U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-08-2014, 01:21 PM
 
4,625 posts, read 4,429,937 times
Reputation: 4230

Advertisements

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has drawn national attention with his progressive agenda, a key piece of which is to push for higher taxes on the rich to pay for early education and after-school programs.

"Asking those at the top to help our kids get on the right path and stay there. That's our mission. And on that, we will not wait. We will do it now," de Blasio said in his inaugural address on New Year's Day.


Getting support for his proposed education programs may prove easier than getting the nod on his plan to pay for them. Any city tax increase must pass muster with New York State leaders. And the governor, Andrew Cuomo, just offered a $2 billion tax relief package.
De Blasio wants to impose a 5-year tax increase on New York City residents who report more than $500,000 in taxable income. The top tax rate on every dollar above $500,000 would increase to 4.41% from 3.88%.
Even if enacted, the rate would still be below the highest in the 1990s, when the city raised it to 4.46% under Mayor David Dinkins to help pay for crime prevention and education. And it was 4.45% from 2003 through 2005 under Mayor Michael Bloomberg when the city was short of money.
Under de Blasio's proposal, a single filer with $800,000 in taxable income could pay about $1,500 more a year than he does now, while a married couple with three kids making $1.5 million might pay closer to $5,200 more, according to estimates from the Independent Budget Office, which analyzes New York City budget and tax issues.
And their top marginal tax rate -- which is imposed on taxable income over $500,000 -- would approach 53%, once the top federal, state and local income tax rates are combined.
The proposal would affect roughly 40,000 New York City tax filers -- or 1.1%. And it would raise $532 million annually, the IBO estimates.
The mayor has yet to specify details about what the new pre-K and after-school programs would entail, but a spokesman said $532 million could fully fund both of them for five years.
Quiz: Which state has the highest income tax rate?
The goal is to establish continuous funding for the programs, which often are only guaranteed funding for one year at a time.
Beyond the 5-year period, the mayor would look to other sources to continue the programs' funding, such as revenue derived from economic growth or other savings from the city's more than $70 billion budget.
Of course, de Blasio is not the first, nor will he be the last, major leader to propose tapping the wealthy to bolster government funding -- temporarily or otherwise.
In the past couple of years at least eight states have considered doing so, according to Tax Analysts and tax information publisher CCH.
Only some succeeded in pushing through increases. Among them was California. The state added a 1% surtax on income over $1 million to pay for mental health services, and it temporarily raised tax rates on people making more than $250,000, in part for education.
California voters did, however, reject a proposal to raise state income tax rates on a sliding scale to help pay for, among other things, early childhood programs, according to Cara Griffith, editor in chief of state tax publications at Tax Analysts.
Minnesota, Oregon and Maryland, meanwhile, raised the tax burden on filers with taxable income in the six-figures, in some cases to help pay for education.
And in New York, Gov. Cuomo temporarily put the brakes on a big scheduled rate cut for high earners.
In 2011, the top New York rate was supposed to drop to 6.85% from 8.97%. But because of a budget shortfall, Cuomo signed into law a much smaller drop -- to just 8.82% through 2014 -- for individuals making more than $1 million (and joint filers making more than $2 million).
That more than preserved New York's standing as one of the most highly taxed places in the country.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2014, 01:34 PM
 
4,625 posts, read 4,429,937 times
Reputation: 4230
Like suggested before, a good tax to impose is on non-resident owned real properties in NYC. In so doing, the city can either cool off the frenzy real estate market to give local residents a relief, or the city will have extra tax revenues which can be used towards rental assistance to the locals.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 01:41 PM
 
2,770 posts, read 3,239,858 times
Reputation: 4923
I applaud Gov Cuomo. He's one of the few democrats that understands that taxing the hell out of people, including the rich ones, does no good for the overall economy.

