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.
They need to open their Primaries. If they do, being Unaffiliated is the way to go for everybody, since you can vote in whichever primary you want, each election.
Either that, or just - stop having primaries entirely. Let 20 Republicans run on the GOP ticket if they really want it that badly. And 20 Democrats on the Dem ticket if they want. May the best person win, regardless of their affiliation. Or better still - have them run on no party at all. Make their candidacy unaffiliated, eliminate political party designations completely, get rid of party-collected funding, no more PACs and super-PACs. "Entities" may no longer contribute to candidates or fund trips or pay for advertising. Only individual people can, they must be human, they must be registered voters, and they must not exceed $5000 donation per donor per election season.
Anything not used must be given to the recognized non-religious-based non-political-based charity of their choice. And if they need more money they can get a better job and earn it, or sell off their Bentley and use the proceeds for another ridiculous ad that doesn't tell anyone what they stand FOR, only that the other candidate stinks.
They need to open their Primaries. If they do, being Unaffiliated is the way to go for everybody, since you can vote in whichever primary you want, each election.
I disagree. Why should the Democrats have a say on whom the Republicans nominate for an office, or vice versa?
For example, if I were a Democrat and thought that we had a strong candidate who was a shoo-in to win the Democrat nomination, then I would use my Primary vote to vote for the LEAST favorable Republican in order to increase the odds that my Democrat nominee would win in the general election.
Another "trick" would be for the Democrats to nominate only one candidate so that he/she would be assured of winning. Then all the Democrat voters could use their vote to vote for the LEAST favorable Republican in order to increase the odds that their Democrat nominee would win in the general election.
Nope, there's just too many shenanigans that could go on if we allow Dems to vote in the Pub's primary and vice versa.
I disagree. Why should the Democrats have a say on whom the Republicans nominate for an office, or vice versa?
For example, if I were a Democrat and thought that we had a strong candidate who was a shoo-in to win the Democrat nomination, then I would use my Primary vote to vote for the LEAST favorable Republican in order to increase the odds that my Democrat nominee would win in the general election.
Another "trick" would be for the Democrats to nominate only one candidate so that he/she would be assured of winning. Then all the Democrat voters could use their vote to vote for the LEAST favorable Republican in order to increase the odds that their Democrat nominee would win in the general election.
Nope, there's just too many shenanigans that could go on if we allow Dems to vote in the Pub's primary and vice versa.
...and yet, there are states where open primaries are allowed, but the perils you describe don't happen.
I am unaffiliated. I CAN be any party I choose to be if I want to vote in the primaries. As long as I declare for the party within the right window of time, I'm good to go. I WILL vote Blue in the General Election, no matter who ends up winning the Democratic primary. A thumbtack with a smiley face painted on the head could be the Dem nominee and I'll vote for it.
So it's nothing to me, to declare as a Republican, and vote for the least favorable GOP candidate, and just not vote in the Democrat primary at all since I don't care which one of them wins the primary.
And then after the primary, I'll change my affiliation back to unaffiliated.
...and yet, there are states where open primaries are allowed, but the perils you describe don't happen.
I am unaffiliated. I CAN be any party I choose to be if I want to vote in the primaries. As long as I declare for the party within the right window of time, I'm good to go. I WILL vote Blue in the General Election, no matter who ends up winning the Democratic primary. A thumbtack with a smiley face painted on the head could be the Dem nominee and I'll vote for it.
So it's nothing to me, to declare as a Republican, and vote for the least favorable GOP candidate, and just not vote in the Democrat primary at all since I don't care which one of them wins the primary.
And then after the primary, I'll change my affiliation back to unaffiliated.
Sounds like you are exactly the kind of voter I described in my post above. You will vote for any old jackass (Democrat) in the general election regardless how retarded or inept (like Biden) they may be. Thanks for confirming my post above.
Sounds like you are exactly the kind of voter I described in my post above. You will vote for any old jackass (Democrat) in the general election regardless how retarded or inept (like Biden) they may be. Thanks for confirming my post above.
Absolutely. But you think that having closed primaries is some kind of deterrent. As if people are required to be either registered Democrats, or registered Republicans, and no one is ever allowed to change their affiliation and are required to only vote for that party they've always been affiliated in.
My point, is that you are wrong. There are other options for affiliation, including none at all. And - anyone can change their affiliation at any point, with the exception of the primaries, when they have until a certain date (I think it's 45 days? I don't remember). And then you can change your affiliation back any time you want after the primary. Even a registered Democrat can flip to GOP for voting in the GOP primary. They just wouldn't be able to then vote in their own primary. They'd have to pick one.
That is true for both open and closed primaries, nationwide.
Look, I am a staunch Democrat with some conservative talking points (especially on education, book ban and some tax reforms). However, I see the huge flaws of living in NY/NJ. Taxes are so high it is actually insane, and you can't buy a house here. It has become a playground for the very wealthy and the very poor. Carved out the middle man.
I know I will get a lot of flack for this- But maybe, just maybe, does Florida have something going on? The QOL is pretty high in Florida, its relatively affordable GIVEN the influx of 2 million people in 4 years (NBY/NJ lost about 1 million people in 4 years and prices are up 50-60% in that time), and people seem content.
Is there a middle ground we can agree on where we can be a little more inclusive BUT keep Florida the way it is? Personally, I hope the mass migration to Florida slows to a tamer pace (Like 100-200k a year + natural growth) so it can keep up.
Look, I am a staunch Democrat with some conservative talking points (especially on education, book ban and some tax reforms). However, I see the huge flaws of living in NY/NJ. Taxes are so high it is actually insane, and you can't buy a house here. It has become a playground for the very wealthy and the very poor. Carved out the middle man.
I know I will get a lot of flack for this- But maybe, just maybe, does Florida have something going on? The QOL is pretty high in Florida, its relatively affordable GIVEN the influx of 2 million people in 4 years (NBY/NJ lost about 1 million people in 4 years and prices are up 50-60% in that time), and people seem content.
Is there a middle ground we can agree on where we can be a little more inclusive BUT keep Florida the way it is? Personally, I hope the mass migration to Florida slows to a tamer pace (Like 100-200k a year + natural growth) so it can keep up.
The majority of that influx are retirees who will contribute nothing to the state other than consumerism, and a customer for health care. Unfortunately, health care in Florida is not that great, because it's understaffed and underpaid. In the areas where there are a lot of retiree clusters, you won't find much in the way of geriatrics specialties, which is what's needed most.
Doctors and other medical professionals just aren't lining up at the door trying to get into Florida to open their practices.
Prices go up because retirees typically have assets - such as their previous house that they've owned outright for awhile, that they can use to make the move south. Builders and developers are building primarily 55+ communities, or other deed restricted communities that cater to the people who won't be serving their residents. So in addition to a shortage of medical care, you also have a shortage of ordinary business employees - the cashier at Walmart, the drycleaner shop, the teller at the bank, the stock clerk at the supermarket, the pool cleaning guy. Even landscapers are struggling, because many of their immigrant employees have run out of Florida. Those are the ones who are *documented* and lawfully here. But they know they'll be profiled with the state comes looking for the unlawful ones, and it just isn't worth the less-than-minimum-wage hassle. So they've taken their skills elsewhere.
Public schools are now only educating the least likely to succeed in life, because the state has reduced public education to "creating worker drones who will obey and not question or think for themselves." So you have to be able to afford sending your kid to private school if you want them to actually learn anything about living outside in the real world. And then, if your kids stay in Florida, they'll be surrounded by all those worker drone kids, who have either complied, or rebelled - because those are the only choices the state has allowed them to have.
It's definitely not a state where I would want to raise a family. If I had other options at the time, it wouldn't have been my first choice for a retirement home either.
The majority of that influx are retirees who will contribute nothing to the state other than consumerism, and a customer for health care. Unfortunately, health care in Florida is not that great, because it's understaffed and underpaid. In the areas where there are a lot of retiree clusters, you won't find much in the way of geriatrics specialties, which is what's needed most.
Doctors and other medical professionals just aren't lining up at the door trying to get into Florida to open their practices.
Prices go up because retirees typically have assets - such as their previous house that they've owned outright for awhile, that they can use to make the move south. Builders and developers are building primarily 55+ communities, or other deed restricted communities that cater to the people who won't be serving their residents. So in addition to a shortage of medical care, you also have a shortage of ordinary business employees - the cashier at Walmart, the drycleaner shop, the teller at the bank, the stock clerk at the supermarket, the pool cleaning guy. Even landscapers are struggling, because many of their immigrant employees have run out of Florida. Those are the ones who are *documented* and lawfully here. But they know they'll be profiled with the state comes looking for the unlawful ones, and it just isn't worth the less-than-minimum-wage hassle. So they've taken their skills elsewhere.
Public schools are now only educating the least likely to succeed in life, because the state has reduced public education to "creating worker drones who will obey and not question or think for themselves." So you have to be able to afford sending your kid to private school if you want them to actually learn anything about living outside in the real world. And then, if your kids stay in Florida, they'll be surrounded by all those worker drone kids, who have either complied, or rebelled - because those are the only choices the state has allowed them to have.
It's definitely not a state where I would want to raise a family. If I had other options at the time, it wouldn't have been my first choice for a retirement home either.
Tbf, a lot of migration to Florida, recently, are families and young adults, especially GenZ. Us GenZ are flocking to Florida because rents in other great states (Like MA, NY, WA, CA, NJ, etc) are so high we can't afford to live there anymore since there is an agglomeration of wealth at the top. Tampa has been a steady pipeline of 21-29 year olds this decade and Orlando/SoFlo have had a huge influx of 30-49 year old families. Florida isn't really for the 'old' retired communities anymore. Its churning a TON of younger people. I was in Miami last week, and the vast majority of people I saw around the different neighborhoods were 20-40. Even FLL has become younger over the past few years.
Up North, we have great public schools. I live in NJ, its #3 after MA and CT. However, a 400k home pays 15k in taxes a year to sustain those schools. If you are middle./lower middle/poor in these states up here, you will get the worst of the worst in education. NJ has higher highs and lower lows than FL. I went to a good school around Orlando for HS, and OCPS gave me way more opportunities than my hometown in MA and current town in NJ would have.
I like the Northeast a lot, but $4500 for a 1000sqft, nice-ish 2 bedroom is standard to be within 45 minutes of NYC. One bedrooms are 2500-3500. Idk how thats okay.
You're comparing way too many things. You're also not merely moving goalposts, you're adding goalposts to different games to the existing game.
The only time you have to care that you're 45 minutes from NYC is if you work in NYC. You can't compare rental prices on apartments with purchase prices of homes, they don't compare anywhere, even in the same neighborhood in the same town.
Connecticut taxes are significantly lower than New Jersey taxes, so even that isn't a fair comparison. I just checked a random house in Norwalk, CT - which IS less than an hour from NYC, and the listing price is $499k, a full hundred thousand dollars more than that house you claim has a $15,000 yearly tax burden. That house in CT's yearly tax is $7,428 for this current year (2023). It's a 2 bedroom three full bathroom ranch house with 1434 square feet, an attached one car garage on a half-acre of land on a cul-de-sac.
Estimated monthly payment for that would be under $3,500/month for a 30-year mortgage, including taxes and homeowner insurance, IF you put 20% down payment.
Now, if you want to rent an apartment, you'll be dealing with a whole other ball of wax. But if you're comparing home prices to home prices, including all the taxes that go with it, Connecticut isn't that far off from Florida. And Florida is DEFINITELY more than 45 minutes from NYC so you need to just leave that entire criteria right out.
You're comparing way too many things. You're also not merely moving goalposts, you're adding goalposts to different games to the existing game.
The only time you have to care that you're 45 minutes from NYC is if you work in NYC. You can't compare rental prices on apartments with purchase prices of homes, they don't compare anywhere, even in the same neighborhood in the same town.
Connecticut taxes are significantly lower than New Jersey taxes, so even that isn't a fair comparison. I just checked a random house in Norwalk, CT - which IS less than an hour from NYC, and the listing price is $499k, a full hundred thousand dollars more than that house you claim has a $15,000 yearly tax burden. That house in CT's yearly tax is $7,428 for this current year (2023). It's a 2 bedroom three full bathroom ranch house with 1434 square feet, an attached one car garage on a half-acre of land on a cul-de-sac.
Estimated monthly payment for that would be under $3,500/month for a 30-year mortgage, including taxes and homeowner insurance, IF you put 20% down payment.
Now, if you want to rent an apartment, you'll be dealing with a whole other ball of wax. But if you're comparing home prices to home prices, including all the taxes that go with it, Connecticut isn't that far off from Florida. And Florida is DEFINITELY more than 45 minutes from NYC so you need to just leave that entire criteria right out.
Yes folks live in CT. Im comparing working in Jacksonville to working in New York City. Thats the point of this discussion, job markets and transferring our wealth where our dollar goes further. Lets break it down.
1. Norwalk =\= Greater New York. Falls outside Greater New York. Less than a thousand Norwalk residents work in Manhattan (im a transportation planner in NYC)
2. Norwalk = 1:45 to Midtown Manhattan, 2+ hours to Wall Street. 2+ hours driving by commute. Even Stamford’s express trains are too far for regular commuting, not to mention Norwalk. Yikes.
Even so, if we use Norwalk, the average home price is $555k. Mill rate is 30.47. Meaning, your effective tax rate is 3.047% on every assessed $1,000. Granted, I see Norwalk usually appraises like what.. 60% of your actual value? Therefore, one can assume the average $555k home in Norwalk would pays about 10k in property taxes per year. For a city, 2 hours to NYC, thats not good. But it isnt New York City region… thats the issue here. Its like pulling Palm Bay for Orlando. Or Lake Mary, for Jacksonville.
Lets circle out to the actual commutable area around NYC. Find me a single mortgage payment with 10% down (remember, most people dont have $150k just hanging around), under $3,500. Maybe a few co-ops in Union City or gut jobs in Newark or White Plains, but its virtually impossible here. Renting is your only option unless you are in the top 5%. A 4 bedroom home in a beautiful suburban area of Jacksonville, 15 minutes to a prospective CBD/Job Market, has a cheaper monthly payment WITH 7% interest rates, are 75% the cost of me renting my little tiny garden apartment in Bergen County with my unlimited congestion and overcrowded and underperforming trains. Comparing rents to rents., my apartment would be $2,000 in Bergen County and $3,500 in NYC. But in Jacksonville, it is $1200 near downtown, and possibly less than $1k in the suburbs. In fact, to equal my rent I pay here, I can rent a 3 bedroom 2 bath house OR a new construction 2 bed apartment, over 1000sqft, near the beach. And still have $100 left over to make up for FL’s higher vehicle insurance.
In Florida, specifically Tampa and Jacksonville, you have really strong job markets with a lot of younger folks moving down. Us GenZ cannot make it work up here anymore. We are in ohr 20s and the rich are keep us out of our home cities (dont get me started on Boston…) while gentrifying every speck of land they can.
Im not saying one is better than the other. But around NYC, theres not a particularly bright future for POC/Socioeconomically disadvantaged/younger people due to the rich gatekeeping these cities. Its not like we don’t want to live there. We do. But places like Jacksonville, Tampa, Minneapolis, Raleigh and Charlotte are just so much more desirable on the dollar bill, even putting weather aside. Morale is low here, especially from Native New Yorkers.
I love working for the Transportation industry here, but even our combined $200k salary doesn’t go too far here at our young age. It would be $185-195k in Jacksonville, but we would bring home more money and have lower housing costs its a no brainer for a lot of us.
The tldr is: renting and buying is significantly more up here than down in Florida. Its significantly cheaper to live down south and for a lot of people, wages are similar. The benefits weigh nicely.
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.
