Local politicians and policymakers began to call for trimming the city’s taxes. But Mayor Bloomberg defended the high levies by arguing that they’re necessary to provide “premium” services that New Yorkers demand. What the mayor failed to note is that the gap between New York’s tax burden and that of the other eight cities has widened under his administration, even though city services haven’t increased substantially. In the 1990s, tax cuts engineered by the Giuliani administration and the City Council under former speaker Peter Vallone began shrinking that gap, without substantially reducing the level of services delivered....The Priciest City, Stephen Malanga, City Journal, 3/27/2007
The campaign to undo Sarbanes-Oxley, the act that radically increased regulatory constraints on listings on American stock exchanges, the largest of which are based in New York, was the usual rhetorical display. We were to believe that New York's future standing was dependent on fixing the over-regulation of one part of the economy. And it is true, that Sarbox is a big problem. The number of IPOs in the New York exchanges declined spectacularly in the years after the enactment of this legislation. But this article in City Journal intimates that the elephant in the living room isn't the health of New York's financial services business, but the fact that most businesses other than financial services don't want to be in New York City. Why?
Read the article.
Hint: taxes.
Second hint: The Mayor was a liberal Democrat before he became a "Republican."
Luther
No comments:
Post a Comment