Category: Chicagoland

Compilation of Consumer Taxes

Our friends at the Civic Federation have published a memo on Selected Consumer Taxes in the City of Chicago. Showing a total of 29 different taxes, it shows that the sales tax on general merchandise purchases in Chicago is now 9%:

  • 5% State (of which 0.25% is passed on to RTA)
  • 0.75% RTA
  • 1.00% Cook County
  • 2.25% Chicago

In restaurants we pay an additional 1.25%, of which 1% goes to McCormick Place and the remainder to the City.

Something I didn’t know about is that taxi medallions are reportedly taxed $78/month by the City.   Anyone know when this started?  If raised to  something like $350 or $400/month, it wouldn’t affect the earnings of cabbies, except those who own medallions, and might bring in $25 million for the City.

RTA prefers parking to transit

Whoops! Update from Sick Transit– RTA can tax only fee offstreet parking, and would have to eliminate its sales tax to do so.  Still might not be a bad move…

Earlier post was:

Yes, the RTA has authority to impose and collect a parking tax, per 70 ILCS 3615/4.03 . As one commenter stated at Sick Transit Chicago, RTA chose “a service meltdown over exercising the authority it does have” to tax parking.

I don’t consider a parking tax the best way to fund transit, as its economic objectives could be more efficiently obtained thru a land tax. But it’s better than a sales tax, and it’s already authorized. If RTA’s main purpose were to support and improve public transportation, this would have been done.

How transit can fund itself

It’s simply a matter of retrieving some of the benefits that transit creates.  I have (finally!) put together estimates of land value and transit funding desires, to show how a land value tax for transit might work.   It looks as if a typical homeowner, for $290/year, could get all her transit paid for– not just the subsidy, but the fares, too.  Other options are cheaper.  Details here.

New data on supporting transit thru a land value tax

The previous post notes that the value of taxable land in the Chicago metro area exceeds $1 trillion. Therefore, if we want to get an extra $200 million for transit, we can do it with a land tax rate of 0.02%, meaning $40/year for the owner of a $200,000 lot. Another option is to raise $2 billion/year, use some for transit and some for roads and parking, so that people who don’t ride transit will still see direct benefit. This would cost our typical homeowner $400/year, likely deductible from federal taxable income and partly credited on state income tax. Renters, at least in theory, will pay none of this tax; it will fall on owners of the land on which their rented quarters are located.

A proper analysis of this would compile current transit funding sources and uses, and show how funds will be freed up, and taxpayers unburdened. In addition, it would use information compiled by Richard W. England, from a study by others of Washington, DC, which estimates a drop in job growth of 2.08% for every 1 percentage point increase in the sales tax rate. Applied to the Chicago area, this means that the existing and proposed transit sales tax will reduce, by 9,422, the number of jobs which would otherwise be in the metropolitan area ten years from now. [These figures are calculated in a simple spreadsheet which I would post here, if I could figure out how to post it, and will send to anyone interested.]

Chicago area land value exceeds $1 trillion

Finally received Lincoln Institute’s new book Land Policies and Their Outcomes. David Barker (apparently of the University of Chicago) estimated land values for four metro areas by looking at vacant land sales. Assuming that each such sale represents the per-acre value of land in its immediate area, he finds that for the Chicago 8-county MSA total land value is $2.188 trillion. From this he deducts streets and concludes that the rest of the land is worth $1.872 trillion. Of course, not all of this could be subject to a land value tax, for instance public facilities and favored nonprofits are exempt. Still, it seems that the taxable value would exceed $1 trillion. And this doesn’t count all the other privileges which could be taxed without reducing productivity.

The paper does include a much lower estimate reached by an alternative method, but that method assumes land to be worth only the difference between the parcel price and the depreciated cost of building whatever is on it. And excludes vacant land. And has some other limitations.

What's missing from the Burnham Plan centennial

Folks around Chicago are getting ready to observe the centennial of Dan Burnham’s 1909 “Plan of Chicago.” We’ve all heard about it, but who has actually read it?

Not me, so I figured I would borrow a copy from the Chicago Public Library.  Not the 1909 original, of course, but there were reprints in 1970 and 1993.   But although CPL has several copies, apparently none of them circulate.  No problem, this is a 1909 document, so it should be free of copyright.  But as far as I can tell, nobody has placed it on-line.  Sounds like a good project for the Plan of Chicago Centennial Initiative

I did spend a little time reviewing a noncirculating copy.  There’s all kinds of wonderful stuff, but I focused on the final chapter.  “Legal Aspects of the Plan of Chicago,” by Walter L. Fisher, is where issues of financing are discussed.   Except for the railroad terminals, there was no indication of funding by anything other than the real estate tax, applied equally to land and improvements.  Fisher did note that, in some places, public authorities could acquire more land than needed for the improvement, and sell the surplus to help capture some of the benefit, but this wouldn’t be feasible in Chicago.

Thanks to Robert Piper for alerting me to this project.

Monetary seminar Sept 26 in Chicago

American Monetary Institute’s Steve Zarlenga offers a seminar (free!) immediately prior to their annual conference.    I think Zarlenga’s fundamental ideas are sound and this should be a good way to understand key monetary issues in three hours.   More detail about the conference (not free) is here. More about monetary history and principles in his book. 

Assessment limits make many homeowners worse-off

In the July issue of Land Lines, two UIC economists show how limitations on the increase in real estate tax assessments not only fail to protect all homeowners, but actually cause many of them to pay more tax than they would in the absence of the limitations.  It’s simple mathematics, say Richard F. Dye and Daniel P. McMillen.  If the total tax take does not decrease, then those with relatively small increases in home value– not protected by assessment caps– end up paying a larger share to make up for the absence of assessments on the full value of homes in areas where values are rising rapidly.

This is despite the fact that business’ share of the tax burden grows.  And it has nothing to do with TIF’s.  Well, I guess TIF’s worsen the situation further, but that isn’t discussed in this article.

Land Lines comes from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.  They provide free subscriptions in hard-copy.  Or you can download it without charge, but they want you to register.  You can probably avoid registration by using bugmenot.

Responding to PIRG, despite WordPress

Phineas Baxandall, one of the authors of the Illinois PIRG report blogged yesterday, commented on the item. Well, I responded to his comment, but for some reason WordPress swallowed the comment. Twice. I tried to comment as a normal person instead of myself. Swallowed again. Tried again. Rejected as “duplicate.” I don’t know what’s going on at WordPress, possibly there is some difficulty regarding html in the comment. But following is my response to Phineas Baxandall.

I’m always happy to see activists claiming that Henry George would approve of their work, but in this case there’s a serious gap between George’s proposal and yours.

George wanted to remove all taxes from productive activity, and instead charge for control of land (and other natural resources). Retail sales and service are productive activities, and when they’re taxed then the cost of living increases and living standards are reduced. Real estate transfers, too, usually involve productive activity, either construction or at least the transfer of property to someone who can use it more effectively than the seller.

Development impact fees likewise make it more expensive and difficult to provide housing (or other kinds of development). If such fees were truly user fees, then they’d be paid by all users, rather than just by those who seek to build.

You’re certainly not the first person to misunderstand George’s ideas, which is why we have Henry George Schools in Chicago and elsewhere, run courses by Internet, and have Progress & Poverty posted in original and modernized versions. Some relevant (and more succinct) modern documents are here.

It’s not so important whether your proposal would please Henry George. What’s important is that, had you proposed supporting transit thru a tax on location values, you would have recommended a policy to reliably fund transit in the long run, encourage transit-supportive development patterns, and improve the standard of living of ordinary working people.