Albany’s April Revenue Fell 44% From 2008
Started by stevejhx
about 17 years ago
Posts: 12656
Member since: Feb 2008
Discussion about
ALBANY — Less than two months into the state’s fiscal year, revenue collections are about half of what they were last year, according to a report issued by the state comptroller on Tuesday. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/nyregion/20revenue.html?ref=nyregion So, JuiceMan, LICC, et al.: If tax revenues are falling by 44%, it means that, among other things, incomes are down significantly. Incomes are what drive rental prices; incomes + leverage (also down significantly) are what drive purchase prices. How, then, do you maintain your positions that we've "hit bottom"?
steve, if you are going to continue to lie and make things up, please go somewhere else. Where did I say we have "hit bottom"?
Not to dispute the data, thanks for the link, but I do puzzle at the timing of this report.
I would rather have these numbers for the first half of 2009 then mid-way into the second quarter. I'm not sure of the significance of "less than 2 months in to the state's fiscal year" since I don't know how many entities use the state's fiscal year as their own--I suspect not too many. It strikes me as an artifical, media- or Paterson-created landmark. I could be wrong, tho.
I want first two quarters' numbers because a lot of companies and wealthy individuals pay taxes on a quarterly basis. Since some reports say things are looking up in the last few weeks, we'll have a better idea of the meaning of this after June 30 (which happens to be my birthday).
For those taxes owed monthly, for cash flow reasons there's a tendency to wait until the last minute, which again makes me wonder about the timing of this.
So LICC, what's your prediction for prices, since we have you on record saying that a 30% decline was unsubstantiated and it's already happened?
Fluter, the problem is that people will have massive capital gains losses carried forward forever, so there will be no tax revenue. Companies can restate their income for losses going back 5 years. This is a harbinger of things to come.
steve is so bothered that I often clearly show his flawed analysis, numerous mistakes and his lack of understanding of economic concepts, that he resorts to making things up about my opinions and statements to try to repair his damaged reputation.
I think real estate prices in NYC still have downside, but we are nearing a bottom which could happen by year end. I think prices will be flat in the first half of 2010, maybe the whole year. This is assuming the government doesn't screw everything up with bad policies to try to fix budget problems.
"steve is so bothered that I often clearly show his flawed analysis, numerous mistakes and his lack of understanding of economic concepts, that he resorts to making things up about my opinions and statements to try to repair his damaged reputation."
Ha-ha-ha!
So, since you were wrong about the 30% LICC, give us NUMBERS. Real NUMBERS.
wow, i was reading the projections for nyc (financial plan summary 2009-2013).
sadly enough they assume that the city will be successful with cost cutting health care costs for retirees (which already take as much money as the pension themselves) during a period in which baby boomers start to retire. the amount of discretionary spending is less than half of all spending already. there is just not enough room for cuts if revenue falls by say 40% and stay there without touching the non-discretionary (which by definition shouldn't be touched).
Unfortunately, admin, without reining in untenable employee benefits like police, fireman, and teacher retirement and health care, New York City will go bankrupt.
Part of that solution is national health care; the other part is things like the fact they're either overpaid (teachers) with no accountability, or they can retire on full benefits after 20 years (police).
What private-sector workers enjoy that?
sure, but those are non-discretionary. how long will it take for the unions to allow cuts? and how much of those cuts will fall into new employees? the best for the city is to be able to cut costs while being able to pay the most possible to current workers so that the quality of services improves. but that means cutting pensions and health care costs to retirees, did that ever happen before without a muni bankruptcy?
btw, universal health care is just a shift of the burden, not a cut of the burden. the only way to lower it is by rationing.
a shift out of pensions into 401(k)s like in the private sector will help too. but again, which union would agree to that?
I think you need Margaret Thatcher. I'm very pro-union, but I also recognize the actuarial truth.
What happened to GM is about to happen to state and local governments.
"What happened to GM is about to happen to state and local governments."
100% right. add federal to the list.
So LICC - still waiting for your real estate predictions...!