SKOOBY Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 According to the site linked below, Naples, Florida is 217% more expensive than Rochester, NY as a place to live: http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=5000...;city2=51247625 And, while much of that is due to the differences in housing prices, every item on the list is more expensive in Naples, than in Rochester. As a ~ 15 year resident of Naples, I will attest to the double more expensive part. It costs a fortune to live here but it's one of the nicest places to live. Billionaire's call this place home from all over the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 #1 - Golisano does NOT have the wealth needed to own an NFL franchise. #2- he already is a crappy owner of the Sabres who will NOT spend to the cap. thereby significantly hindering our ability on the ice. #3- his decision to take up residence in FL is understandable, saving millions every year in state taxes. too bad the NY politicians don't know how to grow jobs. #1 are you sure? In this economy wouldn't there be a lot of people willing to finance him? So many people "in cash" right now, that's a hell of a lot of money just sitting around. I bet he could get a private placement or something similar provided the NFL allowed a "group purchase" with Golisano as the majority owner. But, I wonder if he would have to sell the Sabres to pull it off. #2 good point, maybe we should be careful what we wish for #3 What are you talking about? NY politicians are GREAT at growing jobs = make work, government union jobs that require a 9% income tax(and the 100s of other taxes) to pay for. You should be happy to pay these taxes, you are creating these jobs, and it's your patriotic duty to support "infrastructure"(make work) jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 SKOOBY is too busy mowing Tom's lawn right now... SKOOOOOOOBY You got it all wrong, I trim the bush here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 As a ~ 15 year resident of Naples, I will attest to the double more expensive part. It costs a fortune to live here but it's one of the nicest places to live. Billionaire's call this place home from all over the world. No BS. Naples is very, very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I'm another guy who agrees that this is the attitude. As a middle class working couple with 2 kids that we put through college ourselves without state help, maybe you can list 10 programs and services the state gives me that I really want or need. OK here are 2: they plow my street and pick up my garbage. Otherwise I can't think of any that I get at least once a week. If you're a middle class working couple, your taxes should be much more reasonable than 9%. Did your kids go to private schools? Did you go to a private school? Do you drive to and from work? On roads? Would you be willing to go without police and fire services? When was the last time you had to visit a hospital? I know that these services aren't entirely (or in some cases even primarily) funded by the state, but the state certainly does contribute. And there are lots of services which you've probably never used, but I don't have any problem at all asking millionaires and billionaires to contribute an extra percent or two to pay for programs for those who are truly in need (e.g. child protective services, shelters for the mentally ill, etc....) And if they don't want to, they can go live in Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Here's a quick breakdown of how the state spends your money, from http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBu...tiveBudget.html. There are a lot of things that people take for granted. * Health Care * Education * STAR (Property Tax Relief) * Local Government * Mental Health * Environment/Energy * Human Services * Economic Development * State Workforce * Higher Education * Member Items * Public Safety * Transportation * Revenue Actions * Lottery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Here's a quick breakdown of how the state spends your money, from http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBu...tiveBudget.html. There are a lot of things that people take for granted. * Health Care ($3.5 Billion) * Education ($2.0 Billion) * STAR ($1.7 Billion) * Local Government ($432 Million) * Mental Health ($427 Million) * Environment/Energy ($416 Million) * Human Services ($385 Million) * Economic Development ($369 Million) * State Workforce ($368 Million) * Higher Education ($338 Million) * Member Items ($196 Million) * Public Safety ($197 Million) * Transportation ($177 Million) * Revenue Actions ($3.1 Billion) * Lottery ($133 Million) It's easy to take them for granted when it's as generic as "we spent $3.5 BILLION on health care" last year. That's pretty much what the corrupt politicians depend on you regurgitating. http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/450689.html Articles like the above are the problem. Should ANYONE be getting a six figure retirement for public service? Compare that to the average 20 year enlisted military person, who's likely bringing home in the neighborhood of $20K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 If you're a middle class working couple, your taxes should be much more reasonable than 9%. Did your kids go to private schools? Did you go to a private school? Do you drive to and from work? On roads? Would you be willing to go without police and fire services? When