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.
So long as we have a very wealthy class that believes they are above any responsibility for the society we will have class warfare. Most of the time the lower classes lose this war. Even in a Democratic Republic we have to realize the Golden Rule - "He that has the gold makes the rules" still dominates the society and the economy. The very wealthy still believe that that we exist for their benefit and not the other way around.
So long as we have a very wealthy class that believes they are above any responsibility for the society we will have class warfare. Most of the time the lower classes lose this war. Even in a Democratic Republic we have to realize the Golden Rule - "He that has the gold makes the rules" still dominates the society and the economy. The very wealthy still believe that that we exist for their benefit and not the other way around.
""""The very wealthy still believe that that we exist for their benefit and not the other way around""""
What's really weird is that so many middle class Americans feel the same way!!!!
If some of the people that **** and moan about the wealthy applied some of the good financial practices they use, they wouldn't have so much to **** and moan about.
If some of the people that **** and moan about the wealthy applied some of the good financial practices they use, they wouldn't have so much to **** and moan about.
It's easier to be given a fish than to go get one yourself, it's always been that way.
I agree! You know what its like when the government is run by a bunch of idiots? Any tax revenue goes to pay public contruction projects that are thought up by thier friends and their friends get rich and so do the politicians because they are going to be getting kickbacks for making their friends rich. But really the state of NY gets more than enough money to run an efficient government but that is the trouble with states they believe they always need more money for services that the majority of the people are not going to use.
Not once did I tell you to go out and "get wealthy", thats not even close to the topic of the thread. The situatuion is, if you tax those that can afford to move, they move, leaving those left who cant afford to move to pickup the tag.
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but if this premise were actually true, all of the billionaires (and rather many of their millionaire friends) would already live in whatever the most tax-advantageous state currently is. They don't. That's because there is no such thing as a direct relationship between state and local taxes and decisions on place of residence. Taxes are one factor among a great many, another of them being the quality of services and ancillary amenities that those taxes go to provide and support. You can't have season tickets to the Met if you live in freaking Beaumont.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
i.e. cut spending? You almost get it, and then you dont. CUT SPENDING.. Maybe NYC should have thought of that to begin with and they wouldnt be losing their $5M a year, + whoever else leaves.
Right! What the country and likely NYC suffer from is a shortage of public goods. Too many people have bought into the notion that they know how to spend their money better than some bureaucrat in Washington or wherever. Unfortunately, a private citizen cannot decide to spend money on better roads, more mass transit, decent libraries and public parks, or any other good or service that the private sector fails to provide -- and the list of those is quite a long one. You are stuck instead with a menu of consumer goods. Choose one from Column-A or one from Column-A. Take a look at the countries with a higher reported quality-of-life than ours. How many have a rather more substantial Column-B?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
And again, you ALMOST get it.. If a lot of wasteful things can be cut from the government...
And those would be??? And the actual-final-grand-total amount that you think you can safely cut out is???
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
i.e. NYC took over a failed "business" and subsidized the losses by taxing people..
Uh, yes...that's one of the things that government does. Mass transit benefits many more people than just those who ride it. The fair share of revenue derived from riders alone will necessarily not cover total costs. The rest is raised via taxes from those who benefit without ever passing through a turnstile. Pretty simple thing, really.
Right! What the country and likely NYC suffer from is a shortage of public goods. Too many people have bought into the notion that they know how to spend their money better than some bureaucrat in Washington or wherever. Unfortunately, a private citizen cannot decide to spend money on better roads, more mass transit, decent libraries and public parks, or any other good or service that the private sector fails to provide -- and the list of those is quite a long one. You are stuck instead with a menu of consumer goods. Choose one from Column-A or one from Column-A. Take a look at the countries with a higher reported quality-of-life than ours. How many have a rather more substantial Column-B?
Not at all what I said, but your twisting the comments to pretend I did is expected. This privat citizen in the story decided not to spend ANY of his money to develop ANYTHING in NYC anymore. He decided that he would rather give his money to another city to spend.. For your slowless the equation is..
Choose from City A or City B, and if you choose City B, then City A loses..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
And those would be??? And the actual-final-grand-total amount that you think you can safely cut out is???
I'm not the one who made the statement that NYC had wasteful spending, I'm the one who stated that NYC will have to find some, $5M of it, to make up for the lost revenue. Its that or you cust services, which services do those here who think that "tax the rich" till they move think NYC can live without? After all, I'm not the one moaning and groaning about the rich not paying their fare share, i'm simply pointing out the obvious, that many liberals here want to ignore.
You tax someone to much, they move, you lose revenue and then have to cut services or raise taxes on everyone that cant afford to move.
The irony that you liberals dont understand this, even though this is a prime example of it isnt lost.
I'm not the one who made the statement that NYC had wasteful spending, I'm the one who stated that NC will have to find some, $5M of it, to make up for the lost revenue. Its that or you cust services, which services do those here who think that "tax the rich" till they move think NYC can live without? After all, I'm not the one moaning and groaning about the rich not paying their fare share, i'm simply pointing out the obvious, that many liberals here want to ignore.
You tax someone to much, they move, you lose revenue and then have to cut services or raise taxes on everyone that cant afford to move.
The irony that you liberals dont understand this, even though this is a prime example of it isnt lost.
You still dont' get it.. there is no correlation between the taxes and those that move out of NYC.
NYC is UNIQUE in that it offers those "rich" opportunities they'd be hard pressed to find anywhere else. Even if they call some other state their "home" they still have "homes" in NY. I believe someone even pointed that out in the article. OH.. and his business may well still be in NY generating income to which he will pay income taxes.
As far as now having to come up with 5M.. THAT combined with other issues regarding NYC and tax revenue (lost revenue due to the economic situation across the nation and wall street).. Yes.. that is a problem .
But I'll say it ONE MORE TIME>. when ONE person leaves ANOTHER or eve TWO will take his place. NYC's population is GROWING.. NOT shrinking.
BTW.. I say wasteful spending although I do not know of any specifics but we all know that government can find more efficient ways of handling things that would cut costs.
OH.. and his business may well still be in NY generating income to which he will pay income taxes.
Do you know this?
Even if he does, do you know how he has the business structured as far as taxes are concerned? I doubt he got rich by being stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy
But I'll say it ONE MORE TIME>. when ONE person leaves ANOTHER or eve TWO will take his place. NYC's population is GROWING.. NOT shrinking.
.
And I'll say this one more time.
Do you know he is 'leaving' and selling anything and not just declaring Florida as his legal residence?
He may well simply be removing his income tax 'contribution'
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.
! You know what its like when the government is run by a bunch of idiots? Any tax revenue goes to pay public contruction projects that are thought up by thier friends and their friends get rich and so do the politicians because they are going to be getting kickbacks for making their friends rich. But really the state of NY gets more than enough money to run an efficient government but that is the trouble with states they believe they always need more money for services that the majority of the people are not going to use.
