Quoted Text

NEW YORK STATE
Raising tax on rich gaining ground Millionaires eyed as budget fix
BY SARA FOSS Gazette Reporter

    Gov. David Paterson has said that he will not consider raising taxes on the wealthy to help plug the state’s budget gap.
    But some observers believe support for a so-called “millionaire’s tax” is picking up steam.
    “There’s a lot of momentum,” said Dan Levitan, a spokesman for the Working Families Party, a group that strongly supports higher taxes for the rich. “It would adjust the high end of the New York state tax bracket, and help postpone devastating budget cuts.”
    E.J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy and an opponent of a millionaire’s tax, questioned whether the political winds were shifting. “I think people are working hard to give the impression that there’s this rolling band wagon that’s picking up steam,” he said.
    Earlier this month a group of Democratic senators introduced the Fair Share Tax Reform Act of 2009, an initiative that would increase taxes on New Yorkers making more than $250,000 a year.
    Right now, every New Yorker who earns more than $40,000 pays the same marginal tax rate of 6.85 percent; the Fair Share Tax Reform Act would create new income tax brackets for individuals or families making more than $250,000, $500,000 and $1 million, at 8.25 percent, 8.97 percent and 10.30 percent, respectively. The senators estimate that the Fair Share Tax Reform Act would raise more than $6 billion in additional revenue.
    “There is increasing support for this in the Legislature,” said Frank Mauro, executive director of the Fiscal Policy Institute in Latham. “There’s a set of reasons coming together, that people are articulating, and that people understand. That’s why there’s increasing public support for a progressive income tax.”
    Polls suggest that public support for a millionaire’s tax is strong, but that support begins to decline when the tax is applied to lower incomes.
    A Quinnipiac University poll released last week showed that 79 percent of New York voters support a millionaire’s tax — a higher state income tax on people making more than $1 million a year. The poll also found that 72 percent of voters support raising taxes on people making $500,000 a year, and that 56 percent of voters support raising taxes on people earning $250,000.
    According to the poll, a majority of voters — 51 percent to 34 percent — would prefer to cut state services than raise taxes.
SOAK THE RICH
    Progressive groups have long called on the state to enact a millionaire’s tax.
    “We think it should be part of the package of balancing the budget,” Mauro said. He said that during a recession a millionaire’s tax is the “least damaging type of action a state can take,” and that it’s preferable to cutting services. When times are tight, the overall goal is to raise the level of spending and keep people employed; budget cuts, on the other hand, reduce spending. Compared to the poor and middle class, the wealthy spend a much smaller fraction of their income, which is why it makes sense to raise their taxes — the impact on overall spending wouldn’t be as great, he said.
    Mauro said that during the Pataki years, the state moved to more of a flat tax, eliminating brackets at both the bottom and top end of the income tax scale. Now the lowest-income New Yorkers pay a 4 percent tax rate on their taxable income, while the wealthiest pay 6.85 percent, he said. “As we’ve reduced the progressivity of our taxes, the income distribution is concentrated more at the top,” he said.
    McMahon is opposed to any tax on higher-income earnings, but he is particularly opposed to the Fair Share Tax Reform Act, which he views as extreme.
    “There’s a fairly significant difference between someone who is making $250,000, and someone who is making $1 million,” McMahon said. “They’re talking about a tax increase that would impact substantially more people [than a millionaire’s tax].” He added that under the proposed tax people would have to pay a lot more money — for instance, wealthiest earners would see their taxes increase by about 50 percent — and that high-income New Yorkers are feeling the economic pinch, too. “They’re giving less,” he said.
    Elizabeth Lynam, deputy research director for the Citizens Budget Commission, said that the millionaire’s tax proposal is actually losing steam. “The immediate pressure to pass a millionaire’s tax is lessened, because a lot of federal aid will be flowing to the state,” she said.
    “There are issues with the Fair Share Tax Reform Act,” Lynam continued. “It applies to incomes much lower than a millionaire’s tax. It’s quite a steep tax hike.”
    McMahon said that a tax on millionaires would only exacerbate the state’s financial problems, by making wealthy New Yorkers more likely to relocate to less expensive states. Many of these people own multiple homes and wouldn’t even have to move — they could simply change their domicile, the residence they consider their permanent home, he said.
    “This proposal shows how much people forget about New York’s past history,” McMahon said. “This is like a family of alcoholics talking about how we ought to bring in more scotch. We’re one of 50 states, surrounded by states with lower tax rates. People don’t sit still for this. There’s a wealth of economic research suggesting states lose their economic growth to other states if they hike taxes.”
    Lynam echoed this. “[Wealthy] people are more mobile,” she said. “The financial services industry is shrinking. These households are under pressure.”
BAIT AND SWITCH
    McMahon said he thinks the Fair Share Tax Reform Act is too extreme to pass the Legislature, and wondered whether the bill was proposed simply to make other proposals seem more palatable. “I question whether it’s a bait and switch,” he said. “Compared to this bill, anything looks reasonable.”
    McMahon said Paterson needs to put forward a plan for a permanent reduction in spending.
    “In a normal world, the state would be less likely to [pass a millionaire’s tax] because it will be receiving money through the stimulus bill,” McMahon said. “No tax increase is really necessary, unless you think the budget is going to grow by 5 to 8 percent. … The problem is that we’ve built up expectations for the size of government.”
    Lynam said tax increases that are not paired with budget increases are harder to justify, and that the state needs to reduce spending significantly. “The federal government has decided to help the state out in a major way, and people want to see that the money is well used and that the state is prepared to do the hard work that’s necessary,” she said.
    The state budget deficit for next year is estimated at $14.2 billion.
    Some observers suggested that Paterson is sending out mixed signals, and that he may be willing to reconsider his position on a millionaire’s tax.
    During his keynote address earlier this month at a banquet hosted by the state Association of Black & Puerto Rican Legislators, Paterson said, “To those of you who are not here, who think you are too wealthy or too influential or have too great of a title to be part of New York’s budget-balancing formula, let me make you aware that every New Yorker will share in the sacrifi ce to get this budget passed.”
    But after his speech, Paterson’s spokesman, Errol Cockfield, told reporters that the governor had not changed his position.
    The Fiscal Policy Institute belongs to a coalition, called the Omnibus Consortium, that wants the Legislature to enact the Omnibus Property Tax Relief and Reform Act, which would restructure the state income tax and use the additional revenues to reduce local property taxes. The bill would create a middle class circuit breaker, which limits a person’s property taxes to a fixed percentage of their income, and phase it in over a period of four years.
    Mauro said that New York’s income tax is...............http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....amp;EntityId=Ar00903

What happens when there's no more millionaires in the state?  Do we THEN cut spending?

nah,,,,,the dogs eating the crumbs that fall under the tables will starve to death or follow in short order......baaaaaaaaaaaaaa

like the locust....when the leaves are eaten and the fields are bare........

Quoted Text

CAPITOL
Taxing the wealthy no windfall for N.Y.
BY MICHAEL GORMLEY The Associated Press

    This year, New York’s deeppocketed rich were required to dig even deeper to help shore up state finances.
    They now pay higher taxes on their income and on limousines and yachts, more to enter a horse in a race and more to dabble in real estate. Meanwhile, many are losing millions from the closing of business tax loopholes and those making more than $1 million are losing tax deductions others get.
    It even costs more to hunt foxes or pheasants and have their taxes prepared.
    Now, a half-dozen states in this recession-driven movement are nervously eyeing New York to see if it’s wise to demand so much from people rich enough to have a second home in less taxing states — and for whom a change of address can be its own tax break.
    Early data from New York show ...........>>>>..............>>>>.............http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....1&Continuation=1

...that was a no-brainer. Of course it is part of the glorious people's revolution to tax the rich. The only problem is that the rich will soon be people making $40,000 a year. You better watch out then, you won't be able to move like those mean ones who make $250K. They will get you, no where to run or hide.

ON the plus side things can't get worse, they couldn't possibly tax us anymore
...

then again.. i just read stratton saying something about increasing taxes in the county.

I should to my patriotic duty to work hard to pad these theives pockets..

Instead of voting repub or dem.. we should all vote incumbent..  that would make a loud and clear statement.

When I go hunting for deer in the forest, I don't shoot any mammal with brown fur. I target the deer. Maybe you should just educate yourself on who and what officials deserve your vote and which do not. Target the ones who don't. That would take effort, however you will find out that it is better than replacing the good ones with bums who will vote to spend and tax you to death in any event.

Unfortunately, replacing an incumbent from one party and replacing them with a candidate from another doesn’t change the system.  You are still electing a candidate that is part of a larger group which depends on party loyalty, or group thinkers.   If you’ve ever read literature on the “break rank” rule, you will realize that candidates that run for office are psychologically apt to toe the party line in fear of breaking rank from that of fellow Republicans/Democrats.  This happens with religious organizations, fraternal organization, and the best example would be those in military service.  You might ask.  How is it that a god fearing Christian can kill, and risks their lives on the battlefield?  People say patriotism.  The truth is, they do this because they don’t want to let down his/her fellow soldiers, or break rank.

The Republican Party made an example of John Mertz, as to what happens to those that “break rank”.  To believe that Joe Suhrada, Joe Signore, Steve Tommasone, or any other Republican is in some way an independent thinker, you’re mistaken.  The foot soldier Joe Suhrada had no problem setting his values aside, by accepting party endorsement to replace a sitting Republican.  Joe could not “break rank”

John Mertz and the rest in the No New Tax Party have broken rank, and are the only candidates that offer an alternative.  They’ve got my vote.

Mortz is no good and neither are the rest VOTE DEMOS FOR REAL CHANGE PEOPLE

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

When I go hunting for deer in the forest, I don't shoot any mammal with brown fur. I target the deer. Maybe you should just educate yourself on who and what officials deserve your vote and which do not. Target the ones who don't. That would take effort, however you will find out that it is better than replacing the good ones with bums who will vote to spend and tax you to death in any event.

I shoot the ones that are the most palatable and present well when plated with other food groups......

then again sometimes I just take aim

Quoted Text

Taxing the rich would be much fairer than the alternative

    In his Dec. 1 letter [“Taxing ‘rich’ will just raise costs for rest of us”], Harold Krambeck asserts that only ignorant people think taxing the rich is the solution to our national fiscal and financial problems. To give some measure of credibility to his position, he quotes Churchill out of context. Let’s look at some other Englishmen in the context of their actions.
    In 1875 Great Britain was in fi nancial distress. It had to borrow money from the Rothschild bank to purchase control of the Suez Canal. In a discussion with Sir Edward Rothschild, Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli asked how to set right the nation’s finances. Sir Edward replied, “Tax the rich and tax them heavily.” Sir Edward obviously did not share the Krambeck philosophy. He was of the Willie Sutton School. Willie, a bank robber, was asked why he robbed banks. He said, “Because that’s where the money is.” That, Mr. Krambeck, is why you tax the rich.
    Let’s use Bill Gates as an example. Gates’ fortune is a result of his ownership of Microsoft stock. Steve Ballmer, who currently runs Microsoft, doesn’t care if Gates has tax problems or not. Raise Gates’ personal tax rate to 50 percent and the cost of Windows won’t be affected, but the accumulated national debt will be reduced.
    Since the first tax was imposed, the very rich have ensured that the less fortunate pay proportionately more tax and have made them believe that their problems are exactly the same. FICA is a perfect example: If you earn $90,000 or less in wages, 7.65 percent of your income is taxed. If you earn $900,000, it is less than 1 percent. That inequality comes to $61,965 per year. That’s a pretty nice gift to those who need it less. I’ll bet your can live almost as well on $831,150 as you can on $893,115.
    Oh, you say that I am ignoring income taxes. $900,000 minus $250,000 in various taxes, minus $48,000 food and housing allowance, leaves $602,000 in discretionary disposable income. That’s about 67 percent of gross. $90,000 minus $15,000 in various taxes minus $48,000 food and housing leaves $27,000. That’s about 30 percent. The $48,000 for food and housing assumes a $3,000 mortgage. Want to live in a nicer house? That is discretionary.
    The point is to look at what is available for the additional taxes needed to pay off our national debt and to pay for current spending as it occurs. According to Krambeck, you get it from the $27,000 or less available to the poorer people because the rich people will get mad and raise your prices. I assume their prices would stay the same somehow.
    In my illustration, if you take $180,000 from the $602,000, it would still leave over $35,000 per month to squeak by on. That is equivalent to the discretionary money available from 10, 20 or 30 people earning $90,000 or less. Call me ignorant, but I like what’s behind door No. 2!
    There are those who believe that taxes kill incentive. Lack of opportunity kills incentive. When Warren Buffett made his first investment, the highest tax rate was 70 percent on income over $200,000. Today it’s 35 percent. Taxes were, and are, not an impediment. Our progeny will have less opportunity because of the excessive financial burdens we have imposed on them. For their sakes, I wish Mr. Krambeck’s model worked.
    Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We have tried not taxing the rich in the 20th century and wound up in the same position as Great Britain in the 19th century. We need to change in the 21st century. I may be ignorant, but I am not insane.

    FRANK ELFLAND
    Charlton

http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01102&AppName=1

RICH-----is a subjective view.....I'd say in America if one makes $50,000 that would be 'RICH' compared to someone who makes $25,000.....

what the hell are they thinking......so someone ACTUALLY WORKED(hopefully, not government guaraneed pensions) for that $$......get the gangstas OUT

I work very very hard for my money, I like what I do, I dont make any where near $250,000------but,,,,,GET OFF MY BACK......

.....TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE(S).....................NNTP...................Town,County,State,Federal...........