Without Action From Cuomo, Subways Doomed to Endless State of Disrepair

[Culver]

Tax cuts are only good for those who produce in this country.  You don't give tax cuts to those already receiving handouts on the taxpayers' dime.

 

As for my position on tax cuts, upper middle class working professionals like myself are taxed heavily and unfairly in NYC and in NY State for that matter, and I think that needs to be balanced out so that everyone pays their fair share.  If a family of 4 brings in 30K a year, then they can't afford to live here, and giving them tax breaks isn't going to make that much of a difference in the overall scheme of things.  They'll just continue to look for more handouts and take away from the tax base that is desperately needed here.  I support a tax system that makes folks go out and work and doesn't rely on the "gubment" to deal with their problems.  We need more high income earners in this city to support the monies needed to better our schools, bolster our police force, infrastructure and so on, not less, therefore trying to overtax the upper middle class and the rich is simply not the way to go.

 

You have the education of a bag of baseballs. You sound like the trust fund baby a**holes one meets in college who think their parents being rich and providing for them means they're somehow successes. I find it funny how banks get zero-interest loans from the federal reserve (and then give out loans with interest) and yet have massive tax breaks, and that's OK. But poor people working two jobs (SO LAZY, amirite?), well they're f**king parasitic scum who need to be crushed. You can't go one day without saying something repulsive on this forum, and for that you almost deserve applause.

 

Oh, and do tell me how hard Paris Hilton and the Kardashians work. Lord knows they need another tax break.

[traingoat]

Bus lanes are not prohibited by Interstate standards; Los Angeles and Dallas are full of them.

 

The only reason the bridge is considered unsafe is because the addition of that zipper lane got rid of the shoulders and increased the accident rate. The bridge can accommodate six interstate-standard lanes fine, so building two spans the exact same width as the old one makes absolutely no sense, especially considering that the Thruway is not going to get any wider than eight lanes in the future due to community opposition; in fact, most segments of the Thruway are narrower than that.

 

The Tappan Zee is basically a much bigger version of the screwup that is the Koscuiszko Bridge replacement. It's being built with eight lanes and shoulders, and the city can't say crap about narrowing it. The BQE on both sides is only six lanes and no shoulders, and Brooklyn is not going to let a highway widening happen on its watch. The State DOT has a habit of making projects unnecessarily expensive and ignoring the stakeholders in the project.

 

Whether the lanes are legal depends on the standards date as what was allowed before is grandfathered in if present.  The present Tappan bridge is 8 lanes without shoulders..  While 87 can't be widened the whole cloverleaf exit ramps etc all lead to a major roadway going north or south.  You also have 17 being rebuilt to be the future I-86 going all the way to Rochester. which dumps into the thruway before that bridge.  You also have I-287 completed in New Jersey which  means truck traffic bypasses the city entirely coming up the Turnpike and exiting in Carteret and going North.  by the circle route bypassing the GW bridge and tunnels on the way to New England.You also have a number of other roads leading to that bridge which have been improved and widened.  It is standard fashion now to build a bridge or overpass with the thought of future need.  Its cheaper to build it wider now than replace and rebuild in the future.  

I'm of the age as I remember the old BQE and walked over the Polish bridge as a boy.The present BQE is about 50 years old,or older in most of it. Driving it about 50yrs ago was an adventure as it was  narrow, crumbling, half the lights didn't work at night  and had potholes which literally both your front wheels could drop in.There is enough room to rebuild to eight lanes without problem as the portion is elevated without problems as sooner or later they will build it when the existing structure starts falling down. 

[bobtehpanda]

Whether the lanes are legal depends on the standards date as what was allowed before is grandfathered in if present.  The present Tappan bridge is 8 lanes without shoulders..  While 87 can't be widened the whole cloverleaf exit ramps etc all lead to a major roadway going north or south.  You also have 17 being rebuilt to be the future I-86 going all the way to Rochester. which dumps into the thruway before that bridge.  You also have I-287 completed in New Jersey which  means truck traffic bypasses the city entirely coming up the Turnpike and exiting in Carteret and going North.  by the circle route bypassing the GW bridge and tunnels on the way to New England.You also have a number of other roads leading to that bridge which have been improved and widened.  It is standard fashion now to build a bridge or overpass with the thought of future need.  Its cheaper to build it wider now than replace and rebuild in the future.  

I'm of the age as I remember the old BQE and walked over the Polish bridge as a boy.The present BQE is about 50 years old,or older in most of it. Driving it about 50yrs ago was an adventure as it was  narrow, crumbling, half the lights didn't work at night  and had potholes which literally both your front wheels could drop in.There is enough room to rebuild to eight lanes without problem as the portion is elevated without problems as sooner or later they will build it when the existing structure starts falling down. 

 

There might be room to build the Koscuiszko to 8 lanes, but the fact of the matter is that it's a huge waste of money so long as the BQE in that area is six lanes and no shoulders; a fourth lane will be useless if you just have to merge back to three at the end of the bridge. Meanwhile, you've got DOT asking if we should get a cable-stayed bridge or an arch over a used ship canal that is completely surrounded by industrial lands. Cost control is not a priority when it comes to

 

The Tappan Zee accommodated six interstate-standard lanes with shoulders. They added a seventh with the zipper lane and getting rid of the shoulders (still at Interstate standard, because by the time the zipper lane was installed the Interstate system was very close to up and running.) Even if the lanes were a foot or two smaller than required (which is doubtful, because the standard for an urban street is 10 feet vs. 12 feet for a highway), it certainly doesn't require two new bridges that are just as wide as the current one. It's a construction pork-barrel project in its current form.

 

Even if the bridge were widened, you wouldn't be able to widen the approaches. Heck, the communities are already suing over the very limited land takings the current project requires, and housing is built fairly close to the approaches on either side.

[traingoat]

There might be room to build the Koscuiszko to 8 lanes, but the fact of the matter is that it's a huge waste of money so long as the BQE in that area is six lanes and no shoulders; a fourth lane will be useless if you just have to merge back to three at the end of the bridge. Meanwhile, you've got DOT asking if we should get a cable-stayed bridge or an arch over a used ship canal that is completely surrounded by industrial lands. Cost control is not a priority when it comes to

 

The Tappan Zee accommodated six interstate-standard lanes with shoulders. They added a seventh with the zipper lane and getting rid of the shoulders (still at Interstate standard, because by the time the zipper lane was installed the Interstate system was very close to up and running.) Even if the lanes were a foot or two smaller than required (which is doubtful, because the standard for an urban street is 10 feet vs. 12 feet for a highway), it certainly doesn't require two new bridges that are just as wide as the current one. It's a construction pork-barrel project in its current form.

 

Even if the bridge were widened, you wouldn't be able to widen the approaches. Heck, the communities are already suing over the very limited land takings the current project requires, and housing is built fairly close to the approaches on either side.

First thing you should of been there when the bridge was two lanes each way and they backed traffic up on the LIE.because of the neck down.  As I said I walked that bridge as a boy to get to Brooklyn  just to see what was there   The reason the bridge is that high was coastal freighters and tankers used it. as the Newtown Creek is the body of water's name..  The canal portion is called Dutch Mill and a sand and gravel cement operation was there at the end . at 47th Avenue and I believe 25th street  I use to watch tugboats bring in barges full of sand and rocks  for the operation. Socony-Mobil had a small refinery in Greenpoint which got its crude from the tankers in the Creek and some business on the east side of the bridge had a dock for the freighters. Now this is memory from 60 years ago as I have no idea what's there now. or if the Creek still is used by vessels.  If the creek is still classed as a waterway then you have to have a high bridge or a drawbridge. Now 8 lanes wouldn't be bad  as  the entrance ramp  I believe Adams street is presently make it 4 lanes just before the bridge heading Northbound.  The entrance and exit ramps were screwed up on the old BQE and when they rebuilt it were just as screwed up. so even if they replaced the whole elevated portion it would be the same again. 

 

Now with the Tappen they are adding the extra lanes for the future and a shoulder.  I've driven that bridge a few times and the lanes aren't 12 feet wide by any standard but probably 10 or a little larger  Got to remember  what we presently have in traffic will double in ten or 20 years and a bridge if done right will stay up for 150 years or longer. They wouldn't of replaced the Tappen except the bugs ate the pilings and sooner or later the damn bridge will fall into the Hudson.  You build one span until  its completed and remove the old one , then build the second one..  They will be building there for about 10 years when they start.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You have the education of a bag of baseballs. You sound like the trust fund baby a**holes one meets in college who think their parents being rich and providing for them means they're somehow successes. I find it funny how banks get zero-interest loans from the federal reserve (and then give out loans with interest) and yet have massive tax breaks, and that's OK. But poor people working two jobs (SO LAZY, amirite?), well they're f**king parasitic scum who need to be crushed. You can't go one day without saying something repulsive on this forum, and for that you almost deserve applause.

 

Oh, and do tell me how hard Paris Hilton and the Kardashians work. Lord knows they need another tax break.

The fact of the matter is it doesn't make economical sense to keep giving those folks tax breaks when they aren't paying that much in taxes to begin with since their salaries are so low.  Meanwhile the people with money, even if they don't pay that much in taxes still donate a significant amount of their money to various good causes, so one way or another they contribute a substantial amount to society. I mean it's scary to think that a family of 4 with both parents working could only make 30K a year.  Hell there were some years when I was in college that I made more than that.

[Culver]

The fact of the matter is it doesn't make economical sense to keep giving those folks tax breaks when they aren't paying that much in taxes to begin with since their salaries are so low.  Meanwhile the people with money, even if they don't pay that much in taxes still donate a significant amount of their money to various good causes, so one way or another they contribute a substantial amount to society. I mean it's scary to think that a family of 4 with both parents working could only make 30K a year.  Hell there were some years when I was in college that I made more than that.

 

1) Literally not a single one of your verbatim-repeating-Fox-News economic theories has any hard evidence to back it up.

 

2) You sound like a sociopath when you post on here, an uneducated one at that. Realize that someone has to work those yucky jobs that you wouldn't touch. Some of those jobs pay little. If you don't want those people to require government program assistance, their wages will need to go up. I know you'd like to banish all poor people away from the city and have them take 2-hour commutes into the city to work those yucky poor people jobs and all, but it ain't quite happening. You can't demand that Wal-Mart employees make awful salaries and then be outraged that they need to rely on welfare programs to avoid starvation and homelessness.

 

3) You bitching and moaning about taxes on the internet does not contribute to society. You don't work harder than others. You getting paid more to dick around all day does not = working harder than someone getting paid a shit salary to do manual labor.

