all that said, assuming there is some tangible tax increase, NYC high earners are going to be knocking on the door of 60% combined rates (city, state, federal). tax avoidance and/or relocation services are going to be booming if so.
all that said, assuming there is some tangible tax increase, NYC high earners are going to be knocking on the door of 60% combined rates (city, state, federal). tax avoidance and/or relocation services are going to be booming if so.
Last year I paid 17% of my total income in taxes.
There’s really no way to increase taxes without impacting consumers. Unless you try to limit rents, but then you have other problems with people not wanting to invest in apartment buildings.
In a world where corporations make profits, some competitors choose to eat the taxes and retain customers, while others may increase prices and lose some customers, and some customers may eat the increased price and remain even though they're getting a worse deal than before. This is the concept of "consumer surplus" vs "producer surplus", and taxes are cutting into those surpluses differently depending on the specifics of each market participant.
All of this has been debated endlessly by economists, in terms of just how much of corporate taxes get passed along to consumers and so on. And the answer seems to be "not zero, and not 100% either", and everything beyond that is up for debate. So no, not "everything is ultimately paid by the consumer", that is the 100% answer and that's pretty clearly wrong in a market where producer-surplus exists.
In reality, real-estate and rents are probably one of the least-efficient markets imaginable. The frictional costs to buying and selling property, and finding a new tenant who might be a problem/deadbeat/etc, or spending a bunch of time apartment-shopping, picking up your life and packing your stuff, and moving, are immense, and all parties involved are highly emotionally invested as well. Landlords are trying to make a long-term calculation about whether the property is going to appreciate - even if they are losing money today, if they expect to make capital gains in the long term it could be worth it. And all parties are operating with minimal information. Out of all the markets in the world, real-estate and rental living spaces are probably one of the least efficient possible.
Pass-through taxes exist though, yes.
Also, 1-year leases are typical in the U.S. (at least Philly/NYC northeast U.S.), so from that contractual perspective, your rent can go up every year and that's totally legal.
Its actually much more complicated then that, depending on factors such as the propensity of landlords to cease renting out units if their profit decreases, the propensity of renters to shift to smaller dwellings in the face of rent increases, etc.
Your mistake is assuming that people who bought up housing stock are guaranteed future profit on their speculative investment.
Step 2) Force out investor class and/or repossess properties out of tax adjudication.
Step 3) Public housing!
How does this logic work? Building apartments becomes a bad investment. Then developers don't build apartments. And somehow constrained supply is supposed to result in lower prices?
You can say the market won't let it happen, but the second case is the current real estate market for the town I went to school in.
Personally I think owning a residence you don't actually live in should just straight up be illegal, but I'm admittedly pretty radical about parts of the system that seem to exist solely to make the rich richer.
There's no guarantee that builders will use the loosened restrictions to build the most efficient housing. In fact they will most likely build the most profitable housing instead.
The most profitable is on the high end - so marble countertops, stainless steel appliances, etc. All the builders will race to build as much of that as they can, as fast as they can. Then, when the market is glutted, they'll be unable to sell off their investments. Builders will end up with their capital all sunk in cheap land and expensive housing. no one can afford to buy. The builders can't sell the cheap land since they leveraged it to pay for developing the expensive housing. They can't sell the expensive housing because the market has temporarily dried up. The builders will just wait until the glut resolves and continue business as usual.
Meanwhile, there is not really that much more actual housing for the low end market. Some builders made a bunch of money and some craftsmen got extra work building houses they can never afford.
Capitalism at it's most typical.
If there’s a glut in the market prices fall. If you have invested a lot of money in something in the hopes of selling it at a profit and you can’t you go out of business and your assets are sold. So if you over leverage and prices fall you go out of business and lose all your assets and the bank may lose some of its assets. Housing supply increases though. In a market where there’s excess demand at current price points (rising prices) that’s good.
Capitalism doesn’t make ever increasing housing prices, zoning does.
I have both owned and rented at different points in my life. There have been times where renting was a better choice for me, for a variety of reasons. I am glad that renting is an option.
If some kind of community property system exists (not for ALL properties but a large number of them) then any rent you pay in say New York is also paying down a virtual mortgage you have the the "community" that spans the country. Like a virtual HOA.
But then a right-wing government came to power and sold most of the social housing off, while banning local authorities from building any more. So now, we have the situation here where the large majority of tenants are renting from private landlords, who are just pocketing all the rent for themselves and doing the bare minimum upkeep, while holding a rapidly appreciating asset.
Which is exactly what the right-wingers wanted, but of course doesn't help everyone else who isn't a landlord, and just wants somewhere decent and affordable to live.
Sure would be awful for a rental market to exist. Without rental there’d be only be home owners and homeless and that is clearly a better world.
Surely you see stuff like this is part of what is driving this very bubble?
Land owners seem to feel entitled to businesses with no risk. Costs are always passed down, even if it makes people homeless. I'm more than happy with you going out of business if an event that makes you richer isn't an event that you can handle in terms of cost.
My parents lived in North County and paid 13k+ a year on a $350k house. Their current place in Tampa is about 400k and the taxes are less than half of what they were in NY. Maybe Florida is a special case?
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/41-W-72nd-St-APT-8C-New-Y...
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/491-Marcy-St-Portsmouth-N...
Property taxes on the NYC place are estimated by Zillow at 715/month, while NH place is 1445/month. NH has no income tax.
Without detailed analysis there's no way to know if this is true, or how true it is. It is entirely possible for an increase in taxes to lead to no increase in end prices or even a drop in rent prices. It's a complex system.
Here.
Without determining elasticity, it's impossible to determine how much of that cost is flowing through or how much goes to impact margin.
So what?
The percentage of rent that is taxes is exactly the amount paid in taxes by the landlord. Period. It is an absolute number.
Why do they need to have an effect on rent for you to understand that you're paying them?
Bobby gave Lisa $10. Lisa then gave $3 to Uncle Sam. What percentage of Bobby's money went to Uncle Sam? 30%. It's that simple.
No I'm not. This is pretty entry level econ material. Price elasticity is very well studied and there's plenty of resources to learn more about it.
Mortgage much much more likely to be the dominant expense for a residential landlord, but varies significantly with age.
There are many longtime landlords for whom their tenants are now nearly all profit. Which is INSANE.
...
"Health insurance costs raise the average effective tax rate on American labor from 29 percent to 37 percent, they said."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/16/americans...
Was that in NYS? It doesn't take a lot of income to hit the state rate of 6.33%, everything after $80,651 filing alone, which isn't unusual downstate. You can add roughly 3.8% to that if you live in NYC and another 22% Federally, all just on income.
The tax universes at 200k/yr and 500k/yr-2m/yr income look very different.
This is ignoring charity, which I believe is available to anyone anyway.
From there you follow the directions on your shampoo bottle:
1. Lather
2. Rinse
3. Repeat
You also may have the ability to structure some of your income as business appreciation so as to not pay taxes yet. True, it's still trapped until you pay taxes, but it's still resources you have available to you that haven't yet caused you to suffer tax expenditures. As a rule, you should never volunteer taxes that you can legally defer.
It'll all add up, though probably not to an overwhelming amount. My impression is that a lot of the exaggerations of low tax rates come from very slimy accounting driven by agendas (to say nothing of expressing taxes in a given year as a fraction of total accumulated wealth.)
That's not how business expenses work. Talk to an accountant, you're leaving money on the table.
If you own a business there is a thousand ways to do it. One thing I’ve seen is people’s businesses “donate” to private schools and then get “merit” scholarships for their kids. You can accelerate depreciation of up to $500k of assets, etc.
If you’re smart, you’ll sometimes pay less tax in high tax states. Usually the low tax states have higher property and sales tax rates.
(Of course the tax treatment for qualified withdrawals is the same regardless of where you live.)
The key concept is that as you get more wealthy, you will have access to professionals and tax structures that allow you to defer and recharacterize significant portions of your revenue streams into tax advantaged forms. The exact mechanisms change depending on jurisdiction and asset mix.
Advisory services take money to purchase, but their cost, and the cost of various vehicles used to avoid taxes, do not scale linearly with the amount of wealth to shelter.
The panama and various other financial leak disclosure reporting provide a decently accessible area for lay-persons to investigate. If you'd like to see the effects of scale - there's a lot of literature regarding the multi-national corporation side of tax avoidance in academic journals that's easily found via google scholar or sci-hub.
If you’re earning that as w2 income (as many of the nyc high earner taxpayers are), then yeah you’re gonna be paying >50% taxes if you live in nyc.
Speaking from my own experience.
I live in NY, not NYC and pay ~18%, or ~22% with property tax.
I do get to ~40% when you add up federal, state and city. I don't think anyone is really looking at an actual 60%. Maybe 50% if you're making like over a million.
[0] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/newyorkcitynewy...
We also have a 15% sales tax. I paid more than a 50% effective rate last year. This is the cost of our social safety net. It feels like too much too me and I’ll be relocating next year.
What we don't do is spen d all our money on a military industrial complex
I know it's a bit of a meme, but military spending is far from our only problem. We could cut military spending to $0 and not even make a dent in the defecit, let alone be able to cut taxes. Social security, Medicare, and medicaid together make up 42% of federal spending. (Not to mention food assistance, housing assistance, unemployment, or the dozens of other programs). The US spends a lot on social programs! We just don't get much of anything for it.
EDIT: for completeness - defense spending was 12% of the federal budget in 2021.
[1] https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305...
One big difference of course is that here in NZ the govt owns the hospitals and doesn't run them for profit, no one takes a cut providing insurance either. We bulk buy pharma for the entire country. We also have a no-fault accident insurance scheme that takes personal injury out of the courts (fewer courts, fewer lawyers, smaller law schools in universities)
We may have a stronger government programs than most (subsidized parental leave, subsided childcare, subsidized French language media, etc), but almost none of them give any benefit to me.
Part of the difficulty to me is our high rates seem to kick in very early. A lot of other regions also have very high top tax brackets, but very few places are starting their top tax brackets at 100k/y income.
https://www.valuepenguin.com/how-age-affects-health-insuranc...
Saskatchewan decided they wanted single payer health care so they did it. About a decade later the federal gov made it national.
As someone who's lived in the Canadian health care system and the US system - it is absolutely lower quality than what average private employer healthcare plan provides in the US.
Even before covid, Quebec's healthcare system was in crisis with packed ERs having dozens of neglected patients on beds in the hallways for weeks... GP access is impossible with waiting lists 3 years long. ...and the nursing shortage was bad before - now because covid caused the government to order nurses to do forced overtime.
Americans have rose-colored glasses when they think about the quality of care in Canada. The truth is that Canadian healthcare is better for people that cannot afford healthcare. ...and American healthcare is far better for the average person that is employed with those benefits.
It's a simple tradeoff. Significantly higher taxes + healthcare for the poor (Canada) vs better healthcare for the average middle-class employed person (US).
I think you are confusing middle class and 1%.
Stats canada says middle class is $45,000 to $120,000. That is a marginal tax rate of about 30% depending on what province and where in that range you fall (quebec is closer to 40%). https://www.mackenzieinvestments.com/en/services/tax-and-est...
This said, a big thing NY benefits from is that a lot of people work in NY state temporarily as consultants in addition to the bridge and tunnel crowd that come in from NJ and CT, this gives them a much larger tax base than the population living there brings in on its own.
For a long time, the USA (like many other post-industrial revolution countries) has accepted that "fair" means using progressive taxation to try to create roughly equal impact given the marginal utility of higher levels of income. It's not incredibly scientific, but it isn't really incredibly subjective either.
Conservatives and their cousins at some level more or less reject the concept that there is any fair level of taxation at all, and if there is, they lean toward equal numerical taxes for every dollar earned (or taxed), thus rejecting marginal utility theory entirely.
There are at least a couple of high-net-worth-admission lobbying groups that have asked Congress to raise rates on people like themselves (which inevitably will impact other people like themselves). And speaking for myself, I believe that I should pay more in taxes.
Closer to home: my kids don't understand it. My wife doesn't understand it. Most of my in-laws don't understand it.
You lost me here. I guess it’s bad to want to keep my money I’ve worked so hard to earn. Must be that propaganda. Or perhaps the socialism propaganda just isn’t working?
Capital flight lowers real estate tax revenues. This should be obvious, so maybe your comment was a joke?
NY could afford for the "market price" to fall quite considerably before it would significantly affect tax revenues.
One of the best ways to finance this would be a payroll tax that is basically equal (in aggregate) to the insurance the company is (usually) already paying.
For example imagine a company attracts talent by paying median + healthcare, and another that just paid median. For the latter they would have more costs, no?
The savings aren’t offset unless they were already offering the incentive.
Nobody is going to believe that there are savings to be had, so it's best to start by reducing friction.
And the fact that you can't actually take time off of work to pursue a career change or look for a new job, because you need your job in order to be able to afford basic healthcare. Which makes it a lot harder to pursue a career change or look for a new job, because you are stuck/busy at your current one + whatever other life responsibilities you have (not to mention the really high commute times in NYC).
Large metro areas have a large # of services available. From office furniture delivered in hours to a wide range of service industries available on demand.
From food delivery to sign printing to courier services, large, dense, cities have economics of scale.
Whereupon there is no reduction in cost to any employer.
Theoretically there could be a reduction because the state would be a larger pool of cross-subsidization than any particular employer. In reality the costs are worse since the state will use the taxes to subsidize non-employed persons.
There was another state that was trying something like this, I believe it was Vermont.
FWIW, New York's current Medicaid budget alone puts it between San Marino and Israel for per capita healthcare spending. Widening the net a bit, that's between Italy and the UK.
https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/how-socia...
adverse selection is the usual objection raised. If you can live in Montana while you're healthy, and move to New York when you're sick, then New York effectively becomes the dumping ground for the nation's sick and ends up picking up a hugely disproportionate amount of the tab without the revenue base to make it up.
That said, since coastal states make up a disproportionate amount of the economic activity anyway... they may be able to power through it, especially if they can all get onboard with it at the same time. It's not like de-facto cash transfers to the poorer "heartland" states are a new thing in the US.
It’s not financially possible. The tax rate will be so high healthy people will then leave and you’ll be left with a fat bill for your sick population.
You have it backwards, you won’t get more sick people you’ll have less healthy people covering the bills.
It could work just fine if everyone did it. But seems very hard to do just Ny.
I have some medical issues now due to those wonderful Drs decisions.
It turns out that people don't often move over taxes, despite the claims of the anti-tax crowd, or NY and CA would have been emptied out long ago. Taxes are investment; we need to start calling them 'low-investment' and 'high-investment' states (but the liberal crowd is blind to the power of messaging and perception). People like the services and the community that investment creates, such a health care and arts.
Also, they can subtract their health insurance costs, and you are only talking about income taxes, while most taxes are either fixed rate for benefits (e.g., Social Security) or, for the wealthy, capital gains.
I'm sure we can find ways, Seattle and Austin are wonderful places, and what makes NYC and SF special doesn't appeal to everyone. But really Seattle and Austin are not even close. There's a reason NYC and SF have been centers of culture and business for generations; there's a reason that demand is so high that housing costs are stratospheric.
No, it's just not framing the entire economic question around taxes. There are many, many other factors. You can live in places with no taxes at all, but people don't choose to.
> the cost of living in NYC is hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per year. For some percentage of people that cost is simply not worth it and they move
They've already moved in that case, but the demand for NYC is enormous.
> For high earners,
Who do you think lives in NYC?
Anecdotally, I know so many people in this >1M "high earning" bracket who have moved out of NYC to Austin/Miami/Tampa/Seattle in the last couple of years. Especially now that remote work is a viable choice at many companies. Every year you're saving somewhere between 8-10% in taxes, which is upwards of 100k/year.
Whatever your stance on higher taxes for the wealthy are, as long as viable alternative locations exist in the USA where there is such a massive discrepancy in the taxes, you're not going to be able to raise more revenue in NYS/NYC by simply raising the marginal tax rate for the highest earners.
If they actually increased taxes to fund this, I highly doubt they will be able to raise additional revenue, and the primary effect will be driving up home prices even further in the tax-free cities above
But this impacts poor people disproportionately. If you're poor it'll be hard or impossible to relocate.
I do happen to proudly put myself in the rootless cosmopolitan category, but I've had some interesting interactions (even here on HN) with people for whom community, place, family ties, family history etc. are much more important than they are to someone like me. "Relocate" is a particularly jarring edict for such folk.
I used this calculator - https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes
It said if I (married) made $675,745/year in Manhattan I'd pay 39.59% of my income in taxes.
- 37% federal
- 9.65% state
- 3.876% city tax
- 3% SS and medicare
- ?? disability, unemployment, etc.
- some additional % to cover single payer
so thats somewhere in the mid 50% range adding up. again, effective rates won't be that exact number except for ultra high earners. this also doesn't include property tax or sales tax (8.875%).crocodile tears for million dollar earners and their tax bills of course, my point being that chasing away a small amount of residents can have an outsized effect on state revenue. (0.3% of returns account for 27% of revenue federally)
I am for single payer to some extent, but if done poorly medical staff (who are already leaving due to pandemic policies) will just pick up and leave.
We recently expanded the privileges of nurse practitioners which is great, but two large nursing unions are less than 60 days away from striking.
This comment reads like my in-laws who always talk about how "people can't get out of CA fast enough", um the population numbers say otherwise.
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/alb...
The population flight is primarily for US-born residents, which is what happened in CA as well.
Covid CRUSHED NYC tax revenues - and many people have still not returned.
"Most of New York's population decline has been upstate."
I can't speak for CA but I see parallels in Seattle, though there's only movement to other cities within other WA cities (mainly the east side).
Few people on the right want to connect things like rising homelessness -> rising rents and property values in the same period -> an influx of high paying jobs. There aren't concrete policy proposals given to fix those things given the circumstances of the last decade, just finger-pointing at whatever particularly policy someone doesn't like. The amount of gymnastics done to blame anything other than "importing a bunch of high-earners and/or wealthy people has unintended consequences" is high. E.g., pointing to pre-Covid out-migration overall numbers while ignoring net in-migration within the US for earners over 100K/yr. (I haven't seen if this has changed post-Covid, it wouldn't suprise me if it has, but one would want to keep an eye on it over the next two years as policies around WFH shift, of course.)
While there are some great analyses that point out the flaws and hypocrisy in Democratic governance within CA, I think it's also equally true to say that the state's "left" leaning situation ends up pointing out the inherent contradictions of contemporary US capitalism as well as anything could.
Also, I am a startup junkie and avoiding CA's 13% capital gains has more than offset any pay cut I might take by working remote (which hasn't happened).
https://united-states.reaproject.org/analysis/comparative-tr...
The problem is that NPs are not fundamentally trained in diagnosis and have huge gaps in their medical training compared to physicians.
In the best case you go to an NP for a simple scrip. In the worst case you see a series of NPs and never get an accurate diagnosis, leading to a circular series of appointments.
NP = 2 year program on top of a 4 year nursing degree.
Physician = 1-3 years of fellowship (optional) + 3-7 years of residency + 4 year medical school on top of a 4 year bachelors degree