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.
This has been said before multiple times but people seem to ignore it. Yes, downstate pays more than it gets back but the policies put forth that create the high tax burden that cause businesses to leave the state are put forth by downstate politicians like that piece of garbage Silver. These policies only work downstate. Without downstate, we could get rid of these policies.
This has been said before multiple times but people seem to ignore it. Yes, downstate pays more than it gets back but the policies put forth that create the high tax burden that cause businesses to leave the state are put forth by downstate politicians like that piece of garbage Silver. These policies only work downstate. Without downstate, we could get rid of these policies.
Or could it be done on a county by county or regional basis? Meaning, that the burden would be done in a way that is according to density and could be put into proper perspective. For lack of a good example, but I liken it to the difference in driving requirements that are in the state, because the laws on those terms are put into to place due to variables like population density, transportation options and even the sociology of the areas in which the variation in law takes place.
Density would probably make more sense. As far as upstate goes, having the same policies in places like Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse and Albany would not be fair for places like Plattsburgh or Potsdam
Density would probably make more sense. As far as upstate goes, having the same policies in places like Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse and Albany would not be fair for places like Plattsburgh or Potsdam
I guess the difference there would be like how here in Upstate, you can after 9 PM before your 18th birthday if you have the driver's ed training versus someone that might not have the driver's ed training. Meaning, the tax burden would be put into "proper perspective". Hence, my thought of maybe basing the burden based on the county as a possible option and in turn, density will come into play accordingly.
Or could it be done on a county by county or regional basis? Meaning, that the burden would be done in a way that is according to density and could be put into proper perspective. For lack of a good example, but I liken it to the difference in driving requirements that are in the state, because the laws on those terms are put into to place due to variables like population density, transportation options and even the sociology of the areas in which the variation in law takes place.
A good example of one of these laws is the "Scaffold Law", which is a section of NYS labor law that applies special protection to construction workers who are injured from falls. The law basically says that the contractor is strictly liable for any work site fall, even when the contractor follows every single safety guideline and regardless of the negligence of the worker. Worker's comp insurance also provides no protection from liability under this law.
The economic impact of this law is sky-high insurance premiums and construction costs.
It can be argued that the preponderance of high-rise building in the NYC metro area makes construction work exceptionally dangerous, necessitating the law*. However, this same law applies statewide to all contractors and construction sites.
* It can also be argued that OSHA regulations have basically made the 1885 Scaffold Law obsolete, and it remains on the books for the benefit of personal injury lawyers, but that is another discussion.
This has been said before multiple times but people seem to ignore it. Yes, downstate pays more than it gets back but the policies put forth that create the high tax burden that cause businesses to leave the state are put forth by downstate politicians like that piece of garbage Silver. These policies only work downstate. Without downstate, we could get rid of these policies.
Exactly - they could strike their own balance and create policies that work for them
Given the population and money in the city it drives everything in the state and creates policies that absolutely kill upstate to the benefit of downstate
People say things like "without NYC the rest of the state would be no different than Iowa, NH, VT or WV" .... which is exactly the point and a thing that many upstate residents are not opposed to
They aren't looking to have some kind of national influence or great name recognition .... just to be able to live a fairly "simple" life, raise a family, have a steady job and continue to foster and build their local communities
People say things like "without NYC the rest of the state would be no different than Iowa, NH, VT or WV" .... which is exactly the point and a thing that many upstate residents are not opposed to
They aren't looking to have some kind of national influence or great name recognition .... just to be able to live a fairly "simple" life, raise a family, have a steady job and continue to foster and build their local communities
Upstate as a separate state would probably be a lot like Wisconsin:
Similar population
Similar makeup of industrial cities, small cities, farmland, and wilderness
wow i didnt know there was so much resentment for nyc from upstate. If anything i thought upstate would be proud to have a city like that in their state. Guess i was wrong lol
People don't resent NYC. They resent NYC politicians
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.