« Tuesday Blogwrap City Eyes New Construction Safety Regs »

June 4, 2008

Wednesday Links

Downtown. Photo by AllWaysNY.
Obama Clinches Nomination; 1st Black Candidate to Lead Major Ticket [NY Times]
Bloomberg Said to Explore Third Term or Albany Bid [NY Times]
Coney Island 'Mayor' Resigns Over Redevelopment Plan [NY Daily News]
Fewer Stabilized Apartments in '07 [NY Daily News]
The Target Effect, 3 Months In [Bklyn Junction]
Studio B Operated Without License? [NY Shitty]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5061

Comments

I want Obama to win, but I just can't vote for a guy thats going to cost me tens of thousands of dollars in increased social security taxes.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 8:46 AM

Don't worry, Hillary will find 1,000 subtle way to poison his candidacy so McCain will win, starting with forcing Obama to accept the poisoned chalice of her as his running mate.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 9:09 AM

Her arrogance and refusal to admit defeat have me concerned. In the end, her ego is far greater than her wish the help unify the democratic party and keep the republicans from another term in the White House. I wouldn't at all be surprised if she secretly hopes for a McCain victory so that she can re-enter the picture in the 2012 race.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 9:14 AM

Don't worry, Hillary will find 1,000 subtle way to poison his candidacy so McCain will win, starting with forcing Obama to accept the poisoned chalice of her as his running mate.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 9:22 AM

8.46, if he can stop the huge corporations and military from draining the blood from this country, there will be plenty of money for social security.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 9:35 AM

Regarding the corporations 9:35...spoken like a true communist!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 4, 2008 9:44 AM

Agree 9:35. And Obama, please, please, please find a way out of Clinton on the ticket.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 9:49 AM

9:35 - Feeble minded idiot. Hello, corporations pay nearly 50% of the Social Security in this country. Not to mention the jobs and wealth they generate for all of us. Buy a share of stock if you feel so abused.

Must be nice to live in the hyper liberal daze of populist propaganda...

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 9:58 AM

I love knee-jerk liberals - who do you think pays the bulk of the payroll taxes funding SS? And who does the military buy from. Were it only that simple...

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 10:04 AM

9:58 & 10:04...i'm a little groggy this morning and wasn't sure how far I should push that jerk...glad you guys did!!!

He needs to get a job and start contributing to an IRA or a 401k. He won't be living anywhere near NYC when he's on SS

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 4, 2008 10:10 AM

Related to Brooklyn how? I'm not sure why I come to this site anymore. And I doubt this will make it past the comment gatekeeper...

Posted by: greenwood slope at June 4, 2008 10:17 AM

why is this article about obama's victory posted on this blog? what in god's name does it have to do with real estate? it is absolutely impossible to have gone about your morning in nyc and not have found out this information so having the article posted here is purely gratuitous.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 10:18 AM

Dave, get a job.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 10:19 AM

Page hits greenwood slope, its all about page hits and advertising dollars so that Mr. B won't have to be on social security in his old age.

Besides, it must be a slow day

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 4, 2008 10:23 AM

Agree with greenwood slope. There are plenty of blogs on national politics. How about focusing on brownstones or 'brooklyn - inside and out'?

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 10:26 AM

What is the half-life of a McCain for President sign posted in "liberal and tolerant" brownstone Brooklyn?

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 10:32 AM

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 10:42 AM

I thought the inclusion of the primary new was gratuitous also. But clear reason was included was presidential choice of blogger.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 10:43 AM

10.43 - I'm not so sure. If "the blogger" is self-employed and earning over 102K, he'll think twice about voting for Obama. Employee AND employer contribution to SS with no cap -thats a whopping big tax increase.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 10:58 AM

Gee guys, maybe Gabby included it because its f***ing historic!! Like, the march on Washington, 9-11 or Hiroshima. Get some perspective. Geez

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 11:02 AM

The reason why Obama's victory is on this blog is because Brooklyn is Obama country!
Did you not see the results of the primary?

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 11:03 AM

i am really really scared that obama will win. if so, my family is done for. he will crush the middle class. he's totally clueless. knows nothing about business or foreign policy. he might just get us all killed.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 11:40 AM

Such language in "liberal" New York!

As a sufficiently high-earning house owner (just to stave off the "perpetual renter" type comments) I think Obama's tax policies should be just the start. Of course SS is funded by corporations...what's wrong with that? And of course the military budget is ... aah... WAY too high? More than the next 20 countries in the world combined?

