Marnie Posted April 9, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 9, 2008 Democrats' Answer To Congestion Pricing: Tax Anyone Working In State Making $1 Million-Plus Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan may be dead, but Assembly Democrats do have a plan to raise money for mass transit: tax the rich. It's what Albany calls a "millionaire's tax." Yes, billionaires like Bloomberg will ante up, too. Under the plan, people who earn over $1 million in New York state will pay an income tax surcharge of about 3/4 of 1 percent for five years. In all, it would raise over $5 billion for mass transit. Supporters say that of the 75,000 affected taxpayers, about 35,000 don't live in New York. "They could be ballplayers at Yankee Stadium, Shea Stadium, Madison Square Garden," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told CBS 2 HD. "They could be Wall Street people who live in Greenwich, Conn., or Princeton, N.J." And with everyone scratching their heads Tuesday about how to fund mass transit, Gov. David Paterson named former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch to head a commission to look for revenues. "I am announcing there will be a blue ribbon commission," Paterson said. Ravitch told CBS 2 HD that he's up to the challenge. "Obviously, it's a tougher task with the defeat of congestion pricing because that would have provided 20 percent of what the apparent needs are," he said. Although Bloomberg wouldn't support the so-called "millionaire's tax," Ravitch is open to it. "Any revenue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat8585 Posted April 9, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Dems know this. That's why rich Dem congress people want to make themselves look good by using it all the time, knowing it works every time, and knowing they won't have to pay it. It will mostly fall on the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted April 9, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 The problem from trying to raise money from taxing the very rich is that the very rich have very good acountants No, the problem is that it is just plain wrong. Period. The so-called right probably don't even use public transit. If the transit system in NYC needs work, they need to charge the patrons more to use it. Duh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillingToDie Posted April 9, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 710 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/16/1984 Share Posted April 9, 2008 The problem from trying to raise money from taxing the very rich is that the very rich have very good acountants No, the problem is that it is just plain wrong. Period. The so-called right probably don't even use public transit. If the transit system in NYC needs work, they need to charge the patrons more to use it. Duh... Right, because it's wrong to try to help out others. And it's ok to charge teh working poor (who are more likely to use mass transit) more money. Good thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marnie Posted April 9, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 811 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 7,338 Content Per Day: 1.08 Reputation: 76 Days Won: 2 Joined: 10/06/2005 Status: Offline Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 The problem from trying to raise money from taxing the very rich is that the very rich have very good acountants No, the problem is that it is just plain wrong. Period. The so-called right probably don't even use public transit. If the transit system in NYC needs work, they need to charge the patrons more to use it. Duh... Right, because it's wrong to try to help out others. And it's ok to charge teh working poor (who are more likely to use mass transit) more money. Good thinking. I'm all for helping others. I am against "coerced compassion." If you are so inclined, though, you ante up and buy transit passes for a few of the "working poor." Better yet, why not buy their groceries and pay their heating bills for the winter months. Why stop at just mass transit? Darn straight it's good thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Hamburgers! Posted April 9, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,144 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 163 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/02/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1985 Share Posted April 9, 2008 As much as I think that a tax like this would cause the least amount of burden on people, I have to agree with Marnie that it's the wrong thing to do, on several levels. First, the transit system will essentially be funded by those who need it the least. I can't imagine Bloomberg is a subway regular Second, it is a perfect example of a "mob rule" scenario. Obviously people don't want to pay for the transit system, but money needs to come from some where. It's pretty easy for the ~90-95% crowd to come up with a majority vote to make ~5% of the population pay for something. But that is an abusive situation that often leads to unfair practice and unjust legislation. Having said that I do feel like a law like this would be more beneficial to the city as a whole, I just don't think it is appropriate. A better solution in my opinion would be to tax everyone a percentile amount of their income, and use that to fund the mass transit system. Sure, someone with an annual income of 100,000 will end up paying 10x more than a person with an annual income of 10,000, but at least everyone will have the same vested interest in things. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I wish a system like that would be implemented for all taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PamD Posted April 9, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 402 Content Per Day: 0.06 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/03/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/22/1959 Share Posted April 9, 2008 And they are setting up a commission to look at this?? How much is that going to cost? Maybe they should just earmark that money toward the transit costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anitarose Posted April 9, 2008 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 65 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,066 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/15/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1961 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Democrats' Answer To Congestion Pricing: Tax Anyone Working In State Making $1 Million-Plus Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan may be dead, but Assembly Democrats do have a plan to raise money for mass transit: tax the rich. It's what Albany calls a "millionaire's tax." Yes, billionaires like Bloomberg will ante up, too. Under the plan, people who earn over $1 million in New York state will pay an income tax surcharge of about 3/4 of 1 percent for five years. In all, it would raise over $5 billion for mass transit. Supporters say that of the 75,000 affected taxpayers, about 35,000 don't live in New York. "They could be ballplayers at Yankee Stadium, Shea Stadium, Madison Square Garden," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told CBS 2 HD. "They could be Wall Street people who live in Greenwich, Conn., or Princeton, N.J." And with everyone scratching their heads Tuesday about how to fund mass transit, Gov. David Paterson named former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch to head a commission to look for revenues. "I am announcing there will be a blue ribbon commission," Paterson said. Ravitch told CBS 2 HD that he's up to the challenge. "Obviously, it's a tougher task with the defeat of congestion pricing because that would have provided 20 percent of what the apparent needs are," he said. Although Bloomberg wouldn't support the so-called "millionaire's tax," Ravitch is open to it. "Any revenue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treasure Posted April 9, 2008 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 272 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,338 Content Per Day: 0.65 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/19/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted April 9, 2008 The problem from trying to raise money from taxing the very rich is that the very rich have very good acountants No, the problem is that it is just plain wrong. Period. The so-called right probably don't even use public transit. If the transit system in NYC needs work, they need to charge the patrons more to use it. Duh... Right, because it's wrong to try to help out others. And it's ok to charge teh working poor (who are more likely to use mass transit) more money. Good thinking. I'm all for helping others. I am against "coerced compassion." If you are so inclined, though, you ante up and buy transit passes for a few of the "working poor." Better yet, why not buy their groceries and pay their heating bills for the winter months. Why stop at just mass transit? Darn straight it's good thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillingToDie Posted April 9, 2008 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 710 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/16/1984 Share Posted April 9, 2008 The problem from trying to raise money from taxing the very rich is that the very rich have very good acountants No, the problem is that it is just plain wrong. Period. The so-called right probably don't even use public transit. If the transit system in NYC needs work, they need to charge the patrons more to use it. Duh... Right, because it's wrong to try to help out others. And it's ok to charge teh working poor (who are more likely to use mass transit) more money. Good thinking. I'm all for helping others. I am against "coerced compassion." If you are so inclined, though, you ante up and buy transit passes for a few of the "working poor." Better yet, why not buy their groceries and pay their heating bills for the winter months. Why stop at just mass transit? Darn straight it's good thinking. You missed my point, yet this is exactly the response I expected from you. Paying for their groceries and helping fund a mass transit center are two seperate things. What I'm suggesting (that the the rich at least help pay) would certainly help the working poor, whereas your suggestion (make them pay for it themselves) puts the burden on those who are already having a hard time surviving. Have you seen Batman Begins, by any chance? In that movie, Thomas Wayne (Bruce's father) single-handedly payed for the building of a mass transit system because he thought it was the right thing to do, to help the poor people of Gotham City. That is what I think rich people should do with their money-help those who are less fortunate. Perhaps if the rich were more willing to give to the cause of affordable Mass Transit, which would indeed help the working poor, then there would be no need for such taxes. As much as I think that a tax like this would cause the least amount of burden on people, I have to agree with Marnie that it's the wrong thing to do, on several levels. First, the transit system will essentially be funded by those who need it the least. I can't imagine Bloomberg is a subway regular Second, it is a perfect example of a "mob rule" scenario. Obviously people don't want to pay for the transit system, but money needs to come from some where. It's pretty easy for the ~90-95% crowd to come up with a majority vote to make ~5% of the population pay for something. But that is an abusive situation that often leads to unfair practice and unjust legislation. Having said that I do feel like a law like this would be more beneficial to the city as a whole, I just don't think it is appropriate. A better solution in my opinion would be to tax everyone a percentile amount of their income, and use that to fund the mass transit system. Sure, someone with an annual income of 100,000 will end up paying 10x more than a person with an annual income of 10,000, but at least everyone will have the same vested interest in things. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I wish a system like that would be implemented for all taxes Fair enough, I don't see why those who use the system should not help to pay for it, but to try to make them pay for all of it is ludicrous, particularly in a City which has (I believe) the highest cost of living in the country, if not the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts