NSR: CHICAGO Political Thread ***HIGHLY TOXIC - ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK***

Friggin crocodile tears.

 

Well, there are quite a few alligators in Georgia.

Note, I do wish actual political violence on anyone (even MTG), but...
MAGAt civil war (metaphorically) will be delicious.

Shots fired (metaphorically)

This is sick, sick stuff. @RepThomasMassie's wife died last year. They had been together for 35 years and have four kids. Trump is mocking Massie's loss, and the vicious little shits who work for him are amplifying it, all to cover up Trump's connections with Jeffrey Epstein. https://t.co/XA8BQJT9pe

— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) November 15, 2025

Sorry, I cannot copy and paste Tr*mp's post about Massie. Essentially, it is about his wife dying last year and Massie allegedly getting married this year.

Actually, I am not sorry, but anyway.

pic.twitter.com/936oalkILP

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) November 15, 2025

 

Speaking of crocodiles, they do eat each other.

 

Damn! I do NOT wish...

I want them defeated and, those who have committed crimes, prosecuted, but I have been pretty consistently opposed to political violence.

 

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2025/11/17/do-millionaire-surtaxes-lead-to-millionaire-exodus/

 

Massive conservative logical fallacy

Multiple peer review academic studies suggest there is zero evidence regarding millionaires leaving over higher taxes

 

Actually very logical, all other things being equal. May not be the only factor involved in the decision-making process but likely important.
I do not recall ever hearing anybody say they wanted to move to X-location because it has the highest taxes.
Nor have I ever heard of a reputable unbiased study that maintains higher taxes do not matter.
It may not happen in the short term.

 

Do people read anymore?

“After two and a half budget cycles, Fair Share revenue attests to the fact that Bay State millionaires are staying and paying. IRS tax returns reveal the number of filers reporting adjusted gross incomes above $1 million has generally climbed…”

And

“…the Massachusetts population reporting net worth above $1 million has grown 39% from 441,610 individuals to 612,109 in the past three years. The number of residents above $50 million in wealth has grown 35% from 1,954 to 2,642 individuals. Finally, the number of billionaires in Massachusetts on the Forbes 400 list has climbed from 7 to 9 between 2022 and 2025.

These data clash with the dire protestations of the wealthy themselves and their popular image as rootless jet-setters anxious to move, gravity-like, to the lowest tax environment.”

 

The issue is the use of the word "because." That is not the proper term.

The correct term would be despite.

People may not "want to move to X-location because it has the highest taxes" but may want to move to X-location despite of (or even though there are) high taxes.

Taxes are, quite literally, the cost of doing business in society. I want to move to Norway, Canada, Ireland, the UK, etc. even though the taxes are higher because the residents receive value for the money (education, health care, child care, public transit, public housing, greater safety, etc., while avoiding excessive military spending or ICE fascism, etc.).

On second thought, "all things being equal," I suppose you could say I want to move to X-location because of their higher taxes, as I recognize the value of the services paid for by the higher taxes.

The funny thing about that is I do not even use many of those services, but I am more than willing to pay for them, as they are the "Commons" and a healthy society is built on the Commons, especially strong public education, health care and child care, and, to an extent, public transit. I am willing to help pay for things that make other people's lives better.

I do not have children and have decent private insurance, drive a car, etc. but, as a society, we are better and stronger with all of those things being public goods.

 

I have been preparing personal income taxes for over 20 years. Not once have I heard someone say ‘I moved because my state income taxes were too high’. People have said that it was a side benefit- ‘I had all of these great reasons to move to ____, plus- no state income taxes!’ but not ‘I had to move out of ____ - income tax is way too high!’. I’m sure people exist that have moved with that as their primary motivation, but the data shows that it is not the case at scale.

This ‘higher taxes on income will scare away the rich folk’ rhetoric is huge part of Republicans’ worldview though, to the point where it gets outsized attention in the media and in our policy. For years, you could deduct your state income taxes, along with other local taxes (referred to as S.A.L.T. for State and Local Taxes) on your federal tax return - makes sense, as you don’t want to be taxed on the federal level for money that went to pay your state and local taxes. Trump (well congress- but it was a big part of Trump’s agenda and wouldn’t have happened without him) thought this advantaged blue states so he limited the SALT deduction to $10,000 per household in 2017 as part of the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” that was a huge handout to the ultra wealthy, and a kick in the dick for most other taxpayers. Part of the thinking was that it could inconvenience taxpayers enough to flee these states and cause the blue states to lose voters.

In reality, not many people care about taxes that much, and fewer are rich enough to pack up and move to a neighboring state rather than pay their fair share. Only a complete psychopathic loser like Ken Griffin would even try to convince someone they made a decision that big based on something as mundane as taxes. Voters here rejected the progressive state tax that would’ve helped IL immensely, and that big dumb crybaby still moved to FL.

 

My post did not object to the idea of raising taxes a reasonable amount ( which they did) on highest incomes (not sure if $1,000,000 is right level ), I said the post was wrong in saying there is proof that higher taxes do not cause people to relocate.
That statement is wrong in many ways. Just to name a few- 1)way too short a time frame to prove anything, 2)”studies” conducted by persons/groups with obvious bias,
3) no comparisons to national or similiar states and 4) conclusions that fly in the face of logic and well-established human behavior.
There clearly seems to be a long-term trend of people and businesses leaving
high-cost cities and high-tax states for suburbs and lower-cost cities and states.
I said that higher taxes may not be the only factor but to say it does not matter
at all is wrong.
Politicians of every stripe always exaggerate ( or worse) but I still hope for better behavior from the public. Been disappointed a lot in recent years.

 

I’m not sure that’s what the post says…

 

You criticized the studies that were cited and that is fair enough.
I would like to see the studies you are using as the basis for your statements.

High-cost and high-tax are two completely different things.
To equate the two (which is what you are doing by saying "people and businesses leaving high-cost cities and high-tax states...") is incorrect.

Also, the article was discussing millionaires leaving, not businesses.
Equating "people and businesses leaving..." is equally incorrect.

Also, you have to define what you mean by "high-tax" and "high-cost."

High cost?
"Low tax" Florida (no state income tax) has the city with the 10th highest cost of living.
"Low tax" Louisiana (3.00% state income tax) has the city with the 12th highest cost of living.

High tax?
Do you mean state income tax?
Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Idaho, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin have higher top state income tax rates than Illinois.

States with no state income tax?
Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.
Not sure people are really flocking to all of those states to avoid state income taxes (Florida and Texas may be exceptions, but both have other taxes that are very high)

Do you mean property taxes?
Illinois has the highest (or second highest along with New Jersey and Connecticut) property tax rate in the nation, but you live there, right? Strange, isn't?
Next? Nebraska, Vermont, New Hampshire and Texas.

Do you mean sales taxes?
Chicago has the second highest sales tax in the nation, but you live there, right?
The city with the lowest sales tax? Portland Oregon.

Or do you mean state sales taxes?
The states with the highest sales tax? Tennessee and Indiana (7.0%). Are people fleeing Tennessee? Well, probably, but not because of taxes.
Second? Nevada (6.85%). I do not see people fleeing Las Vegas or Reno due to taxes.
Next? is New Jersey at 6.625%.
Others that are as high or higher than Washington State or Illinois (two notorious "high tax" states)? Kansas (6.5%), Arkansas (6.5%), Texas (6.25%) and Florida (6.00%).

The state with the lowest sales tax? Oregon and Alaska.

Basically, outside of Alaska (which is in a category of its own, due to the oil trust), most states with low income tax have high state sales tax, often higher than other states' income tax rates.
As stated above-Florida, Texas and Nevada, three states often touted as "low tax" states, since they have no income tax have higher sales tax than most other states and Texas has the double whammy of also having high property tax.

So, please, explain what you mean by a Low Tax state.
We hear this spouted all the time, but it bears little relation to reality.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/region_rankings_current.jsp?region=021
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/property-taxes-by-state-county/
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/sales-tax-rates-by-city-2024/
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-income-tax-rates/
https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/fun-facts/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-taxes/L6HPAVqSF

 

People who rely on talking points struggle to have in depth discussions with details and facts.

 

Generally

 

Your arguments about definitions etc. miss all the issues raised in my original post.

 

People who spend vast hours composing and espousing biased one-sided political views instead of objectively reviewing facts with an open mind have too much free time and remain uninformed.

 

Luckily we don’t see too many of them around here.

 

You mean like people that reject multiple studies that determine things they don’t want to believe as “conducted by persons/groups with obvious bias” and then make subjective claims that “There clearly seems to be a long-term trend of people and businesses leaving
high-cost cities and high-tax states for suburbs and lower-cost cities and states” that fly in the face of those studies based on their own one sided views without any evidence? You talking about those kind of people?

 

Okay, here was your original post.

There is nothing in my post that "misses" your post, at all. In fact, you "raised" no issues at all in your post.
You made an unsubstantiated comment about "decision-making process" and that taxes were "likely important."

You provide no support whatsoever to support your thesis that people are fleeing "high tax" and "high cost" areas (despite your refusal to define those terms) because of the taxes.
Instead you try to confuse the matter by bringing up costs and businesses, despite neither being relevant nor addressed in the article.
When that is pointed out to you to you, you attack, calling the comments "one-sided political views" and "uninformed."

For the record, the research to refute your assertions took about 12 minutes of my time.

 

People who rely on talking points struggle to have in depth discussions with details and facts.

 

Quoting biased studies and accepting them at face value only proves you are naive
or unwilling to learn the truth. How many people have told you they moved so they could live in a higher cost area? Compare that number with those who are saying they moved or plan to move to a lower cost area.
And yet you deny the readily apparent and demonstrated facts.
Obviously, no reason to further waste my time on this topic.

 

Whom are you addressing now? It sounds like @harrylee773, but it could be anyone.

Again, you criticize the study, but provide nothing to refute them.

Please provide those "facts" you claim are "readily apparent and demonstrated."

Please enlighten us with the Truth!

Pretty much every person who moves to a city willingly moves to a "higher cost area.". Although, once again, costs were not the subject of the "biased study," taxes were.