• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Richest\Poorest Cities in USA

Absolutely - right on to City collected revenues - no exemptions. If a rich city takes in a billion we should get 10%
and give it too the poor cities.


Aderleth said:
Hmm. Perhaps we should institute a progressive income tax of some kind?
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Absolutely - right on to City collected revenues - no exemptions. If a rich city takes in a billion we should get 10%
and give it too the poor cities.
Click to expand...

Dude. You're missing the point. We already have a progressive income tax at both the state and the federal level. So some money from the richest cities is already being sent to the poorest cities.
 
haymarket said:
There is no doubt that several factors played into the decline of Detroit including some of the factors in articles you list. Which also btw indicate that racism also played a role as I contended.

I would list them as
*** white racism and subsequent white flight
*** the building of the highway system making it east to NOT live in Detroit but still work there
*** the loss of manufacturing plants and the jobs that went with them
*** the rise of social pathologies such as riots, crime and declining public education which motivated and encouraged whites to leave
*** the lack of new housing in Detroit as opposed to newer and fresher suburbs

I have NEVER found a single respected academic study which lays the decline of Detroit on organized labor as a previous poster stated and that was what I was objecting to as they completely ignored other mroe documented causes.
Click to expand...

OK, but I still think you place way too much emphasis on racism, a view not found in any of my links to be the "major cause" of the economic decline of Detroit, although I am sure that it played some part, thus the race riots. Many cities have had far worse racial problems but not nearly as bad of economic outcomes.
 
No think you miss my point; the new tax should be imposed on the richest cities and just given to the poorest cities. The one you mention has the federal government in the way and it steals 146% of it. There is nothing left over
for the poorest cities. So the rich cities should have a tax on the taxes they collect and that money given to the poorest cities. After all the people did vote for soaking the rich and giving to the poor - right?


Aderleth said:
Dude. You're missing the point. We already have a progressive income tax at both the state and the federal level. So some money from the richest cities is already being sent to the poorest cities.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
No think you miss my point; the new tax should be imposed on the richest cities and just given to the poorest cities. The one you mention has the federal government in the way and it steals 146% of it. There is nothing left over
for the poorest cities. So the rich cities should have a tax on the taxes they collect and that money given to the poorest cities. After all the people did vote for soaking the rich and giving to the poor - right?
Click to expand...


And that's the way the current tax structure already works (sort of, without all the nuance). I understand that you're trying to be snarky, but you're basically being snarky about something that literally already happens.
 
Ah but it doesn't already happen; the money isn't getting to the poor cities and the rich cities just get richer and richer - yeah I'm being snarky and thanks for not bittiing my head off for it. I think its imperative to point out the double standard. People want to soak the rich but its ok for rich cities to have these big budgets and not give to the poor cities? Why the double standard?



Aderleth said:
And that's the way the current tax structure already works (sort of, without all the nuance). I understand that you're trying to be snarky, but you're basically being snarky about something that literally already happens.
Click to expand...
 
CalGun said:
Ah but it doesn't already happen; the money isn't getting to the poor cities and the rich cities just get richer and richer - yeah I'm being snarky and thanks for not bittiing my head off for it. I think its imperative to point out the double standard. People want to soak the rich but its ok for rich cities to have these big budgets and not give to the poor cities? Why the double standard?
Click to expand...

Because A) the article isn't really about the city's budget, it's about the median income, B) cities with high median incomes are contributing to the welfare of cities with low median income through the medium of income taxes, C) the goal of progressive taxation really isn't to make everyone equally wealthy, it's to provide basic services for the people who are most at risk of just falling out of society completely (we could argue about how good a job the government does with this - there are definitely valid arguments that it kind of sucks at the moment), and to - as best as possible - ensure that people have relatively equal access to opportunities for self-growth and upward mobility, which leads to conclusion D) there is no double standard.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, but I still think you place way too much emphasis on racism, a view not found in any of my links to be the "major cause" of the economic decline of Detroit, although I am sure that it played some part, thus the race riots. Many cities have had far worse racial problems but not nearly as bad of economic outcomes.
Click to expand...

I am at work and can only post here for a minute or two..... I went round and round on this a year or two ago with Rev HH and posted lots of great stuff showing a strong measurable relationship between self admitted white racism and white flight. Its here somewhere but right now I just do not have the time to search for it today.

For what its worth - and this is my opinion - Detroit (where I was born) is very different in white attitudes than many other big northern cities like Chicago. In Chicago, many white ethnics fought to keep their neighborhoods and it became a cause celebre for them to do so. In Detroit, whites could not get out fast enough.

We are in the last days of a lame duck legislature here and I am putting in 12 hour days so I will try to locate the material in a couple days..... unless someone finds it first.
 
CalGun said:
You know I was looking at this and wondering why we don't impose a tax on the top 5 and give it to the bottom 5? I mean come on we want "fairness" right?
Click to expand...
DC made the top 5 because that's where the taxes go.
 
But you are putting it back on the person - I'm talking cities:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit budget 1.12 billion
706,000 people = $1,586 a person

San Francisco $6.8 billion budget
812,000 = $8,374 per person

Now clearly SF being a top 5 needs to share with Detroit – just saying.



