Today’s NY1/YNN-Marist Poll of New York voter attitudes on state budget issues may set a new benchmark for complete disregard of a key policy detail, resulting in at least one finding that is essentially worthless.

Here’s how the Marist pollsters framed the question for voter preferences on the number-one tax issue in the budget debate: “A New York State surcharge on income of a million dollars or more, referred to as the millionaire’s tax, will expire at the end of this year.”

Wrong. In 2009, the Legislature temporarily added two new brackets to the income tax.  The first hit incomes as low as $200,000 for single taxpayers.  The highest bracket, which raised taxes 31 percent, kicks in at incomes of $500,000. While “millionaire tax” is the brand name favored by advocates of higher taxes, it’s disappointing to see such blatant spin presented as fact in a poll co-sponsored by a leading news organization.

Compounding the misleading nature of the question, the poll gave three choices. Sixty four percent chose the first, worded as follows: “This surcharge on high income should be extended so as not to add to the state budget deficit.”

Memo to the folks at NY1/YNN News and Marist: when looking to the future, the budget faces not a “deficit” but a “gap” — and as Governor Cuomo noted yesterday, that number is the product of a whole lot of assumptions about current law.  On the revenue side, the gap estimate already assumes the higher personal income tax brackets will phase out on schedule at the end of this year.  So the premise of choice one is also incorrect.  Extending the tax brackets will not reduce the gap.  It will simply increase taxes.

The wording of the second choice offered by the poll, favored by 33 percent, is not much better: “This surcharge on high income should not be extended because any added taxes[,] even those on high income[,] hurt New York State.” The use of that word “even” comes close to nudging respondents to think twice before choosing it. Three percent of respondents chose the third option: “Unsure.”

On the other hand, asked to choose a “top priority” for New York State, a larger share (31 percent) said “cut taxes” than “maintain services and benefits” (favored by 27 percent).  The leading response, picked by 41 percent, was “reduce the deficit,” which is not actually exclusive of the other two choices.

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

Albany Lawmakers Push a $4 Billion Tax on Health Insurance

Legislative leaders are proposing an additional $4 billion tax on health insurance plans in the upcoming state budget – but withholding specifics of how it would work. Read More

As migrants flow to NY, so does red ink 

The influx of foreign migrants to New York could cost the state $4.5 billion more than expected next year, Governor Hochul today warned.  Read More

The Bill Arrives: NY Faces $9B Budget Gap Next Year 

New York’s outyear budget gaps, the shortfall between planned state expenses and state tax receipts over the next three years, has exploded to more than $36 billion, just-released documents show.  Read More

NY school spending again led US, hitting all-time high in 2020-21

Public elementary and secondary school spending in New York rose to $26,571 per pupil in 2020-21, according to the latest Census Bureau data Read More

A Tale of Two Levies

New York school districts are getting record levels of state aid. But how many are using it to cut taxes? Read More

Albany’s Belated Budget Binge 

State lawmakers have begun passing the bills necessary to implement the state budget for the fiscal year that began April 1. Read More

Courts set a limit on NY’s tax reach

Just in time for tax season, New York State's tax agency just lost a major legal challenge to its policy of pursuing maximum income tax payments from wealthy vacation homeowners—even when they live elsewhere. Read More

DiNapoli aims to curb NY’s borrowing binge

Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli has unveiled a new proposal for constitutionally curbing the state’s seemingly uncontrollable appetite for borrowing. Read More