3 ms·
The infrastructure and facilities provided by the state and city most likely allowed for the possibility of your job in the first place. 92% of your current in
by unglaublich 4y ago
The infrastructure and facilities provided by the state and city most likely allowed for the possibility of your job in the first place.
92% of your current income is likely far more than 100% of the income of a hypothetical job in a city without maintained roads and infrastructure.
- dionidium 4y agoNYC, by virtue of being relatively compact and with high population density, of course requires fewer dollars per capita to provide the same services as a spread-out suburban enclave. But it doesn't take in less money than that suburb. It takes in significantly more.
- unmole 4y agoHow so states and cities without income tax function?
- grumple 4y agoThey tax property at a higher rate. If you rent, your rent includes the taxes. You pay either way, the specific tax structure doesn't make a huge impact. If the city provides services, you're paying for them.
- bradleyjg 4y agoI guess there are no jobs in Austin
- nemo44x 4y agoI wish people like you would quit apologizing for mismanaged governments that steal and waste so much money. There are clear examples of prosperous states where they don’t tax at all and they have thriving middle classes, good jobs for all that want them, and just as much infra as a high tax state. It’s like denying “the science” when we have clear empirical evidence the people of a state can thrive without high taxes and that lots of people will not thrive in a high tax state. It’s clear, don’t you see it? Why do you deny what is in front of you and obvious?