But rest easy, guys, us high-earners will continue to do well and damn the rest of 'em. There'll never be a true progressive tax in his country.

Posted by: cmu at June 4, 2008 11:41 AM

Thats only mathematically progressive.

Your "damn the rest of the comment" is just plain dumb since its the top 40% who basically pay all the income tax.

Many people would say a flat tax is the only tax that is actually progressive in the sense of "fairness".

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 11:50 AM

cmu - feel free to contibute more money to to the Government than you currently do. They accept checks.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 11:52 AM

surely 11:40 is joking - c'mon, people, relax!

Will be great to read "The Legacy of George W. Bush's Foreign Policy." Universal wants to option the rights for a comedy...

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 12:00 PM

There's a lesson to be learned here.

If, in this most liberal enclave, the comments are, what, 10-1 reactionary and illiberal, does it mean the liberals are just silent? Or simply have better things to do?

11:50, a flat tax is "progressive" only if you rewrite the dictionary or live in Orwell-land.

Posted by: cmu at June 4, 2008 12:10 PM

CMU - 20% of my earned dollar is taxed, 20% of your earned dollar is taxed, 20% of Jo Boggs' earned dollar is taxed.

Thats called fair.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 12:33 PM

CMU - 20% of my earned dollar is taxed, 20% of your earned dollar is taxed, 20% of Jo Boggs' earned dollar is taxed.

Thats called fair.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 12:33 PM

12.10, the lesson is that though one might be liberal, if one is a brownstone-owning liberal then one earns enough that Obama's plan to remove the social security cap will cost one a huge amount of money. Reducing spending rather than increasing taxation would garner him more support.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 12:38 PM

Gee, maybe ending the 400 million a day war in iraq might be a effective way to reduce spending.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 12:51 PM

Yep.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 12:54 PM

It's "fair" only if you're living in a dog-eat-dog world. Can't you see the difference that earning $20,000 and earning $1million makes? Does the term "disposable income" mean anything to you?

A sense of fairness is NOT the same as mathematical equality, or even similarity. Fairness is subjective. Fairness is being able to see others through their eyes, not yours.

I guess that's why the term "progressive" is used, which is probably more correct. As opposed to "regressive."

Oh, by the way, that's a GREAT bike rack (is that what it is?)

Posted by: cmu at June 4, 2008 12:55 PM

Yep, taxing each person to the same percentage is fair. You still can't come up with a good argument why it isn't.

Your "fair" is, if you earn more, not only should you pay more, but you should pay a greater percentage. So why not tax the guy earning 20k and the guy earning 100K so they both have only 15K income? Thats "fair" right? Its definitely progressive.

I guess thats why the term "progressive" is used becuase it muddies the waters.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 1:19 PM

please, please. What CMU means is increasing the marginal rate on those earning more than whatever he is earning is fair.

Disposable income is a function of (1) your job choice (2) your lifestyle choices.

The Gov isn't here to redistribute your income to someone else on the basis that you made choices to increase your disposable income.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 1:24 PM

CMU - you are sending all the income over your basic needs to charities right?

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 1:27 PM

How is that story related to this blog?

Obama loses general election. McCain wins general election by steering his agenda further to the right. Continues Dubya's foreign policy which has wrecked havoc on our economy. McCain invades Iran. WWIII begins. U.S. only has Israel as its ally. Every neighborhood in Brownstone Brooklyn is automatically landmarked because there is nobody left to make any modern renovations. We have all been anihilated as victims of germ warfare tactics purchased by Iran in a Chinese Walmart store.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 2:14 PM

1:19: Note para 2 12:55 above. Your definition of fairness has nothing to do with being "fair" to people. Those who make more money can afford more taxes, it's as simple as that.

1:24: This tired rhetoric again. You really think the average Joe has a choice of jobs? I guess you believe that everyone making less than you do is just lazy? Or stupid? And welfare queens are riding around in Cadillacs? Whether or not an individual is at his capacity is beside the point. There will always be people who are marginal, or just plain poor, or unlucky, or whatever.

1:27: Equally absurd statement. How do you equate a statement saying that the tax system could be made more progressive, with what an individual does?

I'd be happy to pay more taxes, btw. As long as those who earn 10 times what I do also do so. And I'm sure that's fair, is it not?

Posted by: cmu at June 4, 2008 2:21 PM

Your first paragraph is disingenuous. Those who earn more already pay more. What you are advocating is that they should also pay more in percentage terms, thats hardly fair. (of course, they already do pay more in percentage terms).

As for your last comment - they already pay more taxes than you. No doubt you are conflating those with earned income with those who didn't earn their income, and then concluding that the rich pay less income tax with you. But we're talking about payroll taxes here, so keep on point.

And whats others paying it got to do with you paying it? If you think someone earning the amount you do should pay more taxes, then go ahead, the IRS only says the minimun you have to pay, not the maximum.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 2:46 PM

CMU - the point of the tax system is not to redistrubute wealth from those who earn it to those who didn't. It is to support government spending, whether that be welfare, military, roads or section 8. Eaxch earner (and there's plenty who don't earn) paying the same percentage on each dollar they earn is just plain fair.

being generous with other people's earned money does not somehow equate with fairness. What is fair is a system that treats all earners the same.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 2:54 PM

cmu (communist manifesto urger) is exactly why I won't be voting for Obama. But I don't want McCain either.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 3:02 PM

If the current C student that resides in the white house can take direction(from daddy of course) then Obama wont do any worse. If Hillary goes along for the ride ,she can add her 2 cents if she isnt busy tracking Bill down instead.One thing, Obama is the better alternative to Mcpain who wants to keep our troops in Iraq 100 years .Why should he care? He probably sees himself six feet under in a few years anyhow.As proven by our bumbling fearful leader literacy, experience and a brain are not needed to occupy the white house as commander-in-chief .So I say congratulations to Obama and I will pray for him because between racist joe schmoe trying to off him and Hillary as well,he will need it. Too bad the first African American president is left to clean up the mess left by that incompetent dummy and his sidekick when he takes office.

Posted by: iluvclintonhill at June 4, 2008 3:11 PM

2.21, spare us your own stereotypes - I guess you think everyone earning good money got their job through nepotism/has a trust fund/earns dividend income onlyor has the mythical tax shelter and pays less tax than the guy earning 40K. BS.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 3:19 PM

Agreed, it's easy to fall back on simplistic statements. I guess one either believes in progressive taxation or one does not. And even if one does, it's a gray scale, as your definition of "fair" (progressive, not flat) rates may not jibe with mine.

The comment about "others" was meant to say that, in general, the lower your income the fewer your options in evading taxes. So if my taxes increase, while the very rich may, indeed, be paying more than me, they have more options to not pay. A second home mortgage deduction for example. Why is this good policy? But this debate can be endless.

Yes, I do believe one of the government's prime functions is to ensure a decent society for all, and if that means "redistribution" of income, that's ok. It's happening now anyway. Arguing against it is no more valid than saying it's not fair to pay school taxes if you don't have kids (a favorite libertarian stance.)

And as far as fairness is concerned, whatever Obama can/will do will only correct the massive decrease in taxes that the rich pay as a result of 8 years of Republican control. If you believe in a flat tax, this is not an argument, of course. But if you believe in fairness in its original sense, it would restore it.

Posted by: cmu at June 4, 2008 3:44 PM

cmu I hear France is a nice place to live, especially if you like to pay high taxes.

What are your thoughts on capital gains taxes?

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at June 4, 2008 3:48 PM

To the poster who claims that a 20% flat tax across the board is more "fair" than a progressive tax, simply put, you're wrong.

If you stopped long enough to think about the marginal utility of money, you would realize that 20% reduction of income for someone making $10,000 will have a greater impact than a 20% reduction of income for someone making $1 million. That's because a greater portion of the former income is going to basic necessities such as food, clothing, shelter than the latter income. A person can still live pretty good on $800,000 a year. The flat tax is one of the greatest canards ever raised by Republicans/Libertarians.

And for the same reason, daveinbedsty, capital gains tax is fair because it taxes the people who benefit the most and who can most afford to pay taxes. its a tax on investment income, and investment income is by definition income that is discretionary income. If you're using returns on your stock portfolio to pay coned, you either better get a job, or you don't need one.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 5:17 PM

France is indeed a wonderful place to live; I have lived there briefly. If you take the trouble to talk to actual average French people (over there; the French who move here might by definition have a lower social consciousness which comes with our heightened level of individuality and entitlement) you might see that:

1-high taxation is acceptable if there are concomitant services, which are considerably more in France than here-baby care, health coverage, trains, Velibs, arts, etc etc
2-Typically there's less of an emphasis on money, money, money. Vide the work week of 37 hours. And 4-7 week vacations.
3-You might trade off some of your compensation for a corporation's, for instance, not being able to fire you willy-nilly, and other social benefits.

As for capital gains taxes, the jury (mine) is out on that one. I can see why it just might, induce more savings/investment if the tax were lower. But in general this is a slippery slope. i suspect this is more of a philosophical issue than a substantive one, in the sense that it riles people up more than it affects their investment decisions.

LOL to 'communist manifesto urger'...I'll remember that!

Posted by: cmu at June 4, 2008 5:33 PM

A person earning 20K can't buy what a person earning 80K can - whats fair about that?

Even if you have no tax on the 20K and 50% tax on the 80K, a greater portion of the 20K income is always going towards the basics. Why is it fair to redress that by taking a greater percentage from the higher earner?

Your comment has no impact on what percentage it is fair to TAKE from people (thats what a tax is, its a taking).
Like CMU, you think taxes are about redistributing wealth.

Taxes are to support gov. spending (which includes programs that redistribute wealth). But you still can't say its fair to take more of person's A earned dollar than more of person's B. Its simply not fair, and you know in your gut its not fair to treat people differently.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 6:18 PM

My basic necessities of new sneakers each week, a gas-guzzling SUV and heavy gold jewellery are becoming more and more expensive. Tax the taxpayers more I say.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 6:25 PM

Those earning 100-200K already shoulder the heaviest tax burden and pay the largest proportion of income taxes, either side of those (salaried) figures, the net effective rate falls off.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 6:29 PM

You guys can't really tell me that you are going to vote only for the candidate who promises to tax you less? Like nothing else is important? The lack of intellectual rigor here does confirm that most posters are 14 year olds from Akron.

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at June 4, 2008 8:30 PM

I was a Democrat until Obama won the nomination even though he only won 17 out of 50 states not including Puerto Rico, etc.

The Democratic superdelegates screwed up BIGTIME.

The destroyed the party, in my opinion, by going along with the liberal media and pushing Hillary out.

I bet over 25% of Democrats feel the same as I do.

Other then preaching "Change" and "Unity" exactly like George Bush did to get elected, Obama's agenda seems to be to distribute wealth from those who work hard to those who don't want to work at all.

He's also again free trade, panders to Unions like a prostitute placates her pimp, and has as much experience running a large organization at a high level as I do . . . and I'm only 28.

If Obama wasn't the "golden boy" "chosen" by the Democratic party elite to "revenge" George Bush, he'd still be hanging out with Reverend Wright and his NOW CONVICTED pal Tony Rezko.

Posted by: guest at June 4, 2008 8:43 PM

Gee 8:43- you're free to become a republican. I might also point out that Hillary ran one of the most stupid and arrogant campaigns we could ever hope to see. She turned a lot of people off by appearing desperate to win at all costs. A lot of what I liked about her disappeared and she turned her back on many of the principles she once stood for. I'm angry at her for blowing it, and I have a lot of hope in Obama.

How you think Obama is a revenge for George Bush is beyond me. I realize you're only 28 but you should have a better grasp of logic by now.

As far as Rev. Wright goes, despite some of the things he said in sermons, he did a great deal of good for his community. He was a true activist who made his life work the ministry and working for change. He is also a former Marine, and a Naval officer and served this country from 1961-1967. Then he went back to college and got several degrees including a doctorate.
As minister he was the driving force behind trinity which went for a 250 member denomination to the largest church in the United Church of Christ Denomination (which is mostly white).

"Wright is credited with creating 70 ministries, including prison, domestic violence, information technology and Africa ministries."- CNN

So 8:43- you think you can claim to have contributed as much to this country as Rev. Wright? Considering the racial crap I've seen posted on this blog often enough, I don't wonder why he's angry. You may not like his in your face brand of Christianity, but he put his money where his mouth was.

Or maybe you just prefer people like Hagge (A McCain lover) who thinks G-d sent Hitler to kill us Jews so that we would be forced to establish the State of Israel.

Posted by: bxgrl at June 5, 2008 12:06 AM

28? *teeth sucking noise*.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:15 AM

The first poster:

"...I just can't vote for a guy thats going to cost me tens of thousands of dollars in increased social security taxes."

So you'll vote for a Republican whose war cost us tens of thousands of lives. We wouldn't have to keeping paying higher taxes if we would stop killing our taxpayers.

Posted by: guest at June 5, 2008 1:36 AM

« Tuesday Blogwrap City Eyes New Construction Safety Regs »

June 4, 2008

Wednesday Links

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions