The prospect of a 70 percent top federal income tax rate, floated by newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on “60 Minutes” over the weekend, struck a nerve across the political spectrum.

But Albany Democrats should think twice before cheering her on — because New York, in particular, would have a lot to lose from a return to confiscatory federal taxes on higher earners.

Challenged by interviewer ­Anderson Cooper to explain how she would pay for her ­expensive “Green New Deal” ­vision, Ocasio-Cortez hearkened back to “our tax rates in the ’60s . . . a progressive tax-rate system,” in which “once you get to, like, the tippy-tops, on your ten-millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent.”

She added: “That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an ­extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.” The congresswoman never clarified the rates she might have in mind for the lower rungs on the ladder.

Judging by journalistic and ­social media reactions to AOC’s comments, many progressive Democrats are willing to entertain a ­return to what they see as the good, old days of sky-high federal tax rates, which peaked at 91 percent in the early 1960s before JFK’s tax bill cut the marginal rate to 70 percent in the latter half of the decade.

It stayed at 70 percent until Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 and launched his supply-side revolution on the belief, vindicated by subsequent economic history, that lower marginal rates would boost growth, investment and hiring.

AOC and her allies dispute this account of the 1980s. Be that as it may, by focusing on tax rates alone, proponents of super-soaking the super-rich ignore big changes in the federal tax structure over the past half-century.

The Internal Revenue Code of the 1960s was riddled with loopholes that sharply reduced the effective federal-tax bite on the wealthy. In fact, prior to the revolutionary bipartisan tax reform of 1986, the distribution of the federal income tax burden was less progressive.

Effective in 2018, the new federal tax law reduced the top rate to 37 percent from nearly 40 percent, but it also cut taxes on lower earners by much larger percentages.

The biggest budgetary “pay-for” in the Republican tax plan was curtailment of the state and local tax, or SALT, deduction, which will more than offset the ­individual tax cut for most top-bracket filers, ­especially in New York City, where the combined state and city ­income tax rate is the second highest in the country.

When New York’s combined state and city income tax rates last peaked in the mid-1970s, reaching nearly 20 percent, full SALT deductibility assured the net cost to affected taxpayers was less than 6 percent. But the SALT cap has raised the top state-city rate to its full statutory level of 12.7 percent, which means a 70 percent federal rate would translate into 82.7 percent for high-income New Yorkers.

This would pose a huge problem for a state government that relies on the highest-earning 1 percent of New York residents to generate 40 percent of its personal income tax revenue. The SALT cap already is giving those millionaire earners a big added incentive to minimize their exposure to New York state and city taxes. They can accomplish that by moving their main residence practically anywhere else while retaining a pied-à-terre in Manhattan.

It’s by no means safe to assume that a future Democratic Congress willing to impose a 60 or 70 percent marginal tax rate also would resurrect the full SALT deduction.

A possible harbinger of things to come is the Senate Democrats’ $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill, unveiled last year by their minority leader, New York’s own Sen. Charles Schumer. The Schumer-backed plan would be financed largely by rolling back the portions of the new tax law that disproportionately benefit high-earning New Yorkers — without repealing the SALT cap.

There are lots of reasons why a return to a top federal tax rate of 60 to 70 percent would be a bad idea for the country, economically and fiscally.

But putting all other objections aside, Albany Democrats should keep in mind that New York is always destined to be a loser in Washington’s income-redistribution games. SALT or no SALT, a sharp increase in marginal tax rates on the highest-earning households would only accelerate the erosion of New York’s wealth-dependent tax base. There will be nowhere to hide from the ultimate consequences on the state and city budget.

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

How a Blast From the Past Could Save NYC Again

Forty-five years ago this month, then-Gov. Hugh L. Carey and the state Legislature passed a landmark law, the Financial Emergency Act, designed to rescue Gotham from imminent bankruptcy. Read More

The Numbers Debunk Cuomo’s SALT Gripes

For the better part of three years now, Gov. Cuomo has been pounding SALT — the federal income-tax deduction for state and local taxes. Read More

Experts Weigh in on How to Save New York City Post-Coronavirus

"With massive budget deficits looming, Mayor de Blasio’s post-pandemic plan boils down to hoping for a stopgap federal bailout and asking Albany for permission to issue billions in deficit bonds. This won’t solve the problem. New York needed a much leaner, more efficient public sector even before the novel coronavirus blew a hole in its tax base." Read More

The Fear Behind City Union’s Strike Threat

Polling this month showed that two-thirds of the nation’s teachers would prefer to stay out of the classroom this fall, and teachers unions across America are poised to keep schools from reopening. The unions say the safety of their members is their top concern, yet, truth is, their bottom lines are just as critical. That’s because the pandemic represents their biggest financial threat since teachers won the right to stop paying them. Read More

Tax Day 2.0 Marks the End of NY’s Economic Expansion

New York’s slow reopening has begun just in time for a virtual April 15 — Tax Day 2.0, pushed back three months by the novel-coronavirus pandemic. In a way, it’s the end of an era: The tax returns due to be filed on Wednesday will report incomes earned in 2019, the close of a decade-long economic expansion. Read More

Say Yes to Long Island City Development: NYC Must Salvage the Plots Intended for Amazon’s Second HQ

Predicting doom and gloom for New York is all the rage. While we do face difficult fiscal choices for the next several years, those with skin in the game are contradicting this “death of New York” narrative — and offering a way out. Developers across the city are asking communities for nothing more than regulatory permission to add jobs, mixed-income housing and new high-quality public spaces. Yet just this week, Councilmember Jimmy Van Bramer denounced a multi-billion dollar investment in offices and homes in Long Island City — shortly after denouncing 2,700 new mixed-income homes in Astoria. Read More

Instead of Facing Fiscal Crises, NYC, State are Burying Their Heads in the Sand

The headlines surrounding this week’s New York City budget naturally focused on #DefundthePolice demands. But for all its larger potential implications for New Yorkers’ security and quality of life, the partially illusory $1 billion “cut” in the New York Police Department budget was a sideshow in fiscal terms. Read More

A Corona Commission for New York

New York is finally ahead of the coronavirus, but its outbreak stands as a world-wide horror story. A sophisticated city was caught unprepared and suffered some of the worst levels of infection and death. The need for an investigation is clear. The harder question is who can credibly take the lead. Read More


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


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

Phone: 518-434-3100
Fax: 518-434-3130


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.