Tax Time

[hanratty21]

That's the whole point. I have no issue with the rich (NYC) helping out the not so rich (NYS). My problem is with the ignorant opinions of those upstate citizens who feel that the state would be better off if they didn't have the "burden" of the hedonistic scourge on the state's financial trouble that is New York City. If half the people with that opinion actually knew the numbers, that opinion would no longer exist.

[FlashLackey]

I don't see why New York city should have to pay more out for the same things. But, I also don't see why commuters should have to pay extra just to work there. It should be even across the board.

[hanratty21]

I don't see why New York city should have to pay more out for the same things. But, I also don't see why commuters should have to pay extra just to work there. It should be even across the board.

I assume by the first comment you mean the deficit of what they receive in state benefits vs. what they pay...I can't agree with you on that. They are a bigger revenue producer, they should pay more of a share. That's just evening the table up.

For the second comment...why commuters should have to pay more to work there...

Are they using facilities while in the city? If they get hurt, should NYC not send an ambulance? If they need to use toilets, should NYC tell them to hold it till they are back in the burbs? Should they be required to hold their garbage in a bag all day till they cross state lines?

Would they be able to earn the same salary in...say...Patterson, NJ? Or Easton, PA? Doubt it. They want to come into the city, earn a higher salary that they can't earn elsewhere, use the public facillities, expect the NYC residents to pick up their tab, and then take it all home with them? No. Just no.

*EDIT*
Incidentally, the commuter tax (when it was stil active) was a fraction of what NYC residents pay in NYC local tax...I think local tax is in the 6 or 7% range, while commuters paid less than 1%, if I am not mistaken. A fair price to pay for the increased revenue that the city is able to bestow upon commuting workers.

[FlashLackey]

I was agreeing with you in the first comment. Not that they should pay the same as another city in gross. Just that the cost of services should be the same to the dollar as everyone else (ie. the same rate). Actually, how is it that they pay more than everyone else for the same services? Aren't the taxes collected on the same rates between cities?

I don't think a commuter tax makes logical sense. All places in the country have different marketplaces relative to each other. Why should any one of them tax people coming in on the basis that the job market is more demanding there? Also, it depends entirely on what the person does. Some types of professions pay more in NYC. Many types don't. I don't think there is a tremendous amount to made for a logger in NYC. Does that mean that there should be a commuter tax in heavily forested areas so that loggers don't take advantage of the locals? Should cities in the midwest positioned along interstates charge a toilet tax for people traveling through? A Denny's tax?

Of course, localities can entertain just about any taxes they want. But, I don't think NYC is advantaged by such a tax on the basis of affect either. All it would do is artificially shrink the pool of people willing to work there from out of town. At first glance, this might seem desirable toward keeping jobs for locals. However, NYC is a high-demand, high-paying market because a lot of highly competent professionals work there. I don't believe that replacing jobs held by competent out-of-towners with less competent locals would benefit NYC in the long run, dirty toilets or not.

The idea seems to me to stem from the idea that NYC is a gold mine compared to everywhere else. But, NYC provides great incomes for people because of the people there, not the location and quality of toilets. In a way, the tax already exists. It's reflected in the increased cost NYC professionals charge for their services.

[lesli_felix]

Most people don't have a clue how much tax they pay. In the UK, most people think its about 1/4 - 1/3 of their income. Once you include local taxes, road taxes and the taxes you pay *when you spend money* it's usually 50-60%.

If you work for yourself and you have a good accountant you can keep it below 30%. This is exceptional, and bordering on illegal if you don't watch it.

Don't feel guilty about wanting to pay less and making the effort to do so. Taxes are nothing more than a protection racket on a large scale.

[hanratty21]

So, FL..I dont think you are quite getting this. On the first point, they are not paying more for their services...what is "more" in the equation is how much they kick up to the state in taxes vs. how much of that "pool" that they use. So, if they generate 10 Billion in tax for NY State, they receive 5 Billion in "services" from the state...meaning that 5 Billion of the tax revenue that is generated by the city is being used to fund projects/services in other parts of the state. They don't earmark funds FROM certain counties to spend IN those counties. It just doesn't work like that.

