Balta1701 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 The trick there is the phrase "downstate and suburban". The largest tax dollar amounts tend to come from suburban areas that consider themselves part of "Chicagoland". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 10:21 PM) Maybe i'm wrong. I just see large state projects/grants given to Chicago-centric things - mass transit, health services, public housing, etc. Yes, there are those things downstate, but not nearly as big and not nearly as expensive to build/maintain/fund. As an example, here's an article (partisan statements included) about education spending: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/201...g-inequity.html Those large state projects and grants are going to the vast majority of the state's millions of people. Roads, mail delivery, hospitals, etc are very expensive to build and the more spread out the people are the less bang for the buck you get. By the time you travel from Lake Michigan to Joliet you will have passed over 3/4ths of the states population. The remaining geographical area's infrastructure is not 100% supported by the remaining 1/4th. Now if you specifically talk about cash flows to cook county and take away "Chicagoland" the rest of the state may be different. Though if the rest of the state split and I was Chicago I would tax the holy hell out of commuters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 03:39 PM) The trick there is the phrase "downstate and suburban". The largest tax dollar amounts tend to come from suburban areas that consider themselves part of "Chicagoland". OK? But that's still a completely skewed scale of spending despite having the largest school district in the state, about a fifth of all students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 04:02 PM) OK? But that's still a completely skewed scale of spending despite having the largest school district in the state, about a fifth of all students. Its not really skewed. The Chicagoland area (that includes Lake/Cook county) likely pays a disproportionate amount of the taxes in IL. The majority of the money is also likely spent here, but Id bet if you did the math that Lake/Cook county are subsidizing the rest of the state and that some of our tax money is going to fund things in southern IL. Which is why Southern IL would be silly to split. But Id be glad to let them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Here's the area that Chicagoland encompasses: It represents about 3/4's of Illinois' entire population. It has some of the wealthiest cities in the country, is home to multiple Fortune 500 HQ's, and has a huge economic base. The top 7 Illinois counties for per capita income are all in Chicagoland. There is just so much more industry and so many more people in this area than anywhere else in the state. And don't forget to factor in farm subsidies throughout all of the rural areas. Illinois' total GDP is about $650M, and $585M (90%) comes from Chicagoland. So on a per capita basis, Chicagoland produces substantially more GDP than non-Chicagoland Illinois. Edited March 4, 2014 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 04:11 PM) Its not really skewed. The Chicagoland area (that includes Lake/Cook county) likely pays a disproportionate amount of the taxes in IL. The majority of the money is also likely spent here, but Id bet if you did the math that Lake/Cook county are subsidizing the rest of the state and that some of our tax money is going to fund things in southern IL. Which is why Southern IL would be silly to split. But Id be glad to let them. I think it is likely the other way around. Most of the money is made and spent in the Chicagoland area. With the way chicago separates themselves in things like pensions, it shows how chicago cannot sustain itself. Madigan and the group wants to have other districts from around the state fund their own pensions and conyribute to chicagos while none of the chicago money would go to other counties. Thankfully, this part of the pension reform did not go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Whether or not Chicago can sustain itself does not really impact whether Chicagoland area is a donor in terms of tax dollars. California likely cant sustain itself, but its still a donor state to the Federal govt when it comes to taxes. Its kind of apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 4, 2014 -> 05:48 PM) Whether or not Chicago can sustain itself does not really impact whether Chicagoland area is a donor in terms of tax dollars. California likely cant sustain itself, but its still a donor state to the Federal govt when it comes to taxes. Its kind of apples and oranges. Sorry, from the earlier discussion I thought the point was does Chicago contribute to the rest of the state or was it the other way around. Or another way of looking at it does Chicago subsidize the rest of the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 found this old thread: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=82426 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts