't quite figured out how that works for the MD Professors who see patients at the medical center and appear to work pretty much like any other physicians at a non-academic medical center. Do they get to bill insurances of the patients they see and earn revenue or are they only allowed their pay from the University?

Academic medicine pay structure varies wildly from specialty to specialty and state/institution.

Sometimes it’s salary with bonus for production, publications, teaching, administrative things. Sometimes you get a state salary then a side salary from a “private” physician group on the side (where you can have a separate 401k on top of your state pension).

It can be incredibly complex but the general rule (there are exceptions) is that take home pay is often less than private, but benefits and pensions are a big plus in the package. Prestige and rank is also factored in.

 

[extragreen]

We could always do a bigger tax cut and reap the benefits of added profit due to growing the economy. Whaddaya say, you cheap cons?

 

[extragreen]

EG is on your side libs...

He sure is. Don't you have some beer to drink.

 

[i am herdman]

He sure is. Don't you have some beer to drink.

Good idea

 

[extragreen]

yeah, that's great. screw everybody because the government screwed up and gave unreasonable benefits to the few.

You and the rest of the cons didn't mind when cheetos and friends just did the same thing with the tax cuts.

 

[extragreen]

Yeah FVCK THAT

You and the rest of the cons didn't mind when cheetos and friends just did the same thing with the tax cuts.

 

[extragreen]

Good idea

I always have good ideas. I have the best ideas. bigly.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Don't currently have any in the house.

 

[extragreen]

Don't currently have any in the house.

I'm sure that'll be remedied soon enough.

 

[From Ashes To Glory 2]

View embedded media

Frankly, I'm surprised at the top tax rates for Iowa and Wisconsin.

 

[herdfan429]

Extra here is an idea. Maybe they can do what Seattle is doing to employers. Just charge them a tax per employee. I’m sure that will help fill in the pension short fall and won’t have any negative impact on business or the state economy.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-for-scaled-down-head-tax-on-large-employers/

 

[raleighherdfan]

I always have good ideas. I have the best ideas. bigly.

Hmmmmm. Was closing your cabinet business and laying off staff one of them?

 

[raleighherdfan]

Extra here is an idea. Maybe they can do what Seattle is doing to employers. Just charge them a tax per employee. I’m sure that will help fill in the pension short fall and won’t have any negative impact on business or the state economy.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-for-scaled-down-head-tax-on-large-employers/

It's amazing watching these libs propose this kind of nonsense. No amount of $$$ collected in taxes will rectify their problem of "housing affordability".

 

[extragreen]

Extra here is an idea. Maybe they can do what Seattle is doing to employers. Just charge them a tax per employee. I’m sure that will help fill in the pension short fall and won’t have any negative impact on business or the state economy.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-for-scaled-down-head-tax-on-large-employers/

Seattle should cut taxes, sit back, and watch the revenue start pouring in. Problem solved.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

It's amazing watching these libs propose this kind of nonsense. No amount of $$$ collected in taxes will rectify their problem of "housing affordability".

That's asinine. I'd suggest studying public housing at the end of WWII to see a government solution to a housing crunch/affordability crunch. Of course, most of those returning troops were white so it worked better, or something like that.

Now, if you want to argue that philosophically you believe this is the wrong approach, go for it. But to say no amount of money could build enough housing to house people that need it is pretty damn dumb.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

It's amazing watching these libs propose this kind of nonsense. No amount of $$$ collected in taxes will rectify their problem of "housing affordability".

Another Raleigh misinformed statement. I understand that history and Econ are best in class at ITT Tech like engineering.

 

[mlblack16.]

Hmmmmm. Was closing your cabinet business and laying off staff one of them?

No, his idea was to make people claim their thetans as dependants on their tax returns.

 

[raleighherdfan]

That's asinine. I'd suggest studying public housing at the end of WWII to see a government solution to a housing crunch/affordability crunch. Of course, most of those returning troops were white so it worked better, or something like that.

Now, if you want to argue that philosophically you believe this is the wrong approach, go for it. But to say no amount of money could build enough housing to house people that need it is pretty damn dumb.

Comparing the vets emergency housing act to what Seattle is (supposedly) proposing here, suggesting I said "no amount of money could build enough houses", and apparently not understanding that the economics and national policy of the 1940's has a completely different set of circumstances compared to today... is dumb.

Did I say comparing the vets emergency housing act to what Seattle is proposing....dumb? When you actually read the Seattle plan, it resembles very little, (aside from making certain politically connected developers a few hundred $million richer).

 

[i am herdman]

That's asinine. I'd suggest studying public housing at the end of WWII to see a government solution to a housing crunch/affordability crunch. Of course, most of those returning troops were white so it worked better, or something like that.

