Revenue Models & Tax Theory

[baltimorened]

Sure, but I took the time to type a lot of thoughts that were genuine and I think explains where at least many on the left are coming from. And rather than engage, you took the word choice, shared a politician on the left from an area I don’t live in, who I honestly know nothing about, and basically changed the subject. I just hate having to try to answer for people I don’t support all the time. It’s exhausting and often a distraction from actual discussion and issues. I can research, find the likely nuance in the situation, likely I don’t agree with a lot, and then there will be another ridiculous politician somewhere in this huge nation I’m asked to speak for. I see ridiculous politicians on the right all the time on my algorithm. I don’t ask you or others to explain them unless they are someone people have shown explicit support for. It is not productive.

I'll try to bring it back.

I agree 100% about poor parents....and I'm a product (like many on here probably)..mother and father, 6 siblings, blue collar, traditional family father worked, mother stayed home (otherwise we probably would have murdered one or two of the siblings). Extended family was also "poor", example, my grandmother's goal was to have enough money saved so that she could pay for her burial without being a burden to her children...she was close, but didn't make it.

But here was what I'll call "the difference" between us and a lot of parents...well first of all I had 2...also, my father was an immigrant - he loved this country - and he was convinced that the way forward in life was through education. He insisted on it,,,put all of us in private schools K-8. But we couldn't afford it. He worked two jobs for as long as I can remember..left for work about 6am, got home about 5:30pm, dinner at 6-6:30, then 6:30-7 he took a nap, then off to a second job....The man was disciplined. My mother was the same....

We had divorce back then, but I didn't know anybody who was actually divorced. I guess it was frowned upon..Children out or marriage? Whooo what a scandal. Girls went away for a year, we all knew where they went. Some married the father. Those that didn't somehow got support for their baby, courts demanded it.

Somewhere along the way we seemed to have lost the plot. Now a single parent family is not uncommon and there are statistics showing that 30-40% of single parent families experience poverty...so the children start off behind the 8ball. Think of this, back when I was young, we didn't have the war on poverty...there were none of the social safety nets we have now..maybe that made a difference.

I guess my key point. For me, and my siblings, the greatest gift of our lives was having two parents who loved us, cared for us, disciplined us, and sacrificed for us. Those who don't have that, IMO, have a much harder time in life.

 

[MTTiger19]

Sure, but I took the time to type a lot of thoughts that were genuine and I think explains where at least many on the left are coming from. And rather than engage, you took the word choice, shared a politician on the left from an area I don’t live in, who I honestly know nothing about, and basically changed the subject. I just hate having to try to answer for people I don’t support all the time. It’s exhausting and often a distraction from actual discussion and issues. I can research, find the likely nuance in the situation, likely I don’t agree with a lot, and then there will be another ridiculous politician somewhere in this huge nation I’m asked to speak for. I see ridiculous politicians on the right all the time on my algorithm. I don’t ask you or others to explain them unless they are someone people have shown explicit support for. It is not productive.

And I appreciate it. Very much. I’m trying to understand your perspective. If the logic is these folks are at a disadvantage because of circumstances beyond their control and the answer is to help them. Why would that stop at a monetary level? That solves nothing. It’s nothing more than an expensive band aid. Wouldn’t the humane and ethical approach be to help make all decisions and choices? Or at least the ones that are destroying the communities? How is just shelling out other people’s money compassion yet trying to help their communities not? If a person is in such a bad spot that they can’t make choices that allow them to take care of themselves, why the hell would you want them voting for people that have power over everyone. It makes no practical sense. What problem are you solving here?

 

[UrHuckleberry]

And I appreciate it. Very much. I’m trying to understand your perspective. If the logic is these folks are at a disadvantage because of circumstances beyond their control and the answer is to help them. Why would that stop at a monetary level? That solves nothing. It’s nothing more than an expensive band aid. Wouldn’t the humane and ethical approach be to help make all decisions and choices? Or at least the ones that are destroying the communities? How is just shelling out other people’s money compassion yet trying to help their communities not? If a person is in such a bad spot that they can’t make choices that allow them to take care of themselves, why the hell would you want them voting for people that have power over everyone. It makes no practical sense. What problem are you solving here?

Thank you, those are good questions. Quick answer is to be clear, I don’t think I have all the answers and am open to ideas. Long answer and further thoughts I don’t have time for, but will loop back for.

 

[MTTiger19]

Thank you, those are good questions. Quick answer is to be clear, I don’t think I have all the answers and am open to ideas. Long answer and further thoughts I don’t have time for, but will loop back for.

You’re welcome. And thanks seriously. I’m not trying to be an a hole. I’m genuinely trying to understand. I think those are reasonable questions. It’s obvious that the current system is failing. Perhaps we should look deeper than just handing folks cash and free food. Imagine we had a system for the underprivileged that all, or at least most, moderates agreed on. Right now we don’t have that. If I give my kids 100$ and they go spend it on candy, that’s their fault they made a bad choice. If I keep giving them 100$ over and over, without any other instructions or information, it’s probably my fault at that point right? That’s logical.

 

[MTTiger19]

I'll try to bring it back.

I agree 100% about poor parents....and I'm a product (like many on here probably)..mother and father, 6 siblings, blue collar, traditional family father worked, mother stayed home (otherwise we probably would have murdered one or two of the siblings). Extended family was also "poor", example, my grandmother's goal was to have enough money saved so that she could pay for her burial without being a burden to her children...she was close, but didn't make it.

But here was what I'll call "the difference" between us and a lot of parents...well first of all I had 2...also, my father was an immigrant - he loved this country - and he was convinced that the way forward in life was through education. He insisted on it,,,put all of us in private schools K-8. But we couldn't afford it. He worked two jobs for as long as I can remember..left for work about 6am, got home about 5:30pm, dinner at 6-6:30, then 6:30-7 he took a nap, then off to a second job....The man was disciplined. My mother was the same....

We had divorce back then, but I didn't know anybody who was actually divorced. I guess it was frowned upon..Children out or marriage? Whooo what a scandal. Girls went away for a year, we all knew where they went. Some married the father. Those that didn't somehow got support for their baby, courts demanded it.

Somewhere along the way we seemed to have lost the plot. Now a single parent family is not uncommon and there are statistics showing that 30-40% of single parent families experience poverty...so the children start off behind the 8ball. Think of this, back when I was young, we didn't have the war on poverty...there were none of the social safety nets we have now..maybe that made a difference.

I guess my key point. For me, and my siblings, the greatest gift of our lives was having two parents who loved us, cared for us, disciplined us, and sacrificed for us. Those who don't have that, IMO, have a much harder time in life.

That’s important for sure. But for the record, I’m from a divorced home. I do not have a single memory of my mom and dad together. I don’t have a single photo of them together. This was still frowned upon then. I was ashamed. That wasn’t going to define me. People can overcome anything if they want to.

 

[fatpiggy]

Short term capital gains are taxed at 54% in NYC!!!!

Wow. And they want to raise your taxes.

 

[baltimorened]

That’s important for sure. But for the record, I’m from a divorced home. I do not have a single memory of my mom and dad together. I don’t have a single photo of them together. This was still frowned upon then. I was ashamed. That wasn’t going to define me. People can overcome anything if they want to.

absolutely true. I have spoken with many parents who want more for their kids but don't know how to get it. Now, I know this is not for everyone, and controversial among a lot, but I tell them to look at the military. For a lot of people that immediately conjures an image of some savage human being with fixed bayonet charging a hill will rounds coming from other crazed human beings. But that's not the total military.

Each of the services has needs for just about every skill...from auto mechanics, cooks, aircraft mechanics, computer specialists, linguists, drivers...you name it. And the service will train you, feed you, house you, clothe you, give you medical and dental care, and give you a paycheck...not much at first, but heck they're paying all the bills. If you like it, you stay in for an unbeatable retirement program that with your new skill could set you for life. Or, if you're so inclined while in, get a college degree, mainly paid for by Uncle Sam.

 

[Moogy]

absolutely true. I have spoken with many parents who want more for their kids but don't know how to get it. Now, I know this is not for everyone, and controversial among a lot, but I tell them to look at the military. For a lot of people that immediately conjures an image of some savage human being with fixed bayonet charging a hill will rounds coming from other crazed human beings. But that's not the total military.

Each of the services has needs for just about every skill...from auto mechanics, cooks, aircraft mechanics, computer specialists, linguists, drivers...you name it. And the service will train you, feed you, house you, clothe you, give you medical and dental care, and give you a paycheck...not much at first, but heck they're paying all the bills. If you like it, you stay in for an unbeatable retirement program that with your new skill could set you for life. Or, if you're so inclined while in, get a college degree, mainly paid for by Uncle Sam.

Yeah, my father-in-law thought the military was his way up and out. He voluntarily enlisted, rather than wait for the draft, during the Vietnam War/conflict, and worked as a mechanic. All was great ... until he developed a cancer that was attributable to his exposure to Agent Orange, and which eventually took his life.

If someone as incompetent, criminally-minded, completely lacking in any moral compass, and, objectively, mentally unwell as Trump could be elected to be in charge of the decision whether or not to put military members in harm's way, there's NO way I would ever counsel anyone to join the military.

 

[FLaw47]

There it is. Mamdani going after your estate in NYC.

He is taking FLAW’s approach and just adding on as an additional tax, instead of replacing other taxes like I suggested.


The already high tax burden of NYC just got higher.

Good thing they have some high rates of fraud to justify the extra spend

I'm guessing you think this whole "lie about what other people say" thing is funny or cute but it's really embarrassing and, I'd have hoped, beneath an adult

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[fatpiggy]

I'm guessing you think this whole "lie about what other people say" thing is funny or cute but it's really embarrassing and, I'd have hoped, beneath an adult

Not even sure what you are referencing

 

[scotchtiger]

$750K equals $30K per year in retirement income at the standard 4% drawdown rate. If you account for say, half of that to be tied up in a residence, then you’re at $15K. This isn’t even the marginally rich that they are targeting anymore. That takes direct aim at the middle class.

 

[FLaw47]

$750K equals $30K per year in retirement income at the standard 4% drawdown rate. If you account for say, half of that to be tied up in a residence, then you’re at $15K. This isn’t even the marginally rich that they are targeting anymore. That takes direct aim at the middle class.

I think this limit might be too low but let's also remmeber that the over half of all inheritances are less than $50k. So we're 15x median here (yes yes, NYC, I understand).

 

[scotchtiger]

I think this limit might be too low but let's also remmeber that the over half of all inheritances are less than $50k. So we're 15x median here (yes yes, NYC, I understand).

Well, that’s because half of people are financially illiterate or have some other issue (drugs, laziness, etc) keeping them from establishing an inheritance. I’m not interested in making policy around these people. We should focus policy decisions on the people who do all the right things.

$750k is absurdly low. I don’t like inheritance tax in general, but sticking with the $15/$30M limit today seems reasonable enough.

I certainly won’t inherit near those amounts. But I do have a core retirement planning goal of leaving each of my children 8 figure inheritances. I have zero interest in the government taking any of that.

 

[FLaw47]

Well, that’s because half of people are financially illiterate or have some other issue (drugs, laziness, etc) keeping them from establishing an inheritance. I’m not interested in making policy around these people. We should focus policy decisions on the people who do all the right things.

$750k is absurdly low. I don’t like inheritance tax in general, but sticking with the $15/$30M limit today seems reasonable enough.

I certainly won’t inherit near those amounts. But I do have a core retirement planning goal of leaving each of my children 8 figure inheritances. I have zero interest in the government taking any of that.

Well I hope we can eventually take that decision out of your hands

 

[ClemsonCO14]

Short term capital gains are taxed at 54% in NYC!!!!

Wow. And they want to raise your taxes.

You know S/T gains = ordinary income? As written it’s intentionally misleading. This is just using highest marginal federal income tax bracket, NIIT, NYC city, and NY state (>$1MM).

 

[fatpiggy]

You know S/T gains = ordinary income? As written it’s intentionally misleading. This is just using highest marginal federal income tax bracket, NIIT, NYC city, and NY state (>$1MM).

Democrats = high taxes.


Mamdani is spending more per homeless person.
than the average salary of the median net Yorker.

Think about that for a second.

Democrats say Tax The Billionaires and then turn around and deliver a gut punch to the middle class.

 

[fatpiggy]

I'd like to keep this conversation focused on different ways to reform taxes. Thinking we should cut spending is valid, but I think it's ultimately a distraction from this conversation.

Cutting spending is a distraction?

Read these numbers and see if you think this is sustainable? Hint, it’s not.

Cutting spending is a required part of the solution. You will not be able to raise taxes enough to solve this problem without revolt from
The voters.

You are giving the people who benefit from taxes more than the people doing the work. That is not sustainable.

 

[fatpiggy]

Since covid, there has been a 26 percent increase in the number of NYC homeless and 265 percent crease in funding.


Wow!!!!

 

[fatpiggy]

“Cutting spending is just a distraction.”


According to IRS migration data, New York has lost $111 billion in net adjusted gross income over the last decade from residents moving to other states. That’s not hypothetical, that’s $111 billion in taxable income that used to fund schools, subways, police, and infrastructure that is now funding those things in Florida and Texas rather than New York. California lost $102 billion over the same period. Florida gained $196 billion. Texas gained $54 billion. That’s not a coincidence, it’s a pattern.

 

[fatpiggy]

“Cutting spending is a distraction.”




Between 2018 and 2024, 561 companies relocated their headquarters across the country. The San Francisco Bay Area lost 156 corporate headquarters. Los Angeles lost 106. New York City lost 27. Meanwhile Dallas alone gained 100, Austin gained 81, and Nashville gained 35.

 

[fatpiggy]

The taxpayer is telling you they are tapped out. They aren’t willing to pay more taxes.

 

[fatpiggy]

Palantir $PLTR which was the largest publicly traded company in Colorado, announced in February that it was moving its headquarters from Denver to Miami. It was PLTR’s second move in six years after leaving Silicon Valley in 2020. The governor of Colorado said he found out through a social media post. ExxonMobil’s $XOM board unanimously recommended that shareholders approve reincorporating the company from New Jersey to Texas after 144 years at the vote in May. Exxon has physically operated out of Texas since 1989, and its CEO said Texas has created a policy environment that allows them to maximize shareholder value. Chevron $CVX completed its move from California to Houston. In-N-Out Burger is opening a 100,000-square-foot eastern headquarters near Nashville and is leaving California. These aren’t outliers anymore as this is becoming the new normal.


Citadel, one of the most profitable hedge funds in the world, moved its headquarters from Chicago to Miami in 2022 and has been building out aggressively ever since. They’re constructing a massive new waterfront headquarters in Miami’s Brickell financial district. Elliott Management moved to West Palm Beach. Carl Icahn moved Icahn Enterprises from New York to Sunny Isles Beach. Cathie Wood’s ARK Investment Management relocated to St. Petersburg. Goldman Sachs $GS is building a $500 million campus in Dallas designed to house over 5,000 employees. JPMorgan Chase $JPM and Wells Fargo $WFC have both invested hundreds of millions into massive new campuses in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Wells Fargo is also moving its wealth management division from San Francisco to West Palm Beach.

 

[fatpiggy]

Real taxes higher. Hidden taxes higher.

Democrats = high taxes

 

[fatpiggy]

I notice a pattern?

What should we be emulating about these states? What are they doing better than everyone else? Can any lefty tell us what those states do for their citizens better than other states?

I’ll give you Ca and Ha are beautiful and have great land.

 

[MTTiger19]

Well I hope we can eventually take that decision out of your hands

We who?

 

[UrHuckleberry]

And I appreciate it. Very much. I’m trying to understand your perspective. If the logic is these folks are at a disadvantage because of circumstances beyond their control and the answer is to help them. Why would that stop at a monetary level? That solves nothing. It’s nothing more than an expensive band aid. Wouldn’t the humane and ethical approach be to help make all decisions and choices? Or at least the ones that are destroying the communities? How is just shelling out other people’s money compassion yet trying to help their communities not? If a person is in such a bad spot that they can’t make choices that allow them to take care of themselves, why the hell would you want them voting for people that have power over everyone. It makes no practical sense. What problem are you solving here?

For starters, I don't know that it is completely possibly to have perfection. So that apples to fraud, to the exact amount of support needed, to the balance between helping and enabling. So wanted to start by stating that. I think attempting to prevent fraud through reasonable hinderances and through reasonable punishment for fraud that is committed is of course good. And I would love for there to be more programs that are more wholistic, meaning helping people with more than just money (or fish to give the standard analogy). I think there are a lot of good programs out there doing this that likely get grants from the government. So love that. But it does just take a lot more to do it, from staff to buildings, etc. But if, at the end of the day, you want to do more than just money for people, I am all aboard. But haven't really seen that argument at the national level, between helping people financially OR doing more. I just feel like the argument is help people or do nothing. Maybe I'm missing the do more policy proposals. I know prior to the election RFKJr talked about actual rehabilitation, etc with drugs. Still think he is crazy but supported that proposal. Though don't think anything has come of it that I've seen.

Kind of goes back to my thought earlier on comparing what I would teach on a personal level vs the collective. I think it is similar with what local governments could do vs federal. A city government can work on affordable housing specific to their cities needs, they can work with local non-profits to get behind vocational programs, etc. Greenville at least has a number of programs I'm a big fan of that do more than money, so they could give money to expand those, etc. But we are just such a huge nation, that to do something at a federal level, other than expanding the grant system for those type of programs, which I could get on board with, financial help is generally where the feds can help easiest in bulk. What is feels like to me is that there are some bad apples that are taking advantage of things, and so they overshadow all the mothers that are able to feed their families through a tough season. The people who had a tough time at work, and just needed unemployment until they can get back up. A lot on the left believe in ACAB, that the few bad apples ruin the entire batch but I don't believe that. The majority of cops aren't out there trying to be power hungry bastards, etc. And feel this is a similar to a lot of the different welfare type programs. There absolutely are people taking advantage of it, and gaming the system or whatever, but I feel like that isn't the majority and that they are doing a lot of good overall. And I hear you on the voting thing. There are a lot on the right living in what I feel is not an objective reality, and feels wild to me their vote counts the same as mine, but it does. I get the argument that people are just voting for who gives them more free things. Think balance and compromise is important. I don't trust Democrats with full faith either.

 

[MTTiger19]

For starters, I don't know that it is completely possibly to have perfection. So that apples to fraud, to the exact amount of support needed, to the balance between helping and enabling. So wanted to start by stating that. I think attempting to prevent fraud through reasonable hinderances and through reasonable punishment for fraud that is committed is of course good. And I would love for there to be more programs that are more wholistic, meaning helping people with more than just money (or fish to give the standard analogy). I think there are a lot of good programs out there doing this that likely get grants from the government. So love that. But it does just take a lot more to do it, from staff to buildings, etc. But if, at the end of the day, you want to do more than just money for people, I am all aboard. But haven't really seen that argument at the national level, between helping people financially OR doing more. I just feel like the argument is help people or do nothing. Maybe I'm missing the do more policy proposals. I know prior to the election RFKJr talked about actual rehabilitation, etc with drugs. Still think he is crazy but supported that proposal. Though don't think anything has come of it that I've seen.

Kind of goes back to my thought earlier on comparing what I would teach on a personal level vs the collective. I think it is similar with what local governments could do vs federal. A city government can work on affordable housing specific to their cities needs, they can work with local non-profits to get behind vocational programs, etc. Greenville at least has a number of programs I'm a big fan of that do more than money, so they could give money to expand those, etc. But we are just such a huge nation, that to do something at a federal level, other than expanding the grant system for those type of programs, which I could get on board with, financial help is generally where the feds can help easiest in bulk. What is feels like to me is that there are some bad apples that are taking advantage of things, and so they overshadow all the mothers that are able to feed their families through a tough season. The people who had a tough time at work, and just needed unemployment until they can get back up. A lot on the left believe in ACAB, that the few bad apples ruin the entire batch but I don't believe that. The majority of cops aren't out there trying to be power hungry bastards, etc. And feel this is a similar to a lot of the different welfare type programs. There absolutely are people taking advantage of it, and gaming the system or whatever, but I feel like that isn't the majority and that they are doing a lot of good overall. And I hear you on the voting thing. There are a lot on the right living in what I feel is not an objective reality, and feels wild to me their vote counts the same as mine, but it does. I get the argument that people are just voting for who gives them more free things. Think balance and compromise is important. I don't trust Democrats with full faith either.

Man I thought about you last night. I watched an incredible story on 60 minutes about Haiti and what Mitch Albom is doing there. That story solidified my view that we need to get government as far away as possible from these people. This isn’t a government problem, it’s a problem where children are being born into terrible poverty and conditions and the government is subsidizing it. We are destroying our own people. Albom has done more for Haiti on that 7 acre plot of land than the US government has ever dreamed about. The thing he said that stuck out the most was - “these kids need to be in calm, accountable, safe environments and they will thrive”. We aren’t providing that now with the way we do this and frankly I’d be willing to bet that a lot of the entitlements are going to lazy people vs people that need it. It was a really nice piece by CBS. Check it out.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Man I thought about you last night. I watched an incredible story on 60 minutes about Haiti and what Mitch Albom is doing there. That story solidified my view that we need to get government as far away as possible from these people. This isn’t a government problem, it’s a problem where children are being born into terrible poverty and conditions and the government is subsidizing it. We are destroying our own people. Albom has done more for Haiti on that 7 acre plot of land than the US government has ever dreamed about. The thing he said that stuck out the most was - “these kids need to be in calm, accountable, safe environments and they will thrive”. We aren’t providing that now with the way we do this and frankly I’d be willing to bet that a lot of the entitlements are going to lazy people vs people that need it. It was a really nice piece by CBS. Check it out.

Not hard to convince me to do more. Just usually is harder to get people to agree on more. Have done a good bit of supporting non-profits, etc that are doing a lot of good work. I know a lot of Native American reservations are bleak places as well, where just a constant flow of money has people just living off that and no desire for more. I am certainly not saying any of these questions are easy. But programs like SNAP/WIC/unemployment do a lot of good too. They just aren't going to get the press that the bad examples are. But no doubt there are people who abuse it.

 

[MTTiger19]

Not hard to convince me to do more. Just usually is harder to get people to agree on more. Have done a good bit of supporting non-profits, etc that are doing a lot of good work. I know a lot of Native American reservations are bleak places as well, where just a constant flow of money has people just living off that and no desire for more. I am certainly not saying any of these questions are easy. But programs like SNAP/WIC/unemployment do a lot of good too. They just aren't going to get the press that the bad examples are. But no doubt there are people who abuse it.

There is just so much more accountability when it is private money. There are people watching to make sure that certain landmarks are met. That is not the case with government subsidies. Another thing in that story that made me stop and think was the interview of four of the children that had grown in that orphanage. All four of them had gone to college in America. When asked what the best thing about America was all of their answers was the opportunity America provided. That says a lot. They also said that it is afforded for them to go back to Haiti and change their country.

 

[scotchtiger]

You know S/T gains = ordinary income? As written it’s intentionally misleading. This is just using highest marginal federal income tax bracket, NIIT, NYC city, and NY state (>$1MM).

Not sure that makes it better. IMO, the top marginal rate including all of those things should never be above 40%. There should certainly never, ever be a scenario where more than half of a single incremental dollar goes to taxes.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

There is just so much more accountability when it is private money. There are people watching to make sure that certain landmarks are met. That is not the case with government subsidies. Another thing in that story that made me stop and think was the interview of four of the children that had grown in that orphanage. All four of them had gone to college in America. When asked what the best thing about America was all of their answers was the opportunity America provided. That says a lot. They also said that it is afforded for them to go back to Haiti and change their country.

I personally think its less about private vs government than it is distance. Like, I think local governments are going to care a lot more about how the money is spent, as they are going to hear from people locally, see the results (or non-results) and on the other side, huge non-profits likely end up caring less than a local government would.

 

[PawPride]

Short term capital gains are taxed at 54% in NYC!!!!

Wow. And they want to raise your taxes.

Short term gains in NYC are taxed the same as income tax. It’s 37% + 3.5% NIIT plus up to ~10% NY state tax.
There’s only 9 states in the US that don’t do that

 

[MTTiger19]

I personally think its less about private vs government than it is distance. Like, I think local governments are going to care a lot more about how the money is spent, as they are going to hear from people locally, see the results (or non-results) and on the other side, huge non-profits likely end up caring less than a local government would.

Agreed. The other thing is I can assure many more people here want immigrants like the ones in that story I referenced. Not looking for handouts, looking for opportunities.

 

[PawPride]

Not sure that makes it better. IMO, the top marginal rate including all of those things should never be above 40%. There should certainly never, ever be a scenario where more than half of a single incremental dollar goes to taxes.

I agree with you, but to be fair, during the golden age of the US economy, marginal tax rates on the top earners were much higher than they are today (as well as much lower for the middle class.)

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Agreed. The other thing is I can assure many more people here want immigrants like the ones in that story I referenced. Not looking for handouts, looking for opportunities.

It is my opinion that your description fits the majority of immigrants coming to America. Just don't think many are coming here to be "welfare queens" or whatever. Think that description is far more likely to fit entitled American's than immigrants. (I do understand the argument that one is in fact actually more "entitled" to welfare, etc, but as far as actual attitude goes is my argument).

 

[baltimorened]

I personally think its less about private vs government than it is distance. Like, I think local governments are going to care a lot more about how the money is spent, as they are going to hear from people locally, see the results (or non-results) and on the other side, huge non-profits likely end up caring less than a local government would.

you know, I think everybody agrees with the need for and funding for the safety net. IMO here's where the difference comes in...the federal government provides the vast majority of this funding and, they do not have the resources to manage that money. A generalization, I admit, but just look at Minnesota and California...the feds provide the money via the massive social programs expecting state/local oversight. But seemingly (again generalization) these folks can't manage the programs either. And, if we're honest, we all know that these two states are not the only ones where a good accountant would find fraud/inefficiency

The non profit/NGO organizations are another example. While DOGE, IMO, was a failure, it did succeed in highlighting a system where a federal grant goes to an organization for a specific purpose, but they in turn pass the funds to others and then loses oversight of how the money is spent. Again, no management of the funds to ensure we, the taxpayers, are getting value for the money.

Our system is broken. The pendulum has swung to the side of just about total inefficiency and ineffectiveness and the best way is to bring it back to the other side. But, again IMO, our leaders don't have the intestinal fortitude to do that.

I agree with you, but to be fair, during the golden age of the US economy, marginal tax rates on the top earners were much higher than they are today (as well as much lower for the middle class.)

you'd have to define the "golden age". I was employed (ARMY) during the 60's and 70's when the marginal rate was 70%, in the JFK era it was 91%. It was during Reagan that the highest rate dropped to 50% and then 28%. Now if you want to go back to the "gilded age" when GDP grew by 6.8% annually remember the income tax didn't start until 1913.

the 1970s sucked. we had stagnation slow growth, high inflations...

 

[MTTiger19]

It is my opinion that your description fits the majority of immigrants coming to America. Just don't think many are coming here to be "welfare queens" or whatever. Think that description is far more likely to fit entitled American's than immigrants. (I do understand the argument that one is in fact actually more "entitled" to welfare, etc, but as far as actual attitude goes is my argument).

Look at Minnesota. One could make a reasonable argument that they came here to defraud our system. Those are all Somalian immigrants. All of them. California same. There’s terrible people here and that are coming here.

 

[fatpiggy]

Short term gains in NYC are taxed the same as income tax. It’s 37% + 3.5% NIIT plus up to ~10% NY state tax.
There’s only 9 states in the US that don’t do that

You switched from a state to a city. The point is that democrats have high taxes. When i peppered AI with questions regarding your post i asked it to compare NYC's rate to that of other major cities. I think its more fair to compares cities to cities than cities to states.

What i found was that every major city that has a city tax, is a democrat city. The cities with the highest overall tax burdens are all ..... democrat run.

Spoiler

NYC's local income tax (often referred to as the city portion) tops out at 3.876% for higher earners (with graduated rates starting at 3.078% for lower brackets, depending on filing status and income level). This is in addition to New York State's top marginal rate of 10.9% (for high earners), making the combined state + local marginal rate on ordinary income (including short-term capital gains) up to about 14.8% before federal taxes. Few major U.S. cities impose a local income tax at all—most rely on state-level income taxes (if any), sales taxes, property taxes, or other levies. NYC is one of the more notable examples with a meaningful city-level income tax. Here's a comparison with other major cities (based on current 2025–2026 rates for high earners/residents; rates can vary by income bracket, filing status, and exact year):

• New York City (NY): 3.078%–3.876% local (top ~3.876%). Combined with NY state (up to 10.9%): ~14.8% total state + local.
• Chicago (IL): No city income tax. Illinois state flat rate is 4.95%. (Some sources note minor local add-ons in certain areas, but none for Chicago proper on general income.)
• Los Angeles / San Francisco (CA): No city income tax. California state top marginal rate is 13.3% (plus a 1% mental health surcharge for very high earners, pushing effective top to 14.4% in some cases). LA and SF residents face the full state rate but no additional local income tax.
• Boston (MA): No city income tax. Massachusetts state flat rate is 5% (with a 4% surtax on high earners over ~$1M, making top effective ~9%).
• Seattle (WA): No city or state income tax on wages/ordinary income (Washington has a separate capital gains tax on high earners, but it doesn't apply to ordinary income or short-term gains in the same way).
• Miami (FL): No city or state income tax. Florida has no state income tax.
• Houston / Dallas (TX): No city or state income tax. Texas has no state income tax.
• Atlanta (GA): No city income tax. Georgia state flat rate is around 5.39% (phasing down in some reforms).
• Philadelphia (PA): Yes—Philadelphia has a local wage tax (earned income tax) of 3.79% for residents (non-residents pay 3.44%). Combined with Pennsylvania state flat rate of 3.07%: ~6.86% total state + local for residents.

Key Takeaways

• NYC's 3–4% local tax is relatively high among cities that have one—Philadelphia's is similar (3.8%), but most major cities (especially in no-income-tax states like TX, FL, WA) have zero local income tax.
• Only a handful of U.S. cities levy meaningful local income taxes (e.g., NYC, Philadelphia, some in Maryland like Baltimore, or certain Ohio/Kentucky locales), and NYC's is among the highest in that small group.
• For high earners, cities in high-state-tax states like San Francisco/LA (CA ~13.3%) or NYC (NY ~10.9% + 3.9%) often end up with the heaviest combined burdens, even if the local portion varies.
• Many "major cities" in no-state-income-tax areas (e.g., Houston, Dallas, Miami, Seattle) offer the lowest combined income tax exposure at 0% state + local.

This makes NYC stand out as one of the more heavily taxed major cities on ordinary income/short-term gains at the local level, though the overall picture depends heavily on state taxes too.

 

[PawPride]

you know, I think everybody agrees with the need for and funding for the safety net. IMO here's where the difference comes in...the federal government provides the vast majority of this funding and, they do not have the resources to manage that money. A generalization, I admit, but just look at Minnesota and California...the feds provide the money via the massive social programs expecting state/local oversight. But seemingly (again generalization) these folks can't manage the programs either. And, if we're honest, we all know that these two states are not the only ones where a good accountant would find fraud/inefficiency

The non profit/NGO organizations are another example. While DOGE, IMO, was a failure, it did succeed in highlighting a system where a federal grant goes to an organization for a specific purpose, but they in turn pass the funds to others and then loses oversight of how the money is spent. Again, no management of the funds to ensure we, the taxpayers, are getting value for the money.

Our system is broken. The pendulum has swung to the side of just about total inefficiency and ineffectiveness and the best way is to bring it back to the other side. But, again IMO, our leaders don't have the intestinal fortitude to do that.

you'd have to define the "golden age". I was employed (ARMY) during the 60's and 70's when the marginal rate was 70%, in the JFK era it was 91%. It was during Reagan that the highest rate dropped to 50% and then 28%. Now if you want to go back to the "gilded age" when GDP grew by 6.8% annually remember the income tax didn't start until 1913.

the 1970s sucked. we had stagnation slow growth, high inflations...

The US economic golden age is mainly considered to be the post WW2 boom (Late 40s/early 50s- early70s).