Governor Andrew Cuomo’s 2014-15 budget proposal includes some tax cuts for businesses and New York homeowners, but those measures come at the expense of other important programs, says a group of local union leaders, community activists, and faith leaders.
The local coalition is part of a statewide group that’s pushing back against Cuomo’s proposed tax cuts; it held a press conference this afternoon to highlight what its members say are inequities in the proposal. The money that would be lost to the cuts should instead be invested in state programs, particularly education, the coalition members said.
“This budget is one that doesn’t work for all New Yorkers,” said Crescenzo Scipione, who was speaking on behalf of Metro Justice.
The speakers focused on two distinct areas of education: pre-kindergarten through grade 12 and the SUNY-CUNY system. Tom Gillett, staff director for New York State United Teachers’ Rochester region office, said that the governor’s plan to increase education aid by 3.2 percent over last year sounds generous. But it still doesn’t make up for education funding cuts several years ago, he said.
Jim Bearden, a SUNY Geneseo professor, said state legislators developed a funding formula that would distribute state aid fairly, but that’s it’s never been properly funded.
Cuomo’s budget proposal would also hold SUNY, CUNY, and community college funding flat for the third consecutive year, Gillett said. Over the past 30 years, smaller and smaller proportions of SUNY schools’ operating costs are covered by the state, Bearden said. As a result, SUNY students and their families are not just paying higher tuition, but the tuition income makes up a larger chunk of the schools’ operating funds.
This article appears in Feb 19-25, 2014.
We have been trying to accomplish policy goals with tax cuts since Reagan. Well, since before Reagan, but increasingly it has become a crutch of political rhetoric that never lives up to its promises in practice. We need a highly progressive tax structure that strongly disincentivizes excessive pay and unreasonable hoarding of wealth, in which the gains are used to ensure a thriving commons.
We all benefit from a healthy, well-educated, economically secure population.
“We need a highly progressive tax structure that strongly disincentivizes excessive pay and unreasonable hoarding of wealth, in which the gains are used to ensure a thriving commons.”
What we have in New York is a highly progressive tax structure that ‘disincentivizes’ and punishes success, and forces people to try and protect their wealth from unreasonable confiscation by the state. Look at what happened under NY Governor Paterson after he imposed his tax on “the rich”. Those who were targeted simply left the state; Tom Golisano being the most well-known example. It would have cost Golisano $14,000 a day to remain a resident of NY under Paterson’s tax. “The rich” create jobs. They are also more mobile than the average taxpayer so they can simply up and leave (and take their money with them) when socialists target them. It will be interesting to see what happens if NY mayor De Blasio gets to impose his tax on “the rich”.
NY is the highest-taxed and most business-unfriendly state in America. People are leaving (escaping) in droves and Cuomo understands why. Actually Cuomo is a heretic in the liberal socialist Democrat party. He has stated that lowering taxes helps businesses, which is good for the state. Cuomo proposes to lower property taxes (again, NY is the leader in property taxes in the US) which is good for the struggling NY taxpayer. Cuomo also has indicated he does not approve of De Blasio’s plan to tax “the rich” in NYC. All this is still just talk by Cuomo, but he is by no means a fiscal conservative in my opinion.
You talk about “excessive pay and unreasonable hoarding of wealth”. Who gets to define ‘excessive’ and ‘unreasonable hoarding’. You? De Blasio? Even more to the point, where in the Constitution does is say that our government, or anyone else, has the right or the power to decide what anyone else’s pay should be. Unlike communist and socialist systems it is not the job of the US government to redistribute wealth.