Here’s a conundrum: New York metro-region voters, who stand to lose the most if Al Gore becomes president, are among those most eager for the vice president to step into the top job.

Gore enjoys some of his strongest support in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

Taxpayers in these states already send tens of billions of dollars a year more to Washington than they get back in federal spending. Clearly, they have a lot to lose if Gore, as he has promised, were to shift more of the tax burden up the income scale.

The vice president’s proposals rely on targeted credits whose value diminishes dramatically as family income rises. This means the Gore tax reductions are intrinsically biased against states and regions with high living costs and high average incomes, whose residents already bear the brunt of the federal income-tax burden.

Millions of families in high-income states qualify as middle class by the standards of their own communities. But Gore’s ranks them as too “wealthy” to need–or deserve–a tax cut.

New York is a prime example.

The Empire State is a perennial net loser in the income-redistribution game and bears a disproportionately large share of the total federal income-tax burden. Factoring in steep tabs for state and local government, residents of New York are the most heavily taxed people in the country. If anyone needs relief, New Yorkers do.

They’d get it from George W. Bush.

The Texas governor’s proposed income-tax cut would reduce tax liability in New York by $11.1 billion a year, according to a new Manhattan Institute study analyzing how the two candidates’ plans would impact New York. Al Gore’s tax plan, by comparison, would be worth about $3.5 billion to the state on a yearly basis.

No surprise there. But the most striking difference between the plans isn’t Gore’s refusal to cut taxes for those who pay the most taxes.

It’s in the way he defines “middle class.”

For example, Gore would correct the tax code’s marriage penalty by increasing the standard deduction for married couples. His campaign issues book claims that “middle-class families, especially, will benefit” under this approach.

However, with their relatively high mortgages and state and local taxes, most New York couples claim itemized deductions. In fact, nearly three quarters of New Yorkers earning between $50,000 and $75,000–and better than 90 percent of those between $75,000 and $100,000–would get no marriage-penalty relief under the Gore plan.

In several respects, the Gore plan treats $60,000 as something of a dividing line for married couples: Above that level, his hike in the child-care credit drops to nothing, and his matching tax credit for retirement savings drops sharply, from $1,000 to $500.

But $60,000 is below the median four-person family income throughout the New York metropolitan suburbs.

The Institute’s study also found that more than half of New York state’s taxpayers would get no tax cut at all under Gore’s plan unless they can squirrel away enough long-term savings to qualify for a tax credit under his proposed Retirement Savings Plus (RSP) program.

Since Bush would reduce tax rates across the board, all families who have any tax liability to start with will get a tax cut under his plan, regardless of family circumstances.

Indeed, our study found that Bush’s plan will provide equal or greater savings for many middle class families who engaged in the Gore-approved activities of sending their older children to private college and their younger children to day care.

For example, our study calculated income taxes for a couple with two children and an annual income of $83,100–the Westchester County median for a family of four.

Assume both spouses work full-time, that one of their kids is in day care and that they itemize their deductions. Their comparative savings: $1,423 from Bush’s plan, $0 from Gore’s.

If they are able to put away $3,000 a year towards retirement, they will qualify for a $1,000 RSP credit, but that still leaves them $423 better off under Bush’s plan.

This family does better under Gore’s plan only if it saves $3,000 for retirement, has one child in a private college (for which they receive a bigger tax break under Gore’s plan) and have one child in day care.

Of course, such scenarios can be manipulated to make any plan look better than another. But once income hits $60,000, relatively few families who would get more immediate tax relief from Gore than from Bush (other than a small number of taxpayers who would qualify for his $3,000 long-term-care credit because they have a disabled dependent relative).

Despite all this, Gore is polling well in all the high-income states. If he carries California, Illinois and Michigan, as well as New Jersey, Connecticut and New York, he’ll probably win the election.

And if he does, many hard-working, middle-class families in Nassau, Fairfield and Bergen counties–to say nothing of the five boroughs–will have cause to recall the wisdom of Pogo: “We have the met the enemy, and he is us.”

About the Author

E.J. McMahon

Edmund J. McMahon is a senior fellow at the Empire Center.

Read more by E.J. McMahon

You may also like

Washington shouldn’t fund NY’s “normal” budgets

With the coronavirus lockdown continuing to erode tax revenues, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has turned up the volume on his demands for a federal bailout of the New York state budget. In a weekend briefing, the governor repeated his estimate that the Empire State will need help closing a deficit of $10 billion to $15 billion. “I don’t have any funding to do what I normally do,” he said. Read More

Cuomo’s Plate Spinning

Governor Cuomo’s license plate design contest was a PR ploy masking a nickel-and-dime revenue raiser. Read More

How Cuomo is cooking New York’s books

When lawmakers in Albany passed the state budget last spring, Gov. Andrew Cuomo declared it “both timely and fiscally responsible.” Timely was true enough. But fiscally responsible? Not so much. Read More

Cuomo’s SALT Flop

By midnight Monday, more than 9 million New Yorkers will have filed their income tax returns for 2018. And most will then have cause to wonder what the Great New York SALT Panic of 2018 was all about. Read More

New York is looking at an ocean of red ink

New York’s new budget — the actual state-government expenditure plan, that is, as opposed to numerous side issues packaged with it — apparently came in close to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s bottom line. Read More

Northport’s cash cow is Long Island’s burden

Among New York school districts with enrollments of 4,000 or more, the list of highest property taxes per pupil is what you’d expect — topped by Great Neck, Scarsdale, Syosset and Bedford. In fifth place is a somewhat less wealthy outlier: the Northport-East Northport district. It will raise $28,556 per pupil in property taxes next year, based on data from the state’s 2018-19 Property Tax Report Card. That’s 57 percent above the Suffolk County average. Read More

Marc Molinaro’s tax-cut challenge

Molinaro’s rhetoric made it all sound obvious — and easy. In fact, New York faces real financial constraints that’ll limit options for whoever occupies the governor’s office starting next January. Read More

Cuomo’s dug New York into a giant tax trap

Cuomo has further boosted the state’s already heavy reliance on taxes paid by income millionaires. This has made Albany’s revenue base more fragile and volatile — a problem aggravated by the new federal cap on state and local tax deductions, which effectively raises total tax rates for New York’s highest earners. 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.