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 AND they have an impressive rail network, including high speed rail. And here are some examples of their populations for cities with extensive urban and suburban rail networks: Berlin, 3.5 M. Munich, 1.4 M. And yes, the Germans do own cars at about the same rate as Americans. They produce some of the best cars in the world. But somehow they have figured out how to do "powerhouse" expressway networks AND comprehensive rail networks, including high speed rail, despite their cities having the populations comparable to places like Houston and Salt Lake City (hint: expressways don't need to cut directly through city centers to be effective, and people will use a good rail system even if they own a car).
Kind of puts in to doubt the often-made claim that "you must have a population like NYC for any alternative transport system to work."
No but you do need density. And Germany urban areas, while not as dense as many of their European neighbors, certainly are very dense. The biggest difference between the US and the other industrial powers is that our industrial capacity wasn't decimated during the war. We got high rates of car ownership far earlier. Our urban areas were also growing at far greater rates. We became the guinea pigs for the autocentric suburban experiment.
No but you do need density. And Germany urban areas, while not as dense as many of their European neighbors, certainly are very dense. The biggest difference between the US and the other industrial powers is that our industrial capacity wasn't decimated during the war. We got high rates of car ownership far earlier. Our urban areas were also growing at far greater rates. We became the guinea pigs for the autocentric suburban experiment.
That's one of the things having ~50% higher taxation does.
[Germany's] corporate tax rate is 29.58%. The overall income tax rate for corporations includes corporate income tax at a rate of 15%, solidarity surcharge at a rate of 0.825% (5.5% of the corporate income tax), and local trade tax. The local trade tax generally varies between 7% and 17.15%, assuming a municipality multiplier (Hebesatz) ranging normally from 200% to 490% (the average multiplier for 2012 was 393%). The local trade tax is not deductible as a business expense.
Contrast to the US --
Quote:
The corporate income tax rate is approximately 40%. The marginal federal corporate income tax rate on the highest income bracket of corporations (currently above USD 18,333,333) is 35%. State and local governments may also impose income taxes ranging from 0% to 12%, the top marginal rates averaging approximately 7.5%. A corporation may deduct its state and local income tax expense when computing its federal taxable income, generally resulting in a net effective rate of approximately 40%. The effective rate may vary significantly depending on the locality in which a corporation conducts business. The United States also has a parallel alternative minimum tax (AMT) system, which is generally characterized by a lower tax rate (20%) but a broader tax base.
And no doubt firms like KPMG are intimately involved in making sure that the various strategies to minimize tax are as obscure as possible so that its expertise are highly sought by clients...
Fortunately there's just an easier way of comparing all taxation at all levels simultaneously. You can squeeze the balloon around and shift tax burdens this way and that, which is fair, but at a higher level than I'm contemplating.
I'm not a social engineer, so I don't really care that most people just spend all of the lower tax burden. I care that my tax burden is lower. They can use their money however they see fit.
Planners today are no better than Robert Moses. All of them are trying to force their preferences on everyone. No one had a clue how to plan for a city because they don't how how it works. This is what Jane Jacobs said in her book, The Death and Life of American Cities. What is more hilarious is how planners are using her book as a guide when she warned people not to do so.
Robert Moses did a lot of good for the city with the parks, playgrounds,pools, and the Triborough bridge Bridge. The biggest issue with Moses was his own ego. If someone wants to be arrogant fine but he was playing with the lives of people.
After the mess of the Cross Bronx Expressway, people in Greenwich Village weren't going to tolerate a expressway going through their neighborhood. I can't say I blame them. His ideas were not well-thought out. His two expressways were bad ideas. One contributing factor was that five years went by since tenants were forced to move before construction on the Cross Bronx Expressway begin, because Moses did not secure funding.
I see the same thing happening with planners today. They follow the latest trend in planning. They ignore what the people want. They don't put any thought into their idea. They waste more money than estimated. Planners assume that their plan is going to work with nothing to support their claim.
LOL so you really believe your opinion is objective and those who disagree with you are just not "sensible"? "Quality of life" is in the eye of the beholder. It's subjective. What might be "crap" quality of life for you is a great quality of life for others. What you consider to be "stressful, inconvenient and expensive" my friends in NYC consider to be "exciting, very convenient and worth the money." They have no plans on leaving, they love their lives and I live in a city nearly as expensive as NYC and still have no plans on leaving. I happily pay more in rent to live in a dense busy city because I actually LIKE noise, business, public transit, rarely driving and living in small apartments. I find lots of space, driving everywhere, mowing a lawn, etc. to be dull and depressing.
I would hate to live in a small town. To me that would be a boring, "crap" quality of life. Does that mean I don't think it is a great quality of life for many many people? Of course it is. I don't presume that my choices and outlook are the same as others.
It's amazing to me that you are (I assume) an adult and still haven't learned that other people have different preferences than you.
I am overjoyed for every diehard New Yorker who loves the City to stay right where they are. And, for like minded folks to move there in droves if they choose to do so. But, if you actually ead my post, you will see that I only said that folks who don't live in NYC or its equivalent crowded urban areas, have no interest in emulating what you do there.
The problem about using New York City as a model for other cities is that those of us in flyover country who have spent substantial time in New York City know that the quality of life there is crap compared to where we live. It is stressful, inconvenient, and expensive. New Yorkers work longer hours, spend more time commuting, have less options for the necessities of life, and put up with a less responsive and sometimes even corrupt local government than would be tolerated by most sensible folk. No one here is getting on a subway with a bunch of hooligans and drooling munters unless they have lost all other options.
Who are you referring to? People in flyover states? Because I assure you... That most on this thread do not share your sentiment. I for one, rather enjoy using the subway when I'm in New York. It's one of my favorite things to do. It's not quite as favorable for me as Chicago's "L" simply because the L provides better views of the city. To me, there's nothing more relaxing than sitting back, letting someone else "drive", and take in the views... Whether that be someone talking to themselves across from me or a beautiful skyline.
I am overjoyed for every diehard New Yorker who loves the City to stay right where they are. And, for like minded folks to move there in droves if they choose to do so. But, if you actually ead my post, you will see that I only said that folks who don't live in NYC or its equivalent crowded urban areas, have no interest in emulating what you do there.
You didn't previously state that clearly but I'm glad you have now. However, I still don't believe that everyone in your area feels this way. However, if you are truly in a "flyover" area, I doubt you'll have to worry about it anytime soon.
The problem about using New York City as a model for other cities is that those of us in flyover country who have spent substantial time in New York City know that the quality of life there is crap compared to where we live. It is stressful, inconvenient, and expensive. New Yorkers work longer hours, spend more time commuting, have less options for the necessities of life, and put up with a less responsive and sometimes even corrupt local government than would be tolerated by most sensible folk. No one here is getting on a subway with a bunch of hooligans and drooling munters unless they have lost all other options.
What???!! I can't believe what I am reading!! Life in NY is crap? Life in NY is better than anywhere in the country, unless you prefer living on a farm. Less options for the necessities of life? If you can't find what you need for life in NYC, it doesn't exist. Commute times in NYC are not bad at all compared to cities with bad traffic problems such as Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, LA, & DC. NYC has a corrupt local government? The two most corrupt local governments in the country are Detroit and Baltimore. NYC can't even come close to them when it comes to corruption. And it has been a long, long time since I have seen a hooligan or drooling munter on the subway. I have seen a few raving maniacs screaming at people on the street lately, but all one has to do is go in the opposite direction.
I know that I am not likely to convert any New Yorkers to the midwestern way of life. It was not my intention. But, my NYC friends suffer from a blindspot when it comes to NYC. Uniformly, they expect that everyone would want to live in the great City if only one had the chance. And, they fail to see the high cost they pay for saying they live in the greatest city in the . . . well . . . middle of the east coast.
If you don't get it, you won't get it. I'm happy for the civic pride. But, I have an 8 minute commute to work, a private garage across from my office, and I can walk to 62 restaurants from my residence's front door in a place where one can live in a 100 year old 5 bedroom house with an in ground pool for under a half mil. And, I can be in NYC for a museum visit or a performance for about the cost of one week's NYC city income tax on my salary. I'm glad NYC is there. Nice place to visit.
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.
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.
Not on corporations ...
