1040-tax-form-150x150-6440284From a New York perspective, the proposed repeal of itemized deductions for state and local tax payments was the (expected) headline item in the rough outline of a tax reform presented in Washington today by Trump administration officials.

Many details of the proposal remain unclear and unsettled, and it’s likely to be quite a while before a more detailed bill emerges in Congress.

New York is by all measures among the nation’s most heavily taxed states, along with California, Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut, and thus could expect to take a major hit from the loss of state-local tax deductibility—at least relatively speaking, depending on the aforementioned unsettled details. The biggest New York losers, by far, would be high-income taxpayers on which the state government, and New York City, have grown more dependent than ever.

In 2014 New Yorkers claimed $68 billion in itemized deduction for state and local taxes, a total second only to those claimed by residents of California, according to Internal Revenue Service statistics. The average state and local tax deduction claimed by New York itemizers was $21,038—highest in the country, and nearly double the national average of $11,846 (Connecticut, at $18,939, and New Jersey, at $17,183, were runners up). Here’s a breakdown of New York state and local tax deductions claimed by itemizer income class:

screen-shot-2017-04-26-at-5-13-05-pm-5522908

Under the plan outlined by Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, for the majority of New Yorkers, it appears the loss of the deduction would not translate into a net federal tax increase, because, as part of the plan:

  1. Federal rates will be cut. There are now seven brackets: 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, 35 percent and 39.6 percent. Mnuchin indicated they’d be reduced to three: 10 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent. Depending on the cutoff points, that equates 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 doubled. The standard deduction now ranges from $6,300 for single filers to $12,600 for married-joint filers.
  3. The AMT would be repealed. New York is 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 $100,000 and $200,000; the lion’s share of the rest earned between $200,000 and $500,000.

For married couples, the doubling of the standard deduction alone would offset $12,600 of the $15,195 average state-local tax deduction claimed by New York itemizers earning $100,000 and $200,000. However, the Trump plan also would preserve the itemized deduction for charitable and mortgage interest deductions, which total an average of $11,941 in the $100,000-$200,000 bracket.

The new standard deduction of $25,200 for married joint filers would still fall short of offsetting the average $27,136 combined average itemized deductions for state and local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contribution deduction in the $100,000 to $200,000 tax bracket as of 2014—but in lower brackets, the standard deduction would more than cover the current average itemized deduction for married couples. (In all cases, single itemizers would take a bigger hit than couples.) The repeal of the AMT would offset a good portion of the impact for those earning between $200,000 and $500,000.***

The taxpayers who really take it on the chin will be those in the same high-income brackets that are now subject to New York’s millionaire tax: i.e., single filers with incomes starting at $1 million and married-joint filers earning at least $2 million.

Oversimplifying a bit for purposes of illustration, a New York City resident subject to the current combined top state and city income tax rate of 12.7 percent now pays an effective federal tax rate of 34.6 percent. In isolation, repeal of state-local tax deductibility this same city resident will now pay a top rate of 35 percent—i.e., a small net federal tax increase. But from a tax competitiveness standpoint, it’s worse than it looks. For a top bracket, multi-million-dollar earner, the net tax difference between New York City and a state with no income tax, such as Florida, is now 7.7 percent of income. With deductibility eliminated, it will be 12.7 percent. That’s likely to induce many more affected New Yorkers to reconsider their residency status.

For a New York State taxpayer living outside New York City, the combined impact of repealing deductibility and reducing the top rate will still result in a federal rate reduction, but a small one—from 36.1 percent to 35 percent. But the net difference between living in Florida and living in New York will grow from 5.3 percent to 8.82 percent.

Another element of the plan described by Mnuchin—already drawing heat from Democrats—would reduce the rate on income from small business “pass-through entities” to just 15 percent, same as the proposed new corporate rate. For New Yorkers deriving all or most of their income from such entities, including professional partnerships, the loss of deductibility means paying a tax bill 59 percent higher than it would be in Florida—or 85 percent higher for a resident of New York City.

This spells trouble.

 

*** This paragraph was revised from the original version of this blog post to include some additional estimates of average itemized deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions, as a way of illustrating whether the expanded standard deduction would offset the loss of the itemized deduction for taxes.

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

One of New York’s Biggest Medicaid Contractors Is Quietly Acquiring a Competitor

Author's note: This post has been updated to correct an error in the second paragraph. As state lawmakers debate the future of Medicaid home care, one of the program's bigg Read More

The Union Gave Them the Wrong Data. The Pols Cited It Anyway.

The episode shows the extent to which New York elected officials fail to question the state’s public employee unions—or look at data themselves. Read More

New York’s Home Health Workforce Jumped by 12 Percent in One Year

New York's home health workforce has continued its pattern of extraordinary growth, increasing by 62,000 jobs or 12 percent in a single year, according to newly released data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Read More

While New York’s Medicaid Budget Soared, Public Health Funding Languished

Four years after a devastating pandemic, the state has made no major investment to repair or improve its public health defenses. While funding for Medicaid over the past four years Read More

Unions are pressing bogus arguments for blowing up NY’s public pension debts

New York's public employee unions are arguing, without evidence, that state lawmakers need to retroactively sweeten the pensions of workers who have been on the job for more than a decade. In fact, state and federal data show why state lawmakers shouldn't. Read More

A Medicaid Grant Recipient Sponsors a Pro-Hochul Publicity Campaign

While much of the health-care industry is attacking Governor Hochul's Medicaid budget, at least one organization is rallying to her side: Somos Community Care, a politically active medical group in the Bronx that recently r Read More

New Jersey’s Pandemic Report Shines Harsh Light on a New York Scandal

A recently published independent review of New Jersey's pandemic response holds lessons for New York on at least two levels. First, it marked the only serious attempt by any state t Read More

Senate, Assembly Budget Plans Include $4B Pension Giveaway

A little-noticed provision in lawmakers’ budget proposals would also be the most costly: their proposal to change state retirement rules would slam New York taxpayers with more than $4 billion in new debt, and immediately drive up pension costs, by retroactively sweetening the pension benefits of public employees. Read More