While I absolutely feel for people in NYC making $100,000 even with the increase in taxes on that money, they are still very wealthy.
Argh... No. They. Aren't. $100,000 isn't even "comfortable". All that amount is in NYC means is that you can pay the bills for your completely non-extravagent lifestyle without chest pains.
Again, someone in our extended family works in NYC. They drive 2 and a half hours a day to work just because they can afford to. They have a little rinky dinky trailer and he basically has $90,000 in income he can just flush down the toilet if he wanted. Which he does.
He must be making considerably more than $100,000 to have $90k in disposable/flushable income. At $100,000 your net take home is only about $67,000.
He is.
And yeah it is. If you don't live in the city it is more than enough. My fiance's brother pays the same rent I do and he lives in Jersey. And all he needs to do is hop on a bus or a train and voila, he's in the city. You're paying for convenience.
I also make substantially less than that. For instance, Weehawken is not absolutely a terrible place to live if you wanted to work in the city, and the rent is... affordable on my budget (ie far less than $100,000 Gross pay).
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It was way back, but someone said that raising sales taxes on luxury good might keep the rich from spending.
I highly doubt that. Not in America. American social status is strongly tied to what you spend, not so much what you make. There is a strong "flaunt it if you have it" attitude that a sales tax increase wont change.
I think if someone making around $14000 in Schaumburg Illinois (with its median family income of $92,688) can make it work while still going to movies, concerts, going out for dinner, ext, that someone making $100000 can do just fine in NYC.
I think if someone making around $14000 in Schaumburg Illinois (with its median family income of $92,688) can make it work while still going to movies, concerts, going out for dinner, ext, that someone making $100000 can do just fine in NYC.
The problem is everyone wants to live in Manhattan, or off areas that are connected to the subway (Hoboken)... so, there is the problem. I mean sure if you want to stay in midtown for $2500 a month for a 1 bedroom, I guess you'd have a hard time.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It was way back, but someone said that raising sales taxes on luxury good might keep the rich from spending.
I highly doubt that. Not in America. American social status is strongly tied to what you spend, not so much what you make. There is a strong "flaunt it if you have it" attitude that a sales tax increase wont change.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, another 5% tax on a $200,000 car isn't going to stop the person from buying that car, because other associated costs with the vehicle put it firmly into "money isn't really a huge concern" territory. If anything it will increase its status slightly.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think if someone making around $14000 in Schaumburg Illinois (with its median family income of $92,688) can make it work while still going to movies, concerts, going out for dinner, ext, that someone making $100000 can do just fine in NYC.
The problem is everyone wants to live in Manhattan, or off areas that are connected to the subway (Hoboken)... so, there is the problem. I mean sure if you want to stay in midtown for $2500 a month for a 1 bedroom, I guess you'd have a hard time.
All some here are saying is that, regardless, NYC on $100k isn't gilded toilet levels of income. Doesn't matter why people are living there; at that salary level, they're still very possibly living paycheck to paycheck.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It was way back, but someone said that raising sales taxes on luxury good might keep the rich from spending.
I highly doubt that. Not in America. American social status is strongly tied to what you spend, not so much what you make. There is a strong "flaunt it if you have it" attitude that a sales tax increase wont change.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, another 5% tax on a $200,000 car isn't going to stop the person from buying that car, because other associated costs with the vehicle put it firmly into "money isn't really a huge concern" territory. If anything it will increase its status slightly.
It was way back, but someone said that raising sales taxes on luxury good might keep the rich from spending.
I highly doubt that. Not in America. American social status is strongly tied to what you spend, not so much what you make. There is a strong "flaunt it if you have it" attitude that a sales tax increase wont change.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, another 5% tax on a $200,000 car isn't going to stop the person from buying that car, because other associated costs with the vehicle put it firmly into "money isn't really a huge concern" territory. If anything it will increase its status slightly.
what if they lease the car? do they still pay the tax?
Is it common to lease ferrari's and what not? Yea sure, on whatever the monthly lease cost is they pay a few % extra
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I don't consider a commute of less than 4 hours a day and a relatively non-stabby neighborhood to be a luxury. Safety and spending what amounts to half a work day getting to and from work shouldn't be considered living high on the hog, imo.
