Working Families Party Releases Their Own Property Tax Cut Calculator

Agreed the WFP plan is good (4.00 / 1)

It's very good in that it takes into consideration a person's income and ability to pay. That is lacking in the Paterson and Suozzi plan. (Suozzi does introduce the 'circuit breaker' concept but only down the road and only in relation to revamping STAR). It's not for the over-all tax cap and that's wrong.

This WFP plan is more in line with what the Assembly Democrats have been saying they want to see in a plan. But my fear is no one will listen to them and the WFP.

We need action and we need it now, but this Newsday article yesterday really worries me that Paterson is working with Skelos only on a plan that has no circuit breaker. Something just in time for the Senate's July return. And just in time to help the Republican Senators in their re-elections. The person we need to get to is Paterson, that his non-circuit braker plan is not good enough and we don't want to see that as the Paterson-Skelos agreement.

---

by: TruBlu @ Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 00:05:38 AM UTC

Patakerson? What a disappointment (0.00 / 0)

It's officially a pattern. But why? Perhaps he's not afraid of alienating the Dem committee folks the way Cuomo Senior did (hence loss to Pataki) b/c many Dems want a Repub majority in the Senate? Or he's afraid of the dirt the Senate Repubs have on him? (Allegedly truckloads.)

TruBlu, your fears are well-founded. No one will listen to the Dems or WFP b/c the circuit breaker isn't getting much coverage. I read--can't remember where--that the circuit breaker polls as high as caps among those who understand it.

Maybe an LTE campaign will help get the word out? "Cuts not caps" etc.? Galef Little isn't perfect but better than a cap. It offers middle-class relief, and the wealthy pay more. Speaking of which, don't forget that Patakerson weaseled on the Assembly-supported millionaires tax.

---

by: LOBlue @ Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 00:59:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The WFP (0.00 / 0)

The WFP plan is the most progressive one out there.  It's the only plan that actually pays for the money lost to schools by the tax cap in an equitable and fair way.  So, naturally, the Senate Democrats and the Governor are ignoring it.  Both incumbent Senate Democrats and Democratic Senate challengers have given over the debate to the right by constantly framing the issue as a tax cap, instead of a circuit breaker with a concurrent revenue increase to offset the loss.  I'm very worried right now that this loss is going to be felt in our schools or the cost will be pushed on to the middle class unless the higher house and the Governor start acting like representatives from a party which is supposed to care about the condition of the working class.

---

by: Klugstah @ Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 03:56:04 AM UTC

where's the relief? (0.00 / 0)

OK, so I just did the WFP's property tax "cut" calculator exercise and it tells me that our total liability under their plan would never exceed an amount that is nearly 70% ABOVE our current liability!  

Thanks anyway, but I'd rather see a firm cap put in place immediately (and make it applicable to all taxing jurisdictions, not just to schools).  At least then the total annual increases would be much more modest than the 15 to 20 percent annual increases we've experienced in five of the six most recent years.

Here's hoping the Governor & Suozzi succeed in their efforts to get us moving in the right direction soon.

---

by: teaparty2 @ Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 04:47:56 AM UTC

Heh (0.00 / 0)

I think you may not be in an income bracket that the plan is intended to relieve.  The Suozzi plan is irresponsible and regressive, and further exacerbates an already uneven distribution of the quality of schools within the state.

---

by: Klugstah @ Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 05:30:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ummm.... (0.00 / 0)

I only keep a savings using this calculator if I stay less-that-fulltime employed and/or lose my husband's income.  That seems a bit more like a circuit-breaker for families facing these kinds of issues, or low wages, not a broad-based break for working families.

I still prefer the millionaire's tax.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 17:59:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not laughing... it's not for working families (0.00 / 0)

We're a family of 4 w/ a 5 figure income, so tell me... whose burden is this WFP plan intended to relieve???  Also, just exactly how is it that a cap on levies is regressive?

---

by: teaparty2 @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:30:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The millionaire's tax works with circuit breaker. (0.00 / 0)

We can't have just one measure without others. We need a package. It's a complex problem that needs several fixes. Also measures to ensure that districts develop more efficient operating methods, cuts in bloated administration, consolidation of districts (and/or sports teams) etc.

Tax caps are regressive b/c everyone's taxes are capped at a fixed amount. It does not adjust for disparities in assessment vs. income. I heard  that in MA middle-income communities get hurt b/c poor districts are heavily subsidized and wealthy areas vote to exceed the cap. Supposedly services in middle-class districts are deteriorating. With the coming economic crisis predictions are that low-income districts will get burned  b/c the state won't have the funds to subsidize.  

---

by: LOBlue @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 03:22:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Low Income Families (0.00 / 0)

Property taxes themselves have been demonstrated to be regressive in nature.  For many low-income families, property taxes can take up a significant portion of their income, sometimes reaching as high as 20-30%.  The circuit breaker is an important step in ameliorating this issue.  However, as LOBlue correctly points, the circuit breaker down not prohibit other needed progressive legislation.  Of course, we can still have the millionaire's tax.  The circuit breaker is not made to be an alternative.

---

by: Klugstah @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:57:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tax policy is pretty complex (0.00 / 0)

It is actually something I am interested in and read a lot about; which makes me notice that a lot of folks have details a bit inaccurate when they champion one approach or condemn another.  The phrase "the devil is in the details" was coined to describe tax policy, I think.

I agree that, in general,

Tax caps are regressive

although, as pointed out below, so are real property taxes, in general, and income tax brackets like NYS now has thanks to the work of G. Elmer Pataki.  However, the reason you give

everyone's taxes are capped at a fixed amount

is entirely untrue.  The "cap" or not-to-exceed limit, is set on the percentage of increase over the previous year's spending.  The idea is that property taxes would not increase at a far faster rate than paychecks increase.  This is the kind of thing that allows a family to actually PLAN in advance what house they can afford to buy on their expected income.  Which turns out to be an important thing to more than just low-income households.

There is another way to look at this situation, other than just what is, in theory, the most progressive taxation approach.  That is, that the people of NY are in open rebellion against the very-firm grip that the teachers' unions lobbyists have on our State legislature. Admittedly, these folks are also not attending to the details of tax policy.  But, the impulse out there says something.  Check out this

A poll shows more than 70 percent of New Yorkers in every region, in both parties and in every demographic group support a cap on property tax increases that is already doomed in the Legislature.

The Siena Research Institute poll found 74 percent of New Yorkers support Gov. David Paterson's proposed cap of 4 percent annual growth in local school and government taxes.

The Siena poll finds fewer than three in 10 believe a cap would hurt education, as teachers unions and lawmakers claim. And 67 percent said a tax cap is needed "to force school districts to budget and spend resources more carefully."

That we got to this point is a shame.  But, it is where we are.  Might be time to acknowledge that all those billboards with the graduation caps on cute kids may be having the reverse-psychology effect of making some NYers wonder how the teachers have so much money to spend on yet more influencing of state government.  Have yet to see a billboard on the issue paid for by parents.

---

by: robinia @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 14:12:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]