It's been a tough budget season for those who believe that the solution to Chicago's budget woes is to soak the rich, especially "large corporations."

Mayor Lori Lightfoot's plan to hike the real estate transfer tax on upper-end properties got caught in a Springfield food fight over who would get the proceeds. Other ideas—like imposing a "LaSalle Street" tax on financial transactions, creating a city income tax or repealing the Lincoln Yards and other tax-increment financing districts—never got off the starting block.

But one other idea continues to get run up the flagpole with regularity, perhaps because Chicago once had a version of it and presumably could revive and expand it without Springfield's approval. That's imposing what progressives dub "a corporate head tax" on all jobs based in Chicago.

The specific plan on the table now is to charge "wealthy" corporations, defined as those with at least 50 employees, $35 a month for each person on their payroll, or $420 a year. Mayor Lori Lightfoot's 2020 budget "does not make large corporations pay their fair share and does not uphold the values of our city," the Grassroots Collective summarized after the budget vote. As a result, the group said, funding is short for priorities such as reopening mental health clinics and creating more affordable housing.

I take their point. Affordable housing is needed all over the country. But wouldn't taxing not profits but each job motivate employers to cut employee pay or even move needed jobs out of town—especially since the head tax would be nine times the $4 a month it was before Rahm Emanuel repealed it?

Grassroots spokesman Nathan Ryan said no and referred me to Denver, which, as he put it, "has both a corporate head tax and a robust job picture." Ryan's right about that. But he left out a few things.

In fact, Denver actually has two levies, one on employers of $4 a month and one on employees of $5.75 a month (assuming they make at least $500 a month). Yes, you read that right. If you work in Denver, you have to pony up $5.75 a month for the privilege of holding a job. Somehow, I can't see very many Chicago aldermen running for re-election on the platform that they made their constituents pay to work. Beyond that, there's a big difference between even a combined $9.75-a-month tax in Denver and Chicago's proposed $35. The former is low enough that it's really just a nuisance, says Sam Bailey, vice president of economic development for the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. "If the tax expanded significantly, it would be of more concern."

Ryan also pointed me to Mountain View, Calif. You may recognize the name: That's the world headquarters of a little outfit known as Google, which likely wouldn't stop expanding its HQ even if the tax was $100 a month. So I tried the Chicago Teachers Union, the real behind-the-scenes proponent of the head tax, to see if it could provide a compelling argument.

No dice. "Greg, you've disparaged the CTU and our work for much of the last few months, pushing Chicago Public Schools talking points ad nauseam and going so far as to compare us to big business and Donald Trump," spokesman Ronnie Reese emailed back. "So don't be surprised that no one over here is jumping over barrels to speak to you."

I guess the union didn't like me questioning the price tag of its new contract and reporting that, according to CPS, it's likely that most of the cost of the deal will be picked up by owners of homes and other property in Chicago. Oh well.

I spoke to one other person for this column, Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce chief Jack Lavin. In a previous life he was chief of staff to Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn. "Why would you want to tax 'the privilege' of creating a job in Chicago?" he asks. "Why would you let (competing) cities point to this as a reason not to go to Chicago?"

Good questions. I'm still waiting for the answers.