NYC taxes, was: Toll Hikes, Fare Hikes, War Hikes 2046

But again, what advantage does NYC get by forcing these people to live within the five boroughs? I've listed a bnch of reasons this is a bad idea for all involved (except The Donald...). I'll repeat them in a second in a point by point:

Just because other places are brain dead doesn't mean we should be. (And the police-firefightere exemption was put into NYState law courtesy of union lobbying. Gee, why does Albany give them this courtesy but stick it to everyone else?)

I don't know about other jurisdicstions, but NYC enforces the full City residency tax on all its employees, whether you live in NYC or in Ronkonkama. (this is totally separate from the periodic lower "commuter tax" which is currently on hiatus).

If you live in NYC, it's labeled as a tax. If you live outside, it's a "condition of employment" that's equal in dollar value to the tax. So the City gets its pound of flesh, and then some.

Amazingly enough this kickback has been upheld by the courts. And what's even worse, NYC applies this fee to your entire income, not just the portion they've paid you.

So.. for example, if you're an orthopedic surgeon in Ronkonkoma making, say, $150k-yr, and you come into town, at the request of his Ronkonkoma family, to give a consult on an injured NYPD officer, that $1000 bill you give the NYPD means your entire $151k is now fair game for that kickback. Eyup. You now owe NYC $10k or so...

Supply demand economics. If you force five percent more people than, as I put it, the "natural number" to live in town, demand goes up, supply is contrained, so prices go up for EVERYONE. Most especially including those who don't work for the city...

That's another story all together, shirley.

First, I'm not certain whether the "condition of employment fee" in lieu of taxes is actually offsettable. I know that the (non existant) "commuter tax" was, but I'm getting conflicting answers about the kickback. Leaving that aside for now:

As I said above, commuters do NOT use any part of the two biggest, by far, municipal (tax supported) services. The rest of gov't stuff is miniscule in comparison.

So again, why require residency? It does no one any good except The Donald and the other real estate owners.

Minimal. If they're commuters they tend to be healthy a, and active businesses require minimal municipal support (and I'd betcha the standard business taxes, including real estate, pay way more than the companies grab in services).

   a and just to point out that the common belief    that the municipal hospitals are "free" to the user    and are supported by tax revenue ain't the case...

All this is interconnected, but yes, residencny is a BIG portion. Once again: residency requirements mean that there's a hefty increase (which I wag'ed at five percent) of housing demand above what the "natural" result would be of the supply-demand curve. Demand is up, supply remains constrained, rents go up up up.

That's another issue. NIMBY's and BANANAs and financial games etc. certainly share the spotlight in making housing more expensive than it would otherwise be. But that's separate (although connected...) to the increased demand that residency promotes.