« Wednesday Links The Ghosts of 525 Clinton »

November 19, 2008

$400 and Free Plastic Bags Coming Your Way?

Though 76 percent of you said you thought it was okay for Mayor Mike to nix the $400 property tax rebate in light of the current financial situation, you homeowners might be getting a check after all. The NY Times reported that Mayor Bloomberg does not actually have the power to cancel the rebate. "Any elimination of the popular rebates requires City Council approval, the budget director, Mark Page, acknowledged. And council members, who have been flooded with calls from angry residents looking for their checks, declared the mayor’s idea to cut them 'dead on arrival.'" Turns out the Mayor can't impose that six-cent "fee" on plastic bags, either; he'd hoped by calling it that instead of a tax he could bypass the Council once again, but no go. We've heard from readers that many would be willing to forgo the check and abide the plastic bag fee in these trying financial times, but already Councilmember Vincent Gentile has filed a lawsuit lawsuit "to compel the Department of Finance to make good on the City’s promise of $400 rebate checks to homeowners."
Your $400 Check Might Be in the Mail Soon [NY Times]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7265

Comments

woohoo! free bags!

Posted by: troll at November 19, 2008 9:08 AM

woohoo! free bags!

Posted by: troll at November 19, 2008 9:08 AM

I for one would would forgo the rebate check and not have the subway, fire, police and sanitation cuts. We are going to have these anyway, but the $250 million would go a long way at this difficult time.

Posted by: Jebby at November 19, 2008 9:09 AM

This is going to come back to haunt the council when it becomes even more apparent that the budget cannot be balanced because current revenue assumptions will not hold. Watch out!!!!

We seem to be in the midst of a huge circus of stupidity by politicians from the City Council to Albany; Sheldon Silver of course being the biggest clown in the ring.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 19, 2008 9:09 AM

re: "he'd hoped by calling it that instead of a tax he could bypass the Council once again"

A tax depends on Albany’s (not the Council's) approval.

Why post a summary of an article if you don't get the information right?

Posted by: Bklnite at November 19, 2008 9:11 AM

The bag issue is separate - its a huge environmental problem to dispose of those billions of plastic bags. A small fee is entirely appropriate.

Glad to see not-subject-to-term-limits Sheldon screwing up things for the city once again. But no-one goes down to city hall and shouts about that.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 19, 2008 9:14 AM

it always come down to the same argument. who do you want determining how YOUR hard earned money is spent in the most efficient manner - you or your government? quite frankly, i'd choose myself anyday of the week. bring on the $400 and next year make it $500, thank you.

Posted by: Diego Maradona at November 19, 2008 9:19 AM

I agree with you Jebby...

Posted by: bren at November 19, 2008 9:20 AM

serious (dumb im SURE) question. why do homeowners get so many tax breaks to begin with? i know they pay property taxes, but other people pay huge taxes too. and dont get me started about tax breaks for married people. so basically if you are married and own a home you get every single kind of tax break, and rebates apparently. totally unfair.

-rob

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 9:21 AM

Diego, Are you going to put your rebate toward mass transit, police, fire and sanitaion dept. What's the $400 worth to you if these services are cut. Your real estate is going way down in value if we return to the "70s.

Posted by: Jebby at November 19, 2008 9:25 AM

on the bag issue. 6 cents a bag? um no. one year paper bags are bad the next plastic bags are bad. sorry but i REFUSE to be one of those people who have to carry around a femmey clothe tote bag (and im gay btw!) but i can't stand those ugly tote bags. no thanks. hopefully some evil person will invent something even worse for the environment to replace bags. ooooh how about totes on wheels that emit poisonous gaseous particles into the air? grrrr. angry this morning for many reasons.

-rob

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 9:26 AM

400 dollars can get someone a playstation 3. woo woo. (being sarcastic) [sort of].

-r

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 9:27 AM

pitbull - tax code ridiculousness...flat tax would solve it all but would be too many wealthy people on the unemployment lines. that being said, homeowners are more responsible citizens than non-homeowners simply because of their investment in the community. co-op v rental building - where would you rather live?

Posted by: Diego Maradona at November 19, 2008 9:28 AM

homeowners are NOT more responsible citizens that is BULLSHI+. in so many parts of the country renting is NOT an option and people just but, but they are just as trashy, and just as ghetto, and just as irresonsible. in certain pockets of the country YEAH homeowners might SEEM more responsible because they have more money (sort of) but it doesnt make them more responsible. my grandparents (who raised me btw) were renters for life. they really were never able to buy anyway for various reasons.. but they never disrespected their property and always did repairs and home improvements, etc. don't look down on someone who is renting. people who rent because of various economic factors do not always equal trash that pisses in elevators paying 2 dollars in rent a month. grrrrr!

-rob

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 9:35 AM

to think that the budget will get balanced by bailouts, higher taxes, and withholding incentives is shortsighted. either way, there's no panacea now. america stopped producing goods for a long time. that this global economy tanked was a disaster waiting to happen since the 80s reaganomics. surprise, surprise.

Posted by: cb6 at November 19, 2008 9:36 AM

I agree with DIBS. While I could certainly use the money right now, this would have been a simple and easy way to start closing a deficit that is much, much larger than $256 million. Also, the longer you wait to take deficit cutting measures, the steeper those measures have to be.

Rob,

Part of your premise is off. I do not believe the tax code rewards marriage. There used to be a lot of debate over the so-called "marriage tax" in the federal income tax code (I can't remember if that was resolved). As for homeowner tax breaks, I think that is the result of policy decisions to encourage people to own and invest in homes. It is debatable whther that is the soundest social policy, but I think that is the reason. However, every time I have to shell out for the plumber, electrician, roofer, etc., those breaks help me do it. For renters, the problem is different. Renters don't have to lay out the cash -- the landlords do. Renters have the aggravation of trying to get recalciatrant LLs to spend money when it is needed top fix things, but they are not typically paying out of pocket to maintain and fix things themselves.

Posted by: slopefarm at November 19, 2008 9:37 AM

rob...i'm a homeowner and have been one since 1985 when I was 30. I'm not trashy; well, at least not always. And I'm not ghetto; but i guess I live in a ghetto. Oh well. But at least I have never pissed in an elevator. I got the $400 when I lived in Manhattan but I didn't get it last year in Brooklyn. maybe it was because I just bought the place last year. if it comes this year I'll be sure to go out and spend it on some wild trashy night in some sort of ghetto; hence boosting the economy because of the multiplier effect.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 19, 2008 9:42 AM

okay good point slopefarm. i did actually completely forget the factor of home repairs and stuff like that..

-rob

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 9:43 AM

dave you completely misread my point i think.

-rob

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 9:45 AM

all of us who are doing okay should donate our $400 to a worthy brooklyn organization whose funds are being cut. schools, legal aid, elderly services? anyone have a good candidate? who's with me?

Posted by: i disagree at November 19, 2008 9:49 AM

pitbull...very defensive but not accurate. high owner occupied areas are always more desirable than high rental areas. renters simply enrich landlords.

Posted by: Diego Maradona at November 19, 2008 9:50 AM

more desireable in which way? highly popular rented areas are always more fun, have more places to go, more interesting people. the second people start buying into it, it gets bland and dull and diluted of any kind of fun and culture. so what exactly DO you mean by "desirable?"

-rob

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 9:54 AM

disagree has the right idea for all the blogging altruists out here...if nyc can tell me exactly where my $400 is going, they can keep it. if not, hand it over and i'll decide where it goes.

Posted by: Diego Maradona at November 19, 2008 9:54 AM

no I didn't rob...you just didn't get the joke. But then again you said you are angry this morning and probably not in a good mood :)

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 19, 2008 9:54 AM

pitbull - there isn't necessarily a tax benefit to being married if there is a big income disparity between the two people. Its called the marriage penalty, and in those cases the lower income earnings end up getting taxed at a higher marginal rate than they would otherwise.

btw its harness. Its got nothing to do with asses.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 19, 2008 10:00 AM

i'm in a better mood now. i cant even blame my crankypants mood on waking up out of the wrong side of the bed! but seriously tho, yeah some people are going to want their 400 dollars and some people will think that 400 dollars is best left for others to spend. personally if i was a homeowner id want that 400 dollars to spend myself and not that 400 dollars buying an ipod to someone on public assistance. (fyi i am SO for public assistance) but my mind boggles when i see people in public housing and on assistance with 400 dollar gadgets that i can't afford. and it's very VERY impervious (is that a word?). i've YET to see one project dweller without an expensive ipod, phone, or wardrobe. what gives? so im on both sides of the fence these days...

-rob

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 10:02 AM

rob -- Owners have responsibilities that extend outside their homes -- sidewalks, trash etc. You can be fined or sued. Renters do not. And there is a very significant penalty for marriage between two people who earn about the same amount -- and it does not have to be a lot. Most two-income couples would pay less in taxes if they were not married (and you can not just file separately).

Posted by: BH76 at November 19, 2008 10:06 AM

put it this way, i bet - i have no clue btw - "the greenest block in brooklyn" is a block with a very high % of owners. can we consider green blocks desirable?

Posted by: Diego Maradona at November 19, 2008 10:08 AM

perhaps diego,.. but some people prefer run down industrial looks of city versus the what seems oh so important now the "hello i want to make my home look like it just flew on a dove and martha stewarts buttcrack out of the suburbs" look.

-r

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 10:11 AM

I defer to BH76, I had the marriage penalty idea upside down.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 19, 2008 10:11 AM

"dont get me started about tax breaks for married people. "

Please tell me more about these fantastic sounding tax breaks for married people!

I don't remember getting one. Last time I checked, standard deductions were the same:

Single: $5,350 (*2 = 10,700)
Married Filing Jointly: $10,700

Posted by: northsloperenter at November 19, 2008 10:14 AM

Home owner here - I don't mind removing the $400 tax rebate at all. In fact, I applaud it. The federal, state and city government are all in big budget deficit. I mean, basic services (fire, police, sanitation, etc) deficit.

Yes individual and businesses are better spenders. The problem is with the current financial meltdown they are not spending. And liquidity is what we need now.

Posted by: crimsonson at November 19, 2008 10:18 AM

rob, usually I agree with you on at least some level, but on this one I've got to call you out. You're not only refusing (in capital letters) to participate in a mass behavioral change that is hugely important to our greening up movement and to the planet as a whole, but you're making light and making fun of it as well.

This is a much bigger problem than we give it credit for. Apparently, plastic bags could encircle the globe several times over, they are produced to the tune of one trillion PER YEAR, they clog our landfills, escape in huge numbers into the waterways and oceans, trap and kill many different types of land and marine animals, and don't decompose for months to hundreds of years. Finally, as they decompose, tiny toxic bits seep into soils, lakes, rivers, and the oceans.

What in god's name is "femmey" about carrying a re-useable bag? And while I'm at it, what is wrong with "femmey" anyway? Meaning caring for the environment with this particular strategy is more female than male?

I get it - I get your choice of description as one that is, for the most part, funny and acceptable in some contexts, but come on!

I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: Nokilissa at November 19, 2008 10:20 AM

BTW, all this talk about Owners have these costs and should get the rebate is dumb.

Owners pay the taxes, that's why they should get a rebate if there is one.

Then they can choose to pass some of the savings along to tenants if they like (in the form of lower rents or improved amenities in the building or a pizza party or whatever).

Seems fine to me.

As for the city budget... there are problems there. You don't want to increase taxes too much when the economy is horrible as that creates more problems, but it seems unlikely all the tax revenue lost will be able to be made up in spending cuts.

I don't know enough about the NYC tax codes to say whether or not increasing property taxes would be a smart or fair way to increase revenue.

Posted by: northsloperenter at November 19, 2008 10:24 AM

ok noklissa, point taken. sometimes my inner anarchist and nihilistic tendencies do tend to show when i get heated about certain issues.. maybe i should, um, go do some work before im out of a job anyway.

-rob

Posted by: PitbullNYC at November 19, 2008 10:29 AM

i_disagree, that's a very good idea, although using it towards a purchase of a discounted plasma tv would also be a worthy cause.

Posted by: z at November 19, 2008 10:50 AM

Smash The State!

Posted by: werner at November 19, 2008 12:00 PM

discounted plasma tv for whom? is there a worthy charity out there that just really needs a plasma tv? most of us owners probably already have perfectly serviceable tvs.

i notice no one else is supporting my idea. a lot harder to give up money that you have than to not have it in the first place, i guess.

Posted by: i disagree at November 19, 2008 12:57 PM

Sad thing is that I may spend a large portion of my rebate in Philadelphia. LOL

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 19, 2008 1:23 PM

my CRT TV is on the fritz. I suppose I should buy one of those new-fangled plasmas or LCDs. Any recommendation as to choosing between them?

Posted by: dittoburg at November 19, 2008 1:24 PM

wait two weeks and they'll be cheaper!!!! and then wait another two weeks and they'll be cheaper!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 19, 2008 1:38 PM

I need bags for my dog's poop. So how would that work? They ring up my groceries and then pack up my bags and then tell me how many bags I used and then I pay again for that? Can you imagine the people behind me in line? People get shot for less in this town.

Posted by: Ringo at November 19, 2008 1:39 PM

"but my mind boggles when i see people in public housing and on assistance with 400 dollar gadgets that i can't afford. and it's very VERY impervious (is that a word?). i've YET to see one project dweller without an expensive ipod, phone, or wardrobe."

Sounds like you spend a lot of time observing housing project residents. Have you ever been inside a project apartment? Maybe you don't really have that much to envy after all. Think about it.

Posted by: East New York at November 19, 2008 1:41 PM

Yeah!!!! What am I going to bag my otherwise decomposable garbage in if I don't have any plastic grocery bags that will last for 400 years in the ground??? Huh??

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 19, 2008 1:51 PM

« Wednesday Links The Ghosts of 525 Clinton »

November 19, 2008

$400 and Free Plastic Bags Coming Your Way?

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions