The Glade 4.0

Still not seeing how those are opportunity costs. You need to be in a line of work where that matters and not have an opportunity you consider better elsewhere.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Ladas:

Now that's a good question.

_________________

Those benefits are hardly exclusive to metro areas on the the coasts, particularly the ones we are discussing: ones with high costs of living. To call them opportunity costs is erroneous and stems from the same error of thought that career advancement, social advancement and life in general is someone less opportune elsewhere.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I get the feeling we are on the same page but not communicating effectively. Your friend moving to St. Paul is indicative of why people in New York (and other "High-income, High-expense" areas) should not get a tax break. They are choosing to live there. Their opportunity cost is the savings they would realize and/or the lifestyle they would have if they worked/lived in St. Paul, Cleveland, etc.

_________________

Hopwin:

No, we're not on the same page. You seem to think that choosing to make $100,000 a year in New York City means the guy is actually making $100,000 in any normalized sort of way. He's not. Our tax code already punishes people for living in inflated markets by reducing their real income more than it should, hence my original question. $65,000 a year in NYC is near poverty. $65,000 a year in the rural town I keep my weekend home means I can buy a Porsche to go with my 5000 sq foot home, the BMW I drive to work, and have boatloads of disposable income.

_________________

Tax breaks for this is a stupid idea. The federal government does not need to regulate wages or expenses where people live, nor should they be providing incentives for people to live in expensive areas. Businesses can either give their employees more money, move their businesses to a cheaper locale, or people can get jobs elsewhere. We don't need the government to deal with this for us.

You'd think this would be a simple enough concept. You'd think.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I agree with this 100%. However, I don't really think our government should be taxing income in the first place.

_________________

I thought this was the point I was trying to make. People choose to live there due to higher wages (whether real or imagined), better opportunities, etc. Don't expect me to foot the bill because you choose to live in an area where you are "treading water" since it was your choice. If you don't like the expense move to St. Paul at a reduced wage and more limited opportunities.

_________________

Your position of limited opportunities is a myth. My point is that real wages aren't reflected in absolute dollar amounts. $250,000 a year does not make you wealth in many places in this country.

_________________

There aren't necessarily more limited opportunities in places like St. Paul. It depends entirely on what line of work you're in.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yet more garbage predicated on the idea that opportunities are so severely limited that there is some sort of disparate gap in regards to career advancement for those in the middle of the country.

My original counter to your point was the opposite: if you are going to live on the coasts, in expensive areas (which Khross and even you have shown don't pay wages commensurate with the cost of living there), don't expect me to suffer through a tax subsidy so you can continue to "afford" to live there.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Clearly, the solution is to jury-rig the tax brackets rather than eliminate them in favor of one of many methods of flat tax rate.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

How did I end up on that side of the argument. I've been trying to say all along that I won't subsidize your lifestyle because you choose to live in a higher expense area. You get paid more to work there and have more opportunities.

Diamondeye: There are 4 Fortune 500 companies in Cleveland, there are how many in New York? You don't think that translates to more positions (opportunities)?

_________________

No. How many times do I have to point out that it depends what line of work you're in? Lots of people don't particularly care about being in the world of Fortune-500 companies.

Not only that, but there's also more people competing for those positions.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Far more people are employed by small busineses.

You don't think there are more jobs in every industry in NYC than Cleveland? I highlighted Fortune-500 companies to illustrate the disparity but if you want I could grab BLS stats on total jobs too I am sure.



Again I must ask, more small businesses in NYC or St. Paul?

_________________

So what? Sure there are more jobs in NYC in most fields than in any given other location in the U.S., but that doesn't mean more opportunity in and of itself. There's also more people there trying to get those jobs.

Moreover, no, there are not more jobs in New York than in Cleveland in every single industry, even if there are more in most industries, and there's no particular reason why Cleveland should be the basis of comparison, either. How about San Antonio? Then there's the fact that not everyone is in "industry" in the first place, or if they are, that industry's opportunities may be defined by geography.

I'd be willing to bet there's a lot more work in Coal in Ohio or West Virginia than in New York City, or even elsewhere in New York State.. in fact a quick look at Wiki tells us that New York really doesn't produce coal at all.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

St. Paul. St. Paul has more per capita. More importantly, though, it has a much, much higher Job/population score. 3 times what NYC has.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-10-cities-for-business-the-rest-of-the-best