13 minutes ago, It Hurts said:

This is going to be fun to watch this upcoming disaster. Get your popcorn ready

I hear there was a murder last night and he already messing up there airports too. You get what you VOTE for New York!

7 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Congress has passed legislation giving the president authority to impose tariffs under certain situations. Trump may have overstepped those bounds, which is why the case is currently being heard by the Supreme Court.

That never happened, but here we are. Trump's entire argument for unilateral tariffs could be applied to any tax he wants to establish, it's that bonkers and callous. But none of that's the point anyways, if Democrats come into power full wave with both houses the iron will very likely be hot enough to soak the ultra rich right and proper through congress.

34 minutes ago, It Hurts said:

This is going to be fun to watch this upcoming disaster. Get your popcorn ready

I would like to officially nominate this for "CVON Projection post of the year".

Thank you to the academy for your consideration.

28 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

That never happened, but here we are. Trump's entire argument for unilateral tariffs could be applied to any tax he wants to establish, it's that bonkers and callous. But none of that's the point anyways, if Democrats come into power full wave with both houses the iron will very likely be hot enough to soak the ultra rich right and proper through congress.

What do you mean that never happened? Yes, it absolutely has happened. There are laws passed by Congress which gives the president authority to impose tariffs under certain situations, which is why every past president has been able to impose the tariffs they did. The question at hand is if the way Trump has been imposing them goes BEYOND the power that Congress has delegated to the president, which is why it's currently being challenged in court.

"But none of that's the point anyways, if Democrats come into power full wave with both houses the iron will very likely be hot enough to soak the ultra rich right and proper through congress."

In order for an amendment for a wealth tax to be passed, they would need 2/3 of the house and senate to approve it, and 3/4 of the states. There is 0.00000% chance of that happening. Democrat politicians have ultra rich friends too.....

55 minutes ago, It Hurts said:

This is going to be fun to watch this upcoming disaster. Get your popcorn ready

Im already on the waiting list for his sneakers and an autographed Qur'an

19 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Im already on the waiting list for his sneakers and an autographed Qur'an

Hold out for the quadruple match!

4 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Hold out for the quadruple match!

"9x match, but only for the next 40 minutes!"

If we donate enough will NY get a ballroom?

What will you do in there play with your balls

I certainly would.

with mine not yours weirdo.

12 hours ago, lynched1 said:

The little commie from NYC said its ok for you idiots to start sending him money again.

He’s going to need it for all the free stuff he’s going to give away. Let’s not forget free childcare! That’s actually my favorite. Great idea. Rent freezes and free childcare. Free buses and cheaper groceries from government owned stores. Oh, and a department of social workers so they can get rid of some of those boob police. This should go smoothly 🤣

1 minute ago, It Hurts said:

Let’s not forget free childcare! That’s actually my favorite.

Serious question, why? What is the problem with this? Republicans keep whining about the lower birth rates. Why do you think the birth rates are dropping and what possible solution do you have for that?

49 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Serious question, why? What is the problem with this? Republicans keep whining about the lower birth rates. Why do you think the birth rates are dropping and what possible solution do you have for that?

Considering that when looking at fertility rates by income levels, the lowest income level has the HIGHEST fertility rate, and fertility rate decreases with income, it does not appear that the cost of childcare is a factor for low birth rates.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Considering that when looking at fertility rates by income levels, the lowest income level has the HIGHEST fertility rate, and fertility rate decreases with income, it does not appear that the cost of childcare is a factor for low birth rates.

People who make more are likely more responsible when it comes to procreation due to the healthcare/childcare costs. Having a baby at a hospital can run anywhere between $5-15k. Then daycare is around $15k PER CHILD a year. People are spending 10 years of their life just saving for the down payment for a house. By the time they are potentially ready to have children they are in their mid 30s and time has passed them by.

Low income individuals already get childcare/healthcare assistance. It has EVERYTHING to do with income level and the cost of childcare.

10 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

People who make more are likely more responsible when it comes to procreation due to the healthcare/childcare costs. Having a baby at a hospital can run anywhere between $5-15k. Then daycare is around $15k PER CHILD a year. People are spending 10 years of their life just saving for the down payment for a house. By the time they are potentially ready to have children they are in their mid 30s and time has passed them by.

Low income individuals already get childcare/healthcare assistance. It has EVERYTHING to do with income level.

I have two young children of my own so believe me I am very well aware of the cost of childcare.  

Here are some concerns with a free childcare policy.

How is it paid for?  (obviously the revenue is raised through taxes, but I'm talking about the actual payment process to the daycares by the government).  Does the government negotiate rates with daycare centers to come up with the payment amounts?  Is it the same throughout the city?   If so, how will that affect the quality of the daycares? 

Does that mean the government then also sets the limit for how many daycares exist? It's not like the money source is infinite, there would have to be a cap somehow.  Additionally, there are already requirements on minimum staffing in relation to the number of children.   So what are the chances that the government will be able to accurately predict the tax rate that will be required to bring in enough revenue to meet the staffing needs of the daycares?   Is this a better approach than a market driven approach to determine how many daycare centers exist within a given area?

I am not in favor of a free daycare program.  Yes, I'm currently essentially making another mortgage payment each month to send my daughter to daycare right now.  But eventually, that payment will stop, and then we can take the money we were spending and use it elsewhere.  It's temporary.  I'd much rather deal with the short term loss of discretionary funds in my wallet over having an additional tax that I'll have to pay for the rest of my life, long after I'm done paying for daycare. 

Beyond being unconstitutional, a wealth tax is just about the dumbest policy imaginable. A wealth tax would require people to value illiquid investments and then liquidate them to pay the tax. As an example, someone who founded a business that is valued at hundreds of millions is wealthy on paper, but not in reality. Same as his early investors. So the only way to pay the tax is to sell horribly illiquid investments at a huge discount, or borrow against the investment (which is very dangerous). The outcome will be obvious -- investors will stop investing in start-ups/growing companies. The USA's economic advantage is based on encouraging such investment -- it's why we create companies like AMZN while Europe does nothing. We'd destroy that advantage and annihilate the economy.

It's legitimately insane policy. As someone who would likely have to pay it, I'd stop doing any early stage investing. And so would much wealthier folks.

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I have two young children of my own so believe me I am very well aware of the cost of childcare.  

Here are some concerns with a free childcare policy.

How is it paid for?  (obviously the revenue is raised through taxes, but I'm talking about the actual payment process to the daycares by the government).  Does the government negotiate rates with daycare centers to come up with the payment amounts?  Is it the same throughout the city?   If so, how will that affect the quality of the daycares? 

Does that mean the government then also sets the limit for how many daycares exist? It's not like the money source is infinite, there would have to be a cap somehow.  Additionally, there are already requirements on minimum staffing in relation to the number of children.   So what are the chances that the government will be able to accurately predict the tax rate that will be required to bring in enough revenue to meet the staffing needs of the daycares?   Is this a better approach than a market driven approach to determine how many daycare centers exist within a given area?

I am not in favor of a free daycare program.  Yes, I'm currently essentially making another mortgage payment each month to send my daughter to daycare right now.  But eventually, that payment will stop, and then we can take the money we were spending and use it elsewhere.  It's temporary.  I'd much rather deal with the short term loss of discretionary funds in my wallet over having an additional tax that I'll have to pay for the rest of my life, long after I'm done paying for daycare. 

I also have two children and I am already through childcare so I have no personal skin in the game. I was paying between 25k-30k at the highest point. For people above the qualifications (likely around 50-60k) but below a salary to be able to comfortably do that (probably around $200k) a lot of hard decisions need to be made. I haven't seen the numbers but I bet if you graph birthrate by income level it would be a U shape and it's not that hard to figure out why. There are low-earners who don't have to worry about healthcare/childcare costs and there are high earners who aren't concerned with the high costs.

As far as what the best way to go about the implementation? No idea. I would just like to know why people are so quick to blow it off when they know we have a birthrate problem. The middle class isn't having babies right now because they can't even afford a house in their 20s/30s let alone a family of 4-5.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Beyond being unconstitutional, a wealth tax is just about the dumbest policy imaginable. A wealth tax would require people to value illiquid investments and then liquidate them to pay the tax. As an example, someone who founded a business that is valued at hundreds of millions is wealthy on paper, but not in reality. Same as his early investors. So the only way to pay the tax is to sell horribly illiquid investments at a huge discount, or borrow against the investment (which is very dangerous). The outcome will be obvious -- investors will stop investing in start-ups/growing companies. The USA's economic advantage is based on encouraging such investment -- it's why we create companies like AMZN while Europe does nothing. We'd destroy that advantage and annihilate the economy.

It's legitimately insane policy. As someone who would likely have to pay it, I'd stop doing any early stage investing. And so would much wealthier folks.

I've only been trolling in this thread since I don't live in New York. Is he really proposing a tax on all assets? I thought it was just actual income.

Just now, Paul852 said:

I've only been trolling in this thread since I don't live in New York. Is he really proposing a tax on all assets? I thought it was just actual income.

No, a poster in this thread is. Though I am sure Mamdani would favor one.

Just now, vikas83 said:

No, a poster in this thread is. Though I am sure Mamdani would favor one.

Gotcha. Yeah, taxing assets is stupid. You could pay hundreds of thousands in taxes and then have a market crash wipe out your "net worth" in minutes.

14 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

New York has been the most populous city in the US since 1790. 4 years of a terrible mayor isn’t going to "destroy” New York.

Detroit had a population of 285,000 in 1900. At its peak in 1950 it got up to 1.85 million. An increase of 6.5x. Not at all comparable to New York’s history.

In 1950, 220,000 people in Detroit worked in the auto industry. The total labor force was 816,000. So 27% of the labor force was in the auto industry.

Meanwhile, in NYC today there are about 330,000 people employed in the financial industry out of a labor force of 4.3 million. So about 8% of the labor force.

So again, not an apples to apples comparison.

Why do you keep assuming his tenure is only going to be 4 years? More likely he serves 8 years followed by an equally radical candidate.

Just now, TEW said:

Why do you keep assuming his tenure is only going to be 4 years? More likely he serves 8 years followed by an equally radical candidate.

If he fails as spectacularly as you believe he will then he will not be followed by someone similar or more extreme.

1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

If he fails as spectacularly as you believe he will then he will not be followed by someone similar or more extreme.

That’s quite the assumption.

In reality, horrifically poor governance does not mean that person is not re-elected or a similarly bad person cannot follow them. Far more often it spirals into a feedback loop, which is why so many democratic cities have been run into the ground yet have had a democratic mayor for 100 years straight.

You yourself must understand this concept given your views of the president, no?

1 minute ago, TEW said:

That’s quite the assumption.

In reality, horrifically poor governance does not mean that person is not re-elected or a similarly bad person cannot follow them. Far more often it spirals into a feedback loop, which is why so many democratic cities have been run into the ground yet have had a democratic mayor for 100 years straight.

You yourself will must understand this concept given your views of the president, no?

That's fair. The people could continue to vote the same way. Guess there's not much else we can do but wait and see.