On the second point, if my argument has not justified a commuter tax for you...then so be it. Your opinion is just that. As a long time resident of that city, I saw it's infrastructure get used and abused day in and day out for 40+ hours per week by many more people than actually live in that city.

New York City has the largest estimated daytime population, at more than 8.5 million persons. The increase of more than half a million people over the nighttime population is bigger than that found in any other area.

If, in your opinion, that 500,000 person differential who reap the benefits of working in that city should not have to kick in to the support of that city, then I guess I accept that, while not agreeing...vehemently.

[FlashLackey]

You're right. I had misunderstood what you were saying on the first point. In this case, my perspective on it is that the premise that "New York City" produces the tax revenue is misleading. The tax revenue is based on the income of those who work there, including those who commute. So, actually, individuals from all over produce the tax revenue. They just do it in NYC. Take the commuters away and NYC does not produce the same tax revenue.

True that it's just opinion and I think you have a reasonable and respectable one. I just think that the people are the thing of value here, not the location. A nearby city could use the same argument and charge NYC a fee for benefitting from the services of a commuter from their locality. NYC would not be the same NYC without the commuters. Wherever they commute from would surely benefit from having those individuals stay and contribute to their local economies too.

I'm sure it is annoying to have such a flood of "outsiders" showing up every day.

[hanratty21]

Take the commuters away and NYC does not produce the same tax revenue.

Wrong. NY State commuters (see Long Island, Westchester) would pay state tax anyway. Also, the tax they pay is registered in the county that they live in, so they are out anyway.

NY and NJ have reciprocal tax laws. (PAlexC - you out there?)

So, if you pay tax in one state as a commuter, you deduct it from the other state. In general, if you live in NJ and work in NY, you would end up deducting your NJ paid tax from the tax you would have paid in NY State. This, essentially, is a wash. So...to argue against taking the commuters way...it's just not the case.

What I am talking about is resident NY City tax (about 6-7% for residents of the 5 boroughs). The commuter tax I am referring to is that the commuters would pay a fraction of a percent of their NYC earned income toward the collective NY City Tax. (keep in mind...in NY, you pay Federal, State, and Local tax) This commuter tax would be about .3% - .5% of NY City earned tax. I should explain that most municipalities collect property tax to make up what NY City calls local tax. The NY City property tax is very low as the land mass is very small in comparison to the population and revenue need. The local income tax model is a much more appropriate method given the land vs. population ratio. Also, if you raised property taxes, rents would be even MORE out of control than they already are.

I think I've sufficiently beat this thread into the dirt, no?

*Also - as any NYC resident will tell you...outsiders are completely welcome*

[gerbick]

I have no mf'n clue what you guys are so eloquently talking about pertaining the NYC Commuter tax... whatnot. I just wanted to chime in and commiserate about the fact that I too got pushed into a different bracket that I'd almost swear I would not have been in just 4 years ago, let alone 8 years ago.

Sorta feel like I'm a victim of a school district re-zoning that I didn't ask for.

Oh well. I'm above the poverty line now folks.

[FlashLackey]

Wrong. NY State commuters (see Long Island, Westchester) would pay state tax anyway. Also, the tax they pay is registered in the county that they live in, so they are out anyway.

I don't think so. The lion's share of the revenue generated out of NYC is certainly from corporations rather than individuals. The corporations benefit from having skilled workers commute in to contribute to their profitability.

It is NYC that should be thanking the commuters. Not the other way around.

[hanratty21]

Wrong again dude. Corporations get assloads of tax breaks and abatements to run their businesses in NYC. Bloomberg runs the city like a business. Bringing more business to NY makes good business sense. Trust me...you're going to lose this one. I don't care if your opinion is that the tax should not exist, but you NEED to stop trying to send 'facts' to back up your opinion my way that are just not true.

Keep in mind that this concept of hitting up non resident NYC workers for tax is NOT a new concept. This was in existence until 1999 and was in existence for a long time before that. It worked. It will work again. NYC does thank the commuters...they make it a friendly place to work. Leaving a little cash on the table would help to keep it a nice place to work for those 'welcomed' commuters.