 

That being said, Andy Cuomo agrees with you 100%, so I don't know why you're complaining. You'll get your tax cut, and they'll balance it out by making sure those undeserving poor kids don't get to go to a state college.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) Literally not a single one of your verbatim-repeating-Fox-News economic theories has any hard evidence to back it up.

 

2) You sound like a sociopath when you post on here, an uneducated one at that. Realize that someone has to work those yucky jobs that you wouldn't touch. Some of those jobs pay little. If you don't want those people to require government program assistance, their wages will need to go up. I know you'd like to banish all poor people away from the city and have them take 2-hour commutes into the city to work those yucky poor people jobs and all, but it ain't quite happening. You can't demand that Wal-Mart employees make awful salaries and then be outraged that they need to rely on welfare programs to avoid starvation and homelessness.

 

3) You bitching and moaning about taxes on the internet does not contribute to society. You don't work harder than others. You getting paid more to dick around all day does not = working harder than someone getting paid a shit salary to do manual labor.

 

That being said, Andy Cuomo agrees with you 100%, so I don't know why you're complaining. You'll get your tax cut, and they'll balance it out by making sure those undeserving poor kids don't get to go to a state college.

I'm not complaining about Cuomo.  It's folks like you that seem to have a problem with him or anyone else with money for that matter.  I think he's doing a fine job with what he has.  Someone has to do their part in keeping taxpayers here in NYC that can afford to live here and don't need handouts.  I also don't know where you got the idea from that I support places like Walmart and how that came into this discussion, but in any event, I don't shop at those types of places.  

[traingoat]

1) Literally not a single one of your verbatim-repeating-Fox-News economic theories has any hard evidence to back it up.

 

2) You sound like a sociopath when you post on here, an uneducated one at that. Realize that someone has to work those yucky jobs that you wouldn't touch. Some of those jobs pay little. If you don't want those people to require government program assistance, their wages will need to go up. I know you'd like to banish all poor people away from the city and have them take 2-hour commutes into the city to work those yucky poor people jobs and all, but it ain't quite happening. You can't demand that Wal-Mart employees make awful salaries and then be outraged that they need to rely on welfare programs to avoid starvation and homelessness.

 

3) You bitching and moaning about taxes on the internet does not contribute to society. You don't work harder than others. You getting paid more to dick around all day does not = working harder than someone getting paid a shit salary to do manual labor.

 

That being said, Andy Cuomo agrees with you 100%, so I don't know why you're complaining. You'll get your tax cut, and they'll balance it out by making sure those undeserving poor kids don't get to go to a state college.

 

First thing Walmart  salaries aren't that bad for the skills which are needed to do the job and I know of no Walmart which pays minimum wage plus Walmart does internal promotion.  Not everything in Walmart is made in China.and their food prices are lower than Shoprite  or Pathmark.  Second thing would you prefer no one work for Walmart  and have no employment  as Walmart is a blessing to the poor  and lower middle class in prices.  I was taught economics at a Liberal college which was Keynesian and economics at an engineering college which was Friedman based and know both sides to the question whether they are theories or not.  All costs in both methods end up being paid by the final purchaser. Raise wages and you raise the final price.  Raise taxes and you raise the final price.

 

Salary and wages are really determined by what you generate in wealth.  If they pay you 50K the actual price is closer to  75K  with benefits and taxes  they have to pay to the company.  So you must generate at least at least 80 to 90K in wealth to justify your position.

 

Now you institute rent control which basically freezes the real taxes the building can pay.  Who pays for the tax needs the one family and two family houses in Brooklyn and Queens and other areas so you force the middle class out of here.  

 

There is a principle in law you cannot benefit from doing illegality. You can't get the insurance if you burn down the building and the list goes on.  If you want to give the tuition at the State rate then have only one rate for all. Legal or illegal, resident or non-resident, citizen or non-citizen, the problem is solved.

[Culver]

I'm not complaining about Cuomo.  It's folks like you that seem to have a problem with him or anyone else with money for that matter.  I think he's doing a fine job with what he has.  Someone has to do their part in keeping taxpayers here in NYC that can afford to live here and don't need handouts.  I also don't know where you got the idea from that I support places like Walmart and how that came into this discussion, but in any event, I don't shop at those types of places.  

1) People leaving NY because of taxes wasn't, isn't, and won't be an issue. End of story. Pretending this is an issue makes you look dumb.

2) Stop saying handouts. It makes you sound like a sadistic psychopath. If someone *works* but doesn't make enough money to live in the city (hey, guess what, moving is expensive and you still need those workers living here), they're not a parasite, they just make a low income. Income level does not = worthiness as a human being. Again, by your definition, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are hard-working champions of industry.

[Culver]

First thing Walmart  salaries aren't that bad for the skills which are needed to do the job and I know of no Walmart which pays minimum wage plus Walmart does internal promotion.  Not everything in Walmart is made in China.and their food prices are lower than Shoprite  or Pathmark.  Second thing would you prefer no one work for Walmart  and have no employment  as Walmart is a blessing to the poor  and lower middle class in prices.  I was taught economics at a Liberal college which was Keynesian and economics at an engineering college which was Friedman based and know both sides to the question whether they are theories or not.  All costs in both methods end up being paid by the final purchaser. Raise wages and you raise the final price.  Raise taxes and you raise the final price.

 

Salary and wages are really determined by what you generate in wealth.  If they pay you 50K the actual price is closer to  75K  with benefits and taxes  they have to pay to the company.  So you must generate at least at least 80 to 90K in wealth to justify your position.

 

Now you institute rent control which basically freezes the real taxes the building can pay.  Who pays for the tax needs the one family and two family houses in Brooklyn and Queens and other areas so you force the middle class out of here.  

 

There is a principle in law you cannot benefit from doing illegality. You can't get the insurance if you burn down the building and the list goes on.  If you want to give the tuition at the State rate then have only one rate for all. Legal or illegal, resident or non-resident, citizen or non-citizen, the problem is solved.

 

Wal-Mart is not a gift to the poor since its very effect on communities is creating poverty (and thus, dependence on Wal-Mart) by driving small business out of business. Wal-Mart's low wages are directly subsidized by state (and federal) governments via welfare programs for their underpaid employees. The entire concept of Wal-Mart is built on underpaying employees and having government assistance programs cover the rest. Combined with abusing every loophole in the tax code, Wal-Mart makes a shitload of money by having taxpayers not called Wal-Mart pay part of its employees' total income. There's a reason sane people nowadays are against Wal-Mart coming into their communities. Wal-Mart can undercut any business anywhere, killing local businesses.

 

Lastly, salary and wages are not determined by what you generate in wealth and productivity; at least not in America. American workers productivity has been increasing tremendously while wages have remained stagnant over the past 35 years. The wealth generated hasn't gone to those doing the work but those at the top. That's not a capitalistic, merit-based society. Ironic that folks who are all about "FREEDOM AMERICA CAPITALISM YEAAAAAAAHHHH" are the ones actively celebrating that we're no longer a proper merit-based capitalistic society in this country.

[traingoat]

Wal-Mart is not a gift to the poor since its very effect on communities is creating poverty (and thus, dependence on Wal-Mart) by driving small business out of business. Wal-Mart's low wages are directly subsidized by state (and federal) governments via welfare programs for their underpaid employees. The entire concept of Wal-Mart is built on underpaying employees and having government assistance programs cover the rest. Combined with abusing every loophole in the tax code, Wal-Mart makes a shitload of money by having taxpayers not called Wal-Mart pay part of its employees' total income. There's a reason sane people nowadays are against Wal-Mart coming into their communities. Wal-Mart can undercut any business anywhere, killing local businesses.

 

Lastly, salary and wages are not determined by what you generate in wealth and productivity; at least not in America. American workers productivity has been increasing tremendously while wages have remained stagnant over the past 35 years. The wealth generated hasn't gone to those doing the work but those at the top. That's not a capitalistic, merit-based society. Ironic that folks who are all about "FREEDOM AMERICA CAPITALISM YEAAAAAAAHHHH" are the ones actively celebrating that we're no longer a proper merit-based capitalistic society in this country.

 

First thing to not have the gimmes means the wage has to be around 20 dollars/hr  as all benefits are present at 30K and below and taper off to zip at 40K.. So how much are you raising prices?  Let's take a small large company with 50,000 employees and the president makes 5 million./yr and give him zero.  How much does that give the donkeys three dollars /week  With Walmart the number is less for the donkeys. Now Walmart uses all the cost savings methods of scale as to buying and delivery. It costs just as much to bring a trailer load as a small truck dropping off a couple of cases.

 

Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is illegal.  Who wrote the loopholes not Walmart  You have a 70,000 page tax code which the IRS doesn't know what's in it as it has conflicting areas.

 

You are in competition with the world and while productivity increased but also profit levels decreased.  You also have a government on Federal and most States which lie through their teeth either by omission or commission.  Prime example the Unemployment rate. which the calculations where changed to give favorable results. or the fact of inflation not being calculated with food or energy in it.

[N6 Limited]

There might be room to build the Koscuiszko to 8 lanes, but the fact of the matter is that it's a huge waste of money so long as the BQE in that area is six lanes and no shoulders; a fourth lane will be useless if you just have to merge back to three at the end of the bridge. Meanwhile, you've got DOT asking if we should get a cable-stayed bridge or an arch over a used ship canal that is completely surrounded by industrial lands. Cost control is not a priority when it comes to

The Koscuiszko Bridge is a huge bottleneck.

 

First, it was there before the expressway. There are also not many crossings between Brooklyn and Queens in that Area, some use it just to cross the creek.

 

Going north you have 3 lanes from the highway, plus a heavily used entrance ramp from Meeker Ave where everyone must merge over to go across the main 6 lane span when the majority of them are just trying to get to the LIE anyway.

 

Then southbound you have the heavily used LIE to BQE ramp, 2 lanes from the LIE merging with 2 lanes from the BQE. They must merge into the 3 lanes to go over the creek, then you have the heavily used Meeker Ave exit on the other side.

 

A 8 lane bridge would be very useful.

[traingoat]

The Koscuiszko Bridge is a huge bottleneck.

 

First, it was there before the expressway. There are also not many crossings between Brooklyn and Queens in that Area, some use it just to cross the creek.

 

Going north you have 3 lanes from the highway, plus a heavily used entrance ramp from Meeker Ave where everyone must merge over to go across the main 6 lane span when the majority of them are just trying to get to the LIE anyway.

 

Then southbound you have the heavily used LIE to BQE ramp, 2 lanes from the LIE merging with 2 lanes from the BQE. They must merge into the 3 lanes to go over the creek, then you have the heavily used Meeker Ave exit on the other side.

 

A 8 lane bridge would be very useful.

