Every time a bull stock market puffs up the pension funds, the State of New York passes more sweeteners for those cashing in and moving out, but every time a bear market causes pension cost to soar, state-appointed arbitrators and control boards cut pay and benefits for hires while leaving those with seniority untouched. Because the sweeteners and the lower pay for new hires occur at different times, no one says the policy is to enrich one generation of workers at the expense of another. But that is what the policy is. Whenever the economy is flush, money is borrowed to allow more of it to flow to politically powerful priorities on which New York City and State spending is already above average. And when “uncontrollable” spending such as interest on debts subsequently soars, other public services such as parks, libraries, and the Administration of Children’s services are first in line for the axe. Because the spending increases and cuts occur at different times, no one says New York City and New York State policy is to spend more where we already spend more and less where we already spend less. But it is. Similarly, every time a hot economy swells New York City and New York State tax revenues, our elected officials curry favor with politically active discrete groups by handing out tax breaks.
And when the economy cools and tax revenues drop, tax rates are increased, nailing those who didn’t benefit from the breaks, or benefited less than others. Again, because the tax breaks and rate increases occur a few years apart, no one says New York’s policy is to impose higher and higher tax rates on a narrower and narrower tax base. But it is.
Let me here reprise something I wrote when I was an outraged candidate for state legislature and then add to it. As I wrote here http://www.ipny.org/Littlefield/policies.html economically efficient taxation includes a low tax rate spread over a wide tax base. In New York State, on the other hand, politically efficient taxation includes high tax rates spread over a tax base narrowed by exemptions, privileges, deductions, and tolerated tax evasion. Preferential treatment, tax and otherwise, was clearly on the minds of New York State leaders at a more enlightened point in our state’s history. Consider Article 3, Section 17 of the New York State Constitution, which prohibits “granting to any person, association, firm or corporation an exemption of real or personal property.” It also forbids “granting any person, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity, or franchise whatever.” Then there is Article 16, Section 4 which states “there shall be no discrimination in the rates and method of taxation between such corporations and other corporations exercising substantially similar functions and engaged in substantially similar businesses within the state.” But it doesn’t matter. No constitution can make New York State’s politicians resist the temptation to reward their supporters, and tax then everyone else more to make up the difference.
New York City and State already had lower tax revenues in income, sales, and property taxes than some other places despite having far higher rates, as a result of all the privileges, exemptions and deals. Of course, when one adds the income, sales and property tax burden together, virtually nowhere in the U.S. has a higher tax burden than New York. After handing out even more breaks and deals in the 1990s boom, the City and State faced a fiscal crisis in 2003. The State Legislature temporarily discontinued some corporate income and sales tax breaks. But just some and just temporarily; after all, their backers had paid for their breaks in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses fair and square. Instead, the City of New York raised its property tax rate by 18.5 percent, an increase that has been paid for by homeowners directly, and has been passed on to renters and businesses in the form of higher rents. The City and State raised their sales tax rate by half a percent. Both raised their income tax rate by a substantial amount as well. In other words, after handing out breaks in the 1990s boom, the city and state raised rates in the recession.
Okay, so what happened when the city’s economy recovered?
Well New York City only took back part of the property tax increase, and only this year, leaving the rate permanently higher. But homeowners, already treated preferentially, got $400 checks from the Bloomberg administration. Property tax increases in the rest of the state are now being offset by state checks. And politicians are calling for even more breaks for senior citizens, who have already favored in the tax code to a ridiculous extent.
The increase in the sales tax was allowed to expire. But thanks to the 1/8 percent sales tax increase imposed to pay for MTA Capital Plan that is about to end, New York’s state and local sales taxes are that much higher than they had been before the post-2000 recession, despite the expiration of city and state tax surcharges. But clothing has been exempted from the city sales tax and, if it costs less than $110, from the state sales tax.
The increase in the income tax rates was also allowed to expire. But a growing number of young workers are being forced to work as full-time, permanent freelancers ineligible for company health insurance. And the City of New York continues to nail those workers, and small business owners, with a second income tax, the unincorporated business tax.
In short, property and sales tax rates are higher, property and sales tax breaks are greater. And now than we are once again heading into recession, we can once again expect the taxman to start calling for a larger share of our income.
Let me first say that if it is required I’ll pay higher federal income taxes, which include taxes on investment and retirement income, but not higher payroll taxes, which hit only workers. I’ll pay higher local taxes if needed to preserve services, with a repeal of the $400 Bloomberg check at the top of my list. I’ll pay higher MTA taxes if that is what is required to cover ongoing replacement without more debt, and I’m not one of those whining about the fare. I’ll give more money to charity. But for the State of New York, not one dime from me, not willingly anyway. While we try to give our charity to those worse off than we are, the State tends to seize are money and give it to those better off than we are – older, richer generations and the over-funded schools elsewhere in the state.
So where should the state get its money? By reducing tax breaks, not by raising rates.
One break in particular. Why should retirement income be exempt from taxation? Because the seniors would move to Florida which has no state income tax at all? Then let them go – but don’t make it easy to return when the money is gone and they require custodial care. And how about those senior homeowners? Instead of even more property tax relief that other households with the same income don’t get, how about a massive “exit tax,” to prevent people from moving away from the debts they ran up without paying a huge real estate sales tax on their way out the door, unless they are buying elsewhere in the state? I’d be in favor. Do I object to making life better for low-income seniors? I don’t object to making life better for low-income anyone. But why should affluent seniors be favored over working people just struggling to get by?
The same may be said of breaks that favor existing, politically powerful firms over new businesses. They threaten to leave? Then let them go. Forty years of sticking it to new companies to subsidize large existing ones has left New York with an atrophied economy.
No matter how much tax revenues decline, no matter how much “uncontrollable” costs soar, there is no need for New York City and New York State to raise tax rates because they have the option of reducing spending in categories and places where it is high and taking away all the tax breaks and deals given away over the years. That the beneficiaries of these policies are the people and organizations that own our perpetually incumbent state legislators doesn’t mean that the legislators have no choice. Raise revenues if needed, but New York’s tax rates should be cut, not increased.