The outer boroughs aren't even what you'd consider cheap anymore. I live in a pretty shitty apartment on the shitty side of a decent, but kinda far out, nabe, with a 15 minute walk to the subway and I'm paying $1400. If I wanted to move a few blocks closer to the subway it'd cost $2100.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I think if someone making around $14000 in Schaumburg Illinois (with its median family income of $92,688) can make it work while still going to movies, concerts, going out for dinner, ext, that someone making $100000 can do just fine in NYC.
The problem is everyone wants to live in Manhattan, or off areas that are connected to the subway (Hoboken)... so, there is the problem. I mean sure if you want to stay in midtown for $2500 a month for a 1 bedroom, I guess you'd have a hard time.
All some here are saying is that, regardless, NYC on $100k isn't gilded toilet levels of income. Doesn't matter why people are living there; at that salary level, they're still very possibly living paycheck to paycheck.
I think if someone making around $14000 in Schaumburg Illinois (with its median family income of $92,688) can make it work while still going to movies, concerts, going out for dinner, ext, that someone making $100000 can do just fine in NYC.
The problem is everyone wants to live in Manhattan, or off areas that are connected to the subway (Hoboken)... so, there is the problem. I mean sure if you want to stay in midtown for $2500 a month for a 1 bedroom, I guess you'd have a hard time.
All some here are saying is that, regardless, NYC on $100k isn't gilded toilet levels of income. Doesn't matter why people are living there; at that salary level, they're still very possibly living paycheck to paycheck.
And like I said, that is absolutely retarded because it's your own fault for the convenience. Like I said, I can subside on an apartment you can find near NYC for the same price I'm paying here, in upstate, and half the income level.
Basically what I'm saying is you're stupid if you do that to yourself. Honestly, if you live paycheck to paycheck at that income level perhaps you should stop living in midtown and paying $3k a month for a luxury you don't require.
I could easily afford to live "in" (around) NYC for the same salary I'm living at now not living in NYC, I'd just have to leave a half hour earlier in the morning to get to work probably.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I agree that you can't just arbitrarily tax Product X because it has a higher social status than Product Y; Mercedes makes plenty of fleet vehicles and working trucks. But if you're spending $120k on a sedan from Germany, I think the national economy has an imperative to ask you to rather consider the $50k luxury sedan made in America and keep your money circulating in our economy, or pay a premium on a good that doesn't have a tangible benefit from the opportunity cost that also does little to benefit the national economy.
I'm not clear on what you're proposing. Are you making an argument in favor of high tariffs to discourage the purchasing of foreign luxury goods? Or are you trying to discourage people from buying luxury goods altogether? the former might well run into trouble with the various international trade treaties we have signed. And all that the latter will do is benefit manufacturers of less expensive goods to the detriment of ones who make more expensive ones. In that case, you're picking and choosing winners in the economy through tax policy. What you'll quickly find is that the definition of "luxury" and any exceptions thereto will be determined based on which corporation has the best lobbyists on the Hill.
Same thing with the schools; if your local economy is to the point where you are compelled to send your kids to private schools, wouldn't those public schools greatly benefit from your patronage?
The people who send their kids to private school are already paying property taxes. Them deciding to send their kids to private school does not hurt the public school system.
Basically, private schools' most lucrative offer is that the kids of wealthy parents don't have to sit in old classrooms next to poor people's kids. That's pretty much the definition of "luxury": Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort.
Making sure your kids go to a non-failing and safe school where they can get a decent education isn't, or at least shouldn't be, a "luxury." In any event, this isn't going to prevent the super-rich from sending their kids to Sidwell Friends or Georgetown Day School. It's going to prevent middle-class people from sending their kids to the local Catholic school.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I think if someone making around $14000 in Schaumburg Illinois (with its median family income of $92,688) can make it work while still going to movies, concerts, going out for dinner, ext, that someone making $100000 can do just fine in NYC.
The problem is everyone wants to live in Manhattan, or off areas that are connected to the subway (Hoboken)... so, there is the problem. I mean sure if you want to stay in midtown for $2500 a month for a 1 bedroom, I guess you'd have a hard time.
All some here are saying is that, regardless, NYC on $100k isn't gilded toilet levels of income. Doesn't matter why people are living there; at that salary level, they're still very possibly living paycheck to paycheck.
:^: Yes, this isn't wealthy
Yes it is, these people just choose a lifestyle with a high cost because of at least out of several factors (of which convenience and status are two). That what the other part have been saying over and over again.
100k is not superwealthy, but it is wealthy regardless. If 100k is not wealthy because it barely covers your lifestyle choices, what then makes 250k someone wealthy? If they have yearly expenditures (mortgage, car payment, country club membership, tuition, etc.) of $249,500 they are then practically poor right?
Choosing an expensive lifestyle doesn't make you poorer. It makes you financially less smart (in my mind, but I am very frugal)
the taxing private school idea is kinda silly and in no way would help or accomplish anything other than pissing off people.
I mean, this is from that very same article you linked
Isn't that just because richer private-school kids can afford to be coached more before the SAT? No — remember that this study carefully controlled for socioeconomic status. Rather, it appears private schools do more to develop students' critical-thinking abilities — not just the rote memorization required to do well on achievement tests.
In short, today's study shows that sending your kid to private school — particularly one run by a holy order like the Jesuits — is still a better way to ensure that he or she will get into college. Just don't expect all education experts to agree.
like, how would taxing that help
A private school tax would be good because it's a tax that you can't offshore easily.
Wealthy people can go to other countries to buy expensive things, they can move their income into offshore accounts, invest in foreign markets, but most of them probably aren't going to be willing to ship their kids to another country to go to school.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I could easily afford to live "in" (around) NYC for the same salary I'm living at now not living in NYC, I'd just have to leave a half hour earlier in the morning to get to work probably.
Let me go back to the question I asked ages ago: What is the aim of the taxation? Are we trying to get more idle money into the national economy? Or are we trying to argue that people who can't afford cars and live in 1-bedroom apartments are somehow "wealthy?"
Because changing taxation policy based on the former has a legitimate shot at helping the economy. The latter is just going to result in even greater gentrification of areas of wealth and poverty.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
And like I said, that is absolutely retarded because it's your own fault for the convenience. Like I said, I can subside on an apartment you can find near NYC for the same price I'm paying here, in upstate, and half the income level.
@Bowen, you're being silly and a borderline goose.
You're also leaving a lot of math out of your calculations.
Firstly, if you live in weehawken you're going to have to GET to the city. I'm not that familiar with "North Hoboken" (brokerese), but I know for damn sure that it's off the beaten PATH.
So you'll either need to drive to the train station, take the light rail, or grab a bus to the port authority. All of these things cost money.
In addition, unless your office is right next to the port authority you'll need to shell out another $104 a month for a metrocard. This also costs money.
So let's say that everything else unchanged, you are now spending an extra $2400 a year and an extra hour a day getting to and from work. That shit aint the same, son.
Get serious dude. The fact that you know of a shitty inconvenient apartment in a pretty undesirable location doesn't mean much when you state earlier that you can find an apartment for almost a third of that in your neck of the woods.
A private school tax would be good because it's a tax that you can't offshore easily.
Wealthy people can go to other countries to buy expensive things, they can move their income into offshore accounts, invest in foreign markets, but most of them probably aren't going to be willing to ship their kids to another country to go to school.
Should we tax college tuition, then? If we're going to use tax policy to discourage education, why not go all in? If we use Atomic Ross' definition of a luxury as "Something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort," then a college education would certainly qualify.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I think if someone making around $14000 in Schaumburg Illinois (with its median family income of $92,688) can make it work while still going to movies, concerts, going out for dinner, ext, that someone making $100000 can do just fine in NYC.
The problem is everyone wants to live in Manhattan, or off areas that are connected to the subway (Hoboken)... so, there is the problem. I mean sure if you want to stay in midtown for $2500 a month for a 1 bedroom, I guess you'd have a hard time.
All some here are saying is that, regardless, NYC on $100k isn't gilded toilet levels of income. Doesn't matter why people are living there; at that salary level, they're still very possibly living paycheck to paycheck.
:^: Yes, this isn't wealthy
Yes it is, these people just choose a lifestyle with a high cost because of at least out of several factors (of which convenience and status are two). That what the other part have been saying over and over again.
100k is not superwealthy, but it is wealthy regardless.
Define wealthy.
Better yet, look it up in the dictionary.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
A private school tax would be good because it's a tax that you can't offshore easily.
Wealthy people can go to other countries to buy expensive things, they can move their income into offshore accounts, invest in foreign markets, but most of them probably aren't going to be willing to ship their kids to another country to go to school.
The tax works in both the condition of local public schools being up to snuff and the condition of shitty local schools. If local schools are up to snuff, why do you need to send your kids to private school unless it offers some intangible luxury, like prestige or religious-affiliation horseshit that doesn't matter? If the local schools are doing poorly, fine, send your kids somewhere else; but throw some help at those shitty schools while you're at it.
I easily pay 3 times that amount to maintain a car, pay for gas, and actually pay for the car, Deebaser. And the apartment I'm referencing in comparison to what I pay is nice. It's the same square footage. It's a pretty nice place all in all, Weehawken is not exactly off the beaten path (the person I'm referencing works in the city so... he manages).
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
the taxing private school idea is kinda silly and in no way would help or accomplish anything other than pissing off people.
I mean, this is from that very same article you linked
Isn't that just because richer private-school kids can afford to be coached more before the SAT? No — remember that this study carefully controlled for socioeconomic status. Rather, it appears private schools do more to develop students' critical-thinking abilities — not just the rote memorization required to do well on achievement tests.
In short, today's study shows that sending your kid to private school — particularly one run by a holy order like the Jesuits — is still a better way to ensure that he or she will get into college. Just don't expect all education experts to agree.
like, how would taxing that help
A private school tax would be good because it's a tax that you can't offshore easily.
Wealthy people can go to other countries to buy expensive things, they can move their income into offshore accounts, invest in foreign markets, but most of them probably aren't going to be willing to ship their kids to another country to go to school.
Why not fix those things instead of taxing going to private schools? Fix indefinitely reinvested earnings, fix double dutching, fix allocating interest expenses to profitable segments, fix certain business deductions.
A private school doesn't get support from the state to function - why should the costs to enter be passed on to the people trying to educate their kids? And even still, why not pass the tax onto private schools? Have a state filing fee, or a gross receipts tax, or something, like they do for hospitals.
I could easily afford to live "in" (around) NYC for the same salary I'm living at now not living in NYC, I'd just have to leave a half hour earlier in the morning to get to work probably.
Let me go back to the question I asked ages ago: What is the aim of the taxation? Are we trying to get more idle money into the national economy? Or are we trying to argue that people who can't afford cars and live in 1-bedroom apartments are somehow "wealthy?"
Because changing taxation policy based on the former has a legitimate shot at helping the economy. The latter is just going to result in even greater gentrification of areas of wealth and poverty.
The aim of taxation is to effectively and efficiently pay the government's bills/costs. The whole point of promoting a progressive taxation model is that it is both more equitable and that's where the money is.
Now, the question of what the government should spend its money on is an open one. In a perfect world it would be promoting various programs, infrastructure investments, and public goods such that more people are likely to flourish and also enter into higher tax brackets such that we can reach a beneficial equilibrium. In reality we're buying a lot of corn, missiles, and metal hips. But that's not a tax policy issue so much as an appropriations issue. 'Ideal' tax policy could theoretically exist independent of what we spend the money on, though of course there is no actual Platonic ideal of tax policy so its kind of a moot point.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I easily pay 3 times that amount to maintain a car, pay for gas, and actually pay for the car, Deebaser. And the apartment I'm referencing in comparison to what I pay is nice. It's the same square footage. It's a pretty nice place all in all, Weehawken is not exactly off the beaten path (the person I'm referencing works in the city so... he manages).
Parking in the city is $500/mo, and that's if you can drive at all. Car payments, gas, and maintenance on top of that. So going that route, there's $800-1200/mo of whatever you've saved by moving further away, saying nothing of the time lost in commuting.
The tax works in both the condition of local public schools being up to snuff and the condition of shitty local schools. If local schools are up to snuff, why do you need to send your kids to private school unless it offers some intangible luxury, like prestige or religious-affiliation horseshit that doesn't matter? If the local schools are doing poorly, fine, send your kids somewhere else; but throw some help at those shitty schools while you're at it.
So, if you live in one school district, you can send your kids to private school without paying extra taxes, but if you live in another you can't? Interesting system you're proposing there.
We've already established paying more resulting in better education is an arguably incorrect assumption. Do we need to go any further on this point?
You've done no such thing. I can point to a number of school districts (DC being a prime example) where that claim fails abysmally.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I easily pay 3 times that amount to maintain a car, pay for gas, and actually pay for the car, Deebaser. And the apartment I'm referencing in comparison to what I pay is nice. It's the same square footage. It's a pretty nice place all in all, Weehawken is not exactly off the beaten path (the person I'm referencing works in the city so... he manages).
You'll still need a car, dude. You're in Weehawken. Honestly I don't even know what you're arguing at this point. Your BIL makes a lot more than $100,000 and uses some black magic to get to and from the office, therefore anyone that doesn't want to live in Weehawken is a monocle wearing aristocrat who shouldn't be making such poor financial decisions...something....something....cost of living.
I easily pay 3 times that amount to maintain a car, pay for gas, and actually pay for the car, Deebaser. And the apartment I'm referencing in comparison to what I pay is nice. It's the same square footage. It's a pretty nice place all in all, Weehawken is not exactly off the beaten path (the person I'm referencing works in the city so... he manages).
Parking in the city is $500/mo, and that's if you can drive at all. Car payments, gas, and maintenance on top of that. So going that route, there's $800-1200/mo of whatever you've saved by moving further away, saying nothing of the time lost in commuting.
I was comparing to the metro card. You can practically piss on the bus stop to get into the city.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Now, the question of what the government should spend its money on is an open one. In a perfect world it would be promoting various programs, infrastructure investments, and public goods such that more people are likely to flourish and also enter into higher tax brackets such that we can reach a beneficial equilibrium. In reality we're buying a lot of corn, missiles, and metal hips. But that's not a tax policy issue so much as an appropriations issue. 'Ideal' tax policy could theoretically exist independent of what we spend the money on, though of course there is no actual Platonic ideal of tax policy so its kind of a moot point.
This is real meat and potatoes of the issue. But I think it goes back to specific and itemized taxation; taxing based on nothing more than, "Oh, if you make $X you're rich, so pay $Taxes." More than anything else, that just encourages sheltering wealth and keeping it out of the economy.
Don't tax people simply for making money. Inform the direction of the national economy by selectively penalizing indulgent purchases and rewarding others.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I easily pay 3 times that amount to maintain a car, pay for gas, and actually pay for the car, Deebaser. And the apartment I'm referencing in comparison to what I pay is nice. It's the same square footage. It's a pretty nice place all in all, Weehawken is not exactly off the beaten path (the person I'm referencing works in the city so... he manages).
You'll still need a car, dude. You're in Weehawken. Honestly I don't even know what you're arguing at this point. Your BIL makes a lot more than $100,000 and uses some black magic to get to and from the office, therefore anyone that doesn't want to live in Weehawken is a monocle wearing aristocrat who shouldn't be making such poor financial decisions...something....something....cost of living.
Something something goose. :rotate:
You said you weren't wealthy, I said you are, that's pretty much all there is to it because you are. Since you can live there, you pretty much have the wealth to do so. I mean I can keep saying wealth over and over again until you get it.
Just saying your cost of living is high because you decided to live in a place with a high cost of living instead of the dozens of areas not there doesn't make you any less wealthy.
I don't consider some rich bimbo less wealthy if she wastes her savings playing black jack and going to the country club and drinking long island iced teas.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
What if the cost of living was too high, and you had to move away to somewhere where you could afford to, but the place you moved to has little to no employment for you? What then?
tyrannus on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Depending on what statistics you look at, $100K a year is close to or more than double the median income for NYC residents. It's higher than the median income for every individual borough.
I'd agree that $100K a year for a family living in NYC might not qualify as "wealthy", but I have no problems calling it "comfortable" in general.
This is real meat and potatoes of the issue. But I think it goes back to specific and itemized taxation; taxing based on nothing more than, "Oh, if you make $X you're rich, so pay $Taxes." More than anything else, that just encourages sheltering wealth and keeping it out of the economy.
Don't tax people simply for making money. Inform the direction of the national economy by selectively penalizing indulgent purchases and rewarding others[/b].
Actually, what you're really proposing is selectively penalizing certain industries and companies and rewarding others based on a moral view of which purchases are "indulgent" and which are acceptable.
The $30,000 Ford and the $120,000 Mercedes both require workers to make them. If you use taxes to discourage the purchase of the latter, that means people working in the Mercedes plant will lose their jobs while the Ford plant will hire more.
Again, you're picking winners and losers in our economy based on your moral preferences.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Posts
He is.
And yeah it is. If you don't live in the city it is more than enough. My fiance's brother pays the same rent I do and he lives in Jersey. And all he needs to do is hop on a bus or a train and voila, he's in the city. You're paying for convenience.
I also make substantially less than that. For instance, Weehawken is not absolutely a terrible place to live if you wanted to work in the city, and the rent is... affordable on my budget (ie far less than $100,000 Gross pay).
I highly doubt that. Not in America. American social status is strongly tied to what you spend, not so much what you make. There is a strong "flaunt it if you have it" attitude that a sales tax increase wont change.
The problem is everyone wants to live in Manhattan, or off areas that are connected to the subway (Hoboken)... so, there is the problem. I mean sure if you want to stay in midtown for $2500 a month for a 1 bedroom, I guess you'd have a hard time.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, another 5% tax on a $200,000 car isn't going to stop the person from buying that car, because other associated costs with the vehicle put it firmly into "money isn't really a huge concern" territory. If anything it will increase its status slightly.
All some here are saying is that, regardless, NYC on $100k isn't gilded toilet levels of income. Doesn't matter why people are living there; at that salary level, they're still very possibly living paycheck to paycheck.
Agreed.
The outer boroughs aren't even what you'd consider cheap anymore. I live in a pretty shitty apartment on the shitty side of a decent, but kinda far out, nabe, with a 15 minute walk to the subway and I'm paying $1400. If I wanted to move a few blocks closer to the subway it'd cost $2100.
:^: Yes, this isn't wealthy
And like I said, that is absolutely retarded because it's your own fault for the convenience. Like I said, I can subside on an apartment you can find near NYC for the same price I'm paying here, in upstate, and half the income level.
Basically what I'm saying is you're stupid if you do that to yourself. Honestly, if you live paycheck to paycheck at that income level perhaps you should stop living in midtown and paying $3k a month for a luxury you don't require.
I could easily afford to live "in" (around) NYC for the same salary I'm living at now not living in NYC, I'd just have to leave a half hour earlier in the morning to get to work probably.
The people who send their kids to private school are already paying property taxes. Them deciding to send their kids to private school does not hurt the public school system.
Making sure your kids go to a non-failing and safe school where they can get a decent education isn't, or at least shouldn't be, a "luxury." In any event, this isn't going to prevent the super-rich from sending their kids to Sidwell Friends or Georgetown Day School. It's going to prevent middle-class people from sending their kids to the local Catholic school.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yes it is, these people just choose a lifestyle with a high cost because of at least out of several factors (of which convenience and status are two). That what the other part have been saying over and over again.
100k is not superwealthy, but it is wealthy regardless. If 100k is not wealthy because it barely covers your lifestyle choices, what then makes 250k someone wealthy? If they have yearly expenditures (mortgage, car payment, country club membership, tuition, etc.) of $249,500 they are then practically poor right?
Choosing an expensive lifestyle doesn't make you poorer. It makes you financially less smart (in my mind, but I am very frugal)
Wealthy people can go to other countries to buy expensive things, they can move their income into offshore accounts, invest in foreign markets, but most of them probably aren't going to be willing to ship their kids to another country to go to school.
Let me go back to the question I asked ages ago: What is the aim of the taxation? Are we trying to get more idle money into the national economy? Or are we trying to argue that people who can't afford cars and live in 1-bedroom apartments are somehow "wealthy?"
Because changing taxation policy based on the former has a legitimate shot at helping the economy. The latter is just going to result in even greater gentrification of areas of wealth and poverty.
@Bowen, you're being silly and a borderline goose.
You're also leaving a lot of math out of your calculations.
Firstly, if you live in weehawken you're going to have to GET to the city. I'm not that familiar with "North Hoboken" (brokerese), but I know for damn sure that it's off the beaten PATH.
So you'll either need to drive to the train station, take the light rail, or grab a bus to the port authority. All of these things cost money.
