dust1990 t1_j7xz0qr wrote
Tax cut would be nice.
Soporific88 t1_j7zeowp wrote
Sure tax cuts for the rich and billionaires building stadiums
dust1990 t1_j7zryv1 wrote
Agree with you public shouldn't subsidize professional sports stadiums.
But NYC's tax rates are too high and driving away the wealthy, who generate the most tax revenue that pay for services. If all of the rich people domicile in FL, there won't be any money for services. You can't sock it to the rich with high state taxes when they have other cheaper alternatives. It's Econ 101. Dems need to stop being so emotional about this and make NYC tax rates competitive. It will grow the pie for everyone.
Rottimer t1_j82fsmf wrote
>But NYC's tax rates are too high and driving away the wealthy
I've been waiting for 40 years for this to happen. Instead we now have the most Billionaire residents of any city in the world. Not just the U.S., but the fucking world. Maybe, just maybe your thinking is flawed on this issue.
dust1990 t1_j83oiag wrote
The absolute number of billionaire and millionaire residents goes up over time because of inflation.
Rottimer t1_j843fhi wrote
Generally yes. But that has very little to do with why we have the most Billionaire residents in the world. That was not always the case, whether looking at it from absolute number or per capita. Despite having some the highest taxes in the country we have not chased away the rich.
dust1990 t1_j8dp8p0 wrote
Data says otherwise. Sure NYC is crawling with wealthy. But SOO many living part time in their pied de terres. They have their tax residence elsewhere (suburbs, CT, NJ, Florida). If you lower rates to draw these people back, you'd have a ton of revenue to pay for services.
mikevago t1_j8dmcuj wrote
Yes, New York City, famous for its lack of rich people. No wonder housing is so affordable!
dust1990 t1_j8dnoho wrote
It’s popular to hate on wealthy people. But New York’s progressive tax system is hugely dependent on them. Alienate them enough so they move their tax flag and watch the system crumble quite literally.
mikevago t1_j8dp1l9 wrote
I wasn't hating on wealthy people, I was acknowleding the reality that a very large number of them live in New York City, to the point where it's nearly impossible for a non-rich person to live in Manhattan or the western neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens. The idea that rich people are flooding out of New York just doesn't square with anything that has happened in the last 25 years.
dust1990 t1_j8dqaj7 wrote
Real estate prices growing astronomically in the last 50 years has very little to do with more wealthy people living in NY. The wealthy have always been here. The problem is the supply of housing hasn't increased much since WWII. The population of the state in 1945 was about 13M and about 20M today, a 50+% increase when the number of units has actually decreased, especially in Manhattan and brownstone Brooklyn. If you want more housing to be affordable, you need to advocate for building more housing and calling out NIMBYs any chance you can.
thecentury t1_j7zeqj8 wrote
Sorry, but that word doesn't exist in the blue democratic state of NY.
dust1990 t1_j7zqt9q wrote
So asinine. New York City is one of the few places where the Laffer Curve would hold true because a lot of wealthy people want to live here. If the tax rates were more reasonable and competitive with other states (NJ, CT, MA), they would most definitely increase tax revenue to pay for services for everyone.
dust1990 t1_j80aoes wrote
If you downvoted this, I guess you don't like services and enjoy paying high rates.
[deleted] t1_j8135wm wrote
[removed]
Medianmodeactivate t1_j84g13r wrote
Other way around. The leverage that NYC has means they can probably net afford to increase rates. That's why the city is able to pull off a municipal income tax.
dust1990 t1_j85jcsc wrote
My point is that lower rates are the revenue maximizing equilibrium. Don’t abolish it, but lower it such that more wealthy people become residents which is good for everyone because it increases tax revenue for services.
Medianmodeactivate t1_j85o3kd wrote
>My point is that lower rates are the revenue maximizing equilibrium. Don’t abolish it, but lower it such that more wealthy people become residents which is good for everyone because it increases tax revenue for services.
Right and I'm saying the net effect is ambiguous. It's not clear that the equilibrium lower taxes. For all we know they could very well afford to increase certain taxes and increase net revenues even if some number of people relocate. Since wealthy people want to live here to some extent they are a captive audience.
dust1990 t1_j85q5n5 wrote
It’s no secret the city is bleeding HNW and UHNW residents. Why not test it out?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments