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 if it's INVESTMENT income. And the very rich make sure that ALL their money is INVESTMENT INCOME.
The capital gains tax rates have a new 20% top rate. There are now three tiers of tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends: 0%, 15%, and 20%. (Capital gains could also be subject to the new net investment income tax of 3.8%, making the top rate on long-term gains effectively 23.8% combined.)
The basics: Qualified dividends, as well as capital gains, for individuals in the 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% income-tax brackets will continue to be taxed at 15%. Individuals with more than $400,000 in taxable income—and couples with more than $450,000—will see the rate rise to 20%
Not true if ALL income taxes are considered. Social Securitry INCOME taxes approach zero percent for the very rich but are a very large bite out of the income of those making less than $100K. And of course, Medicare tax is ZERO percent on investment income.
So I repeat, the rich DO NOT pay their fair share although all costs of police, armies, armaments are in place solely to protect the wealth of the wealthy. (See, otherwise we wouldn't have to fight the LEFT everywhere on planet Earth.)
Social security is for social insurance. Its not the same as the other taxes you are talking about, its a system you pay into and get back from. Everyone should have some skin in the game, that's why everyone pays in. But once you go above a certain level people should be able to use their earnings to save for their own retirement. That's why it was set up that way with the original good intentions, and why it continues that way with a reasonable cap.
The cost of milk is basically zero to a rich guy and a real expense to the poor guy. And so what?
Social security is for social insurance. Its not the same as the other taxes you are talking about, its a system you pay into and get back from. Everyone should have some skin in the game, that's why everyone pays in. But once you go above a certain level people should be able to use their earnings to save for their own retirement. That's why it was set up that way with the original good intentions, and why it continues that way with a reasonable cap.
The cost of milk is basically zero to a rich guy and a real expense to the poor guy. And so what?
Social Security isn't enough to plan for retirement and was never meant to be. As a form of social insurance it gives you the minimum to get buy. Those with sufficient income do other things to prepare for retirement, such as buying property, making various investments, purchasing long term care insurance, getting a job that pays a pension, etc.
Social Security is a ponzi scheme. I would rather opt out and use the money to fund my own retirement at my discretion, but the government knows best and forces everyone to pay.
Social Security is a ponzi scheme. I would rather opt out and use the money to fund my own retirement at my discretion, but the government knows best and forces everyone to pay.
If the social security cap was removed, there would be a strong lobbying pressure from those affected to enable an opt-out so they can invest their money for retirement, rather than the government. Such schemes already exist in more welfare and socially-oriented countries such as Britain.
If the demand holds and those apartments are occupied by an influx of outsiders, then you now have a lot of property tax being paid to the city earned from these new properties in Bushwick. These funds can be spent on expanding mass transits, education, and subsidies to the poor.
You also have a lot of underutilized former industrial space in Bushwick. So why not turn it into high rise housing if the demand is there? There's a chance that if all these former industrialized areas are converted into high rising housing, rents could go down as demand lowers (depends on how many people are moving to NYC from other places). Even if it's not enough to make rents go down, at least the city now has a lot more money coming in property taxes. So it's win win either way.
I agree with you about turning industrial space into high-rise housing. But I don't agree with you that it makes NYC more affordable. Typically, increased supply means lower prices. But demand is so strong, with no end in site, it will not be enough to lower rents.
My point was that these new buildings will make the surrounding residential areas more desirable, and those rents and housing prices will skyrocket, leaving working-class people with even fewer options.
I agree with you about turning industrial space into high-rise housing. But I don't agree with you that it makes NYC more affordable. Typically, increased supply means lower prices. But demand is so strong, with no end in site, it will not be enough to lower rents.
My point was that these new buildings will make the surrounding residential areas more desirable, and those rents and housing prices will skyrocket, leaving working-class people with even fewer options.
So what do you think should be done for the working class? Please don't say Bloomberg was great for them. If things pan out as you suggest under de Blasio (the new housing displacing even more people and hurting even more working class people) it would be a continuation of policies started under Giuliani and Bloomberg.
So what do you think should be done to stop working class people from being pushed into ever small and ever more overcrowded conditions?
The best thing any mayor can do for the poor people of NYC is to buy them a one-way Greyhound bus ticket to somewhere else. Pay for their cab ride to the PABT, just as icing on the cake. Unless you want to use a dirty subway seat as a pillow for the rest of your life, NYC is no place to be poor, or anything close to it. Rents will NOT stabilize. It will only continue to get worse and worse.
The best thing any mayor can do for the poor people of NYC is to buy them a one-way Greyhound bus ticket to somewhere else. Pay for their cab ride to the PABT, just as icing on the cake. Unless you want to use a dirty subway seat as a pillow for the rest of your life, NYC is no place to be poor, or anything close to it. Rents will NOT stabilize. It will only continue to get worse and worse.
Affordable housing is now being expanded by the city. The city is legally bound to house all homeless. Countless charities and food kitchens exist here in excess of their proportion in other cities. The backlog of repairs on NYCHA places is being addressed. Social programs for the welfare-claiming poor and working-poor are being increased. There's many reasons why so many poor people come here. They're not all home-grown!
You lack a basic understanding of the purpose of social security. It was set
up as an insurance program
However it was "set up," it is now an INCOME tax on those earning wages of less than $ 117,000...and then stops for higher wage earners. It is ZERO on investment income.
It is money tossed into the general revenue fund to be spent just like any other federal tax and along with the Medicare INCOME tax it amounts to 1/3 of all the money the government takes in.
It has long ago ceased to be anything like an insurance program...it is an income tax on lower wage WORKERS.
So pardon me if I scoff at the goofy concept of the rich paying to run the government...they don't.
What many do not know is that >60% of the current rental housing in NYC falls under some type of regulation (RC, RS, Mitchell-Lama, 80/20 and so forth). Do not think any other major US city has equal or more numbers of units that fall under such controls, and yet NYC still has a problem with housing *affordability* for not only the very poor, but poor, working and even middle class.
If having a majority of rental housing already under government regulation has not made a difference in solving NYC's problems, the answer clearly is not only going to be to subject a larger share.
There is a reason developers are building condos, co-ops or luxury rental housing. There is not only where they find profits, but also do not have to subject themselves to yet more regulation in a housing market that is already highly regulated.
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.