was the last time you had to visit a hospital? I know that these services aren't entirely (or in some cases even primarily) funded by the state, but the state certainly does contribute. And there are lots of services which you've probably never used, but I don't have any problem at all asking millionaires and billionaires to contribute an extra percent or two to pay for programs for those who are truly in need (e.g. child protective services, shelters for the mentally ill, etc....) And if they don't want to, they can go live in Florida. Yeah, but I know for a fact that NYS medicaid = prime rib and the rest of the country = mac and cheese. This is because NYS politicians make it so. As usual, the unintended negative consequence = attracting the entire nation's elderly, poor, sick, etc. for the last 30 years, outweighs positive intentions. It causes us to raise taxes and drive business away, while at the same time smugly saying things like "but it doesn't matter because NYS is elite/the best in the country at (insert service here)". The second part of that statement, the part you never hear, is "NYS is best in the country at smug hubris and driving business away from everywhere but NYC and the Island". NYS is no longer the Empire State, it is now the Infrastructure State. 30 years of the unintended consequences of those who sincerely want to do good, but don't possess the wisdom to do so properly, speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertpaul49 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Here's a quick breakdown of how the state spends your money, from http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBu...tiveBudget.html. There are a lot of things that people take for granted. * Health Care * Education * STAR (Property Tax Relief) * Local Government * Mental Health * Environment/Energy * Human Services * Economic Development * State Workforce * Higher Education * Member Items * Public Safety * Transportation * Revenue Actions * Lottery 1st: Why is property tax relief something they spend money on? Why don't they not take it to begin with, unless they want to politize the process. 2nd: The core problem with government spending that creates a drag (as opposed to multiplier effect) is that the government does not run as efficiently as private companies. For example, I know this guy who is a lawyer working for the government in lower Manhatten. He plays softball four times a week. When he has a game, he gets to work at 9am and leaves work at 4pm. Normally, he gets to work at 10am and leaves at 5pm. He also likes to watch baseball on the internet when he is at work. The unions in this state, especially in New York are very powerful, which is why there have been absolutely no layoffs for government jobs even though a lot of my friends have lost their jobs. The Unions are the only entities that have not been affected by campaign finance reform, and we all get to pay for it. As far as health care, in my home town of Rochester, Strong Hospital bought Highland Hospital only to shut it down so they could charge more for the only existing Hospital. Gee, I wonder where the money is going. Lastly, I know this from my Mom, a retired teacher. The government provides great retirement benefits, which creates an incentive to keep the same people in office. How is possible that 95% of the Long Island Railroad workers, office workers at that, retire with disability benefits? Who are these people in the 5%? P.S. I'm glad the Bills kept Dick Jurion for at least one more year because it will help with Trent Edwards development. Alex Smith had 5 different OC in the last five years, and his career has been ruined by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 As a ~ 15 year resident of Naples, I will attest to the double more expensive part. It costs a fortune to live here but it's one of the nicest places to live. Billionaire's call this place home from all over the world. I lived there for a little over a year in the late 80's. Oh, my the girls, the girls. What a great year. There were these Minnesota Viking cheerleaders visiting their grand parents, and we......well.......good times. I'll never forget it. Twins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenwick Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 When he leaves for Florida do not be surprised to see him move the company there as well to save even more money. Lots of cheap homes now in Florida for his workers. Many of them would love to live there all year long, get the same money and pay NO State taxes..... It would be a raise and they would get to see the sun all year long and guess what... NO SNOW ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 A billionaire paying 9% taxes? My heart bleeds. He's free to move where he wants, but don't feel sorry for him. What, a guy makes some intelligent financial decisions in his life, builds a successful payroll business from nothing, and is generally respected in the community should be penalized? The truth is that income tax is unconstitutional. Fortunately, a few states recognize this and don't permit it, but only a small handful -- not nearly enough. I'd also like to see the Fed. income tax replaced with a national sales tax. Personal income tax penalizes effort. I'm all for corporate income tax, but 100% against personal income tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 1st: Why is property tax relief something they spend money on? Why don't they not take it to begin with, unless they want to politize the process. 