1) Sure, a third of independents might support an election denying fool, but 2/3s won't. I call that a win for now.
2) Just because the economy is a top issue for a lot of voters doesn't mean it's the only issue they will be voting on.
3) Yes, the LA city council story is gross. But when we found out about it the reaction against them by Dems and Progressives has made at least one person so far step down. We just didn't accept it and circle the wagons like the GOP does.
To be fair, living according to the principles you expect of yourself and others is a pretty low bar. Living by your own principles is how you avoid life as a hypocrite. Just because MAGA can't live up to the bare minimum of their own principles doesn't mean we need to go patting ourselves on the back because we live up to a few of ours. There's a million other principle-based hypocrisies I could point to that liberals live with on a daily basis, but those are the things liberals tend to ignore rather than fix.
I judge people by how closely they live to the principles they espouse, so when I see liberals living 180-degrees opposite from what they preach, I call them out on that shit too. "Rules for thee, but not for me." Gavin Newsom's little covid adventure at The French Laundry is a good example. So was "Operation Varsity Blues." It's just easier to do it with MAGA these days because the hypocrisy is so open and proud and 180-degrees opposite to former closely-held beliefs that conservatives espoused.
The way Charlie feels about seeing American conservatism for what it truly is is exactly how I see the American progressivism I used to fervently support. The hypocrisy coming out tells the true story, because if progressives/MAGAs were true to their ideological principles, they wouldn't be living how they are now. Neither of them really cared about principles. It was all just collective narcissism and getting what you want--spare no expense.
The LA council members and one lobbyist are the ones who didn't live up to their principles. The response from most of us other progressives has been to condemn their behavior and demand that they resign. How are progressives in general, other than those few people, being hypocritical?
Because of how they refuse to live according to their own ideological principles. Because they prioritize more trivial shit over the more important issues. Because they will address every other issue at the local level tooth-and-nail-style (climate, gun control, policing, etc.) while ignoring the wealth inequality issue that drives up the cost of living on the working class. If you want to see extreme wealth inequality, you go to a liberal city where you will see condos that go for $1.5M sitting right next to homeless camps in the downtown metros. You will see work-from-homers making $100+k/year while "essential workers" are making less than $50k/year, and yet both have relatively similar tax rates. The liberal tolerance for this kind of wealth inequality within the borders of where it has consolidated political control is *proof* that liberals don't take what they say out loud seriously.
Maybe it's time to start a new fucking ballot initiative over there on progressive tax structures? Like, MUCH higher income tax rates for individuals making over $150k/year and MUCH higher rates for people who own more than $150k in stocks. Think taxing a rich dude with $500k in stocks at the 20% rate while everyone else pays at the 10-15% rate is cool? We should be taxing equity and property holdings at much higher rates the more of either someone owns. As in, the more stock you own, the more taxes you pay on them. I'm talking 50-75% for folks with more than $250K in stocks, not this 20% bullshit that they currently get away with. The more money that sits in investment portfolios, the less is flowing through the economy and creating jobs. There are literally *trillions* in private wealth that are dammed up outside of the economy where it could be working for the country instead of collecting interest in some multi-millionaire's Fidelity account.
I have been given to believe that that the current siege of inflation can be attributed largely to Covid money sloshing around, Covid and Ukraine War supply chain disruptions, and the necessity of publicly traded corporations to increase profits so as to keep investors happy (rather than absorbing increased prices resulting in lower profits as a public service to contain inflation). But, I could be wrong; it might be that it's all the fault of the super-rich continuing their lavish spending, as you suggest. I personally would love to hear of one CEO of a consumer goods corp say to investors on the quarterly conference call that s/he is reporting lower profits because s/he is taking a stand against inflation. I have heard of CEO's cackling and bragging of riding inflation to greater profits.
Nobody can tell me that Kari Lake, DeSantis, Oz, and what's-his-name are not culture warriors of the very first order. This election, imo, is a culture battle. MAGA's are not the poor and downtrodden, but the angry and vindictive. ( MAGA leisure boat rallies, MAGA groupies wandering from rally to rally, jet rides to insurrections.) Yes, inflation is a huge issue to the middle class, including me. I just paid 8 freaking bucks for a loaf of bread and another 8 for a pound of butter. Hurts like hell. But blaming the super-rich isn't really an answer. In general I agree with you that our culture has adopted the greed is good mantra to our very great, possibly fatal, detriment. Humans do not live by bread alone.
