Both Rick Lazio and Hillary Clinton have made a special effort to paint themselves as tax cutters–but they’re not equally deserving of the title.

The key elements of Lazio’s income-tax package would save New Yorkers about $4.2 billion a year, according to a Manhattan Institute analysis of the two candidates’ proposals; Mrs. Clinton’s plan (to the extent details are available) would save New Yorkers $1.2 billion.

And the differences go beyond the numbers. Lazio’s plan is the broader and more straightforward of the two. It would:

End the so-called marriage penalty by raising the standard deduction for joint filers and raising the ceiling on the 15 percent tax bracket, which translates into big savings for many couples whose last dollar is now taxed at the 28 percent rate.

Let most taxpayers deduct their Social Security tax–which is now 6.2 percent of the first $76,200 in wages.

Repeal a 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits for seniors earning $45,000 or more.

Lazio limits his payroll-tax deduction to taxpayers in the first two tax brackets, so there would be no deduction at all for a couple with more than $105,950 in taxable income, or a single person with taxable income of more than $63,550. Clamping on an income limit like this is neither fair nor sensible–but at least Lazio would provide much more outright tax relief for a wider range of people than would benefit under his opponent’s plan.

Mrs. Clinton has proposed tax cuts only a control freak could love–a series of narrowly targeted credits designed to reward those who engage in the “right” behavior or find themselves in the “right” circumstances.

Her plan boils down to this: If you are caring for a severely disabled relative in your home … or have a child in day care … or if you, your spouse or a dependent are attending college … or if you are married but don’t own your home–if you meet one or more of these qualifications, then you might qualify for an expanded version of an existing tax credit. Then again, you might not–especially if you are a middle-class family in New York City or one of its suburbs.

If, on the other hand, you are a low-income worker paying little or no income tax but receiving a refund from the federal government, there’s a much better chance that your refund will grow under Mrs. Clinton’s plan.

And if all this sounds familiar, it’s because her tax credits are essentially the same as those in Vice President Al Gore’s income tax package–most of which, in turn, was lifted out of President Clinton’s last budget. As in Gore’s plan, Mrs. Clinton’s tax benefits drop as income rises–effectively discriminating against millions of middle-class taxpayers in New York.

In fact, Lazio’s combination of broad marriage-penalty relief and payroll-tax deductions will generate significantly greater tax relief for most middle-class taxpayers–even the families that Mrs. Clinton targets for benefits.

Take, for example, a New York City working couple with an income of $84,300 and a child at an expensive private college. The comparative tax savings: $1,230 from Mrs. Clinton’s much-touted college tuition deduction, and about $2,100 from Lazio’s cuts. If the student goes to CUNY or SUNY, where tuition is much lower, the benefit under Mrs. Clinton’s plan drops to less than half as much. But the couple’s savings from Lazio remain the same.

In addition to the targeted credits mentioned in Mrs. Clinton’s speeches and on her Web site, her campaign now says she also supports income-tax credits for retirement savings that would generate a further $1.8 billion a year in benefits for New Yorkers. If this plan is modeled after Gore’s, as her campaign says, then the bulk of the money will go to low-income taxpayers rather than to middle-class families.

That addition to Mrs. Clinton’s tax-cut package simply makes it an even more massive transfer of wealth from high-cost, high-income states like New York to low-income states like Arkansas.

The bottom line for New York taxpayers: While Lazio’s plan doesn’t have enough in common with George W. Bush’s across-the-board approach, Mrs. Clinton’s is all too similar to Al Gore’s “target” practice.

Advantage, Lazio.

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.