
NYC desperately needs its billionaires - RickJWagner
https://nypost.com/2020/08/18/sorry-mayor-de-blasio-nyc-desperately-needs-its-billionaires/
======
msoad
Headline says Billionaires. Article uses numbers from tax payers that make
more than half a million. Classic NYPost.

No billionaire of anyone with any sort of income near those people will
benefit their local economy. They will use all sort of tax and financial
gymnastics to avoid paying local taxes.

The article talks about people who call NYC their "second home". That's too
accurate! Because they make sure their primary residence is Florida to avoid
paying NYC and NYS taxes yet park their cars in streets of NYC and enjoy all
of (even more of) benefits of being a NYC resident

~~~
liveoneggs
billionaires probably have spots in garages ;)

~~~
msoad
I live in NYC. You will be surprised by parked supercars on streets. They hire
people to look after the car or tip extra to the valet service to make sure
car is parked in the most visible spot.

------
helen___keller
On the other hand, without the billionaires and millionaires crowding into
manhattan, it might give ordinary people a shot at ever owning property in New
York.

Unless you're in a cushy rent-protected situation, all the municipal services
in the world don't mean jack when you get kicked out because you can't afford
it. And manhattan stopped being affordable a long time ago, with large parts
of the other boroughs well under way to the same.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Unless you 're in a cushy rent-protected situation, all the municipal
> services in the world don't mean jack_

We can’t afford the our affordable housing program without a quarter of our
budget. And if you think homeless services “don’t mean jack” in a city that
freezes in the winter, you’re asking for a humanitarian crisis.

De Blasio is an idiot trying to stay relevant by tweeting obnoxious drivel.

~~~
aravindet
The article seems written to to obscure this, but local income taxes on those
earning more than $10 million a year contribute 5% of the city's tax base, not
25%. It's 25% of local income tax collections, but the city collects other
forms of tax.

From the numbers on households earning $500k, it looks like local income taxes
are around 20% of city tax collections.

I would assume that the city has sources of revenue other than taxes. If so
the contribution of the 10M+ households to the city budget would be less than
5%.

Overall I don't think the overall thesis of the article - that NYC will be in
crisis if all the ultra rich move away - is supported by the (few) facts
contained in it.

Not to mention the absurd premise that 100% of the ultra rich would move out
of NYC if the policy proposal being attacked in article comes to pass.

~~~
Arnt
The city has many other sources of revenue, but 5% is difficult to replace. If
you wanted to replace those 5% by raising taxes on those >$500k households,
you'd have to increase those people's tax bills by a quarter, which is enough
to provoke strong protest. If you wanted to lower the threshold from $%00k
until you have half the tax base, that richest part would see a 10% rise. 10%
is also enough to make people really unhappy, and a protest by half the people
in the city is tricky.

------
nepeckman
The article claims to be about why billionaires are important, but only really
talks about why multi millionaires are important. The difference between a 10x
millionaire and a billionaire is basically a billion dollars. I'd be curious
how much tax money comes from people with net worth 500 million and up, and
I'm betting it's not a lot, relative to the entire budget of the city.

------
AndyMcConachie
We don't need billionaires, we need their money. So tax them heavily and be
done with it.

~~~
altacc
Or just tax them equally. Billionaires tend to pay a lower rate of tax than
most. If that earning was instead distributed to thousands of individuals
earning a few hundred thousand a year, the tax yield would be much bigger. A
billionaire's dollars also sit around unused, which is much less value than
actively circulating wealth.

~~~
hackeraccount
"billionaire's dollars also sit around unused" Is there a source for that? Or
even a reason to think it's the case? I'm sure Jeff Bezos has a savings
account and it probably has more in it then mine but even on that I don't
think that money in the bank is the same as money under the mattress and
that's what you seem to be talking about.

~~~
altacc
I was referring to a billionaire’s wealth having less impact on the economy
that if that money was circulating in the economy, being used to pay salaries,
for purchases, etc... Money in circulation generates widespread growth,
whereas a billionaire’s wealth almost can’t help but grow but isn’t actually
benefitting many people, if anyone at all. Past a certain stage nobody can
spend that amount of money. Also that level of wealth isn’t realised money,
it’s stocks, bonds, assets, etc... that they amass, often using the
theoretical value of their other assets to secure yet more wealth, which in
turn becomes stagnant because it’s just excess wealth, sitting there doing
nothing except entrench the wealth disparity in the world.

~~~
hackeraccount
Again no one is keeping their money under a mattress. Even money in assets is
not unused. Surely the fact that Apple's stock is worth a bazillion dollars
has some utility to the company? If they sell stock they must be using it for
something. If I buy the stock and it goes up - even if I'm not buying it from
Apple - it makes things easier for Apple.

------
phenkdo
While there's something to be said about wealth inequality, but the current
atmosphere of demonizing the successful/wealthy is a perfect example cutting
off one's nose to spite the face.As they say, the road to hell is paved with
good intentions.

