Sunday, April 20, 2008

Tax the middle class instead

Meet our new correspondent, Shitty Hall. He brings us a report courtesy of the NY Sun:

"Mayor Bloomberg is warning that a new tax-the-rich scheme targeting hedge funds, private equity firms, and real estate partnerships in New York City would drive wealthy taxpayers from the city.

Wealthy Taxpayers Would Flee New Plan, Mayor Says

Mr. Bloomberg, speaking for the first time about the new tax proposal, said yesterday that the first rule of imposing taxes should be: "Don't try to raise the taxes on those who could pick up and move out tomorrow, because you won't get even what they've been paying."

The mayor voiced support yesterday for the so-called Amazon tax, which will require New York City shoppers to pay an additional 8.375% on goods from many online retailers based outside of New York.


Now back to you, Crappy."

Real estate partnerships? Oh no, we can't be having that. Tax the middle class instead. If they pick up and move out it leaves more room for luxury condos.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tax the middle class instead. If they pick up and move out it leaves more room for luxury condos.
---------

Tax the middle class instead. If they pick up and move out it leaves more room for the tweeded to serve the machine and the rich in Manhattan, less troublesome when it comes to satisfying knotty no-win quality of life issues, or expectations of real services from government.

Anonymous said...

Why can't it get through to you that raising taxes on private fund managers will cause them to flee NY and then we get no tax revenue? These companies do pay a tremendous amount in taxes, we should not be pushing them out. I am not for the amazon tax, but advocates of taxing investment funds is nonsense from people who don't know what they are talking about.

Anonymous said...

You should all be thankful Bloomie is saving you from what you want. Each of these high end jobs support 3-4 blue collar jobs. The starbuck barista, the waitress at a midtown restarant, the salesman at a car dealership, the maid cleaning a hotel room or office building, etc. are all working because these people are patronizing these stores. So forcing them out would eventually find its way down to you. These jobs are highly transportable. Don't believe it? Take a trip up to Conneticut where a ton of hedge funds have moved their operations. NYC would not function if the rich moved away. See Manhattan circa 1980.

Queens Crapper said...

How does taxing the middle class help? How about we don't add taxes to anyone's burden?

Anonymous said...

"NYC would not function if the rich moved away. See Manhattan circa 1980."

The rich didn't move away. Park Avenue did just fine. The middle class moved away from the outer boroughs and that's what sank the city in the 1970s and 1980s. It had to do with decline in quality of life.

Anonymous said...

You mean to tell me that rich people are going to move away from the most grand, global, vibrant city in the world because they would have to pay a few extra bucks? Wouldn't congestion pricing have done the same thing?

Anonymous said...

How does taxing the middle class help? How about we don't add taxes to anyone's burden?

----

Big talk from someone who only a few days ago was proposing a 2% tax on all real esate sales.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't congestion pricing have done the same thing?

---

The wealthy don't live in Eastern Queens, so no.

Anonymous said...

>>>Real estate partnerships? Oh no, we can't be having that. Tax the middle class instead. If they pick up and move out it leaves more room for luxury condos.<<

Obama and Hillary will discover this when they discover that taxing rich, ie. $100,000 per annum earners, is not enough to fund whatever programs they sponsor. Then they will come to you and me for it.

www.forgotten-ny.com

Anonymous said...

Rich New Yorkers already pay their fair share. Nearly 40% the state's income tax revenues were paid by the highest-earning 1% of taxpayers — households with incomes above $765,000. That includes all the private equity and fund managers.

Money goes where it's wanted and stays where it's well treated. You want to piss these guys off they will pack up and move leaving a 40% hole in the annual budget. Watch how quick NY decends back to 1970s when services have to be cut.

Instead of talking about ways to raise more money, why is there never any focus on cutting spending? And I'm not taliking about the headline grabbing pork, but cutting the cost of social services where is where most of our tax dollars go.

Anonymous said...

Well said forgotten-ny.

adam smith said...

Blackrock Financial Management is in the room.

Anonymous said...

"The wealthy don't live in Eastern Queens, so no."

They live in Western Nassau and Westchester County, though. besides, I thought the congestion tax was only targeting the rich? Remember that white guy on his bluetooth in his SUV in the TA ad that we were all supposed to hate for polluting our city?

Queens Crapper said...

"Big talk from someone who only a few days ago was proposing a 2% tax on all real esate sales."

No, I advocated for NYC real estate taxes to go toward preservation of open space. Someone else said we are already paying real estate transaction taxes and I pointed out that these weren't going toward preservation of open space. But let's not revisit that whole thing.

Julie said...

"Instead of talking about ways to raise more money, why is there never any focus on cutting spending? And I'm not taliking about the headline grabbing pork, but cutting the cost of social services where is where most of our tax dollars go."

Because spending tax dollars to get votes is the key to tweeding. Tweeding costs more over time, so new sources of money must be discovered.

Anonymous said...

They live in Western Nassau and Westchester County, though. besides, I thought the congestion tax was only targeting the rich?

----

This is revisionist history. Congestion tax was about two things encouraging people to take public transportation, and two raising money to support public transportion. This was never supposed to be a targeted tax on the rich. and by the way Westchester would not have been affected by congestion tax.

Anonymous said...

But let's not revisit that whole thing.

---

Yes let's sweep it under the rug with all of the other half truths that are posted here. You have more positions on the issues than Hillary.

Crapper: "I actually did vote against the new tax before I voted for it."

Anonymous said...

Because spending tax dollars to get votes is the key to tweeding. Tweeding costs more over time, so new sources of money must be discovered.

---

Julie, if you are proposing doing something about the $796,500,000,000 spent on social security, medicare, and other retirement benefits, $345,150,000,000 for medicaid, food stamps, and supplemental security income, and the $212,400,000,000 spent on interest on borrowings to pay for these programs, then I can get behind that.

Quit wasting time with the $1M spent on "Gay Day", or a couply hundred thousand of politican salaries which is the only thing I see here. Go after the biggest sources of spending.

Anonymous said...

Julie, you are right, we should be against all new taxes in any form, and furthermore look for ways to cut back existing taxes. They less money the government has the less money it will have to dole out, the less tweeding will be an issue.

Anonymous said...

I like Shitty Hall. :)

Queens Crapper said...

I advocated for a Community Preservation Fund like they have on Long Island, and Mr. Anonymous said he didn't want any more open space in NYC. Now he wants less government spending on bad programs. I think we can both be made happy. Let's make the part-time city council's salary $40,000 each and add that to what we would have paid Bloomie if he had accepted his salary and start the fund with that.

Anonymous said...

Imagine getting so angry over a taxpayer expressing their opinion that open space should be preserved. Geez.

Queens Crapper said...

This is revisionist history. Congestion tax was about two things encouraging people to take public transportation, and two raising money to support public transportion. This was never supposed to be a targeted tax on the rich. and by the way Westchester would not have been affected by congestion tax.


Talk about revisionist history....Transportation Alternatives ad

Anonymous said...

This so-called Amazon tax makes me crazy. But I have to admit that it's selfish interest that is driving me nuts. It really isn't fair that local merchants have to charge and collect sales tax but Amazon doesn't. But we in NY are taxed to vast excess, and it's inescapable that a very large portion is wasted. So when taxpayers find a tax oasis (yes, I know it still has to be paid) can you please just look the other way. Just a little. Please. Have mercy on us.

faster340 said...

How about we get all the DEADBEAT rich folk to finally pay their fair share of taxes? Let's take a look at how much is actually paid and how much is owed. Then you actually make an effort to collect it! The city/Bloomberg wallet would be overflowing then!

faster340 said...

Tell Bloomberg to collect from these deadbeats, not the people who actually pay taxes.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/02/2008-03-02_bunch_of_wealthy_deadbeats_owe_new_york_.html

KG2V said...

Listen - if we don't want overcrowding, so folks will have to move out, or we get the extra million people.

Bloomberg first complains that Midtown and downtown are getting to crowded, and so we need congestion pricing

Then they cut taxes to keep people there

I have an idea - a novel idea - RAISE taxes in midtown and downtown - just enough to drive a percentage of the businesses OUT of mid/downtown, and gasp, it would be congested. That will also allow some of the folks who commute in from the suburbs to work out there in the suburbs - a win/win all around

Anonymous said...

Thank god none of you have any influence whatsoever over public policy...

CJ said...

Thank god none of you have any influence whatsoever over public policy...

Why not? Maybe that is the problem after all. It is a democracy is it not? The problem with our public officials is that they think we should not have a voice.

Our problem is that we let them get away with it.

Anonymous said...

Did you ever stand beneath a tree admiring its arching branches....
when suddenly you felt
a little "sprinkle" on your nose from high above the canopy?

Was it a bird or a squirrel
taking a leak on your noggin?

No it's that same old stale
devious nonsense
about a "trickle down" economy
those wealthy bastards
have been trying to sell us
since our days in the caves.

If I want the rich to piss on me,
I'd rather urinate on my own feet
.....thank you!