No sooner had Mayor Bloomberg released his budget than objections were raised by those who, like Bloomberg, cannot bring themselves to challenge the most privileged of the privileged interests. Reported The Daily Politics, Comptroller Bill Thompson, released a statement opposing a proposed sales tax increase as “regressive,” which is to say falling harder on the less well off, and proposing an additional local income tax increase (on top of the state tax increase) on higher earners instead. “Amid this recession, no one should be immune, and we must ensure that any financial burdens are spread more equitably.” No one should be immune? Spread equitably? Well, the New York state and local income tax on public employee retirement income is zero, and for others over age 65 Social Security income and other retirement income up to $20,000 is also exempt from both state and local income taxes, no matter how high the household’s total income is. Bloomberg himself qualifies for tax-free retirement income. Why won’t Thompson, Bloomberg, Quinn, anyone talk about that?
Sales tax opponents “argue low-income people spend a higher proportion of their disposable income on necessities they can't do without, and so get hurt more than the rich when sales taxes are hiked.” Actually, low income people spend a higher share of their income of food and rent, neither of which is subject to the sales tax. Rental property, however, is subject to the property tax, at a far higher rate than one-family homes people like myself are well off enough to own. Perhaps the real problem is that senior citizens, poor or not, might end up paying those higher sales taxes.
What the whole discussion of “shared sacrifice” shows is that some people shared in the past, and the rest will be forced to sacrifice in the future. And no one is willing to talk about having those who shared in the past share the sacrifice now.
Current public employees and retirees convinced the state legislature to pass after the fact pension enhancements they neither worked nor bargained for, leading to soaring pension costs? Cut pay and benefits for new hires, and then perhaps make it up to them by allowing them to do a worse job. The unemployment insurance trust fund broke due to tax cuts for firms that cashed in and moved out or went under in the past? Jack up the rates for anyone dumb enough to start a new business here. The MTA has a budget hole due to the debts run up by older generations? Impose yet another wage tax on younger generations. The transit fare can be increased, since subway riders tend to be younger, but those with placards for free parking get to drive over the East River bridges for free, and this cannot be changed. Those who pay can be forced to pay more, but those who don’t can’t be asked to pay anything.
Even within the sales tax base, as the Governor had proposed expanding the goods and services subject to tax (not including the basic food and shelter of the poor) but the rest of the political class still prefers higher rates for the losers combined with special deals for those who have provided the appropriate compensation in return.
Getting back to the retirement income, I spoke with an old friend last night. His wages have been cut 5 percent as part of an across the board cut at his company. I’m hearing more and more stories like that, which show who would actually end up paying for the proposed MTA payroll tax “on employers.” But last year Social Security payments went up more than 5 percent. And this year New York’s public employees will get a 1 percent inflation adjustment on the first $18,000 of their income even if there is no inflation. Tax free. Current public employees with seniority pay nothing for their pensions. Current public employee retirees pay nothing for their health insurance. And because they only spend their money at places that provide a better deal by paying their private sector workers less, New York’s public employees and retirees refuse to contribute to other people’s pensions and health insurance too.
Are these relative gains for those “on fixed incomes” making up for having fallen behind in the boom? Hardly. For a couple of decades, two kinds of people have been getting richer, top executives who have been sitting on each others’ boards and voting each other higher salaries and bonuses (which must be paid because they are so valuable, we keep hearing). And seniors, particularly retired public employees, who control U.S. legislative bodies which are no longer subject to elections. At least the highest paid are having their taxes raised. Can’t the retired, even the affluent retired, pay something?
Are these privileges in old age something younger generations have to look forward to? Hardly. The combination of stagnant wages and rising Social Security payments is rapidly advancing the day when the Social Security Trust fund will be in the red, it has recently been acknowledged. Either Social Security payments are going to be cut or taxes are going to soar – beyond the amount they will soar anyway as a result of soaring federal, state and local debts.
Meanwhile, how much are younger workers’ employers setting aside for their retirement. How about your employer? The 401K match where I work is one percent, but half of all workers don’t even have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, and many companies that previously contributed to their employees’ 401Ks have stopped doing so to conserve cash. Over in New Jersey, where public employees have contributed a great deal to their own pensions, taxpayers have contributed far less, and the pension plans are going broke. The generous GM and Chrysler pensions are also heading for the dustbin.
Compare the typical situation with these figures for New York City, as reported by the Mayor’s executive budget: Department of Education workers will get an expected taxpayer funded pension contribution of 24.7%, of their pay after the recent deal to allow teachers to retire well off at age 55. And it’s going way, way up. The comparable figures are 27% for Sanitation, Police Department 50%, elected officials 14%, miscellaneous agencies 14.4%. See page 36 of the “Budget Summary.” Those who get nothing are subject to “shared sacrifice” in the form of diminished public services and higher taxes to pay for this. Or future public employees will have to pay for this. No one is asking those who retired, or are about to retire, with far richer deals to pay much of anything. No wonder so many want to pretend that the only burden will fall on the “rich.”
The city has stopped setting aside money for the future retiree health benefits of today’s public employees, meaning those living here in the future will have to accept higher taxes and diminished or eliminated services to pay for benefits earned this year. The city will pay $600 billion in debt service in FY 2010. That’s going up to $4.5 billion in a few years, even though reinvestment in the maintenance of the infrastructure will be cut and, in the case of the MTA, perhaps stopped. The city’s contribution to the MTA capital plan over the next decade? Just one percent of the shrinking total. Future New Yorkers will be forced to pay what those who came before were unwilling to pay, and live without what those who came before insisted on.
Goods and services exempt from sales taxes. Retirement income exempt from income taxes. Employees with lucrative pensions exempt from making contributions. Those who get to retire a decade or more two before anyone else exempt from contributing to health insurance. Bridges exempt from tolls. Free parking placards. Etc. etc. etc. No one who is part of the city’s political culture talks about these when talking about shared sacrifice. No elected official has the right to use the words “shared sacrifice” in these circumstances. A more reasonable set of words is “an alternate distribution of victimization.”
I ask the reader to think again about the Comptroller and leader of the City Council, union-backed Democrats in “liberal” New York, objecting to taxes. Aren’t taxes worth it, because of the valuable and equitably distributed services they pay for? No, it is clear to all. Those taxes aren’t going to services, they are going to privileges, and for burdens from the past shifted to the present and future by Generation Greed. In the end we will pay more and more and get next to nothing. Want proof? New York City’s personal service budget is proposed to rise from $34.7 billion to $36 billion, and in exchange services will be cut and the infrastructure will degrade.
As has been true throughout history, which is why it was assumed that all government was corrupt and exploitive of the less well off to favor the better off. And “liberals” were those who were against more government activity and taxation, on the assumption that it would just be money down the drain. The Progressive Era and New Deal are distant memories, rare exceptions. Every time the economy is up, the deals, favors, privileges and debts increase. And every time the economy is down, there is “shared sacrifice” due to “circumstances beyond our control.” Those deals, favors, privileges and debts are what no one wants to talk about. When Thompson, Quinn, Paterson, Silver, Smith and the rest start talking very directly about those, in the face of those who have received them, and force them to at least pay the psychic price of facing the effect of their privileges on others, I’ll take them seriously as something other than members of the club.