New York, Blue States Get Hit With Biggest Hikes if Bush Tax Cuts Expire
17th August 2012
New Yorkers will shell out an average $5,542 more in taxes next year if President Obama and Congress can’t agree on an extension of the current rates, a study by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found.
Only taxpayers in neighboring Connecticut would suffer a bigger hike than New York. They’d fork over an extra $5,783 if the tax cuts adopted under President George W. Bush expire Jan. 1.
Which is only fair.
New Jersey taxpayers face the third-biggest hit, up $5,030, followed by Massachusetts ($4,277) and California ($4,242). All are wealthier, Democratic-dominated states.
The state facing the smallest tax hike is Mississippi, a solidly Republican and poor state, where the average tax bill would still go up $1,313.
The other states where residents would feel the least impact are New Mexico ($1,465), Alabama ($1,496), Tennessee ($1,522) and West Virginia ($1,530).
“It’s pretty dramatic,” Tax Foundation economist Will McBride told CNBC. “This is the biggest tax increase that would happen since World War II.”
Not that you’d know that from watching TV or reading newspapers.
August 17th, 2012 at 06:34
Simple statistics: Richer folks will pay more than poorer folks, because they make more than poorer folks.
It has nothing to do with ‘Red’ or ‘Blue’ status; New York, connecticut, California, etc., have some of the richest folks around.
Which brings up an ancillary question: Why are the “solidly Republican” Red states so poor?
Could there be a correlation between Republicanism and not being able to prosper?
August 17th, 2012 at 07:56
There certainly is between being Republican and not being able to feed off the government teat; the biggest earmarkers are all Democrats (or would-be-Democrat RINOS like Ted Stevens). One of the richest ‘blue states’ is DC (and its environs in Maryland and Virginia), the only product of which is Government.
August 17th, 2012 at 08:23
I’ve been wading through a book by James K. Galbraith called Inequality and Instability, wherein he demonstrates that most of the rise in income inequality in the 90’s was fueled by the finance and technology sectors, concentrated in a handful of counties in New York, Silicon Valley, and the DC area. So it is no surprise that any tax changes would disproportionately affect those areas.
It’s fascinating reading, if you haven’t looked at it. I recommend it.
August 17th, 2012 at 11:00
Galbraith? That fossil? Dude, this is a new millennium. Try to keep up.
August 17th, 2012 at 12:59
Not JOHN K., JAMES K. Try reading for comprehension.