Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Can Commies count? Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson just allowed a $1.6 BILLION dollar budget to take effect, and is now BLAMING the lack of taxes on a $130 shortfall in funding. "The corporate head tax, which was projected to bring in $100 million, would have prevented this shortfall." $130,000,000...

51,054 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

WATCH: Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker comes out strongly today against Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s “head tax” proposal. “I am absolutely foursquare opposed to a head tax for the city of Chicago. It penalizes the very thing that we want, which is more employment in the city of Chicago. It makes it very hard to attract companies from outside the city to come in and harder for companies already here to stay.” Pritzker also said Johnson needs to work harder to find efficiencies in the city budget, rather than threatening the economic growth of the city and state with a new tax on jobs. “Balancing the budget for the state of Illinois and for the city of Chicago is vital. It can’t be ignored, it has to be done, but it shouldn’t be done with a head tax in the city of Chicago… “I am confident the city can do it. Look, you’ve got to start with efficiencies. You’ve got to go into city government—and I haven’t seen any of that in this budget so far. That’s going to have to happen because there are going to be changes. People are not going to like certain kinds of revenue enhancements that he’s got in his budget. So you’ve got to find efficiencies, and there are efficiencies to be found—some with technology, some because we have departments doing things that maybe we don’t need done. And finally, how about we do our best to attract, retain, and grow businesses in the city of Chicago, because that, again, is the best way for us to pay the bills.” Under Johnson’s proposal all companies employing 100+ people in Chicago would have to pay a tax of $21 per employee per month. As Pritzker correctly points out, it’s a punishment for creating jobs.

Austin Berg

231,876 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

🚨 Chicago Public Schools Secretly Approve $25M Property Tax Hike 🚨 Chicago Public Schools and city leadership continue a pattern of secretive funding decisions that benefit insiders while ordinary residents are left footing the bill: •December 22, 2025: CPS Board President Sean Harden pulled a $25 million property tax hike from the agenda, citing “outstanding questions,” even though CPS routinely maxes out its levy. Sources say the delay was tied to Mayor Brandon Johnson’s public messaging against rising taxes — revealing tension between promises and behind-the-scenes actions. •December 29, 2025: The Board approved the $25 million tax increase in a 15-5 vote. Board President Harden spent much of the meeting chastising members over a “leak” about the meeting — which is supposed to be public — highlighting the secrecy around taxpayer-funded decisions. •TIF Mismanagement: Weeks earlier, nearly $15 million in TIF funds were quietly approved for Kenwood Academy. Mayor Johnson’s 2026 budget reportedly moves nearly $1 BILLION in TIF surplus, all while communities face service cuts, underfunded programs, and rising property taxes. 💡 The Pattern: 1.Insider priorities over public needs: Schools and institutions get extra funding quietly, while neighborhoods are destabilized. 2.Secrecy and leaks: Meetings are “public” in name only, reducing accountability. 3.Rising costs for taxpayers: Chicagoans shoulder the burden through repeated tax hikes, even as city funds are shuffled behind the scenes. ⚠️ Bottom Line: Chicago residents are paying more, seeing less, and the system continues to protect insiders while ignoring the communities that fund it. CPS - Chicago Public Schools Mayor Brandon Johnson #ChicagoFlipsRed #Propertytaxes

Chicago Flips Red

20,375 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten