1K layoffs on track to save MTA $50M

[nhrrwtby]

Perhaps they need to do as I've said all along and tax the really wealthy since they are the only ones who can afford it and use that money to plug gaps instead of cutting services that benefit the middle and working class, and layin off middle and working class people which just furthers the downward spiral. Then EVERYONE from individuals to businesses to governments needs to STOP getting into so much debt, pay as you go, and be responsible, and hell even keep a surplus when times are good so that this "boom or bust" casino and crash mentality can go to hell where it belongs and vital services like transit, fire, law enforcement, and education can maintain dedicated funding and the stupid pork barrel spending can be cut instead (which never is).

 

So let me see if I understand you. We tax the wealthy (who are moving out of high-tax NY in droves) so more of them will leave, further eroding the tax base. Aside from the fact that it is fundamentally immoral to steal the fruits of one man's labor to give it to another, punitive tax rates do NOT solve the problem; they never have. Now, as to the term "vital services" like transit, fire, etc., it's time we stopped parading little old grandma in front of the cameras to cry about how her bus route is being cut from 10 minute intervals to 20 and instead focus on restoring some responsibility to the whole budgeting process. Government is broke! We've gone to the well so often it's dry, and we've used up our children's share too. I hope New Yorkers find a Chris Christie of their own soon before the whole thing comes crashing down.

[nhrrwtby]

Then thier point of view is wrong then if you "see" something factual that is right in front of your face and view it as something else..

 

Did you ever stop to think for one minute that YOUR point of view might be wrong? Didn't think so....

[nhrrwtby]

Of course the cost of living is going up. I just got a letter saying that my property taxes are going up, the prices at the supermarket where I shop just took a hike upwards, etc. My brother-in-law just got a notice saying that his property taxes for his medium-sized house in Nassau County is going up three grand to $16,000 per year! Those are increases in my book.

 

And why is that happening? Property tax increases are necessary to feed the hungry beasts of "education", emergency services, transit, etc. at the local level. These are just the things that you want to continue to fund! Seems like you're saying "money for me, but not for thee!" Don't you see how your argument has become circular?

[RTOMan]

Did you ever stop to think for one minute that YOUR point of view might be wrong? Didn't think so....

 

Dont kid yourself...

 

Who said yours was correct anyway?

 

I made a general statement keep up...

[RTOMan]

And why is that happening? Property tax increases are necessary to feed the hungry beasts of "education", emergency services, transit, etc. at the local level. These are just the things that you want to continue to fund! Seems like you're saying "money for me, but not for thee!" Don't you see how your argument has become circular?

 

You forgot social services....

 

One of the biggest ones....

[R32 3838]

I Hate to say this But:

 

They are Better Off doing another Fare Hike

 

I Rather Pay More than to see Service cuts and Employees Loose their Jobs,

 

I Know some people can't afforrd it but The Hell with it, NY is Not the Only state in trobule.

[nhrrwtby]

So where does that leave you? Overtaxing the poor? That seems like an even worse idea. I agree with that great New Yorker and notorious liberal, Alexander Hamilton, that is should be, "a fixed point of policy...to go as far as may be practicable in making the luxury of the rich tributary to the public treasury, in order to diminish the necessity of those impositions, which might create dissatisfaction in the poorer and most numerous classes of the society."

 

I would support a reinstatement of a modest commuter tax. Out of towners who work here use our services - police, fire, transit, etc. It's not unreasonable that they should contribute towards them.

 

I prefer the following:

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." – Winston Churchill

[Ridgewoodian]

 

Ridgewoodian: NOW can we toll the damn bridges?

 

Spoken like someone who doesn't own a car. Why don't we just double the subway fare and see how you like it?

 

You know that I wrote that in support of the workers who are soon to be out of jobs, right?

 

No, I don't own a car, just like the majority of New Yorkers. And if I did I sure wouldn't drive it into Manhattan on any kind of regular basis.

 

Why should we toll the bridges instead of doubling the subway fare?

 

1) On the whole drivers in this city are richer than subway riders and are more able to pay.

 

2) Subway riders already pay something like 60% of the total cost of a subway ride - which is a pretty good ratio for a transit system. Drivers pay nothing close to that to use the bridges and get into the central business districts.

 

3) Cars clog up valuable street space and pollute the air; in a capitalist system drivers should pay to do that.

 

4) Subways and, to a lesser extent buses, are far, far more efficient at people moving. One subway car can hold a hundred and fifty, two hundred passengers - an auto can hold how many? Four? Six? And very often holds only one. For that reason alone subway riding should be encouraged and driving discouraged, to the extent practical. Also, drivers benefit from the existence of the subways. Imagine if they suddenly ceased to exist and everyone had to drive. The streets would be impassible. The subways keep literally millions of people off the roads, allowing those who do use them to be able to get around. I see no reason why they shouldn't chip in to the upkeep of a system that they benefit from.

 

5) The problem with the MTA right now is that it doesn't have a consistent source of funding. The real estate taxes that had been a mainstay have tanked. The new mobility tax has failed to bring in the amount projected. State funding of the MTA has remained flat since the 1990s. That's the big reason for the hole - more than the TWU, more than the train arrival monitors. Tolling the bridges would go a ways towards closing the deficit and might actually help save a few jobs.

[nhrrwtby]

On the whole drivers in this city are richer than subway riders and are more able to pay.

Spoken like a true socialist. By your line of reasoning, the Yankees should give half their revenue to the Twins because they can afford it. It already costs $11 to cross the Verrazano, and there's no mass-transit option for that one. Oh, and since my ezpass was not issued in New York, I don't get the ezpass rate. Someone has to explain that one to me.

 

If you want to toll the East River crossings, fine with me. That puts the burden on the user. But let's quit the "soak the rich" talk. That's not America; it's Europe!

[Forest Glen]

You know that I wrote that in support of the workers who are soon to be out of jobs, right?

 

No, I don't own a car, just like the majority of New Yorkers. And if I did I sure wouldn't drive it into Manhattan on any kind of regular basis.

 

Why should we toll the bridges instead of doubling the subway fare?

 

1) On the whole drivers in this city are richer than subway riders and are more able to pay.

 

2) Subway riders already pay something like 60% of the total cost of a subway ride - which is a pretty good ratio for a transit system. Drivers pay nothing close to that to use the bridges and get into the central business districts.

 

3) Cars clog up valuable street space and pollute the air; in a capitalist system drivers should pay to do that.

 

4) Subways and, to a lesser extent buses, are far, far more efficient at people moving. One subway car can hold a hundred and fifty, two hundred passengers - an auto can hold how many? Four? Six? And very often holds only one. For that reason alone subway riding should be encouraged and driving discouraged, to the extent practical. Also, drivers benefit from the existence of the subways. Imagine if they suddenly ceased to exist and everyone had to drive. The streets would be impassible. The subways keep literally millions of people off the roads, allowing those who do use them to be able to get around. I see no reason why they shouldn't chip in to the upkeep of a system that they benefit from.

 

5) The problem with the MTA right now is that it doesn't have a consistent source of funding. The real estate taxes that had been a mainstay have tanked. The new mobility tax has failed to bring in the amount projected. State funding of the MTA has remained flat since the 1990s. That's the big reason for the hole - more than the TWU, more than the train arrival monitors. Tolling the bridges would go a ways towards closing the deficit and might actually help save a few jobs.

 

1) Not necessarily. Some people own small businesses and need cars or vans for their business.

 

2) They pay a myriad of vehicle registration fees and taxes

 

3) So do local buses

 

4) Subways do not serve every area of the city equally. Sometimes it's not practical to take the subway

 

5) So because the MTA can't manage a system of trains and buses, motorists who don't even use the system have to suffer?

[Trainmaster5]

You know that I wrote that in support of the workers who are soon to be out of jobs, right?

 

No, I don't own a car, just like the majority of New Yorkers. And if I did I sure wouldn't drive it into Manhattan on any kind of regular basis.

 

Why should we toll the bridges instead of doubling the subway fare?

 

1) On the whole drivers in this city are richer than subway riders and are more able to pay.

 

2) Subway riders already pay something like 60% of the total cost of a subway ride - which is a pretty good ratio for a transit system. Drivers pay nothing close to that to use the bridges and get into the central business districts.

 

3) Cars clog up valuable street space and pollute the air; in a capitalist system drivers should pay to do that.

 

4) Subways and, to a lesser extent buses, are far, far more efficient at people moving. One subway car can hold a hundred and fifty, two hundred passengers - an auto can hold how many? Four? Six? And very often holds only one. For that reason alone subway riding should be encouraged and driving discouraged, to the extent practical. Also, drivers benefit from the existence of the subways. Imagine if they suddenly ceased to exist and everyone had to drive. The streets would be impassible. The subways keep literally millions of people off the roads, allowing those who do use them to be able to get around. I see no reason why they shouldn't chip in to the upkeep of a system that they benefit from.

 

5) The problem with the MTA right now is that it doesn't have a consistent source of funding. The real estate taxes that had been a mainstay have tanked. The new mobility tax has failed to bring in the amount projected. State funding of the MTA has remained flat since the 1990s. That's the big reason for the hole - more than the TWU, more than the train arrival monitors. Tolling the bridges would go a ways towards closing the deficit and might actually help save a few jobs.

 

All of your points are valid ones although point #1 might be a sore point with many New Yorkers. IMO the business community and the regional agencies should sit down with the governors of NJ, NY, and Connecticut and come up with a plan to fund mass transit in the tri-state area. It's not a one state problem. It encompasses the region. The , NJT, PATH, MNRR and LIRR are all on shakey financial footing to some degree. The central business districts in all three states need a steady reliable flow of people able to come in and work. The ancillary businesses like restaurants, theaters, hotels need that same flow of riders to become/remain profitable. What has happened to the , in particular, is that the state has cut funding for the last decade forcing that agency to rely on the bond market. When those bonds come due and must be paid the agency has even less money to provide service, so either services must be cut, fares raised, or employees must be let go. This vicious cycle leads to fare hikes and poorer services and less ridership. So.... deeper in the hole we go. In NY the clowns in Albany came up with a scheme to fund the but it was based on voodoo economics or something and it came up short of $$$$. Governor Patterson then decided to cut even more from the promised monies. Looking southward it appears that the newly elected governor of NJ wants to cut the funding for NJT. If they have to go into the bond market for funding they'll only drive up the costs for NY AND NJ.. That's why I think that the US Senators of all three states have to bring all affected parties together and hash out a regional plan for mass transit. I know it may be too late for the S/As and B/Os who are going to be laid off but maybe this problem can be eliminated or lessened in the future. As for the poster who's hung up on capitalism vs socialism, I say try whatever works. Unbridled capitalism can lead to economic downturns like the 1930s. What President Roosevelt did in this country was considered socialistic but it helped turn this country around ( so did WW II). People today will string you up if you touch their Social Security checks and that's pure socialism. Let's not get hung up on labels and find a reliable funding mechanism for mass transit in the region.

[LexAveExp5]

hey, how come the New York State Public Authorities Reform Act hasnt come into play AT ALL in this matter?

 

anyone remember this? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/11/19/2009-11-19_light_on_a_shadow_govt.html

 

 

With new legislation, 'Soviet-style' state authorities - such as MTA - will be under more scrutiny

BY Kenneth Lovett

DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF

 

Thursday, November 19th 2009, 4:00 AM

 

Groll/APSen. Bill Perkins speaks a news conference Wednesday at the Capitol. He is joined by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (left) and Gov. Paterson. Take our PollBudget crisis in Albany

Who do you blame for the New York State budget crisis?

 

Gov. Paterson

The Legislature

It's just business as usual in Albany

 

Related NewsArticles

Traffic forecast for Feb. 23, 2010$700M program will revamp 150 subway stationsPink slips just the start of MTA revamp, boss Jay Walder vowsZazi high school pals to face more terror charges Leif Garrett pleads not guilty in felony drug caseJurors deadlocked on top charge of racketeering against concrete testing company

ALBANY - "Soviet-style" state authorities like the MTA will face more public scrutiny under legislation that flew through the Assembly on Wednesday.

 

"This is the most fundamental reform of Albany in decades," crowed Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, the Westchester Democrat who spearheaded the effort.

 

Brodsky said city mass transit users particularly will notice a difference when the bill is passed in the Senate and signed into law.

 

"This means the repeated catastrophies we've seen at the MTA on fare policy, on contract letting, on two sets of books, those days are over," he said.

 

There are more than 700 public authorities, including the MTA, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp., the state Thruway Authority, and the Long Island Power Authority.

 

Long considered a "shadow government," critics say they are patronage mills that operate in secret and ring up hundreds of millions of dollars in debt.

 

The legislation will transform the public authority budget office into an independent body with far more power.

 

It will also require authorities to submit financial plans, capital budgets, financial reports and contacts with lobbyists.

 

It gives the state controller power to review authorities' no-bid contracts and contracts worth more than $1 million.

 

"These were Soviet-style bureaucracies and we're ending that," Brodsky said.

 

Mayor Bloomberg, who had requested some changes - which were made - said the revised bill "will improve oversight of authorities while still providing them with ...flexibility."

 

While Paterson and lawmakers came together on the reform bill, they were still far from a deal to close a $3.2 billion budget gap.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/11/19/2009-11-19_light_on_a_shadow_govt.html#ixzz0gWPVOcNl

[Ridgewoodian]

Spoken like a true socialist. By your line of reasoning, the Yankees should give half their revenue to the Twins because they can afford it. It already costs $11 to cross the Verrazano, and there's no mass-transit option for that one. Oh, and since my ezpass was not issued in New York, I don't get the ezpass rate. Someone has to explain that one to me.

 

If you want to toll the East River crossings, fine with me. That puts the burden on the user. But let's quit the "soak the rich" talk. That's not America; it's Europe!

 

Spoken like one who has no arguments and can only resort to name calling.

 

Bob Costas, that revolutionary firebrand, wrote a book in 2000 called Fair Ball: A Fan's Case for Baseball in which he argued for your idea. Well, maybe not the Yankees giving HALF their revenue to the Twins, but for serious revenue sharing. And not just because the Yankees "can afford it" but because it would be in both the Twins' AND the Yankees' interests. Because, let's face it, the Yankees can't play themselves and they can only play the Red Sox and Mets a certain number of times. For fans to retain any interest in them they have to face credible opponents. The Twins seem to have done fairly well in the last few years, for a small market team. So did the Oakland A's, before everyone got on the whole Moneyball tip. But neither of them could ever quite get over the top and actually win it all in the playoffs. That's not healthy for the game. And it's even worse that once proud franchises like the Pirates and the Royals have almost no chance of being any good.

 

One sport that has figured this out is football. The old AFL had revenue sharing starting in 1960 and it helped it become a serious competitor to the NFL. The NFL eventually took over the idea, sharing television and gate revenue among its teams. As a result there's much greater parity in the NFL than there is in MLB. Teams from small markets like Green Bay, Jacksonville, and Buffalo have been able to compete and win. Perhaps not coincidentally, the NFL has become arguably the most successful sports league on the planet. Rozelle socialism.

 

The moral? Sometimes if those with means give up a portion of their excess for the benefit of those with less everyone gets more in the end.

 

As in sports, so in transportation. It's manifestly NOT in the interest of drivers for the public transportation system here in New York to fall apart. Since they benefit from its existence they need to contribute their fair share to its upkeep and expansion. Congestion pricing or tolling the East River bridges (and I meant only the currently untolled bridges, by the way) would be one way of doing so.

 

Is this a European way of thinking? Well, if it is what's wrong with that? Are we to think that Europe is some kind of stinking hellhole? Is France a failed state like the Congo? Are Bolivia and Germany somehow equivalent? I don't think so. People in Europe have much the same material culture we do here. They live in modern cities with all the amenities. There's no famine or rampant disease - in fact, on average, they live longer than we do. For the most part they’re thriving democracies that respect human rights; they’re certainly not hanging nuns on street corners. Why, exactly do you raise the specter of Europe? And, anyway, I don’t think anything I’ve written is at all un-American. My god, in 1776 didn’t we pledge one to another our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

[SubwayGuy]

So let me see if I understand you. We tax the wealthy (who are moving out of high-tax NY in droves) so more of them will leave, further eroding the tax base. Aside from the fact that it is fundamentally immoral to steal the fruits of one man's labor to give it to another, punitive tax rates do NOT solve the problem; they never have. Now, as to the term "vital services" like transit, fire, etc., it's time we stopped parading little old grandma in front of the cameras to cry about how her bus route is being cut from 10 minute intervals to 20 and instead focus on restoring some responsibility to the whole budgeting process. Government is broke! We've gone to the well so often it's dry, and we've used up our children's share too. I hope New Yorkers find a Chris Christie of their own soon before the whole thing comes crashing down.

 

See this seems to be the problem. No one wants to tax the rich because they will "move." Fine, let 'em. Then they can buy new houses, property values will start to come down and expenses will come more in line with reality. Governments are broke, but so is everyone EXCEPT the rich. Might as well take the big bath and start over. It seems to happen every so often in the economy and it always sucks when it does but can any of us really sit here and say that since things supposedly started "getting better" that they actually did? The whole time working people are out of work, failing on bills, getting deeper and deeper into debt, defaulting on loans, and losing their homes...the wealthy continue to make money. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that continues to maintain the status quo when the status quo is clearly not working.

 

And there are some on here who think I am a socialist but I assure you that is not the case...America has always been built as a land of opportunity and if opportunity is only there for the rich to get by then it's Un-American. That's not socialism, that's common sense. When a working class person gets money, they spend it. When a rich person gets money they hoard it. And all you have going on is a lot of hoarding...rich people with huge salaries hiding their assets and moving to places where they can scheme their way out of paying their fair share to the government so that everyone else has to pay for it, or so that the government can borrow and spend and go deeper and deeper into debt.

 

Sooner or later you have to pay the piper so maybe it might as well be now. Hey nothing else is working these days...layoffs just make things worse. It's a downward cycle and it's not going to end soon but rather than just make it quick, our leaders won't do what they have to, and will allow things to fester until one day they just collapse on their own. Hell look at Albany and Washington. They don't care. They're too busy fighting over who to blame or how many times Monserrate hit his wife or who's gonna win those lovely elections later this year than about fixing things.

[Ridgewoodian]

They absolutely should, but it's not going to happen. So you have to get revenue from somewhere and overly taxing the rich is only going to make them move out of the state.

 

If you have a family making $500,000 who lives in New York paying a 12% income tax, that's $60,000 per year that they shell out to the state & city alone. Hike it to 16% and you're talking an additional $20,000 per year. Would you pay it? I sure as hell wouldn't. Now instead of getting the original $50,000 that you were receiving, now you're getting nothing after that family moved out of the city. Taxing the wealthy seems like the easy thing to do...until they reach the breaking point. When they start moving out, revenue becomes stagnant. Then what are you going to do? Why, tax us, the middle class!

 

I know that New York is an expensive city and half a million a year wouldn't put anyone in the top echelon of earners in the city but, I’m sorry, it’s still a pretty good chunk of change. Your hypothetical situation still leaves your hypothetical family with $420,000 to live on. Now, I’ll admit, I’ve never made that much in my life and I’ll be surprised if I ever do but I strongly suspect that it’s still possible to live a decent life on that much. And I bet it’s a lot easier to live on than it is to live on the $42,000 a year that a similar tax on a $50,000 income would leave you with.

 

Would I leave the City if I could “only” take home $420,000? Well, where would I go? Connecticut? I’ve lived there - don’t need to do it again. New Jersey? No thanks. And you wouldn’t really save THAT much in taxes. Other decent cities outside the Metropolitan area - San Francisco, say - have high taxes. Which stands to reason since they’re complicated, built up places and a lot of services are needed to keep them running. One always hears about cheap living in the Carolinas, say, or Iowa. But that means actually having to live in such places. Personally, I’m not interested in that.

 

There may be people who are. That’s what makes America great, they’re free to make silly decisions like that. But New York does seem to attract a lot of people with money and I see no reason not to ask them to contribute, according to their means, to the upkeep of the city that nourishes them.

[SubwayGuy]

Spoken like one who has no arguments and can only resort to name calling.

 

Bob Costas, that revolutionary firebrand, wrote a book in 2000 called Fair Ball: A Fan's Case for Baseball in which he argued for your idea. Well, maybe not the Yankees giving HALF their revenue to the Twins, but for serious revenue sharing. And not just because the Yankees "can afford it" but because it would be in both the Twins' AND the Yankees' interests. Because, let's face it, the Yankees can't play themselves and they can only play the Red Sox and Mets a certain number of times. For fans to retain any interest in them they have to face credible opponents. The Twins seem to have done fairly well in the last few years, for a small market team. So did the Oakland A's, before everyone got on the whole Moneyball tip. But neither of them could ever quite get over the top and actually win it all in the playoffs. That's not healthy for the game. And it's even worse that once proud franchises like the Pirates and the Royals have almost no chance of being any good.

 

One sport that has figured this out is football. The old AFL had revenue sharing starting in 1960 and it helped it become a serious competitor to the NFL. The NFL eventually took over the idea, sharing television and gate revenue among its teams. As a result there's much greater parity in the NFL than there is in MLB. Teams from small markets like Green Bay, Jacksonville, and Buffalo have been able to compete and win. Perhaps not coincidentally, the NFL has become arguably the most successful sports league on the planet. Rozelle socialism.

 

The moral? Sometimes if those with means give up a portion of their excess for the benefit of those with less everyone gets more in the end.

 

As in sports, so in transportation. It's manifestly NOT in the interest of drivers for the public transportation system here in New York to fall apart. Since they benefit from its existence they need to contribute their fair share to its upkeep and expansion. Congestion pricing or tolling the East River bridges (and I meant only the currently untolled bridges, by the way) would be one way of doing so.

