Reply to Non resident luxury tax on $5M + properties.

Forum Index » Metropolitan New York City

Reply to "Non resident luxury tax on $5M + properties. "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]First of all, rumors of the City's demise are over-rated. Please stop paraphrasing the doom and gloom of the NY Post. I am not a fan of Mamdani either but some of the drama is ridiculous. Mamdani could be the best mayor on earth (he is far from it) and they would be badmouthing him and idiots would be repeating it.

Mamdani was lucky that Hochul handed him a lifeline. Which we will all still be paying for as NYS residents. She also made some sweetheart deals to get herself re-elected, particularly with some of the unions - we were finally getting the state's pensions under control and she made a huge giveaway on that. Mamdani's pension deal is not ideal but really not that horrible.

Mamdani claims to be creating his version of DOGE. I think this might have some small wins but overall will be about as useful as Trump's was. Let's see how many of Mamdani's buddies get hired at inflated salaries to run this thing then have victory parades for saving $50 here and there.

But again, I think the city will be fine. Good riddance to anyone who leaves - I think the last wave that moved to Miami was culling the herd of whiners. I would like their tax dollars but can live without them.[/quote]

The city has survived the doomsday commentary for a while - so it's all good if you are thinking another round of tax hikes.

i agree with your points on the governor.

the only way Mamdani can make progress on his affordability is to make the city run cheaper.    there is a tremendous amount of waste in the city budget.  That can be worked on  - and i think the mayor will work on it.

personally what I would do for the affordability crisis is remove ALL city/state income taxes on below $45k (median income) - that puts an extra $3k in the pockets of the people that need it the most.  and scale the removal of income taxes up to $75k (so only graduallly paying it until 75k or maybe 100k).

pay for this in three ways - and depending on how much you can cut - how much higher in the income taxes you can go
1) reduce the home health care giveaway - tighten eligibility a significant amount, require better documentations).  it's $12B of money and my guess you can tighten eligibility  and save $2B.
2) reduce and/or eliminate the overtime for the city employees (fire, police).  $1B
3) curtail right to shelter after 60 days for illegals   (might be harder to do and less savings).  A better approach is probably to combine the new 60 day rule with a one time get out of NYC benefit - pay them $20k to leave NYC and forgo any future right to shelter benefit.

i believe if we tighten those 3 things up we can get rid of income taxes for anyone making less than $100k.  that's alot of money in average people's hands.

the benefit is that it makes people realize how much grifting is going on and how it's costing them real $$.  [/quote]

I will focus on 2 and 3 as I don't know a lot about 1.

2. You will never eliminate OT. You can definitely improve a lot by hiring properly and making sure it is paid only when absolutely necessary. Also, if you made OT wages not considered part of your salary when calculating pensions, it would save a fortune in the long run. Tons of police and fire and others retired shortly after 9/11 because they were working lots of OT so their stepped up salaries for those years that were used to calculate their pensions were gigantic. This should be easy but good luck negotiating it with the unions - as I mentioned above, Hochul just caved to the unions on pensions after we had finally been making some progress over the years.
3. If you curtail right to shelter, then what happens to them? They are on the street? And I'm not sure about differentiating illegals vs. in general. Though illegal immigration is legitimately an issue and needs to be dealt with, this nation's ridiculous obsession with it is a result of Trump's craziness (and the fact that nutjob Stephen Miller seems to have his ear).

An additional solution to this problem is that it should not just by our problem. NYC is the most expensive place in America. If you want to provide for these people, it doesn't have to be done here. Similar to your point of a one way bus ticket, find other places to provide for them. And while you're at it, build psych hospitals and the like in more rural areas. Living in NYC is not an absolute right.

To that point, I think that NYCHA and other public housing could be tightened up a lot. When my upper middle class parents no longer wanted to pay the high taxes in the suburb where I was raised, they downsized to a smaller home nearby. They would have loved to keep the house but it didn't make financial sense. Yet someone who raised a lot of kids in a big NYCHA apartment gets to stay there after their kids are gone (don't get me started on people having children they can't afford - not much one can do about that that isn't totally inhumane). Right size NYCHA apartments. And similar to the above, use the most valuable, prime real estate for the most valuable purposes. I am not saying this to be NIMBY but you can sell prime land for a lot for private homes and use all the money to build a lot more homes elsewhere.

Also, I was a big fan of Bloomberg but I'm not sure about his push for smaller schools so there are a bunch of schools in the same place. This created a lot more bureaucracy, which could be avoided.[/quote]

the only reason i try to distinguish the illegals versus legals is that there is potentially some legal wiggle room in the law about illegals.  otherwise the constitution has the right to shelter and it's going to be hard to remove it.  and not sure if NYers would want to do that even if it was allowed.   Living in NYC shouldn't be a right.  At some point you have to think about the legal residents of the city.   The "right to shelter" law was meant to protect people in temporary housing stress - which I am 100% for.  you live here and experience homelessness - i want the city to help you.   But taking advantage of generousity  by coming here and then going straight into a shelter.  not fair to the rest of us.

the OT rules are a scam, everyone knows it.  But the issue is that if you include the city employees and the city employee retires that live in the city - that can be over 50% of the voting numbers.   good luck getting much done on that.  but you can work around the edges.

the public housing is a disaster, the places suck and it's not a good use of valuable real estate.  I'd rather have it used for middle class families.  but that's not happening - too many of the residents vote.

the home health care scam is another massive resource sink.  250k jobs - how many real?  my guess less than 50%.

how many people are living in public housing, taking "care" of grandma - getting paid by the city/state and living in subsidized housing?  all while working folks getting squeezed.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics