When I was transferred to O'Hare involuntarily when I worked at the airline, I ended up like most of my co-workers living across the state line in Wisconsin whom there was an agreement with not to tax Wisconsin residents income who worked in IL and vice versa.

Arizona is hot, backwards, racist and crazy

So what did you get when you tried the Google thing?

It's what happens when a large percentage of the electorate receives more out of the system than they put in. Those living on low income, paying rent (not property taxes), and spending much of their income on food and necessities, are inclined to vote for a council that spends the most on services, regardless of what that does to taxes and financial stability of the city and state.

There are some classic examples - Detroit come to mind.

California following.

Pulaski, I used to work in commercial real estate, and I now rent. I'm well aware that property owners pay property taxes, and when they are lessors, they pay those taxes out of the rent payments they receive (unless they receive less in rent than it costs to maintain the property, not a sustainable business model). Unless you are attempting to argue that all renters live in government-owned properties or on government subsidies, I'm not sure that is part of your equation.

Also, your argument boils down to "greedy grabby deadweights ruin everything", which is not especially nuanced. Other places with similar demographics aren't in the same plight and perhaps those reasons should be explored. It might be useful to start with a cui bono analysis of the causes of poverty (and I wouldn't be so naive as to point at the poor themselves).

You are clearly better informed than most tenants in low end housing. .... But are you seriously suggesting that people who receive a substantial part of their income in the form of subsidies and hand outs give two hoots about who is footing the bill and how large the bill is? ..... And I am not saying they should give two hoots, if I was living hand to mouth in a subsistence situation, I wouldn't either.

Most people vote for free stuff, certainly in the UK and US, where is this utopia where people do not put there personal interests first.

On the Scottish Independence thread there was mention that most voters could be 'bought' for GBP500 a year. Which to me did not seem very much.

Of course people put their personal interests first, don't be silly. But people with disproportionately more power and influence have far more opportunity to make public policy reflect their personal interests than people who live hand-to-mouth and have no power and little influence.

Where is this utopia where the moneyed class put their personal interests last? That's no way to do business!

You are saying there are such places, where?

I am?

Where?

I was responding to this: "Property, income and excise taxes are all absurdly high here. Adding insult to injury, you constantly get nickle-and-dimed for everything from on-street parking to Metra to the highest gas taxes in the country to garbage collection to special airport fees to hotel taxes to ~10% sales taxes in many towns. And yet, despite all of that revenue, this state is the biggest fiscal basket case in the country."

Just for example, you can read from the quote itself that every place in the country cannot have "the highest gas taxes in the country". Income taxes cannot be a consideration in states that do not have state income taxes, as Illinois does.

On a list of 101 metro areas in the US that have the highest poverty levels, Chicago is #83 on the list (where 1 is the highest level) http://www.city-data.com/top2/c3.html. I don't think you can argue that all or even most of the 82 cities on the list that have more poverty than metro Chicago are in as bad a way.

and should definitely add "ridiculous in an inch of snow"

Lx

"Why is California so..."
1) ...expensive
2) ...dry
3) ...warm

"Why is San Francisco so..."
1) ...expensive
2) ...cold
3) ...gay