I'm not saying the rich are the primary drivers of inflation, I'm just saying that they keep prices pegged higher when normal inflationary pressures and the curtailed spending it brings would usually drive prices down. Rich people slow the onset of deflation because they keep prices pegged high when there are enough rich people keeping inventories moving. They're a force multiplier for inflation, not a direct cause. The direct causes are the ones you cited (federal spending on CV, CV itself, Russian invasion, massive bird flu culls).
Alondra, we can blame them but it won’t solve the problem. There is like 2000 billionaire in the us. There are 330m people. You can take all their wealth but it won’t effect what people pay for bread
1) Again, see the whole whales-move-markets thing (one in every 7 homes in the US is owned by a fund, where the people who own half the national wealth park their money affects things).
2) I'm not blaming the rich directly for broad inflation, just saying that they keep prices pegged higher which delays the onset of deflation. In the case of university tuition and housing supplies they are 100% one of the big causes for inflation in those sectors.
Billionaire’s have NOTHING to do with inflation. Literally nothing. I totally understand your hate for the Uber wealthy but making arguments about the taxing wealth and inflation is not only historically incorrect it violates every macro economist point of view on the cause of inflation.
What do billionaires cause inflation on? 20 room homes, sports team, mega yachts, etc. it does not cause inflation on rent, oil, consumables, meat, groceries.
I don’t mind debating the benefits of taxing the wealthy but stop making it about inflation. It’s like claiming billionaires are responsible for crime. It’s just ludicrous
Hmmm, Gavin literally got recalled for what he did at French laundry. Honestly I’m at a loss for your perspective. Literally the largest progressive states, ny and California, pay the most in taxes. It literally tries to live up to its principles.
And not only that, we have had a budget surplus for 2 years along with tax rebates. Who cares about the effing mask. And the recall cost the state millions of dollars. Not very fiscally responsible Republicans if you ask me. By the way, he got more votes than the previous election.
They pay the most in taxes, but they still have the most rich people, so clearly they're not taxing progressively enough. There are taxes, and then there are targeted taxes. The progressive states are letting individuals and families collect *insane* levels of net worth and not touching them. And then they wonder why prices aren't coming down. Duh dummies, you let these people get insanely rich and then broadened the tax base out too wide instead of targeting your top earners. You punished the consumer class to keep taxes lower on the decadence class via taxing models that were wayyyyy too regressive.
I'm literally lost for words when you have dozens of billionaires living in your state and you think tax rates are too high. California and New York aren't living up to shit beyond preserving wealth inequality within their own political boundaries while alternatively crying crocodile tears about how bad it is. California is a great example of liberal hypocrisy and decadence, and you can tell by looking at how many multi-millionaires and billionaires they have. Between Hollywood and Silicon Valley alone y'all let the rich get away with economic murder.
Having the most rich people while also having the most progressive tax codes doesn't mean they aren't taxing enough. It means there is value coming from those taxes that allows rich people to still thrive in those locations. If the goal was to eliminate rich people, go to a communist country.
I don't want to eliminate rich people. I want them to be taxed down to much smaller economic sizes of themselves. *Nobody* needs a net worth over $3.5M as a family. Fucking NOBODY. Anyone with a family net worth over $3.5M is living in excess at the expense of raising the cost of living on everyone else and I'm tired of progressives ignoring that issue while claiming that fixing wealth inequality and runaway cost of living is important to them.
But hey, if you think that kind of economy is fair then I'm sure you'll find that kind of democracy (anocracy) fair too. Don't like it? Move to a more democratic country.
If you tax the folks who are worth more than $3.5M down to size, the cost of living comes down. If everyone is worth $3.5M max then condos/homes over that price simply do not sell in that market and the price comes down to meet the buyer's market. The 3-bedrooms won't be going for what they are going once you liquidate the assets of the rich.
Dude this area is 7 miles by 7 miles. We have huge earthquakes. How many people do you want moving here into sky rises? You will have to demolish all the single family homes to make this happen. Literally the areas (Bay Area) will go from 15m to 45m
$3.5M wealth is a pretty arbitrary number and makes no sense in today's world. Particularly when you can inherit tax-free 12M dollars without paying federal taxes on it.
