Challenge: Find a single thread containing the word “rent” that also doesn’t contain either “soar” or “skyrocket”

“I want everything but cheaper”

Also monthlies on that are over $3000 I think? I don’t get it at all.

Oh look it's called "moving the goalposts" with a side of cherry-picking.

You shifted to picking one area where it's up (though trending down) and stopped talking about the others (murder, rape, etc.) where it's down to a greater extent. If we're talking about transit crime (closest to the subject of this post) it's down 13% yoy.

https://compstat.nypdonline.org/2e5c3f4b-85c1-4635-83c6-22b27fe7c75c/view/89

You think 2022 is “old”?

Most crime stats are down year over year (murder, robbery, rape… ). But you’ll probably say they’re fake even though they track closely with the murder rate.

And NYC is very safe per capita in those stats too, one of the lowest rates in the country.

And historical stats? Crime is way lower than it used to be. We’re around mid-2010s levels how terrifying

You need a reality check

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-06-07/is-new-york-city-more-dangerous-than-rural-america

Don't disincentivize what?

For example, taxes on cigarettes do in fact discourage smoking. "Most studies found that raising cigarette prices through increased taxes is a highly effective measure for reducing smoking among youth, young adults, and persons of low socioeconomic status." You're equating different kinds of incentives. Or I guess the NIH is just conservative propaganda.

By your logic non-smokers are just "cheap" and should probably pay that money too since that all smoker tax money is subsidizing health programs that might just benefit them or society.

>Right.., and the way they make good things is by taxing those with advantage

But what kind of advantage???

Not "lives near transit" that's just dumb and disincentivizing the exact behavior you want to encourage. We've already covered this.

>as you propose

I literally said "tax the rich to build more." Come on now have an honest discussion.

​

>By living here you’re heavily subsidized, you just chose not to count it that way.

But that's exactly the way it should be. Governments should subsidize things that are better for their citizens (and economies and environments etc.).

You can do both at the same time. You should incentivize living near transit and tax the rich to build more. Taxing based on making the responsible choice to live near transit is crazy.

So you’re incentivizing people not to live in the more economically, environmentally sustainable areas?

>Urby is like 2 blocks from exchange place path station? Are we talking about different urbys?

It's like an 8 minute walk from the PATH. Not bad but Columbus is 1-2 minute. Plus Grove street goes to both WTC and 33rd. Urby to Newport is like 12 minutes or something to get the 33rd line.

Gardens grown from only the freshest Holland Tunnel exhaust.

>Everyone has the same opportunity to buy if they want.

Uh, no they don't. The is how the rich get richer.

As I said in the original post, there is a sliding scale above each bracket for the next $50k where you move up to full marginal tax at the next bracket. That’s why it needs to be complicated, because within that $50k it isn’t so simple.

Also where are you getting the effective rate from? The W2 doesn’t show what you actually owe, just what was withheld, so who is telling you?

The numbers appear as magic, but they aren’t, they are calculated exactly to achieve this effect. I know because I checked explicitly.

Either do the math or don’t, I’ve done it and it comes out like I said, so I’ll only believe math which shows otherwise. I commented elsewhere on exactly how those numbers are calculated if you want to confirm.

The numbers are “small” because they are capturing marginal differences on top of the usual calculation. You’ll note they get much bigger as you move up the brackets (look at worksheet 4)

As for the top rate claim, that one is spelled out the most explicitly. Look at tax computation worksheet 6.

Are you just considering taxable income? Are you less than 50k above the start of a new bracket (and a bit different single vs married).

Did you add all of lines 3, 4, and 9? Line 3 is the traditional calculation, but then you add 4 and 9.

Those magic constants on lines 4 and 5 are what get your total to the full marginal rate (at least, once you are 50k above the new bracket starting point). I’d share the full calculation here but am on my phone at the moment.

It is though

Just state, yes.

There is not a single place in the USA much nicer than NYC (only reason I'm bothering with this).

>meant that I took home less money than if I was just below the zone threshold

I don't believe it works this way. Basically at the top of the zone, you pay marginal rate on every dollar. One dollar above, what you pay is the 'table' calculation plus the recapture base amount. This recapture base amount is precisely the difference between your current marginal rate and the previous one times the amount where the new bracket starts, IE it's calculated so that these numbers are the same. Then you add on top of that (incremental benefit) based on a ratio of X/50,000 where X is your amount in the new bracket, so it starts at 0.

Took me a few tries to wrap my brain around it....

I stayed up to date because the numbers from everywhere else didn't add up. So I did it all 'manually' until it made sense and made this discovery. I think it's been like this in NY State for years at least, but not sure.

It took hours to understand fully and this is relatively simple I'm sure.

Until maybe next year? Who knows.

Because it’s an article on Jersey City rent, not Watergate. Nobody is “all over it” because nobody really cares.

I understand respecting the NYTimes. I’m a paid subscriber. But there’s a point at which something flies so blatantly in the face of common sense and the tiniest bit of research that it’s too much. Especially when they merely cite one external article that doesn’t bother to explain itself.

Seriously though, do you actually believe the average rent in JC for 1 and 2 bedrooms is $5500? That’s insanity. Pick your favorite luxury tower in the most expensive part of JC and see if it’s true.