2nd: The core problem with government spending that creates a drag (as opposed to multiplier effect) is that the government does not run as efficiently as private companies. A pretty big generalization, but one I won't argue with. I do wonder why the military, which is run by the gov't seems to provide services for less than the same services contracted from a private company. But, if that's not the case, maybe the US should contract all their defense needs to private companies. Why would we spend so much of our taxes on the armed forces if we can get the job done better, and cheaper, elsewhere? And, yes, there is a measure of sarcasm associated in that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 A pretty big generalization, but one I won't argue with. I do wonder why the military, which is run by the gov't seems to provide services for less than the same services contracted from a private company. But, if that's not the case, maybe the US should contract all their defense needs to private companies. Why would we spend so much of our taxes on the armed forces if we can get the job done better, and cheaper, elsewhere? And, yes, there is a measure of sarcasm associated in that statement. Sarcasm, aside. You and your liberal pals still wouldn't like it. Is there a Utopia, when it comes to fighting a war and all the tactics that it takes to fight that war? No. Marquis of queensbury rules don't apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 A pretty big generalization, but one I won't argue with. I do wonder why the military, which is run by the gov't seems to provide services for less than the same services contracted from a private company. But, if that's not the case, maybe the US should contract all their defense needs to private companies. Why would we spend so much of our taxes on the armed forces if we can get the job done better, and cheaper, elsewhere? And, yes, there is a measure of sarcasm associated in that statement. Any organization that has an endless well of money printed up fresh by the Federal Reserve and subsidized by taxpayers ought to be able to offer services more cheaply than a private organization, which does not have limitless resources in the form of taxpayers to subsidize its projects. Also, it's not the cost to the end consumer of said service that is necessarily the issue, but rather the cost to deliver this service. I'm going to make a generalization here, but if you ask the government to produce a service and then ask the private sector to produce the same service, the private sector will deliver the same service at lesser cost than the government will. That said, the government, because of its special powers, can still deliver the more costly service to the end user at a reduced rate because they can -- because apparently the gov't. doesn't give a hoot about balancing its checkbook while the rest of us must do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Here's a quick breakdown of how the state spends your money, from http://publications.budget.state.ny.us/eBu...tiveBudget.html. There are a lot of things that people take for granted. * Health Care * Education * STAR (Property Tax Relief) * Local Government * Mental Health * Environment/Energy * Human Services * Economic Development * State Workforce * Higher Education * Member Items * Public Safety * Transportation * Revenue Actions * Lottery Can you even explain what half of these are and how they benefit you? Lottery?? Isn't that supposed to GENERATE money? While you are at it, perhaps you can highlight which of these things are not available in Florida. Pathetic that people can be this duped by an endless bureaucracy that only seeks endless expansion of its powers. No wonder we're headed off the cliff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Can you even explain what half of these are and how they benefit you? Lottery?? Isn't that supposed to GENERATE money? While you are at it, perhaps you can highlight which of these things are not available in Florida. Pathetic that people can be this duped by an endless bureaucracy that only seeks endless expansion of its powers. No wonder we're headed off the cliff. There are no cliffs in South Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Sarcasm, aside. You and your liberal pals still wouldn't like it. Is there a Utopia, when it comes to fighting a war and all the tactics that it takes to fight that war? No. Marquis of queensbury rules don't apply. I wouldn't like it at all, and it has nothing to do with the queensbury rules, which was a very stupid comment, on your part...but one that should be expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohninMinn. Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I wouldn't like it at all, and it has nothing to do with the queensbury rules, which was a very stupid comment, on your part...but one that should be expected. Why would we spend so much of our taxes on the armed forces if we can get the job done better, and cheaper, elsewhere? That's an intelligent statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 That's an intelligent statement? And, yes, there is a measure of sarcasm associated in that statement. It was a question I asked...I didn't say I thought it should be done. And, do you know the difference between a question and a statement? Try to keep up, Skippy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts