Progress since then, looks to me. How many more people do you expect to not have to work? Back in 1900, families had 10 kids just to work the land. Lots of people grew up to pay SS to start off that ponzi scheme.
I wonder what happens when you tax the rich more? No I don't really. http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/local/tax_refugees_staging_escape_from_qb4pItQ71UXIc0i6cd3UpK Tax refugees staging escape from New York By ANDY SOLTIS Last Updated: 6:08 AM, October 27, 2009 Posted: 2:53 AM, October 27, 2009 New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows. More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country. The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out. "The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said. What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes. Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found. And it should be no surprise that the city -- and Manhattan in particular -- suffered the biggest loss in terms of taxable income. The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726. That's a difference of $20,538, the highest for any county in the state. Staten Island was second, with a $20,066 difference. It all adds up to staggering loss in taxable income. During 2006-2007, the "migration flow" out of New York to other states amounted to a loss of $4.3 billion. The study used annual US Census reports, which showed which states had increased population, combined with Internal Revenue Service data, which show which states, cities and counties had lost people. While New York City and the state were the losers, the Sunshine and Garden States were winners. more than 250,000 New Yorkers who lived in and around the city fled to Florida. Another 172,000 city taxpayers ended up in New Jersey. Why all the moving vans? The center, part of the conservative Manhattan Institute, blames the state's high cost of living and high taxes. The study also revealed surprising details about how city residents moved from borough to borough. Manhattan lost 64,480 taxpayers, and more than half -- 34,383 -- went to The Bronx. Brooklyn lost 68,951 taxpayers -- including 43,688 who went to Staten Island. The study also had some good news. The peak loss of New Yorkers was in 2005, when nearly 250,000 residents left the state. But last year, only 126,000 left, the lowest figure over the eight-year period. andy.soltis@nypost.com
Sounds like bullshit to me. People move to Manhattan to make their fortune. When they get it, or when they've had enough trying, they leave. It's no shock that the incoming salaries are less than the outgoing salaries. Show us the relative ages of those coming and going, perhaps? Blaming migration to/from Manhattan on taxes is pretty much blatant dishonesty. barfo
New York City is blessed by having not only two other states within commuting distance, but at least nine counties. I can't speak to the data, but I can say from my personal experience that many people leave Manhattan due to the cost of living and taxes. Taking the PATH or the Metroliner is no big deal.
And do they not continue to pay NY taxes even if they move out of the city (but continue to work in the city)? They do. So taxes aren't relevant to that decision. barfo
Actually I have a pretty good idea. I think it is fair to say that most people moving out of NYC don't own property. Sales tax, sure, but isn't like NJ doesn't have sales tax. barfo
And many do. I owned a place in Gramercy Park and the Lower East Side. Co-ops and condos are very popular among the people who are making over $500K.
barfo, exactly how long did you live in the Tri-State area? You seem to be making posts asking us to trust that you know what you're talking about on this issue. I think it's fair if you let us know whether or not you do or if you're just making stuff up.
Whew..well thank goodness the health care expense will be national. I highly doubt any of those tax refugees will be fleeing to the lovely country South of our border or to Candidastan. I guess they could all move to Europe..oh wait....they already have health care. Or China..mm...maybe not with the pollution. Hey, guess what, I think they'll stay!
The wealthy will stay, they'll just stop producing and investing, because at some point it's a waste of time. I can remember when I and my two partners wanted to give ourselves a measely $25K raise each in Sweden. Do you know how much we would have netted from that $75K? Roughly $1,600. What was the point? Incentives matter. Again, I wonder why you think it's okay to take money from people who earned it simply to pay for things you'd like? I call that robbery.
See, there are plenty of places for you to move where things are as you would like them. America is/was special and different. It's why we became the wealthiest country in the world. Now, we're following the path of the Soviet Union. That's a sweet historical precedent.
If you think my facts are wrong you should provide evidence to the contrary. I agree with you (on a prior post) that a big difference between you and I is that I don't back up my opinions with my credentials, whereas you do. I respect your credentials, but I don't feel that I need to provide mine - either my opinions are right or they are wrong, and what life experiences I've had doesn't really change that. The truth is the truth. If I'd been one of the astronauts to land on the moon, that might convince people to take my opinions on moon rocks more seriously - but it wouldn't actually make my opinions any more correct. barfo
Yes, because I'm sure all of the millions of America will flood both of those islands and pay cost-of-living through the nose that would far surpass anything health care would add.
You seem to be under the impression this issue is about cost only. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I'll be perfectly honest, financially I don't really care. I sold my soul when I was young and now live a pretty comfortable life. I can buy any kind of health care I want and pay out of pocket. I'm not saying that to brag, I'm saying it to demonstrate that cost isn't the issue. The issue to me is the role of the government in our lives. This isn't health insurance, this is some detached body of unelected officials having control over your life or death. Barney Frank has admitted that this is the first step to single-payer. Jacob Hacker--the inventor of the "public option"--has said the public option wasn't a Trojan Horse to a single-payer system but was "right there" for all to see. The script is laid out. Create a public option that can lose money. It will push out private insurance. Tell doctors how much they can make. If they try to opt out by not taking these fees, you force doctors to participate to be licensed. Voila, welcome to the US version of National Health. Rationed care. Crappy facilities. Fewer docs of poorer quality. The best and the brightest enter other fields. R&D down the toilet. And the government, rather than the individual, deciding what kind of care you receive. My personal philosophy err on the side of liberty over equality. In other words, while I strongly believe in equal opportunity, I don't believe in equal outcomes. Right now, everyone has equal access to the best health care in the world. Whether they choose to pay for it or not is their choice. What the government wants is that we all receive the same health care. The problem is that it will be equally shitty. This fight isn't about health insurance, it's about my own right to determine my own life.
You seem to think it's about money when I see that it's about Liberty. Slavery is the taking of someone's labor. Taxes are a form of taking someone's labor. If you take 100% of someone's labor, he is 100% a slave. When you take 50%, he's half slave.
Because that seems to be a big argument in this forum. That the government will take MY money or spend MY money inefficiently. If I were to take a quasi-Libertarian point of view (not true Libertarian), I'd believe the government is responsible for the basic necessities and nothing more. And one of those necessities I'd argue is health care. I'm not asking you to go out and pay money to allow Aunt Loretta to get liposuction so she looks pretty. I'm asking you to help pay so when Loretta needs heart surgery at age 19 actually gets the surgery and doesn't end up paying for it the rest of her life. Except that the quality of care in other countries with socialized medicine is consistently rated to be better. And how do you know, since the final bill isn't there, that the system won't be more like the Swiss and less like National Health? (Which by the way, I hope you noticed that almost all of the British, right or left, got pissed off when we insinuated their health care was sub-standard). And even in the most socialized countries you can still buy supplemental insurance to augment your basic insurance. The government is asking you to help provide for the common good in certain areas and then they augment those requests with monies for "other items". If you want to be pissed off because the government uses your money for public television or art or the foreign aid, fine, I can understand that. But I still believe health care is a basic option.
