The article seems written to to obscure this, but local income taxes on those earning more than $10 million a year contribute 5% of the city's tax base, not 25%. It's 25% of local income tax collections, but the city collects other forms of tax.
From the numbers on households earning $500k, it looks like local income taxes are around 20% of city tax collections.
I would assume that the city has sources of revenue other than taxes. If so the contribution of the 10M+ households to the city budget would be less than 5%.
Overall I don't think the overall thesis of the article - that NYC will be in crisis if all the ultra rich move away - is supported by the (few) facts contained in it.
Not to mention the absurd premise that 100% of the ultra rich would move out of NYC if the policy proposal being attacked in article comes to pass.
The city has many other sources of revenue, but 5% is difficult to replace. If you wanted to replace those 5% by raising taxes on those >$500k households, you'd have to increase those people's tax bills by a quarter, which is enough to provoke strong protest. If you wanted to lower the threshold from $%00k until you have half the tax base, that richest part would see a 10% rise. 10% is also enough to make people really unhappy, and a protest by half the people in the city is tricky.
From the numbers on households earning $500k, it looks like local income taxes are around 20% of city tax collections.
I would assume that the city has sources of revenue other than taxes. If so the contribution of the 10M+ households to the city budget would be less than 5%.
Overall I don't think the overall thesis of the article - that NYC will be in crisis if all the ultra rich move away - is supported by the (few) facts contained in it.
Not to mention the absurd premise that 100% of the ultra rich would move out of NYC if the policy proposal being attacked in article comes to pass.
reply