[all posts by racist flame bait troll removed, ISP notified with full text of all posts.]
Will New Yorkers still be cheering Bill De Blasio 24 months from now? Likely not
|by Anonymous||reply 132||11/13/2013|
Calm down, Cassandra.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||11/06/2013|
Wow. OP is a freeper, an idiot, a loser, and a and prognosticator. It's a quadruple play!
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/06/2013|
[quote]De Blasio is... pro taxation.
Yes, he is pro tax on the wealthy who for ages now have managed to not pay their fair share. So unless you are one of the 1% living in a penthouse and smearing caviar all over yourself, you have nothing to fear.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/06/2013|
Here you are...right on time...the morning after the election.
I imagine you racing around the internet the day after every major transition, proclaiming that we're all doomed.
Someone's got to do it, I guess.
(Or wait...maybe they don't).
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/06/2013|
[all posts by racist flame bait troll removed, ISP notified with full text of all posts.]
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/06/2013|
[quote]We've elected an idealogue instead of someone who's both an administrator and brings social compassion
OMG! A politician who cares about poor people!
Anyway, why complain OP? You say yourself in your follow up statement that it's gotten progressively harder over the last 20 years-- two decades of Republican and "independent" mayors. By your premise, you're clearly screwed no matter who is in office and you'll have to downgrade your lifestyle or move out.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||11/06/2013|
OP--If you're not a 1%er then your taxes will not go up. A city like New York is impossible without relatively high taxes. If you don't like it, there's always Houston or Albequerque.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/06/2013|
I'm from Connecticut so I haven't really been keeping up too much on DeBlasio but I saw an article today that his wife wrote about being a lesbian?
I'm confused! Don't they have two kids? What's her story?
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/06/2013|
What people say about themselves is different from what they could in reality be. So either she is a gold digger (so she just fucks around for money/power) or she's just bisexual who chose a more convenient hetero life.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/06/2013|
DiBlasio's wife is African-American and grew up in a snooty, almost all-white bedroom community of Springfield, MA in the late 1960s: Longmeadow. She and her family were the "other" in this prosperous area.
Then she came out as 70s lesbian and wrote a 7 page article for "Essence" in 1979 where she repeated, over and over again, how glad she is to be a lesbian and not be attracted to men. She's never been attracted to men and blah blah blah...
It seems the more a woman said she was a lesbian, the more likely she'd end up with a guy.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/06/2013|
He is not an idealogue. He is a liberal. And not even all that liberal. He does compromise and has a long history of it on City Council.
OP, not everyone who is liberal or a Democrat is an idealogue. The only real idealogue in politics right now are the Tea Party. Certainly not Obama- he is just a tad left of Richard Nixon and about the same as Nelson Rockefeller and the first Romney (Mitt's Dad).
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/06/2013|
I never understood why she kept calling herself a lesbian. Just don't use a label that specific and call yourself queer or say you're bisexual. Anything else makes it seem like she's saying he "cured" her or something.
I doubt that much will change under DiBlasio. But if he's another Dinkins, he won't last more than one term.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/06/2013|
Poor OP, worried he won't be able to afford living in the city that abets his false sense of superiority over the rest of us. Boo fucking hoo.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/06/2013|
R5, if things have gotten so bad in the last 20 years for you, how is that de Blasio's fault?
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/06/2013|
The top 1% in NYC pay 40% of all city taxes. NYC/NYS combined taxes are already the highest in the country.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/06/2013|
[quote]The top 1% in NYC pay 40% of all city taxes. NYC/NYS combined taxes are already the highest in the country.
That's a tricky statistic. What percentage of their income goes to taxes? As compared to more working class people, that is.
Billionaires like Bloomberg have tax shelters out the wazoo and the REALLY rich maintain residences in other places. (See the recent article in the New Yorker about one businessman who keeps, or rather has his assistant keep, a diary that records to the second how much time he spends in the city so we won't be counted as a resident).
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/06/2013|
When Bill finishes taxing the rich and finds that he still needs money, as mayor he only has authority to raise property, water, and sales tax. Those tax increases will hurt the middle class the most.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/06/2013|
A recent report said in 2012 there were 19,000 millionaires living in the City of New York.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/06/2013|
Sorry, OP, but no heads on pikes likely under the new regime.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/06/2013|
[quote]The top 1% in NYC pay 40% of all city taxes
That's because they are vampiric leeches sucking an obscene amount of wealth out of the body politic for doing nothing that betters society.
This statistic shows only that they suck up and devour an obscene amount of wealth disproportionate to what they contribute.
"Yes I make $2 billion dollars but I give $1 billion of it to the taxman! That is half!! Woe is me! I'm a victim!!"
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/06/2013|
Fuck off, wingnut idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/06/2013|
I want NYC to annex Fairfeild County, Connecticut and Westchester County NY to broaden its tax base.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/06/2013|
[quote]Oh, to be able to march in lockstep, never question the status quo and tune everything out like so many others, life would be so much easier.
If we NYers who elected de Blasio were all marching in lockstep and not questioning the status quo, Christine Quinn would be our new mayor, you butthurt idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/06/2013|
[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/06/2013|
Lot more than 19,000. Hell, virtually every property owner in the city is a paper millionaire.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/06/2013|
I'm a liberal and a 99%er NYC resident, but we have to be careful about "soaking the rich." One of the most important reasons that NYC is doing so well is that the rich are invested in the city -- most importantly by their contributions to the tax base. Raise taxes on them too much, and it's way too easy for them (and in many cases their jobs) to move to Connecticut, NJ, or even the Long Island and Westchester suburbs. The options for the rich to avoid NYC taxes are far more plentiful and far easier than they are for the rich to avoid federal taxes -- only the very richest can pick up and move to Monaco or other tax havens.
Unfortunately, from an economic point of view, the best taxes to raise are on those who are least able to avoid paying them -- in this case the poor.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/06/2013|
No one is going to move their offices to Conn when the market is in NYC. The rich will continue earning more money then they have use for. The city will die without the middle class and working class.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/06/2013|
The rich destabilized the city and drove out innovators, artists, poets and kooks alike. Vampire tax.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/06/2013|
R27 -- many of the big hedge funds have moved to Greenwich, many of the big banks have moved operations to Jersey City and Stamford. Not sure why you think the financial center activities are tied specifically to Manhattan (other businesses may be more tied to Manhattan, but financial services is where the money is).
Even if the businesses don't move to the suburbs, the employees can. And current NYS law prohibits NYC from taxing suburbanites who earn their salaries in NYC.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/06/2013|
Back to the 70s when NYC teetered on bankruptcy and lost 900,000 people. Oh well at least Welfare Obama will be happy.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/06/2013|
He hasn't even been sworn in and you are talking apocalypse. I hope he picks Bratton as Police Commisioner so the crime rate goes DOWN even more. He and Jack Maple were the originators of Comstat, after all. I never had a problem with Kelly until he went all Big Brother on us and wanted a surveillance camera on every lamp post. I admit I like to smoke a joint on my way home from the subway sometimes. I live in a quiet Brownstone neighborhood in Brooklyn and it was never a problem to find a dark street and smoke in peace. Now, I can never be sure if I am being watched. Or if I will be stopped. Yes, stop and frisk happens to white people too.I rent my apartment in a two-family and EVERY smell permeates the whole house so I can't really smoke in my home. Considering DeBlasio's hippie activist past he knows that smoking a little weed is not the end of civilization. And Bratton does too. Building affordable housing is also something important to me. I'm not talking about putting aside ten apartments for the "middle class" in rich bitch luxury housing and calling that progressive. And paying 1800 a month for a one bedroom in a sketchy neighborhood is not affordable in my opinion. This city also needs more independent Senior housing. Let's give the guy a chance. Clearly, New Yorkers of all types and incomes want a change from The Nanny and his bullying bullshit.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/06/2013|
People like R26 keep going on about the jobs these millionaires and billionaires create, yet where the hell are these jobs?
How the hell can the working class, and working poor, pay more taxes when they need their minimum wage jobs for their now outrageous rents, especially as many formerly working class areas are gentrified, Bushwick and LIC come to mind.
Even the local mom & pop shops have to raise prices due to their rents going up and also because they figure the new yuppie/hipster residents can afford higher prices. The only people doing well in gentrified neighborhoods are the real estate moguls and the newbies.
There won't be one area left for working class people to live. Working class people keep the city running, they work in service industries, in restaurants, hotels, they clean the wealthy residents 30+ million dollar condos and brownstones. Need I go on?
The rich politicians, and of course, the GOP, keep going on about "job creators" needing their tax rebates, so they can "create jobs", yet even more jobs have been offshored or totally eliminated over the past 10-15 years.
What happened to the company I used to work for is a perfect example of NYC losing their jobs as the already very wealthy CEOs still continue to make massive salaries and huge bonuses.
People like you need to hear others anecdotes before proclaiming that the 1% are truly creating jobs, they are not. Or if they do create jobs, they are creating low wage McJobs. What sort of jobs do you think Mitt Romney would have created? Romney's "millions of jobs" would have been low wage jobs in the service industry, most likely jobs at the companies of his other wealthy CEO friends. What a surprise!
I worked for a very old established company in the home sewing industry, the company has last close to 50-70 employees since the mid 1990s. They have slowly let workers go, even some workers who were only 3-4 years close to retirement. Department heads lying to these employees, telling these long term workers they were "making mistakes" and they were being let go. A few sued, they were paid out of court settlements.
Of course, this company kept every highly paid department VP, while now requiring the skelton crews in each department to absorb massive amounts of work.
The Art Department for example, which had 18 people at one point, doesn't really exist any longer, the remaining Art Directors, Assistant Art Directors and Photoshop experts are now required to work three weekends a month so they can meet deadlines. There is not one layout artist left, the ADs and others have absorbed that work. They had absorbed those jobs as well as the work of a photo editor, production managers and art department manager. One person had a heart attack in his 40s!
These remaining workers know how difficult it is to find a job in middle age, most have chosen to remain. They can no longer bill their weekend work as freelance.
Scenarios like this have become the norm in today's economy, but you just keep telling yourself these uber wealthy company CEOs are keeping jobs in NYC and that they 'need' to pay lower taxes.
Verizon made billions, yet have not paid any taxes. It's the same scenario which occurred a few years ago when GE paid their accountants 40 million so they could avoid paying their taxes!
You must be very young or just plain naive.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/06/2013|
He's married to ... a BLACK woman!
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/06/2013|
r33, I thought the garment industry was off-shored decades ago.
New York is just a city. There are as many domiciles where millionaires can choose to relocate as there are millionaires.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/06/2013|
R33 -- "Where the hell are these jobs?" Seriously?
First, having rich people in NYC has advantages other than job creation. Rich people already pay a large share of NYC taxes, and if higher taxes chase rich people out of the city then who's left the shoulder the burden?
As to the jobs themselves, let's leave aside the actual jobs the financial industry, law firms, etc. offer. (Yes, offshoring and the like have decreased the number of these jobs, but these companies' leaving the city would be far far worse). The job creation caused by rich people goes far beyond those. Without rich people, all those artsy jobs, personal service jobs, etc. dry up -- NYC's economy, for better or for worse, requires lots of people to help rich people live better. That artist who subsidizes his/her creative pursuits by proofreading for a law firm, or tutoring rich kids for the SATs, or working as a professional organizer, needs rich people in NY in order to what he/she really loves.