 

Is this a European way of thinking? Well, if it is what's wrong with that? Are we to think that Europe is some kind of stinking hellhole? Is France a failed state like the Congo? Are Bolivia and Germany somehow equivalent? I don't think so. People in Europe have much the same material culture we do here. They live in modern cities with all the amenities. There's no famine or rampant disease - in fact, on average, they live longer than we do. For the most part they’re thriving democracies that respect human rights; they’re certainly not hanging nuns on street corners. Why, exactly do you raise the specter of Europe? And, anyway, I don’t think anything I’ve written is at all un-American. My god, in 1776 didn’t we pledge one to another our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

 

Personally I see your link between sports and life but I think it speaks to our values. It's pathetic that the same people who swear by salary caps in sports and make themselves amateur baseball economists just so they can call in to WFAN 5 times a week and get busy signals, who SWEAR by a "socialistic idea" want nothing to do with it in the American economy. I'm not saying one way or the other is right, I just think it's pathetic that if the Yankees win a few world series we hear all the whining and complaining in the world and when the collective bargaining agreement was up in 2002, all sorts of things were added in to make baseball more competitive, such as the luxury tax and revenue sharing. And, oh yeah, the Yankees went along with all of that.

 

But when it comes to BUSINESS the rich don't want to give one red cent for anyone else, and the media throws out loaded phrases like "socialist" every time something is brought up that penalizes the wealthy. But yet when the middle class has been getting the big squeeze the last 20 years was it socialist? Was it unfair? Was it anything? Oh, no, it was Reagonomics, the brilliant top down strategy where if the rich had money they'd give it to everyone else. Well what about the bottom up strategy? Oh that's socialist. The founding fathers all warned you that this day would come, when the banks owned your land, your government, and yes you. And while they are making billions, your governments are going broke, and you are going broke. And it's amazing that people STILL don't want to do anything about it, don't even want to try new things. The stock market picked up and the banks are back making billions...so where's the tax money to fund these services like the MTA? People made a lot of their losses back, so how come they're not spending? There are very serious and very major problems, and while the wealthy laugh their way to the bank, the sheeple can't even figure out that this is bad for them because that's THEIR money.

 

Sorry I just don't see it. America needs to fix America first, the rest of the world be damned. And part of fixing America is making it a land of opportunity again. Allowing those who want to make a living to do so is not "socialist" its smart economics. And those who don't like it can get the hell out and move to India where they'll fit in real well with the caste system over there. So, it shrinks the population...fine. But that's less services that WE'LL have to provide for THEM.

 

Amazing that "poor teams" in sports would get something done on their behalf before working people in America.

[SubwayGuy]

I know that New York is an expensive city and half a million a year wouldn't put anyone in the top echelon of earners in the city but, I’m sorry, it’s still a pretty good chunk of change. Your hypothetical situation still leaves your hypothetical family with $420,000 to live on. Now, I’ll admit, I’ve never made that much in my life and I’ll be surprised if I ever do but I strongly suspect that it’s still possible to live a decent life on that much. And I bet it’s a lot easier to live on than it is to live on the $42,000 a year that a similar tax on a $50,000 income would leave you with.

 

Would I leave the City if I could “only” take home $420,000? Well, where would I go? Connecticut? I’ve lived there - don’t need to do it again. New Jersey? No thanks. And you wouldn’t really save THAT much in taxes. Other decent cities outside the Metropolitan area - San Francisco, say - have high taxes. Which stands to reason since they’re complicated, built up places and a lot of services are needed to keep them running. One always hears about cheap living in the Carolinas, say, or Iowa. But that means actually having to live in such places. Personally, I’m not interested in that.

 

There may be people who are. That’s what makes America great, they’re free to make silly decisions like that. But New York does seem to attract a lot of people with money and I see no reason not to ask them to contribute, according to their means, to the upkeep of the city that nourishes them.

 

Many of the rich are scumbags, and they would move. But in my view they become another state's problem when that happens. What really needs to happen is since so many states are bankrupt, they need to sit down and agree across the board on tax rates such that there isn't a big change from state to state. And no states should be income tax free because that's just asking for trouble. Those states that don't need the money could lower fees elsewhere and use the income tax instead of something else to raise money.

[Ridgewoodian]

1) Not necessarily. Some people own small businesses and need cars or vans for their business.

 

2) They pay a myriad of vehicle registration fees and taxes

 

3) So do local buses

 

4) Subways do not serve every area of the city equally. Sometimes it's not practical to take the subway

 

5) So because the MTA can't manage a system of trains and buses, motorists who don't even use the system have to suffer?

 

1) According to just about all the studies that have been done on the subject, drivers in the city, as a whole, are more well off than subway riders. And those who have cars or vans for business ccould build the congestion price into their cost of doing business. The congestion pricing plan that was defeated in Albany a few years back called for an $8 charge per car or van, to be charged only once in any given day. If you're using a van to deliver parcels, say, you could spread out that cost over each parcel - if you deliver enough it works out to only cents per customer. Or, if it turns out that the traffic flows more freely with less people on the road, you might choose to "eat" the fee and make it up in the volume of deliveries.

 

2) But they pay little towards the upkeep of the roads and bridges, little for the valuable space they take up, especially in the central business district (remember, Manhattan is some of the most valuable real estate on Earth), and nothing for the environmental damage they do.

 

3) True, but at least local buses can move large numbers of people so the amount of congestion and pollution they produce per person per mile moved is much, much less. Take all the people off a bus and stick them in cars and suddenly you have a lot more congestion and pollution to deal with.

 

4) That's a good argument to raise the capital to expand the system. Or for some captain of industry to buy up land near subway terminals and build parking garages or kiss and rides.

 

5) The current problem really isn't MTA mismanagement (sure, I'm positive some efficienties could be found and some business practices reviewed but not to the tune of $700,000,000) - the problem is that it's been systematically starved for many years, partially by City Hall, mostly by Albany. (The STATE of New York, as an aside, is NOT a good idea.) There needs to be a steady source of revenue and it needs to be supplied by those who benfit from the system. That would be the riders, who already pay a significant portion of the cost of a ride at the farebox, businesses in the city (which couldn't operate without a viable public transit system), and the City and State. All of these stakeholders make contributions, although some of them not as large as they should. One group that doesn't is drivers. As I've mentioned elsewhere it's manifestly NOT in the interest of drivers that system fall apart - that would be a disaster for them. Since the system benefitst them even if they don't use it themselves it's only right that they should contribute to its upkeep.

[SubwayGuy]

Congestion pricing is a dead horse and it is not going to work. Besides, let's say congestion pricing is perfect (it's not)...well it will still cost million of dollars up front to set up that the city and state do not have...

 

Also the "average" driver may have more than the average subway rider but if you were to look at the MEDIAN income they'd be comparable. What should be considered is taxes on "black car" services (ie limo's), among other things. You'd be hitting a lot of not very wealthy people with that brush if congestion pricing were implemented, which would do further harm.

[Trainmaster5]

Personally I see your link between sports and life but I think it speaks to our values. It's pathetic that the same people who swear by salary caps in sports and make themselves amateur baseball economists just so they can call in to WFAN 5 times a week and get busy signals, who SWEAR by a "socialistic idea" want nothing to do with it in the American economy. I'm not saying one way or the other is right, I just think it's pathetic that if the Yankees win a few world series we hear all the whining and complaining in the world and when the collective bargaining agreement was up in 2002, all sorts of things were added in to make baseball more competitive, such as the luxury tax and revenue sharing. And, oh yeah, the Yankees went along with all of that.

 

But when it comes to BUSINESS the rich don't want to give one red cent for anyone else, and the media throws out loaded phrases like "socialist" every time something is brought up that penalizes the wealthy. But yet when the middle class has been getting the big squeeze the last 20 years was it socialist? Was it unfair? Was it anything? Oh, no, it was Reagonomics, the brilliant top down strategy where if the rich had money they'd give it to everyone else. Well what about the bottom up strategy? Oh that's socialist. The founding fathers all warned you that this day would come, when the banks owned your land, your government, and yes you. And while they are making billions, your governments are going broke, and you are going broke. And it's amazing that people STILL don't want to do anything about it, don't even want to try new things. The stock market picked up and the banks are back making billions...so where's the tax money to fund these services like the MTA? People made a lot of their losses back, so how come they're not spending? There are very serious and very major problems, and while the wealthy laugh their way to the bank, the sheeple can't even figure out that this is bad for them because that's THEIR money.

 

Sorry I just don't see it. America needs to fix America first, the rest of the world be damned. And part of fixing America is making it a land of opportunity again. Allowing those who want to make a living to do so is not "socialist" its smart economics. And those who don't like it can get the hell out and move to India where they'll fit in real well with the caste system over there. So, it shrinks the population...fine. But that's less services that WE'LL have to provide for THEM.

 

Amazing that "poor teams" in sports would get something done on their behalf before working people in America.

