http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/business/economy/study-finds-greater-income-inequality-in-nations-thriving-cities.html?ref=economy&_r=0
If you live in a large, thriving city such as New York or San Francisco, it is much more likely that the distribution of income is much less equitable. This is not as quite as large of a problem in smaller cities like Columbus. Because of this, Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York City, has promised higher taxes on the very wealthy and has promised better services for the poor. It will be interesting to see how this affects the city and if things will become more equitable.
One result I that could come of this is a decrease in migration to these heavily taxed cities. While it is unlikely that current residents would move away for a tax hike, I think that the policy would turn away many wealthy citizens who are making a move to a new city.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what kind of services he is going to offer the less fortunate, and if these programs will help out. I agree with Tyler, this tax increase is going to put a sour taste in the wealthy mouth. If this is a big tax I can see the wealthy people eventually moving out of the city, as New York City is already expensive to live in.
ReplyDeleteThis aricles says that inequality intensified because the poor got poorer, including in Cleveland, Sacramento, Tucson and Fresno, Calif.and,“High-income households did not lose much ground during the recession,” Mr. Berube of Brookings said. That is interesting.And,so I understand why Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and the mayer of new york city wants to fix tax system. However, wealthy city is inequality,so these cities are wealthy. If the city try to be equality city, people who make money a lot doesn’t want to live in. So, maybe we have to care about the order which cares only poor.
ReplyDeleteManhattan has the highest concentration of billionaires; and just 5 miles away from Manhattan, in Bronx, you find the poorest congressional district of the US.
ReplyDeleteThe poor migrate in big cities with the dream of getting a job but they never realize that how expensive it is to live in the cities. They end up spending most of what they earn in rents and have very few disposable income and no savings. The rich on the other hand invest most of their income and don't get taxed and thus end up earning more.Thus the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Bill de Blasio needs to get a better grasp on what he is capable of achieving as mayor of New York City. For example, one of the main points of his campaign was to offer universal pre-kindergarten for all city 4-year olds who need it. Unfortunately, to reach this benchmark he will need to "triple the number of free, full-day seats now available and boost his budget for such programs by hundreds of millions of dollars."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/official-figures-reveal-mayor-de-blasio-tough-road-pre-k-plan-article-1.1698859#ixzz2uAt1kJow
I just don't like how de Blasio is promising higher taxes on the wealthy. People have a problem with people that earn their money. Sure a ton of people inherited positions and wealth from their families, but the majority of people have worked hard and deserve what they earn. The mayor is ultimately punishing people who are successful and work hard, and giving benefits to those who didn't work hard. Now, of course there are a lot of poor people who had less resources and opportunities, and that's their reason of being poor, so giving benefits to poorer citizens is something I don't mind, and approve. Ultimately, however, the number of NYC jobs will decrease because the richer people (who run businesses) will have less resources to hire people, and will instead cut wages or fire people.
ReplyDeleteIt is misleading to say that increasing taxes is a way to "punish the rich." In that sense, it is similar to saying that increasing the taxes on the middle class or the poor is punishing the middle class or poor. When income inequality is increasing, it is appropriate to increase taxes for the additional revenue that will pay for programs that will benefit the middle class or poor. By not providing these programs to those who need them, then arguably, the government is "punishing" the middle class and poor by not living up to its obligation and fiscal capabilities to offer its citizens more opportunities to be what they want to be. That is the American dream, which is providing your people with the opportunities to succeed in life. When income inequality is high, social mobility will be less frequent. Furthermore, the standard of living that the rich enjoy will not deteriorate if you increase their taxes to a reasonable level. If you are making an annual income of $250,000, you certainly have enough money to live a comfortable life. Additionally, the CBO reported in 2011 that income inequality increases when progressive tax policies and transfer payments are less used. Even if it was true that increasing the taxes "punishes the rich," then what are the implications of such? On one hand, increasing taxes and providing more social services decreases income inequality. On the other, some would say that investment will decrease. However, that is not necessarily true. Under the Clinton administration, tax rates increased considerably while investment rates also increased. The rich, who are portrayed as being "punished," did not act punished or decrease hiring or investment. In this case, the benefits of increasing taxes outweighed any costs associated with that policy.
ReplyDeleteExpanding on what Matt has posted, there are many people with low incomes who would love to make a better life for themselves and earn more money by getting better jobs. However, many don't have skills necessary for the jobs that are out there. I've heard many say that "the poor deserve to be poor because they don't make the effort to get a better job." However, many just don't have the opportunity to work towards getting better jobs. This causes many lower class citizens to stay in the lower class while others who have had money continue to earn more, increasing the income inequality. If we were to give more opportunities for education to be more affordable to everyone, then more people can gain a college education and become qualified for many more jobs. This will leave everyone better off. However, giving more scholarships and grants for education is expensive, and taxes tend to be a way to help pay for these costs. Taxing the rich would still allow them to live comfortably and would help pay for the government making education more affordable. In the end, with more college degrees, wages would be higher for everyone, as we discussed in class. Taxes on the rich is not a punishment. Here, it is a way to decrease income inequality a bit more and give more people a chance for a better life, which leads to a better life for everyone working.
ReplyDelete