QuidProJoe2020 t1_jeal7cj wrote

Ok, I am a lawyer and know a lot of lawyers in big law. They all have option to work from home, and are still subject to Philly income tax.

Again, this is a moot point, no one is saying increase Philly wage tax. I'm just saying 30k earners could use some help on their tax burden, and this study shows they carry the biggest burden comparative to income out of any quintile, which makes no fucking sense.

Edit: also, everyone is a bro, it's a term that can be a greeting of endearment and is stupid to gender anything like that.


QuidProJoe2020 t1_jeaki1e wrote

Bro Morgan Lewis, strategy Ronan, Ballard Sparh, etc are not moving due to wage tax. Big law firms need an office in a big city, it's literally a sign that they are a big law firm and taxes be damned.

Also, if the employer gives you the option to come in, which all big law firms do as they actually want people to come in, you are subject to wage tax.

Also, I'm not sure why this is relevant. Where did I say let's make the wage tax higher? Why are we discussing workers in Philly taking different actions than they can now if the wage tax is not increasing? All I'm literally saying is that for people who make smaller incomes, they should have a lower tax rate, not that the high earners should pay more than they already do.

Heck, I have been saying that we should invert the property and wage taxes in place. I want higher property taxes and lower wage taxes in general. Housing has appreciated way quicker than wages have. Again, homes have gone up 6x in value in just 15 years. Wages haven't even doubled let alone triple. Thus, the portion that can be tax via property tax is much bigger than it was 15 years ago. As such, it seems wise to tap that for revenue, where as lowering wage tax to invite MORE BUSINESSES into the city.

I am in agreement, our wage tax is too high. I just have no clue why in response to me saying 30k earners should pay less, you think big law partners will force telework contracts from big law firms that are super old fashion and conservative when it comes to what they expect from a work force.


QuidProJoe2020 t1_jeai0ie wrote

The Law partners income gets taxed at philadelphia wage tax based on where his employer is located in the city of philadelphia. He could work from home for the rest of eternity, but as long as his employer is located at 1700 market street, he's paying his wage tax.

Also, why the hell would the 76ers move their stadium out of the city they play for due to wage taxes? 76ers org doesn't give a fuck what it's workers pay in wage tax, it cares about putting butts in the seats and getting good players. Players care about wage tax, but income tax in PA is capped at 3.07%, those same ballers will be paying the highest income bracket in NJ which is 10%. Moving stadium to NJ makes no sense based on what you are bringing up as a player will spend substantially more in taxes paying 10.75% in NJ income tax over PA state income tax of 3 and phily wage at 3.79%. Not to mention, Camden has another 1% wage income, so in total 76 players would be paying almost double in tax to play there.

Now, if the city of Camden is going to give crazy tax credits to 76ers org, that's a different thing altogether, but has nothing to do with wage tax.


QuidProJoe2020 t1_jeabg58 wrote

Yes, but I bet a huge majority if not a super majority of those commuters make 6 figs+, which would put them In the highest wage tax bracket anyway. This is especially true for sports athletes.

A progressive wage tax ensures someone who makes 30k has enough to feed their family in West Philly, while not making the city lose money on the 500k law partner who commutes in from the burbs or mainline.

Every dollar a 30k earner pays in taxes is a lot more painful than a dollar paid by someone who makes 500k, this is the entire point behind a progressive system.

In terms of property taxes, idk if you have seen house prices recently but they have ballooned in 20 years. I have seen houses that were worth 25k when I was a kid now go for 150k with no upgrades. Property used to be dirt fucking cheap in this city, so high property taxes wouldn't have generated much. Now, you have 500k homes in neighborhoods you didnt use to be able to visit 15 years ago, I'm looking at you point breeze.

A switch now after huge inflation and increases in property value, whereas wages have not changed nearly as much (a big law lawyer used to start at 160k 15 years ago, now it's 185k; service workers have went from 7.25 to just hitting 15 after about 15 years) seems like it would be better to grow tax recipes via property taxes now.


QuidProJoe2020 t1_je74ox1 wrote

Ooh very interesting. Looks like someone would have to push for a state amendment to get that change, but had no clue about that. Thanks for the insight!

I do wonder if some crafty legislation could accomplish the outcome without the amendment. Would have to fashion it as a tax credit. Maybe like living in a opportunity zone, such as low income zip codes, entitle certain tax credits. The again I'm sure rich ppl would buy a house in low income neighborhoods and use that as thier home address for it. Could cap the credit though.

Mam, tax legislation is tough lol


QuidProJoe2020 t1_je748hv wrote

Yea, I quite frankly think we should have property and wage tax flipped. Meaning our property tax should be higher comparatively and our wage tax shouldn't be the highest in the country. This is for the same reason you point out: we need to bring money into the city.

It's way more important to get 6 fig earning ppl into Philly vs helping a family afford a 700k house instead of 550k due to low property taxes. The low property taxes + the abatement program certainly exert upward pressure on house prices, which ultimately will impact rents as well.

Solid point my dude.


QuidProJoe2020 t1_je6t6eb wrote

Makes sense, we have extremely high wage tax and an extremely low property tax.

A tax system that incentivizes homeownership or rewards homeownership isn't a bad thing. Also, the Pew research mentioned nothing of the tax abatement system on new construction, which is another huge tax blessing to homeowners.

The best way to fix this problem is probably to make the city wage tax progressive, which is the highest in the country. So instead of taxing the same percentage to someone who makes 20k as you would to someone who makes 200k, you tax a lower rate on the low income earners. That would help make it more fair about the huge tax burden the low income renters have.

I think their calculation on property tax as effective tax rate on renters is pretty off base and not sure they properly calculate it. They purposefully did not include 13% of renters, most of which are in section 8, where there are no property taxes, in the calulation of property taxes paid.

Given one must make under a certain amount to qualify for section 8, removing these would severely impact the bottom quintile. It looks like this is probably the culprit for the weird calculations that the lowest quintile of renters pay the biggest share of their income to property taxes. Also, in the appendix the study makes clear that it often takes a few years for 100% of the property taxes to be offloaded to renters, so the automatic assumption that every renter is paying that is faulty in itself. You would have to control for only homeowners that have lived somewhere for several years to ensure the assumption is valid.


QuidProJoe2020 t1_je60lut wrote

What I am advocating is trying something immediate to save lives. Maybe it works and then holy shit we have more living philadelphians, or maybe it fails and we are in the same exact boat.

If you want to say this idea can fail, I agree. What we are doing now is failing.

You're looking at a huge hole in the ship and I'm saying let's try to patch it with this, and you're response is: what if the ship continues to sink. That is literally what we are dealing with now.

We can do more than one thing at a time. While we work on long term reforms, we can do things in the immediate to try and give citizens of this great city a respite.

I just will never agree with thinking that letting 500+ of my fellow citizens die is more acceptable than trying something during THE DEADLIEST TIME EVER IN CITY HISTORY.


QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5v1eu wrote

I think guys with guns in army fatigues will stop the pieces of shit from doing crimes in their presence to a good degree. At least worth the try as more citizens have been murdered in the last three years in Philly than a 3 yesr perood EVER BEFORE.

Idk maybe criminals look forward to getting shot up by army men, but I'm going to assume they will react similarly to when police are there, as they face the same outcomes of a cop being there: a bullet or an arrest.

No where did I say this will definitely work, but the question is why shit on something new to try when we literally have never had homicides this high?

The only person that can moral grandstand on new ideas with a retort of: let's try something that takes years, is someone who doesn't feel crime.

I care about outcomes, and everything someone has responded with is a solution that takes years. So in the meantime, we should just tell citizens: 500 of yall have to die yearly but please hold on we are working on it! Naa I refuse to think that's appropriate


QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5twur wrote

We used to have a murder clearance rate of +60% just a decade ago, well above national average. However, we saw murders literally doubled since then. How did murders double if clearance rate was higher than average here for years and that is the best deterrent?

You think investigations are floundering for those reasons? Investigations are failing because communities don't trust cops, and witnesses are the main tool used in these types of murders. Go talk to ADAs they will tell you getting someone to come testify in court is hard as fuck today, unlike 10 years ago.

The clearance rate for black homicides have fell off a cliff over the last few years because of the deterioration of police relations with communities.

Also, your answer is let's wait years to fix shit to try and save ppl. Again, this is just the perfect being the enemy of the good. You want 500 people to die yearly and only will try anything that you deem is the BEST way to solve the problem. That is so damn inefficient and sacrifices citizens of this city so you can moral grandstand.

I think if something can be done, it's worth trying it because things have literally NEVER BEEN WORSE when it comes to homicides in the city


QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5sxpa wrote

Lol there's decades of studies otherwise. I suppose all social studies that show a strong link of police presence and less crime is just fake news.

People really are wild to think more police presence doesn't deter crime. Idk what world you inhibit where you don't understand that connection.

Just think of it like this: If the PPD literally said there was an area in the city where no cops would be and no patrol would go, do you think that would make that area safer or more dangerous?

Also, I said it's worth to TRY. Right now 500 dead is what we are on trend for. I suppose we do nothing in the short term because you don't think criminals get deterred from crimes by police, despite decades of research otherwise.


QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5jz5w wrote

Again, you literally are saying you think there are better ways so why even try using the national guard. This is the perfect being the enemy of the good. I dont claim it definitely will work, but what can it hurt? Murders are at all time highs over the last three years.

As far as I am aware, the national guard is fully funded by the DOD.

Also, why are you so content on doing nothing in the short term to alleviate the burden on citizens? Talking about enacting legislation, and reforming infrastructure, and the police are things that take a lot of time. In the meantime, do we just tell citizens get used to 500 of you dying a year and this is the new normal until we fix it a few years from now.

And this violence has not been going on for half a century, are you seriously? The amount of murders in this city has fucking doubled in the last 7 years.

We have never, and I literally mean NEVER had back to back years of 500 murders before the last two years. Never had three years of 490+ which is the last three.

There was only one year before the previous two where we had 500 murders, which was 1990. The population at the time was 1.586 mil, which is literally more than the population we have now, albeit slightly, but we still have more bodies today. This means homicide per capita is higher than it ever was in the 90s, fucking wild.

We are not at the status quo, we are well fucking above it. Again, this is why trying something new makes sense, we are dealing with unprecedented homicides. But hey, if you ain't feeling it I suppose it's just business as usual in the city, screw those poor ppl amirite?


QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5frjf wrote

Yes, what is the purpose of temporary deterrence? I mean saving only a few poor peoples lives really worth the effort anyway?

This is the definition of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

I agree, we need to fix policing. But why the heck does that forsake doing anything else until we fix police? I mean do you expect someone to wave a wand to fix police, or more realistically , understand huge change like that will take years. Saying 500+ need to die a year so you can moral grandstand on whats the BEST way to saves lives and lower crime smacks of entitlement rather than someone actually trying to help the citizens of the nation's poorest big city.

Again, anyone who is actually close to crime, lost loved ones, or lives in fear, would love to hear steps being taken, even if it only saves 25 ppl. But those that live in nice neighborhoods are fine watching the city burn so they can feel morally righteous about the policies they espouse.

I care about the citizens, not some ideological bullshit to feel warm inside. If dudes in Army fatigues can save people from dying, it's worth a try as we work through fixing other institutions in the city. It's not one or the other, it can EASILY be both.


QuidProJoe2020 t1_je5d6di wrote

Yes, I'm sure no one will think twice about pulling a drive by or shooting when they see armed military guards near by.

Do you think there is anything that deters criminals at all then? Are all the studies that show having active police presence lowers crime in an area just wrong? Will criminals happily pop shots off at dudes in army fatigues and AR-15s?

If that's the case, we are fucked period and nothing can be done to help the city's crime problem.

I just fine it crazy that the city is the DEADLIEST EVER and people are content not trying new things to deal with it. Must be nice being so separated from this violent crime you don't think we need to try anything new to help citizens.


QuidProJoe2020 t1_j9udl15 wrote

Yea, I'm saying 750k is low for 2nd degree murder.

I used to work in the preliminary arraignments, I would expect at least a mil here, where brutal murders with guns got 2mill+ .

I don't think I ever saw someone not get bail actually. 75k bail sounds cheap as hell for someone who just murdered a man in cold blood. Doesn't seem to put the communities interest in perspective at all.


QuidProJoe2020 t1_j9rnphg wrote

750k for a brutal beating that is clearly 2nd degree murder at the least. Would have expected a mill bail, at least, but maybe age played a factor.

Organizations against cash bail are great for like drug crimes or prostitution crimes. Things like murder, however, don't deserve a pouring in of outside funds. Kids beat a old man with their bare hands to death. Fuck giving him funds to get out lol