NYC sucks (rant)

This city and its taxation schemes are goddamn ridiculous. I swear it is a communist state. Who would think you can't take a left turn on 25th Street while heading northbound on 3rd Avenue? Well now I do, after $180 in penalties, and 6 points on my license.

I swear to god this whole damned city is built around taxing its most productive members of society so that city government can cause a massive wealth transfer to a bunch of poor, shiftless, unemployed, welfare-sucking idiots.

NYPD set up a trap over the weekend and the cop was literally writing up a car every 3 minutes for this violation. Strictly a revenue raiser. It makes me sick.

Im going to pay almost $50k in income tax to NYC this year, and the goddamn city government needs another $180 from me? Plus of course, whatever sales taxes we're going to pay to the city.

Why can't this place be run like Texas? The best government is the government that governs least.

[wh1t3bread]

You are paying New York City $50,000 in taxes this year and you are complaining about a measly $180 ticket that you received for making an illegal turn.

I don't get it.

[canis582]

Awesome avatar, I can't believe he hit the water bottle.

How much are you making that you pay 50k in local income?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Who would think you can't take a left turn on 25th Street while heading northbound on 3rd Avenue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently not you. If you feel you've been wronged, challenge it in court.

[ QUOTE ]
I swear to god this whole damned city is built around taxing its most productive members of society so that city government can cause a massive wealth transfer to a bunch of poor, shiftless, unemployed, welfare-sucking idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Health and welfare will make up less than 10% of the NYC's outlays in the 2006 fiscal year. So I guess it is a 'massive wealth transfer', if you think 10 cents on the dollar is massive. If you're claiming you pay $50k in taxes to NYC (a number I'm truly amazed at) because of "a bunch of poor, shiftless, unemployed, welfare-sucking idiots", you'd still be paying $45k even if NYC didn't provide them with a dollar's worth of services.

Wonder what it would cost if the cops took off and left NYC to its own devices -- that is, I wonder how much it would cost you to hire some personal security guards to escort you around town (again, remembering the cops left town, took the courts with them, etc.)? Maybe pvn can jump here and answer this. I bet it might cost something close to, if not substantially more than $50k -- although since I like my government, and the rather swell protections (not to mention safe and predictable business and living climate they've provided for me), I'm not really in the market for such things and haven't given it much thought.

[ QUOTE ]
NYPD set up a trap over the weekend and the cop was literally writing up a car every 3 minutes for this violation. Strictly a revenue raiser. It makes me sick.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you weren't the only who didn't realize you can't take a left onto 25th while heading northbound on 3rd.

[ QUOTE ]
Im going to pay almost $50k in income tax to NYC this year, and the goddamn city government needs another $180 from me? Plus of course, whatever sales taxes we're going to pay to the city.

Why can't this place be run like Texas? The best government is the government that governs least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is something stopping you from moving to Texas? That may explain why NYC can't be run like Texas -- or why, despite the unfriendly tax-payer climate you believe you're in, you still choose to live there. Perhaps -- just perhaps -- they're related (in other words, consider if the reason you're paying so much in taxes is also why you choose to live there; even if the links aren't particularly direct).

I don't know. Just a guess. Think it over.

1. There is only one reason to live in NYC: professional opportunitites (particularly in financial services, but to a lesser extent also in professional services). Obviously those who choose to remain in the city do so for this reason.

2. As far as the "wealth transfer", Im not just talking about direct subsidies, but Im also including indirect wealth transferring subsidies such as public education, low income/elderly subsidies, public medicine, etc. Obviously, an urban city like NY needs a certain amount of spending for "public goods" like police, fire, sanitation, transportation, and parks--and this drives a certain amount of the tax. However, there really isn't a reason to have this deep support structure for poor/elderly etc. Those people should be in low cost states. To the extent that they continue to live in NYC, they are economic parasites--net consumers of far more in public services than they contribute in tax revenues. NYC is "progressive taxation" taken to insane heights--anti-property owner, anti-business, anti-taxpayer. If NYC were to reduce its subsidies, those who rely on it would leave and go elsewhere, into (hopefully) economies where their economic contributions would be closer to their actual consumption. Sounds heartless, but Im a big believer in private communities and privatized everything--obviously a self-serving position, but that's Adam Smith at work for ya.

[JonPKibble]

I hate NYC too. Guess what, I voted with my feet and moved. If you don't like something, either get away, or DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
There is only one reason to live in NYC: professional opportunitites

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. It also has more to do then probably any other city. The diversity of food, theater and other sorts of entertainment, schools,... diversity of culture, the energy of the city, etc. I'd say anyone who thinks the only reason to live in the city is professional opportunities must be blind.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously those who choose to remain in the city do so for this reason.

[/ QUOTE ] That's funny. I like when someone says there's one obvious reason why 10 million or so people choose to do what they do.

Honestly, this is the goofiest over-reaction to getting a parking ticket I've ever heard.

The signs are pretty easy to read on the streets that prohibit turning in certain directions. I suppose if you've never driven in the city before and were too freaked out to read the signs you could blame it on anxiety and ignorance. But it doesn't sound like you have an excuse.

Its no one's fault but yours that you got a ticket. So... stop your ranting about shipping old people off to other states, pay your ticket and learn to drive.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is only one reason to live in NYC: professional opportunitites (particularly in financial services, but to a lesser extent also in professional services). Obviously those who choose to remain in the city do so for this reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think NYC is alot more than workers in the financial sectors (I really enjoy visiting/touring NYC, as does my wife -- and I don't believe any of our enjoyment is derived by the fact that Goldman Sachs has a big office there); but I also am of the belief that the financial sector flourishes in NYC specifically because the state (and by that I mean, the city government) is proactive. Read on.

[ QUOTE ]
2. As far as the "wealth transfer", Im not just talking about direct subsidies, but Im also including indirect wealth transferring subsidies such as public education, low income/elderly subsidies, public medicine, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost everything you mentioned there (low income/elderly subsidies, public medicine) is either included in the 10% that falls under the umbrella of "health and welfare" part of the NYC city budget that I mentioned in my last post, or falls under the jurisdiction of a federal social service program.

Public education (the other 'indirect subsidy' you mention) is, of course, NYC's biggest expenditure (with uniformed safety officers a distant second). I can't help but think the financial sector, and all professions that thrive in NYC, do so precisely because there is a highly-educated workforce available at a close proximity. I think it also should be noted that your tune has changed slightly -- initially, you were paying so much in city taxes because of those blood-sucking, leeching welfare bums. Now you're saying it's the welfare-bums and 'school children' -- which is a little like saying my diet is high in cholesterol, due in large part to the fruit and vegetable diet plan I use...and in that diet plan, I also make a daily trip to McDonalds and order a Big Mac. Perhaps not the best analogy, but I think you get where I'm going.

You've either decided that it's not just those bums that are costing you a pretty penny, or you associate/identify public school children as being synonymous with parasitic, welfare-dependent, poor, shiftless idiots.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, an urban city like NY needs a certain amount of spending for "public goods" like police, fire, sanitation, transportation, and parks--and this drives a certain amount of the tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

As in (when combined with the interest paid on NYC's debt) about 30% of your tax burden. (FYI, public education also makes up about 30% of your tax burden -- so 60% of your taxes go to finance: schools, police, fire, sanitation, transportation, parks, city administration, etc. -- about 6 times what NYC pays out in social services -- yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, and yes, Virginia, it costs a boatload of money to keep big cities safe, clean, and educated).

[ QUOTE ]
However, there really isn't a reason to have this deep support structure for poor/elderly etc. Those people should be in low cost states. To the extent that they continue to live in NYC, they are economic parasites--net consumers of far more in public services than they contribute in tax revenues. NYC is "progressive taxation" taken to insane heights--anti-property owner, anti-business, anti-taxpayer. If NYC were to reduce its subsidies, those who rely on it would leave and go elsewhere, into (hopefully) economies where their economic contributions would be closer to their actual consumption. Sounds heartless, but Im a big believer in private communities and privatized everything--obviously a self-serving position, but that's Adam Smith at work for ya.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're certainly entitled to those opinions, and I'm fairly convinced you can find other localities that have a tax paradigm closer to your liking. But you stay in NYC because of the many prosperous opportunities that exist there -- opportunities, I would add, that exist because the population is highly educated; a population that is enticed to come (and stay) because NYC is (relatively) safe, clean, exciting, livable, etc. climate -- a climate, I would argue, that is due in no small part because you pay alot in taxes to have such a climate created.

[ QUOTE ]
Public education (the other 'indirect subsidy' you mention) is, of course, NYC's biggest expenditure (with uniformed safety officers a distant second). I can't help but think the financial sector, and all professions that thrive in NYC do so precisely because there is a highly-educated workforce available at a close proximity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Public education is a huge subsidy in NYC. Contrast the way public education is principally funded in California (and most places), i.e., by property taxes. When funded through property taxes, education is a use tax. When funded through income taxes, it is a wealth transfer. Very few of the most productive (i.e., taxpaying) members of NYC would choose to send their children through the NY school system. This is why God created Connecticut.

You also seem to be under the illusion that the NY public schools somehow churn out the vast majority of NYC's elite educated workforce. This is wrong. NY public schools churn out ill-tempered, barely-literate/numerate clerks at Duane Reade who can't make proper change. NY's talent pool is drawn from a worldwide source--people who were high achievers wherever they were before, but who came to NYC for the financial opportunities the city offers in just about everything--finance, prof. svcs., advertising, medicine, etc.

The NYC DOE and federal DOE are abominations, and among the worst aspects of today's welfare state.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Public education (the other 'indirect subsidy' you mention) is, of course, NYC's biggest expenditure (with uniformed safety officers a distant second). I can't help but think the financial sector, and all professions that thrive in NYC do so precisely because there is a highly-educated workforce available at a close proximity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Public education is a huge subsidy in NYC. Contrast the way public education is principally funded in California (and most places), i.e., by property taxes. When funded through property taxes, education is a use tax. When funded through income taxes, it is a wealth transfer. Very few of the most productive (i.e., taxpaying) members of NYC would choose to send their children through the NY school system. This is why God created Connecticut.

You also seem to be under the illusion that the NY public schools somehow churn out the vast majority of NYC's elite educated workforce. This is wrong. NY public schools churn out ill-tempered, barely-literate/numerate clerks at Duane Reade who can't make proper change. NY's talent pool is drawn from a worldwide source--people who were high achievers wherever they were before, but who came to NYC for the financial opportunities the city offers in just about everything--finance, prof. svcs., advertising, medicine, etc.

The NYC DOE and federal DOE are abominations, and among the worst aspects of today's welfare state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if education is a wealth transfer, who cares? The children of rich people do not deserve a better education than the children of poor people. it cannot be argued that rich children did anything to deserve their wealth other than happen to pop out of the right vagina. Society as a whole is much better off if everyone has an opportunity to obtain a good education