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.
Um, maybe that is a sign of the need to cut back or completely eliminate the NYC surcharge, which for the record was supposed to be temporary when it was first introduced (but there is no such thing as a temporary tax with the left).
Many of these wealthy New Yorkers tolerated living in the city and all of the high cost of living to include taxes that came along with it (and, to be sure, New York has a lot of great things to offer from cuisine to cultural sites, etc.) when there was an understanding that government would protect personal property and be serious about combating crime.
But many of them are probably asking themselves right now why should they pay more in taxes, etc., if this most basic social contract is being torn to shreds by the "progressive" left?
Note, I am NOT wealthy by any means, but I do fairly well and would be somebody who put more into the system than I took out if I lived in NYC. But there's no way in hell that I'm going to ever live full-time again in NYC again. The City needs people like me (and the wealthy) to survive.
Seems like they haven't learned, though, as the article goes on to mention that:
To his credit, Cuomo at least doesn't support the proposed wealth tax, but that's only part of the solution. You need to roll back some of the existing taxes and make cuts to the welfare state.
This. Remove all tax disincentives (including NYC surcharge). Limit welfare support to absolute total of 24 months, during which time the welfare recipients can figure out either how to support themselves in NYC, or how to move to a low cost area of the state/country. Institute better police training to avoid rare fatal police mistakes (that receive blaring publicity while the 99.99% of the hard police work to protect the city goes unmentioned), and INCREASE funding of NYPD with the aim to remove into prisons all the 2,000 repeat criminal offenders who terrorize the city (plus institute strict vagrancy laws/restraint orders to prevent them from returning to NYC once they are out of prison). That is how NYC would actually collect MORE tax revenue (for both itself and the state), because only taxpayers (ranging from lower income people employed in service work, to billionaires) will be permanently living in the city. And see NYC thriving as the capital of the world again.
When places that currently have no state or personal income tax start adding these things on it will make a significant difference.
True, but it'll always be relative. Some politicians have fundamentally different views on taxes and services that should be provided as compared to others. NYC--on that specific front--will never be able to compete with those jurisdictions that take a different approach and with people for whom saving money in that manner matters.
This. Remove all tax disincentives (including NYC surcharge). Limit welfare support to absolute total of 24 months, during which time the welfare recipients can figure out either how to support themselves in NYC, or how to move to a low cost area of the state/country. Institute better police training to avoid rare fatal police mistakes (that receive blaring publicity while the 99.99% of the hard police work to protect the city goes unmentioned), and INCREASE funding of NYPD with the aim to remove into prisons all the 2,000 repeat criminal offenders who terrorize the city (plus institute strict vagrancy laws/restraint orders to prevent them from returning to NYC once they are out of prison). That is how NYC would actually collect MORE tax revenue (for both itself and the state), because only taxpayers (ranging from lower income people employed in service work, to billionaires) will be permanently living in the city. And see NYC thriving as the capital of the world again.
I like a lot of that plan
We definitely shouldn't be talking about cutting funding to NYPD. That's for damn sure. I get that cuts have to be made (and I advocate for it), but cutting funding from the law and order arm of the City threatens the harm said city's economy even more in the long run as people leave or decide to not move if and when crime becomes a big issue.
True, but it'll always be relative. Some politicians have fundamentally different views on taxes and services that should be provided as compared to others. NYC--on that specific front--will never be able to compete with those jurisdictions that take a different approach and with people for whom saving money in that manner matters.
These politicians are from places with lower populations, which in turn demands less infrastructure and less social services.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Funny Cuomo never mentions about tightening his governmental expenditures. No, its always about Mo money Mo money Mo money.
The only time I've heard the left talk about cutting government expenditures is as it relates to defunding the police. But, even then, they are really just moving the money around, so these aren't true expenditure cuts.
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.
