Evidence?
I find it surprising that they'd be far worse off than other northern states who lack NYC's largesse, eg, VT, NH.
Upstate NY becoming a backwater southern state.....I doubt it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The all too possible GOP Contested Convention
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
I find it surprising that they'd be far worse off than other northern states who lack NYC's largesse, eg, VT, NH.
Upstate NY becoming a backwater southern state.....I doubt it.
SSDSSDSSD3
The Great Sea Under!
New York hasn't voted for a Republican ever since Ronald Reagan, (Donald Trump as populist as he is won't win New York against a Democrat). He's from New York as is Bernie Sanders, (Clinton is a non-native New Yorker).Home-schooled in math?
You do understand that we're talking about the GOP conventions, right. Newsflash: they tend to vote for Republicans.
esmith
Veteran Member
Seems to be a little misinformation (as I read it) in the OP's linked article. So what are the Rules of the Republican Convention
Major Rules (as I read it)(edited)
1. no delegate votes will be counted that are cast for any 2016 candidate who can’t show support from the majority of the delegations from at least eight states or territories.
2. Romney-created rule, Rule 40(b), that prevents votes from being tallied for candidates who could not prove majority support from at least eight state delegations also provides that candidates must prove that they meet the eight-state threshold “not less than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.” In other words, when the first ballot begins, no additional candidates can qualify to receive votes that will be counted. Only candidates who meet the eight-state threshold required to receive votes that count on the first ballot can receive votes that count on subsequent ballots.
3. Under the current rules, the 2016 convention could be deadlocked because so many legitimate Delegates’ votes couldn’t be counted that no one could assemble the required 1,237 delegate votes. Or after a deadlock, a majority of the Delegates might be ready to nominate someone they couldn’t vote for because that preferred candidate didn’t meet the required threshold before the first ballot.
And in the best possible scenario under the current rules, many legitimate Delegates will go home disgusted because their votes weren’t counted.
There are still four ways any rules regarding the 2016 nomination process at the convention can be changed.
First, the RNC Standing Committee on Rules could adopt changes, including once again reversing itself and restoring legitimate Delegates’ right to have their votes counted.
Second, the RNC itself could in Cleveland amend the report of its Standing Committee on Rules.
Third, the Convention Rules Committee, comprised of two Delegates, a man and a woman elected by each state’s Delegation, can and always does make amendments to the proposed new rules package it receives from the Republican National Committee.
Fourth, when the report of the Convention Rules Committee is received by the national convention, the convention itself can adopt new amendments, but only if the convention receives a minority report signed by at least 25% of the members of its Convention Rules Committee.
And do you really believe that the majority rules? This goes for Republicans and Democrats.
Major Rules (as I read it)(edited)
1. no delegate votes will be counted that are cast for any 2016 candidate who can’t show support from the majority of the delegations from at least eight states or territories.
2. Romney-created rule, Rule 40(b), that prevents votes from being tallied for candidates who could not prove majority support from at least eight state delegations also provides that candidates must prove that they meet the eight-state threshold “not less than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.” In other words, when the first ballot begins, no additional candidates can qualify to receive votes that will be counted. Only candidates who meet the eight-state threshold required to receive votes that count on the first ballot can receive votes that count on subsequent ballots.
3. Under the current rules, the 2016 convention could be deadlocked because so many legitimate Delegates’ votes couldn’t be counted that no one could assemble the required 1,237 delegate votes. Or after a deadlock, a majority of the Delegates might be ready to nominate someone they couldn’t vote for because that preferred candidate didn’t meet the required threshold before the first ballot.
And in the best possible scenario under the current rules, many legitimate Delegates will go home disgusted because their votes weren’t counted.
There are still four ways any rules regarding the 2016 nomination process at the convention can be changed.
First, the RNC Standing Committee on Rules could adopt changes, including once again reversing itself and restoring legitimate Delegates’ right to have their votes counted.
Second, the RNC itself could in Cleveland amend the report of its Standing Committee on Rules.
Third, the Convention Rules Committee, comprised of two Delegates, a man and a woman elected by each state’s Delegation, can and always does make amendments to the proposed new rules package it receives from the Republican National Committee.
Fourth, when the report of the Convention Rules Committee is received by the national convention, the convention itself can adopt new amendments, but only if the convention receives a minority report signed by at least 25% of the members of its Convention Rules Committee.
And do you really believe that the majority rules? This goes for Republicans and Democrats.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
I can't find it now but there was a study that looked at taxes paid vs money paid out by Albany and NYC paid quite a bit more in taxes than they received. Poorer counties, like mine, received much more than they paid in.
Places like Rochester and even Buffalo help, and maybe I am exaggerating slightly. But we definitely would be worse off without NYC economically.
Upstaters pay some high taxes.
The worst complaint I ever heard was from a friend who bought a derelict grocery store.
His yearly property tax bill was more than he paid for the property.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
You aren't telling me anything new. But most of that isn't the state, it's the counties and school taxes.
I have family who lives in Buffalo. Their taxes on a $200k house are the same as mine on my house assessed at $57k. The problem is rural property in much of the state is so worthless and the county and municipalities still have similar bills to pay.
The doctor my wife works for sold his beautiful 3400 sq ft brick home with in-ground pool on 5 acres across from the golf course for $130k. People from out of the area wondered if something was wrong with it. The thing is, his tax bill was $1,000 a month.
It's now a catch 22 situation. The property values are held down due to the property taxes. And the property tax rates need to be high because of the low assessments.
This doesn't tell me much.
Property taxes on homes can vary widely just because of time elapsed since the last sale.
And $5K "assessed" doesn't say what the actual value is.
A $200K house could be assessed less or more..
Nonetheless, they're heavily taxing these upstate properties.
That suggests little largess from NYC.
In-ground pool, eh.....that'll lower the value considerably.
This points to a problem of too high a governmental burden for the economy to support.
People must either be crazy or crazy wealthy to live in NY.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
The point is simple. Their taxes are roughly the same as mine and their house in valued at 4 times as much. The houses themselves are probably comparable, all else being equal.
Yes, except that property taxes are not a state tax. They are local taxes that funds the county and local governments. This is why there is such a huge disparity. NYC has the volume of houses and taxpayers and the values of property are high, that their rate is low. Where I live, the population is on the decline and house values are low, so tax rates are high.
Fair point, except that this, and I am not exaggerating, would be at least a half million dollar house in most parts of the country. And I'm not talking about insane markets like Seattle. There it would be worth much more.
It points to depressed economies where the population has been on the decline since the 20's. You can buy a mansion for 200k. But you still pay the taxes as though it were a million dollar property in Dallas or Atlanta.
My home town, in the 20's, had 2000 people. Now is has 300. People left because the oil dried up, the industry dried up. And every generation loses a bit more. So every few years they cut government cost but within 5 years the savings are offset by lost revenue.
Here is the tax sale list for this year. And it is a light year. In 2012 there were 150 properties on the list in a county with a population smaller than most small suburbs.
http://www.alleganyco.com/btn_TaxSale/2016List.htm
A good share of these are just people who leave and let their house go up for tax sale.
Perhaps it's a terminology difficulty, but one was "assessed" at $57K.
Government assessment isn't the same thing as value.
The $200K figure didn't come with basis for arriving at the number.
So I can't compare the values (because I don't know them, even relatively).
See the difficulties that can crop when you talk to a (former) licensed broker?
It is nonetheless taxation which fuels government.
Such high property taxes should provide enuf to not need a subsidy from NYC.
I'm not surprised at population decline.
Who in their right mind would live there?
The high taxes could be the cause of flight & economic malaise.
Sounds even worse than Michiganistan!
Underhill
Well-Known Member
The values and assessment are roughly proportional. Your picking at nits.
See above.
Taxes are part of it. As I said, it's a catch 22. They cannot lower the rate enough to bring values back up without bankrupting the county. I was talking to one of our county legislatures and I asked him what it would take to drop the rates from 3.6% to 2%. His reply was something along the line of, 'we could close half the roads'.
No.
Assessed value can mean anything.
Here in MI, it's supposed to reflect half of market value.
And under increase limitations (eg, Headlee Amendment), it can even be much less than half.
It isn't nitpicking to to challenge a meaningless comparison.
Sigh....too few people know anything about real estate.
Histrionic replies from gov aparatchiks notwithstanding, I'm sure they could pare away some of the fat in their budget.
Here, we've allowed some paved roads to revert to gravel, thereby saving money.
Cutting bloated law enforcement & court costs is another good area.
Sell excess property, outsource where practical, etc, etc.
You cannot tax your way out of a recession.
I felt my comment about "here's hoping" was as relevant to the topic as your "it will be fun watching" comment. Now you know.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
And I am not one of them. I understand what you are saying. I get that there can be wide differences between the two. In this case, there aren't. I am saying they are roughly proportional.
Been doing all of that for decades. There in lies the problem. It reminds me of something I was told a long time ago about layoffs at a company. The first wave is easy, you are getting rid of the dead weight. By the 3rd and 4th, you are struggling to choose between good people. The county and municipalities in this case are on their 23rd round of cuts.
Okey dokey.
Always remember that pedants like me will obsess over such things.
We need special care when explaining things to us.
Something is fundamentally wrong with a state if......
- Tax rates are rising because of falling values.
- Taxes are so high people are leaving.
- There's no waste or fat to be cut from government.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't go that far. But there isn't the waste you see in some of these old cities in the north east. That stuff was cut out of the budget decades ago. Now we are left with efficiency improvements and, as you suggested, reducing services (ie less roads, less maintenance, less police) and even then we have taken many of those steps already.
People aren't leaving only for the taxes, they started leaving because much of the industry left the area. Some moved south for warmer climates. Some may have left for the taxes, but I think for most it was a secondary benefit of leaving.
As I said, it's a difficult position. I have a friend who won a spot in the county legislature a few years back, and much of this information is from him. You would like his politics (very conservative fiscally), but he has been extremely frustrated as cuts are not nearly as easy to find as he assumed they would be.
I know that cutting back gov spending would be difficult.
But it's better than driving away the tax base.
NY was well known (as told to me by NY friends) for being anti-business.
And they're still reaping what they've sown.
Now, I see NY advertising bennies for businesses.
What they really need is a more sustainable policy, rather than one which drives'm away, & then changes to bring'm back.
Here's one way (not perfect) which MI uses.
Businesses pay for major road maintenance fronting our properties.
Sure, we pay road taxes, but this covers only so much.
So when a road needs some work, the affected owners vote for whether the work will be done.
Then we're all charged a pro-rated portion based upon street frontage.
This is a more customer responsive approach than having gov aparatchiks making the decision.
I've seen them resurface perfectly good roads, & ignore those needing work.
Why?
I don't know what motivates them.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The unfortunate reality is that we have been witnessing what some may call "a race to the bottom". In a highly competitive free-market economy, saving one dollar in production (remember Ford's decision to not install the Pinto's gas liners for about that cost per unit) takes priority over the effect that this would have on the general populace. In order to attract business, states have largely weakened or eliminated unions, cut many programs that deal with keeping up with repairing our infrastructure (now rated a "D"), reducing assistance to the unemployed and the underemployed with legislation that could help create jobs, under-financing educational needs, etc. Take a look at what the current administration in Michigan's capital did with Flint in order to save money, putting that are a far higher level than people's health a well-being.
It's all about money, money, money, with people's needs more and more becoming less and less important.
It's all about money, money, money, with people's needs more and more becoming less and less important.