The tax reforscreen-shot-2016-12-14-at-9-11-20-am-150x150-4557153m “framework” issued Wednesday by President Trump and congressional Republican leaders told us little we didn’t already know about their shared tax policy goals—while continuing to leave many key questions unanswered.

Today’s plan lines up pretty closely with the tax reform goals first outlined last April by Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. From New York’s standpoint, the most problematic element remains the proposed elimination of the itemized deduction for state and local income taxes.

Key proposed reforms include the following:

  1. Federal rates would be cut. There are now seven brackets: 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, 35 percent and 39.6 percent. Mnuchin in April indicated they’d be reduced to three: 10 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent; today’s plan calls for a bottom bracket of 12 percent. Depending on the cutoff points, the changes would equate to a big tax savings for middle-income payers, in particular—although the savings will be less than realized by households with the same incomes in lower-tax states.
  2. The federal standard deduction would be nearly doubled. The standard deduction now ranges from $6,300 for single filers to $12,600 for married-joint filers. It would be increased to $12,000 and $24,000, respectively. Crucially, at the same time, the existing personal exemption (now $4,050 per filer and dependent) is to be “consolidated” into the standard deduction, the plan says. For a family of three or more, this effectively wipes out the value of the increase in the standard deduction.
  3. The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would be repealed. As of 2014, New York was home to 483,900 AMT filers, second only to California. Their AMT comes to an average of $9,081. The AMT—under which state and local tax deductions are already disallowed—originated in the late 1960s as a way to prevent the very rich from avoiding taxes, but over the past 20 years has become a tax that applies mainly to an affluent band of low- to mid-six-figure households. Roughly 22 percent of New York’s AMT filers earned between $100,000 and $200,000; the lion’s share of the rest earned between $200,000 and $500,000.

The loss of the state and local tax deduction (or SALT) will affect different families in different ways, depending on family size and place of residence. As explained here a few weeks ago, for New York City residents subject to the state’s “millionaire tax,” the net effect of the Trump change will be to produce a tiny tax cut of 0.75 percent—while significantly widening the net tax price of living in New York compared to a state with no income tax, such as Florida.

The summary document released by House Republicans also says:

“An additional top rate may apply to the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the reformed tax code is at least as progressive as the existing tax code and does not shift the tax burden from high-income to lower- and middle-income taxpayers.”

In that case, the plan will significantly raise combined federal, state and local tax burdens on the wealthiest New Yorkers, compared to their counterparts in low-tax states.

Either way, any significant relative change in the state’s tax burden on income millionaires would threaten to disrupt a state tax base that is more heavily dependent than ever on taxes paid by wealthy residents.

As for the middle class …

“Strengthening and growing the middle class, and keeping more money in their pockets” was a key goal identified near the top of the summary plan released by the House Ways and Means Committee today.  However, depending on key variables, the plan may generate only minimal, if any, tax savings for middle-class families in New York—particularly the six-figure-earning, home-owning middle-class in the metropolitan New York City suburbs.

Consider a hypothetical family of four living in the (by no means posh) Suffolk County hamlet of Ronkonkoma. Assume the filers in this example are among the nearly 20 percent of Ronkonkoma taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $100,000 to $200,000—an average of roughly $137,000 per household in that class, most of whom are married and claim itemized deductions.

This couple can claim $16,200 in personal exemptions, plus itemized deductions that in 2015 averaged about $29,000 in Ronkonkoma’s $100,000-$200,000 bracket, including $15,000 for state and local taxes. These tax breaks add up to just over $45,000, reducing the household’s taxable income to $92,600, putting it in the 25 percent marginal income tax rate.

Under the Trump plan, the same family will be able to claim a standard deduction of $24,000 and (maybe) remaining tax breaks for charitable and mortgage interest averaging $13,500, reducing taxable income to $99,500. (This assumes the plan will allow both a standard deduction and continued itemized tax breaks, in some form, for charitable contributions and interest.  But it could be much less generous than that. See note at bottom of post for more.)

A 25 percent tax bite on the $6,900 in added taxable income would equate to $1,725—assuming the bracket threshold is unchanged.

The final net impact depends on as-yet unspecified details.

If the new 12 percent bottom tax bracket replaces the 10 percent and 15 percent tax brackets right up to the top of current 15 percent threshold, the tax on income in that lower bracket would be reduced by $1,332, reducing the family’s net tax increase to $468. An increase in the phase-out range for the child credit, suggested but not specified in the Trump-House GOP outline, could turn this tax hike into at least a small tax cut. Under current law, the child credit is phased out for incomes above $110,000, which limits total credits to $650 for parents earning $137,000. Any expansion of the phase-out range would increase the credit by a maximum of $1,350—or more, if the credit itself is increased under the plan, which is also left unclear. In the alternative, if the phase-out range is not changed but the credit is increased by $500 per child, that would add another $325 in savings.

This much is clear: a couple falling well within the middle class by downstate standards—people, in most  cases, living paycheck-to-paycheck in modest suburban homes—will realize much smaller savings than their counterparts in lower-cost, lower-taxed states across the country. The net impact of the proposal will be to shift a larger portion of the remaining tax burden to households in New York and other northeastern states, as well as California.

The Trump-House GOP plan also calls for a sharp reduction in the corporate rate, from 35 to 20 percent, and a top rate of 25 percent on participants in unincorporated “pass-through” entities, which includes most small businesses. However, this also begs yet another question: will these firms keep their state and local tax deductions, as corporations presumably will do? Many other aspects of the business tax cuts, especially those involving expensing of investments and deductions for interest, also are unclear and are likely to be special interest flash points.

**Note: Keen readers of this post have wondered why the hypothetical example assumes that the Trump-House GOP plan would allow a family to claim both the newly increased standard deduction and tax breaks for charitable contributions and mortgage interest. Good question. The House GOP summary says that, in eliminating most itemized deduction, the plan “retains tax incentives for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.” That can be read to imply filers could claim both those “incentives” and the standard deduction. But if taxpayers must choose one or the other, in the absence of any change in the current 12 percent and 25 percent tax bracket thresholds, this could translate into a federal tax hike for most middle-class New York homeowners with low six-figure incomes and dependent children. In the hypothetical example above, for example, the Ronkonkoma family would owe $5,100 more in taxes based on tax tables alone, before accounting for any saving from expansion of the child credits. To be sure, such a family would be more likely to get a tax cut if the top of the new 12 percent bracket is moved to a higher income level, or if the child credit phase-out range is expanded much higher and the credit itself is increased. As with so many other key aspects of the plan, it’s just not clear.**

About the Author

E.J. McMahon

Edmund J. McMahon is Empire Center's founder and a senior fellow.

Read more by E.J. McMahon

You may also like

SCOTUS Punts To Biden On Potential Challenge to NY’s Taxing of Work-at-Home Nonresidents

The U.S. Supreme Court today kept alive federal litigation that could cost New York a big chunk of the billions of dollars in taxes it collects from nonresidents working for New York-based employers. Read More

NY Post-Pandemic Employment Tide Stopped Rising At Year’s End

New York's post-pandemic employment recovery came to a halt and moved into reverse in December, according to the state's for the final month of COVID-wracked 2020. Private payroll employment in December was 966,000 jobs below the level of the previous Read More

Governor Cuomo’s budget proposal leaves the Medicaid throttle open

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Governor Cuomo's Medicaid budget is how little it changes the program's spending pattern. In spite of a once-in-century pandemic that rocked the state's health-care system and decimated state revenues, the govern Read More

Emmy-Winning Gov Shows Hollywood More Love

Amid the economic and fiscal fallout of the pandemic, in a proposed FY 2022 budget that would postpone $400 million in scheduled middle-class tax cuts while imposing $1.5 billion in tax-surcharges on millionaire earners, Governor Cuomo is also seeking to Read More

Seeking Bigger Federal Handout, Cuomo Proposes Record Budget

Somewhere within that vast fog bank of a FY 2022 Executive Budget that Governor Cuomo is a structural budget gap, opened during the pandemic recession and temporarily obscured by piles of federal cash that will eventually be gone with the wind. Once a Read More

Amid Cuomo’s Fulminations, New York’s Budget Gap Keeps Shrinking

State tax receipts in the month of December came in $1.4 billion above the latest projection by Governor Cuomo's Division of the Budget (DOB), according to a cash report released late today by state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's office. on the numbers Read More

The State’s Vaccine Appointment System Was Not Ready for Prime Time

The two top priorities Governor Cuomo identified in his State of the State speech Monday morning were "Defeat COVID" and "Vaccinate New York." Read More

A Study in Contrasts: Cuomo’s 2011 and 2021 State of the State Messages

State of the State messages by New York governors customarily lay out general goals and priorities, rather than specifics. Even in general terms, however, there is a striking contrast between Governor Cuomo's latest State of the State and his first annual message to the Legislature, which he delivered five days after taking office 10 years ago. Read More

Subscribe

Sign up to receive updates about Empire Center research, news and events in your email.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Empire Center for Public Policy
30 South Pearl St.
Suite 1210
Albany, NY 12207

Phone: 518-434-3100
Fax: 518-434-3130
E-Mail: info@empirecenter.org

About

The Empire Center is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank located in Albany, New York. Our mission is to make New York a better place to live and work by promoting public policy reforms grounded in free-market principles, personal responsibility, and the ideals of effective and accountable government.