U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 10:37 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 523,084 times
Reputation: 1495

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomperson2 View Post
It's idiotic that there's no way to buy or reload a MetroCard at the majority of bus stops.

"Do all these people on NYC forum asking about housing lotteries strike you as similar to citizens of Luxembourg?"

I hope for the good of Parkchester you're not as ugly on the outside as you are on the inside, lady.

Well, tell me then what the housing lottery applicants on this forum have in common with citizens of Luxembourg. I am just pointing out facts. Truth is sometimes ugly indeed.

Don't you worry about Parkchester; I pay my condo fees, cause no problems to anyone, and they love me there :-). But it is not likely that I'll ever live in Parkchester more substantially than for one week here and there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 06:17 AM
 
Location: In the heights
21,627 posts, read 23,052,716 times
Reputation: 11303
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby View Post
Get real, OyC :-). Do all these people on NYC forum asking about housing lotteries strike you as similar to citizens of Luxembourg? Lux. is the country with the highest per capita GDP/income in the world. Their fare-less transportation is supported by solid tax revenue (they have somewhat lower taxes than most of Europe, but I could bet every Lux. citizen pays tax), and that kind of freedom from paying fare is somewhat different from jumping over turnstiles. Who will pay for the fare-less subway in NYC???


Maybe the MTA should put up large fluorescent posters in the subway saying IF YOU RIDE OUR SUBWAY WITHOUT PAYING FARE, YOU ARE A PATHETIC SCUM THAT SHOULD NOT BE LIVING HERE.
Ha—well, the citizens of Luxembourg are similar in that their survival at least somewhat depends on US tax money! For those living in the projects, it’s direct and for the citizens of Luxembourg it’s through its massive role in being a tax haven for tax avoidance by both individuals and corporations from around the world including the US.

I think you’re also sort of glomming onto just Luxembourg, but not thinking about the rationale for why it did so nor are you taking note that there are other places with services without fare control. There is an argued economic rationale and that’s not the same thing as “because they can afford to”, because that’s not really sound economics by itself. Again, not saying MTA should do it because the scale’s a bit crazy and the politics would be difficult, but it can be argued.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:04 AM
 
1,478 posts, read 523,084 times
Reputation: 1495
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Ha—well, the citizens of Luxembourg are similar in that their survival at least somewhat depends on US tax money! For those living in the projects, it’s direct and for the citizens of Luxembourg it’s through its massive role in being a tax haven for tax avoidance by both individuals and corporations from around the world including the US.

I think you’re also sort of glomming onto just Luxembourg, but not thinking about the rationale for why it did so nor are you taking note that there are other places with services without fare control. There is an argued economic rationale and that’s not the same thing as “because they can afford to”, because that’s not really sound economics by itself. Again, not saying MTA should do it because the scale’s a bit crazy and the politics would be difficult, but it can be argued.
You are overlooking the fact that Luxembourg is providing something to someone (specifically certain banking services/tax breaks to foreign business), and so it attracts foreign business - not just from the US, but from Europe as well, because Lux. has lower taxes (particularly business-related taxes) than the rest of Europe. What are NYC welfare recipients providing to NYC, or to anyone?

You are also overlooking the fact that Lux. is a tiny country. They are much smaller than NYC, or Manhattan, or the Bronx. Nobody in Lux. has three kids by the age of 18, without any means to support self or the kids..

In other words, Lux. attracts international investment by lowering taxes. NYC repels investment by sky-high taxes needed to support a massive number of tax non-contributors. The tax base in Lux vs. NYC works in exact opposite ways.

Sorry, sustainable "free" services anywhere (not just Lux) are exclusively the result of "because they can afford" them. Why do you think people in the first-class cabin on the plane get free booze? Because it is of course not free, it is a side benefit of their ticket price.

Anyway, economic prosperity that benefits the WHOLE society (exemplified with universal free services) has so far always depended on the same three factors: sound economic strategy (ie, the society producing/offering products that are attractive to buy/use), large percent of population contributing tax revenue, and controlled size of the population.

Last edited by elnrgby; Today at 09:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:43 AM
 
Location: In the heights
21,627 posts, read 23,052,716 times
Reputation: 11303
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby View Post
You are overlooking the fact that Luxembourg is providing something to someone (specifically certain banking services/tax breaks to foreign business), and so it attracts foreign business - not just from the US, but from Europe as well, because Lux. has lower taxes (particularly business-related taxes) than the rest of Europe. What are NYC welfare recipients providing to NYC, or to anyone?

You are also overlooking the fact that Lux. is a tiny country. They are much smaller than NYC, or Manhattan, or the Bronx. Nobody in Lux. has three kids by the age of 18, without any means to support self or the kids..

In other words, Lux. attracts international investment by lowering taxes. NYC repels investment by sky-high taxes needed to support a massive number of tax non-contributors. The tax base in Lux vs. NYC works in exact opposite ways.

Sorry, sustainable "free" services anywhere (not just Lux) are exclusively the result of "because they can afford" them. Why do you think people in the first-class cabin on the plane get free booze? Because it is of course not free, it is a side benefit of their ticket price.

Anyway, economic prosperity that benefits the WHOLE society (exemplified with universal free services) has so far always depended on the same three factors: sound economic strategy (ie, the society producing/offering products that are attractive to buy/use), large percent of population contributing tax revenue, and controlled size of the population.
I'm not overlooking it--I'm citing it directly. Luxembourg is a tax haven and that has a lot to do with why its economic indices are so good. There is a lot of secrecy around its financial services and banking sectors which is why it's such an attractive place to hide money. That is indeed providing a service, though you can argue that when people sequester their funds there, it's for purposes that are pretty against the spirit of the law from their respective countries though wonderfully not technically against the letter of the law or at least really difficult to prosecute. It's not that businesses and people are actually conducting their primary businesses there--it's a very minor player even for its level of development in any sector but steel, so most of its economic add-on is through being a way to skirt taxes elsewhere despite not being where those profits going into those banks are actually made. You're conflating some pretty basic things here--the argument for low business tax in the usual economic rationale is that's supposed to be good for business is that it increases productivity within that region for that business. It is not usually the argument made on the basis that a place is providing institutions and laws to transfer profits made elsewhere to avoid taxation where those profits were made.

I don't think welfare recipients provide to NYC and I never stated as such. I do think that simply cutting off welfare doesn't make sense, but restructuring the system to get as many people to be net economic contributors, or at least gainfully employed doing something useful is important. Certainly having a population essentially existing at subsistence level without occupation and without giving sufficient push to and sometimes means to do better for generations is not useful or reasonable.

I'm not overlooking Luxembourg being a tiny country--I stated that from the beginning. Certainly, there aren't that many people in Luxembourg so there won't be that many having kids by the age of 18 and it's likely that per capita-wise it's not very high either. What Luxembourg does have is a very extensive social welfare network for its size which includes healthcare, higher education, direct welfare (minimum income), workforce development, subsidized housing qualification for those who are rent-burdened (rent is provably over 33% of total earnings), and soon mass transit. These make our supposed great welfare benefits look pretty meagre. They also have really liberal views on abortion and contraception, courtesy of their healthcare and education system. Maybe some bleeding heart US liberals can feel good that US taxpayer dollars are at least helping with extensive social welfare benefits somewhere!

Anyhow, that's neither here nor there, though I'm happy to take this into DMs if you'd like. Where this directly intersects with the topic is the matter of fare beating and lost revenue. Again, I am not gung-ho about getting rid of fares for MTA or even just the bus and subway, but it has been done in various parts of the world just never with such a large service which is why I think NYC being a guinea pig especially with so many layers and agencies is a bad idea. If somewhere else of large size wants to give it a go and report back, then that's great and Talinn and Estonia as a whole don't count either, because that's also pretty tiny in population though covers a much larger area. The arguments generally revolve around greater economic productivity and the subsequent other revenue captures from increased property, income, sales etc. taxes and fees are the main arguments which is why fareless downtown mass transit to some extent whether rail or bus, whether single lines or multiple services, are fairly popular programs for cities. This is usually the economic justification, and since such things are usually pretty contentious, they get reviewed fairly often.

Instead, here's what I think should happen:
- transition to tap cards and get rid of coin payments on the bus (the former is at least slated to come in soon)
- give more avenues for topping off your card because for bus riders who ride out of necessity due to subways generally not being where they are or where they're going but that's where the goddamn payment machines are
- do public outreach on how to use and load up tap cards through those additional avenues
- marketing the lost revenue and directly link that in the public dialogue to loss or degradation of service as well as potential improvements
- targeted enforcement in certain trouble areas with fines / community service for repeat offenders, but first time offenders are directed towards information about how they can top off their cards and how fare beating is deleterious

More contentious would be to have a dual-fare system which certain other places have sort of done with tap cards (and which kind of exist with Metrocards for seniors and students). Essentially, as perhaps part of your NYC or NYS ID with NFC or something of the sort, New York residents are given tap cards that belong to the individual and go at the current fare. Other fare cards for non-residents are charged at a higher sticker price. These resident tap cards / ids are registered to the individual and if they are in delinquency, then the next time they need to do any sort of official city or state business, then the remaining delinquency plus fines are necessary to get that business done.

This isn't going to get things up to 100% compliance and I have no illusions of that, but these except for maybe the very last one are pretty reasonable actions in terms of how much it'd cost to do and its potential payoff.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; Today at 12:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:47 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 523,084 times
Reputation: 1495
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I'm not overlooking it--I'm citing it directly. Luxembourg is a tax haven and that has a lot to do with why its economic indices are so good. There is a lot of secrecy around its financial services and banking sectors which is why it's such an attractive place to hide money. That is indeed providing a service, though you can argue that when people sequester their funds there, it's for purposes that are pretty against the spirit of the law from their respective countries though wonderfully not technically against the letter of the law or at least really difficult to prosecute. It's not that businesses and people are actually conducting their primary businesses there--it's a very minor player even for its level of development in any sector but steel, so most of its economic add-on is through being a way to skirt taxes elsewhere despite not being where those profits going into those banks are actually made. You're conflating some pretty basic things here--the argument for low business tax in the usual economic rationale is that's supposed to be good for business is that it increases productivity within that region for that business. It is not usually the argument made on the basis that a place is providing institutions and laws to transfer profits made elsewhere to avoid taxation where those profits were made.

I don't think welfare recipients provide to NYC and I never stated as such. I do think that simply cutting off welfare doesn't make sense, but restructuring the system to get as many people to be net economic contributors, or at least gainfully employed doing something useful is important. Certainly having a population essentially existing at subsistence level without occupation and without giving sufficient push to and sometimes means to do better for generations is not useful or reasonable.

I'm not overlooking Luxembourg being a tiny country--I stated that from the beginning. Certainly, there aren't that many people in Luxembourg so there won't be that many having kids by the age of 18 and it's likely that per capita-wise it's not very high either. What Luxembourg does have is a very extensive social welfare network for its size which includes healthcare, higher education, direct welfare (minimum income), workforce development, subsidized housing qualification for those who are rent-burdened (rent is provably over 33% of total earnings), and soon mass transit. These make our supposed great welfare benefits look pretty meagre. They also have really liberal views on abortion and contraception, courtesy of their healthcare and education system. Maybe some bleeding heart US liberals can feel good that US taxpayer dollars are at least helping with extensive social welfare benefits somewhere!

Anyhow, that's neither here nor there, though I'm happy to take this into DMs if you'd like. Where this directly intersects with the topic is the matter of fare beating and lost revenue. Again, I am not gung-ho about getting rid of fares for MTA or specific parts, but it has been trialed in various parts of the world just never with such a large service which is why I think NYC being a guinea pig especially with so many layers and agencies is a bad idea. If somewhere else of large size wants to give it a go and report back, then that's great. The arguments generally revolve around greater economic productivity and the subsequent other revenue captures from increased property, income, sales etc. taxes and fees are the main arguments which is why fareless downtown mass transit to some extent whether rail or bus, whether single lines or multiple services, are fairly popular programs for cities. This is usually the economic justification, and since such things are usually pretty contentious, they get reviewed fairly often.

Instead, here's what I think should happen:
- transition to tap cards and get rid of coin payments on the bus (the former is at least slated to come in soon)
- give more avenues for topping off your card because for bus riders who ride out of necessity due to subways generally not being where they are or where they're going but that's where the goddamn payment machines are
- do public outreach on how to use and load up tap cards
- marketing the loss revenue and directly link that in the public dialogue to loss or degradation of service
- targeted enforcement in certain trouble areas with fines / community service for repeat offenders, but first time offenders are directed towards information about how they can top off their cards and how fare beating is deleterious

This isn't going to get things up to 100% compliance and I have no illusions of that, but these are a pretty reasonable actions in terms of how much it'd cost to do and its potential payoff.



Regarding tax havens, your info is a bit outdated, at least regarding Luxembourg and Switzerland (I don't know anything about Carribean tax shelters). Luxembourg and Switzerland operate their financial accounts with full transparency to the US government under a treaty. The value of the accounts of any American citizen or corporation gets reported to the IRS. There is no secrecy, hiding money, or anything like that - the only benefit for the individual is that assets are protected from seizure, and for a corporation that Lux tax is lower that in the US (although I am not sure that this is the case any longer - Trump's tax measures were aimed at reducing corporate taxes below those in other countries).


I am not conflating banking-based economy with production-based economy, but just saying that the tiny country of Luxembourg has found its economic niche in banking, and anybody else is free to find their own economic niche in whatever they have to offer to the world. But what are the generationally welfare-dependent people offering to the world? Some areas in the US - and remarkably NYC - have massive populations that are remarkably resistant to any attempt to integrate them into a workforce, or enable them to get off welfare benefits, largely because welfare benefits are larger than low-paid work, and welfare benefits increase with number of dependents.


The welfare services that you list for Lux are very comparable to the rest of Western Europe, but again the number of users of welfare services in these countries is very low compared to the number of people who pay some form of tax or the other (even if it is not called tax but contribution - where even the pocket money that teenagers earn for babysitting or minor seasonal menial help is subject to national health insurance "contribution"). Generational poverty, in the year 2019 in Western Europe, is close to non-existent, and welfare is associated with tremendous social stigma to the point that people would rather do anything than be on welfare.


Re contraception and abortion, as you know, I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and I support all forms of contraception when necessary. A huge number of fiscal conservatives, particularly higher earners, who always vote Republican, also support Planned Parenthood. All forms of contraception are widely available, but some people/kids will never use them, not because conservatives prevent them from using contraception, but because these people/kids are stupid, lazy, irresponsible, and why would they use contraception anyway when baby is a status symbol for a ghetto teenage mother, for which she gets extra welfare money in addition to it?

Last edited by elnrgby; Today at 01:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:27 PM
 
Location: In the heights
21,627 posts, read 23,052,716 times
Reputation: 11303
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby View Post
Regarding tax havens, your info is a bit outdated, at least regarding Luxembourg and Switzerland (I don't know anything about Carribean tax shelters). Luxembourg and Switzerland operate their financial accounts with full transparency to the US government under a treaty. The value of the accounts of any American citizen or corporation gets reported to the IRS. There is no secrecy, hiding money, or anything like that - the only benefit for the individual is that assets are protected from seizure, and for a corporation that Lux tax is lower that in the US (although I am not sure that this is the case any longer - Trump's tax measures were aimed at reducing corporate taxes below those in other countries).


I am not conflating banking-based economy with production-based economy, but just saying that the tiny country of Luxembourg has found its economic niche in banking, and anybody else is free to find their own economic niche in whatever they have to offer to the world. But what are the generationally welfare-dependent people offering to the world? Some areas in the US - and remarkably NYC - have massive populations that are remarkably resistant to any attempt to integrate them into a workforce, or enable them to get off welfare benefits, largely because welfare benefits are larger than low-paid work, and welfare benefits increase with number of dependents.


The welfare services that you list for Lux are very comparable to the rest of Western Europe, but again the number of users of welfare services in these countries is very low compared to the number of people who pay some form of tax or the other (even if it is not called tax but contribution - where even the pocket money that teenagers earn for babysitting or minor seasonal menial help is subject to national health insurance "contribution"). Generational poverty, in the year 2019 in Western Europe, is close to non-existent, and welfare is associated with tremendous social stigma to the point that people would rather do anything than be on welfare.


Re contraception and abortion, as you know, I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and I support all forms of contraception when necessary. A huge number of fiscal conservatives, particularly higher earners, who always vote Republican, also support Planned Parenthood. All forms of contraception are widely available, but some people/kids will never use them, not because conservatives prevent them from using contraception, but because these people/kids are stupid, lazy, irresponsible, and why would they use contraception anyway when baby is a status symbol for a ghetto teenage mother, for which she gets extra welfare money in addition to it?
Full transparency, really?

Oxfam in 2016:

https://luxtimes.lu/archives/3946-lu...ate-tax-havens

European Parliament in 2019 after a series of leaks:

https://www.icij.org/investigations/...iament-report/

How outdated is this supposed to be? Not in the few weeks? "Found a niche", eh? That's an interesting way of putting it.

Again, you want to take this to DMs, that's fine, but we should do a better effort in looking into what we're saying.

It can be argued that generational poverty doesn't exist to the same extent at least partially because many of these policies have been in place in those countries for decades at this point.

It's interesting that you're so willing to turn a blind eye to massive tax avoidance schemes going on for decades and yet are so vocal about welfare recipients and fare dodgers. I'm on that side where I also think generational poverty subsiding on welfare is not in any way good and that fare dodging needs to be stopped, but I'm also at least somewhat aware of the two kinds of bull**** here and that both are unequivocally bad even if they might be happy to have “found a niche.” I’m not even quite thrilled about compliance and bilateral tax treaties when people and companies follow that wonderful technical letter of the law, but are flagrantly against the spirit of the law. Aside from those decades of benefits, there’s still going to be more to come even when Luxembourg actually agrees to the letter of the law for OECD compliance. What a great niche they found!

Good, glad we're agreed on contraception and abortion. Can we agree that education about these things, destigmatization of their usage, and funding for both the marketing and procedures should be in place?

Again, if you want to talk more about this, DM me.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; Today at 02:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:19 PM
 
929 posts, read 247,117 times
Reputation: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I'm not overlooking it--I'm citing it directly. Luxembourg is a tax haven and that has a lot to do with why its economic indices are so good. There is a lot of secrecy around its financial services and banking sectors which is why it's such an attractive place to hide money. That is indeed providing a service, though you can argue that when people sequester their funds there, it's for purposes that are pretty against the spirit of the law from their respective countries though wonderfully not technically against the letter of the law or at least really difficult to prosecute. It's not that businesses and people are actually conducting their primary businesses there--it's a very minor player even for its level of development in any sector but steel, so most of its economic add-on is through being a way to skirt taxes elsewhere despite not being where those profits going into those banks are actually made. You're conflating some pretty basic things here--the argument for low business tax in the usual economic rationale is that's supposed to be good for business is that it increases productivity within that region for that business. It is not usually the argument made on the basis that a place is providing institutions and laws to transfer profits made elsewhere to avoid taxation where those profits were made.

I don't think welfare recipients provide to NYC and I never stated as such. I do think that simply cutting off welfare doesn't make sense, but restructuring the system to get as many people to be net economic contributors, or at least gainfully employed doing something useful is important. Certainly having a population essentially existing at subsistence level without occupation and without giving sufficient push to and sometimes means to do better for generations is not useful or reasonable.

I'm not overlooking Luxembourg being a tiny country--I stated that from the beginning. Certainly, there aren't that many people in Luxembourg so there won't be that many having kids by the age of 18 and it's likely that per capita-wise it's not very high either. What Luxembourg does have is a very extensive social welfare network for its size which includes healthcare, higher education, direct welfare (minimum income), workforce development, subsidized housing qualification for those who are rent-burdened (rent is provably over 33% of total earnings), and soon mass transit. These make our supposed great welfare benefits look pretty meagre. They also have really liberal views on abortion and contraception, courtesy of their healthcare and education system. Maybe some bleeding heart US liberals can feel good that US taxpayer dollars are at least helping with extensive social welfare benefits somewhere!

Anyhow, that's neither here nor there, though I'm happy to take this into DMs if you'd like. Where this directly intersects with the topic is the matter of fare beating and lost revenue. Again, I am not gung-ho about getting rid of fares for MTA or even just the bus and subway, but it has been done in various parts of the world just never with such a large service which is why I think NYC being a guinea pig especially with so many layers and agencies is a bad idea. If somewhere else of large size wants to give it a go and report back, then that's great and Talinn and Estonia as a whole don't count either, because that's also pretty tiny in population though covers a much larger area. The arguments generally revolve around greater economic productivity and the subsequent other revenue captures from increased property, income, sales etc. taxes and fees are the main arguments which is why fareless downtown mass transit to some extent whether rail or bus, whether single lines or multiple services, are fairly popular programs for cities. This is usually the economic justification, and since such things are usually pretty contentious, they get reviewed fairly often.

Instead, here's what I think should happen:
- transition to tap cards and get rid of coin payments on the bus (the former is at least slated to come in soon)
- give more avenues for topping off your card because for bus riders who ride out of necessity due to subways generally not being where they are or where they're going but that's where the goddamn payment machines are
- do public outreach on how to use and load up tap cards through those additional avenues
- marketing the lost revenue and directly link that in the public dialogue to loss or degradation of service as well as potential improvements
- targeted enforcement in certain trouble areas with fines / community service for repeat offenders, but first time offenders are directed towards information about how they can top off their cards and how fare beating is deleterious

More contentious would be to have a dual-fare system which certain other places have sort of done with tap cards (and which kind of exist with Metrocards for seniors and students). Essentially, as perhaps part of your NYC or NYS ID with NFC or something of the sort, New York residents are given tap cards that belong to the individual and go at the current fare. Other fare cards for non-residents are charged at a higher sticker price. These resident tap cards / ids are registered to the individual and if they are in delinquency, then the next time they need to do any sort of official city or state business, then the remaining delinquency plus fines are necessary to get that business done.

This isn't going to get things up to 100% compliance and I have no illusions of that, but these except for maybe the very last one are pretty reasonable actions in terms of how much it'd cost to do and its potential payoff.
(Big fart)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:00 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 523,084 times
Reputation: 1495
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Full transparency, really?

Oxfam in 2016:

https://luxtimes.lu/archives/3946-lu...ate-tax-havens

European Parliament in 2019 after a series of leaks:

https://www.icij.org/investigations/...iament-report/

How outdated is this supposed to be? Not in the few weeks? "Found a niche", eh? That's an interesting way of putting it.

Again, you want to take this to DMs, that's fine, but we should do a better effort in looking into what we're saying.

It can be argued that generational poverty doesn't exist to the same extent at least partially because many of these policies have been in place in those countries for decades at this point.

It's interesting that you're so willing to turn a blind eye to massive tax avoidance schemes going on for decades and yet are so vocal about welfare recipients and fare dodgers. I'm on that side where I also think generational poverty subsiding on welfare is not in any way good and that fare dodging needs to be stopped, but I'm also at least somewhat aware of the two kinds of bull**** here and that both are unequivocally bad even if they might be happy to have “found a niche.” I’m not even quite thrilled about compliance and bilateral tax treaties when people and companies follow that wonderful technical letter of the law, but are flagrantly against the spirit of the law. Aside from those decades of benefits, there’s still going to be more to come even when Luxembourg actually agrees to the letter of the law for OECD compliance. What a great niche they found!

Good, glad we're agreed on contraception and abortion. Can we agree that education about these things, destigmatization of their usage, and funding for both the marketing and procedures should be in place?

Again, if you want to talk more about this, DM me.



You are showing a couple of examples of corporate crime, and trying to argue that the entire concept of tax haven is criminal, which is bizarre. Luxembourg has completely transparent financial policies, which consist of offering low corporate tax rates (not a crime, but an economic strategy in which Luxembourg found its niche), allowing international companies to incorporate in Luxembourg (which is not a crime either - anyone can incorporate anywhere they want), and reporting to the IRS all accounts that are legally reportable to the IRS. Using a tax haven is not a legal problem per se, but the companies you are citing have tried to haul the money which was in fact taxable elsewhere, under the tax-favored Luxembourg banking rules. But that is not the fault of Luxembourg or its favorable corporate tax rate.


The argument that Europe has next to no generational poverty because European social safety net has been in place for decades... Europe was in ruins with about 90% of its population in dire poverty only 2.5 generations ago, post ww2 (15 years before I was born, and within the memory of many people who are still alive). The US has provided international aid to Europe post ww2, but that aid was not overall greater than the welfare money the US has been providing to its own citizens. From that point on, all the poor Europeans have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps (ie, by everyone contributing to the social net, and almost nobody abusing it). European social safety net did not fall from the sky and magically got 90% of the population out of generational poverty in 2 generations - people's responsible social behavior got them out of poverty, generational and otherwise. What has happened in the US in the meantime? The US does not have a universal safety net partly because its social service resources are all skewed towards generational welfare users, who intend to continue using welfare forever as far as I can tell.



I am not turning a blind eye on corporate tax avoidance, but I admit that I have more sympathy for people who break tax laws in order to keep more of the money they have earned, than for people who want money without doing anything to earn it.


This is not a conversation about private subjects, so I think it should be public rather than via DM, although the subject is wider than NYC subway fare evasion.... but it is related, because fare evasion is one relatively small example of generational welfare logic: why should I earn and spend on services, when I can just use services and have other people pay for them? Healthcare, housing, food, my kids, my subway ride - why should I pay for it if I can make other people pay for it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:15 PM
 
Location: In the heights
21,627 posts, read 23,052,716 times
Reputation: 11303
Quote:
Originally Posted by elnrgby View Post
You are showing a couple of examples of corporate crime, and trying to argue that the entire concept of tax haven is criminal, which is bizarre. Luxembourg has completely transparent financial policies, which consist of offering low corporate tax rates (not a crime, but an economic strategy in which Luxembourg found its niche), allowing international companies to incorporate in Luxembourg (which is not a crime either - anyone can incorporate anywhere they want), and reporting to the IRS all accounts that are legally reportable to the IRS. Using a tax haven is not a legal problem per se, but the companies you are citing have tried to haul the money which was in fact taxable elsewhere, under the tax-favored Luxembourg banking rules. But that is not the fault of Luxembourg or its favorable corporate tax rate.


The argument that Europe has next to no generational poverty because European social safety net has been in place for decades... Europe was in ruins with about 90% of its population in dire poverty only 2.5 generations ago, post ww2 (15 years before I was born, and within the memory of many people who are still alive). The US has provided international aid to Europe post ww2, but that aid was not overall greater than the welfare money the US has been providing to its own citizens. From that point on, all the poor Europeans have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps (ie, by everyone contributing to the social net, and almost nobody abusing it). European social safety net did not fall from the sky and magically got 90% of the population out of generational poverty in 2 generations - people's responsible social behavior got them out of poverty, generational and otherwise. What has happened in the US in the meantime? The US does not have a universal safety net partly because its social service resources are all skewed towards generational welfare users, who intend to continue using welfare forever as far as I can tell.



I am not turning a blind eye on corporate tax avoidance, but I admit that I have more sympathy for people who break tax laws in order to keep more of the money they have earned, than for people who want money without doing anything to earn it.


This is not a conversation about private subjects, so I think it should be public rather than via DM, although the subject is wider than NYC subway fare evasion.... but it is related, because fare evasion is one relatively small example of generational welfare logic: why should I earn and spend on services, when I can just use services and have other people pay for them? Healthcare, housing, food, my kids, my subway ride - why should I pay for it if I can make other people pay for it?
You should read what I wrote more closely, and then DM me if you want to talk about it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top