Inheritance taxes need to go way up too, but that's a whole other conversation. It deteriorates the "meritocracy" we used to have here and incentivizes wealth-hoarding instead of saving just what the family unit needs and then spending the rest on the economy. So much money is sucked out of the economy via families doing wealth-hoarding.
$3.5M is not that arbitrary when you consider what 2 properties go for in a normal market plus the ability to hoard enough stocks to pay for the kid's colleges and home down payments (plus cars, other assets like that). Anything more than that and a family unit is living in pretty large excess, especially if they're clearing over $100k/year.
Taxes are only as strong as they are enforced. Liberal mayors have enough muscle to enforce their tax policies on the rich. Look at what Tish James is doing as we speak. We can make this work, we just need liberal mayors who are serious about taking the gloves off on decadent wealth-hoarders who raise the cost of living on everyone else with their decadent bullshit.
True because it is the most productive area. Billionaires aren’t good for society. That is an absolute fact but every person wants to be a billionaire. That is a sad, sad thing about America.
I could go on and on about all the tax changes California has made over the last 30 years to help the poor, deepen the tax hit on the wealthy and almost all of them backfired after 20 years. It’s not worth going into here.
We do have more billionaires than is healthy in this area but that is because it is the creates the most jobs in the country. I agree with you that there should be taxes on the billionaires. That can and maybe will happen. Your other ideas may work in Colorado but not here.
Finally, I don’t want to get into an inflation debate. It literally has nothing to do with being able to buy meat at 10 bucks a pound or gas at 7 dollars. You know that and I know that. Issues are in supply not demand and no matter how much you raise taxes the top 10% aren’t affecting prices in such away
Prices move in accordance with demand as much as they do supply. Outsized demand creates inflation because "too much money chasing too few goods."
For example, we have enough housing in Denver to keep up with inflows now (didn't used to be that way), but the difficulty in obtaining an affordable mortgage is reducing demand, which in turn reduces the prices of houses for sale. That is plunging demand affecting the sticker prices of homes for sale. See how changes in demand can change prices now?
If liberals in LA and SF and NYC (the bastions of progressivism) can't pass higher taxes on the rich then they might as well just come out and say "WE'RE ALL FUCKING HYPOCRITES HERE." Like I said, climate change legislation and gun control legislation are very unpopular public issues as well, but that didn't stop California and NY liberals from fighting tooth and nail against rich people to get those laws passed. But wealth inequality and taxing the rich is apparently too tough to tackle. It's time for LA/SF/NY liberals to admit they have a decadence problem and are the principle causes of the wealth inequality they refuse to address. Those same liberals would make those same arguments about conservatives when it comes to gun control and climate change leg. They're too scared to point the finger at themselves on wealth inequality. Hypocrites.
Seriously Travis this makes no sense. We have raised taxes here in California continuously over the last 10 years. We have raised sales taxes, city taxes, local taxes, gas taxes over the last 10 years. Stop making assumptions about why their are billionaire that have NOTHING to do with taxes. There are billionaires because people created enormous companies and their employees got rich by creating millions of jobs. You can’t fix that with taxes.
Inflation is not effected by the top 2%. Stop this. If you think a million people somehow effect the cost of meat, gas, consumables, rent in other areas for the other 330m people in the us, I have a bridge to sell you.
You list every kind of tax except taxes that target billionaires at sufficient rates to make them *not* billionaires. If you're not liquidating their assets then you're not taxing them. It's that simple. Either there are billionaires in your state and the tax code sucks or there would be no billionaires in your state. The billionaires living fat/happy lives in your state right now is the evidence.
Inflated prices remain pegged if rich people are forking over the cash for them. This is why tuition keeps rising even though the college end-product is getting worse. Rich people like the Operation Varsity Blues clowns keep forking over ridiculous money to ensure that their mediocre kids get into the middle class some day.
Whales drive markets. If you think they don't then I have lots of Bitcoin to sell you. 1M rich fucks can move the the market against the other 329M simply because they have more purchasing power via collective wealth.
1) Sure, a third of independents might support an election denying fool, but 2/3s won't. I call that a win for now.
2) Just because the economy is a top issue for a lot of voters doesn't mean it's the only issue they will be voting on.
3) Yes, the LA city council story is gross. But when we found out about it the reaction against them by Dems and Progressives has made at least one person so far step down. We just didn't accept it and circle the wagons like the GOP does.
