Federal Incomes Taxes- standard or itemized deductions

Both now fully retired, this is our first year without earned income, though the spouse took out a fair amount from her Rollover IRA, I did a calc on the free AARP tax simulation software during the tax year and was able to keep taxes owed at zero dollars by limiting how much she took out. Always a fun discussion ,Lol.
She always long distance commuted and worked in another state so it was also nice not having to do an apportioned filing with Massachusetts. Used TT. if I was doing this return on paper, I would surely have messed up in a few places - especially when the final line with "your taxable income" the return still has capital gains comingled in which are not taxable and you have to do another worksheet to remove no taxable portion of cap gains.

Almost forgot the question. Standard deduction plus over 65 box checked for both. Even though tax is climbing near eight grand for property, two vehicles plus another seven grand for mortgage interest. Not approaching the std. deduction of~ $33k even if I threw the kitchen sink at it, lol.
- Arco
 
Last edited:
It depends on how complex a person’s tax return in.

Not all accountants are the same in terms of know the tax codes from the Big Man.
Walmart worker comes in with a single W2.

TurboTax be all like "Do you want the ULTIMATE SUPREME DELUXE VERSION WITH AUDIT DEFENSE!?"

I mean, the job's not done until you get past five or six pop ups asking if you're sure and it'll be like $180 and if you accidentally click yes on one of them, you have to delete the entire tax return and start over.

The upsell is a serious problem for most people. TurboTax has historically also hidden the tax credits and deductions that the poorest people tend to need the most behind the expensive versions that can file that form, including (iirc), the SAVERS Credit for low income retirement savers, and the 1098-T related American Opportunity Tax Credits.

I think this is the 22nd tax year that I've been using FreeTaxUSA. It even supports investment form use cases that TurboTax makes you pay a ton for.
 
I'm not filing until the very last minute now that there are potential national security issues. I would suggest others to reconsider as well. To those who think its safer to do it now vs later, that is a risk in itself, but I'm going to gamble that it gets resolved around that time.
I don't know what you think will change by the April deadline or what information you think would be at risk now given that all your returns are already in the IRS system from previous years.

I filed on January 18th I think, and got my refund a few days ago.
 
Tough to beat the standard now after Trump increased the standard deduction. You'd have to have a huge mortgage early in the amortization schedule to make it make sense for most folks. Self-employed and using TT forever/I'm my own accountant.
I'd like to see them just kill the mortgage interest tax deduction myself. Why subsidize home ownership for wealthy people?

No progress there. Although the early stirrings are indicating they'll kill another one of my most hated provisions of the tax code. The carried interest exception.

Hedge funds are the devil. They get into everything and ruin it somehow, including renting a home. Burn baby, burn.

Using the revenue from that would help fund the cuts from not taxing Social Security, tips, and overtime pay.

Oddly, I'm not seeing anything so far that I disagree with much in the (likely) next tax code revisions.

It's wrong to tax Social Security benefits. When they started it in 1982, it didn't affect many people. It was a reasonably large amount of money by 1982's standards, but it's gone 43 years without being indexed to inflation. One huge boost they can give people who depend largely on Social Security money is to leave it alone come tax time. Additionally, it makes no sense to give it to you just to turn around and use the IRS to take it. I've got a bit, but I've been considering going to the Philippines where I have a legal right to claim permanent residence anyway through my marriage, which is a path to citizenship. If what Social Security says is true, I'd be making more money off the Social Security check alone than most doctors.

What taxing Social Security does is increase pressure on retirees to flee the country and move somewhere they can still afford to live but retain their citizenship so that the checks keep coming.

I hope they do divide it into subjects though. I'd hate to lose a good tax bill because of unrelated issues.
 
I'd like to see them just kill the mortgage interest tax deduction myself. Why subsidize home ownership for wealthy people?
I believe the original "marketed" reasons for the mortgage interest deduction was to encourage individuals to own homes rather then be renters.

