The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Just because Republicans have made the same arguments is no reason to dismiss the argument.
We are really annoyed with NYC. What can I say? And my area is entirely Democrat. Dem mayor, Dem council members, Dem state congresspeople, Dem Fed congresspeople. They all have the same consensus on the situation. The GOP is absolutely dead up here in Buffalo. They won't even run anyone against the Democrats. Both our Reps are Democrats.
The billions you're quoting are also spent downstate. The entire state budget for state aid to local government totaled $1.5 billion in 2007, so if New York City is shelling out $7 billion, that money gets sucked up by the state mostly. Of the $1.5 billion, Paterson is about to cut $125 million due to the financial crisis. But New York City got $310 million of that state aid, while all the rest of the upstate cities got $550 million, and the suburbs and towns took the rest. So, the billions collected in New York don't all travel up here. The vast majority of it doesn't, in fact. Look at the Indian Casinos they've opened up here. The state taxes on the casinos (largely local gamblers) number in the hundreds of millions. The state takes 93% of the tax revenue, and gives 7% to the locality. Why is the state taking 93% when the vast majority of gamblers (90%) are local?
We pay .54 per KwH. As I said, I know NYC's electric is subsidized. Ours is double. Not to mention our heating costs soar in the winter so that the power authority can generate more power by lowering the ice boom.
I live in the inner city. We have a lot of transplants up here who are poor, and undeniably the low costs of upstate with the same social services as downstate create a magnet for the region. We have the same exact social safety net as New York City, so again, why are the social services there better? They should be the same. I already quoted to you my property taxes which are $10,000 for a $250k house. 9% sales tax.
Let me put it to you this way. The Southern New England states pay 1/3rd of the property tax I do. Let's compare Buffalo to Providence, RI. Two postindustrial cities, both of which rely on their university and banking sector to prop up the city (Buffalo also has trade with Canada that props us up). Providence is flourishing with a tax structure that suits it. No one is accusing Providence of being another Mississippi. It's considered a solidly Democratic state, a liberal state, perhaps the most liberal in the entire USA. So, why can't Buffalo be like Providence? That's all I'm saying. It should be like Providence.
If you talk to upstaters, they're not asking for more tax money. That's not the discussion. It's all about energy resources and state mandates. Buffalo is one of the poorest cities in the country not because there are no industries, universities or big companies up here. It's because we have a huge community of people who are on government assisted social services. This is very unlike New York City. When an imbalance is created because of the mandates, then it becomes next to impossible to invest and improve the city.
Actually I'm not just including the grants, but rather all state government spending for example the 25% share of Medicaid, state agency spending etc. But sure, Albany gets a disproportionate amount - it's a capital with the jobs that go with it. As far as the other state revenue collected there - of course folks in upstate pay various taxes and fees, the point is that the state spends more there than it collects, while downstate it does the reverse. The problem with Take a look at that report I linked to.
Providence isn't Buffalo. A much smaller place, so the university matters more (a quarter million people at its peak vs. 600,000), plus it's located within a wealthy metropolitan area - a 45 min drive or an hour by commuter rail from Boston. And it's the state capital, albeit of a rather small state.
We pay .54 per KwH.
You sure about that? I just looked at the National Grid page and they report significantly lower prices for residential customers than my ConEd bill ($0.045 for delivery charge, about another half cent in related fees, about $0.103 for the supply charge, plus taxes. By contrast my delivery and supply charges are $.077 and $.0138 respectively. About ten percent gets added on in various taxes and surcharges, and there's the fixed monthly service charge)
Regardless, this is the least of our energy concerns. It's just a quibble (though the ice boom is a very real problem for us, and it costs us big $$$). The main point is that the power authority gives free power away.
Your most important sentence in the previous post was chopped so I couldn't make heads of tails of what you were saying.
I've studied the ins and outs of this pretty thoroughly, and if I had a chance to vote tomorrow to be rid of Albany and downstate influence, I would vote YES. I'm certain that our high taxes and northeastern liberal orientation would remain up here, but the area would be transformed.
You say the state spends more up here than it collects but as I said, it does very little to stoke the economic engines here. In fact, it just hampers it with all sorts of obstacles. The capital region has received over a billion and a half in seeding for business in the last 5 years. Western NY has received less than $50 million. Bruno's area is now contributing to the state coffers.
Businesses here apply for energy grants all the time that would bring a lot of jobs. For instance, Toyota was interested in building a factory here (we were competing with S. Ontario and Alabama). Ultimately, Toyota went with Ontario, and the rejection of their cheap power bid was one of the main reasons why. Meanwhile, companies in the capital region are subsidized well beyond the value of each individual job.
I've talked to university presidents who scratch their heads at the backroom dealing and pork in this state, a state that sends taxpayer money to fund programs at private schools while it starves the state university. It's bizarre how parochial and cutthroat these guys are. If you were in a private room with people from the SUNY system (not SUNY central) you would hear them blasting the state gov't. In NYC, the SUNY system is considered the place for the not-so bright kids, since the private school mentality dominates. In other states, they readily understand that the state university system is the economic engine of the state. That's where the vast majority of the citizenry is educated, and where incubation for business occurs. So the U. Buffalo law school is in dire need of money, and instead the pols vote for taxpayer money to set up a school at St. John's Fischer. Bizarre. And meanwhile, the tuition is 1/3rd of that charged for public Ed in nearby states (Pennsylvania and Massachusetts).
Remind me to never talk numbers and taxes and charges when they are measured in decimal points.
[Apologies to Eurotribbers not really a 'Euro' topic, just intrastate regional debate - a very longstanding one]
I found it interesting. Not sure I'm able to make heads or tails of the details, but interesting none the less. (Also a valuable reminder that The Big Neighbour To The West is not a monolithic entity.)
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Dec 1
by gmoke - Nov 302 comments
by Oui - Nov 3012 comments
by gmoke - Nov 28
by Oui - Nov 2837 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10
by Oui - Nov 928 comments
by Oui - Nov 8