67 Comments - Napoleon Has Left The Building - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 9:43 am: Kudos to Carol Marin for calling out the Governor on this issue, and to you Rich for pointing out that non-city residents are far worse off on the property tax issue than City residents. Houlihan and Blago should start to figure that out. I live in a moderate neighborhood in a collar county. My home is probably worth about 1/3 - 1/4 of the Governor’s, my property taxes are just over $10,000 per year. Where’s the special legislation for assesment caps in my county? - Levois - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 9:48 am: I’m not that educated on the whole capping the tax thing, but I like the idea of elimination township and county assessors. I don’t know if only a county assessor should be appointed. If appointing them was to eliminate politics, there would be politics whether they were appointed or not. - GoBearsss - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 9:52 am: Property tax relief has been talked about almost non-stop for the past 15 years. Even if the someone proposes to try and do what Indiana did, nobody would go along with it. Especially if the Governor proposes it. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 10:02 am: How about if we just ask Indiana to take over Illinois and call us West Indiana? Our state capital would be the fastest growing city in the Midwest, and we would get adult governance! - Say WHAT? - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 10:06 am: Gotta love Vanilla Man! - Jake From Elwood - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 10:10 am: I like the aspect of the Indiana plan that eliminates the township assessor system. It makes sense to consolidate township assessment functions at the county level. The counties handle tax extension issues for the taxing bodies and they issue the tax bills. They handle board of review issues also. This seems to be a natural fit. The state needs to make sure that the lion’s share of the 1% sales tax increase is given to the schools and special districts who are most reliant on the property tax. - MOON - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 10:21 am: RICH I recall that not so long ago Blago , Houlihan , and PTAB were claiming Madigan had a conflict of interest with regards to “the 7% solution”. There claim was Madigan’s law clients benefit in the event there was no “7% solution” passed into law. Given those set of circumstances we now find out that Blago’s taxes will be reduced by 18%. I can only assume that Houlihan’s taxes will also be reduced by a similar % given the fact he resides in the upscale Lincoln Park neighborhood. It is my opinion that these 2 characters (Blago/Houlihan) have an even greater conflict than the Speaker. These 2 are directly benefiting from their continuous push for increasing the amount of the 7% solution and wanting it to be permanent.What say you? Also, you should look into Houlihan’s current land assessments on industrial and commercial properties. In 99 % of the cases Houlihan has not increased the value of the land between 2004 and 2007. Had he done his job, the land values should also have risen substantially……..the result being more tax dollars and no need for this phony “7% solution! This entire fiasco (7% solution) is only a way for Blago to deceive the public. It also allows Houlihan to hide behind his inability to do his job and run to Springfield to bail him out. - Silent Majority - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 10:30 am: Asking Indiana to take over Illinois is a good idea but our local politicos couldn’t handle the shock. I suggest that we ask New Jersey or Louisiana to take us over. Not as much change there. - Very Funky - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 10:37 am: All Rod Blagojevich has to do, is shmooze Carol Marin and she”ll melt. She’s putty in his hands! - train111 - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 10:45 am: I looked up the Gov’s house valuation on zillow.com and it is about 4.8 times the value of mine listed on zillow.com However his tax bill is only 2.3 times as large as mine–and I live in a TIF (I know I know–I had no idea I was moving into a TIF until I got my first tax bill) district in a town that has a large industrial taxbase. I guess that means that my far west suburban (DuPage) taxrate is quite a bit higher than the governor’s in Cook County. Puts a totally new perspective on the whole taxcap thing. train111 - Gene Parmesan - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 10:53 am: Is this really about how the property tax is administered, or is it about the amount we’re paying? Are we really unhappy with the job township assessors have done in our localities, or are we upset that the units of local govt have raised the levies? The cost of education and pensions eat up most of your property tax bill, perhaps we should focus more on the job our school boards/county boards/townships are doing than the job the township/county assessment officers are doing. Don’t get me wrong, the assessors aren’t the best around the state, and need more oversight from voters (especially in Cook). Cook County’s system is abhorrent, but there are some good assessors around the state. And I may be wrong here, but wasn’t/isn’t the 7% legislation available to any county that wanted to participate? I thought DuPage did a study and decided they wanted no part of it when 7% first went into play. - GoBearsss - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 10:54 am: Rich, It says a lot about your commenters when they are all longing to be taken over by Indiana. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 10:57 am: GoBearsss, back off. Not all of them want to be “taken over by Indiana.” Criticizing commenters with a broad brush is not encouraged here, particularly when it’s wrong. - GoBearsss - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 11:11 am: Sorry for my broad brush. It was meant to be a joke. I will target all future jokes at VanillaMan and VanillaMan only. - irishpirate - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 11:18 am: Not all of Cook County has low property tax rates. Chicago’s real rate is somewhere around 1.1 percent of real value on residential property. That is partly because of a whole lot of commercial property AND a higher than average sales tax rate. Some Cook suburbs have rates approaching 3 percent of real value. Check out the taxes on a house that would sell for $125,000 in some southern suburbs. Little industry, little retail, means high property taxes. Personally I think higher property taxes and higher income tax rates are the way to go. I would reduce the sales tax rate as it can’t be deducted federally. Some people could take advantage of that and that would leave more money in the local economies. My property taxes are going to be less than 1 percent of my homes value. Which is great. Until you consider that in Chicago I may soon be paying an 11 percent sales tax compared to 6.5 percent in some nearby counties. Now if you will excuse me per today’s story in the Tribune about politically connected park land sales in Chicago I need to find me a nice piece of land somewhere to sell in about 5 years. I want at least a twenty times return. - ChampaignDweller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 11:29 am: Any improvement in the assessors would be great. Here in Champaign we have a local assessor who has publicly admitted that he hasn’t been in some neighborhoods to reassess them for the last 17 years–some neighborhoods get reassessed each year. When asked about it, his answer was that some neighborhoods were just too difficult to make the necessary comparisons. - Lainer - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 11:31 am: On the question of why Cook County tax relief is such a big issue when downstate residents pay far more on homes with far less AV: could it be because Cook residents already pay so many other taxes and fees, not to mention huge mortgage payments and a higher cost of living in general, that any substantial tax increase is enough to drive them over the edge? Plus, as I pointed out in another post, don’t downstate residents get a lot more house with more amenities and more land for their money? I sympathize with Rich and some other downstate commenters who note that their tax bills are way higher than even Blago’s. Yes, we could use some tax relief too. But keep it in perspective: doesn’t our lower cost of living make up for it at least somewhat? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 11:38 am: ===doesn’t our lower cost of living make up for it at least somewhat?=== Some, but consider this: a friend of mine owns a house in the 19th Ward that has a market value close to mine (which is what I can afford). If I had moved there, and paid that same amount for a house, my property taxes would be $9,000 a year lower. I’m not sure my cost of living in Chicago would be $9,000 a year higher than Spfld., although I would be going to more music shows and spending more in restaurants. Still… - Mort - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 11:43 am: Rich: Springfield area taxes are high because of little commercial/industrial and a high amount of government-exempt (tax-free) property that doesn’t pay anything for the public services it receives. But you are right, Springfield (and downstate) taxes are high (or Chicago’s are artificially low) and Blago could give two hoots about the rest of the state….as long as his Chicago supporters hear the drumbeat of lower or no new taxes….. What I way to get re-elected to a third (gasp) term…… - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 11:46 am: It’s not that I’m hugely outraged at my own property taxes. I am outraged that the governor constantly whines about his rates while living in a $900,000 home (way more than twice my house’s value) even though his taxes are far lower than mine. - Mort - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 11:57 am: I think you are right on the money. Once again it shows his parochial attitutde and lack of concern for anything exists south of Roosevelt Rd. - Lainer - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:10 pm: All true. But how do your friend’s home and yours compare in terms of size and other amenities (i.e. bathrooms, kitchen, number of bedrooms, size of yard, etc.) Are they comparable or substantially different in that regard? And aren’t the square footage and other amenities or improvements supposed to be factored into your AV, no matter where you live? I know there are a lot of property tax inequities downstate that deserve attention. About 10 years ago my husband and I bought an older farm house in a rural county. The taxes paid by the previous owner the year before had been about $600 — which looked like a real bargain. Only later did we find out that the county had not updated its assessment records on that house for 12 years — during which time there had been a substantial addition built onto the house and it had changed owners at least once! This meant our AV and our taxes were going to be a lot higher than we anticipated. We ended up selling the house (for other reasons) before the higher taxes fully kicked in. Maybe Chicago residents get more upset about their property taxes because they have to pay a lot more money for a lot less house. Wasn’t that the reason you moved down here in the first place? - GA Watcher - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:18 pm: Governor Daniels has demonstrated the type of leadership that we used to get from past governors in Illinois. Whether his proposal passes or fails, at least he has put a reform idea out there in an adult, civilized way. We were poised to have a similar debate/discussion in Springfield this past year as well. The stars were definitely coming into alignment for signifcant tax reform. That is, of course, until Governor Intransigence came out with his “my way or the highway” GRT/health insurance proposal. Please hurry Patrick Fitzgerald!! - regular working slob - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:24 pm: Anyone who has seen Rod’s crib knows that it is not worth anywhere near $900,000. - Lainer - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:24 pm: In case anyone was wondering, there were no homestead, senior citizen or other exemptions in effect on the rural house we bought. The county simply had not updated its records on that house. We happened to buy it just before quadrennial reassessments were done in that county. How it got overlooked in the three previous assessment cycles, I’ll never know. It was along a heavily traveled road and easy to spot. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:25 pm: I moved down here because I tired of the 3.5 hour commute each way, each week. I would’ve died this year. Yeah, I have a nice house. No denying that. But so does the guv. The point is, if we’re gonna talk about property tax relief, let’s talk about real relief for everyone, not just “hot” real estate markets like the governor’s neighborhood - which I couldn’t afford to live in, by the way. I checked two years ago before I decided I wanted to jettison that drive/train ride from my life. - regular working slob - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:26 pm: The Miller mansion is far nicer than the Blago digs. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:29 pm: It ain’t a mansion. lol. - Lainer - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:35 pm: I hear ya on the commuting thing… and I thought 65 miles each way 2-3 days a week was bad. I much prefer the Springfield “rush minutes” - Just My Opinion - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:35 pm: How do you find the value of Blago’s house? Not the tax assessor’s value but the real today if I sell it value of the house. Heck, I don’t even know which ‘burb he lives in so anyone out there, can you clue me in? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:39 pm: RWS, I think I know who you are, and I know you’ve never been to my house, so how would you know? lol - GoBearsss - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:39 pm: Rich - to be fair, I don’t think anyone has ruled out complete relief for everyone. The only reason this is being brought up is because real relief for some people was taken away. That is what can be acted on right now. You can’t use lack of relief for everyone as an excuse not to do something that helps a good chunk of the state. Maybe I am just saying this as a Cook county homeowner who doesn’t want to see my taxes go up, regardless of what you pay… - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:43 pm: “Real” relief was never “taken away.” You got your “relief” at someone else’s expense. Happy with that? - South of I-80 - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:47 pm: The property tax in Illinois is an Ad Valorem tax, which means as per value. It has nothing to do with bigger homes downstate or smaller homes in Cook County. It has nothing to do with cost of living or whether or you can afford to pay them. It’s based upon the market value of the property. The average Chicago home is worth $320,000 (per ABC 7 news report 10/22)and if the cap was not in place their tax bill would have been $4,300 or 1.4% of the property’s value. But, with the cap, it’s bill will now be $2,800 or 0.9%. The average home in my community is approximately $172,000 and with a rate of $7.11/$100 the taxes are $3,663 or 2.2% of the value. A home of equal value to that in Chicago will have a tax bill of $7,584 or 2.4%. The reason for the slight difference is that both receive the same amount off do to the General homestead exemption, which is $5,000. We have two different tax systems in this state, one for Cook County and the other for the rest of Illinois. The Cook County system favors residential property owner. The entire system needs an overhaul, but no wants to do it because they would not be re-elected! It’s easier to play games with the assessed value and exemptions then addressing the real issue, the proper funding for the units of local government. - GoBearsss - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:57 pm: ““Real” relief was never “taken away.” You got your “relief” at someone else’s expense. Happy with that?” Yep - very. I’m selfish. We all are, aren’t we? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 12:59 pm: Well, at least you’re honest about it. - Reality Check - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 1:07 pm: Yes he’s running from the truth — because the truth is what we really need is a property tax cut for everyone, paid for by reforming the income and sales tax structures. But those are “taxes on people” and the goob won’t have ‘em — as opposed to property taxes, which I guess are just taxes on … um … property? - Truthful James - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 1:50 pm: I am surprised nobody picked up this in the Daniels proposal “…• Shifting to the state the full cost of school operations and transportation…” The State of Indiana now approves all local budgets anyway, in approving the property tax rates. The local school board passes its own budget and sends it to I’polis for approval. The approval comes from the State Departement of Local Government Finance. not from an Ed Agency. And it all tracks within limits on the increase of the property tax levy (Rate of inflation.) Indiana Districts are basically K-12 so there are a lot fewer. For instance, St. Joseph County (pop. 285K, South Bend, Mishawaka, etc has three in county Districts and three smaller Districts that cross counties. Be a bit different in Illinois with the multiplicity of school Districts. Bigger bureaucracy to feed. - regular working slob - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 1:54 pm: Just pulling the old Capt. Fax chain a little - Reddbyrd - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 2:26 pm: RWS I have been to home beside Capt. Fax’s dock. Wwhile it is quite posh, I would not use the word mansion. Notice how kind I am. Perhaps a hope to return next sunmer with the water for more boatin’ & some steak & maybe a cold beer. People! Ya gotta suck up to the guy. - Jaded - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 2:54 pm: I don’t mind paying more than you Chicago whiners, because my property taxes go to fund a good school district. Your’s go to fund a corrupt city government and public schools that suck wind. You end up having to spend twice as much on tuition than on your property taxes if your want you kids to go to a good private school. Considering the trade off…I’ll take the bigger tax bill. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 3:09 pm: Indiana isn’t as “needy” as Illinois. Our government structures - municipal, county and state - would crumble if our property taxes (especially commercial taxes) were capped at Indiana’s levels. Indiana officials seem to grasp that ideas with merit, as well as aura of passibility, are what a state needs to thrive. Illinois officials cannot seem to grasp that concept. Officials either have grandiose plans that will never work or even pass (Blago) or they stop up every initiative and seem to be content with a veritable arm wrestling match (Madigan). The rest of us peons get stuck in the middle and nothing happens. We get placed in a figurative or literal deadlock. The irony is that the state, especially the suburbs and Cook County, will continue to grow and thrive REGARDLESS of the ineptitude and “testicular virility” of our “leaders”. - anon - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 3:15 pm: My feeling is that it isn’t so much the absolute amount of taxes paid (which are admittedly lower in cook because of classification), as it is the relative change is taxes. The huge assessment increases in Cook County, while they don’t equate to dollar for dollar tax increases, still can produce significant and unexpected increases. And it is the unexpectedness that causes most of the outrage in Cook. - Anon sequitor - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 3:40 pm: Finally, someone “gets it” when it comes to this 7% sham. Those of us who have been opposing it for years have been frustrated that Houlihan’s con job had been swallowed hook line and sinker by so many. But once you look at the real tax numbers, as Rich is doing, the truth becomes glaringly obvious. There are two alternatives to resolve this sham, either do away with it completely, or simply give EVERYONE (residential, commercial & industrial) the same annual 7% limit on assessment increases, except when properties change hands. Treat everyone the same. BTW: isn’t the assessor supposed to make their objective “fair market value” decisions independent of the tax impact? Houlihan has forgotten - or simply ignores - that basic principle of assessment. - Ghost - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 3:45 pm: They need to stop building government on property taxes anyway. Everyone should pay the same percetage of value regardless of location. The best way to capture revenue is through a sales tax. The Government collects its share as people buy goods and services. You are able to collect taxes from those living on cash or under the radar. You pick up money as money is spent. With the new ethics laws that will never see the light of day, they should require laws which reduce taxes or fees of public officials to be approved by the ALL the voters. - Truthful James - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 3:52 pm: Also — The state Sales tax is all there is in Indiana. No County, no Local. - silentk - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 3:53 pm: I’m not sure I’ve heard the Governor whine about his own taxes, as much as the homeowners being slammed by sudden, unexpected assessment increases based on what their neighbor (or developer) has sold the property. You’re crying about a “tax shift” of what? 5.302% in Chicago with the Cap vs. what without the cap? (5.35%?) Compare those few dollars to homeowners seeing 120% increases in their assessments. The standard exemption is $5,000. The maximum Alternative General Homeowner Exemption will be $33,000. Therefore, the maximum exemption increase would be $28,000. With a 5.302% tax rate the maximum relief is $1,484.56. How much were people screaming about with the increase of electric rates? With regard to the “shift to others” where is the outrage when property tax law firms such as Madigan & Getzendanner negotiate million dollar tax cuts with the Board of Review for loop businesses? Who pays for that shift? The homeowner. We should advocate for a change in the system. Fair, predictable, transparent assessments based on the acquisition price of the property. All property - commercial, industrial residential. Eliminate the “shift.” Then, with a regulated annual increase of 2%, which may be readjusted on the sale of the property you have predictable growth. Acquisition Based Assessing. - A Citizen - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 4:03 pm: The Property Tax has become a stealth confiscatory instrument of government that in effect takes homes from the fixed income people - old, disabled, lower income blue collar etc. Government’s never satiated thirst for funds/money should not be fed at the threat to peoples’ roof over their head. This tax must be eliminated and replaced by the necessary adjustments in the Income and Sales Taxes. A person has at least some modicum of control over Income and especially Sales Taxes, but none over the Property Tax. It is in reality an extremely cruel tax with little fairness associated with it across the board. Its threat is unpredictable as to effect on individuals as their circumstances vary and are susceptible to unexpected costs such as serious illness etc. It should be abolished. - Dozer - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 4:05 pm: Rich – I see you have an estimated worth of the Gov’s house at about $900,000. Do you know what size it is by chance? I’m curious to compare size and taxes to my own as you have done. D - Gene Parmesan - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 4:17 pm: silentk, you got some intriguing ideas regarding assessment practices. First, how are these increases “sudden” or “unexpected”? The property tax is an ad valorem tax, so if you’re property value increases, your assessment increases. If Houlihan actually assessed per market value there wouldn’t be sudden or unexpected changes. Plus, you’re reassessed every three years and every homeowner should know that. Further, just because your neighbor or developer sold a property for a bunch doesn’t mean you’ll see an increase as a direct result of that. Second, in terms of Madigan’s firm, if you’re unhappy with him proving to the Board of Review or PTAB or the Assessor that his clients properties are overassessed, then don’t vote for the folks that run those offices. Given how poorly assessments are figured in Cook, and given that everyone has a right to appeal, I find it hard to get too worked up over Madigan’s business. This idea that Madigan doesn’t want 7% bc of his firm is a flat out lie. Madigan actually stands to make more off of 7% or an expanded version, than he would otherwise. Firms like Madigan’s charge a contingency to their clients for tax savings. So, as 7% shifts the burden towards commercial and industrial property, his clients are paying more in taxes. When he lowers said higher taxes, he gets to charge more. 7% actually helps him charge his clients more, not that Rod could ever hope to figure this out. - I'm Ron Hunter...Here's what's happening - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 4:32 pm: Very Funky hit the nail right on the head. - Team Sleep - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 4:58 pm: One thing I would briefly like to mention is that I think assessors have played somewhat of a role in the mortgage crisis. I can imagine that, when a jump in your home “value” increases your property taxes to a level you cannot afford, the strain on your pocket book and either your escrow or budgeted expenses would cause a lot of grief and some tough choices. I still wish property tax would be challenged federally as an unconstitutional measure. I would bet the Black 9 would hear that case. - A Citizen - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 5:05 pm: - Team Sleep - I agree. I think it really is a tax directly on “The American Dream”. And has the potential to deny its realization. Once you have paid for your home the only additional expenses should be maintenance and repair. - A Citizen - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 6:08 pm: Perhaps the “Tax” should be on the mortgage and not the property itself. That might prove to be a bit more fair and provide motivation to invest in and pay off your home as quickly as you can manage. - DuPage Dave - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 6:21 pm: Property assessments and taxes have been an ongoing concern for all of my adult life. When I was relatively young they eliminated the state property tax, which was briefly appreciated and then forgottn. The inflation of the 70s led to higher property values and therefore higher property taxes (can’t have one without the other). This led to various “cap” proposals, most arbitrary limits on what can be collected, not what the taxing bodies need to operate. The “tax cap” promoted by Lee Daniels severely hurt the school systems in DuPage County, but it never bothered him. With all the computerization (such as zillow.com mentioned above, and other sites) we should be able to come up with a much less biased method of valuation. No system can ever be perfect, but the methods used now have discrepancies and “biases” that are inherently unfair. Nobody wants to pay higher taxes, but the closer you come to an objective system, the less people will complain about the unfairness of the taxes they end up paying. - Greg - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 6:22 pm: A Citizen, Maybe I’m assuming too much about your proposal, but if you propose to tax mortgage payments, you are doing the same as taxing property. The timing of the payments will of course differ, but they will present value out to the same number. - Greg - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 6:25 pm: to clarify: though it would be the equivalent to a sales tax on the house if you didn’t index the tax payments to the interest rate. In that case, you would incentivize drawn-out payments - A Citizen - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 6:37 pm: - Greg - The mortgage on the house if you purchase prudently with a significant down payment (equity) would spare the Equity from taxation. Also, as you make payments on your mortgage the equity becomes greater (all be it slowly) and the taxable mortgage balance becomes less thus lowering taxes from year to year until you pay it off and they go to zero. - A Citizen - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 6:39 pm: - Greg - The tax would be levied on the mortgage balance - the interest rate would not factor in at all. - A Citizen - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 6:53 pm: Also, there would be no need for the assessors, property tax appeal board et al, and interest would not factor in to the taxable exposure as that would be based on the mortgage balance on a given date as certified by the lending entity. The only variable aside from the declining balance of your mortgage would be the tax rate applied to the mortgage balance. - Greg - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 6:55 pm: Ok, got it, that’s different than what I assumed you meant. - A Citizen - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 7:20 pm: Generally speaking, when you retire you can anticipate that your retirement income will be less than when you were gainfully employed, thus your Income Tax exposure will lessen as will your disposable income. My proposal would make the “property Tax as based on the mortgage balance” equally predictable or non existent if you pay it off. This allows people to afford their homes and manage their money with fewer threatening variables. It provides the maximum opportunity for a Secure financial situation when you may be most vulnerable. Catastrophic health conditions become an issue separate from this one and more aligned with the insurance system and affordability - on a fixed income. - Disgusted - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 7:23 pm: Go, Mrs. Wilson, Chicago Cynic Supreme. - Captain America - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 7:26 pm: THe governor can run,but he can’t hide the emptiness of his political rhetoric. - A Citizen - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 7:31 pm: - Disgusted - What happened Rod? She hit a nerve, huh. Less running and more Leadership will make you feel better - or at least the rest of us. KMABYOYO! - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 9:33 pm: Rich, haven’t seen your crib, but do your think you are fairly assessed in comparison to similar properties in your own ‘hood? The property taxes on AA’s joint are just a tick below A-Rod’s and my assessed market value is one-third of the ballpark value placed on the North Mansion. If this story gets some legs, the favorable could hit single digits. - Cal Skinner - Wednesday, Oct 24, 07 @ 10:42 pm: The two folks that suggested figuring out what percentage your tax bill is of what you could sell you home for are right on. It’s the only way to compare property tax burdens. This figure, called the “effective tax rate,” used to be calculated by the Illinois Revenue Department until Barbara Moore retired. The Blagojevich administration decided such comparisons were no longer needed. There is an impact on state aid to education, but I have no seen a study on it. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.