SumitThis video from the New York Times is one I like as much as anything. I think one reason is that it highlights the disparity between the rich and poor. The video focuses on a study from the Pew Charitable Trusts that focused specifically on New York City, and it highlights the city’s high levels of inequality. The city’s highest and lowest income earners are both over $400,000.
The fact is that, when I was growing up, it was my idea to take our average life-saving health insurance policy from the highest to the lowest, and I believe that means my money was being wasted. In fact, in some cases, the higher the average life-saving health insurance policy, the more expensive it is. This was a common strategy for many of us.
In the end, it seems that most of society thinks it’s okay to use a tax break to pay for someone else s/he’s not working. This is exactly what’s happening here. It’s not that the City has decided to give money to the rich. It’s just that they have decided that they don’t see the problem very well because they think it’s just a “tax break”. This is the same thing that has happened in every other city in the world.
In a nutshell, this is what I did when I was told by a City official that this was a tax break. The City has decided that everyone is just too lazy to work, and they are going to give the rich tax breaks. How do I know this? I took the time to read the City Charter. It stated that all property taxes are tax rebates. That means the City is giving the rich a tax break, but they have a problem. They dont have enough money.
In other words, since the City Charter states that all taxes are tax rebates, there are only two ways that the City can be wrong, either the taxes are not rebate or the City is too lazy to work. The City could either be wrong or lazy.
As much as I love our wonderful Mayor, the City Charter states that city government is not authorized to “give city funds to any other city organization or to any other city corporation or any other city department or commission.” In other words, the City can’t do that. It’s an inherent contradiction in the nature of city government.
There is no question that the City needs money to operate. That is, it needs funds to do its job. It needs money to pay off debt. It needs money to pay for services and to keep the lights on.
Civic taxes are the most obvious example of this. When it comes to municipal taxes, the city needs money to pay for services. The city needs money to pay for police, fire, and EMS as well as all the other services that the city provides. And those services require money. So the question is, how can the City give money to other cities that are not city government? This is a question of money.
There is a certain amount of “money in the bank” in the United States. Most of that money has been invested into businesses and property. So there’s a way of thinking about municipal taxes that is more about how the money is invested: it’s the money in the bank that has to be spent.
Tax relief has been one of the most contentious issues for local governments in the U.S. The idea that the government can give money to cities that aren’t city government is seen as a way for the government to try to turn all the money it collects into state tax revenue and then funnel it to cities.
