NYC desperately needs its billionaires | Hacker News Reader

NYC desperately needs its billionaires

nypost.com

17 pointsRickJWagner15 comments

Headline says Billionaires. Article uses numbers from tax payers that make more than half a million. Classic NYPost.

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

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

billionaires probably have spots in garages ;)

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

> Headline says Billionaires. Article uses numbers from tax payers that make more than half a million.

Most billionaires probably make less than a billion dollars per year.

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

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

> Unless you're in a cushy rent-protected situation, all the municipal services in the world don't mean jack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com