Now we can all say that it would be nice if NYC had manufacturing jobs to employ these people, but those jobs are long gone. If manufacturers could employ people in NYC on an economic basis, nothing stops them from doing so right now. What NYC can do well is service jobs, and service jobs are far more plentiful and lucrative when there are rich people to service.
It's of course correct that gentrification, reliance on finance and rich people, etc. cause changes in the socioeconomy of the city -- mom and pop stores are closing (although probably at a slower rate than elsewhere in the country so long as the WalMarts have limited growth) and rents rise. The way to encourage housing for working class people isn't to tax rich people (or even to rely on rent regulation) but rather to make development of decent housing cheaper, easier, and more extensive.
Not sure who you're fighting here. I'm totally not unsympathetic to the plight of NYC's working class. I just don't think raising taxes willy-nilly on the rich will do much to help them. Finding sources of better jobs would help them, but that's probably more complicated than this thread's discussion.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/06/2013|
[quote]I thought the garment industry was off-shored decades ago.
I guess you didn't actually read what industry I'd worked in, the home sewing industry, the pattern industry. There are two American based companies left which make patterns for clothing, home goods and crafts.
One of the top home sewing companies was absorbed by another one about 17 years ago, basically most of that company's staff were let go. All these pattern companies also had offices in Europe and Canada.
R36, that's A LOT of double talk and you know it.
Who in their right mind would put up affordable housing? When two bedrooms in LIC and Astoria can now fetch $3,500 a month, what real estate moguls actually want to build affordable housing unless they get massive tax breaks?
I was reading in last week's Times Real Estate section about some former downtown factory buildings becoming single family households for a few uber wealthy families, these buildings will be their second residences. IIRC, one family was froom Rexas. We hear more about these scenarios than affordable housing!
Most of the new housing going up in Brooklyn and Queens are luxury co-ops, condos and luxury rentals, all of these apartments are going up in once working class areas. They are being built in Bushwick, LIC, basically in any area where the residents can have a Manhattan skyline view.
When I was growing up, we knew where the wealthy lived, in the city they lived on Park and Fifth Avenue, in Brooklyn it was Brooklyn Heights and in Queens, it was Forest Hills. Most other urban areas, in any borough, were still affordable with a large stock of housing for people to choose from. There was also Mitchell-Lama housing. Stuyvesant Town was once Mitchell-Lama, we all know what happened there.
No one seems to be able to explain why NYC residents are experiencing this extreme change in finding an affordable place to live. It seems not one area will be left for working class people to live. As the gap widens, there will be more people struggling to remain here.
NYCHA is a shambles (it's currently run by a former Wall Street exec, a man with NO background in even managing an apartment building! Bloombucks strikes again!) and there are 10 year waiting lists, forget working class people ever getting into those places anytime soon.
Thankfully, many years ago I paid cash for my low priced co-op. I've been able to find steady freelance work in my field, many native New Yorkers aren't so lucky. For many people having to leave the state they grew up in and love, that is just plain disgusting.
Apparently many here aren't able to give anyone straight answers as to why there's now such a wide gap between working people and the very wealthy. I think I know, it's called greed. The handful of wealthy people I know have become even bigger misers, they are in a panic, they think they will become poor. These people can't ever imagine downsizing their lives, yet expect everyone else to do so!
|by Anonymous||reply 36||11/06/2013|
Let's all guess what kind of job r36 has and how much he earns!
|by Anonymous||reply 37||11/06/2013|
[quote]and if higher taxes chase rich people out of the city then who's left the shoulder the burden?
And where the fuck will they go? Set up shop in bumfuck? Live in a McMansion?
|by Anonymous||reply 38||11/06/2013|
Aren't the obscenely wealthy usually obscenely selfish? Just going on a few hundred years of behavior as a reference. They are also shockingly narrow and boring.
NYC is being disemboweled of whatever made it interesting in the first place - it's diversity, creativity, spontaneity, grit...
|by Anonymous||reply 39||11/06/2013|
[quote]The rich will continue earning more money then they have use for.
you can never have too many hats, scarves, and gloves
|by Anonymous||reply 40||11/06/2013|
[quote]And where the fuck will they go? Set up shop in bumfuck? Live in a McMansion?
most went to Pennsylvania, the Poconos in particular
|by Anonymous||reply 41||11/06/2013|
"while things like the subway system become worse."
What specifically are you talking about?
It has become much safer.
It has become much cleaner.
The subway cars all have air-conditioning.
The lights no longer go on and off frequently as the rain moves through each station.
The subway trains themselves really work quite well. Yes of course there are breakdowns, but the system itself is over 100 years old.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||11/06/2013|
OP is the Barney's salesbottom who called the cops on Trayon Christian.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||11/06/2013|
R39 - Where will they go? How about Greenwich, Scarsdale, Short Hills or Oyster Bay, where they can continue to commute to NYC yet avoid NYC income and property taxes. Again, who's left to shoulder the burden?
R38 - I am nowhere close to a 1%er. Just realistic about what NYC's economy loos like.
R37 - Wasn't this a question about whether we should have "soak the rich" taxes? Not sure how this became sidetracked into a housing cost problem. Is it your plan that if we just tax the rich out of NYC then the poor people will be able to live in the nice Manhattan coops? Occupy Park Avenue? In any event, not sure anyone is entitled to live in NYC, and stories of people not living as well as they grew up are not limited to NYC. And, there are plenty of places (mostly in the outer boroughs, I recognize) that cannot support high-end housing but could stand to see further housing development.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||11/06/2013|
Surely we can all agree that NYC is past it, sterile and boring as hell, can't we?
|by Anonymous||reply 45||11/06/2013|
[quote]Where will they go? How about Greenwich, Scarsdale, Short Hills or Oyster Bay, where they can continue to commute to NYC yet avoid NYC income and property taxes. Again, who's left to shoulder the burden?
Sweetheart, NYC has ALWAYS had very wealthy residents. Always. They're not going anywhere. Yes, I'm sure all of those UES Townhouses and UWS Co-ops will all end up empty as if we're talking about a city like Detroit or a skyscraper in Dubai.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||11/06/2013|
Next NYC income tax increase and I'm taking one step over the city border.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||11/06/2013|
R47 - one of the upsides or downsides (depending on your point of view) of the Giuliani/Bloomberg years is that far more wealthy people are interested in living in Manhattan (a number of reasons for this, not just that they're less scared of crime). There will always be a certain core of rich people, but to assume that their presence in NYC is guaranteed is just foolish, sweetheart.
Moreover, as time goes on and internet and telecommunications improve, there will be less keeping the important industries in NYC. The outflow will be gradual, but we really shouldn't be so cavalier about it.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||11/06/2013|
You're a concern troll, is what you are.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||11/06/2013|
"Freepity freepity freep!
Freepity freepity freep!
Freepity freepity freep!
Freepity freepity freep!
|by Anonymous||reply 50||11/06/2013|
[quote]one of the upsides or downsides (depending on your point of view) of the Giuliani/Bloomberg years is that far more wealthy people are interested in living in Manhattan
You're noting, then, that economic equality in NYC decreased at that same time that 'far more wealthy people' arrived?
Oh the shock.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||11/06/2013|
True story, Word of Honor: Joseph Heller, an important and funny writer now dead, and I were at a party given by a billionaire on Shelter Island.
I said, "Joe, how does it make you feel to know that our host only yesterday may have made more money than your novel 'Catch-22' has earned in its entire history?" And Joe said, "I've got something he can never have." And I said, "What on earth could that be, Joe?" And Joe said, "The knowledge that I've got enough." Not bad! Rest in peace!"
The New Yorker, May 16th, 2005
|by Anonymous||reply 52||11/06/2013|
[quote]Wasn't this a question about whether we should have "soak the rich" taxes? Not sure how this became sidetracked into a housing cost problem. Is it your plan that if we just tax the rich out of NYC then the poor people will be able to live in the nice Manhattan coops? Occupy Park Avenue? In any event, not sure anyone is entitled to live in NYC, and stories of people not living as well as they grew up are not limited to NYC.
It's ALL tied in, though you seem to conveniently have side-stepped that fact! Higher taxes on the middle and working classes, lack of affordable housing, prices going up on every item you can think of...it's all tied in, dear.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? Nowhere did I state that the working poor should be living in Park Avenue co-ops, I DID say that in the past, the areas where the wealthy lived were clearly defined, now, not at all. Expensive housing is now being built everywhere and that's NOT such a good idea.
For example, the people who work in the service industry, need to be near their jobs in Manhattan, which means they need to remain in Brooklyn and Queens, so they will have a normal commute, mostly because they are on their feet all day and they do work hard. Getting to work shouldn't be a job!
Would you suggest these low wage workers find affordable housing upstate NY?! Or travel 2-3 hours, one way, to work everyday?
When I hear there are now $600,000 condos on Knickerbocker Avenue in Bushwick, where I lived until I was five, I have mixed feelings, I want laugh and cry.
You also don't appear to be a native New Yorker, which means you haven't experienced most of what I'm describing. You haven't lived through all the changes.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||11/06/2013|
They've said that he's not against the stop and frisk crap which is a downer.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||11/06/2013|
New Yorkers' favorite activity is tearing down other people, so he won't be immune.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||11/07/2013|
NYC's sharp Left turn.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||11/07/2013|
Bye, Felicia. No one will miss you.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||11/07/2013|
When was the last time your taxes went down, OP? If you live in NY, I seriously doubt if they ever have in your entire working lifetime. Yet you are suddenly "concerned" about taxes because the Giuliani/Bloomberg era is over? Why? Your taxes are going in the same directions they've been going; if you you make less than a million dollars a year in income, probably at a lower rate. Why don't facts ever matter to your ilk?
|by Anonymous||reply 58||11/07/2013|
...who did OP vote for then?
|by Anonymous||reply 59||11/07/2013|
Serious question: What happened to the rich in Manhattan during the bad years of the seventies? Did they leave, or did they just live in their own little bubble?
|by Anonymous||reply 60||11/07/2013|
[quote]This city's about to get impossibly more difficult to live in unless you're relying totally on welfare.
Suck shit out of a dead rat's ass, OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||11/07/2013|
They had a good time as usual, R61
|by Anonymous||reply 62||11/07/2013|
European observer here, so I'm not familiar with the issues of NY residents, but surely the answer to will New Yorkers still be cheering Bill de Blasio in 24 months depends on what he does in that time.
If he tries to do much of what he says he will in his manifesto, then probably not, because some of those ideas are very simplistic (e.g. taxing "the rich" to create pre-school or whatever places sounds nice as a soundbite but as a reality creating successful schools is a lot more than just about funding).
Apparently under 25% of the electorate voted in the NY mayoral election and de Blasio got 73% of their votes. So, it sounds like a big win, but he barely has the support of a fifth of the electorate.
If he tries to ram certain policies through, he will have problems. If he is balanced and listens and tries to listen to various points of view, then he might do ok. If he starts being too polemical against "the rich" he will create problems for himself.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||11/07/2013|
Only 24% of the electorate voted in 2009, so de Blasio actually increased voter interest and participation, R64!
|by Anonymous||reply 64||11/07/2013|
If the wealthy leave in droves, I'm calling dibs on Bunny Mellon's townhouse!
|by Anonymous||reply 65||11/07/2013|
OP, I hate to agree with you, but I do. I'm an very Liberal person. In fact, probably to the left of Liberal. But I look for something a little bit different in a Mayor. Of course I don't want some Nazi who'll turn a blind eye to abusive illegal police behavior, but the primary function of a Mayor is to run the damned city.
He needs to create a supportive environment for businesses that provide job opportunities, and he needs to make sure the city is a clean, decent, safe place to live. Make sure or restaurants & supermarkets operate under sanitary conditions, have good housing policies. Make sure the subways are maintained, and the garbage picked up.
I want a mayor who's able and ready to deal with the next catastrophe, whether it's another 9/11, (God forbid) or another Sandy. The city needs to "work." All this ideological bullshit is totally beside the point. Life in NYC is hard enough without politicians making it harder.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||11/07/2013|
Guiliani and Bloomberg worked hard to increase inequality and desperation for two decades, and the federal government, corporate world and Wall Street did it for three decades - de Blasio isn't going to be able to fix all of that destruction in 4 years, even if he wanted to.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||11/07/2013|
I'm starting to doubt that the r27,r36 even lives in NYC.
Anyone who thinks that the "rich" will just up and leave if their taxes go up - and we're not talking a "soak" here but an increase - is a complete fucking idiot.
Oyster Bay? Really? Mein gott, you are simple.
Sadly this is a city *only* for the wealthy right now and it's poised to stay that way. That's a fact. Everyone with money is desperate to live here if they don't already.
I work closely with the real estate industry and from my POV, the sheer volume of rich people buying here in the area is on an almost permanent upswing. Bidding wars erupt daily in new buildings throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn and now Queens, with anxious monied buyers paying cash - 900k, 2 million, etc. so they can own a part of the brand.
This. Will. Not. Change.
Which is beyond depressing. By any other standard my partner and I make great money. Our combined income is 300k. And *we* can't even buy in most areas convenient to Manhattan. Fuck, we just got outbid for a little 400k one bedroom in downtown Brooklyn because some bitch bought it for cash for her daughter.
So if they want it all for themselves, then let them pay more taxes. At least that money will be going in to something community based (schools).
|by Anonymous||reply 68||11/07/2013|
I only hope he doesn't do an Obama and disappoint us.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||11/07/2013|
OP is some sort of naive suburban person. People want to be in NY, not the sticks, and they will pay for that privilege.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||11/07/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 71||11/07/2013|
[quote]He needs to create a supportive environment for businesses that provide job opportunities, and he needs to make sure the city is a clean, decent, safe place to live.
THAT is how I know you're a Republican. Yeah business under Bloomberg has boomed... if you're a giant corporation that can afford $300k/mo. rents. Small businesses are shuttering daily NOT because business is slow or bad, but because they cannot afford to pay the rents that are being arbitrarily jacked up to lure in more Starbucks, Subways, McDonalds, Walgreens, Citibanks, luxury condo development, etc. And that is 100% a 1% (Republican) ideal. They crow about being "for business" but the only business they mean is the already wealthy.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||11/07/2013|
C'mon back and defend yourself, OP.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||11/07/2013|
If we could only tax churches in NYC. Now that is progressive thinking. The real estate alone...not to mention corporations...why don't they pay their fair share?
|by Anonymous||reply 74||11/07/2013|
R75, I am not a Republican. LOL! When I talk about a supportive environment for businesses, I include small businesses as well. There are some great small business incubators in NYC, that ought to get support but are being ignored.
And You need to understand that Liberals and left of liberals are not anti-business. We are for fairness. I have no problem with him imposing higher taxes on wealthy people. Not at all.
I want fairness, equal access and a clean safe environment to live in. Having well run subways will benefit lower income people who have fewer transportation options, even more than it will benefit rich people and tourists. Improved public housing, better schools and more jobs will help reduce crime too.
You may be surprised to realize that Liberals and lower income people like living in clean, safe environments, too. We just don't think you have to embrace a Neo Nazi kind of fascism to get there. That's his real challenge. Being about to run this city within the framework of his Liberal values, and run it well.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||11/07/2013|
His biggest problem to solve is the effects of global warming on the city of New York, which Bloomberg has largely ignored...like the middle class.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||11/07/2013|
R65, yes, but Bloomberg was the incumbent and voters knew exactly what they were getting. And, apparently turnout in 2009 was actually 29%, in 2013 it was 24%.
Reading about him, his programme and also interviews with him, he strikes me as a little naive. I can't help thinking he's going to have a tough time. That's just what comes through when you read about him from a distance, when you're not bogged down in what Bloomberg did or what someone else said.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||11/07/2013|
If you don't want him send him to London. I'm truly fed up of international investors turning my home town into little more than a nest egg. I empathise with you R70, I really do. London, like Manhattan, is now exclusively for rich investors. All this anxiety about the rich upping and leaving is fine by me. They don't live or pay tax here anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||11/07/2013|
Yes, but don't rich people use services, go to restaurants, do lots of shopping, go to the theatre, go to exhibitions, sponsor the arts, have great buildings designed. The input of "the rich" into the local economy is more than just taxes.
"The rich" create jobs not simply through their own businesses but in using and consuming the businesses and services of others.
I saw De Blasio's manifesto on his website and I just thought, sure, it's important to confront great wealth inequality but the job of mayor of New York is more than about helping poor people. I didn't see anything about supporting arts and culture, about New York as a global city, about New York as a place for start ups and new industries, about New York as having a rich cultural life and entertainments that attract people from all over the world.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||11/07/2013|
R81, part of the reason for high housing prices in London is because there is too much of an insistence on living in houses rather than in apartments and there is also too much value placed on owning rather than renting. As a result, there isn't enough housing stock and what little there is, is in high demand, thus pushing prices up.
But, in order to construct new housing, investment is needed. There isn't enough domestic investment available, so developers are forced to look outside of the UK for investment. So, you get new apartment blocks being built on redeveloped land in which some apartments have already been sold to foreign investors. But, if those foreign investors hadn't put their money in, then those apartments wouldn't have been built in the first place.
It's a rather a complicated situation.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||11/07/2013|
Somehow I think the city will survive this mayor, as it has all the others.
|by Anonymous||reply 81||11/07/2013|
Can we trade? Please?
|by Anonymous||reply 82||11/07/2013|
I'm very impressed with the early steps De Blasio has already taken. He picked two people very familiar with City government to head his transition team. De Blasio has been involved with City government for 20 years. That's a big plus because he can get off to a running start from day one.
That's been my biggest problem with Obama. He didn't have enough government experience in my opinion before he became President.
I'm interested to see who he picks as Police Comm. and Chancellor. If he picks strong, experienced people committed to his agenda we could have a mayor who's both progressive and effective.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||11/07/2013|
Why do you think this city is going to get impossibly more difficult to live with unless one is relying on welfare?
|by Anonymous||reply 84||11/07/2013|
R82, the rich did not become rich by spending money. As a rule you will not find a more tightfisted group of people. They avoid paying sales taxes through all sorts of shenanigans. They will refuse to pay bills so they can eventually make the trades person settle for a lesser amount. I could go on and on.
They give to the arts only to the extent that it is a tax benefit.
Also, they tend to travel more and to be more international. Unlike most people who shop locally, they are apt to make purchases when on business trips or on vacation, which does not help the local economy.
The middle class is really what drives the economy, not the rich.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||11/07/2013|
He was a Sandalista who honeymooned in Cuba with his ex-gay wife.
It's Snake Plissken's New York again, bitches.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||11/07/2013|
[quote]have great buildings designed
|by Anonymous||reply 87||11/07/2013|
[quote]He was a Sandalista
Damn hippie footwear!
|by Anonymous||reply 88||11/07/2013|
"Sandalista", what Nicaraguans called the Revolutionary tourists, from Berkeley to Berlin, who came for Sandinista Spring Break.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||11/07/2013|
[quote]"The rich" create jobs not simply through their own businesses but in using and consuming the businesses and services of others.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||11/08/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 91||11/08/2013|
Since every dollar spent by the hungry poor in food stamps gives a return to the economy of almost $1.80 de Blasio should borrow one of the things Weiner wanted to do. Give those on FS an extra 50 bucks a month that can only be used to by produce.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||11/08/2013|
R93, do you run a small business of your own?
|by Anonymous||reply 93||11/08/2013|
[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 94||11/08/2013|
You need to stop denying that you're a Republican r96. Nobody believes it, and every five minutes you post another Republican screed and try to call it liberal. We're not morons, and you're very poor at gaslighting.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||11/08/2013|
Great article in the NYTimes last month about how London real estate has become a "global reserve currency" for the global elite. The same thing is happening in NYC. Urban real estate is becoming nothing more than an unburstable bubble for the rich to park their money (see: the art market). The city, and all of its citizens, suffer the consequences of this kowtowing to the Bloombergian oligarchs.
[quote]The moves are not examples of the life cycle of the striving middle classes. Nor are they examples of middle-class folks being thrown on hard times by the sluggish British economy. The families moving out had good incomes.
[quote]Matt, who had been looking for a house for more than three years, summed up the reason for leaving best: “I don’t want to be a slave to a mortgage for the next 25 years.” Given the astronomic rise in house prices here, he wasn’t speaking metaphorically.
[quote]This is what happens when property in your city becomes a global reserve currency. For that is what property in London has become, first and foremost.
[quote]The property market is no longer about people making a long-term investment in owning their shelter, but a place for the world’s richest people to park their money at an annualized rate of return of around 10 percent. It has made my adopted hometown a no-go area for increasing numbers of the middle class.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||11/08/2013|
Dear idiot at r98, I'm not a Republican, I'm not even an American. There is a certain idiocy about people who just throw out words like "Republican" or "freeper" because they can only see things in simplistic terms.
It's a reasonable question: if you own a small business would you be happy to have rich customers?
What is this bullshit class/wealth hate anyway? So, if you don't hate rich people you must be scum?
And, what "Republican screed" have I been posting every five minutes, anyway?
So, r99, I presume you're an advocate of the UK government's Help to Buy scheme. Personally, I'd rather there be less emphasis on home ownership in the UK and renting be made more acceptable.
By the way, what you linked to is an opinion piece, not an investigative piece. And, he's talking about London, not New York. It's convenient for you to confuse the two, but that's not how to design policy that addresses the needs of a specific situation. As a Londoner I'd agree with the piece to a degree, but the rising house prices in my part of town (i.e. a suburb were "normal people" live) are nothing to do with "the rich" but the result of incredibly low levels of housing stock, an obsession with home ownership and rising demand as the population of London explodes and, yes, becomes even more diverse.
Funny, however, that the author of that piece is Michael Goldfarb, a conservative Republican and John McCain's former communications director who, according to Wikipedia, ridicules "liberal bloggers as basement-dwelling Dungeons and Dragons players". This is what he retweeted about de Blasio:
Allahpundit @allahpundit 5 Nov de Blasio’s NYPD code name: “Cloverfield”
We should ban his Republican screed from this thread!
|by Anonymous||reply 97||11/08/2013|
I guarantee you that happy days are here again for the middle-class and the poor. Things will change for the better.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||11/08/2013|
Stop blathering on about London real estate. For christ's sake. This is supposed to be about NYC.
|by Anonymous||reply 99||11/08/2013|
R101 If that outcome doesn't come to be, how will your "guarantee" mitigate the reduction in quality-of-life to those that take you at your word?
You are telling people to have faith in what you promise. In the event that you are wrong, you face no consequences. Way to stick out your neck. No wonder so many looney-left politicos are evangelical ministers.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||11/08/2013|
I am getting the hell out. If I can possibly hang on, he will be a one term mayor ala David Dinkins.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||11/09/2013|
Thank god we will have a decent mayor of NYC again. It's been so many years, I forget what it's like.
Any serious player in NYC who wants to live in the suburbs already does. If more go to the 'burbs - so be it. There are plenty more millionaires in the sea, just lining up to take that empty penthouse.
|by Anonymous||reply 102||11/09/2013|
r104, you know you live in Idaho in a one-room shack.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||11/09/2013|
It is time that the rich get the hell out of NYC. They contribute little to the people or the city and all they do is jack up the price for poor people like us.
We can live happily without them.
De Blasio said that he will freeze the rent for stablized renters. I am so looking forward to that. 2014 can't come fast enough.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||11/09/2013|
I disagree with some of your issues, but agree 100% that when the "tax eaters" outnumber the "money/job creators", and the incentive to build profit is impeded by government regulation, that the society as a whole suffers. Our government is dangerously out of control, spending OUR money like a drunken teenager at "Scores." and never worrying about the final bill since he knows he will get a big bailout. Multinational banks control the government of all western states, and as such the situation will just keep getting worse.
The current QEINFINITY climate the Federal Reserve has created just gives free money and more power to the top .01%, while simultaneously fucking the bottom 95% as they slowly starve.
I'm lucky, but the new layers of tax and regulation are onerous, and unless things change soon my company will be based in...another country...next year, with US production overseas while a subsidiary in the US deals with clients.
Any smart small business owner who believes they can outsource any work to foreign countries is considering it, if not actively pursuing such strategy. If you have 60 employees but could send 15 of those jobs to Brazil or Mali or Sri Lanka and avoid the "50 hr/wk" mandate then the majority of owners will.
This is from 350 years ago----
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
When we finally move production aspects out of the US, it will benefit many people- not because I know or care about them, but because they can enjoy my product/service. It will hurt part of my employees since the USGov has made manufacturing inside the US too expensive and difficult. I feel sorry for them, but when I see a "Bush/Chucky" or "Romney/Blankface" or "Obama/Biteme" sticker in the company parking lot I don't feel as bad. I try to hire people smart enough to know that politics is bullshit theatre.
It is selfish to move production outside the US. I am very selfish, especially when it means letting people rob me at the point of a gun at the expense of my family...something our government does daily. Ask me to donate a few K to a local church to feed and clothe children, I am overwhelmingly generous. Steal my money to kill innocent brown villagers on the other side of the world, or use my money to spy on me, or to suppress dissent and cover up crimes...well, that's a different story.
This owner is thinking of his husband, his nieces and nephews, his cousins, his employees, but ultimately thinking about the needs and wants of his customers! If I change a formula, or use substandard inputs then I lose everything.
Unlike the Government I can't promise a new product, feature it in many TV ads, on billboards and then employee "celebutards" to hawk it and then "go live" with that product ----only to find that my website is too fucked up to function, and that despite my reassurances that it is still down 6 weeks after launching.
Any private company would be filing bankruptcy. I wish DC would do the same.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||11/09/2013|
R20 This is how people lie with statistics. The top 1% in NYC probably also earn 80% of all city income. See how they come out on top?
|by Anonymous||reply 106||11/09/2013|
Welcome to the Datalounge, R108.
We cordially invite you to die in a grease fire.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||11/09/2013|
Please offer any rebuttal of my post. Any single untruth.
Oh, it's the sound of you being unable to actually engage in intelligent discussion.
When we reach 1/1/2014 and the total number of Obamacare enrollment is less than 2M people, you can play again. I wish you were smart enough to see what is happening today.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||11/09/2013|
So, r109, if the rich leave do they take their 80% of city income with them? Is it possible that they help to create that city income, and that, aside from their spending they also provide goods and services that creates that 80% of city income? How do they get this 80% of city income?
What would happen if the 1% and their 80% of city income left?
R105, you don't know if he's a good mayor as he hasn't even taken up his position of mayor yet. Let's see how things are in 24 months.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||11/10/2013|
Ha Ha R106 not quite.
Criminals will be vitalized under this mayor - can you say "Detroit"? I hope I am wrong...
However - I agree with some of the posters that NYC (Manhatten primarily) - especially under Bloomberg - has catered to the rich and is not a city for the "people" anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||11/10/2013|
NYC seems to be becoming like Paris in the sense that the center of town (Manhattan, parts of Brooklyn) will be the homogenous area of rich whites/foreign money while the outer boroughs will be "everywhere else with everybody else". Not a good way to keep a city functioning.
|by Anonymous||reply 111||11/10/2013|
[quote]It's a reasonable question: if you own a small business would you be happy to have rich customers?
Not really. The rich are a pain in the ass. The do far more returns than the average person. They take up far too much time for a sale. They are always looking for a donation for their children's school, a charity, or whatever. I don't need the exposure, I get no benefit from it, and there is no tax benefit for me.
Sorry, give me middle class customers any day.
I think the problem is that there is this binary thinking that it is either the "rich" or "the middle class and the poor". It is not the rich, the middle class, and the poor as three separate groups. What tends to happen is that the rich and the poor get all of the attention and the middle class gets screwed.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||11/10/2013|
My rich customers pay on time, don't try to haggle me down, give me good, regular custom and respect me as a professional who knows what I'm doing. My middle-class customers always try to push the price down and delay on paying, while the type of work they want me to do is generally of a shittier standard and they are more likely to make nonsense comments about things they know nothing about.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||11/10/2013|
R109, the top 1% use 99.9% of their ill-gotten 80% only to enrich themselves. They contribute nothing to society other than perhaps some rich art charities like shows at a museum and such. Screw them. They are like the red states that want to secede. All those states do is take and give nothing back so let ‘em all go. We won’t do any worse without them than we’re doing now. The Federal government needs to stop feeding the top 1% including the war machines and give that money to the people. Then everyone will do just fine
|by Anonymous||reply 114||11/10/2013|
When was the last time a serious cultural player came out of NYC? Lena Dunham does not count. This is directly caused by the metastasizing of rich pricks in a once great city.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||11/10/2013|
"When was the last time a serious cultural player came out of NYC?"
Lots are coming out of NYC...literally. As other DLers have stated they all seem to be going west to LA or to other smaller US cities or overseas.
|by Anonymous||reply 116||11/10/2013|
Thanks, R119. This is a grievous error that these morons will only figure out too late. And it's basically irreversible.
|by Anonymous||reply 117||11/10/2013|
I know plenty of filmmakers of all age groups who left NYC and moved to LA in the past five to ten years. There is very little money circulating in the film industry in NYC (I don't count TV productions, since most of them just shoot here and then go back to LA). You can't make a decent living making films anymore. I will follow my colleagues soon. And the door does not need to hit me, I will gladly close it myself.
|by Anonymous||reply 118||11/10/2013|
If they aren't applauding him, it will merely be that he's been balked by the myriad plutocrats and sycophants in both parties who won't even sanction a restoring of the commuter tax (1% payroll tax on suburbanites who take our subways) to help by for MTA costs and who prefer to raise fares, thus hurting the poorest and most vulnerable--in essence a poor tax. If they won't stand for even the most modest of taxes, how can de Blasio finesse meaningful reform?
|by Anonymous||reply 119||11/10/2013|
[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]
|by Anonymous||reply 120||11/10/2013|
Agreed, R23. Even someone like Lady Gaga comes from money and went elite schools, all the while delivering a straight-faced spiel about how she "struggled" for her "art". Ditto poor little rich girl Lana Del Ray.
|by Anonymous||reply 121||11/10/2013|
I can't stand Lena Dunham and the trustafarians anywhere.
|by Anonymous||reply 122||11/10/2013|
The market is a religion. Don't ever expect any logic from the believers. If the last 30 years haven't clued them in, nothing will.
|by Anonymous||reply 123||11/10/2013|
I find it interesting and amusing that all of these so-called economic experts on DL actually think that .01% of the market can drive the economy. That is just not reality. We need a large middle class to drive the economy. This means that we need to curb our spending on the poor, and stop giving tax breaks to the rich. It also means that we need to create well paying jobs for Americans, by force if necessary, e.g. considers services such as call centers that are sent overseas imports and charge an import duty on each call.
|by Anonymous||reply 124||11/11/2013|
It depends on what you define as "rich", r127. It's not .01% of the market, whatever that means.
Oh, and the middle-class are also consumers - they may not appreciate having to pay distortedly high prices in order to use a call centre, which is what will happen if your idea comes to fruition.
By the way, is working in a call centre considered a well-paying, middle-class job in America? Surely good, middle-class jobs are more things like engineers, doctors, designers, architects, people who do highly-specialised production work (e.g. precision tool operators, aircraft assembly).
Those aren't the kinds of jobs you can create by charging import duties. In fact, they're the kinds of jobs you destroy by imposing import duties because the countries you export to will also add duties on to American products, with the result that they become less competitive and sales decline.
They're the kinds of jobs you create by making trade deals with foreign countries and focusing on specialised education and training.
|by Anonymous||reply 125||11/11/2013|
OK R128, you have illustrated the problem very clearly.
First, doctors, lawyers, etc. are not middle class. At best they are upper, upper, middle class. Middle class workers should be the average working person. This is part of the problem. There is this attitude that blue collar workers do not deserve a good life. Just to be clear, I don't mean that the average person should be able to afford a new car every year, an in ground pool, and a house in which every child has his or her own bedroom AND bath, but they should not have to work two jobs just to make ends meet.
The middle class will have to pay more for some items. I went through a Miles Kimble catalog from the 1950s. What struck me is that some items were the same price as today. Not the same price adjusted for inflation, the same price. This race to the bottom we call discounting has to end.
At the same time companies are going to have to learn to live with smaller profit margins. The profits that companies make today are obscene, and they are not based on making a better product or supply and demand. They are made by cutting salaries and benefits of the workers. It is the equivalent of losing weight by cutting off body parts.
The whole protectionism argument doesn't hold water as far as I am concerned. The protectionism policies during the 1930s actually helped many US industries that had previously been nearly exclusively imports. Quite frankly, I am not talking about flannel or door knobs made in Portugal, or toys and cars made in Germany, or leather goods from Italy. The problem is China. We should have pulled out the moment they started selling goods at below cost.
|by Anonymous||reply 126||11/11/2013|
R108 assumes he is going to be the beneficiary of creative destruction. Wait till it eats you alive too.
|by Anonymous||reply 127||11/11/2013|
[quote]engineers, doctors, designers, architects
Yes, yes, middle-class Americans can TOTALLY afford medical school.
Thanks for the laugh!
|by Anonymous||reply 128||11/11/2013|
Sorry r131, I come from Europe where in most places you don't even have to pay for medical school and then you get a job in a national health system, which gives you a reasonable income for your skills, not something extortionate. Doctors aren't categorised as the "1%" over here.
|by Anonymous||reply 129||11/13/2013|