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.
Well what I will do is the same thing that businesses do when the cost of good, cost of service, minimum wage, taxes, or other such expenses increase...I will increase my prices....which to me means increasing rents. This is normal and nothing new.
I support and defend those who I believe are doing the right thing, even if I disagree with them on some issues, or the manner in which they are trying to impact change. He has zero interest in redistributing anything other than trying to provide his residents with better opportunities, better services, and improved QOL. If it means it costs more to have safer water (for example) due to increased regulations, that is not "redistribution", that is not "progressive socialism", that is an effective leader doing what he is supposed to do: protect and serve his the citizens he represents.
Which then causes the affected to ask for more subsidies and once again put pressure on the leadership to raise taxes. The reality is that wages have stagnated, meaning people are not earning more so those new subsidies will have to be funded by either raising taxes or borrowing against the future.
Well what I will do is the same thing that businesses do when the cost of good, cost of service, minimum wage, taxes, or other such expenses increase...I will increase my prices....which to me means increasing rents. This is normal and nothing new.
I support and defend those who I believe are doing the right thing, even if I disagree with them on some issues, or the manner in which they are trying to impact change. He has zero interest in redistributing anything other than trying to provide his residents with better opportunities, better services, and improved QOL. If it means it costs more to have safer water (for example) due to increased regulations, that is not "redistribution", that is not "progressive socialism", that is an effective leader doing what he is supposed to do: protect and serve his the citizens he represents.
While I agree that if your expenses go up, you would in turn increase your rents to offset the increase, however, there is a fine line between raising the rent $50 or $200.
If De Blasio raises property taxes and water and sewer rates excessively to the point you had to increase your tenant's rent's $200 to offset the tax increases, the likelihood would be that they would move because they can't sustain such a high rent increase. And in turn that will leave you with a vacant apartment for several months, losing money every month it remains vacant, yet your bills are still due despite the vacancy.
So do you do Mr. Sobro? Do you increase your tenant's rents $200 to offset the increase and risk the vacancy or do only increase the rent $50 which will not cause your tenants to move but you absorb the $150 difference?
If you're a smart landlord, you would raise the rents only $50 and absorb the $150 loss in order to avoid a vacancy.
So because of De Blasio's tax increases, you're losing $150 every month which equals to a annual loss of $1,800. Unless you like losing money, then De Blasio is your man.
But I'll tell you this, when De Blasio further raises your property taxes and/or water and sewage bill on your apartment rentals in the south Bronx so he can come up with the money to pay the UNION THUGS demanding more money or better yet passes some stupid law to further restrict landlords from evicting tenants or even call for a rent freeze, you'll be singing a different tune. Just watch. You Sobro at of all people, being a landlord and a businessman should know better than to support or defend a progressive socialist such as De Blasio.
He wants to redistribute your wealth that you worked so hard to gain and give it to the unions and destitutes. If you're ok with that, then by all means proceed.
DeBlasio STILL wants to tax the rich, for the sake of taxing the rich. Cuomo will provide the funds for the preschool program and called his bluff and DeBlasio is still trying to get the tax approved. He is very into redistribution of wealth.
Hilltop...under that scenario...everyone's taxes, sewer rates, and water bills would go up..so I am raising the rent $200, and other LLs are either doing the same or will try to. In the end rents go up everywhere because of this, so if I lose my tenant they will go and find something worse, smaller, further away or leave the city because if my rents are too high then you pretty much can't live in NYC at all. And there is always someone else eager to rent an apt....so I would not be worried one bit.
My take on what DeBlasio is doing is to institute a higher tax on the wealthy regardless so that not just pre-k is funded, but also whatever other initiatives he has planned (and we don't know about yet) are funded also. My heart does not bleed because the wealthy, who are enjoying the lowest tax rates in the last 100+ years, are now having to pay slightly more...which is still proportionally negligible to them. What is the big deal? If life is so much better elsewhere...you have to wonder why these suitcases full of cash keep knocking on NYC's doors to buy everything.
I am not worried about them, you shouldn't be worried about them..and they are not going anywhere. In fact the concentration of uber-wealth is growing here..not shrinking, despite the bluffs that the rich will leave. It's just smoke and mirrors....tax them on a higher rate, and let's get this city moving forward.
My heart does not bleed because the wealthy, who are enjoying the lowest tax rates in the last 100+ years, are now having to pay slightly more...which is still proportionally negligible to them. What is the big deal? If life is so much better elsewhere...you have to wonder why these suitcases full of cash keep knocking on NYC's doors to buy everything.
I am not worried about them, you shouldn't be worried about them..and they are not going anywhere. In fact the concentration of uber-wealth is growing here..not shrinking, despite the bluffs that the rich will leave. It's just smoke and mirrors....tax them on a higher rate, and let's get this city moving forward.
Is that why some powers that be are now floating the idea of a commuter tax?
It's true that the truly wealthy have been setting foot in NYC, but still keeping an arm's length.
Maybe it has now dawned on them that tax proceeds from the rich were never there to begin with so now they are turning their attention to the middle class and upper middle class workers from the suburbs.
The commuter tax was already ruled illegal so it will never be resurrected. No doubt however that the city (and state) will seek new revenue streams...tolls and bridges are already going up every year so that's tapped. I would not be surprised if congestion pricing gets back into the mix..for the past 18 months there has been a new congestion pricing scheme gaining traction and it has been tweaked to make it more palatable (at least in the short term..once it's in it's in tho).
Other than that, I suppose increased taxes across the board on everything would generate revenue but residents would probably revolt, particularly because the economy, despite what leadership says, is still lousy. If it turns around however, I could see increased taxes across the board as "justified", at least according to them.
Market rent? Her office is going to be in City Hall. NYers are paying the rent.
And who do you think will be paying her and her staff?
Thats my point. If she and her husband can pay what the market rent would be for offices in city hall, and if she and her husband want to pay for a staff for her from their private funds let her have them. But if they want tax payers to cover it then forget it.
Nancy Reagan had staff paid for by friends of Ronnie Reagan, the same ones who paid bought property and put it in trust for their use.
"New York City’s new First Lady, Chirlane McCray, will not receive a salary for her work at City Hall, the mayor’s office said this evening.
However, her new chief of staff, former Al Sharpton aide Rachel Noerdlinger, will make $170,000 a year. She will be based in the Office of the Mayor, and will be paid as a City Hall employee, the office said.
And
“Chirlane is my partner in all I do,” he added. “I’ve said that for the last year. I’m proud of that fact. And it’s going to allow us to do a lot of good for the people of New York City.”
A Quinnipiac poll released last week found most New Yorkers do not think a mayor’s spouse should have a major role shaping public policy, with 36 percent thinking they should have a minor role and 30 percent saying they should have no role at all."
Full article at link.
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.