Editorial Pages Unite for Common Sense; Post Ignores History, Facts

The Schenectady Star-Gazette added itself to the ranks of editorial pages calling for a balanced approached to solving the budget gap:

Tax hikes aren’t pleasant, but what does the governor think is going to happen in municipalities like Schenectady if aid is cut (creating a $700,000 deficit in the city’s case)? Eventually, local jobs will be lost or property taxes will have to be raised — and on people who have far more modest incomes than millionaires.

The state needs to act fast to head off a financial crisis, but it needs to act fairly. The best way is to cut a little in a lot places, while raising taxes on the very rich.

That call for reason adds the paper to the ranks of the New York Times, the Albany Times Union, and the Syracuse Post-Standard, all of whose editorial pages have proposed a combination of prudent spending cuts and modest tax hikes on the rich to balance the budget.

The New York Post (surprise, surprise) broke that consensus today, boldly ignore facts and (very) recent history:

Mayor Bloomberg couldn't have said it better this week when he called an Assembly plan to slap "millionaires" with stiff new taxes "crazy."

Unless, of course, the goal is to chase every last one 'em out of state - leaving them paying Albany exactly . . . nothing.

As profoundly unfair as the argument is (“Lets only tax people who can’t afford to move!”) it’s also not based in reality.

The last time New York asked its wealthiest citizens to contribute a little more to the costs of keeping civilization going, they didn’t go anywhere. In 2003 (who can fault the Post for not being able to remember so far back?), New York avoided deep cuts to critical public services with a temporary surcharge on high-income New Yorkers. The result? The number of tax filers with incomes of over $200,000 a year increased through 2005, the year the surcharge was lifted.

It’s not hard to understand why Henry Kravis and his ilk didn’t flee. A dozen states have high-end income tax rates higher than New York’s. New Jersey’s (an obvious destination) is 30% higher.

The Post continues:

After all, these men and women are the ones who are able to spend and invest the most - and thus keep the economy humming. (And the ones who foot most of the tax bill already.)

Again, numbers are illuminating. According to the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, the wealthiest 1% of New Yorkers pay 17.3% of the state’s total tax burden, but they earn a whopping 25.2% of its income.

Wondering how that’s possible? In New York the top income tax rate begins at $42,000 a year, meaning a millionaire and a mechanic are paying income taxes at the same rate. Combine that with regressive property and sales taxes (which New York relies on more than any other state except Texas), and you wind up with a system that asks the least from the people who can afford to give the most.

Elsewhere, Newsday, the Times Union, and WXXI all report on Paterson’s frayed relations with his allies over his right turn on the budget and how best to solve the property tax crisis.

Whatever Tom Suozzi says, this is a principled disagreement over how to deal with the challenges New York faces. The WFP thinks we can meet them without forgetting the values of shared sacrifice and fairness, and we hope the Governor comes around to our view.

We’ll let Assemblyman Gottfried have the last word, from today’s Gannett:

"We should only consider cutting essential services like health care as a last resort. We have been cutting taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers for years; if we undo just a little of that, we would not have to cut important programs to close the budget gap."