[Planet]

Who wants to revolt against the government? I owe a ton b/c of interest income, and my crappy meaningless bonus pushing me into the next bracket in NY.

I don't even get the full $600 "stimulus" rebate.

Meanwhile, the "government" in Iraq continues to use my tax dollars as a personal bank account. Thanks W.

I'm with you. Now all we need is another 100,000,000 people or so to follow us to Washington and we'll get control back of our government.

[FlashLackey]

Wrong again dude. Corporations get assloads of tax breaks and abatements to run their businesses in NYC. Bloomberg runs the city like a business. Bringing more business to NY makes good business sense. Trust me...you're going to lose this one. I don't care if your opinion is that the tax should not exist, but you NEED to stop trying to send 'facts' to back up your opinion my way that are just not true.

I think you make a good point about bringing more business to NYC making good business sense. That supports what I'm saying. A commuter tax is a contrary force to "bringing more business."

It doesn't really matter what relationship the revenue of corporations is to personal income anyway. Whatever it is, it is still benefitting NYC to have the business, the very thing you're saying people should have to pay extra to be involved with. Except that they themselves are the ones that are creating it. Again, take the commuters out of the equation and the "gold mine" that is NYC doesn't exist any more. A commuter tax is just re-distribution of wealth from the people who produced it in the first place to the people who happened to live nearby when they did so.

[silverx2]

I think you make a good point about bringing more business to NYC making good business sense. That supports what I'm saying. A commuter tax is a contrary force to "bringing more business."

It doesn't really matter what relationship the revenue of corporations is to personal income anyway. Whatever it is, it is still benefitting NYC to have the business, the very thing you're saying people should have to pay extra to be involved with. Except that they themselves are the ones that are creating it. Again, take the commuters out of the equation and the "gold mine" that is NYC doesn't exist any more. A commuter tax is just re-distribution of wealth from the people who produced it in the first place to the people who happened to live nearby when they did so.

or more people that live in NYC that are a little less qualified will get the jobs that the commuters took. more money stays in the city through local spending.

[PAlexC]

NY and NJ have reciprocal tax laws. (PAlexC - you out there?)

So, if you pay tax in one state as a commuter, you deduct it from the other state. In general, if you live in NJ and work in NY, you would end up deducting your NJ paid tax from the tax you would have paid in NY State.

That is correct. My wages are taxed by NY State, NJ taxes all my other earnings.

The commuter tax basically negated the idea of a "NY salary" by taking the difference away. If they had kept it, they would've had trouble maintaining the workforce they needed to keep the city as a global center for business, not everyone can FIT into NYC, and not everyone can afford to live there. Jersey City was springing up office buildings and offering tax incentives. Had they kept that tax, a lot more businesses would have jumped ship out of the city.

Now, I'll remind you that those of us in NJ go out to play in NY after hours and on the weekends, spending money on food and drink on a regular basis, NJ is just another borough.

Upstater have always complained about what NYC consumes from taxes, but consistently neglect to see that 1.) Manhattan contributes an insane portion and 2.) there are a lot more people packed into NYC that rely on services and mass transit.

[FlashLackey]

or more people that live in NYC that are a little less qualified will get the jobs that the commuters took. more money stays in the city through local spending.

Or the businesses forced to consider lower-qualified personel make lower profits [or leave the city].

[FlashLackey]

If they had kept it, they would've had trouble maintaining the workforce they needed to keep the city as a global center for business, not everyone can FIT into NYC, and not everyone can afford to live there. Jersey City was springing up office buildings and offering tax incentives. Had they kept that tax, a lot more businesses would have jumped ship out of the city.

Exactly.

[hanratty21]

Jersey City was springing up office buildings and offering tax incentives...

But...it's...well, Jersey City...

[hanratty21]

Some interesting reads about this topic on both sides of the coin...
http://www.google.com/search?q=nyc+commuter+tax

[PAlexC]

But...it's...well, Jersey City...

But the waterfront has easy access via PATH, ferry, light rail and bus. Goldman Sachs just built a huge building near my old high school.

Chilltown REPRESENT!