Amen!
Or minimize or even deny that it happened or rationalized it wasn't what they meant or go "well what about?"
Exactly.
Nobody said they didn't care if these people lynched baby eagles, we want that council seat.
To be fair, living according to the principles you expect of yourself and others is a pretty low bar. Living by your own principles is how you avoid life as a hypocrite. Just because MAGA can't live up to the bare minimum of their own principles doesn't mean we need to go patting ourselves on the back because we live up to a few of ours. There's a million other principle-based hypocrisies I could point to that liberals live with on a daily basis, but those are the things liberals tend to ignore rather than fix.
I judge people by how closely they live to the principles they espouse, so when I see liberals living 180-degrees opposite from what they preach, I call them out on that shit too. "Rules for thee, but not for me." Gavin Newsom's little covid adventure at The French Laundry is a good example. So was "Operation Varsity Blues." It's just easier to do it with MAGA these days because the hypocrisy is so open and proud and 180-degrees opposite to former closely-held beliefs that conservatives espoused.
The way Charlie feels about seeing American conservatism for what it truly is is exactly how I see the American progressivism I used to fervently support. The hypocrisy coming out tells the true story, because if progressives/MAGAs were true to their ideological principles, they wouldn't be living how they are now. Neither of them really cared about principles. It was all just collective narcissism and getting what you want--spare no expense.
The LA council members and one lobbyist are the ones who didn't live up to their principles. The response from most of us other progressives has been to condemn their behavior and demand that they resign. How are progressives in general, other than those few people, being hypocritical?
Because of how they refuse to live according to their own ideological principles. Because they prioritize more trivial shit over the more important issues. Because they will address every other issue at the local level tooth-and-nail-style (climate, gun control, policing, etc.) while ignoring the wealth inequality issue that drives up the cost of living on the working class. If you want to see extreme wealth inequality, you go to a liberal city where you will see condos that go for $1.5M sitting right next to homeless camps in the downtown metros. You will see work-from-homers making $100+k/year while "essential workers" are making less than $50k/year, and yet both have relatively similar tax rates. The liberal tolerance for this kind of wealth inequality within the borders of where it has consolidated political control is *proof* that liberals don't take what they say out loud seriously.
Maybe it's time to start a new fucking ballot initiative over there on progressive tax structures? Like, MUCH higher income tax rates for individuals making over $150k/year and MUCH higher rates for people who own more than $150k in stocks. Think taxing a rich dude with $500k in stocks at the 20% rate while everyone else pays at the 10-15% rate is cool? We should be taxing equity and property holdings at much higher rates the more of either someone owns. As in, the more stock you own, the more taxes you pay on them. I'm talking 50-75% for folks with more than $250K in stocks, not this 20% bullshit that they currently get away with. The more money that sits in investment portfolios, the less is flowing through the economy and creating jobs. There are literally *trillions* in private wealth that are dammed up outside of the economy where it could be working for the country instead of collecting interest in some multi-millionaire's Fidelity account.
I have been given to believe that that the current siege of inflation can be attributed largely to Covid money sloshing around, Covid and Ukraine War supply chain disruptions, and the necessity of publicly traded corporations to increase profits so as to keep investors happy (rather than absorbing increased prices resulting in lower profits as a public service to contain inflation). But, I could be wrong; it might be that it's all the fault of the super-rich continuing their lavish spending, as you suggest. I personally would love to hear of one CEO of a consumer goods corp say to investors on the quarterly conference call that s/he is reporting lower profits because s/he is taking a stand against inflation. I have heard of CEO's cackling and bragging of riding inflation to greater profits.
Nobody can tell me that Kari Lake, DeSantis, Oz, and what's-his-name are not culture warriors of the very first order. This election, imo, is a culture battle. MAGA's are not the poor and downtrodden, but the angry and vindictive. ( MAGA leisure boat rallies, MAGA groupies wandering from rally to rally, jet rides to insurrections.) Yes, inflation is a huge issue to the middle class, including me. I just paid 8 freaking bucks for a loaf of bread and another 8 for a pound of butter. Hurts like hell. But blaming the super-rich isn't really an answer. In general I agree with you that our culture has adopted the greed is good mantra to our very great, possibly fatal, detriment. Humans do not live by bread alone.
I'm not saying the rich are the primary drivers of inflation, I'm just saying that they keep prices pegged higher when normal inflationary pressures and the curtailed spending it brings would usually drive prices down. Rich people slow the onset of deflation because they keep prices pegged high when there are enough rich people keeping inventories moving. They're a force multiplier for inflation, not a direct cause. The direct causes are the ones you cited (federal spending on CV, CV itself, Russian invasion, massive bird flu culls).
They don’t. It’s wrong. There are many reasons to argue for taxing the wealthy. Inflation in not even on the top 10000 reasons to do so
Alondra, we can blame them but it won’t solve the problem. There is like 2000 billionaire in the us. There are 330m people. You can take all their wealth but it won’t effect what people pay for bread
1) Again, see the whole whales-move-markets thing (one in every 7 homes in the US is owned by a fund, where the people who own half the national wealth park their money affects things).
2) I'm not blaming the rich directly for broad inflation, just saying that they keep prices pegged higher which delays the onset of deflation. In the case of university tuition and housing supplies they are 100% one of the big causes for inflation in those sectors.
Billionaire’s have NOTHING to do with inflation. Literally nothing. I totally understand your hate for the Uber wealthy but making arguments about the taxing wealth and inflation is not only historically incorrect it violates every macro economist point of view on the cause of inflation.
What do billionaires cause inflation on? 20 room homes, sports team, mega yachts, etc. it does not cause inflation on rent, oil, consumables, meat, groceries.
I don’t mind debating the benefits of taxing the wealthy but stop making it about inflation. It’s like claiming billionaires are responsible for crime. It’s just ludicrous
Hmmm, Gavin literally got recalled for what he did at French laundry. Honestly I’m at a loss for your perspective. Literally the largest progressive states, ny and California, pay the most in taxes. It literally tries to live up to its principles.
And not only that, we have had a budget surplus for 2 years along with tax rebates. Who cares about the effing mask. And the recall cost the state millions of dollars. Not very fiscally responsible Republicans if you ask me. By the way, he got more votes than the previous election.
They pay the most in taxes, but they still have the most rich people, so clearly they're not taxing progressively enough. There are taxes, and then there are targeted taxes. The progressive states are letting individuals and families collect *insane* levels of net worth and not touching them. And then they wonder why prices aren't coming down. Duh dummies, you let these people get insanely rich and then broadened the tax base out too wide instead of targeting your top earners. You punished the consumer class to keep taxes lower on the decadence class via taxing models that were wayyyyy too regressive.
I'm literally lost for words when you have dozens of billionaires living in your state and you think tax rates are too high. California and New York aren't living up to shit beyond preserving wealth inequality within their own political boundaries while alternatively crying crocodile tears about how bad it is. California is a great example of liberal hypocrisy and decadence, and you can tell by looking at how many multi-millionaires and billionaires they have. Between Hollywood and Silicon Valley alone y'all let the rich get away with economic murder.
And two years we have had a budget surplus and a two tax rebates!
Having the most rich people while also having the most progressive tax codes doesn't mean they aren't taxing enough. It means there is value coming from those taxes that allows rich people to still thrive in those locations. If the goal was to eliminate rich people, go to a communist country.
I don't want to eliminate rich people. I want them to be taxed down to much smaller economic sizes of themselves. *Nobody* needs a net worth over $3.5M as a family. Fucking NOBODY. Anyone with a family net worth over $3.5M is living in excess at the expense of raising the cost of living on everyone else and I'm tired of progressives ignoring that issue while claiming that fixing wealth inequality and runaway cost of living is important to them.
But hey, if you think that kind of economy is fair then I'm sure you'll find that kind of democracy (anocracy) fair too. Don't like it? Move to a more democratic country.
Jesus man a 3 bedroom place in sf costs 3m dollars. What are you talking about?
If you tax the folks who are worth more than $3.5M down to size, the cost of living comes down. If everyone is worth $3.5M max then condos/homes over that price simply do not sell in that market and the price comes down to meet the buyer's market. The 3-bedrooms won't be going for what they are going once you liquidate the assets of the rich.
Dude this area is 7 miles by 7 miles. We have huge earthquakes. How many people do you want moving here into sky rises? You will have to demolish all the single family homes to make this happen. Literally the areas (Bay Area) will go from 15m to 45m
$3.5M wealth is a pretty arbitrary number and makes no sense in today's world. Particularly when you can inherit tax-free 12M dollars without paying federal taxes on it.
Inheritance taxes need to go way up too, but that's a whole other conversation. It deteriorates the "meritocracy" we used to have here and incentivizes wealth-hoarding instead of saving just what the family unit needs and then spending the rest on the economy. So much money is sucked out of the economy via families doing wealth-hoarding.
$3.5M is not that arbitrary when you consider what 2 properties go for in a normal market plus the ability to hoard enough stocks to pay for the kid's colleges and home down payments (plus cars, other assets like that). Anything more than that and a family unit is living in pretty large excess, especially if they're clearing over $100k/year.
And of Republicans like Trump always pay every cent in taxes they owe.
Taxes are only as strong as they are enforced. Liberal mayors have enough muscle to enforce their tax policies on the rich. Look at what Tish James is doing as we speak. We can make this work, we just need liberal mayors who are serious about taking the gloves off on decadent wealth-hoarders who raise the cost of living on everyone else with their decadent bullshit.
True because it is the most productive area. Billionaires aren’t good for society. That is an absolute fact but every person wants to be a billionaire. That is a sad, sad thing about America.
I could go on and on about all the tax changes California has made over the last 30 years to help the poor, deepen the tax hit on the wealthy and almost all of them backfired after 20 years. It’s not worth going into here.
We do have more billionaires than is healthy in this area but that is because it is the creates the most jobs in the country. I agree with you that there should be taxes on the billionaires. That can and maybe will happen. Your other ideas may work in Colorado but not here.
Finally, I don’t want to get into an inflation debate. It literally has nothing to do with being able to buy meat at 10 bucks a pound or gas at 7 dollars. You know that and I know that. Issues are in supply not demand and no matter how much you raise taxes the top 10% aren’t affecting prices in such away
Prices move in accordance with demand as much as they do supply. Outsized demand creates inflation because "too much money chasing too few goods."
For example, we have enough housing in Denver to keep up with inflows now (didn't used to be that way), but the difficulty in obtaining an affordable mortgage is reducing demand, which in turn reduces the prices of houses for sale. That is plunging demand affecting the sticker prices of homes for sale. See how changes in demand can change prices now?
If liberals in LA and SF and NYC (the bastions of progressivism) can't pass higher taxes on the rich then they might as well just come out and say "WE'RE ALL FUCKING HYPOCRITES HERE." Like I said, climate change legislation and gun control legislation are very unpopular public issues as well, but that didn't stop California and NY liberals from fighting tooth and nail against rich people to get those laws passed. But wealth inequality and taxing the rich is apparently too tough to tackle. It's time for LA/SF/NY liberals to admit they have a decadence problem and are the principle causes of the wealth inequality they refuse to address. Those same liberals would make those same arguments about conservatives when it comes to gun control and climate change leg. They're too scared to point the finger at themselves on wealth inequality. Hypocrites.
Seriously Travis this makes no sense. We have raised taxes here in California continuously over the last 10 years. We have raised sales taxes, city taxes, local taxes, gas taxes over the last 10 years. Stop making assumptions about why their are billionaire that have NOTHING to do with taxes. There are billionaires because people created enormous companies and their employees got rich by creating millions of jobs. You can’t fix that with taxes.
Inflation is not effected by the top 2%. Stop this. If you think a million people somehow effect the cost of meat, gas, consumables, rent in other areas for the other 330m people in the us, I have a bridge to sell you.
You list every kind of tax except taxes that target billionaires at sufficient rates to make them *not* billionaires. If you're not liquidating their assets then you're not taxing them. It's that simple. Either there are billionaires in your state and the tax code sucks or there would be no billionaires in your state. The billionaires living fat/happy lives in your state right now is the evidence.
Inflated prices remain pegged if rich people are forking over the cash for them. This is why tuition keeps rising even though the college end-product is getting worse. Rich people like the Operation Varsity Blues clowns keep forking over ridiculous money to ensure that their mediocre kids get into the middle class some day.
Whales drive markets. If you think they don't then I have lots of Bitcoin to sell you. 1M rich fucks can move the the market against the other 329M simply because they have more purchasing power via collective wealth.
Whales do not drive markets. I appreciate your passion for the situation but this is not only impossible but also makes 0 sense
They are passing on higher taxes as their state tax rates are high and NYC has it's own city tax rate too.