Aderleth said:
Because A) the article isn't really about the city's budget, it's about the median income, B) cities with high median incomes are contributing to the welfare of cities with low median income through the medium of income taxes, C) the goal of progressive taxation really isn't to make everyone equally wealthy, it's to provide basic services for the people who are most at risk of just falling out of society completely (we could argue about how good a job the government does with this - there are definitely valid arguments that it kind of sucks at the moment), and to - as best as possible - ensure that people have relatively equal access to opportunities for self-growth and upward mobility, which leads to conclusion D) there is no double standard.
Click to expand...
 
Here in Philadelphia (#2), it was middle class people getting married and having kids. Those kids moved to the suburbs and over time, as the older folks moved away from their nice neighborhoods as well and those neighborhoods progressively got worse and single parent families grew more common. The slide continues.

Now there are areas that I know to not even try to drive in because that is where the crime is. Many areas are still ok and some areas are still damn nice. Now areas are being torn down and higher rent yuppie pads are going up attracking young people who want to live in the city.

Is it race? I don't know. Haymarket has some study or such which says that it is. I guess it is racist to want to live on an acre of land rather than one of 8 connected row homes. I guess it is racist to want your neighbors to have pride in their home and take care of their property.

Philadelphia is an underrated city but it does have it's challenges. We have a culture in the city where calling the police is "snitching" and frowned upon--even over the death of a child. What makes it different from Detroit? It is easier to cross the river to another state rather than another country (amazing how clean Windsor is). The suburbs of Philadelphia are much more affluent than the suburbs of Detroit. There are many more prestigious colleges and universities in Philly than Detroit. Pennsylvania has a flat state income tax and only two real big cities. Detroit is it in Michigan which has no other big cities. All of Philly's sports teams have always played in the city giving a year round opportunity to go to the city to take in a game.

2/3 of Pennsylvania hates Philly while 90% of Michigan hates Detroit.

On and on.
 
CalGun said:
But you are putting it back on the person - I'm talking cities:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit budget 1.12 billion
706,000 people = $1,586 a person

San Francisco $6.8 billion budget
812,000 = $8,374 per person

Now clearly SF being a top 5 needs to share with Detroit – just saying.
Click to expand...

I get that, but what I'm pointing out (right now) is that when the article's talking about SF being the 2nd richest city, it's not talking about the city budget, it's talking about the median income of the people who live there. In either case, taxation is always ultimately a function of individual wealth, rather than the city-wide aggregate. That money (city, state, or federal budget) isn't coming from cities, it's coming from individual residents of cities. So residents of SF are sharing with Detroit, and there's still enough left over to fund a higher city budget (not surprising, given the income disparity and the fact that SF is one of the few cities that has its own income tax).

You could also look at this from the other direction. You've got a point re: per capita budgets, but you've also got to think about regional costs. I guarantee you that the salaries of SF government employees are way the hell higher than in Detroit. The cost of living here is higher than anywhere except maybe Manhattan (at least as far as urban areas go - there are definitely small towns up and down the California coast with higher median house prices, e.g.). So while the per capita budget of SF may be roughly five times what it is in Detroit, the cost of doing business here (in any capacity) is also quite a lot higher.
 
Modest proposal, all persons of IQ 80 or less would be eligible for
a voluntary sterilization program. Strictly voluntary with a trust of
5K or $10K held in trust for a few year. Very cost effective and a saver
of so much human suffering.
 
mpg said:
DC made the top 5 because that's where the taxes go.
Click to expand...

Dc is a huge city with plenty of private industry, a great public transportation system, a corrupt but well functioning city government, and a diverse population, a great deal of higher education, a free zoo, with effing pandas, our own lgbt paper, the coolest flag of any state, etc

We have plenty going for us, there is a lot more to us than being the capital.
 
hikari said:
Dc is a huge city with plenty of private industry, a great public transportation system, a corrupt but well functioning city government, and a diverse population, a great deal of higher education, a free zoo, with effing pandas, our own lgbt paper, the coolest flag of any state, etc

We have plenty going for us, there is a lot more to us than being the capital.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well the Bay Area's got you beat twice over on the list. So take THAT DC. (Kidding... more or less)
 
Did you all see this?

10 POOREST STATES,

#1 Mississippi, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#2 Arkansas, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#3 Tennessee, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#4 West Virginia, Mostly Republican State, strong coal miners Union, but anti smog regulation

#5 Louisiana, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#6 Montana, Solid Republican State

#7 S. Carolina, right to work state, Solid Republican State

#8 Kentucky, Mostly Republican State

#9 Alabama, right to work state, Solid Republican State

#10 N. Carolina, right to work state, Mostly Republican State
 
Interesting that they only focus on median income, not median income vs cost of living.

Try Cost of Living Comparison: compare San Jose, California to Detroit, Michigan

I ran the numbers for San Jose and Detroit.

