Today's Poll: What do you think of Thomas Golisano decision to leave New York?

I have mixed feelings about Thomas Golisano. On the one hand, he is a successful businessman who has dedicated his wealth to numerous charitable concerns that benefit our state and Rochester-area community.

On the other, he- like Ross Perot, Lewis Lehrman and Jack Davis, possess a form of comfortable arrogance.

I am not naive. Big money is an essential ingredient in gaining office. Bankrolling an election campaign with one's personal wealth is wrong. Moreover, there is something fundamentally wrong with being an "axe-to-grind" candidate- a brand of single-issue politics.

Those who I have mentioned presume that successful businessmen possess some divine mandate to rule. A theory no more relevant than positioning lawyers in politics.

Government is not about turning profits. On the contrary... It is about spending- investing in the common good: schools, health care, road repair, insuring that citizens have equal opportunities toward success.

For too long we have rubber-stamped a notion: what is good for business is good for the nation. We would rather save banks than the person over-due on the mortgage. We treat the homeless with disdain and throw billions at companies that lay workers off.

Golisano has a right to call any place on Earth his home. If he leaves New York, he will epitomize the same selfish philosophy that relocates factories overseas and puts our labor force in the unemployment line.

He does not strike me as one who has difficulty paying his taxes.

But why should he pay those taxes when Florida has no income taxes and better weather?

Read Atlas Shrugged, we are living that book right now.

He is keeping his place in mendon and hopefully he will keep his investments and companies here too. Just coz they guy is fed up with NYS taxes doesnt mean he is washing his hands of NY completely. He spent quite a bit of his own money to try to change things and when he got no support he made a decision. After all he is a business man trying to provide jobs and make some money. Buffalo wouldnt have the Sabre's if it werent for him. I am glad that its got people talking. At least the guy isnt bleeding the government for a bail out ! I will miss Tommy !

C'mon folks,let's not feel sorry for him-I do not believe that is the same percentage that everybody else pays-if it was,it certainly would be higher.

Would the last one out please turn out the lights!

I would do the same thing if i was in his position ..If moving saved me 13 million a year in state taxes i would leave to..And i'm sure more millionares will be leaving also..who are they going to tax then...The question should be how does FLA.do it...

Selfish philosphy why is he selfish because he doesn't want to give his money to the government so they can redistribute it. And moving factories overseas isn't selfish either its good business management to avoid paying outrageous corporate taxes and ridiculous union wages. Ask GM or Chrysler what ruined the US auto industry --government intervention, over regulation and the UAW.

All this from a guy who was raised on union wages, I bet you were all for the unions then! I would say management screwed up the auto industry they agree to all the contracts dont they. Thank god for the unions they make everyones wage increase. We would ALL be working for minimum wage with out them.

Nobody should be surprised over this. A lot of people said if you try to take more from the rich to redistribute, they will move. Most of them worked hard for their money and don’t think Gov. Patterson should get more of it than he does now. It might be another matter if they could see the money being used wisely, but none of us can see that.

Mr. Golisano did not refuse the $600,000 in tax subsidies he applied for and received when his Paychex facility was expanded.

Everyone works hard for their money. Everyone expects the sewer system to work, the roads to be plowed, the school buses to pick up their kids and the streetlights to come on.

Maybe we would all feel better about our taxes if we could select the recipient department. You know... Like the United Way did when some people objected to having their money go to planned parenthood... When we get our tax bill it should include a checklist: Motor Vehicle Department, State Police, Real Property Assessment... Just check off the departments we choose to fund.

Paychex is still there, making money and giving people good jobs. The public got its money worth for the $600,000, and will for years more.

That has nothing to do with going after the "rich". Remember, this tax deal was done by only 3 men in a room. You had no say and neither did the rest of us. Why should he give them a penny more?

C'mon, he's an astute business man, who doesn't want the state to redistibute his wealth....he does a fantastic job already of that. Hospitals, education, and I'm sure all his business and employees add to the infrastructure in good old NY. I don't begrudge you your opinion, but I give him credit for staying here all these years and being a solid citizen. He's paid his fair share,

Hey C.M.. Hows does Fla. do it..they have sewers,there Street lights come on..Buses pick up their kids to go to school...
something is wrong in New York State...It all starts with 3 democrats in a room calling all the shots..State is broke..but they find a job for Joe Mesi...tell me what that was all about ..but no star tax rebates for us regular folks..You must be blind if you don't think the system is not broken here in New York..

And you idea of what i want to fund like the united way did,would work for me...

Florida does it with a sales tax and property taxes. But they get to nail thousands of out of state tourists every year all year round.

From: http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swzl_statetaxrate_NY.html

How New York State income tax rates are structured
The tax table below will show in detail the New York state income tax rates by income tax bracket(s). There are 5 income tax brackets for New York.
If your income range is between $0 and $8,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4%.
If your income range is between $8,001 and $11,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4.5%.
If your income range is between $11,001 and $13,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 5.25%.
If your income range is between $13,001 and $20,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 5.9%.
If your income range is $20,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 6.85%.
Income tax brackets data last updated March 3rd, 2009.

Personally I think the rates should all be the same. But the state is going to tax the so called rich at a higher percentage soon. That is why he is moving.

I wish I could pay $13,000 a day in taxes. Just to put that in perspective, he could buy a new car every day!

And, Mark, to be fair, its 3 people in a room, not necessarily three Democrats. It always wasn't and it won't always be that way.

But, you asked the real question: How does Florida do it?

Florida with a population of roughly 18.3 million has an annual budget of $66.5 billion (or $3,628.26 per person)

New York: Population of 19.4 million and an annual budget of $79.8 billion (or $4094.34 per person)

So, what that tells me is the citizens of New York pay on average $466.08 per person more in taxes annually than people in Florida. What that means: I have no clue!

Are the schools in New York better then the schools in Florida? Are the roads better here? Are our government services better here then in Florida? If you answer yes, then I think $466.08 per person is a small price to pay for a better quality of living.

But, what these numbers do not factor in is the fairness of the tax structure in New York. That my friends, is a debate for another day!

I say, enjoy yourself Tom!! You have worked all your life, and now its time to retire to beautiful Flo. I will tell you that my friends in Ft. Myers tell me things are bad there too. The only thing they have on their side is no COLD Winters. Thank You Tom for all you have invested in. Have a great life, and dont forget us struggling NYers.

Thank for the answers Patrick...I would say no to all questions you posed..So it is not worth $466 per person or $1864 for the average family of four...Thats alot of money if your family only averages $50,000 dollars a year income...Rich or Poor, New York is taking to much ...

Where do our tax dollars go?

Health Care Expenditures, specifically Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements, a major budget-driver in NYS's tax equation. Paterson and/or three-men-in-a-room aren't necessarily to blame for our health care costs. New York's Medicaid budget is larger than most states' entire budgets, and it spends nearly twice the national average - roughly $10,600, more than any other state - on each of its 4.2 million recipients, one in every five New Yorkers.
James Mehmet, who retired in 2001 as chief state investigator of Medicaid fraud and abuse in New York City, said he and his colleagues believed that at least 10 percent of state Medicaid dollars were spent on fraudulent claims, while 20 or 30 percent more were siphoned off by what they termed abuse, meaning unnecessary spending that might not be criminal. "So we're talking about 40 percent of all claims are questionable," Mr. Mehmet said - an amount that would approach $18 billion a year.

Comparative Medicaid Spending: (State, Federal, Total)

Florida- $7,987,348,199 $5,596,577,310 $13,583,925,509

New York- $22,169,701,109 $22,169,701,109 $44,339,402,218

Comparative Population/percentage of total population:

New York 65 and over: 24,672,708 7.2%

Florida 65 and over: 1,943,478 7.9%

The elderly make up just 7.5 percent of all New Yorkers on Medicaid but drive 25 percent of New York's Medicaid budget. New York Medicaid spends 142 percent more per elderly recipient than the other states- $27,200 compared to $11,300.

New York spends $20,750 per elderly Medicaid beneficiary on four categories of service: inpatient, nursing-home, home-health and personal care. The average for all other states is roughly $14,000 less-about $6,860 per beneficiary-for these same four services. If New York had average spending in these categories, its Medicaid costs would be almost $4.9 billion less, broken down as follows:

Inpatient hospital services are used at one-and-a-half times the rate[2] of other states and at three-and-a-half times the cost per user. Having average costs and utilization would save New York Medicaid $569 million a year.

Nursing-home services are used 35 percent more than in other states and at 74 percent higher costs per user. Having average costs and utilization would save New York Medicaid $2.7 billion annually.

Home health is used at almost five times the rate of other states and at two-anda-half times the cost per user. Having average costs and utilization would save New York Medicaid $467 million a year.

Personal-care services are used 72 percent more than in other states and at almost three-and-a-half times the cost per user. Having average costs and utilization would save New York Medicaid $1.1 billion annually.

With just 10 percent of elderly Medicaid recipients, New York consumes almost 38 percent of all inpatient spending, 21 percent of nursing-home spending, 57 percent of all home-health spending and almost 39 percent of all personal-care spending of the 39 states reporting in 2004.

Despite heavy spending on home care, New York's nursing-home utilization rate is 35 percent higher than those of other states, and the cost per user is 74 percent higher. Yet health statistics do not immediately explain the high utilization rate. For example, New York has the lowest Alzheimer's death rate in the U.S. and a lower-than-average rate of elderly people with disabilities.

Other Medicaid services with extremely high utilization by elderly New Yorkers include inpatient mental-health services (985 percent higher), physician services (73 percent higher), dental (218 percent higher) and transportation (159 percent higher), compared to other states.

Other Medicaid services for the elderly with extremely high costs per user include institutional care for the developmentally disabled, dental, clinic, transportation and private-duty nursing (an astounding 2,858 percent higher than other states).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of elderly New Yorkers will grow by 454,000 (18 percent) from 2004 to 2015, which could mean an additional 64,000 elderly on Medicaid. The population over age 85 will grow twice as fast. Assuming average annual cost-per-recipient increases of just 4 percent, NY Medicaid spending on the elderly will rise 82 percent from just under $9.6 billion in 2004 to almost $17.5 billion by 2015.

New York health care expenditures, total vs U. S. figures in $ millions:

Hospital Care (NY) 36.1% $45,5693 (U.S.) 7.7% $566,886
Physician and Other Professional Services (NY) 23.2% $29,2302 (U.S.) 8.2% $446,349
Drugs and Other Medical Nondurables (NY) 14.1% $17,722 (U.S) 13.9% $222,412

The current fee-for-service payment structure, where doctors and hospitals are paid for every service regardless of need or outcome, physicians do not ruitinely assist patients in understanding why a test or procedure is prescribed. Hospitals lose money when the treatment does not include admissions. To lower costs, policymakers need to focus reform efforts on overspending, and encourage doctors in New York to weigh and discuss outcomes when recommending diagnostics and procedures.

Growth in health care spending over the past twenty years is linked to modifiable population risk factors such as obesity and stress. Rising disease prevalence and new medical treatments account for nearly two-thirds of the rise in spending. To be effective, reforms should focus on health promotion, public health interventions, and the cost-effective use of medical care.

Over the past five years the cost of health insurance has risen 54 percent. The persistent rise is attributed to the low out-of-pocket costs, patient ignorance of the full cost, consumer demand for low/no benefit treatments. The growth in spending has also been linked to the rising use of prescription drugs and new medical innovations and treatments. It is also suggested that the rise can be traced to the lack of competition in the health care marketplace.

There are two approaches for slowing its growth: reduce spending on high-cost medical care that produces no benefits, and reduce spending on high-cost care when medical benefit ignores cost.

Care should be "rationed rationally" to slow spending growth. This approach ultimately involves difficult decisions concerning the introduction of new technologies. It also depends on patients sharing costs and making informed health care judgments for themselves.

With the problem identified as low consumer cost sharing and rising discretionary use of services, the policy solutions have focused on demand-side interventions. These innovations are designed to reduce the discretionary use of health care thought to account for most of the growth in spending. Consumer-driven approaches include the broader dissemination of information to consumers about prices and quality coupled with products such as health savings accounts. Consumer-driven health care has dominated the recent cost containment debate.

Nearly two-thirds of the rise in health care spending is linked to a rise in disease prevalence (for example, diabetes). Personal behavior such as overconsumption of food, lack of exercise, smoking, and stress drives the increase in disease prevalence. This revelation puts reliance solely on a consumer-driven model in question, since poor consumer-chosen lifestyle choices contradict the gains from informed-consumer treatment choices.

Missing from the consumer-based model are public health and preventive interventions at the population level that target the rise in treated disease prevalence. Medical innovations have assumed an expanded place in treatment scenarios, and alternatives that bypass high-cost/low-benefit technologies need to be explored. To date, U.S. cost containment policy has focused too narrowly on demand-side interventions such as changing the design of insurance benefits and increasing cost sharing.

Howard, that sucking sound you hear- it's the water flowing from Ulster county reservoirs to NYC. The money goes the opposite direction:

According to a recent study that tracked job growth from 1995-1999, New York has the second highest average wage among all states. That growth, however, has been primarily concentrated in the downstate region. If upstate was a separate state, its job growth for the 1995-99 period would have ranked second to last among all states.

There is also a prevailing upstate sentiment that the state government favors New York City by providing its residents with a disproportionate amount of tax dollars to support social programs.

"There's a myth, perpetuated by upstate newspapers, that New York City is draining money out of the state treasury," said Assemblyman Edward C. Sullivan.

But statistics point otherwise. The Center for Governmental Research released a recent report that showed that New York City "contributes significantly more in revenue than it receives in state funds."

Upstate areas receive $1.41 in state aid for every tax dollar contributed, while New York City breaks even, the report states. Likewise, the upstate area, with the exception of Rochester County, receives much more than their share of state spending.

On Election Day, New York City voters don't carry as much clout as they might think. In general elections, upstate voters represent about 45 percent of the vote, while the city only carries about 30 percent, with the suburbs taking the remaining 25 percent.

On the vote over the Transportation Bond Act, which would have increased the state's debt to pay for upgrading highways upstate and improving New York City's subway system, 72 percent of people in New York City approved the measure. In upstate New York, however, 64 percent who cast ballots voted against the act.

The upstate vote made the difference, and the proposition failed by a vote of 53 to 47 percent. Now the city will have to figure out another way to fund mass transit improvements.

For the full article http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/upstate/

What's needed here is a sense of perspective. $13,000 a day is a huge amount of money to those of us who aren't insanely wealthy, and it totals up to $4.7 million a year. But Golisano is worth well north of $1 billion dollars, which means that he pays 4.7 cents out of every dollar in taxes. For a man that wealthy, it's practically a rounding error.

Peter, Atlas Shrugged is a libertarian fantasy novel. life doesn't actually work that way. I could tell you to read "The Lord of the Rings," and it would have about as much relevance to the real world.

Richard, companies don't move jobs overseas to get away from taxes--corporate taxes in the US are among the lowest anywhere in the world. They move jobs so that they can exploit workers in countries which don't have safety regulations, minimum wages, or other laws to guarantee that a person can make a living.

The same logic that says that's okay would have been saying that slavery wasn't a bad thing because it was just good for business, and those businesses have no moral or social responsibility other than to turn a profit. But businesses and the ultra-wealthy do have obligations to the country and the system that helped make them so auccessful. And the relatively small percentage of that money that the government requires of them in order to make life easier for the rest of us is a pretty minor price to pay. If someone really values being able to buy a tenth sportscar, or an eighth mansion, over kids going to school and having police on the streets, then they need to reevaluate how they live their lives.

And you're mistaken about the auto industry. The government barely regulated or intervened at all for many years. The problem was that the industry thought nothing of continuing to make gas guzzlers right up to the point where no one would buy them again. It's a classic example of the fact that companies tend to be risk averse, and very reluctant to embrace innovation or change, unlike the typical free market models. The cost of paying workers a living wage, on the other hand, is only a tiny fraction of the cost of doing business. Price of healthcare, though, is a much bigger one, and points up the need for serious healthcare reform.