Look I'll go back 60 years to the original BQE as I was there and walked literally that bridge as there was a sidewalk on the east side.  The BQE was two lanes both directions in Queens and the bridge was two lanes also.  The LIE was 6 lanes only. There was a dirt ballfield  where I played ball as it was the only one in the area.  We used rubber coated baseballs as they didn't get screwed up on dirt or concrete..  There was a builders plate with the bridge's name  with a build date like early 30's as I remember but the BQE was built til the late 30's with the Grand Central, Cross Island and portions of the Belt. Remember a good deal of stuff was built for the 1939 World's Fair and that area while industrialized was still considered farmland..The present BQE is a replacement which was built as they were building the Narrows Bridge at the time.  The bridge was completely resurfaced meaning they went down to the beams and completely removed the the whole roadway including the walkway I knew and replaced it with concrete slabs which is how they got 6 lanes from 4. This was about 1970.  It was designed for the present width.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1) People leaving NY because of taxes wasn't, isn't, and won't be an issue. End of story. Pretending this is an issue makes you look dumb.

2) Stop saying handouts. It makes you sound like a sadistic psychopath. If someone *works* but doesn't make enough money to live in the city (hey, guess what, moving is expensive and you still need those workers living here), they're not a parasite, they just make a low income. Income level does not = worthiness as a human being. Again, by your definition, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are hard-working champions of industry.

1. Prove that it isn't. The fact of the matter is New York has some of the highest taxes in the country.  There is no way that it isn't/wasn't an issue.  New Yorkers are leaving to cheaper places with lower taxes and that has been well documented.  You'd have to be living under a rock not to know this.

 

2.  Welfare, food stamps... It's all handouts anyway you cut it.

[bobtehpanda]

1. Prove that it isn't. The fact of the matter is New York has some of the highest taxes in the country.  There is no way that it isn't/wasn't an issue.  New Yorkers are leaving to cheaper places with lower taxes and that has been well documented.  You'd have to be living under a rock not to know this.

 

2.  Welfare, food stamps... It's all handouts anyway you cut it.

 

The metro area is growing if the Census is to believed. It's Upstate that's depopulating, mostly because of the regional economy there; if people were leaving because of high costs, you'd think the population of the five boroughs would be declining, not hitting new highs.

 

In any case, many economic studies show that "handouts" boost economic output, if only for the simple reason that poor and middle class people send more money back into the economy. It would be difficult for a rich person to spend the same share of their income as a middle class person, and for either of those people to spend the same share of their income as a poor person, simply because there is an upper limit on how much you can spend on retail goods.

 

Talking about handouts is also calling the pot calling the kettle black, since nearly everyone qualifies for some sort of tax deduction or rebate. You get deductions for getting married, for having kids, and for mortgages and commuting (and the third one was a big factor in the economic bubble of the 2000s). These make up a greater burden on the budget than welfare programs or the earned income tax credit, but god forbid the poor get to eat; my mortgage payments are a bigger concern because I Deserve It_TM.

 

It would be better for everyone if we simplified the tax system, lowered rates, got rid of most of the deductions, and put a cap on the amount you could receive from deductions (this was one of the few sensible parts of the Romney budget plan; who needs more than $50,000 in tax deductions, anyways?) But everyone wants a deduction because it makes them feel better about themselves.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The metro area is growing if the Census is to believed. It's Upstate that's depopulating, mostly because of the regional economy there; if people were leaving because of high costs, you'd think the population of the five boroughs would be declining, not hitting new highs.

 

In any case, many economic studies show that "handouts" boost economic output, if only for the simple reason that poor and middle class people send more money back into the economy. It would be difficult for a rich person to spend the same share of their income as a middle class person, and for either of those people to spend the same share of their income as a poor person, simply because there is an upper limit on how much you can spend on retail goods.

 

Talking about handouts is also calling the pot calling the kettle black, since nearly everyone qualifies for some sort of tax deduction or rebate. You get deductions for getting married, for having kids, and for mortgages and commuting (and the third one was a big factor in the economic bubble of the 2000s). These make up a greater burden on the budget than welfare programs or the earned income tax credit, but god forbid the poor get to eat; my mortgage payments are a bigger concern because I Deserve It_TM.

 

It would be better for everyone if we simplified the tax system, lowered rates, got rid of most of the deductions, and put a cap on the amount you could receive from deductions (this was one of the few sensible parts of the Romney budget plan; who needs more than $50,000 in tax deductions, anyways?) But everyone wants a deduction because it makes them feel better about themselves.

The Metro area is growing with transplants at the moment, but transplants aren't known to stay long term to provide a stable tax base.  New Yorkers with roots are generally the ones leaving.  That was my point.  The question is will those transplants stay here if things get tough, or will they pack up and go back home? When the economy gets tough that's usually what happens.  For what it's worth the economy here in NYC isn't as bad as in other places so that has helped to keep things stable, but the has been a recent spike in the unemployment numbers here yet again...

 

As for handouts, I'm of the belief that if you need one or more of them in order to make ends' meet, then you should move somewhere cheaper.  If I was struggling, I would work as many jobs as I had to before I looked for handouts.  I think it's the ultimate sign of a failure to look to someone else to take care of your own responsibilities.  As for getting tax breaks, I'm of the belief that working professionals and those who earn money should get to keep as much of it as possible.  People like Culver think people who earn well should be punished for their success and I highly disagree.  That's one of the reasons that I started working privately again because I want to work for myself rather than someone else as much as possible and take advantage of keeping as much of that money in my own pocket as possible (i.e. tax breaks) and not in someone else's pocket (i.e. the "gubment" or some welfare recipient).  If the poor folks are entitled to handouts, then the least I should be able to do is keep more of my hard earned money in my pocket.

[traingoat]

The metro area is growing if the Census is to believed. It's Upstate that's depopulating, mostly because of the regional economy there; if people were leaving because of high costs, you'd think the population of the five boroughs would be declining, not hitting new highs.

 

In any case, many economic studies show that "handouts" boost economic output, if only for the simple reason that poor and middle class people send more money back into the economy. It would be difficult for a rich person to spend the same share of their income as a middle class person, and for either of those people to spend the same share of their income as a poor person, simply because there is an upper limit on how much you can spend on retail goods.

 

Talking about handouts is also calling the pot calling the kettle black, since nearly everyone qualifies for some sort of tax deduction or rebate. You get deductions for getting married, for having kids, and for mortgages and commuting (and the third one was a big factor in the economic bubble of the 2000s). These make up a greater burden on the budget than welfare programs or the earned income tax credit, but god forbid the poor get to eat; my mortgage payments are a bigger concern because I Deserve It_TM.

 

It would be better for everyone if we simplified the tax system, lowered rates, got rid of most of the deductions, and put a cap on the amount you could receive from deductions (this was one of the few sensible parts of the Romney budget plan; who needs more than $50,000 in tax deductions, anyways?) But everyone wants a deduction because it makes them feel better about themselves.

 

The Metro area is growing with transplants at the moment, but transplants aren't known to stay long term to provide a stable tax base.  New Yorkers with roots are generally the ones leaving.  That was my point.  The question is will those transplants stay here if things get tough, or will they pack up and go back home? When the economy gets tough that's usually what happens.  For what it's worth the economy here in NYC isn't as bad as in other places so that has helped to keep things stable, but the has been a recent spike in the unemployment numbers here yet again...

 

As for handouts, I'm of the belief that if you need one or more of them in order to make ends' meet, then you should move somewhere cheaper.  If I was struggling, I would work as many jobs as I had to before I looked for handouts.  I think it's the ultimate sign of a failure to look to someone else to take care of your own responsibilities.  As for getting tax breaks, I'm of the belief that working professionals and those who earn money should get to keep as much of it as possible.  People like Culver think people who earn well should be punished for their success and I highly disagree.  That's one of the reasons that I started working privately again because I want to work for myself rather than someone else as much as possible and take advantage of keeping as much of that money in my own pocket as possible (i.e. tax breaks) and not in someone else's pocket (i.e. the "gubment" or some welfare recipient).  If the poor folks are entitled to handouts, then the least I should be able to do is keep more of my hard earned money in my pocket.

Okay Gentlemen here's a site  where it shows county by county and state by state the movement of wealth between the areas and top 5 if present of wealth coming in and the top 5 of wealth going out.  Population increase doesn't mean increase in wealth. Having one individual with 100K income leave doesn't mean increasing the population  with 2 individuals making 50K as the state and city don't get the same in taxes and more people means the need for more services. I remember at the Fulton street stop of the GG line which is now the G line a billboard which had on it Jesus saves but underneath it in magicmarker were the added lines "but Moses invests".  Wealthy or well off people don't sit on a pile of cash but invest it to make more money.  Now this map and data is individuals moving not companies.taken from the IRS over 20 years and the results will surprise 

 

http://www.howmoneywalks.com/irs-tax-migration/

 

Hit explore the data and a map of the US shows up with the State. Click on the state  and it shows the state and where the money is going or coming, click on the county and the same thing happens 

[Culver]

First thing to not have the gimmes means the wage has to be around 20 dollars/hr  as all benefits are present at 30K and below and taper off to zip at 40K.. So how much are you raising prices?  Let's take a small large company with 50,000 employees and the president makes 5 million./yr and give him zero.  How much does that give the donkeys three dollars /week  With Walmart the number is less for the donkeys. Now Walmart uses all the cost savings methods of scale as to buying and delivery. It costs just as much to bring a trailer load as a small truck dropping off a couple of cases.

 

Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is illegal.  Who wrote the loopholes not Walmart  You have a 70,000 page tax code which the IRS doesn't know what's in it as it has conflicting areas.

 

You are in competition with the world and while productivity increased but also profit levels decreased.  You also have a government on Federal and most States which lie through their teeth either by omission or commission.  Prime example the Unemployment rate. which the calculations where changed to give favorable results. or the fact of inflation not being calculated with food or energy in it.

Not, Wal-Mart, nor Bank of America, but their lobbyists sure as hell did.

1. Prove that it isn't. The fact of the matter is New York has some of the highest taxes in the country.  There is no way that it isn't/wasn't an issue.  New Yorkers are leaving to cheaper places with lower taxes and that has been well documented.  You'd have to be living under a rock not to know this.

 

2.  Welfare, food stamps... It's all handouts anyway you cut it.

1) NYC and NY state had an increase in population. It's not an issue and never was. It's a cheap scare tactic by politicians who want to cut taxes for people who donated to their campaigns.

 

2) They're not handouts, you sociopath. Handouts are when you give billion-dollar profit defense contractors billions more in federal government contracts to build shit the military says they don't want or need.

[traingoat]

Not, Wal-Mart, nor Bank of America, but their lobbyists sure as hell did.

 

1) NYC and NY state had an increase in population. It's not an issue and never was. It's a cheap scare tactic by politicians who want to cut taxes for people who donated to their campaigns.

 

2) They're not handouts, you sociopath. Handouts are when you give billion-dollar profit defense contractors billions more in federal government contracts to build shit the military says they don't want or need.

It wasn't their lobbyists but the law makers.  Whenever money is given out by the government for anything there is a lobbyist pushing a viewpoint  both pro and con.  K Street was brought into the government with Wilson.to push a viewpoint and hasn't left since.

 

If people were begetting then you wouldn't have lost Congressional seats to other areas.  Your growth has leveled and starting to drop because of people leaving.  This is fact.  I'll use New Jersey because I have the facts off the top of my head.  When I moved to Jersey in 64 the population was 7 1/4 million. When I left in 2001 the population was 7 3/4 million. Now Jersey acknowledged that over 3 million left  for various reasons.  It wasn't as though the Black Plague came through and the reason the population didn't drop was the influx of New Yorkers who said I can have a house and pay less for the mortgage  and have something than renting an apartment.

 

If you look at the Defense BS look to the democratic party for it. as the house has been held by them and the Senate from 2006 and this came out under them.

[Culver]

It wasn't their lobbyists but the law makers.  Whenever money is given out by the government for anything there is a lobbyist pushing a viewpoint  both pro and con.  K Street was brought into the government with Wilson.to push a viewpoint and hasn't left since.

 

If people were begetting then you wouldn't have lost Congressional seats to other areas.  Your growth has leveled and starting to drop because of people leaving.  This is fact.  I'll use New Jersey because I have the facts off the top of my head.  When I moved to Jersey in 64 the population was 7 1/4 million. When I left in 2001 the population was 7 3/4 million. Now Jersey acknowledged that over 3 million left  for various reasons.  It wasn't as though the Black Plague came through and the reason the population didn't drop was the influx of New Yorkers who said I can have a house and pay less for the mortgage  and have something than renting an apartment.

 

If you look at the Defense BS look to the democratic party for it. as the house has been held by them and the Senate from 2006 and this came out under them.

 

The Republicans took the house in 2010, and I didn't say either party was innocent. Both sell out to lobbyists and donors, hence we get bullshit billions thrown out for no reason. Cuomo is the worst since he's both a) an idiot and b) a sellout. He hurts transit double-hard since he assumes that only yucky poor people use any form of public transit (hence his openly strong position pushing for a dismantling of it) and is a sell-out in that he totally supports cutting taxes for the corporations and rich people that donated to his campaign once it became apparent donating to the Republican candidate was going to be a lost cause. That's how we get a governor hell bent on turning New York into Somalia, but with really good social policies like legal weed, marriage equality and gun control. And highways, lots and lots of highways and MOOOOOAAAAR HIGHWAYS.

[traingoat]

First thing I learned long ago was Progressives whether Dem or Repub always claimed they cared for the donkeys but only care for the elite. Middle class they need only for the vote and the same with the poor.  The last challenge to Cuomo was based to what Albany did over years to make the place a basketcase out of upstate New York. Cuomo was the icing on the cake. Transit has been a pain since the City took over the IRT and BMT  in the early 40's based on the BMT needing a doubling of the fares to cover costs. So the City pumped money in but the fare was doubled in the early 50's.and risen ever since. So the transit becomes a political issue not economic one.  The road issue is very simple.  The Feds pick up close to 90% of the bill but put in place what they want the employees will be paid  which is almost twice what the going rate is. So the State is putting 1 dollar to get 4 in normal construction. This is why the damn numbers are so high. He figures he will get economy going in areas and hopefully the state. The rest of the stuff I'm not touching as this is a pure left agenda and has never worked anywhere it has been tried in the world.

[Culver]

First thing I learned long ago was Progressives whether Dem or Repub always claimed they cared for the donkeys but only care for the elite. Middle class they need only for the vote and the same with the poor.  The last challenge to Cuomo was based to what Albany did over years to make the place a basketcase out of upstate New York. Cuomo was the icing on the cake. Transit has been a pain since the City took over the IRT and BMT  in the early 40's based on the BMT needing a doubling of the fares to cover costs. So the City pumped money in but the fare was doubled in the early 50's.and risen ever since. So the transit becomes a political issue not economic one.  The road issue is very simple.  The Feds pick up close to 90% of the bill but put in place what they want the employees will be paid  which is almost twice what the going rate is. So the State is putting 1 dollar to get 4 in normal construction. This is why the damn numbers are so high. He figures he will get economy going in areas and hopefully the state. The rest of the stuff I'm not touching as this is a pure left agenda and has never worked anywhere it has been tried in the world.

 

Except that it has worked everywhere until Europe panicked and dismantled their governments in the name of "austerity" and it only made things worse. Somalia, on the other hand, is a beaming light of personal responsibility, no taxes, no regulation, and no "government interference" and is envied by the worl...oh, wait, no it's not.

 

You basically made my case for me there with the fares. Yes, crooked politicians who only want to get elected *today* (like Cuomo) don't give a shit about the long-term effects and simply slash/keep low in regard to inflation all the taxes, tolls and fares they can to show the population how much they "care" (LOL). Once said irresponsible actions lead to crumbling finances and infrastructure, it isn't the politicians' problem since they've moved on to higher office, or a lobbying firm, or retired. It's why Cuomo simply doesn't give a shit. He'll cut taxes, tolls, and rob dedicated transit funds since the future isn't his problem. He's concerned with getting elected in 2014 and then running as a "moderate" (which in 2014 news media means agreeing with the Republicans on everything) in 2016 primaries (where he'll get slaughtered anyways by the other Democrats). His being a dick will leave the rest of us with a big ole shit sandwich to chew on.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Of course, if Cuomo gets slaughtered in the 2016 primaries, we'll still be stuck with him as governor until at least 2018. And because NY state pols are allergic to term limits (gotta keep their corrupt gravy trains rolling), he could run again in 2018. Unless...

 

1. Rob Astorino can make a big enough name for himself this year and show that Cuomo's four years in office haven't made people around the state better off now than they were four years ago. But I doubt that's going to happen and we're almost certainly going to have a second term of Andrew Cuomo come November.

 

2. Same as #1, but four years from now. Could be GOP or Dem, in which case Cuomo would then have to deal with a primary election in the state.

[traingoat]

Except that it has worked everywhere until Europe panicked and dismantled their governments in the name of "austerity" and it only made things worse. Somalia, on the other hand, is a beaming light of personal responsibility, no taxes, no regulation, and no "government interference" and is envied by the worl...oh, wait, no it's not.

 

You basically made my case for me there with the fares. Yes, crooked politicians who only want to get elected *today* (like Cuomo) don't give a shit about the long-term effects and simply slash/keep low in regard to inflation all the taxes, tolls and fares they can to show the population how much they "care" (LOL). Once said irresponsible actions lead to crumbling finances and infrastructure, it isn't the politicians' problem since they've moved on to higher office, or a lobbying firm, or retired. It's why Cuomo simply doesn't give a shit. He'll cut taxes, tolls, and rob dedicated transit funds since the future isn't his problem. He's concerned with getting elected in 2014 and then running as a "moderate" (which in 2014 news media means agreeing with the Republicans on everything) in 2016 primaries (where he'll get slaughtered anyways by the other Democrats). His being a dick will leave the rest of us with a big ole shit sandwich to chew on.

 

As for the Europeans, they went down that road previously and know the final result when you spend excessively a dictator results  So to have some disruption is better than total disruption.  If every law was somehow repealed or disappeared here do we have law of course we do Common law.  Somalia has no such background and when the law disappeared it reverted to law of the jungle with drugs.

 

Harry S Truman put it properly why he went the route he went after he retired, when he said Its was a life choice of being  the piano player at a whorehouse or a politician.and some politicians today there is no difference.  The problem is a basic one do I spend what I don't have with the result of higher taxes which causes capital flight which causes higher taxes later on and collapse like Detroit. Why do you think they are cooking the books for or raiding the funds for. This has been going on since I can remember so it isn't Cuomo or Pataki but goes back to before Rockefeller but to Harriman which started it and the start of the flight of capital. Rome wasn't built in a day or destroyed. 

[bobtehpanda]

As for handouts, I'm of the belief that if you need one or more of them in order to make ends' meet, then you should move somewhere cheaper.  If I was struggling, I would work as many jobs as I had to before I looked for handouts.  I think it's the ultimate sign of a failure to look to someone else to take care of your own responsibilities.  As for getting tax breaks, I'm of the belief that working professionals and those who earn money should get to keep as much of it as possible.  People like Culver think people who earn well should be punished for their success and I highly disagree.

 

So let me get this straight. People who are working below a certain pay scale are automatically less hard working because they aren't "working professionals?" There are many in this city who hold multiple jobs and still can't afford to live here. You seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that New York still relies on many workers who are not well paid, whether they be in retail, hospitality, food, cleaning, or other services. Are all these people just supposed to live somewhere else? The people behind the fast food counter are no longer just kids, and it's not easy to just stop being poor. A tax break is just a fancy way of saying "handout".

 

Anyways, what is this nonsense about people on welfare not working? In 1996, general welfare was replaced by TANF. TANF is only given to applicants for five years, is only given to those looking for work or already in work, and is only available for five years. Traditional welfare has not existed since the Clinton Administration, unless you're counting food stamps, which are restricted to certain stores selling certain foods, and are certainly not enough to sustain a healthy diet in this city. You can't just waltz into Shake Shack and hand them an EBT card. On top of that, the total number of people on TANF has declined significantly, from 12 million in 1996 to 4 million in 2010, even after the Great Recession. "Welfare is bad because too many poor people abuse it" is a tired old trope that hasn't been true for a very long time, and is a result of tabloids blowing up freak occurrences as a systemic problem.

 

The Metro area is growing with transplants at the moment, but transplants aren't known to stay long term to provide a stable tax base.  New Yorkers with roots are generally the ones leaving.  That was my point.  The question is will those transplants stay here if things get tough, or will they pack up and go back home? When the economy gets tough that's usually what happens.

 

We literally just came out of the second largest economic contraction since the Great Depression. If what you were saying was true, then there should've been a decrease in population within the five boroughs from 2000, when the economy was at its peak due to the dotcom boom, to 2010. But the population just kept hitting new highs.

 

If you really think that for the past 30 years the population grew by a million and a half due to short term transplants, I have a bridge to sell you. Retirees may be leaving, but that's not necessarily a bad thing since they no longer work and add anything to the tax base.