It is reported in many publications that citizens that own homes are more vested in their communities, thus becoming "better" citizens.

Years ago credit card and bank loan interest was also deductible. I suspect that was justified by encouraging consumer spending. Truth be told credit card interest deduction was likely a result of a bank lobbying group.
 
I don't know what you think will change by the April deadline or what information you think would be at risk now given that all your returns are already in the IRS system from previous years.

I filed on January 18th I think, and got my refund a few days ago.

The imagination can’t really comprehend the scope of what is happening right now, but I can already tell you the home health services for my 87 year old veteran mom has abruptly stopped around 1 week ago. The nurse mentioned several were stopped with much more severe medical conditions. You tell me.
 
I believe the original "marketed" reasons for the mortgage interest deduction was to encourage individuals to own homes rather then be renters.

It is reported in many publications that citizens that own homes are more vested in their communities, thus becoming "better" citizens.

Years ago credit card and bank loan interest was also deductible. I suspect that was justified by encouraging consumer spending. Truth be told credit card interest deduction was likely a result of a bank lobbying group.
I don't think that mortgages on a house make people "better citizens", I think it limits their options when people have to move about every 5 years now for work. The whole "return to office" mandate is stealth layoffs. They know a lot of people moved out to the sticks because it was cheaper, and now they're 500-1000 miles away from "the office" and couldn't come back if they wanted to. They have a house so they can't just wait for the lease to lapse.

They can tie you down in a neighborhood that might go bad. They open you up to a government that decides to double the property taxes in a single year.

There's definitely some people that buying a house makes sense. For many, it does not. This tax break is increasingly something rich people can use. But only them.

Cities don't tend to favor homeownership, there's way more renters in a place like Chicago because you come to the city for work and then leave for work.Ironically, the service workers also rent, but they have to do it in the outskirts, so you're talking
The imagination can’t really comprehend the scope of what is happening right now, but I can already tell you the home health services for my 87 year old veteran mom has abruptly stopped around 1 week ago. The nurse mentioned several were stopped with much more severe medical conditions. You tell me.
I don't think any state ran programs have stopped in Illinois that are funded by grants, but we're suing the federal government and have an injunction.

Only the states that sued got the injunction.

But that's not really related to taxes. As far as I know they're paying the tax refunds.
 
I'd like to see them just kill the mortgage interest tax deduction myself. Why subsidize home ownership for wealthy people?
It doesn't. The majority of those who itemize and take the deduction itemize because they have other areas to itemize and the grand total pushes them over the edge of the standard deduction, not just mortgage interest.
 
It doesn't. The majority of those who itemize and take the deduction itemize because they have other areas to itemize and the grand total pushes them over the edge of the standard deduction, not just mortgage interest.
Right, capping and ending certain individual itemized deductions reduces the overall incentive to itemize, so you'd have a higher percentage that just takes the standard deduction, and federal revenues would go up as the tax structure gets more progressive.

There would still be people who itemize, but not that many.

Where I'd like them to get more generous is with SALT because most government activity that might benefit people happens on the local and state level. The mortgage interest deduction is designed as an ongoing bailout of banks. And it gives mortgage brokers something to point at to make it seem like you're not getting totally ripped off (when you probably are).

I've seen more people carelessly walk into a home purchase that was ill considered than ones who legitimately came out ahead on it.

The funniest was the one where I said "What do you mean you have five bathrooms and only 2 of them work and there's only two people who live here?"

Turned out they had bought a house that was way too big (obviously) but then it had a bunch of weird fixtures in it that the people who built that house had imported, and so as things broke, they just left the bathroom unusable.

Another thing I see people do is by one that opens up to a landing where you can't get anywhere in the house without using stairs, and then they get old and can't use the stairs, or they get a two story house and can't make it up the stairs to use the other half of the house.

Few people in their 20s and 30s are concerned with what this mortgage will force them to sacrifice, and what shape they'll be in someday if they own it.

The tax deduction would be a nice selling point for the middle class if it wasn't often just lipstick on a pig.
 
Last edited:
Right, capping and ending certain individual itemized deductions reduces the overall incentive to itemize, so you'd have a higher percentage that just takes the standard deduction, and federal revenues would go up as the tax structure gets more progressive.

There would still be people who itemize, but not that many.

Where I'd like them to get more generous is with SALT because most government activity that might benefit people happens on the local and state level. The mortgage interest deduction is designed as an ongoing bailout of banks. And it gives mortgage brokers something to point at to make it seem like you're not getting totally ripped off (when you probably are).

I've seen more people carelessly walk into a home purchase that was ill considered than ones who legitimately came out ahead on it.

The funniest was the one where I said "What do you mean you have five bathrooms and only 2 of them work and there's only two people who live here?"

Turned out they had bought a house that was way too big (obviously) but then it had a bunch of weird fixtures in it that the people who built that house had imported, and so as things broke, they just left the bathroom unusable.

Another thing I see people do is by one that opens up to a landing where you can't get anywhere in the house without using stairs, and then they get old and can't use the stairs, or they get a two story house and can't make it up the stairs to use the other half of the house.

Few people in their 20s and 30s are concerned with what this mortgage will force them to sacrifice, and what shape they'll be in someday if they own it.

The tax deduction would be a nice selling point for the middle class if it wasn't often just lipstick on a pig.
Interesting discussion on the home mort. deduction. My story - 2000, just married, wife a school teacher/me a somewhat entry level geologist. Our gross that year was about 60K if I remember correctly. Living in northern VA - expensive area/housing. We wanted to buy vs. rent and were looking at houses (townhouses/condos...noway anyone at that income then could buy a stand alone house) in the $150K range. So using the basic "don't exceed 3x your income" for a mortgage amount, that worked, I think maybe 5K down from wedding money is all we had. Mortages were in the the 8% range then for someone with decent credit. The home mortgage deduction/itemizing is what allowed us to buy which was the whole point of that deduction - incentivize buying vs. renting and we were for sure not "rich" back then. Now with a married/filing jointly standard of what, $27K? pretty hard to come to that unless you are making good money/your mortagage is large which would be closer to what folks mean when they say it's for "rich" folks now. I remember using the decution as I should and reducing my witholding out of my paychecks to compensate for my now lower federal tax burden max'ing my take home and effectively allowing me to buy cheaper than I could rent. For me the itemizing was simple back then...mort interest and state income taxes would easily push me to take itemize vs. standard. Now, standard is simpler but for me being self-employed, I'm effectively itemzing anyway with my business expenses. When we started having children two years later and my wife stayed home and my income had risen but not to the level it was before, the only way this all worked was b/c of our tax situation was effectively that we paid min. federal income taxes for a few years...I think they called those folks "lucky duckies" back then...I wouldn't call anyone in that situation financially lucky 🤣 but part of our ability to do what we did was that mort. tax deduction.
 
Interesting discussion on the home mort. deduction. My story - 2000, just married, wife a school teacher/me a somewhat entry level geologist. Our gross that year was about 60K if I remember correctly. Living in northern VA - expensive area/housing. We wanted to buy vs. rent and were looking at houses (townhouses/condos...noway anyone at that income then could buy a stand alone house) in the $150K range. So using the basic "don't exceed 3x your income" for a mortgage amount, that worked, I think maybe 5K down from wedding money is all we had. Mortages were in the the 8% range then for someone with decent credit. The home mortgage deduction/itemizing is what allowed us to buy which was the whole point of that deduction - incentivize buying vs. renting and we were for sure not "rich" back then. Now with a married/filing jointly standard of what, $27K? pretty hard to come to that unless you are making good money/your mortagage is large which would be closer to what folks mean when they say it's for "rich" folks now. I remember using the decution as I should and reducing my witholding out of my paychecks to compensate for my now lower federal tax burden max'ing my take home and effectively allowing me to buy cheaper than I could rent. For me the itemizing was simple back then...mort interest and state income taxes would easily push me to take itemize vs. standard. Now, standard is simpler but for me being self-employed, I'm effectively itemzing anyway with my business expenses. When we started having children two years later and my wife stayed home and my income had risen but not to the level it was before, the only way this all worked was b/c of our tax situation was effectively that we paid min. federal income taxes for a few years...I think they called those folks "lucky duckies" back then...I wouldn't call anyone in that situation financially lucky 🤣 but part of our ability to do what we did was that mort. tax deduction.
Oh you wouldn't believe some of the stories I've seen. The Fair Isaac people hate me because I would say "Don't do it." on their forums when they had a situation that was much worse than yours.

They have people with barely any money coming there after a bankruptcy with a 598 FICO score, just completely ruined credit score, barely any money, wondering if anyone will give them a mortgage.

Like their interest rate will be sky high and they will have to pay a lot of PMI and they wonder how to get another loan to make a 2-3% down payment, which is always a sign you can't afford it.

There's people there advising them how to work the system and barely get into a house.

Some mortgage companies started to get sued by the government for ignoring basic financial stability of their customers, but those lawsuits have been inherited by a CFPB that won't act on them and I'm sure that Warren Buffett and FICO and the whole rotten system are happy.

His company was even giving out mortgages on manufactured housing, and up to 18% interest I think to customers with dozens of unpaid bills on their credit report, and sometimes they wouldn't even make four or five payments and end up foreclosed on. I get manufactured is riskier but we used to call 18% a credit card.

I try to avoid his businesses. GEICO is another one. They sent me a letter a while back saying they invested in lower rates in Illinois. I guess when you raise people's rates forty percent in one year and they leave, you invest in lower than 40%?

They said they were raising rates in Illinois because of high losses in 2022, but then they pulled this crap and nobody else got that greedy.

As to why people want mortgages, even very bad ones, social shaming of renting an apartment and rolling with the punches are a holdover from when owning a home wasn't about 40% more expensive overall and sometimes much higher depending on the market. Culture works that way, ideas get ossified and they hold even when the reason no longer exists.

Buffett has a charitable foundation. Sam Waterston in Law and Order once said that today's philanthropist is yesterday's robber baron, only that's not true. They never stop being robber barons and they use their foundation to get richer while they "give it away".

That mortgage interest tax credit may not even save people money. It's giving the industry perverse incentives to get greedier.

Now they want to do fifty year mortgages which are basically renting an apartment with extra steps but making it more difficult to move. And the only reason to do that is lower the monthly payment and deduct the interest which is nearly all of it, then the bank always gets it back eventually. I doubt any of them will want to do these on new construction. But older homes were built well enough.

The banks don't really need taxpayer sweeteners, what they need is a nice swift kick in the pants.

I'm all for the SALT cap to be increased, a lot. It would benefit homeowners but it would draw attention to housing affordability because of the agent wants to talk about where to save on your federal income tax it would force them to point out property taxes, home repairs. Things people don't think about.

Once people confront that issue they may go look at trends to see if the local government has been trending the taxes upward and how fast. They get rolled into the mortgage and basically so does homeowner's insurance, so it's a horrible thing to tell people you sign today and your mortgage never goes up because technically it does.

They'll force you to pay it or force it onto the mortgage, and so significant components can go up 20-50% in a single year sometimes lately and you're in default if you don't pay.

It's like signing a car loan lately where if you drop your full coverage they force place it and then you don't necessarily get the best deal.

FICO Forums is kind of a nasty and ridiculous place. I've seen 20 year olds go there saying they have a Canadian girlfriend with no green card that wants them to buy a Disney timeshare. People do dumb things with money, a lot.

