Parkway West WORST Congestion outside NY & LA (Pittsburgh, York: sales, buyer)

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Some people think an example of integrity is sticking with an employer who offered you an opening to your chosen career when nobody else would, and who spent time and money training you.

As an aside, modern corporations will "downsize" you if they think it will be good for their bottom line. Accordingly, I don't think most corporate employees owe their employers more than reasonable notice if they want to leave, for whatever reason they feel like.

In short, if you are an "at will" employee, they should be no more than your "at will" employer.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Lobick

I just wish the cost of ownership better reflected the societal costs they (and all motor vehicles) inflict. After that, should an individual still want to buy and operate one, I've no issue.

I'd be fine with that too, and in fact the likely result is that more of the people buying SUVs would have a practical reason to buy one, as opposed to just liking the aesthetics.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

Jesus Christ, can we stop with anti-suburbs rhetoric already? Not everyone want to live in a city, not everyone wants to pay the city taxes, and not everyone wants to live on top of one another. This is coming from someone who has lived in the inner city for most of his life. I swear, some Americans actually want 7 million people living in a city Bangkok style.

I wonder what you people think of rural areas. Are they a bunch of backwards, country bumpkin no-go zones?

I recognize that some people want to live in McMansions, or on 10 acre plots in Butler County. That's fine. Just don't ask us city-dwellers to subsidize it at the expense of our local roads, public transportation, and lost tax dollars (in the case of commuters to Pittsburgh).

Living in a huge house with a 2 car garage and owning a lot of land should be a luxury, not something that is subsidized.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by ferrarisnowday

I recognize that some people want to live in McMansions, or on 10 acre plots in Butler County. That's fine. Just don't ask us city-dwellers to subsidize it at the expense of our local roads, public transportation, and lost tax dollars (in the case of commuters to Pittsburgh).

Living in a huge house with a 2 car garage and owning a lot of land should be a luxury, not something that is subsidized.

You're assuming that all those people living in McMansions in Butler County work downtown. Seriously doubt that. I wonder how many people that work at the Cranberry Westinghouse live in the city?

And how do you city types subsidize my lifestyle or that of many of my neighbors? Should they pay more to the city because it can't figure out how to be fiscally responsible? A

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Copanut

And how do you city types subsidize my lifestyle or that of many of my neighbors?

County, state, and federal taxation and spending generally has this effect (economic activities that occur in core urban areas are taxed and on a net basis the proceeds are disproportionately spent in farther out areas). To the extent local taxation of earned income is based on place of residence rather than place of work it also tends to have this effect.

Now of course it is true all this varies on an individual level. But if, say, we switched to taxing earned income at place of work rather than place of residence, it would predictably result in a much larger earned income tax base being available to the City of Pittsburgh, and a smaller one being available in many suburbs.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

County, state, and federal taxation and spending generally has this effect (economic activities that occur in core urban areas are taxed and on a net basis the proceeds are disproportionately spent in farther out areas). To the extent local taxation of earned income is based on place of residence rather than place of work it also tends to have this effect.

Now of course it is true all this varies on an individual level. But if, say, we switched to taxing earned income at place of work rather than place of residence, it would predictably result in a much larger earned income tax base being available to the City of Pittsburgh, and a smaller one being available in many suburbs.

I'm half joking, this suburbs vs city crap gets old. One can't exist without the other.

The City just needs to be careful if they start hitting commuters with increased taxes. Surrounding counties love when that happens.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But if, say, we switched to taxing earned income at place of work rather than place of residence, it would predictably result in a much larger earned income tax base being available to the City of Pittsburgh, and a smaller one being available in many suburbs.

I would really like to see a breakdown percentage wise, of how many in the downtown workforce are from the 'burbs. And how many in Allegheny County work in the suburbs.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by Copanut

The City just needs to be careful if they start hitting commuters with increased taxes. Surrounding counties love when that happens.

Maybe...but it works the other way too. If everybody is paying 3% (or some such number), some people's rationales for not living in the City or certain other close suburbs go away as does a reason for enduring a long commute.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by Copanut

You're assuming that all those people living in McMansions in Butler County work downtown. Seriously doubt that. I wonder how many people that work at the Cranberry Westinghouse live in the city?

And how do you city types subsidize my lifestyle or that of many of my neighbors?

I agree with you and doubt that most people living in Butler County work in downtown Pittsburgh; however they still use a lot of rural/suburban infrastructure that is subsidized by the state, which gets much of it's money from Allegheny County, which gets most of it's money from Downtown Pittsburgh jobs. (See Allegheny's angling just for a fair share from state transit aid - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette for some stats to back this up).

Should they pay more to the city because it can't figure out how to be fiscally responsible

If they work in the city, yes, they probably should. Not because the city is irresponsible, but because someone who is in the city on a daily basis is very likely costing more than the $52 annual tax that commuters currently pay.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Copanut

I would really like to see a breakdown percentage wise, of how many in the downtown workforce are from the 'burbs. And how many in Allegheny County work in the suburbs.

I don't have all such numbers handy, but according to Chris Briem the number of jobs located in the City is around 300,000, and from state labor data the number of employed people living in the City is around 140,000. So at a minimum around half of the jobs in the City are being worked by people living outside the City.

Of course some people live in the City and work outside of it, but for every person that does that, that means there has to be yet another person living outside the City and working inside it. So when it comes to the tax base consequences of where we tax earned income, it is really that net number of extra commuters that matters, and we know the net number of extra commuters in the City is very, very high.