tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post1909405896777788657..comments2023-10-28T06:41:07.069-07:00Comments on Ambition, Impatience and Sloth: Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06427208386709900367noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-11375440955202870752008-08-11T12:03:00.000-07:002008-08-11T12:03:00.000-07:00http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/pater...http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/paterson-proposes-26-billion-in-cuts/Feralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812523941671650852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-5314837780198083262008-08-08T15:59:00.000-07:002008-08-08T15:59:00.000-07:00STop me, oh-huh-ho stop me, stop if you think that...STop me, oh-huh-ho stop me, stop if you think that you've heard this one before, but New York is really in a position to do things other cities can't do. The argument about driving the wealthy to leave the relevant jurisdiction always has some force, but let's face it - people just want to live in New York. It's New York. You can tax those millionaires, or, as Feral suggests, just those billionaires, quite a bit more than you could in many other cities, because it's New York.<BR/><BR/>It's true that local- and state-level tax policy makers are often faced with this very real dilemna - people, and even more so businesses, can and do play municipalities and states off against each other. It's one reason why many things are better done at the federal level, so cities and states aren't faced with this sword of Damocles: chase taxpayers across the state line or slash services.<BR/><BR/>But NYC is fortunate to be an exception. Similar to San Francisco. So many people want to live there that you can impose substantial levies before it affects the local economy at all. At some point, obviously, that may change - NYC might become uncool, or taxes might rise so high that you kill the golden goose and the billionaires all move to Bridgeport or Trenton. But I think it's pretty clear that we're well short of that point - as evidenced by the fact that Feral is chortling right now at the thought of wealthy New Yorkers agreeing to leave Manhattan for Bridgeport or Trenton.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-15707022153468674882008-08-08T10:01:00.000-07:002008-08-08T10:01:00.000-07:00I think that, in many ways, tax policy is beside t...I think that, in many ways, tax policy is beside the point. On a federal level, we could rake in gazillions more than we currently do without changing the tax code at all - we'd just need to really enforce the code that we've got. The reason we don't is the same reason that taxing the rich at a state level doesn't work - the rich use their money to get access to, and influence with, the elected officials who set tax policy. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what the answer is. I sometimes think that we're growing to expect more from our democracy that it can realistically deliver.<BR/><BR/>EricAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-43732270139958126252008-08-07T08:46:00.000-07:002008-08-07T08:46:00.000-07:00That was sort of what I was getting at with "Burn ...That was sort of what I was getting at with "Burn the witch." Taxing the prosperous, while it might not actually comprise "punishing the successful for their success," might be part of the solution but it doesn't necessarily get at the root causes of the problems. <BR/><BR/>And I agree that ideology shouldn't be thrown out altogether--though on some never-gonna-happen level, I'd prefer if the ideology were debated honestly, with people saying (as the Libertarians do) that it's immoral to punish the successful for their success... <BR/><BR/>In terms of some of the more targeted measures, I think the questions would be, one, whether you could really raise a decent chunk of the needed revenue through those means (and, since we're at the state level here, whether NYC would stand for essentially having "our" zillionaires responsible for bailing out the schmucks upstate), and two, whether the interest-group politics make such a measure at all feasible. IIRC, the tax on the hedge fund guys at the federal level went nowhere because Schumer stopped it. Gotta figure they have juice in Albany too. <BR/><BR/>Which reminds me of something I was going to add to this post last night, but didn't: the spending-cuts route is highly unlikely because the wafer-thin Republican majority in the state Senate is propped up by the public unions. Skelos, the new leader in the upper chamber, said only that education cuts were the one thing off the table. So we got that goin' for us. Or agin us.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06427208386709900367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6859126.post-43793328520217439792008-08-07T07:37:00.000-07:002008-08-07T07:37:00.000-07:00First of all, the answer, just like everything els...First of all, the answer, just like everything else, is probably to increase taxes a little while cutting spending a little. Now that practicality is out of the way, on to the ideology!<BR/><BR/>I don’t entirely agree with your last point. Data should be one of the main decisive factors, but we can’t discard ideology entirely. If it can be statistically proven that an anti-abortion law would be beneficial to the economy, or vice versa, does this mean that a decision should be made based on that? Granted, taxes are not on the same personal level as right-to-choose, but I do get uneasy when the crowds start getting restless and point to a certain group, saying “They have money! Let’s make them pay more so we can all benefit!”. If we want to increase taxes, we can put a bit more thought into it than just saying “everybody over $1 mil.”. How about sector specific increases? How about going after the Hedge Fund guys a little more; I don’t think anybody’s gonna have a big problem with a tax increase on billionaires currently paying 15%. Sure, it will lead to some migration of business, but if you’re gentle with it, what you’ll lose will be marginal compared to what you gain. How about taxing real estate over a certain amount, like Ohio billionaires buying a $40 million 2-bedroom pied-a-tiers that they’ll never use. At least there’s no chance of migration of business in real estate! And while we’re on it, why not tax foreigners a higher level on real estate purchases (over a certain dollar amount) in New York? If a Saudi Prince wants to buy a mansion, let him pay a princely amount of tax (for a change). Let's tax high-end entertainment; they're actually benefiting from New York being an urban hub of excess. Clubs, restaurants, advertisement, etc. (all with profits above a certain level, as usual). Not a "rich tax", but a "luxury tax" for people who have the luxury of taking advantage of the City.<BR/><BR/>I don’t want to sound all Ayn Rand-y here (heh…randy), but taxing the rich just because they’re rich and we need money has a certain “from each according to his ability,…” feel to it. And that’s just not the American way. These colors don’t run. I’m told. Not actually from around here. Seems nice, though.Feralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09812523941671650852noreply@blogger.com