<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: Is 2007 the year of reform in Illinois?
    
      by Harold Henderson</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/24/2007-year-reform-illinois</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=946492&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: Is 2007 the year of reform in Illinois?
    
      by Harold Henderson</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:45:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: Is 2007 the year of reform in Illinois?]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/24/2007-year-reform-illinois/#971146]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2007/01/24/2007-year-reform-illinois/#971146]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[John Powers]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[Hi Harold,
    
    Just read the Gold Collar report (I am very busy).  While I generally agree that subsidies are a waste, there are couple of glaring holes in the research.
    
    1) TIFF districts were excluded.  Of all the good reporting in The Reader, Ben Joravsky had really pegged TIFFs as a massive, generally misguided subsidy.
    
    2) The Gold Collar report shows that approximately 80% of the "subsidy" takes the form of Tax Free Bonds.  To the best of my knowledge, these bonds have the advantage of being tax free, but still must be repaid.  Perhaps, at a 28% tax rate, one should take (1-.28) x the 80% = 57% of the "subsidy", is of no advantage at all.  So if you subtract $680 Million (57%), from the total $1.2B, I am convinced that the disparity will not seem so large.
    
    Add in the nutty TIFF Districts, and I sounds like the point of the paper is not very well founded.
    
    JBP
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by John Powers]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:38:55 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




