Isn't the other half deductible from their taxable income and irrelevant with regard to the tax increase?

OK, but even if it costs twice as much to live in NYC compared to Omaha, about half of the difference is going towards making the New Yorker richer.

And you haven't addressed this.

For people who pay off their 30-year mortgage this is true. For people who move after 10 years this isn't true at all.

Certainly most people who make 250k in NYC couldn't possibly find a comparable job in Omaha or a comparable city with the same salary.

They don't need to. You said yourself they can take a pay cut and get richer.

lol @ the difference between this thread and the BFI "what is rich?" thread.

It depends on how large the pay cut is, but sure. But for many people (in the financial sector for example) would have to work in NYC to maximize their richness.

lol at 250k being rich. but then again i live in NYC and have law school loans out the ass. throw in kids, mortgage, whatever, and i'd probably be poor at 250k/year.

seriously tho, 250k a year in nyc would not make you rich. i can't see it. unless you do some miserable commute every day - and the normal commute from close areas is already miserable enough.

but then again i guess there is a world outside nyc, or so i hear.

The poverty line in the US is rich in many countries. We should all pay higher taxes to feed the poor of the world.

You're still qualified to practice law in Utica. Move there, and be rich, or else you have to consider living in NYC part of what it means to be rich to you.

this thread is a perfect example of why the current tax system is so f-ing arbitrary.

Regardless of whether the majority of people understand the concept of marginal tax rates, it still boils down to arbitrary line drawing. Everything under $Y is taxed @ T1%, everything between $Y and $Z is taxed @ T2%, and everything above is taxed @ T3%.

So who picks Y, Z, and T1-T3? What's their method and more specifically, what assumptions are they making to arrive at those values?

The cost of living in all cities is without a doubt not equal. And yet the structure of our federal tax system implies that it is.

Does it really make sense for someone making $35k in Bumblebee, AL to pay the same taxes as someone in NYC? Its perfectly reasonable to argue that living in NYC is a "luxury" and the person should just move to Bumblebee, AL if they don't like it. But how does that coincide with the rest of your political ideology? You'd need to consider why exactly NYC is so much more expensive and how it got that way.


--
I offer no alternatives other than some consumption based frameworks, but don't really want to derail this awesome thread so that's that.

Of course. As I said above, this implies that living in NYC is something indicative of being rich. If it's not something you can afford to do when you're not rich, then why do you suddenly become not rich when you do it?

those two things separately are nightmarish enough - "practice law" and "Utica" - but combined it's like some kind of Biblical hell. but i guess i could be rich for the first 5 months before my suicide.

This argument will never end as long as certain people can't comprehend the basic difference between choices and obligations, luxuries and neccessities, wants and needs, etc.

What?

yes but to afford that mortgage you have to be rich apparently (earn $250k+)

according to that logic...we should be sending them [those who end up in NYC and can't afford] by the bus-load down Arkansas where their basic needs can be met at a much lower cost overall...instead of paying for their welfare (food/housing/etc) at a "NYC-luxury" premium.

Polvo- Every so often a rich state congress person proposes that the tax system take cost of living into account. Guess how that went over.

I'm just baffled by how otherwise literate people seem to think how you decide to spend your income is the dispositive factor in whether you qualify as rich.

Poorly I hope. Screw people in big cities and nice blue states!

Wat? It implies that high paying jobs are in NYC and in some industries they are only in NYC. It implies that in order to work those jobs you HAVE to be in NYC or close by and not in Omaha.
Also dare i say that your occupation also have a lot to do with "rich or not" status. Poker player or shop owner who is supporting his family while making 250k and living in NYC is significantly better off than 2 professionals making the same money.

The WSJ sez:

You also probably failed to understand that some decisions were made for them...

I'll take that bet.