 

"Poor teams" are still BIG business and that's who "the powers that be" cater to, not the average working class American. BTW I like your point of view. Only the dumbest Americans believed in that trickle down economic theory. It has never worked before at any time in history. All the less wealthy people got out of it was being pissed on by the rich. That's the essence of the trickle down theory. At the beginning of this recession/depression I told some of my older relatives that there seemed to be a master plan in place to break all unions, abrogate all contracts, and reduce wages and benefits to make American businesses competitive with those in Asia and South America. Put the squeeze on the American workforce and cut wages in half. Then wave Old Glory and tell us that it was being done to make the US economy strong again. There's nothing happening these days to change my mind. There's been an amazing transfer of wealth over the last generation while the average working stiff debates over the Democratic or Republican agenda. Pro or anti union. Keith and Rachel or Rush and Sean. Meanwhile we've been taken to the cleaners by the big banks and corporations. It's time we all wake up, before it's too late.

[SubwayGuy]

"Poor teams" are still BIG business and that's who "the powers that be" cater to, not the average working class American. BTW I like your point of view. Only the dumbest Americans believed in that trickle down economic theory. It has never worked before at any time in history. All the less wealthy people got out of it was being pissed on by the rich. That's the essence of the trickle down theory. At the beginning of this recession/depression I told some of my older relatives that there seemed to be a master plan in place to break all unions, abrogate all contracts, and reduce wages and benefits to make American businesses competitive with those in Asia and South America. Put the squeeze on the American workforce and cut wages in half. Then wave Old Glory and tell us that it was being done to make the US economy strong again. There's nothing happening these days to change my mind. There's been an amazing transfer of wealth over the last generation while the average working stiff debates over the Democratic or Republican agenda. Pro or anti union. Keith and Rachel or Rush and Sean. Meanwhile we've been taken to the cleaners by the big banks and corporations. It's time we all wake up, before it's too late.

 

110% agreed on ALL of that. The sad part is 99% of the country is getting taken to the cleaners, so 99% of people should be angry and against all of this. But probably about 95% of the people arguing in FAVOR of the corporations and special interests that are doing this (or more specifically their RIGHT to do this), and are actually defending their actions WERE the VERY ONES who were GETTING taken to the cleaners! People very much need to wake up to it.

[TheKorean]

MTA should have asked for all the federal government money wasted trying toi create "jobs" when in reality those money went down the toilet.

[RTOMan]

"Poor teams" are still BIG business and that's who "the powers that be" cater to, not the average working class American. BTW I like your point of view. Only the dumbest Americans believed in that trickle down economic theory. It has never worked before at any time in history. All the less wealthy people got out of it was being pissed on by the rich. That's the essence of the trickle down theory. At the beginning of this recession/depression I told some of my older relatives that there seemed to be a master plan in place to break all unions, abrogate all contracts, and reduce wages and benefits to make American businesses competitive with those in Asia and South America. Put the squeeze on the American workforce and cut wages in half. Then wave Old Glory and tell us that it was being done to make the US economy strong again. There's nothing happening these days to change my mind. There's been an amazing transfer of wealth over the last generation while the average working stiff debates over the Democratic or Republican agenda. Pro or anti union. Keith and Rachel or Rush and Sean. Meanwhile we've been taken to the cleaners by the big banks and corporations. It's time we all wake up, before it's too late.

 

In other words... SUCKERS!!!!!

 

Lot of lost people out there and they dont even know it....

[LexAveExp5]

could the be saved by a 2 cent gas tax? this guy seems to think so! PLUS money for jersey and conn.

 

"Correction Officers Benevolent Association President Norman Seabrook, an MTA board member, proposed last week that the agency lobby lawmakers in New Jersey and Connecticut to impose a new two-cent gas tax to bring in new revenues.

 

“I think that would not only take the MTA out of the hole that it’s in, but I think it would also provide additional money for the State of New Jersey, additional money for the State of Connecticut. It would provide additional money for the City of New York,” he said."

 

http://www.nycpba.org/press/ch/ch-100305-mta.html

 

i read this in The Chief Leader on Tuesday before i found the article here. it'll b on the Chief's website in a month

[fishmech]

could the be saved by a 2 cent gas tax? this guy seems to think so! PLUS money for jersey and conn.

 

"Correction Officers Benevolent Association President Norman Seabrook, an MTA board member, proposed last week that the agency lobby lawmakers in New Jersey and Connecticut to impose a new two-cent gas tax to bring in new revenues.

 

“I think that would not only take the MTA out of the hole that it’s in, but I think it would also provide additional money for the State of New Jersey, additional money for the State of Connecticut. It would provide additional money for the City of New York,” he said."

 

http://www.nycpba.org/press/ch/ch-100305-mta.html

 

i read this in The Chief Leader on Tuesday before i found the article here. it'll b on the Chief's website in a month

 

Of course it will provide funds for NJ and Connecticut - otherwise they can't improve service on the Metro-North West-of-Hudson lines and the Metro-North New Haven line.