In addition, unless your office is right next to the port authority you'll need to shell out another $104 a month for a metrocard. This also costs money.
So let's say that everything else unchanged, you are now spending an extra $2400 a year and an extra hour a day getting to and from work. That shit aint the same, son.
Get serious dude. The fact that you know of a shitty inconvenient apartment in a pretty undesirable location doesn't mean much when you state earlier that you can find an apartment for almost a third of that in your neck of the woods.
Rigorous Scholarship
Define wealthy.
Better yet, look it up in the dictionary.
The tax works in both the condition of local public schools being up to snuff and the condition of shitty local schools. If local schools are up to snuff, why do you need to send your kids to private school unless it offers some intangible luxury, like prestige or religious-affiliation horseshit that doesn't matter? If the local schools are doing poorly, fine, send your kids somewhere else; but throw some help at those shitty schools while you're at it.
We've already established paying more resulting in better education is an arguably incorrect assumption. Do we need to go any further on this point?
A private school doesn't get support from the state to function - why should the costs to enter be passed on to the people trying to educate their kids? And even still, why not pass the tax onto private schools? Have a state filing fee, or a gross receipts tax, or something, like they do for hospitals.
The aim of taxation is to effectively and efficiently pay the government's bills/costs. The whole point of promoting a progressive taxation model is that it is both more equitable and that's where the money is.
Now, the question of what the government should spend its money on is an open one. In a perfect world it would be promoting various programs, infrastructure investments, and public goods such that more people are likely to flourish and also enter into higher tax brackets such that we can reach a beneficial equilibrium. In reality we're buying a lot of corn, missiles, and metal hips. But that's not a tax policy issue so much as an appropriations issue. 'Ideal' tax policy could theoretically exist independent of what we spend the money on, though of course there is no actual Platonic ideal of tax policy so its kind of a moot point.
Parking in the city is $500/mo, and that's if you can drive at all. Car payments, gas, and maintenance on top of that. So going that route, there's $800-1200/mo of whatever you've saved by moving further away, saying nothing of the time lost in commuting.
You've done no such thing. I can point to a number of school districts (DC being a prime example) where that claim fails abysmally.
Rigorous Scholarship
> 2x average or median
You'll still need a car, dude. You're in Weehawken. Honestly I don't even know what you're arguing at this point. Your BIL makes a lot more than $100,000 and uses some black magic to get to and from the office, therefore anyone that doesn't want to live in Weehawken is a monocle wearing aristocrat who shouldn't be making such poor financial decisions...something....something....cost of living.
I was comparing to the metro card. You can practically piss on the bus stop to get into the city.
This is real meat and potatoes of the issue. But I think it goes back to specific and itemized taxation; taxing based on nothing more than, "Oh, if you make $X you're rich, so pay $Taxes." More than anything else, that just encourages sheltering wealth and keeping it out of the economy.
Don't tax people simply for making money. Inform the direction of the national economy by selectively penalizing indulgent purchases and rewarding others.
OK, congrats to everyone in the US making $62,223. You are now officially "wealthy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
Something something goose. :rotate:
You said you weren't wealthy, I said you are, that's pretty much all there is to it because you are. Since you can live there, you pretty much have the wealth to do so. I mean I can keep saying wealth over and over again until you get it.
Just saying your cost of living is high because you decided to live in a place with a high cost of living instead of the dozens of areas not there doesn't make you any less wealthy.
I don't consider some rich bimbo less wealthy if she wastes her savings playing black jack and going to the country club and drinking long island iced teas.
This is another misleading statistic.
The median family income level is barely $10k over the poverty line. $63k/year for a family of four isn't wealthy anywhere in the West.
You mean $100,606.00 [ census ]
Depending on what statistics you look at, $100K a year is close to or more than double the median income for NYC residents. It's higher than the median income for every individual borough.
I'd agree that $100K a year for a family living in NYC might not qualify as "wealthy", but I have no problems calling it "comfortable" in general.
So, what is your definition of "wealthy"?
The $30,000 Ford and the $120,000 Mercedes both require workers to make them. If you use taxes to discourage the purchase of the latter, that means people working in the Mercedes plant will lose their jobs while the Ford plant will hire more.
Again, you're picking winners and losers in our economy based on your moral preferences.
Rigorous Scholarship
That's not inherently a bad thing.