This guy was talking like he needed a deprogrammer, about "cast members" in Disney costumes selling him a timeshare. It sounded like a screening of Fantasia while drinking hallucinogenic tea and undergoing the Ludovico Technique from A Clockwork Orange or something.

Timeshares are one of the worst, if not the worst, financial decisions out there. They chased my grandmother down and sued her in the nursing home, while she's in there with dementia and in her 90s, over something she signed over 50 years ago for a "partial ownership" in a cabin in Tennessee when my grandfather was alive.
 
Last edited:
Oh you wouldn't believe some of the stories I've seen. The Fair Isaac people hate me because I would say "Don't do it." on their forums when they had a situation that was much worse than yours.

They have people with barely any money coming there after a bankruptcy with a 598 FICO score, just completely ruined credit score, barely any money, wondering if anyone will give them a mortgage.

Like their interest rate will be sky high and they will have to pay a lot of PMI and they wonder how to get another loan to make a 2-3% down payment, which is always a sign you can't afford it.

There's people there advising them how to work the system and barely get into a house.

Some mortgage companies started to get sued by the government for ignoring basic financial stability of their customers, but those lawsuits have been inherited by a CFPB that won't act on them and I'm sure that Warren Buffett and FICO and the whole rotten system are happy.

His company was even giving out mortgages on manufactured housing, and up to 18% interest I think to customers with dozens of unpaid bills on their credit report, and sometimes they wouldn't even make four or five payments and end up foreclosed on. I get manufactured is riskier but we used to call 18% a credit card.

I try to avoid his businesses. GEICO is another one. They sent me a letter a while back saying they invested in lower rates in Illinois. I guess when you raise people's rates forty percent in one year and they leave, you invest in lower than 40%?

They said they were raising rates in Illinois because of high losses in 2022, but then they pulled this crap and nobody else got that greedy.

As to why people want mortgages, even very bad ones, social shaming of renting an apartment and rolling with the punches are a holdover from when owning a home wasn't about 40% more expensive overall and sometimes much higher depending on the market. Culture works that way, ideas get ossified and they hold even when the reason no longer exists.

Buffett has a charitable foundation. Sam Waterston in Law and Order once said that today's philanthropist is yesterday's robber baron, only that's not true. They never stop being robber barons and they use their foundation to get richer while they "give it away".

That mortgage interest tax credit may not even save people money. It's giving the industry perverse incentives to get greedier.

Now they want to do fifty year mortgages which are basically renting an apartment with extra steps but making it more difficult to move. And the only reason to do that is lower the monthly payment and deduct the interest which is nearly all of it, then the bank always gets it back eventually. I doubt any of them will want to do these on new construction. But older homes were built well enough.

The banks don't really need taxpayer sweeteners, what they need is a nice swift kick in the pants.

I'm all for the SALT cap to be increased, a lot. It would benefit homeowners but it would draw attention to housing affordability because of the agent wants to talk about where to save on your federal income tax it would force them to point out property taxes, home repairs. Things people don't think about.

Once people confront that issue they may go look at trends to see if the local government has been trending the taxes upward and how fast. They get rolled into the mortgage and basically so does homeowner's insurance, so it's a horrible thing to tell people you sign today and your mortgage never goes up because technically it does.

They'll force you to pay it or force it onto the mortgage, and so significant components can go up 20-50% in a single year sometimes lately and you're in default if you don't pay.

It's like signing a car loan lately where if you drop your full coverage they force place it and then you don't necessarily get the best deal.

FICO Forums is kind of a nasty and ridiculous place. I've seen 20 year olds go there saying they have a Canadian girlfriend with no green card that wants them to buy a Disney timeshare. People do dumb things with money, a lot.

This guy was talking like he needed a deprogrammer, about "cast members" in Disney costumes selling him a timeshare. It sounded like a screening of Fantasia while drinking hallucinogenic tea and undergoing the Ludovico Technique from A Clockwork Orange or something.

