4 ms·
That makes the assumption that the highest-paid residents of the city are currently paying their fair share. I somehow doubt that, so I don't see the loss of re
by necrotic_comp 6y ago
That makes the assumption that the highest-paid residents of the city are currently paying their fair share. I somehow doubt that, so I don't see the loss of revenue from their absence as great as predicted.
- handmodel 6y agohttps://www.empirecenter.org/publications/nycs-high-income-tax-habit/ https://www.empirecenter.org/publications/nycs-high-income-t... "1 percent of New York City residents generated 43 percent of city income taxes" While I am not saying the current rate is fair or perfect, to say that the city wouldn't be hurt by losing tax revenue ignores the fact.
- tetris11 6y agoI wonder how much the cost of having the millionaires (in terms of the average resident paying for food, rent, parking, etc) is offset by their large contribution
- handmodel 6y agoI know not everyone would agree with me - but I think local governments almost always agree that attracting high earners is good for the city. Not only do they make schools and local government better funded but the raising of prices usually means higher wages (and more possible jobs) for the working class. There is a reason once Detroit lost its high wage workers the city sorta collapsed onto itself.
- jjeaff 6y agoI'm sure it will hurt the city. But it should also be noted that income tax makes up about 60% of the budget, not all of it.