NY TO EXTRA TAX RICH...(Drudge Headline)

Washington Post ^ | 5-02-03 | Joan Gralla

[jmstein7]

NY Gov. Sees Legislature Plan Killing 100,000 Jobs

Reuters Thursday, May 1, 2003; 7:23 PM

Recasts, adds new paragraphs 6-7, 11-17

By Joan Gralla

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York State Gov. George Pataki on Thursday accused the Assembly and Senate of crafting a budget that would cause 100,000 people around the state to lose their jobs and spawn a $13 billion, two-year deficit.

The Legislature by Friday expects to approve a $93 billion budget that targets single residents who earn more than $100,000 a year with a 7.5 percent tax surcharge. Many of the nation's millionaires live in New York City, and people whose incomes top $500,000 a year will pay a 7.7 percent surcharge.

The Republican governor plans to veto many aspects of the Legislature's plan, which also hits the poor with a regressive 0.25 percentage point rise in the 4.0 percent state sales tax.

"Despite proposing the largest tax increase in state history, the Legislature's budget will create the largest budget shortfall in state history," Pataki said in a statement.

The Republican-led Senate and the Democratic Assembly say the tax hikes are needed to restore Pataki's $1.1 billion of cuts to education and $800 million of health care reductions.

Pataki denied an 8 percent increase in last year's budget created the state's $12 billion deficit, saying no one foresaw the Iraq war or the depth of the national economy's downturn.

The Empire State ranks second on the list of states struggling with tough budget problems. California is in first place, with a deficit pegged at as much as $35 billion.

The governor, who often calls tax hikes job-killers, last week bashed proposals to make the rich pay higher taxes, but left the door open to a sales tax hike.

Yet Peter Orzag, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institute, said that because the economy now has too much capacity -- idle machines at factories, for example -- raising taxes on the wealthy would not hurt growth by cutting their appetite for goods and services.

Instead of spending less, the rich would save less if their tax bills went up. "In the long run, extra savings is what spurs economic growth," he said. But in the short run, boosting employment -- and thus demand -- is more important.

[jmstein7]

Uhhhhh... since when is someone who makes $100k "Rich"? Gotta FReep these guys:

speaker@assembly.state.ny.us

bruno@senate.state.ny.us

http://www.state.ny.us/governor/

[oceanview]

Especially in the NYC metro suburbs: $100K+ for police officers, tenured public school teachers, railroad conductors pull $85K, etc. Everybody is rich!

[Beck_isright]

Which basically means more New Yorkers moving to Florida. Smart move Pataki. Great Legacy you're leaving up there. Might as well hand the DNC the keys to your offices now instead of waiting until the next election.

[1stFreedom]

I made around 120k one year.

Had to shell out 12k *Post Tax* for health insurance. Paid at least $25k federal tax, like $5k in State taxes. Medicare, medicade, etc.

Took home the remaining pay. Might seem like a lot, but it's not.

Was I rich? Nope. Essentialy, we lived just like any couple who both work at decent paying jobs.

I can't imagine having to shell out $7k because I made over 100k.

If this would have happened back when I made this money, I'd simply move or ask for alternative methods of income (Time off,etc) and collect 99.9k.

It takes two people out here to work to afford a house. If one is lucky enough to earn what two people earn, we shouldn't penalize them.

The real problem is the definition of rich. Someone making $50,000 a year is rich to someone making $12,000. Get the point?

[jmstein7]

Pataki is not the problem... he's going to veto the legislation. The problem is that the Assembly and Senate will override his veto.

[Moonman62]

Instead of spending less, the rich would save less if their tax bills went up. "In the long run, extra savings is what spurs economic growth," he said. But in the short run, boosting employment -- and thus demand -- is more important.

Employment will only be boosted by increased investment in new markets and new companies. Even during the seventeen years of the Reagan expansion when demand was growing, established companies didn't create any net jobs. There won't be any money to invest if the government is taking it all.

[Beck_isright]

Doesn't matter. He'll get tagged with the legacy along with Bloomingidiotberg. The GOP will be stuck with the label of being "in charge" while NY went into the crapper again. On the good news side, we're going to get a lot of talented people moving into our state down here and that will continue to improve our business climate.

[AmishDude]

Anybody have a way for me to invest in New Jersey real estate?

[lelio]

single residents who earn more than $100,000 a year
Considering Jeff Bezos of Amazon and Bill Gates of Microsoft make about $0 a year I think most "super rich" people are going to get around this by paying themselves in other ways.
Who is going to get screwed? Why, the poor SOB that doesn't know how to play the tax game.

[POGIFFMOO]

Obviously you don't understand their logic. They only want to tax the millionaires. If you make $100k a year and don't spend it for 10 years, your're a millionaire, and you should be proud to make your contribution to pay for all those spending programs the town fathers deem necessary. If you make 20k and don't spend it for 50 years, you'll be a millionaire also, guess they're next.

[MeekOneGOP]

Holy Cow ! . . .

[blackdog]

New Jersey????? Are you nuts? Moving from NY to NJ is like moving from a big frying pan to a smaller toxic frying pan. Change should be dramatic. Move to Iowa and raise sheep, something tangible. Something that is outside of consulting, advising, analyzing, calculating, actuarializing, downsizing, investment bankerizing(AKA stealingizing), etc...

[oceanview]

No, it applies to married couples also at the $150K level. Its $100K for single filers.

[blackdog]

Just fire all public employees(including state legislators) with last names starting with "A" and keep going down the alphabet with another letter each week until you balance the budget. By the time you get to "C", they will find all kinds of money that can be cut from budgets.

They could fire "A" thru "J" and nobody would even know it.

[AmishDude]

Move to Iowa and raise sheep

Or teach math . . . same thing.

Have you been checking my profile page? ;)

[blackdog]

Maybe divorce won't be so attractive? Maybe single parenting will be a real hoot!

There is an upside to this proposal.

[Michael.SF.]

Just fire all public employees(including state legislators) with last names starting with "A" and keep going down the alphabet

As a public employee this is the first plan that I have seen that makes any sense. I am 110% behind this one.

Zachary Zahn

[blackdog]

OMG.....No I had not looked at your profile! I grew up teaching riding and ran an equestrian program at a Berks County Camp. I spent my summers at the New Holland sale barns buying up horses.

I left Pennsylvania because of the high taxes and I needed more acreage.

It does get damn cold out here compared to Pa. Man do I miss scrapple.