Timeshares are one of the worst, if not the worst, financial decisions out there. They chased my grandmother down and sued her in the nursing home, while she's in there with dementia and in her 90s, over something she signed over 50 years ago for a "partial ownership" in a cabin in Tennessee when my grandfather was alive.
Wow, that's quite a response there haha. I was just stating why the mortgage interest deduction was helpful to folks starting out, not just wealthy people but again, that was 25 years ago...now the standard takes care of it so the incentive is not the same to buy vs. rent. For the SALT - not sure there, Trump capped it last term b/c it's basically a give away to folks living in states with high state/local taxes was why he capped it.
 
Wow, that's quite a response there haha. I was just stating why the mortgage interest deduction was helpful to folks starting out, not just wealthy people but again, that was 25 years ago...now the standard takes care of it so the incentive is not the same to buy vs. rent. For the SALT - not sure there, Trump capped it last term b/c it's basically a give away to folks living in states with high state/local taxes was why he capped it.
I've lived in a State with low taxes and a State with higher taxes. I'd rather be in the State with higher taxes. And I said earlier I hate the IRS, and from a revenue angle I don't like them at all. I think federal revenues should go down and the federal government should stop crowding out States.

The roads are better here, the schools are better here (I have no kids but I don't want to live around uneducated people.), the healthcare system is better here (and people here live about 2+ years longer, on average, especially the low income which face more barriers to healthcare in Indiana), and in general we spend much much less on incarcerating people who aren't really that bad, and we have additional sources of jobs and revenues from things you can't even do business in, in Indiana.

The taxes get cut for the benefit, largely, of the wealthy. Indiana has one of the most regressive tax structures of any State. It proportionally takes more from the people who are least able to pay it, and then it turns around and cuts everything from education to clean water.

The idea behind SALT was to help States prioritize the basic needs of running a government, which places like Indiana basically just don't do, and you should probably encourage that. That's partially a revenue thing, partially just "Who would even want to live with it?" when you don't fund those essentials. And that's on the other end. Outlays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...fe_expectancy#Past_life_expectancy,_1940–2019

If you sort by life expectancy highest to lowest, the highest tax States are in the top by life expectancy and the lowest tax States are in the lowest by life expectancy..

That's not to say oh, we raise State taxes, everyone lives longer. Let's tax them 100%!

It's when the State has money to spend on everything from healthcare, to environmental quality, to education, to public safety, you know, that the life expectancy rises accordingly. They get the money from the taxes, so there's a certain correlation.

The federal government gives money to those States with the low taxes because they're poor. Those grants go to programs that increase quality of life way beyond what their State has prioritized. Without the grants, things get much more lopsided and economic inequality rises. Education gets even worse. People with no education don't do well economically and end up on the welfare side instead of the taxp paying side of the ledger.

But other than taking cash from rich States and giving it to poor States, the federal government, where do they spend most of that money on? The military.

We can argue about whether the military needs that much money. That's not appropriate here. I think it needs audited to say the least because we don't know where some of it is going (or if we're getting a good deal for the spending), but it's basically military, grants to poor States, and debt interest, and not a lot else. There's your federal tax bill. There's Social Security and Medicare, but those have their own tax structures and it wouldn't be legal to take from the general funds.

So if you want to cut taxes and balance the budget, you don't have many options. You can widen inequality a lot, you can cut defense, or you can default on the national debt. Sticky.

But my point was that we can still give homeowners a break (SALT, which lets you deduct property tax, which funds civilization honestly), or we can keep the mortgage interest deduction, and if we do that, Jamie Dimon loves you. Wells Fargo loves you. Bank of America loves you.

I am happy to see that in the upcoming negotiation on tax law that there's a broad consensus that capping SALT to $10,000 was a big mistake and they want to revisit this.
 
Last edited:
I've lived in a State with low taxes and a State with higher taxes. I'd rather be in the State with higher taxes. And I said earlier I hate the IRS, and from a revenue angle I don't like them at all. I think federal revenues should go down and the federal government should stop crowding out States.

The roads are better here, the schools are better here (I have no kids but I don't want to live around uneducated people.), the healthcare system is better here (and people here live about 2+ years longer, on average, especially the low income which face more barriers to healthcare in Indiana), and in general we spend much much less on incarcerating people who aren't really that bad, and we have additional sources of jobs and revenues from things you can't even do business in, in Indiana.

The taxes get cut for the benefit, largely, of the wealthy. Indiana has one of the most regressive tax structures of any State. It proportionally takes more from the people who are least able to pay it, and then it turns around and cuts everything from education to clean water.

The idea behind SALT was to help States prioritize the basic needs of running a government, which places like Indiana basically just don't do, and you should probably encourage that. That's partially a revenue thing, partially just "Who would even want to live with it?" when you don't fund those essentials. And that's on the other end. Outlays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...fe_expectancy#Past_life_expectancy,_1940–2019

If you sort by life expectancy highest to lowest, the highest tax States are in the top by life expectancy and the lowest tax States are in the lowest by life expectancy..

That's not to say oh, we raise State taxes, everyone lives longer. Let's tax them 100%!

It's when the State has money to spend on everything from healthcare, to environmental quality, to education, to public safety, you know, that the life expectancy rises accordingly. They get the money from the taxes, so there's a certain correlation.

The federal government gives money to those States with the low taxes because they're poor. Those grants go to programs that increase quality of life way beyond what their State has prioritized. Without the grants, things get much more lopsided and economic inequality rises. Education gets even worse. People with no education don't do well economically and end up on the welfare side instead of the taxp paying side of the ledger.

But other than taking cash from rich States and giving it to poor States, the federal government, where do they spend most of that money on? The military.

We can argue about whether the military needs that much money. That's not appropriate here. I think it needs audited to say the least because we don't know where some of it is going (or if we're getting a good deal for the spending), but it's basically military, grants to poor States, and debt interest, and not a lot else. There's your federal tax bill.

So if you want to cut taxes and balance the budget, you don't have many options. You can widen inequality a lot, you can cut defense, or you can default on the national debt. Sticky.

But my point was that we can still give homeowners a break (SALT, which lets you deduct property tax, which funds civilization honestly), or we can keep the mortgage interest deduction, and if we do that, Jamie Dimon loves you. Wells Fargo loves you. Bank of America loves you.
Illinois lags both the nation and the Midwest on key indicators of social mobility. The state scores poorly on entrepreneurship, economic growth, institutions and the rule of law.

The report analyzed the four pillars of social mobility:

  • Entrepreneurship and economic growth
  • Institutions and the rule of law
  • Education and skills development
  • Social capital
Illinois scores below average on all four indicators. Low social mobility prevents Illinoisans, especially the economically disadvantaged and minorities, from accessing opportunity.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/ranking-illinois-10th-worst-state-for-getting-ahead/
Mobility.webp
Screenshot_8-2-2025_16513_www.illinoispolicy.org.webp
 
Oh dear, the Policy Institute. The people who gave us the government shutdown years, the credit rating downgrades, the $60,000 left in the emergency fund, and the other crap we spent years pulling ourselves out of.

There were no job opportunities in Indiana that didn't involve something near minimum wage. I spent a lot of years there unfortunately doing menial tasks I hated a lot that took a physical toll. There's so much more in Illinois, stuff that lets you work with your brain and pull down more money.

There's only a couple dots on the map in Indiana that have any prosperity at all these days, and they're small enclaves near Indianapolis.

I watched as my hometown of Marion, Indiana got its guts ripped out. It went from a booming blue collar middle class town in the 90s to mostly abandoned. Very little economic activity left. The city tears down houses, builds nothing. Half as many people, none can buy anything. There's still Walmart I guess.

You can literally look through the court records of where (just about) everyone I knew in Indiana (around my age or younger) has been in trouble for felony drugs and stuff. We're not talking petty stuff either, it's the stuff where the brain no longer works. It's not a happy place. There is no prosperity to speak of.

With all due respect (which is none) to the Policy Institute. They can shove it. I saw Indiana before and after.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear, the Policy Institute. The people who gave us the government shutdown years, the credit rating downgrades, the $60,000 left in the emergency fund, and the other crap we spent years pulling ourselves out of.
Glad that Illinois is a match for you- at the end of the day, that is all that matters.

You appear to be the exception, as Illinois has had 14 continuous years of population decline, while every state bordering Illinois has had population growth.
 
Glad that Illinois is a match for you- at the end of the day, that is all that matters.

You appear to be the exception, as Illinois has had 14 continuous years of population decline, while every state bordering Illinois has had population growth.
The people leaving are just some malcontents, basically. I wouldn't say it's just economic reasons, although if they can't afford it they should leave, and if they don't agree with us, they should leave.

Water finds its own level.

Personally I think Illinois is a great and beautiful State, and honestly up here in Lake County it's almost heaven compared to Indiana.

And on the subject of taxes, we don't put old people in the poorhouse. We don't tax pensions or Social Security. Indiana does. So have fun with that.

Indiana is ripping off my mom's retirement income to the tune of thousands of dollars a year that Illinois wouldn't touch and giving her pretty much nothing in return. She just stays put.

I was recently having a discussion with Mother about Indiana. She said the barber shop in Huntington keeps Narcan near the register just in case someone getting a haircut is having an overdose. They had multiples, and she asked if it was that much of a problem and they said they had one every "two or three months".

Just a few miles away in Andrews, you can read all about the ongoing water problems from Raytheon dumping toxic waste on them, and the lawsuit that goes on and on while nobody can safely use their own water. The Town government says the Indiana Department of Environmental Management doesn't care and is actively preventing them from getting proper help. Meanwhile, people who are living there or who have lived there and were exposed to the water (including by taking a shower), have been getting disturbingly high rates of cancer and osteoporosis and other health issues.

Those are not the stories you want to hear when you're scouting out a home.

So the State tax department. If it means I'm not drinking toxic waste while the State is trying to protect the polluter from me, if it means I don't have to see narcan laying around when I go to the barber, if it means that I don't work with people like my mother did where one of them said to her "We can't eat Chinese food. That's how you get COVID!". Just send my the tax bill. I will pay it to not live near that.

Chicago has meant amazing opportunities that I wouldn't have had. Nobody is going to open up a major tech campus in Huntington or Grant County, Indiana. Google is not opening a headquarters there that looks like a spaceship.
 
Last edited:
I do our taxes and choose standard deduction since I don't have enough to itemize. I often introduce my kids as my tax deductions, much to my wife's discontent.
That actually came up in an episode of Rugrats where Angelica reminded her Dad that she was "Daddy's little tax shelter!".

There were so many things you have to rewatch that show as an adult to laugh at.
 
No clue. I give it to my CPA. He does his thing. I sign. Done.

Interesting (to me anyway) story. Run if you choose. My dad was a doctor. Doctor's are audited on average every 7 years, or at least were in his time. My mom did all his books, accounting and taxes. Audit letter comes from IRS. Says bring A through R or similar long list of records and stuff and be prepared for 2 days. My mom takes it all and goes at 9 the appointed morning. She's home about 11. We asked if she already was on lunch. Nope. Finished. What? The guy spent about 90 minutes looking at her records etc. and said they were the best set he'd ever seen, that she obviously knew more than most of his co-workers, and that she should leave and let him move on to someone they might get more money out of. In 43 years practicing medicine after that my dad was never audited again. I don't know but I suspect that auditor flagged his account saying if my mom signed as preparer to not waste time auditing.
 
Back
Top Bottom