Did NYC Just Get a Double Whammy

NYC is screwed. Taxes for the top earners will be well over 50%, after state and city tax.

Look for the wealthy to leave the city in droves in the next few years.

Wealthy people will still be wealthy, and they'll still gravitate to NY because it's NY.

Wealthy people will not gravitate to a city where they pay more than half of their income to the government. I know you like NYC, but get your head out of your ass and actually study some basic economics.

there are enough people who want to live in nyc.

This is a silly discussion. Wealthy people will just claim that their primary residence is somewhere else, NJ or Conn and continue to live in NYC. There are more than enough accountants that can make this happen.

iamlooking,

you say: "there are enough people who want to live in nyc." ...

YES! all the people who want to live off the city services provided by the people who are hard-working but forking over 50% of their income to support those who don't want to help themselves.

The city should help those who can't help themselves not those who 'dont' want to help themselves

Most loopholes the wealthy use to pay less taxes have been closed by Uncle Sam. Look at the trouble Derek Jeter got in, because he listed his primary residence as Tampa.

NYC is experiencing the greatest destruction of wealth since at least the 1970's.

rufus, you're talking about HENRYs; I'm talking about wealthy people, who still have more than enough money after taxes that they're not going to get bogged down in dull little details. They'll live where they want to when they want to. That's what money's for.

rufus, that's a testament to how great this city is - people willingly pay so much more to live here.

bjw2103, great spin! It's actually a testament to how liberal and mismanaged the city is.

Hey Rufus, Columbia just called and they said to STFU!

I have to admit, it's pretty much over now that Chicago is ranked the 3rd worst city to live in the USA.

Time to give it up rufus. Really. It's done. As in crispy, well done.

Columbia Biz probably just didn't realize that PsychoCrackerBoy has a degree from Manteno State.

So far it's just a plan:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/plan-to-tax-the-rich-gains-momentum/?apage=1

NY 1 said it could be voted on today.

I think this is them trying to sneak it in before the backlash...

Since democrats control the state legislature, it will pass.

NYC is run by incompetent idiots who think taxing the wealthy is the solution. No wonder the city has become such a project infested shithole.

yo Rufus, how do you explain the fact that Cook County, Illinois has the highest sales tax in the nation? Over 10% and you are saying NY is a tax happy authority? You are so stupid and blinded by your outright rejection by NYC that logic fails to compute for you.

Illinois has the highest INCOME TAXES in the Midwest. No wondering many Chicago based companies are uprooting for more affordable locales in the Midwest. Illinois income tax rate is almost on par with NYS, yet offers no benefits of living in NYC and vicinity.

Face it, Blagojevich did his damage. Now they're just trying to get by. It's no wonder Illinois is one of the fastest losing populations and areas of wealth in the U.S.

Chicago is losing more money and population than any other large city.

Rufus, your strnage and wondrous desperation is shining brightly.

Rufus is a troll, who was rejected by his dream school and dream city, Columbia and New York City.
He loved the city until sour grapes set in...

This is all well documented...
http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/8131-rufus-mystery-solved

He is so jealous he spends all day trying to post negatively about NYC.

Man, this guy is so pathetic...

"got rejected at columbia business and am pretty devastated."

"Oh well. I have to spend an extra year in shitty Chicago and reapply for round 1 next year."

"I've been to NYC several times but haven't really partied extensively. But almost everyone I've talked to who lives there tells me how NYC is so much fun and doesn't really get boring, people are interesting, etc. To what extent is this true? What makes NYC so much more fun than other cities like LA, SF, Boston, Chicago, etc.?"

"I live in Chicago but have been to NYC quite a few times and noticed a very sharp difference in the respective social scenes. Chicago seems much more fratty and bar oriented while NYC is a bit more upscale and pretentious. The girls in NYC also dress a lot better as well. I would like to hear opinions on this subject from those of you familiar with both cities."

"Thanks for the encouragement. I'm just really bummed out since I'm 27 years old, and now is the perfect time to go. And socially, I'm extremely dissatisfied with Chicago and really want to be in NYC. I just have to improve my application for next year and hope things turn out better"

Now that he's been rejected multiple times, he's changed his story a bit.

NYC - nice!!!!

Yeah but he's a Manteno State alumnus.

It's really sad, and ironic because many people the state would be targeting are unemployed.

I also heard there's a proposal to tax health club membership fees. As if we shouldn't be encouraging people to take better care of themseves....

I'm deeply worried about the future of this city. The tax and spend liberal are out in full force, and they intend to punish those who create jobs and make this city work.

I wonder how other states facing large deficits are handling their finances. Like CA? Another high tax state ...

If this tax passes, is it still worth it to live here? I'm still trying to decide on that.

This is the expected result of the Reagan Revolution -- the burden of financing for the basic services people expect of government shifts from federal to state to local government. Because, sadly, cutting tax revenues does not lead anyone to accept a lower level of government services.

The states and localities that benefit are those that get lots of Federal spending, usually in the form of military bases and large clusters of Federal agencies. Not only do they get Federal jobs, but that huge transfer of wealth subsidizes the private-sector businesses that they can offer artificially low tax rates and other incentives to.

New York has been getting the short end of that stick for decades.

no. u should leave. today if possible. and never EVER look back. go now, before it's too late.

Have we discovered yet another rufus alias? <<<<<>>>>>>

Sounds just like his mentality. Anti-NYC, Republican.

metalhead sounds just like rufus/JohnAnthony/quantum/DivineComedy

liquidpaper, agreed.

kingdeka, no. metalhead is simply a dittohead -- they're a dime a dozen. PsychoCrackerBoy is a twisted lunatic with five basic themes, ad nauseum. Besides, their writing style/syntax is different.

you are complaining about a small tax hike on people earning over $1 million a year? i'm sorry, but how do you propose we finance our government? ny state is in a massive hole and i guarantee you it isn't going to be filled by raising taxes on waitresses and cab drivers. they are already engaged in a massive round of budget cuts, but that won't be enough. taxes on us rich folks has to go up for the simple reason that we are the only ones with enough income to plug the hole.

Why can't Patterson and Bloomberg cut wasteful entitlement programs like welfare, subsidized housing, and food stamps? I'm so sick and tired of working my butt off, and seeing my money go to fund welfare queens.

wow, you're right. food stamps are a complete waste. poor children should starve in the streets so that i can eat at jean georges or ko every night. i never thought about it that way.

You're not working your butt off, you're wasting time posting irrelevant daily political talking points to local real estate discussion board.

Yeah man, you're totally right! Starting a few threads means I'm a lazy bum living off of welfare checks!

Yo alan! Are you really this retarded, or is this a schtick?

working hard? metalhead, working hard is picking cotton, mining coal, scrubbing floors, driving a cab all night, flying a fighter jet, etc. etc. whatever it is you do, if it involves you sitting in front of a computer all day it is pretty hard to characterize it as hard work. personally, i make an obscene amount of money (a lot more than you do) and basically get to do exactly what i want--read, think, invest. i work out every day, i go to some sort of performing arts event three times a week, i practice the piano every morning, have plenty of time to read for pleasure, travel, cook, and date beautiful women. so i don't really consider myself in a good position to begrudge people a little government assistance to get enough food for their kids.

happyrenter, you make some good points, but the reality is that if taxes get too high the result can be counterproductive.

example: taxing cigarettes. Creates disincentive for people to smoke while raising revenues. Result: state doesn't get as much $$ as planned because either it's too expensive for smokers so they quit, or they stock up from nearby Indian reservations or lower tax states.

As for taxing income, a longer-term solution could be to provide incentives for job growth, keeping people employed, instead of taxing those who are lucky enough to have jobs.

This is an issue the state has had before them for years and has done squat. With high payroll taxes and unemployment insurance, and labor laws that are less flexible than other states, we've been more reliant on Wall St high earners than ever. Instead of taxing them, why not figure out ways for more people to have jobs?

uptowngal's points are all on the mark. The city should figure out ways to provide incentives for companies to move here and for individuals to invest and create jobs. Punishing them for the sake of political populism is not a viable economic policy.

happyrenter I'm willing to bet my life that I make more money than you, live in a nicer apartment, and date more beautiful women. And most of the wealthy people I know in this city, agree with me that the city's tax rate and entitlement programs have gotten out of control.

here's the actual NY1 link:

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/93682/state-democrats-to-propose-tax-on-wealthy/Default.aspx

democrats are proposing it. i doubt it goes through. but if it does, with increased property taxes and everything else, we are going to be in for a lot of pain, especially larger apartments.

uptowngal,

you are talking about a very different issue. certainly there is a legitimate **policy** question here: what is the optimal tax rate to maximize revenue and promote long-term fiscal and economic health. that's a very, very different question from taxation ethics. this debate has been mostly about the ethical dimension of taxation. on that, it is clear that given how we structure our society, allowing individuals to amass enormous wealth and to earn huge incomes, while others struggle to get buy, we have to rely on the wealthy to fund a disproportionate share of government services.

but uptowngal, certainly you don't propose that 'incentives for job growth' can take the place of 'taxing those who are lucky enough to have jobs.' i mean, you don't think people with jobs should pay taxes at all? how are we supposed to pave the roads, teach the kids, incarcerate the criminals, etc. etc. without taxing people with jobs? you don't want to tax people on wall street at all? this makes no sense.

metalhead, willing to bet your life? you ARE a smart one.

metalhead,

if you make as much money as you claim then it is particularly gross for you to complain about paying taxes. i'm not going to get in a pissing match about who makes more money. my point is this: i made more money last year than an average american earns over the course of his entire life. i'm 27 years old. i have no children to support. what possible right do i have to complain about a program like food stamps that provides--in case you didn't realize--FOOD for people who would otherwise go hungry? if you make even more than i do then you should be doubly ashamed of your greed and meanness.

as for what 'wealthy' people think, that's just ridiculous. some wealthy people are greedy and tacky, and some are generous and magnanimous. you clearly hang out with the greedy ones. i don't usually like to hang out with greedy bastards--rich or poor, i prefer the generous and magnanimous.

lol aboutready, i missed that one. bet his life against someone on an anonymous blog who could be earning a hundred million a year and dating halle berry for all he knows. what a genius.

metalhead, go volunteer at a soup kitchen. you'd be amazed at how many people look just like you and me.

happyrenter, I didn't say we shouldn't tax people on Wall St, and that nobody should pay taxes. I'm saying that if you tax too much it can be counterproductive and wouldn't address the issue.

You can't discuss a policy issue without questioning the 'ethics'. People don't pay taxes out of the goodness of their hearts, and the reality is that those w higher incomes are more likely to have the means to avoid higher taxes.

I'm sure that those at lower incomes at risk of losing their jobs would much rather have more opportunities than a chance to live off of public assistance. Creating more jobs would generate more income tax revenue, plus sales tax revenue for all the goods & svcs these folks would buy. Taxing your way out of a recession serves to limit growth.

happyrenter you really need to stop lying. The average American makes around $35,000/year, and assuming he works for about 40 years, that comes up to more than $1.4 million. No one believes that a 27 year old guy made more than $1.4 million last year.

I'm glad you're generous at heart. But I don't like the government punishing me for my success, so lazy people can be rewarded for their irresponsible lifestyle.

metalhead are you serious? "no one believes that a 27 year old guy made more than $1.4 million last year." what do you think has been happening in this bubble? my college roommate (a bond trader in london) earned $5 million in 2007. do the math on a hedge fund. even without a performance fee, a 2% carry on a $100 million fund gets you $2 million a year. as i said, no pissing match on who earns more. both of us are clearly incredibly lucky and blessed.

by the way, whatever you think of poor adults (many of whom are perfectly responsible) you certainly cannot argue that a poor child has been irresponsible. you think poor children should starve to death in this country so you can buy more luxury goods? charming attitude.

I'm amazed how people bitch and moan but when you point out,

"Well, there's the door,..."

how few of them ever leave.

"Well, I just might do that!"

Yeah........

If you make as much money as you claim, why are you still living in a rental? Are you just being frugal and modest?

uptowngal,

you explicitly DID say that people shouldn't pay taxes. you wrote:

As for taxing income, a longer-term solution could be to provide incentives for job growth, keeping people employed, instead of taxing those who are lucky enough to have jobs.

you also wrote, of people on wall street:

Instead of taxing them, why not figure out ways for more people to have jobs?

clearly we need to tax incomes in order to fund basic government services. the question is how much--a difficult policy conundrum. but as a matter of ethics, in a society such as ours the rich really can't complain about their tax rates.

metalhead,
i'm not 'still' living in a rental. i sold my apartment in 2007 because real estate prices had gotten completely out of control. i am frugal, yes. you know the old saying about stealing goats? the inexperienced goat thief thinks it is a good idea to steal from the guy with a lot of goats. he won't notice the missing goats, right? but the experienced goat thief corrects him. never steal goats from the guy with a lot of goats. the guy with a lot of goats values his goats.

so yes, i am frugal. just because i'm in a solid financial position doesn't mean i want to throw money away by owning overpriced assets.

happrenter, I was referring to increasing tax rates for the highest earners as a way to close the fiscal gap and suggested an alternative. Not that people shouldn't pay taxes.

I'm not suggesting we allow people to go hungry and allow our roads to crumble. I'm suggesting policy decisions that are more realistic.

You are young and early in your career. I'm further along and have worked in both goverment and in the private sector. Raising taxes is often seen as an easy 'fix' but over time states have found more constructive ways to generate income.

The highest earners already pay the highest rates. And it gets worse because many of them are subject to Federal AMT, which means they cannot deduct state income or property taxes from their federal returns. This may seem 'fair' to you, but some day when you have a mortgage to pay and 2 kids on college, you'll either consider moving out of state or join your neighbors at the food bank.

uptowngal,

an individual's desire to pay less in taxes is completely distinct from the collective decision of the society, expressed through its elected representatives, to tax at a certain rate. i'm sure everyone would prefer to pay lower taxes. i also agree that there is an optimal tax rate for a given time, and that this rate varies with economic, social, and political conditions. sometimes it is a good idea to raise taxes, sometimes a good idea to lower them, sometimes a good idea to change them, and sometimes a good idea to do nothing to them. i am sure we can all agree with that.

but as an ethical matter, i find it gross for rich people to complain about the fairness of paying higher taxes. sure, each of us would rather pay less, but as a matter of equity the luckiest people in society should not be complaining about the equity of paying more to keep that society functioning.

Yeah HR... we should tax A.Rod 50% of his $250MM... WTF... he like cheated to get that job :) And having sex with as granny is not public service :)

Yo Happy: As things slow down, can I be your caddy?

if i take up golf, sure :).

I'd say raise taxes for anyone making $1 more than me :)

Anyone making above $10MM/yr should have taxes raised IMHO. no-one creates "a benefit " to society as an individual above that amount... .so this means all the execs who made money moving money and taking too much risk, home flippers and all those "entertainers/athletes/agents" who make money off of copyright laws (loved how Disney extended copyright laws as soon as I would've been able to sell my "off-color" mikey mouse shirts w/o having to pay them lic fees). YES I AM BITTER :)

happyrenter, that's right, I'm a rich person complaining about the ethics of paying even higher taxes for purposes that won't even address the issue at hand.

If you enjoy paying higher taxes then you should move to Europe, where people have enjoyed higher taxes for decades, along with higher unemployment.

hr, are you saying that only those earning the most are the 'luckiest people in society'? maybe some of these folks earned their income through hard work. or maybe they're really not lucky, just lonely.

Define rich uptown? In NYC... $500K/yr won't even get you 10 in-vitros :(

uptowngal,

i'm sure many rich people did work to earn their money. and they also had to be incredibly lucky. there are plenty of people who work their butts off and never earn anything more than what is necessary to survive. if i had been born in rwanda, if i had not received a top-flight education, if i had been raised by parents who didn't have access to nutritious food, if i were physically disabled, if i were mentally ill, if my parents were illiterate, etc. etc. etc. i would obviously have had a much harder go of it. anyone who is successful should have the grace to acknowledge that a huge component of success is luck.

obviously i am not saying that rich people are all lucky in all aspects of their lives. we are talking about economics here, so yes, in economic terms the rich are the lucky ones.

HR,

We are all very fortunate to live here. Certainly some are more fortunate than others. But people seem to forget that we have a progressive tax system here in the U.S. That means 2 very important things 1) If you make more money you pay more taxes and 2) higher earners are in higher and higher marginal tax brackets. Higher earners pay more in taxes than those that earn less and higher earners they pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes.

If you enjoy paying taxes, and think certain income levels should pay more, then you should pay more. There is not one law in the United States that will stop you from paying higher taxes than the law requires or that will stop you from donating to the United States Treasury. I challenge anyone to find that statute. To encourage higher taxes and not participate voluntarily to support your argument is embarrasing. One needs to realize their convictions.

Higher earners pay a smaller percentage of their disposable incomes than lower earners, even under a progressive tax system.

Psychologically-healthy earners appreciate the money they get to keep, rather than that which they don't.

And before we go down the ideologically-driven road of "incentive to produce," business-minded people focus on any and all incremental net profit -- down the very last extra penny.

patient09, your lap stops being your lap as soon as you stand up.

thank you, alanhart.

patient, that is patently absurd. i am a member of this society. i fulfill my obligations as a member of the society, and i express my will for the best interests of that society (and for myself) by voting. if i believe that the society should oblige me to pay a higher tax rate that certainly does not require me to pay more in taxes if the society takes a different position. likewise, if i am drafted into the army i have to fight whether i want to or not. and conversely, if the government decides not to, say, invade iran, i am not obliged to mount a one-man invasion of iran because i think society has made a mistake.

it would by hypocritical to advocate higher taxes for the rich and then evade paying those taxes when and if they are implemented. it is certainly not hypocritical to live up to my obligations while at the same time advocating a different set of obligations.

to extend the metaphor: it would be hypocritical to advocate invading iran and then to dodge the draft that would be required to mount the invasion. but if the country has no draft, i am not obliged to sign up.

alan... can i use that line about laps?

A mark of a true "good" society is how well it takes care of its most unfortunate.... i.e. a progressive tax system. YEH... let's go invade IRAN... he's a douche.. how ever you pronounce his name... hummus?

Yes, but you can't adapt it for lapdances.

"it would be hypocritical to advocate invading iran and then to dodge the draft that would be required to mount the invasion. but if the country has no draft, i am not obliged to sign up."

No, you're not obliged to sign up, but if you still advocate invading and don't sign up, then people will obviously roll their eyes at you. I think it's a bit hypocritical to advocate paying more taxes or redistributing income more fairly and not do so when you clearly have the ability to do so. I don't know if you give to charities, but if not, I don't think you've got much of an argument here.

many people come to this country w nothing and scrounge to send their kids to the best schools based on hard work. happens all the time, that's why they come here. Couldn't happen in most other countries.

HR, maybe you can pay their taxes for them, as you're the lucky one. the rest are too busy.

bjw,
i think charitable giving is a very different issue from taxation and that really one has nothing to do with the other. some people advocate lower taxes because they claim they fulfill their obligations by donating to charity. so i reject your premise.

that said, i tithe.

"Define rich uptown? In NYC... $500K/yr won't even get you 10 in-vitros :("

LMAO

happyrenter,

I'm surprised you think so - they actually have much to do with each other, as private giving is the one legitimate argument against (and "substitute" for) taxation/tax increases. If someone makes tons of money, advocates higher taxes, and neither pays higher taxes nor gives generously, that person is pretty plainly hypocrital. That's all I was trying to say (and from what you said, I would not label you as such).

'i think charitable giving is a very different issue from taxation and that really one has nothing to do with the other."

perhaps, but from a practical standpoint most charitable donations are tax deductable. and many companies match the donations their employees give. it encourages those at higher income levels to give to charity. and is one reason why US residents donate the most per capita to charities than in any other nation.

whether you're high income or not, higher taxes for higher income just plain sucks. sure, if your low/middle income better to have the other guy pay taxes. but in new york city, i think it has become abundantly clear that there is a definitive trickle down effect that starts at wall street and works its way all the way through to the guy who delivers dry cleaning or hands out a.m. newspapers. and let's not even get started on small businesses that file as sole propreitorships that are going to get hit with this tax increase. either way, this is going to be yet another bruising for the new york economy as a whole.

Anyone who advocates tax breaks for corporations, should put his money where his mouth is and hand his money over to corporations. Fair is fair.

middle class in nyc is rich anywhere else in America.

alanhart
40 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
Yes, but you can't adapt it for lapdances.

LMAO!

JuiceMan :)

uptowngal (size 8?)... if you don't like the higher taxes.. go to Somalia.. 0 taxes... just don't go commuting in a yacht: (
I believe in Sweden they give speeding tickets $ based on income... one dude got a $100K ticket once... he made like $10MM/yr... My point being... if you can find a country which taxes its wealthy less than the US... I'll pay for your brood to leave if you want :)

malthus... it's funny that if you buy $600K commode or fly $20K Concorde in your business it's tax ded... but no f'n MD in finance would ever buy a $10K commode for his house or fly first class in his "personal" life.... LMAO. I knew this one MD that did everything he could to fly the Concorde ( would literally wait to book last minute to justify first class Continental vs. Concorde)... but as soon as we went out for drinks.... was like you get it :). WHAT a f'n douche... I think his named ended with Thain :)

"Anyone who advocates tax breaks for corporations, should put his money where his mouth is and hand his money over to corporations"

Your logic is flawed. You could either work for a corporation and therefore would rather have a tax break than budget cuts and get laid off. Or you could own stock or mutual funds and benefit from corporate tax breaks through greater earnings and thus, all else equal, higher stock prices.

"if you can find a country which taxes its wealthy less than the US... I'll pay for your brood to leave if you want :)"

hong kong has a flat tax rate, 15% of income. also, no capital gains taxes on any asset. now THAT is paradise on earth.

Special K:

On 1: I don't think anybody on this board is advocating tax cuts for a particular company. That's not really a policy discussion, but something probably most people employed in a particular company would advocate.
2: You could also benefit from higher government revenues and be advocating higher taxes for that reason. In fact, I think that is exactly the argument for higher taxes.

"hong kong has a flat tax rate, 15% of income. also, no capital gains taxes on any asset. now THAT is paradise on earth."

... as long as you don't have any desire to criticize your government. Same for Singapore. Low taxes, high economic freedom. Just don't piss of the government. That said, I agree those are nice places to live.

I stand corrected... gotta move to HK :)

Hope they like an albino with a 3 legged chihuahua :)

HR: Sorry I was off line writing some checks to my favorite charities. Not sure what your rant was about earlier. Never responded to you directly, you know when you are being called out. My comment was simple, if one wants to pay more than required, they should. If more felt the same way then there would be more revenues for the gov't. I choose to pay what tax law stipulates because I don't agree with all of gov'ts choices of how they spend. Therefore, I write checks directly to education and health care. Don't care about the extreme ends of the political spectrum that tend to run our country and debate the points.

patient,

if you don't understand the difference between a choice and an obligation go take a basic philosophy class i am not going to try to explain it to you.

specialk,

if you think hong kong is heaven then you must care a lot about money and very little about freedom.

HR... alright I changed my mind... can't image what they'd do with a blabber mouth like myself.... What do you mean I can't have my US Citizenship back!

>>> working hard? metalhead, working hard is picking cotton, mining coal, scrubbing floors, driving a cab all night, flying a fighter jet, etc. etc. whatever it is you do, if it involves you sitting in front of a computer all day it is pretty hard to characterize it as hard work. personally, i make an obscene amount of money (a lot more than you do) and basically get to do exactly what i want--read, think, invest. i work out every day, i go to some sort of performing arts event three times a week, i practice the piano every morning, have plenty of time to read for pleasure, travel, cook, and date beautiful women. so i don't really consider myself in a good position to begrudge people a little government assistance to get enough food for their kids.

I don't entirely dis-agree with happyrenter - I do think it is fair to tax the rich more - but the assumption that everybody who makes over $250 or $500k has plenty of disposable income is flawed.

It's easy to sit here and preach when you are 28 and single and have nothing to spend your money on but on fancy dates, travel, and a bigger apartment than you need and by your own admission have "plenty of time" for outside interest.

But what about a couple of two doctors who has $250k in medical school debt and makes $500k per year. They do work THAT hard - medical school plus a grueling residency and now 60 hour weeks. If their take home is only $250k ($500k * 50% total tax rate, it's not that much. Say they have two kids, rent or own a decent 3 bedroom apartment, and have to have a full time nanny.

Rent or mortgage: $6,000 / month * 12 = $72k
Nanny = $45k
Tuition = $50 k
Student loans = $24k
Groceries (300/week x 50 weeks) = $15k

That's $206k of their $250k take home, and that doesn't include anything else: subways/taxis, maybe a car, dry cleaning, the occasional dinner out, clothes, cable, dry cleaning, school supplies for the kids, modest vacations etc. Nor is accounting for saving for college, retirement, etc.

Are all of these things essential? I suppose not .. you can put your kids in daycare, not send them to private school ... but it's the ability to do these things that makes people work hard. Honestly that's why I work hard. And while I like what I do, I am ALWAYS on call, work 60+ hours a week, and travel constantly. I can honestly tell you I wouldn't work hard if I couldn't afford the things I mentioned. Do I work as hard as my cleaning lady? Frankly, I think so - I know how many hours a week she works because I know her entire schedule. Before you jump on me, I cleaned floors for 3 summers in high school ... it's physical, but in a good way (it's not backbreaking). My job is more stressful, it doesn't end when I go home. Am I more fortunate than her? Yes ... but is she working under miserable conditions? No.

On the other end of the spectrum - a woman on welfare who already has 6 kids has octuplets ... why is this hard-working doctor couple paying their taxpayer money for this? Sure, this is an isolated example, but there are plenty of these types of people. There are plenty of people who are overweight and smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day who end up in the hospital at the taxpayers expense.

Look, I see the other side of this too. It's fair to tax the wealthy at a higher percentage, sure ... but it can be overdone.

ummm,
isn't it interesting that you consider private school tuition and a full-time domestic servant necessities for these people but that someone surviving on 15k per year is obviously a mooch? the yearly budget for groceries that you allocate to this couple is more money than some families have to get by on--yes, these people spend more in groceries than other people spend on everything.

i don't begrudge successful people their success, and if people want nannies and private schools and expensive apartments more power to them. but as a society we have to make judgments, and it seems reasonable that when the basic functions of the nation need to be funded we turn to the people with the nannies and the private school tuition rather than the people who can barely get enough to eat.

Full time servant? I am talking about somebody to WATCH YOUR CHILDREN WHILE YOU WORK, not pamper to your every whim. And if you have 2 or more kids in the city, day care is not that much cheaper.

I agree as a society we need to make judgements, and I grant that private school is not as important as food on somebody's table. But there are abuses the other way - like those I just cited ... people having large numbers of kids without any way to support them, people who are fully capable of working but get government assistance.

My whole point is that this can be taken to extremes: if you really feel that way, happyrenter - give all your money away. Why do you need a $7k/month rental? Why are you looking to spend $2-3 million on an apartment? Why do you travel? Why do you even own a piano - these are luxuries. And people are starving!!!

P.S. - VERY few people in the U.S. are starving.

"if you think hong kong is heaven then you must care a lot about money and very little about freedom"

Not sure why caring a lot about money is a bad thing. You sound like Rearden's mother.

If you care about economic freedom, then Hong Kong is THE place. Ranked number 1 year after year. http://www.heritage.org/index/country/hongkong

Not sure what "freedoms" you are speaking about that are restricted there, but if my sister and her family has not once complained. Sounds like you are doing a lot of talking out of your ass about a place you've never been to.

funny...I don't know a single college buddy on the buy-side that has time to work out everyday, go to "performing arts" 3 days a week, practice piano every morning, and have plenty of times left over for fabulous dates...you must be very savvy to wing that and pull down what you say you do...

kspeak, a fairly high number of children suffer from malnutrition, often due to a scarcity of food. The number of children living below the poverty line is one of our ugly realities. Certainly not solely my responsibility, but as a member of a society I feel some duty. I realize that you are not arguing otherwise, just a point.

Maybe we should all live together in a community of vans down by the river.

jgr, i have spent plenty of time in hong kong. it is a great place to visit, a lot of fun, beautiful, and fantastic food. but personally, i consider freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom from capricious prosecution, the right to vote, and the right to be free from discrimination highly important. your sister may live in hong kong but i doubt she has renounced her US citizenship and decided to become a citizen of the people's republic. she could certainly save a lot of money in taxes if she did so.

as for being savvy, yes, i am. i run my own investment vehicle and i set my own hours.

My point is starvation is not nearly as much of a problem in this country as others - I would make the statement that starvation is one of the smaller problems faced by this country. More lower-income kids are overweight than middle income kids; I realize this is because high-calorie foods are cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables. The other reality is that "feeding hungry kids" is very little of our tax dollars.

If I were going to talk about anything, I would talk about the number of kids who don't have health insurance.

My point is it's a little nauseating when somebody brags they make an "obscene" amount of money, talks about all of the leisure time they have, and has said before what they spend on rent and are looking to spend on an apartment WHILE at the same time criticizing people who say it's not fair to pay 50% taxes. The reality is the hypothetical couple I mentioned has FAR less luxury in their life than happyrenter.

There are abuses on BOTH sides of the system - by people taking government assistance and wealthy people dodgind taxes. But it's not wrong to say "I'm paying 50% taxes and I don't think it's all going to a good place." I am sure most people if it could be shown to them that every tax dollar was being used on feeding hungry kids, welfare to the truly needy, healthcare, education, highways - they could be convinced to pay more in taxes. But so much of our tax dollars are NOT going to these things.

nyc10022, you poor (literally) thing.

I'm guessing you weren't aware that 50% of wealthy New Yorkers claim residence New Jersey, Connecticut and especially Florida?

Nothing to see here people.

"I'm guessing you weren't aware that 50% of wealthy New Yorkers claim residence New Jersey, Connecticut and especially Florida?"

Do you know wtf you are talking about or are you just making shit up? Your jealousy of the "wealthy" is palatable.

1) You aren't doing much better on taxes in New Jersey or Connecticut.

2) New York State is by far the most aggressive when it comes to prosecuting tax cheats. Very few people get away with this shit.

kspeak,

you are way off base. because i make a good living i can't be a liberal? that's just absurd. one of the freedoms we have in this country that jgr seems to think are so unimportant is freedom of conscience. i believe that my great luck in getting into the situation i am in is due in large part to the benefits i have received from the society i live in. thus i have no problem with that society expecting me to contribute back to pay for the functioning of government and to help out people who are really struggling. i'm sorry you think it is nauseating for successful people to be liberal. i find it nauseating when rich people think the government should be organized primarily around their narrow economic interests.

as to the domestic servant issue, you are talking about a couple that spends 50k a year to have their kids in school. why do they also need a full-time nanny? clearly not to, as you say, watch the kids while they work. and what do you think middle class people--let alone poor people--do with their kids while they work? they certainly don't hire a 40k per year nanny.

again, my point is not to begrudge these people their servant. if they want one and can afford one, then go for it. my point is that as society weighs the economic interests of its citizens, it has the right to put the need for full time help low on the list.