5 ms·

This. New York City charges its residents almost 4% tax from salaries over $50,000. It's huge money. What do the citizens get in return? Clean streets? Nope.

This. New York City charges its residents almost 4% tax from salaries over $50,000. It's huge money. What do the citizens get in return? Clean streets? Nope. Free museums? Nope. (Hello, London!) Best in class public transportation? Good joke. Effective homeless rehabilitation programs? Affordable healthcare for everyone? State of the art digital services for the citizens? Low crime rate? Bueller? Bueller?

seibelj 6y ago
Of course, just a bit more taxes will fix everything! /s
jlokier 6y ago
> almost 4% [...] It's huge money. No it isn't, compared with the scale of the things you want to spend it on. In places that deliver even a half-assed version of the things you described (e.g. London - no effective homeless rehabilitation), the tax rate on salaries is much higher than 4% to pay for what they do provide. That's not inefficiency. You have listed a bunch of things that cost more than that to provide at the scale implied in "for everyone". And you effectively cherry-picked. You haven't listed hundreds of other "hidden service" things that the money is really needed for which are actually being provided, but people don't think of, yet are essential to the health of the place. For example collecting and processing the garbage, recycling, street signs, police, fire service, food vendor safety inspections, child welfare services, those sorts of things tend to be well run in the ways meant by "efficient". And many services need to be paid for that not every individual needs at every stage in their lives, and people just don't realise how much of it there is. E.g. the schools for kids with learning difficulties? They are needed, and sure aren't being paid for out of every parent's personal money, and anyway some of those kids don't have living parents.
- AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
  It sounds reasonable: we all know taxes should be collected to pay for community services and such. Then at some point you realize that other places which do not collect 4% tax still have street signs, garbage collection, police, fire service and all "those sort of things". Often of a higher quality than those in NYC.
  - danaris 6y ago
    Many of those other places have those provided for by taxes at a different level—state, county, etc—or have much higher property taxes. I think it's also worth noting that attempting to compare nearly any other city in the world to New York City in terms of "but they can provide XYZ" is going to have problems. NYC is staggeringly large in terms of population—and particularly in terms of population density. For goodness' sake, it's got more people in it than all but a dozen states in the US. It's got a larger population than the bottom eight states combined plus the District of Columbia. And it's a single city. Less than 500 square miles. Less than 1/3 the size of Rhode Island, the smallest state. Smaller than Guam. And you whine that it has to charge more taxes than, say, Syracuse. Maybe think about it in perspective.
    - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
      > NYC is staggeringly large... So if anything, I'd expect there to be an economy of scale. High population density means there are less streets to clean and less trees to groom.

seibelj 6y ago

Of course, just a bit more taxes will fix everything! /s

jlokier 6y ago

> almost 4% [...] It's huge money. No it isn't, compared with the scale of the things you want to spend it on. In places that deliver even a half-assed version of the things you described (e.g. London - no effective homeless rehabilitation), the tax rate on salaries is much higher than 4% to pay for what they do provide. That's not inefficiency. You have listed a bunch of things that cost more than that to provide at the scale implied in "for everyone". And you effectively cherry-picked. You haven't listed hundreds of other "hidden service" things that the money is really needed for which are actually being provided, but people don't think of, yet are essential to the health of the place. For example collecting and processing the garbage, recycling, street signs, police, fire service, food vendor safety inspections, child welfare services, those sorts of things tend to be well run in the ways meant by "efficient". And many services need to be paid for that not every individual needs at every stage in their lives, and people just don't realise how much of it there is. E.g. the schools for kids with learning difficulties? They are needed, and sure aren't being paid for out of every parent's personal money, and anyway some of those kids don't have living parents.

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
It sounds reasonable: we all know taxes should be collected to pay for community services and such. Then at some point you realize that other places which do not collect 4% tax still have street signs, garbage collection, police, fire service and all "those sort of things". Often of a higher quality than those in NYC.
- danaris 6y ago
  Many of those other places have those provided for by taxes at a different level—state, county, etc—or have much higher property taxes. I think it's also worth noting that attempting to compare nearly any other city in the world to New York City in terms of "but they can provide XYZ" is going to have problems. NYC is staggeringly large in terms of population—and particularly in terms of population density. For goodness' sake, it's got more people in it than all but a dozen states in the US. It's got a larger population than the bottom eight states combined plus the District of Columbia. And it's a single city. Less than 500 square miles. Less than 1/3 the size of Rhode Island, the smallest state. Smaller than Guam. And you whine that it has to charge more taxes than, say, Syracuse. Maybe think about it in perspective.
  - AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    > NYC is staggeringly large... So if anything, I'd expect there to be an economy of scale. High population density means there are less streets to clean and less trees to groom.