4 ms·

From Crown Heights and Bed Stuy (two of the neighborhoods singled out in the article) it's about a 45-60 minute commute into Manhattan via the subway -- not exa

From Crown Heights and Bed Stuy (two of the neighborhoods singled out in the article) it's about a 45-60 minute commute into Manhattan via the subway -- not exactly "living centrally." Are people supposed to live 2 hours out? > instead channel the revenue away from the rent-seekers and into the hands of the public (i.e. by increasing property taxes) Good luck getting that passed. And while I'm in favor of higher taxes on the land-owning elite almost half of NYC's income tax revenue is made up from 1% of its residents (https://nypost.com/2014/04/15/citys-one-percent-pay-larger-income-tax-share-than-rest-of-us/ https://nypost.com/2014/04/15/citys-one-percent-pay-larger-i...), about 35K people making > 600K. And income tax is about 2/3 of how NYS collects revenue (https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/collections/fy_collections_stat_report/2016_2017_annual_statistical_report_of_ny_state_tax_collections.htm https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/collections/fy_collections_s...). Raise taxes on them enough and they move to NJ or CT and it's actually a net loss for the city.

svantana 9y ago
> Raise taxes on them enough and they move to NJ or CT and it's actually a net loss for the city. Theoretically, increased taxes shouldn't affect the cost of living, because the supply is fixed, and the market price is way above maintenance costs. The revenue will simply shift from the banks and landowners to the public. At least that's the theory, but it should work for a gradual tax increase.
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  Money for schools, roads, subways, police etc has to come from somewhere, and if high-income earners flee (because of being overtaxed) to nearby low-tax areas then taxes go up on everyone else to cover the shortfall, or services are cut. I favor a tax increase on the wealthy but I'm just saying implementing such a policy is more difficult than it sounds, especially because NJ and CT are so close by.
  - murph-almighty 9y ago
    Not speaking for CT but the attractive locations in NJ are getting pricey fast- anywhere along a PATH stop has pretty high rent right now.
  - svantana 9y ago
    That makes no sense, high earners are the least sensitive to (fixed) costs and are more likely to choose location based on attractiveness. Who would move in if a high earner moved out? Supply and demand have a way of taking care of these things.
lazerpants 9y ago
They aren't that far out (especially when the subway ran in a more timely fashion). My commute from Nostrand to lower Manhattan was under 30 minutes even including the 10 minute walk to the subway. That's exactly why that area is gentrifying.
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  Depends on where you are in Manhattan. I used to commute from Nostrand to the UES and it involved taking the G train to the E train to the 6 train plus lots of walking. Easily over an hour.
gamblor956 9y ago
People who can afford to live in NYC generally are tax-insensitive, and mostly would ignore the type of tax increase we're discussing. It would take a double-digit increase in the tax rate to even trigger a noticeable dip in the number of high-wealth individuals. Source: Me. I used to represent high-wealth individuals.

svantana 9y ago

> Raise taxes on them enough and they move to NJ or CT and it's actually a net loss for the city. Theoretically, increased taxes shouldn't affect the cost of living, because the supply is fixed, and the market price is way above maintenance costs. The revenue will simply shift from the banks and landowners to the public. At least that's the theory, but it should work for a gradual tax increase.

ordinaryperson 9y ago
Money for schools, roads, subways, police etc has to come from somewhere, and if high-income earners flee (because of being overtaxed) to nearby low-tax areas then taxes go up on everyone else to cover the shortfall, or services are cut. I favor a tax increase on the wealthy but I'm just saying implementing such a policy is more difficult than it sounds, especially because NJ and CT are so close by.
- murph-almighty 9y ago
  Not speaking for CT but the attractive locations in NJ are getting pricey fast- anywhere along a PATH stop has pretty high rent right now.
- svantana 9y ago
  That makes no sense, high earners are the least sensitive to (fixed) costs and are more likely to choose location based on attractiveness. Who would move in if a high earner moved out? Supply and demand have a way of taking care of these things.

lazerpants 9y ago

They aren't that far out (especially when the subway ran in a more timely fashion). My commute from Nostrand to lower Manhattan was under 30 minutes even including the 10 minute walk to the subway. That's exactly why that area is gentrifying.

ordinaryperson 9y ago
Depends on where you are in Manhattan. I used to commute from Nostrand to the UES and it involved taking the G train to the E train to the 6 train plus lots of walking. Easily over an hour.

gamblor956 9y ago

People who can afford to live in NYC generally are tax-insensitive, and mostly would ignore the type of tax increase we're discussing. It would take a double-digit increase in the tax rate to even trigger a noticeable dip in the number of high-wealth individuals. Source: Me. I used to represent high-wealth individuals.