The same laissez faire argument over and over again. How about another true example: in 1993, Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest--without a single Republican vote. When he left office in 2001, the economy was roaring and we had a surplus. Hmmmm.
Many of the NYC "rich" own more than one home and, many of those second/third homes are outside NYC and, in many cases NYS, too. Bye, bye New York. However, with such an exodus, one de Blasio goal would be achieved: the "inequality" between "high" and "low" incomes would narrow.
Uniquely for you, Nicole, this piece seems muddled. Also:
"The rich already pay more than their fair share; they earn about a third of the city’s income and pay more than 40 percent of income taxes."
That's minimally progressive for a taxation policy. You are saying that tax rates should be flat ??? Really.
And trying to tie NYC to France has to be illogical. A loser. But if it feels good for you, a part of your "Straight Line" New Propaganda schtick, then good luck to you.
Let’s hope that it doesn’t take him as long to learn the lesson that Hollande has finally absorbed: soaking the rich may win elections, but it’s of little use once you’re in office.
This is so NAIVE it's pathetic. How can you say that when the socialists have 200 years of doing that and noing holding them account.
Inequality - the new rallying cry of class warfare. DiBlasio wants to be savior to the poor but will probably only dig a deeper hole of poverty for them. Class war zealots have come and gone and the poor get poorer and the rich? just look at the stock market under the our president, another high priest of inequality.
Comparing New Yorkers to the French should be insulting but there is a kernel of truth within this author’s arguments. Apparently, the super-rich enjoy living in New York, they value the city for its culture and refinements – vive la New York. Desert New York City for Dallas or Houston, unthinkable and unnecessary – this new mayor is only joking about levying higher taxes. But what if he isn’t? Are the ghosts of past Detroit mayors laughing – raising taxes doesn’t drive productive residents out of the city - or so they thought.
But New York isn’t Detroit by a long shot – we’re reassured on that point by our media folks. Polls show New York’s wealthy don’t object to higher and higher taxes – in fact, they prefer it that way. And the sure cure for income inequality is to raise taxes on the super, medium and slightly wealthy and give that money to the city’s “unequals”. If it actually succeeds, the Democrats are prepared to try out the same idea on the rest of the nation. Because, as everyone knows, if an idea can make it in New York, it can make it anywhere.
The rich "already pay their fair share?"
Are you kidding?
De Blasio is already paying off Jersey real estate tycoon (and big De Blasio donor) Steve Nislick by pushing for the Central Park carriage horse ban: this will effectively evict the stables from the West Side property that Nislick has publicly said he wants to "develop."
It's not about the horses, of course (who have a real easy gig). If it were, he'd outlaw all the stables that hire out horses for riders, which is a tougher job for the animals.
Corruption in New York? Say it ain't so.
It is only in a numerical sense that it can be claimed that the rich already pay more than their fair share. They make 33% of the income and pay 40% of the taxes. This means---that they pay more or less their fair share even if we say rich and poor should pay the same percentage of their income. But most people figure that necessities should be off the table and taxes should be paid out of discretionary income.