Post-COVID downtowns.. / mass transit

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Ok counter point.  I've heard from a bunch of people that 1918 was worse than 2020.  If that didn't kill NYC and cities why this time.  Bandwidth?   There were equal advances then that were just as revolutionary. 

[jesmu84]

Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, we don't let society develop in a way that let's a few ultra-wealthy hold the rest of society at gunpoint?

[Heisenberg]

Ok counter point.  I've heard from a bunch of people that 1918 was worse than 2020.  Of that didn't kill NYC and cities why this time.  Bandwidth?   There were equal advances then that were just as revolutionary.

I quoted the Altucher piece above ... bandwidth and Amazon delivery are the game changers.  After 1918 (or the pandemics of 1957 and 1968) you had no choice but return to the cities.  We lacked the tools to WFH.

This is the basis for his "this time is different" argument now.

[Heisenberg]

Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, we don't let society develop in a way that let's a few ultra-wealthy hold the rest of society at gunpoint?

Its the problem with a progressive "soak the rich" tax rates.  You become dependent on a handful of uber-wealthy to pay the freight.  It is a problem everywhere that have progess tax rates (which is practically everywhere).

So if you want to get rid of being hostage to them, do any with progressive taxes.

---

Illinois constituion says income taxes have to be a flat rate.  On the November ballot is an admendment to change it to a progressive rate.

The exact argument they are using is 97% of people will not pay higher taxes.  This is correct.  3% are going to pay the freight.  They are rich they can afford it.

They can also afford to give Chicago and Lightfoot the finger and leave.  See the Sudler property management letter linked above. More than anytime in the last 30 to 40 years the 3% (or 1%) are seriously considering leaving.  Especially is WFH becomes a thing and they can manage from some nice weather tax friendly place.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I quoted the Altucher piece above ... bandwidth and Amazon delivery are the game changers.  After 1918 (or the pandemics of 1957 and 1968) you had no choice but return to the cities.  We lacked the tools to WFH.

This is the basis for his "this time is different" argument now.

I saw Hamilton in person on Broadway and on Disney+.  You still believe the reason rich people live in a city is 'work'

[Heisenberg]

I saw Hamilton in person on Broadway and on Disney+.  You still believe the reason rich people live in a city is 'work'

The basis of all large cities is the large office buildings with lots of workers.  It is the businesses in these building that make rich people.

If we are not returning to these buildings, as in the old normal return, lots changes.  Starting with the lifestyle of the rich.  The broadway you went to will not exist.

Go back and read the Andrew Cuomo story.  Rich people are not in NYC (and Hollywood, also linked above).  They left in March/April and have not set foot in the city for months.

They are getting comfortable NOT living in the city and Cuomo is (rightly) worried they are never going to return (as taxpayers, they will return as occasional tourists).  And if their businesses are not there, and are virtual, why are they returning to be awaken by this ...

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/over-30-shootings-at-least-5-dead-across-nyc-as-surge-of-gun-violence-continues


The main reason all rich people are where they are is they have a business to manage that makes them very wealthy.  If they business goes virtual, they have lost the dominant reason to be wherever they are.  Then they have the means to be be anywhere they desire.

So, to answer your question, yes, the dominant reason they are in a city is to "work." That work is what made them rich.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Actually the worst cities are only organized around work. Houston - Dallas anyone ?   

I know you love the extreme but fight in man. And make sure to sell your Lincoln Park place before everyone flees to the open spaces with their zoom opera and one choice of restaurant that rich people cover. 

[Heisenberg]

Actually the worst cities are only organized around work. Houston - Dallas anyone ?   

I know you love the extreme but fight in man. And make sure to sell your Lincoln Park place before everyone flees to the open spaces with their zoom opera and one choice of restaurant that rich people cover.

All cities are organized around work, starting with the first modern city 400 years ago, Venice.  NYC is the eptiome of a city organized around work.  Why do you think Wall Street and Madison Ave have specific BUSINESS meanings?

And you have your argument exactly backwards.  Operas and restaurants will follow the rich, not the way you describe.  Ever been to Southern CA, are those billionaires crying about the lack of opportunity and culture for the uber-wealthy?

17 billionaires living in Chicago.  Dallas is a smaller city and has 25 billionaires.  Doesn't sound like the rich hate it there.

And, your last sentence suggests that billionaires are fleeing to Beloit.  They are going to Palm Beach.

[jesmu84]

Its the problem with a progressive "soak the rich" tax rates.  You become dependent on a handful of uber-wealthy to pay the freight.  It is a problem everywhere that have progess tax rates (which is practically everywhere).

So if you want to get rid of being hostage to them, do any with progressive taxes.

---

Illinois constituion says income taxes have to be a flat rate.  On the November ballot is an admendment to change it to a progressive rate.

The exact argument they are using is 97% of people will not pay higher taxes.  This is correct.  3% are going to pay the freight.  They are rich they can afford it.

They can also afford to give Chicago and Lightfoot the finger and leave.  See the Sudler property management letter linked above. More than anytime in the last 30 to 40 years the 3% (or 1%) are seriously considering leaving.  Especially is WFH becomes a thing and they can manage from some nice weather tax friendly place.

Interesting.

Are you sure that's the only way to avoid being in this situation?

[Heisenberg]

Interesting.

Are you sure that's the only way to avoid being in this situation?

You're asking how to have a tax base that is not held hostage to rich people that can leave and take their tax bills with them. 

The answer is simple, tax the middle-class more!

A flat, less progressive, tax rate does that.

[Pakuni]

You're asking how to have a tax base that is not held hostage to rich people that can leave and take their tax bills with them. 

The answer is simple, tax the middle-class more!

A flat, less progressive, tax rate does that.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-richest-400-families-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-the-middle-class/

[Heisenberg]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-richest-400-families-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-the-middle-class/

Saez , who I know, is an unabashedly left-wing partisan and should never be confused as an unbiased researcher.  That said, his work is referencing FEDERAL taxes.  My posts above are referring to STATE and LOCAL taxes.

Do you think Cuomo is wrong for worrying all the billionaires will leave and blow a hole in his tax base?  Should Lightfoot not care that Ken Griffin is openly talking about leaving and taking his tax bill with him too?

[Pakuni]

Saez , who I know, is an unabashedly left-wing partisan and should never be confused as an unbiased researcher.  That said, his work is referencing FEDERAL taxes.  My posts above are referring to STATE and LOCAL taxes.

Literally the second bullet point at the top of the story:
"Factoring in federal, state and local taxes, those ultra-wealthy households pay a total rate of about 23% — that compares with just over 24% for the bottom half of households."

So, do you have evidence the research, data and findings are incorrect, or is all you got ad hominem?

As for Ken Griffin, he has no plans to leave Chicago and has said so. In fact, he just built and moved into a new $58 million home last year.

[MUBurrow]

Ultimately, Heiese isn't wrong that the race to the bottom is something of an issue when it comes to interstate issues, be it tax rates (individual rates or breaks to encourage job creation), employment standards and wage protection, etc. But the answer when faced with a race to the bottom problem can't just be "WIN THE RACE!"

[Heisenberg]

Literally the second bullet point at the top of the story:
"Factoring in federal, state and local taxes, those ultra-wealthy households pay a total rate of about 23% — that compares with just over 24% for the bottom half of households."

So, do you have evidence the research, data and findings are incorrect, or is all you got ad hominem?

As for Ken Griffin, he has no plans to leave Chicago and has said so. In fact, he just built and moved into a new $58 million home last year.

Saez can say that, but the domiant driver of this study is Federal taxes.

Cut to the chase ... do you believe if you jack taxes on the uber-wealthy they will not leave?  And if they leave, city finances will be fine?  Do you believe Cuomo was wrong?

[warriorchick]

17 billionaires living in Chicago.  Dallas is a smaller city and has 25 billionaires.  Doesn't sound like the rich hate it there.

Texas doesn't have a state income tax.  But I bet that is just a coincidence.

[Pakuni]

Saez can say that, but the domiant driver of this study is Federal taxes.

Cut to the chase ... do you believe if you jack taxes on the uber-wealthy they will not leave?  And if they leave, city finances will be fine?  Do you believe Cuomo was wrong?

So you're not going to look at what the research actually says and just stick to your guns regardless. OK.

Anyhow, re: Cuomo, you're conflating issues, intentionally so, I imagine.
Cuomo's remarks were in regards to a specific tax proposal targeting only billionaires, and not progressive income tax systems in general, as you've tried to imply.
New York, in fact, already has one of the country's most progressive income tax models.
This kind if misleading is par of the course for you.

Do I believe Cuomo was wrong about a billionaires-ony tax? Probably not.
Do I believe you're wrong about shifting even more of the tax burden onto the middle class? Absolutely.

[warriorchick]

Though on the Seattle example, Amazon is about to have a real estate problem (too much of it)

It's already happening.  REI just announced that they will be selling an 8-acre corporate campus in Bellevue that they literally just finished building, and have said it was because Covid-19 demonstrated that WFH is actually a desirable model.

[tower912]

demonstrated that WTF is actually a desirable model.

I don't know if it is a typo or an auto correct, but this is beautiful.

[warriorchick]

I know it is a typo or an auto correct, but this is beautiful.

LOL  It's a typo, but point taken.

[jesmu84]

Another option:

Don't allow uber-wealthy to occur in your society. Have a more even distribution of wealth across all classes. Then you don't have to make the upper end pay a larger share of taxes. Maybe focus on labor as opposed to capital.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Another option:

Don't allow uber-wealthy to occur in your society. Have a more even distribution of wealth across all classes. Then you don't have to make the upper end pay a larger share of taxes. Maybe focus on labor as opposed to capital.

So socialism?  Venezuela says hi.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Literally the second bullet point at the top of the story:
"Factoring in federal, state and local taxes, those ultra-wealthy households pay a total rate of about 23% — that compares with just over 24% for the bottom half of households."

So, do you have evidence the research, data and findings are incorrect, or is all you got ad hominem?

As for Ken Griffin, he has no plans to leave Chicago and has said so. In fact, he just built and moved into a new $58 million home last year.

Poor guy...that tax hit he's taking is really limiting his ability to live his best life.  He must have been shooting for a $60-$65MM home.

[Galway Eagle]

So socialism?  Venezuela says hi.

Or a democracy that just has more equality and better social infrastructure for the lower classes. Literally any other westernized country all of which have lower crime and most of which have higher quality of life say "hi"

[MUBurrow]

So socialism?  Venezuela says hi.

Meh. I don't think you become Hugo Chavez if you say "we should make it a policy goal that the middle 75% of Americans possess 40% of American wealth" or something along those lines.  If you're trying to draw a flat wealth curve? Sure, then that's an apt comparison.  But a strong middle class and top marginal tax rate above 50% to fuel a strong public education system aren't exactly the same as government controlled means of production.