Your last paragraph is huge. I’ve seen several things from people preparing for a move to Jersey or completely washing their hands of NYC and heading to Florida.
Will NYC elect a socialist mayor?
- Thread starter BradStevens
- Start date
did you find it equally interesting that any woman would vote for pussy grabber?
It's settler colonialist dogma. Looks like his dad was a prof of it at Columbia.
Even for people who don’t fully and physically leave, they can still take other actions that would redirect economic activities to friendlier tax jurisdictions.
This phenomenon is the chief reason blue state members of Congress are so insistent the SALT deduction cap be raised or removed. The cap amplifies their tax disadvantage and increases the incentive to either relocate or reroute their finances.
Given the % of dems in NYC and Chicago who vote for candidates like Mamdani and Brandon Johnson, I think it's reasonable to conclude that their wing of the Dem party is not fringe. It might not be the majority, but it certainly holds a lot of sway among Dem voters. I'd say it's more powerful in the Dem party, for example, than the libertarian wing is within the GOP.
I didn't realize Anthony (the) Weiner was also trying for a political comeback in New York.
www.nbcnews.com
A cast of scandal-plagued candidates tests the limits of what New York City voters will forgive
Andrew Cuomo, Eric Adams and Anthony Weiner brought no shortage of baggage to their New York City political campaigns this year.
www.nbcnews.com
I have a family friend that used to live in NYC. He said at the time there was Whole Foods in Brooklyn….the only corporate option. This will be interesting
NY elects Zohran, and Chicago has Johnson... what a time to be alive, and avoid both of those cities!
New York is a closed primary state where only registered Ds can vote on that primary? I also wonder about how many voters fully understand the RCV system. The polling for just a D primary with RCV IMO is without precedence….there is no record to fall back on? I wonder how many under votes we could see? How to rank Adams and Adams? I think after a few picks Voters will default to Cuomo?
New York City Mayoral Poll: Mamdani Catches Cuomo In Rank Choice Voting - Emerson Polling
The final Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill survey of the New York City Democratic mayoral primary…Full Release & Results
emersoncollegepolling.com
Here’s a link to the Tribune’s editorial.
Hopefully NYC voters will buck the trend and not keep digging their hole. But I’m not very hopeful of that.
The things Zohran is promising to do sound very appealing. But they’re actually just fuel on the fire - as the Tribune says from lived experience.
It’s basically just that “I’ll make your life better by taxing corporations and rich people more and spending the extra money to lower your rent, grocery costs, etc.”
Some months ago, I posed a question to (I think) @UncleMark if he saw any socioeconomic downsides to raising taxes on rich people. And I think he spoke for a lot of people when he said he couldn’t think of any.
Well, there are. Some number of them will leave or else redirect their funds. Not only does that diminish the expected tax haul, it reduces private sector allocations like capital investment and consumption.
Cities, states, and countries should not want to make themselves unattractive places to live, work, and invest for people with money. That’s how prosperous societies fail.
There is a balance that both sides suck at. Making places less attractive for lower income levels because they can't as easily pack up and move isn't a great idea either, IMHO. Feudalism was great if you were at the upper end. The "We are all going to die" comment carries with it the unspoken, "but it's ok if the person is younger as long as they are poor."
For traditional conservatives, like Aloha, the argument between him and me is where to place the line. Now there is a push that there shouldn't be a line be it all the way left or all the way right.
Some people just need to ride off into the sunset and let those without scandals step forward.I didn't realize Anthony (the) Weiner was also trying for a political comeback in New York.
A cast of scandal-plagued candidates tests the limits of what New York City voters will forgive
Andrew Cuomo, Eric Adams and Anthony Weiner brought no shortage of baggage to their New York City political campaigns this year.
If I said such a thing, it would have been in a situational context, and would have had limits.
Can't get your link to work.
I agree with you that Mamdani is a poor choice for NYC mayor. But NYC is not going to fail. It's too big, too attractive, and too rich. It (and Chicago) have survived bad mayors in the past and will survive these (assuming Mamdani is elected). Remember, NYC already has in place plenty of socialist policies and it is still the #1 city in America.
Here, by the way, are some of the actual policy changes he has run on. He's wants a bigger childcare program than de Blaiso's (which was pre-K for 4 year olds, I believe, which I am in total agreement with), for example:
Are you interpreting my comment to mean that we should have no social services to support lower income people? No redistributive programs and policies at all? Because I've never thought that.
But we've never erred on that side of the balance. Certainly not in my lifetime. That's not where our pendulums are. If it was, then that's what I'd be taking issue with.
The problem we're seeing happen in these cities (and elsewhere) is that the results haven't matched the stated intentions. Voters are dissatisfied, they know something isn't right. But many of them seem inclined to believe that the problem is that they just haven't yet "done enough" to bring about those visions. As such, what's needed isn't less of it, but more of it.
Chicago recently needed to raise $830 million in a bond issue. They were forced into issuing a 40 year bond that paid no principal for the first 20 years. By the time it matures, the city will have paid $2 billion. That's not a sign of revival, it's a social death rattle.
Anybody who is interested in seeing how to actually revive a flailing society need look no further than Buenos Aires.
Thanks for the heads up.
Here's a fixed link.
Well, if it's a binary matter -- pass/fail -- then I would agree with you. I don't see NYC becoming a ghost town or anything like that.
I'm thinking more along the lines of decline...heading in the wrong direction....which will probably result in voters deciding they just need to step on the gas.
NYC appears to vote in cycles over time.
I don't think I can say the say for Chicago. We had the Daleys for so long, tough to judge.
Here was my question:
And here was your answer.
So, yes, on the situational context. No on the limits -- at least, no limits were stated here.
Your proposal is basically a 12.4% tax hike on incomes above $176k...to fund a program that ostensibly pays benefits to people commensurate to the funds they paid in. Except, in this case, I assume the additional 12.4% tax would carry no additional benefits to the people paying it (if it did, it wouldn't have any remedial impact on the finances).
And the underlying assumption, I think, is that people getting the tax hike will just succumb to this -- without taking any steps to avoid the return-free hit.
Time will tell.
Re: NYC's voting history, it's worth noting this tidbit from the Tribune editorial
Government-owned grocery stores, where the bread is so good that people wait in line for hours in hopes of getting a loaf.
Sorry, no, not at all directed to you. I truly respect your opinions even in the times we have major disagreement.
Chicago proved one thing, Kansas proved another. The question isn't how to get taxes back to Ike level nor how to get them to zero.
Actually, it would have an impact even if they get increased benefits. The benefits are such that 1) lower income get back a higher percentage of what they pay in and 2) social security income is taxed federally. So the CEO paying a higher rate won't get the same percentage of benefit as Joe the Plumber, and the CEO will be paying taxes on more of what they do make in Social Security.
A quick take with zero forethought, what if Joe the CEO had his 12.4% split in half. Half goes into Social Security as we know it, they gain nothing. Half goes into a directed account that they can manage. These new accounts have to be approved to be "safe". Think Sweden. Joe CEO pays 12.4% more, yes, but they gain a very real and tangible benefit by having the ability to put money into a real investment fund.
Why do we need the govt administering an investment fund for CEOs for their retirement?
The thing we have to understand is that the real debate isn't on the tax side. It's on the spending side. And that's because there's no such thing as an expenditure that doesn't need to be funded. Even if one carries a quantifiable positive return, the checks to fund the investments still need to cash. But most expenditures aren't cashflow positive, anyway.
That's why I like to say that the only true tax cut is a spending cut. The things that we call "tax cuts" (and "tax hikes") are actually only shifts of the burden. Whatever happens with tax policy this year -- whether the TCJA rates are extended or are allowed to sunset -- the bills we have to pay are largely going to be the same. Cutting taxes doesn't get us off the hook -- it just changes how we're arranged on the hook. Only cutting spending will get us off of it.
I'd have to noodle it around a little bit more. But I have long thought that the most no-brainer change we should've made long ago (and still should) is utilize higher returns to help narrow the funding gap. I think that personal accounts are the best way to do that, for various reasons. But even if it's without the personal accounts, it's better than what we've done to date.
However, since SS surpluses were long a ready source of cash for Congress to fund deficits, they were always loath to forego them. But now we've crossed over into annual deficits and the funds are flowing the other way.
Anyway, I don't know what the ultimate solution is going to look like. I'd guess it'll be a hodgepodge of things on both the tax and benefit side -- such that many people will see higher taxes and many people will see reduced benefits. And we may as well start warming up to that reality. Because the numbers aren't going to fix themselves. And I doubt they're going to just let recipients take a 20-25% haircut.
As a way of getting money to not have to gut Social Security?
Eventually, over time as people on and near Social Security die off, I would move everyone to a plan like that. We can't do it today or the old Social Security would die.
I am big into Social Contract Theory. A contract was made with people who are at or past retirement that a certain amount would be available to them. So I'd like for that to be met. That may mean COLA for higher end incomes is lost. Age may have to be upped, but it isn't going to be changed enough to change the 2034 collapse. There is going to have to be more revenue. How can we do it in the most fair way? The stick, more tax. The carrot, individualized retirement.
But as I said, that was VERY off the cuff with no forethought. It may be terrible.
And NYC has the second largest concentration of Jews in the world, second only to Tel-Aviv.
Last edited:
The first issue that comes to mind is that there's nothing stopping anybody with higher incomes from investing those funds privately today. So it isn't really much of a carrot.
It's basically Uncle Sam saying "If I can have 6.2% more of your income today, you're free to invest an additional 6.2% of it in a private account we'll create for you."
"I can already invest that 6.2% in a private account."
"Sure, but this one will be funded by tax withholding and have the name 'Social Security' on it."
"Can I invest it in anything I want?"
"No. Here are your fund options."
New York is no longer a serious place
Best of luck to NYC! Why didn’t Yang gang get involved in this race? Didn’t he have some pretty good support last time?
And yet a more serious place than the country as a whole given the shit stain currently in the white house.
How about this. "We are going to tax you 12.4% on Social Security. You have this choice. All of it in Social Security, or half in Social Security and half in an individual plan."
At some point, when the math allows, everyone else will get a 1% then eventually 2% option. This will continue until it is 50-50.
He is busy creating the Forward Party. I think he has determined the two parties are broken.
If I understand you correctly, this is basically what Paul Ryan supported back in 2005 (with the notable exception of removing the cap on taxes and benefits). He wanted to do the same thing Bush did, but without limiting it to 4%. I preferred Ryan's, because more funds would be earning the higher returns we need to close the gap. It would've given them more space to pare defined benefits for people who would be able to replace most/all of their scheduled benefits from their accounts.
One of the crappy things about where we are now is that we're only 9 years from SSTF exhaustion. In 2005, we were 30 years from it -- and just forfeited all those years of time-value to help close the gap with as little pain as possible.
Social Security is a tax. It's not a bunch of individual accounts.
A pro-global jihad communist makes Trump look like Reagan.
Why Won’t Zohran Mamdani Denounce a Dangerous Slogan?
The New York mayoral candidate’s defense of “Globalize the intifada” is very telling.
