Skip to main content

(x-posted at ACT NOW)

So, the tax/infrastructure deal in New York State. Some good, a lot bad - it all depends on how you define the baseline.

On taxes:

In order to judge the tax component of this legislation, let's analyze each baseline scenario. If the baseline is that the "old millionaires' tax," a tax of 7.85 percent on income from $200,000 to $500,000 and 8.97 percent on income over $500,000, was only a 3-year measure that was supposed to expire in 2012, then this legislation is technically an improvement on the tax situation; those with incomes over $2 million will see their taxes increase from what they were scheduled to be in 2012 and pretty much everyone else sees a tax cut.


However, if the baseline is the current situation with the "old" tax in place, than next year even those making between $300,000 and $2,000,000 will see a significant tax cut, and even those with incomes over $2,000,000 will see a small tax cut.  Those making under $300,000 will see larger tax cuts.  So while the middle-class tax cut component is good and I like the new distinction being made between earners of $300,000 annually and $2 million annually (it would be great for the federal tax code to have this distinction), there is still no reason to cut taxes for those making over $300,000 or $2 million annually, no matter how small those cuts may be. Especially with a $3.5 billion deficit scheduled for next year, before this tax deal was worked out. This legislation restores about $1.5 billion of that deficit, leaving a deficit of about $2 billion. But keeping the "old" tax in place would erase the entire deficit and even generate a surplus.  

On infrastructure:

The infrastructure component of this bill, a plan to front-load $1 billion in capital spending for future years into 2012, also has serious flaws. It essentially takes $250 million of dedicated MTA taxes and puts them into the state's general fund.  Cuomo "promises" that the MTA will be fully reimbursed out of the general fund, but the state has time and time again not lived up to such promises and has continually cut its general fund transit subsidies over the years. So this legislation will likely end up causing a severe cut to transit spending in the state.  

The bill has another component allowing for public-private partnerships and pension funds for infrastructure to the tune of $1 billion, but there is no promise that any of that would fund any transit projects. Furthermore, $300,000,000 of that would come from the Port Authority, which is presumably money that would have been spent on infrastructure anyway.  The other $700 million are front-loaded state funds that would have been spent anyway, they are just going to be spent before 2013.  So this infrastructure fund doesn't really increase infrastructure spending and the lack of transit spending is disturbing.   Aside from that, having an infrastructure fund that can leverage private investment is a great idea, one that should be implemented on the federal level ASAP.  But this bill does little, if anything, to increase infrastructure investment and looks highly likely to severely reduce transit funding.  

The bill also has a small, ($25 million) component to offer wage subsidies for hiring inner-city youth.  This is a good program, but the funding is likely too small to have a major impact.  

In sum, this legislation is an improvement on the possible worst case scenario, but not much more than that.  

More by ACT NOW's Rich Boatti at
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site