That $77,000 in San Jose buys you the same as $36,000 in Detroit. Now Detroit is still poorer than San Jose because median income in Detroit does not rise to the $36,000 level. However, if you compare San Jose, Cal with Dallas Texas, that $77,000 would get you the equivalent of $40,000 when adjust for cost of living. However, Dallas has a median income of $55,546, well above that $40,000. So is San Jose really richer? The average citizen in Dallas can actually buy more with $55K than the average resident in San Jose that makes $77k.

Some want to measure wealth only in dollar amounts, but to me, wealth is a measure of what you get for the money you have.

So go ahead, make the comparisons on cost of living vs income and their list is not exactly accurate.
 
I wonder why this report doesn't take COL into account? $60k a year for a family in Fort Wayne is damn near rich, but in NYC you'd barely be making it.
 
DVSentinel said:
Interesting that they only focus on median income, not median income vs cost of living.

Try Cost of Living Comparison: compare San Jose, California to Detroit, Michigan

I ran the numbers for San Jose and Detroit.

That $77,000 in San Jose buys you the same as $36,000 in Detroit. Now Detroit is still poorer than San Jose because median income in Detroit does not rise to the $36,000 level. However, if you compare San Jose, Cal with Dallas Texas, that $77,000 would get you the equivalent of $40,000 when adjust for cost of living. However, Dallas has a median income of $55,546, well above that $40,000. So is San Jose really richer? The average citizen in Dallas can actually buy more with $55K than the average resident in San Jose that makes $77k.

Some want to measure wealth only in dollar amounts, but to me, wealth is a measure of what you get for the money you have.

So go ahead, make the comparisons on cost of living vs income and their list is not exactly accurate.
Click to expand...

Real dollars > Nominal dollars.
By george you got it!
 
sharon said:
Did you all see this?

10 POOREST STATES,

#1 Mississippi, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#2 Arkansas, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#3 Tennessee, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#4 West Virginia, Mostly Republican State, strong coal miners Union, but anti smog regulation

#5 Louisiana, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#6 Montana, Solid Republican State

#7 S. Carolina, right to work state, Solid Republican State

#8 Kentucky, Mostly Republican State

#9 Alabama, right to work state, Solid Republican State

#10 N. Carolina, right to work state, Mostly Republican State
Click to expand...

Ok, now compare your list and affiliations with a cost of living adjustment, which are the ten worst places to actually make a living after you include cost of living.

Worst States to Make a Living 2012

1. Hawaii, Dem, no right to work,

2. Maine, Dem, no right to work

3. Vermont, Dem, no right to work

4. Mississippi, also on your list but falls from #1 to #4

5. Montana, also on your list but moves up from #6 to #5, no right to work

6. Rhode Island, Dem, no right to work

7. California, Dem, no right to work

8. West Virginia, You call it Rep, no right to work. Also drops from #4 down to #8

9. S. Carolina, on your list but drops from #7 to #9

10. S. Dakota, Rep, right to work

And the 10 "richest" Best States to Make a Living 2012

4 Right to work states, not including Michigan since they only recently/currently are making the change. 1 remained the same as last year, 3 moved upwards. Of the non right to work, 1 remained at same ranking from last year, 2 moved up (Michigan being one of them) and all the rest fell.

So 4 right to work states at the top, 4 at the bottom it seems to average out when you consider right to work vs no right to work after you include other factors such as cost of living.
 
sharon said:
Did you all see this?

10 POOREST STATES,

#1 Mississippi, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#2 Arkansas, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#3 Tennessee, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#4 West Virginia, Mostly Republican State, strong coal miners Union, but anti smog regulation

#5 Louisiana, Right to work state, Solid Republican State

#6 Montana, Solid Republican State

#7 S. Carolina, right to work state, Solid Republican State

#8 Kentucky, Mostly Republican State

#9 Alabama, right to work state, Solid Republican State

#10 N. Carolina, right to work state, Mostly Republican State
Click to expand...

http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/statevote-charts.aspx
Of your list, Arkansas' Legislature was actually Dem controlled in both houses prior to the last election (Nov 2012) when it switched, so not "solid Republican" as you claim. In West Virginia, Dems did and still control both houses in the state. So not mostly republican. Kentucky, Dems control the house both before and after election.

List of current United States governors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of the Governors, Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, N. Carolina, W. Virginia all have Dems as Governors.

So Arkansas is not Solid Republican, W. Virginia is not mostly republican, Kentucky is not Mostly Republican, Montana is not Solid Republican, as you stated.
 
Last edited:
With the exception of West Virginia and Montana the states listed have very large
minority populations.
 
hfd said:
Richest and poorest US cities by income - MSN Money
Click to expand...

Philadelphia was a surprise on the list of bottom 5
Memphis in the bottom 5? With the cost of living there - $35K a year is decent money there....I dont get that one. Apparently they dont do it by a cost of living index.

Washington D.C. in the top 5 is not a surprise by any stretch of the imagination....politicians & lobbyists have residences there...plus a host of government employees.
 
CalGun said:
You know I was looking at this and wondering why we don't impose a tax on the top 5 and give it to the bottom 5? I mean come on we want "fairness" right?
Click to expand...

You know I like you. Good thinking, the liberals will surely support that. That's a great liberal policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom