NYC employers: come back to the office, or else. NYC govt: stay the hell out of our city. We’re imposing a $15 cover charge just to get in.

Photo above - is this a sign of a vibrant economy? Or a menace to society? NYC's new congestion tax might make this even more complicated . . .

Congestion pricing. If you don’t live near New York, or read city newspapers, you might have missed this. (see link at bottom) A vaguely worded law goes into effect this weekend. A $15 fee to enter Manhattan. That’s after – and additional to – the $15.38 toll to cross into the city if you use the GW Bridge, Lincoln Tunnel, Holland tunnel, or various lesser known bridges. $30 bucks a day before you even clock in.

No wonder downtown workers are furious, and insist on their right to continue working from home. $150 a week just to get into the city. Before parking. And when you do come in, there’s a 9% sales tax when you buy something. A 3% CITY income tax, above and beyond the state income tax (around 7% for the average city worker).

No thank you, these folks do NOT want to return to the office.

Congestion pricing. Is it a tax? A toll? A nuisance fee? The Biden administration has threatened to use executive orders to overturn nuisance fees. Baggage fees and overdraft fees were targeted already in 2024. Why not also give beleaguered NYC workers some relief with the stroke of a pen?

It’s unfair to pick on Biden. I don’t hear Trump promising to zero out NY's new admission charge either.

How many people would the congestion fee hit? About 90,000 cars drive into the city on a workday. 90,000 X $15 bucks is . . .cowabunga! About a million and half bucks a day. $350 million a year. None of which, I suspect, will be used to actually reduce congestion. All that money will be spent on other things, to be named later.

Is NYC actually getting more crowded? Well, it would be LOSING people, if it weren’t for the influx of migrants. There’s around 130,000 more of them just since 2022. Refugees mostly don’t drive cars, pay tolls, or pay income taxes. They do pay that 9% sales tax.

Who’s going to win the “back to office/get out of Dodge” shouting match? My guess is there will be dozens of court cases, mostly ruling against JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Price Waterhouse, Met Life . . . People will mostly keep working from their NJ, Connecticut, and Scarsdale dens. They might appear in Zoom meetings, like Hollywood Squares gameshow panelists.

But if the courts DID force workers to come back, it probably would mean millions and millions MORE in congestion profits for NYC. Unless bird flu turns out to be a real thing, and people are sent home to wear N95 masks again. Remember, the incoming HHS Secretary doesn't believe in vaccines.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

Federal judge rules on NYC congestion pricing; interpretation differs between parties

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

Congestion pricing seeks to offset the environmental, social, and economic cost of private motoring in a city. In London most of the proceeds are directed towards subsidising mass transit (buses, trains, ferries).

It's an interesting balancing act. If we assume that most office workers are happy to use technology and their homes to reduce their carbon footprint, then it surely follows that the burden of the congestion charge should fall to those who are seeking to increase office attendance. With the additional commuting correctly costed, would the employers still be as enthusiastic to round up their staff in urban enclosures?

dale74 · M

@SunshineGirl this just shows that you have bought into the whole carbon footprint carbon tax Ponzi scheme.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@dale74 No, it shows that I am a commuter and fulltime worker who draws upon real life experience rather than internet gossip.

dale74 · M

@SunshineGirl well having worked at a location that we have both remote and office workers I have noticed that those who come into the office always meet their project deadlines they are also the ones that you can always get on the phone. The productivity of the ones who are in the office versus the ones who are working from home is an increase of 50% production. Now this is not all employees there are some who do work phenomenally from home you are always able to reach them when you need a report or you need information. It is purely based on the individual whether they can work from home and be just as productive if not more productive. I wouldn't mind there being a way to quantify production and those who perform better at home allow them to work from home if they want but those who all of a sudden work from home and their production drops by 50% well they need to come back into the office. I don't know which one of the workers you are but for some they need to be in the office to have any kind of good production.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@dale74 I am a financial professional who is old enough and experienced enough not to require direct physical supervision. But this is not an argument about "productivity", it is about placing a price on pollution and getting those responsible for causing it to pay up 💰

dale74 · M

@SunshineGirl 40 is not old you are still very young