NYC Govt Spending Up 66% Under Bloomberg

what office are you running for?

Dog Catcher

To go with your fleas?

That makes no sense Aboutready.

sure it does.

No it doesn't c0lumbiac0unty.

yes it does.

does not.

now i'm supposed to say....

does too.

fieldchester
hunterbugergreenscommhfscommer.

does not, does not, does not.

go for it.

stupid.

huntersburgerfieldchesterhfscommberger1

Makes total sense. Are you dense, hb/gb/FCC/hsf?

does not.

up to your usual standard.

don't you ever get a headache?

do too.

pathetic.

very, very pathetic.

am not.

no buddy.

you clearly am.

am not.

aboutready
2 minutes ago
Posts: 15751
Member since: Oct 2007
ignore this person
report abuse
Fuck off.

Are so.

This massive increase in city spending is unsustainable--the city economy is not growing that fast. A good first step would be to deduct money from city employees' paychecks to pay for part of their health insurance. The pension system also needs fundamental reform. They should be converted to a 401k or 403b type system. The city now spends 1/3 of its annual budget on pensions and healthcare. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like any of the mayoral candidates have a serious program to reform the system. We can basically expect more of the same.

The richest city in the richest country in the history of the world, and we can't afford to give our employees a pension -- really? That's how you want to treat our teachers and police and firefighters and sanitation workers? How do you expect them to treat you back?

And your proposed solution to our "poverty" is to force public servants to switch to defined contribution plans that are inherently more expensive (each person must save for their maximum expected lifetime instead of all saving for the average life expectancy). That solution suggests that the problem you are trying to solve is not expense, but the possibility that someone outside the banking class might live a decent life.

Perhaps if our goal is to make the city a better place, we should instead enact a Living Wage Law, so that ordinary NYers make enough money to pay for the services that a city needs, both public and private. And, of course, a national health care system -- Medicare-or-VA-for-all -- that would move us all the way leftward to the well-known progressive Bismark and eliminate the real burden on the NYC budget.

Our problem is not that we promise those who make the city liveable that their lives, too, will be liveable. It is that far too much of our wealth is sucked up by the rentiers and overcharges of the finance and medical industries.

Financeguy, NYC is already one of the most heavily taxed cities in the nation. If you add up the top tax brackets for Federal, State, City it is: 39.6 + 8.97 + 4.25 = 52.82%.

Add Medicare to that: 1.45% employee + 1.45% employer + 0.9% for income above 200k = 3.8%. Now we're up to 52.82% + 3.8% = 56.62%. How much higher would you raise that top rate to pay for all your programs? Or would you raise the lower brackets?

Then we have Social Security up to ~114k of income (increases each year): 6.2% employer + 6.2% employee = 12.4%.

Sales tax for combined NY State & City is 8.875%.

And don't forget about NYC property taxes, which get factored into everyone's rent, so they are somewhat hidden.

NYC residents are also heavy contributors to the NYS and federal government - we give significantly more than we get back. So having a national healthcare system seems only like a way for NYC to pay even more for the rest of the country and get a disproportionately small return.

But the math doesn't work to have cops on the beat for 20 years and then earning a pension for the next 50 because we can't have a city in which only rentiers, finance and medical industry participants, and NYC former employees living on pensions can afford to live here.

George McDonald, Republican candidate for mayor, has suggested transitioning city retirees to the Affordable Care Act.

Since a higher minimum wage would increase tax revenues not expenditures, and a national health care system based on giving every citizen the choice of joining either the VA or the Medicare systems would likely bring costs down to the levels seen everywhere else in the developed world (about half ours, for better care), these programs cut government costs. Dramatically.

However, they also make people's lives better, unlike your proposal to violate the contractual rights of government employees.

BTW, the NYC upper class is prepared to spend shocking amounts to live here -- in case you aren't aware, prime Manhattan real estate is quite expensive. Since our RE prices are entirely disconnected from the costs of production, if we cut upper class incomes, the main effect would be to reduce RE prices. Shifting some money from real estate to essential services would help nearly everyone (Dolly Lenz and some of W67's housesitters possibly excepted).

>Since a higher minimum wage would increase tax revenues not expenditures

It would increase government expenditures. It would be inflationary.

> and a national health care system based on giving every citizen the choice of joining either the VA or the Medicare systems would likely bring costs down to the levels seen everywhere else in the developed world

You base this statement on what?

>However, they also make people's lives better, unlike your proposal to violate the contractual rights of government employees.

I didn't say anything about violating the contractual rights of government employees.

>in case you aren't aware, prime Manhattan real estate is quite expensive.

I am aware.

>Since our RE prices are entirely disconnected from the costs of production,

What's the point of that statement? And how much more production is available anyway in prime Manhattan?

>if we cut upper class incomes,

How do you propose we cut upper class incomes?

>the main effect would be to reduce RE prices.

Maybe. Maybe not. You already said that RE prices are disconnected with the cost of production. The real cost of production is the wealth and income required for real estate. If we cut that, will the link between RE prices and cost of production now be connected?

>Shifting some money from real estate to essential services

What essential services aren't being provided that you feel you need?

On the other hand, if we actually wanted to invest in the future, that wouldn't be hard either.

It is well past time to build half a dozen new subway/tram lines with the goal of doubling the amount of land within 1/2 hour commute to midtown. Also, high speed lines bringing Boston and Washington within an hour (that's still slower than the Chinese/Japanese/German/French trains).

That would cost a fortune -- and create many times more value in increased economic activity as the central city expanded to match. With current interest rates at near zero, it could almost certainly be paid for simply by the ordinary taxes on the new business, without raising fares or tax rates at all. From a social perspective, of course, it would be pure gain, since both the capital and labor it would use are currently sitting idle.

>It is well past time to build half a dozen new subway/tram lines with the goal of doubling the amount of land within 1/2 hour commute to midtown.

Plenty of NYC isn't within a half hour to midtown. It takes more than that to take the A express from 207th Street to 59th or 42nd Street.

> Also, high speed lines bringing Boston and Washington within an hour (that's still slower than the Chinese/Japanese/German/French trains).

We have a lot of people in Manhattan. Why do we need to siphon Boston and DC? What does this have to do with pension costs? Except to make things more expensive in NYC because there is more population here, and to make things more expensive in DC and Boston because there are fewer people there to pay the pensions.

>That would cost a fortune -- and create many times more value in increased economic activity as the central city expanded to match.

Maybe not. Maybe as the most crowded city already, making it more crowded is a bad idea. All your plan does is spend money in an effort to shift jobs from Boston and DC into NYC.

HB: When capital and labor are idle, as now, increased government expenditures reduce waste and unemployment. They do not increase inflation. Inflation happens when the economy overheats -- that's not our issue. Or haven't you noticed that there aren't enough jobs, interest rates are near zero (suggesting no demand for capital) and inflation has been below 2% for years?

The easiest way to cut the income of the upper class is to increase income taxes -- say back to Eisenhower levels. Reducing patent/copyright monopolies back to that era, and re-regulating finance, would also help.

RE prices are currently set by high demand and a supply that is relatively fixed in the short/medium run because building/conversion takes time. If upper class income/wealth is taxed or the extractive industries are re-regulated so that the takers take less, then demand will drop. Supply will not drop -- it will continue to increase at more or less current rates so long as prices stay over the cost of building and renovation, which is below well below half current prices. Lower demand and same supply means that prices will drop.

Unless of course making the city a better place to live attracts still more rich people and demand doesn't drop. This is a distinct possibility -- the empirical evidence is quite clear that high taxes don't drive the wealthy away, or they'd all have moved to Alabama long ago. Unlike 9d... many people with money are willing to spend it on attractive things -- such as safe, well-run cities -- even if some might get into the hands of retired teachers and police or other members of the middle class.

Cities are networks. Like all networks, they are more valuable as they get larger, and the value goes up faster than the size. Combine Bos/Wash into one city, and the economic value they produce will go way up.

Just as the existing subways make Queens more productive and richer, not less. And more and faster ones would make the boroughs (and midtown) wealthier and more fun still.

High speed trains would make land prices near the train stations in NYC, Philly, Boston and DC go up, since people living there would be able to work and play in, or with people in, any of the cities.

The only thing that makes sense is to phase in 401k plans for the cities cops and fire fighters. It's not salaries that is killing NYC finances but paying benefits that can last four decades after retiring which for cops and fire fighters is often way before 65 and before you say they can't work after that, remember many of these guys take 2nd jobs. The system needs to be reworked so that pension benefits start later and/or are paid in like a 401k plan.

as usual you make it sound as though no one loses. why should municipal workers get less than they currently do; who else will take a hit to their income?

Greyed out Street Easy Dybbuk as usual.

more ethnic crap from you.

you are gross.

>HB: When capital and labor are idle, as now,

Capital is not idle. Money is flowing nicely into risk assets. Risk assets make the economy grow. They also increase your tax base.

>increased government expenditures reduce waste and unemployment.

Increased government expenditures create waste as there is no accountability. Take a look at the pension giveaways and the programs to allow people to work for only 20 years before collecting on them.

Reducing unemployment is an important goal.

>They do not increase inflation. Inflation happens when the economy overheats

No, when you increase wages to $15 per hour just to serve hamburgers, that's inflationary.

>The easiest way to cut the income of the upper class is to

If your main goal is simply to cut the income of the upper classes, then I should just stop talking. We are in different universes speaking different languages.

>Reducing patent/copyright monopolies back to that era, and re-regulating finance, would also help.

Whatever, be my guest.

>RE prices are currently set by high demand and a supply that is relatively fixed in the short/medium run because building/conversion takes time.

Ok, so things in the real world take time.

>so that the takers take less,

Agree, we need fewer takers.

>Lower demand and same supply means that prices will drop.

But you've said they are disconnected and can be for long periods.

>Unless of course making the city a better place to live attracts still more rich people and demand doesn't drop. This is a distinct possibility --

Yup.

>the empirical evidence is quite clear that high taxes don't drive the wealthy away, or they'd all have moved to Alabama long ago.

Or Florida, Texas, Nevada.

>Cities are networks. Like all networks, they are more valuable as they get larger, and the value goes up faster than the size.

Like Mexico City?

>Combine Bos/Wash into one city,

Sure, sounds good.

>Just as the existing subways make Queens more productive and richer, not less. And more and faster ones would make the boroughs (and midtown) wealthier and more fun still.

Do the laws of physics apply here?

>High speed trains would make land prices near the train stations in NYC, Philly, Boston and DC go up, since people living there would be able to work and play in, or with people in, any of the cities.

Sounds great.

>as usual you make it sound as though no one loses. why should municipal workers get less than they currently do; who else will take a hit to their income?

They don't have to lose income. They have to work more. More than 20 years. http://www.bestadsontv.com/ad/55854/New-York-Lottery-Pay-Me-Cloned

"then I should just stop talking."

...yes.

He and RS should take an oath of silence.

Hi aboutready, are you getting excited for your upcoming September vacation?

"then I should just stop talking."
"He and RS should take an oath of silence."

Isn't this what everybody here was saying even before he came up with the new "fieldschester" alias and was posting under his prior gray name?

financeguy, you should check your reference points. you cite china's experimnet with high speed trains as an example? really? have you a clue as to what happened to their vaunted infrastructure with that colosall eff up?

and lets just keep raising taxes to cure all ills. even if that had a modicum of potential success, it would still leave massive deficits at every level (city, state, federal). if spending continues on its current trajectory, the whole thing implodes.

and your suggestion is to build high speed trains???!!!are you an obama speech writer too??? very constructive thinking. so many flaws in your 1960's dogma its not even worth debating. Wake up!

had to do that even at the risk of further alienating ah and ar....

I'm pretty sure Eisenhower was President in the 1950s and that modern high speed trains were not available in the 1960s -- we are more like forty years behind Germany, France and Japan, not fifty.

But I am interested in your position that the US is incapable of achieving better quality than China -- do you see this as a consequence of democracy? markets? culture? corruption? Why do you think our system can't compete with Chinese centralized, profit-driven corruption policed by arbitrary executions?

I also like to hear more about your view that no one should invest because "the whole thing implodes". I had been under the impression that investing is generally the source of future wealth. Does your analysis lead you to conclude that mortgages should be banned and companies should never borrow? Or is it only public sector investments, like the highway system and public schools, that lead to implosions?

BTW, the majority of federal spending is on past and future wars -- explosions rather than implosions. Do you also oppose that spending, or only spending that improves people's lives?

I will try and make this quick but might be tough with you.

The US is certainly capable of competing with China in the private sector. As a matter of fact, the Chinese were smart enough to figure out that their approach to governing (Maoist communism) had to be signficantly tweeked to emulate (as best they could)to capatilism so they could move forward on the fiscal front.

however, their grand plans with respect to high speed trains has been pretty much a failure thus far despite the gvmt attempts to squash reporting on the corruption, graft, low ridership, and the inability of their middle class to afford a ticket on one of those glossy rockets.

of course in the us, we dont have to look at high speed rail as an example of gvmt inability to manage a transportation system - does amtrak ring any bells to you?

so, it has nothing to do with my view on the US competing with the Chinese - it has everything to do with your "proposal" that high speed rail (run by our gvmt) is one answer to our failing, putrid economy.

Ranger -- you use the 1960s as if it were an epithet. I know that the War in Vietnam was a disaster, and the massive governmental program to build suburbs and depopulate the cities was a mistake that we are still suffering from. If the 1960s civil rights legislation was one of the high points of US history, the reaction that began then and continues to dominate much of our politics is surely one of the lower points. And 1960s supermarket food was terrible, cars burned too much gas and weren't very safe, and bouffant hair and horn rimmed glasses were and are ugly. But still.

On economic issues such as we are discussing here, were the 1960s really so terrible compared to the alternatives we've had since? That was the last time that the middle class could reasonably expect to get an annual raise, to be able to buy a house before the children graduated, to support a family on a single income and to expect that our children would be richer than us. The GI Bill and government research support meant that higher education was expanding rapidly so that people could get education even without having rich parents to support them. Unemployment was low enough to give ordinary people bargaining power: men with a HS degree hit their peak earnings in the 1960s and haven't kept up since, even as the country has gotten far wealthier.

And the bestsellers were about the problems of excess choice and leisure -- quite a contrast to today's whining that the richest country in history can no longer afford basic aspects of civilization such as health care and education and supporting the elderly and preventing catastrophic environmental change. Or, as above, that we need to force ordinary Americans, who already work longer hours and more years than their parents or most Europeans, to work longer still. If they can find a job. Because somehow being rich means that we have to act poor.

Seems to me that the ideas that made that mass prosperity possible might be more worth learning from than the great shift since the political elites decided to dismantle the New Deal. The victories of the Reagan-inspired right have brought us inequality, low growth, failure to invest, financial crises and bailouts, and regular bipartisan attempts to repeat the Vietnam mistake. Organized grifterism doesn't seem to work terribly well. Actually, it makes the technocratic arrogance of the 1960s look pretty good.

Most countries engage in projects such as high speed trains for the wrong reasons. They do it either to create jobs or to impress the world of their prowess when in fact the only reason such projects should be done is to increase productivity (versus the cost involved)

Amtrak was designed to almost fail and it has succeeded spectacularly at that. Partial privatization often has that result, especially when the grifters are instrumental in planning the program -- see USPS, FNMA, private prisons, Iraq war contractors, for-profit education, hospital privatization, pharmaceutical development, S&P, etc.

RS: Most countries that build high speed trains build them because they are highly efficient, relatively cheap compared to the alternatives, reduce pollution, increase economic growth and improve the quality of life. That's why it's impressive. Generally, in fact, it is easier to impress the world (assuming that that is what the Belgians had in mind, which seems unlikely) by doing smart things than stupid things.

And why is creating jobs a bad reason to invest?

Ranger- If you want an example of a failed government transportation project, you'd do better to examine the interstate highway system and its project of urban removal than Amtrak. Amtrak was a compromise that no one ever liked and that has always limped along under crippling conditions that prevented it from doing what anyone could see it needed to.

The highway system, in contrast, was a national project, properly funded, expertly run, that transformed the country. Unfortunately, it worked, but the vision of a car-centered world turned out to be unsustainable and insufficiently popular. Now, we need to rebuild the country again, reversing much of what we did with that project.

Still, building the highway system was a key part of a generation of prosperity. To RS's horror, no doubt, it created an enormous number of jobs in all areas of the economy. Replacing it with more modern transit, more compatible with modern tastes, the modern economy, and the modern need to reduce climate-change gas emissions, would do the same.

fg, dont take too much away from my 1960's reference point, a little before my time. it was more to the point of when i presumed your "school of thought" was starting to take root. thats it.

i would point to the post-carter 1980's as a shining example of what our economy can do with the right fiscal policies and approach to governing. and i dare say that period of time was not just simply a cyclical event that would have occurred nonetheless.

i also think that unless gvmt shows much better aptitude on "investing", then i am quite skeptical of listening to any solution that includes massive expansion with trillion dollar projects that we have shown no capability to manage through our bureaucrats.

if you think the "victories" of the reagan era are the genesis (not surprising though) of today's fiscal
morass then their really is no hope for you. i am surprised you didnt point to george w. but i guess going back to reagan is even more alarming.

"Financeguy, NYC is already one of the most heavily taxed cities in the nation. If you add up the top tax brackets for Federal, State, City it is: 39.6 + 8.97 + 4.25 = 52.82%.

Add Medicare to that: 1.45% employee + 1.45% employer + 0.9% for income above 200k = 3.8%. Now we're up to 52.82% + 3.8% = 56.62%."

Actually, the top tax rate nets out to 51.9% because you can deduct a lot of the above mentioned taxes from Federal taxes.

Anyway, finance guy, there is a split difference between 401k plans and defined benefit plans. They are called annuities. These are what Federal government employees have purchased in lieu of either alternative for 30 years or so, with no complaints. It moves the risk of managing the defined pensions to an insurance company.

... which will then lobby govt. to allow the principal to be invested in pets.com and Enron and Madoff, and Granny will be left penniless when an unsurprising surprise follows. Finance co. execs will get golden parachutes. Government will then make the annuity payments. Taxpayers will get golden showers.

Private sector uber alles!

Alan's point on the back of Jason's of course is that government should be out of the retirement business altogether. You gets your paycheck and that's it and you figure it out. Interesting POV Alan.

Alan is incorrect in that this has NOT happened with Federal employees. It's what all the state governments should do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Retirement_System

alan, the gvmt promises you rose gardens all the time. just dont get too caught up in that either, remember social security was supposed to be in a "lockbox". Tell that to the gen yers who wont see what was promised unless some substantial reforms.....

Lockbox < Strategery