Now, if you want to argue that philosophically you believe this is the wrong approach, go for it. But to say no amount of money could build enough housing to house people that need it is pretty damn dumb.

Still didn't solve the problem long term. That was a temporary fix at the end of the world war. It wasn't going to last forever.

And, if you want to see what happens long term go drive by Marcum Terrace in Hungtington.

 

[extragreen]

And, if you want to see what happens long term go drive by Marcum Terrace in Hungtington.

Yeah, doggone those people not living on the streets.

 

[i am herdman]

Yeah, doggone those people not living on the streets.

And the conditions of Marcum Terrace that were originally started as veterans housing? And you further prove the point that did not solve the issue of people living in the streets either.

 

[extragreen]

And the conditions of Marcum Terrace that were originally started as veterans housing? And you further prove the point that did not solve the issue of people living in the streets either.

Your precious cheetos tax cut is the equivalent of 46 years of the section 8 federal government spending on low income renters. You further prove the point that you will whine when poor people are helped.

 

[i am herdman]

Your precious cheetos tax cut is the equivalent of 46 years of the section 8 federal government spending on low income renters. You further prove the point that you will whine when poor people are helped.

No the people turned that place into a shit hole and a third world country.

No, the point at hand. That didn't solve homelessness

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Comparing the vets emergency housing act to what Seattle is (supposedly) proposing here, suggesting I said "no amount of money could build enough houses", and apparently not understanding that the economics and national policy of the 1940's has a completely different set of circumstances compared to today... is dumb.

Did I say comparing the vets emergency housing act to what Seattle is proposing....dumb? When you actually read the Seattle plan, it resembles very little, (aside from making certain politically connected developers a few hundred $million richer).

Do you know what is dumb? Reading my challenge of your assertion that no amount of money can solve a certain problem, and somehow reading that as my endorsement of a particular proposal or my example of another problem that was solved with plenty of money as a comparison of that act and any current proposal. So now not only are you dumb for asserting unlimited funds can solve plenty of problems, you are even more dumb because your reading comprehension skills are less than that of a third grader. Congrats, fvckhead.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Still didn't solve the problem long term. That was a temporary fix at the end of the world war. It wasn't going to last forever.

And, if you want to see what happens long term go drive by Marcum Terrace in Hungtington.

It lasted until a certain demographic was allowed in said housing in large numbers, a demographic that did not see spartan dwelling spaces as less than aspirational.

 

[raleighherdfan]

So now not only are you dumb for asserting unlimited funds can solve plenty of problems...... comprehension skills are less than that of a third grader. Congrats, fvckhead.

Talk about lack of comprehension and third grade skills........

Please... blame it on, "reading on my phone", or "autocorrect".

Why keep changing the premise? Not only was the concept of "unlimited" funds not part of discussion, when did I ever assert "unlimited funds can't solve plenty of problems?"

my example of another problem that was solved with plenty of money

Shit, If I really wanted to be a "fvckhead" I could have expanded on the actual "failures" associated with your "example of success" you chose to introduce into the thread.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

No amount of $$$ collected in taxes will rectify their problem of "housing affordability".

Not only was the concept of "unlimited" funds not part of discussion

You are mentally deficient. We just have to find that magic number between 0 and 100% (according to your Lord and Savior Arthur Laffer) and dedicate all the revenue to the issue.

It is a common conservative refrain that funding cannot solve problems. Bullshit. The issue is are people willing to pay for the fix. And that is what I am calling you out for, the same conservative switcheroo.

You are correct there were initial failures, which is why the 1946 act of rationing and directing supplies into vet housing was replaced with....wait for it...funding private sector builders to build the housing. Throwing lots of money at it, you know.

The fact is, no one in the private sector in their right mind will build "affordable housing" when higher profits are to be gained building expensive shit in a booming market. It has to be subsidized somehow. Take your pick: mandate builders build affordable housing (dumb), or subsidize it through tax revenue. Like it or not, low paid service workers have to live somewhere, and we demand low paid service workers so the problem isn't going away there (or in the Bay Area). Add in the lack of open land and they are both fvxked without some sort of government solution.

 

[extragreen]

No the people turned that place into a shit hole and a third world country.

No, the point at hand. That didn't solve homelessness

Poverty has a tendency to negatively affect results.

The Cheetos tax cut hasn't solved your whining about taxes and helping the poor either.

 

[i am herdman]

It lasted until a certain demographic was allowed in said housing in large numbers, a demographic that did not see spartan dwelling spaces as less than aspirational.

agreed

 

[i am herdman]

Poverty has a tendency to negatively affect results.

The Cheetos tax cut hasn't solved your whining about taxes and helping the poor either.

you make no damn sense

 

[extragreen]

you make no damn sense

You just don't like what's being said.

 

[raleighherdfan]

The fact is, no one in the private sector in their right mind will build "affordable housing" when higher profits are to be gained building expensive shit in a booming market. It has to be subsidized somehow. Take your pick: mandate builders build affordable housing (dumb), or subsidize it through tax revenue. Like it or not, low paid service workers have to live somewhere, and we demand low paid service workers so the problem isn't going away there (or in the Bay Area).

Let's be more clear......the Seattle article and Seattle "plan" I was referring to is attempting to deal with finding places to put their homeless/addicts. The "plan" being sold is "affordability for the common man" (total BS)....when the ultimate truth is, "we are building more eye appealing ghettos to hide the unproductive members of our uber rich city".

Hell, even the do-good liberals in LA are hyperventilating over "not in my neighborhood syndrome" due to the same type of short sighted proposition.

IF this were truly about building affordable housing for low wage workers---with the potential to build equity/ownership in the units/communities they exist, we could probably find some common ground. That's just not what any of these tax and spend plans are actually going to end up being.

 

[HFF-SLTX]

You and the rest of the cons didn't mind when cheetos and friends just did the same thing with the tax cuts.

LMAO you moron. Let's take a look at this comparison. On one hand, you have someone stopping the govt from confiscating money that is not theirs in the first place. On the other hand, you are advocating the govt to take an extra $1100 per family per year to cover a bad promise they made to a certain few govt employees.

How about this, if this promise to these employees is so important to keep, try cutting expenditures in other areas that the govt is responsibile for before raping your private sector. This is the same mentality that led WV into the economic paradise it finds itself in today.

 

[extragreen]

On the other hand, you are advocating the govt to take an extra $1100 per family per year to cover a bad promise they made to a certain few govt employees.

you are advocating the govt to take an extra $1100 per family

You advocated each future U S household to pay back the cheetos tax cut to the tune of $11,000.

How about this, if this promise to these employees is so important to keep, try cutting expenditures in other areas that the govt is responsibile for before raping your private sector.

No problem. Expenditure cuts start with corporate welfare.

This is the same mentality that led WV into the economic paradise it finds itself in today.

No, it's the coal mining corporate welfare that got us here.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

IF this were truly about building affordable housing for low wage workers---with the potential to build equity/ownership in the units/communities they exist, we could probably find some common ground.

See, we do have common ground, because that is what I support. It's just going to take money to do that, so I support maybe a bit more in taxes than you do.

I'm also wary of things like the new Amazon HQ2. Communities are promising to give up all kinds of revenue to lure the thing, and won't have the revenue to actually handle being home to it. Everything has unintended consequences.

 

[HFF-SLTX]

No problem. Expenditure cuts start with corporate welfare.

.

WOW. How can you advocate anything if you do not recognize simple basic economic facts.

The government collects taxes. In business terms, this equals revenues

The government spends money on "insert your favorite misuse of tax dollars here" In business terms, this equals "EXPENDITURES"


So this BS argument about corporate welfare is just that BS. The government did not create these dollars, did nothing but confiscate these dollars from someone else. By getting off our backs and taking our money, this is not a cut in expenditures, but instead the govt is not getting revenues through the said sources anymore.

Cutting expenditures = cutting spending .....or should we say "managing it more efficiently". Because a "Spending cut" to the govt is entirely different than a "spending cut" to a family budget. Let's see if you can understand that one.

101 EG, 101. Learn it, practice it, become better!

 

[extragreen]

WOW. How can you advocate anything if you do not recognize simple basic economic facts.

When you resort to silly word games in an attempt to cover up loss of revenue, you've already lost.

 

[extragreen]

WOW. How can you advocate anything if you do not recognize simple basic economic facts.

When you resort to silly word games in an attempt to cover up loss of revenue, you've already lost.

 

[raleighherdfan]

WOW. How can you advocate anything if you do not recognize simple basic economic facts.

The government collects taxes. In business terms, this equals revenues

The government spends money on "insert your favorite misuse of tax dollars here" In business terms, this equals "EXPENDITURES"


So this BS argument about corporate welfare is just that BS. The government did not create these dollars, did nothing but confiscate these dollars from someone else. By getting off our backs and taking our money, this is not a cut in expenditures, but instead the govt is not getting revenues through the said sources anymore.

Cutting expenditures = cutting spending .....or should we say "managing it more efficiently". Because a "Spending cut" to the govt is entirely different than a "spending cut" to a family budget. Let's see if you can understand that one.

101 EG, 101. Learn it, practice it, become better!

You can’t possibly think a guy that paid welfare level wages and virtually brags about closing his business, and laying off low paid employees would understand this?