You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Economy
"Millionaires" tax in New York
2009-03-30
Governor David A. Paterson and leaders of the Legislature have reached a deal to temporarily raise taxes on New York's highest earners to close the state's yawning budget deficit, said lawmakers and officials .

The plan, which would expire after three years, would represent the largest income tax increase in recent state history, significantly larger than the surcharges imposed from 2003 to 2005, when the state last faced a major recession.

The plan would raise $4 billion a year by creating two new tax brackets, the highest one affecting those who earn $5,00,000 or more. If approved by rank-and-file lawmakers in the Assembly and state Senate, the tax increases would be a major victory for unions and liberal advocacy groups and a signal of the new balance of power in Albany, where Democrats won control of both Houses of the Legislature and the Governor's office in last year's election.

Officials said Mr. Paterson, who has argued for months that new income taxes should be a last resort for balancing the budget, accepted the plan after winning significant spending cuts in areas like health care and education.
Baloney. Dollars to doughnuts that when you look at the budgets for those items, they're still higher than last year, just not as high as Paterson and the Dhimmicrats wanted. That's a 'cut' in their minds ...
Mr. Paterson's willingness to accept the new taxes reflects, in part, how rapidly the state's finances are deteriorating. Since proposing his budget in December, projected tax revenues for the fiscal year beginning April 1 have dropped by $3.2 billion, while rising Medicaid caseloads will cost $750 million more than originally projected for this year and next year. That shift has left Mr. Paterson and lawmakers with little choice but to employ every possible mechanism for shrinking budget gaps, including enormous cuts as well as new taxes. The highest bracket would start at $5,00,000 with a tax rate of 8.97 per cent -- the same as New Jersey's current highest rate. A lower rate of 7.85 per cent would apply to incomes over $3,00,000.
By all means, drive the best, most productive people out of your state, Guv'nor ...
Currently, New York's highest tax rate, 6.85 per cent, kicks in for couples and joint filers making more than $40,000. "It's a profound breakthrough for tax fairness," said Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party. "The era of phony prosperity has ended, and a new era of real shared sacrifice must begin."
But not for Dan. The 'Working Families Party', by the way, is an ACORN front group.
Posted by:Fred

#15  Right now at least 40% of the US population not only doesn't pay any taxes,

I see and hear this statistic all the time. I believe it is true for the Federal Income Tax. But virtually every one pays sales tax. And then there are all the other taxes for phones, property, either directly or through rent, excises on cigarettes and alcohol, and social security. I would not be surprised to learn that the full, all tax and excise, tax rate on the middle 90% or even 95% of the population is about the same.

But the "millionaires" in the top .5% will find a way around the tax, even if it means changing legal residence.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2009-03-30 18:52  

#14  Why doesn't "tax fairness" mean that EVERYBODY pays at least something in taxes for the services they're getting from the state/feds.

Right now at least 40% of the US population not only doesn't pay any taxes, but I'm betting the majority of that 40% gets money stolen by the gummint from you and me. What's "fair" about that?

Of course, if the Dems would just PAY the taxes they OWE, the gummint would have more money than it knew what to do with. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-03-30 18:16  

#13  A cunning plan - if your intention is to run all the money guys out of town.
Posted by: mojo   2009-03-30 16:29  

#12  "Tax fairness". What exactly does that mean? Isn't it interesting that the very people who collect the taxes are the same ones who decide what one's 'fair share' is, and are also the ones who decide the punishment for not paying one's 'fair share'.
Posted by: Chemist   2009-03-30 13:21  

#11  "The era of phony prosperity has ended, and a new era of real shared sacrifice must begin."

Phony prosperity is better than no prosperity.




Posted by: DoDo   2009-03-30 12:26  

#10  If you tax the millionares that live in your state, soon you won't have any.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2009-03-30 11:18  

#9  hmmm...maybe because so many of the Trunks in NY are Rockerfeller types who think the way to win is just to be different shade of Donk? Did Guiliani come across as a regular listener of El Rushbo?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-03-30 09:10  

#8  So lotp please tell me.... WHY DO SO MANY OF THEM CONTINUE TO INSIST ON VOTING DEM?
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-03-30 08:36  

#7  A disabled member of our family lives in NY.

Health care spending has indeed been slashed. School spending is sucked up by mandatory union-negotiated teacher salaries and as a result, the schools in many districts are in serious trouble.

NY took a major financial hit as a result of 9/11 and has not recovered. The state's hostility to small business doesn't help, but what broke things irrevocably was the impact on NYC of the attacks (disrupted finance industry, for one thing) and the massive expenses incurred for security since.
Posted by: lotp   2009-03-30 08:33  

#6  If you punish something you get less of it.


War on drugs?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-03-30 07:59  

#5  "Temporary taxes"....? Oh yes of course. They're about to turn New York into California but it's blue on blue, so quite frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn!
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-03-30 07:37  

#4  The two rules of economics are

If you punish something you get less of it.
If you subsidise something you get more demand for it.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles the flatulent   2009-03-30 06:18  

#3  Where does George Soros live? Will he be paying his fair share on the 1.5 billion profits he ha recently made. How about a 100% tax rate on those profits?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon   2009-03-30 04:51  

#2  And will.
Posted by: tipover   2009-03-30 02:30  

#1  "It's a profound breakthrough for tax fairness,"

Until they move to another State. Because they can.
Posted by: DK70 the scantily clad   2009-03-30 01:04  

00:00