Chicago Next? Windy City Cash Balance Plummets To Only $33 Million As Debt Triples | Zero HedgeChicago Next? Windy City Cash Balance Plummets To Only $33 Million As Debt Triples | Zero Hedge
I am going to give you some perspective through numbers hopefully.
Ergo lets say 1,250,000 households in Chicago.
(I took the numbers out of wiki but I am sure they are census driven)
so that $29 billion in debt is actually $23,200 debt per household.
Bare in mind that the debt number does not include 'pension promises' and 'healthcare promises' to past/future retirees. Notice the debt tripped in 10 years... so If you think its possible for it to tripple again to 90 bill I wish you luck, because that's where it has to go for those pensions, etc to remain stable/growing etc...
The city spends about 6.3 billion a year which it takes from residents.
Or $5040 in taxes per household.
Chicago budgets for a slow year in 2012 home sales
(link to budget is there that's where I got 6.3 billion and 2 billion from grants)
Lets play. If Grants are cut by half residents have to pay 15%+ more in taxes from 5k to 6k.
If income declines 10% for median household income taxes for the rest have to go up by, 11.1%.
If we combine median income declines, grant decreases, and increased payments for pension/health for retirees. You get a very bleak picture.
5000 in taxes which is spent and then more is borrowed upon it. (22% is what they pay out pensioners)
If interest rates for their debt go to 5% the carry for every household is $1160. (23% of the 5000 tax pie), its actually (24% in their 2012 budget page 17)
So you are essentially on approach for 50%+ pay outs or more for debt and past costs(pensions).
The reality is income declined, some residents moved because of tax jacking, some corporations moved as well for the same reason. Federal gov't can cut those grunts(pun intended) in the future or simply give lower amounts.
According to the Chicago Sun Times citing year-end audits, Obama's former right hand man, Rahm Emanuel, closed the books on 2012 with $33.4 million in unallocated cash on hand — down from $167 million the year before — while adding to the mountain of debt piled on Chicago taxpayers. In addition to a liquidity problem, Chicago may also be quite insolvent as the city's total long-term debt soared to nearly $29 billion. That’s $10,780 for every one of the city’s nearly 2.69 million residents. More than a decade ago, the debt load was $9.6 billion or $3,338 per resident. Of course, in a world in which debt is "wealth", this is great news... at least until debt becomes "bankruptcy."
As of the 2010 United States Census, there were 2,695,598 people and 1,194,337 households residing within the city limits of Chicago.
median income for a household in the city was $38,625
so that $29 billion in debt is actually $23,200 debt per household.
Bare in mind that the debt number does not include 'pension promises' and 'healthcare promises' to past/future retirees. Notice the debt tripped in 10 years... so If you think its possible for it to tripple again to 90 bill I wish you luck, because that's where it has to go for those pensions, etc to remain stable/growing etc...
The city spends about 6.3 billion a year which it takes from residents.
Or $5040 in taxes per household.
Chicago budgets for a slow year in 2012 home sales
(link to budget is there that's where I got 6.3 billion and 2 billion from grants)
Lets play. If Grants are cut by half residents have to pay 15%+ more in taxes from 5k to 6k.
If income declines 10% for median household income taxes for the rest have to go up by, 11.1%.
If we combine median income declines, grant decreases, and increased payments for pension/health for retirees. You get a very bleak picture.
5000 in taxes which is spent and then more is borrowed upon it. (22% is what they pay out pensioners)
If interest rates for their debt go to 5% the carry for every household is $1160. (23% of the 5000 tax pie), its actually (24% in their 2012 budget page 17)
So you are essentially on approach for 50%+ pay outs or more for debt and past costs(pensions).
The reality is income declined, some residents moved because of tax jacking, some corporations moved as well for the same reason. Federal gov't can cut those grunts(pun intended) in the future or simply give lower amounts.
Comment