Deblasio is just pandering to his liberal base. Its cool to blame everything on the rich and tax them. I doubt it will go through Albany. But I'm off to the suburbs in the near future, so he can tax the hell out of everyone for all I care.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Manhattan
1,871 posts, read 4,089,745 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by leoliu View Post
Like suggested before, a good tax to impose is on non-resident owned real properties in NYC. In so doing, the city can either cool off the frenzy real estate market to give local residents a relief, or the city will have extra tax revenues which can be used towards rental assistance to the locals.
While I'm on board with the tax increase on the wealthy to fund pre-K, I would not say that assessing a special tax on non-resident owned property is a good idea at all. It's been a long road to convince people that NYC is a good place to invest and we don't want to do anything to cool that enthusiasm. Is there another city in the country that has such a tax?

I believe that the way to alleviate housing stress is to create more supply (affordable and market rate) and improve the transportation infrastructure to areas where new housing is built.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 03:20 PM
 
Location: USA
8,012 posts, read 10,883,445 times
Reputation: 3443
Quote:
Originally Posted by 85dumbo View Post
I applaud Gov Cuomo. He's one of the few democrats that understands that taxing the hell out of people, including the rich ones, does no good for the overall economy.

Deblasio is just pandering to his liberal base. Its cool to blame everything on the rich and tax them. I doubt it will go through Albany. But I'm off to the suburbs in the near future, so he can tax the hell out of everyone for all I care.

i doubt deblasio will to do that. most liberals are conservative to their base and most conservatives are liberal to their base. maybe you don't see it. they're just politicians and there is only so much good any of them can do for any of us really.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 03:22 PM
 
4,625 posts, read 4,429,937 times
Reputation: 4230
Quote:
Originally Posted by barkomatic View Post
I believe that the way to alleviate housing stress is to create more supply (affordable and market rate) and improve the transportation infrastructure to areas where new housing is built.
This is a lot, way harder to do than bumping up a few percentages.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 03:24 PM
 
Location: NYC
20,553 posts, read 15,609,862 times
Reputation: 25616
There's no silver bullet, you tax the rich they only get even or find other ways. Do y'all really think that taxing the rich will help at all? Many of them for example Derek Jeter is not a resident. Most guys with over $10mil in net worth has their fortunes stashed away and residency in FL, CO, TX, or overseas. You're not gonna get them because some of them are buddies with the officials.

And a tax on foreign owned property will just make prices even higher as they will pass the cost over to renters like all those yuppies and hipsters that are sharing rooms. Be prepared to shell out even more.

When will people realize that increase taxing will do more harm than good overall. People will buy NYC properties and it is a bubble and it will only cool off if all the transplants go home.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 03:28 PM
 
Location: NYC
20,553 posts, read 15,609,862 times
Reputation: 25616
Quote:
Originally Posted by barkomatic View Post
While I'm on board with the tax increase on the wealthy to fund pre-K, I would not say that assessing a special tax on non-resident owned property is a good idea at all. It's been a long road to convince people that NYC is a good place to invest and we don't want to do anything to cool that enthusiasm. Is there another city in the country that has such a tax?

I believe that the way to alleviate housing stress is to create more supply (affordable and market rate) and improve the transportation infrastructure to areas where new housing is built.
There's no way to increase supply in a small 15mi radius where 8mil people are squeezed in. Your plan will backfire because more supplies means more fuel to the housing demand.

Demand will outstrip supplies, if there's an additional 1mil houses for sale tomorrow. It will be sold out in a week. There are foreigners that are swimming in cash looking for more properties to buy and they will just load them up.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 03:32 PM
 
Location: USA
8,012 posts, read 10,883,445 times
Reputation: 3443
i guess the rich won't pay more taxes than they already pay, so guess who will pay? the working class, because people who don't work are definitely not going to pay what they don't have.


i don't understand why working people want to pay everything just to keep the rich from paying more, but i guess that's the only way politicians can stay relevant and keep the wool over your eyes.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2014, 03:36 PM
 
Location: NYC
20,553 posts, read 15,609,862 times
Reputation: 25616
The rich fears lower taxes not high taxes. When the taxes are low that's when the middle class has more buying power and more disposable income and everything becomes expensive. That's why high unemployment rate favors the rich. The Feds keeps giving rich people free money to borrow and spend. When the economy gets better, they don't get any freebies.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top