Two sides. (0.00 / 0)

I don't know the specifics of the NY proposal, but every state that considers a more progressive tax structure faces the threat that the high income types will move elsewhere. That's something pretty easy to do in NY, with all those stone's-throw-away little states ready to do battle by means of tax concessions, just as they do now when battling for corporate relocation, and even new big-box retail.

So the governor's reluctance doesn't seem as stupid as you suggest. What the situation yet again tells us is that tax policy and collection should be a federal function, not a hopeless death match for states, counties, and municipalities.

I'm all for tax rates that return us to Eisenhower-era tax brackets at the federal level, accompanied by massive revenue sharing. Until that happens, I don't see a good solution for state/local governments that try to go it alone on more progressive taxes. I haven't heard any good ideas for escaping the dilemma from lefties who criticize the local pols for their reluctance, either.

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 20:56:22 PM UTC

Nice Fox News talking point, but sorry... (4.00 / 2)

That's a nice Fox News-style talking point, except that the data actually refutes it. Here's an excerpt of my column on Paterson and New York taxes that notes:

When New Jersey recently raised taxes on the wealthy, Princeton University researchers found that most of those who later left the state moved to places with higher taxes, meaning there is no causative link between levies on the rich and residential flight.

So your "raise taxes and rich people will leave" canard is just that: a fact-free canard that sounds logical, but isn't supported by actual fact.

---

by: David Sirota @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 21:15:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wasn't aware (0.00 / 0)

that Fox News has been campaigning to raise the top federal tax rate to 91 percent. If this study is the last word on the subject and taxes have no bearing on location, I wonder why so many companies have migrated to low/no tax states, and the rust belt is falling all over itself to offer tax breaks?

Obviously the reaction to tax hikes will depend on the amount and type of taxes and the alternatives available to the taxed. I was merely pointing out that there are powerful pressures against raising state taxes significantly.

But I forgot that all attempts to question your wisdom are met with namecalling and spin. I'll remember from now on.

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 21:46:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where was "namecalling" and "spin?" (0.00 / 0)

Seriously, WTF are you talking about? All I did was point out that your claim sounded Fox News-ish, in that it wasn't supported by ironclad fact. There's no name-calling - I didn't call you an asshole or a shithead. And there was no spin - that research is all hard data.

So again, WTF are you talking about?

---

by: David Sirota @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 22:28:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

David, please (4.00 / 1)

If you've read any of my postings, you know that I'm entirely on your side on this.  In fact, I'd go further than the WFP and call for a 20% wealth tax which would eliminate the entire budget deficit even if it were limited to a 20 block radius of Manhattan.

That aside, you really come across as an intolerant jerk here. Reasonable people can differ on how progressive taxation should be implemented and the time frame for its implementation.

DaveW is reasonably, though maybe incorrectly, disagreeing with your assessment. That is not grounds for accusing him of parroting "Fox News talking points."

Don't have a cow, man.

---

by: John Halle @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 22:41:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

OK, that's fine. But sheesh - people need to lighten up. I mean, really. Talk about fake outrage.

---

by: David Sirota @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 22:58:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually you're right (0.00 / 0)

Patterson is a neo-liberal scum who should be impeached.

I can't believe I just implicitly apologized for him-or, more precisely, his "reluctance" to impose a millionaires tax which has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with rewarding his big contributors-or potential contributors.

Retract the above.

---

by: John Halle @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 23:02:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anything where Sirota percieves a challenge, (0.00 / 0)

even if it doesn't exist, is always a Fox News plant or a tendril of the VRWC. I wasn't even disagreeing with him, just trying to point out that raising state taxes will be scary for state officials as long as federal taxes remain essentially flat.

But never mind. I sometimes forget it's never worth trying to discuss anything with Sirota -- it just interferes with the self-promotion. I'm done here.

---

by: DaveW @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 23:23:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dude, seriously - CHILL (0.00 / 0)

Dude, if referring to the line of thinking as a "Fox News talking point" personally offended you, then I have two things to say:

1. I'm sorry - it wasn't meant to hurt your feelings.

2. You have very, very thin skin.

I mean both of those things. But the thing I mean the most is this: CHILL OUT.

---

by: David Sirota @ Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 23:35:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Paterson's a TABORite (0.00 / 0)

Bring on the Cuomo primary challenge

---

by: jr1 @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 00:11:43 AM UTC

My Problem With This Post Is That It Makes It (0.00 / 0)

seem like NY does not already have a progressive tax structure in place.  Reading this you'd think NY was Florida or Arizona and was a tax haven for the wealthy since it had no income tax.  In fact, NY has a progressive tax structure with substantial income and business taxes.  For example, 20% of its tax revenues come from income and business taxes from Wall Street and over 50% come from people with incomes over 200K.  

Having put these important facts on the table, I support a tax increase on wealthy NYers to help with the budget problems the state now faces.  Reinstating the income tax surcharge in place from 2003-2005 would be a good start.  However, this is a short term solution to the NY budget problem.  In the long term the state needs a more diversified economy so it can get off the Wall Street roller coaster and avoid these mega budget issues every 5-7 years.

---

by: jmnyc @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 05:22:51 AM UTC

Well (4.00 / 1)

A tax structure that has the top income bracket at 20k isn't what I would call "progressive," although I suppose it technically qualifies as such.  Income derived from taxation is a misleading figure, as it is simply a demonstration of the large amount of high-income earners and their relative incomes here in New York, as opposed to a demonstration of the progressiveness of the tax structure.  

---

by: Klugstah @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 14:56:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I MIssed That (0.00 / 0)

the 7.37% bracket on incomes $100K-$500K and 7.7% bracket for incomes over $500K had been phased out.  I support reinstating those although my basic point still stands - this is the third time in about 15 yrs NY faces huge budget problems because of a boom-bust cycle on Wall Street.  Raising these taxes is a better alternative than Paterson has proposed although I support the sugar soda-snack tax for public health reasons.  

However, it doesn't solve the structural budget issue that NY is too reliant on income and corporate tax receipts from Wall Street.  It needs to diversify its economy and develop a more stable tax base so that it doesn't go through this every 5-7 years.

---

by: jmnyc @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 15:53:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Every Day We Get More News (0.00 / 0)

that undermines the political capital of the rich.  Today it is the news of the 50,000+ Americans hiding money overseas with UBS.

When your opponents are on their knees, it is time for class warfare.

---

by: bob h @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 13:23:59 PM UTC

Tax hike on the rich (0.00 / 0)

Bring back the soak-the-rich tax!
Also, it is depressing that Paterson is an African-American male politician.  One would think that such a person would be more progressive on economic and fiscal issues.  Trouble is, many pols who are great on group issues are woolly-minded or "centrist" on socioeconomic issues.  Minority, women, and gay political leaders need to be more radical on class issues as well as on group issues.

---

by: jim s @ Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 16:20:36 PM UTC