FY 2020 Budget Turns Page on Gimmicks, Invests in Rainy Day Fund

Earlier today, Governor Murphy signed a $38.7 billion budget for Fiscal Year 2020. The budget protects most of the legislature’s spending priorities and dedicates $401 million to the state’s reserve fund — the first deposit in over a decade. In response to the budget, and lack of a millionaires tax, NJPP releases the following statement: 

BRANDON McKOY, PRESIDENT, NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE: 

“The budget signed by Governor Murphy is about much more than dollars and cents, as it represents a commitment to New Jersey’s middle class families and the state’s long-term fiscal health. It also strikes an important balance between the governor’s original proposal and what was ultimately passed by the Legislature. Collectively, these efforts make huge investments in assets proven to grow the economy, like NJ Transit and good public schools, and provide the state with sustainable savings achieved through collective bargaining. 

“Through an executive order, Governor Murphy also made the first deposit into the rainy day fund in over a decade, preparing New Jersey for the next recession and improving the state’s standing in the eyes of credit rating agencies. This is a nationally recognized budgeting best practice and a win for taxpayers of today and tomorrow. 

“Governor Murphy signed a responsible budget that turns the page on the short-sighted gimmicks of the past, but more must be done to position the state for long-term prosperity. New Jersey takes in less revenue than it did before the Great Recession, a direct result of almost a decade of tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthiest individuals and corporations. The restoration of a millionaires tax remains necessary for the state to reliably meet its obligations and continue investing in areas that enable everyday New Jerseyans to thrive.”

# # #

Legislature’s Budget Built on Shaky Foundation

Yesterday, the New Jersey Senate and Assembly unveiled their FY 2020 budget proposal. The spending plan totals $38.8 billion, $200 million more than Governor Murphy’s budget, but does not include enough new, sustainable sources of revenue like the millionaires tax to support those investments in the long-term. In response to the Legislature’s proposal, NJPP releases the following statement.  

BRANDON McKOY, PRESIDENT, NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE:

“The budget proposed by the Legislature is an important, but incomplete, step in building an economy that works for all New Jerseyans. This proposal makes important investments in areas proven to lift working families like NJ Transit, property tax relief, health care, and public education. However, these new investments are not backed by sustainable sources of revenue, threatening their long-term viability and the well-being of New Jersey’s low-paid and middle-class families and children.

“This budget, like many before it, does not include the reliable revenue and savings necessary to meet the state’s long-term needs. By depending on rosy revenue projections and canceling a deposit in the state’s empty rainy day fund, the Legislature has doubled down on short-sighted fiscal practices and dismissed the warnings of budget experts and ratings agencies alike. New Jersey is woefully unprepared for the next economic downturn and the state’s window to build up a healthy rainy day fund is rapidly closing. This is a missed opportunity to bolster the state’s reserves and protect New Jersey families, workers, and businesses from the next recession.

“Lawmakers should have learned by now that new investments must be paired with reliable sources of revenue. The fact remains that after eight years of tax cuts under the previous administration, New Jersey is a national outlier in that it still collects less revenue than it did prior to the Great Recession. Without restoring proper tax rates on wealthy residents, the state will continue to put its long term economic growth — and its chances of closing enormous economic and racial inequities — at risk.”

# # #

Corporate Subsidy Proposals Lack Necessary Reforms

NJPP President Brandon McKoy delivering testimony to the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee on Thursday, June 13, 2019.

This testimony on A4730 and A5343, proposals to extend New Jersey’s corporate subsidy programs, was delivered to the Assembly Commerce and Economic Development Committee on Thursday, June 13, 2019.

Good morning Chairman Johnson and members of the committee.  My name is Brandon McKoy and I am the President of New Jersey Policy Perspective. I appreciate this opportunity to testify on this very important issue.

New Jersey Policy Perspective has researched and analyzed the state’s economic development programs for over twenty years. We closely monitor the tax credits awarded by the state Economic Development Authority, how many jobs created and maintained the state gets in return, and we regularly compare New Jersey’s corporate subsidy programs — and the laws that guide them — against those in other states across the nation.

These decades of research and analysis bring us to a simple conclusion: New Jersey’s economic development programs have been improperly designed, poorly measured, and insufficiently examined since the implementation of the 2013 Economic Opportunity Act, which I will heretofore refer to as the 2013 EOA. While the Economic Development Authority in and of itself is not a problematic entity, the legislation guiding its operations leaves much to be desired. 

Since the passage of the 2013 EOA, New Jersey’s corporate tax subsidies have risen to unprecedented levels, with an enormous financial reward to very few corporations and an enormous cost to Garden State taxpayers. New Jersey is now a national outlier for how much it spends on corporate subsidies and how little it receives as a return on investment. But it doesn’t have to be this way. As the current laws guiding the state’s corporate subsidy programs are set to expire on June 30, this legislative body has an incredible opportunity to revamp the state’s approach to economic development so it benefits businesses, their workers, and taxpayers alike. 

The purported goals of the legislation being considered today may have good intentions, but they lack the critical reforms necessary to get New Jersey’s economic development strategy back on track. It is NJPP’s position that the extensive flaws in the 2013 EOA must be addressed before any consideration of extending these programs. 

While bill A4730 would slightly improve eligibility requirements for the Grow New Jersey Assistance Program, it lacks key reforms that would reel in an out-of-control corporate tax subsidy initiative. It contains no annual spending caps, no mandated reporting to verify outcomes, no recurring evaluation process, no annual forecasting or multi-year cost projections, and no labor protections. In fact, this legislation rewards corporations that hire contract workers. 

Meanwhile, A5343 would simply extend the existing program to January 31, 2020. For a program with well-documented flaws that is projected to rob the state budget over $1 billion in revenue annually for the foreseeable future, this makes little sense. Rational and attainable fixes have been suggested time and time again to this legislature, both by NJPP and national experts, and yet they remain conspicuously absent from both of these proposals.

Before considering extensions, we must recognize that these programs have not produced results as intended. The cost to the state remains too great, and the means to verify impact remain insufficient. 

Before 2013, New Jersey’s corporate subsidy spending was in line with the national average, at about $16,000 per job created or maintained. Since the passage of the 2013 EOA, the state has awarded enormous corporate subsidies that are more than five times the national average. In return, the state has received little verifiable performance or uptick in jobs, development, and economic growth. Simply put, rather than being another tool in the toolbox of economic development, corporate tax subsidies became theeconomic development strategy of New Jersey. 

For years, NJPP has raised the alarm about the enormous cost of these programs to our state, at a time when New Jersey can least afford to gamble away future tax revenue. These bills proposed today do not sufficiently assuage the concerns we have documented.

And you don’t have to just take my word for it. Other than the findings of multiple reviews and analyses by other independent actors, the Fiscal Impact Statement that accompanied the final version of the 2013 EOA clearly states that the loss of revenue to the state’s Treasury, due to credit redemptions, would be enormous. It also says that the levels of Corporate Business Tax uncertainty and losses, even with implied increased local spending and jobs development, could be substantial and result in a decade of direct business tax revenue reductions and losses. While some would like to deny the reality, those warnings have come to fruition.

Without implementing annual spending caps for awards, shorter term lengths for awards, penalties for bad actors and known tax dodgers, wage protections for workers, and nationally recognized best practices for assessment and review, New Jersey Policy Perspective cannot support these bills as currently constructed. 

I understand that this body and the legislature are on a short time line with regard to the sunset of the 2013 EOA, but NJPP and others have been commenting on these issues to lawmakers for years. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone.

Given the scope and cost of New Jersey’s corporate subsidies, the laws guiding the Economic Development Authority will be among the most consequential pieces of legislation passed this session. Passage of any extension without the inclusion of critically necessary reforms leaves the state extremely vulnerable to uncertain and insufficient economic outcomes.

This presents you an incredible opportunity to fix the problems with New Jersey’s existing corporate subsidy programs and ensure future economic development benefits all New Jerseyans — business owners, their workers, local communities, and taxpayers alike. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I look forward to working with you all as New Jersey revamps its approach to economic development.

 

Gov. Murphy’s EDA Reforms Are Necessary to Correct Flaws in EDA Programs

Governor Murphy announcing a corporate subsidy reform package in Cherry Hill on June 5, 2019.

Earlier today, Governor Phil Murphy unveiled a package of reforms to New Jersey’s corporate tax incentive programs. The proposals follow months of independent reports and task force hearings highlighting fraud and waste at the state Economic Development Authority. In response to the proposed reforms, New Jersey Policy Perspective releases the following statement.

BRANDON McKOY, NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE PRESIDENT:

“The tax subsidy reforms proposed by Governor Murphy are necessary to correct the serious flaws in New Jersey’s economic development programs. Since the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act in 2013, New Jersey has been a national outlier in how it operates its tax incentive programs, with the state spending five times the national average on corporate subsidies. With the programs guiding the Economic Development Authority set to expire at the end of the month, there has never been a more opportune time for meaningful reform.

“This package of reforms is forward thinking and, more importantly, follows best practices from across the nation. Hard caps on awards and stronger oversight will protect taxpayers and the state’s budget, while better targeting of awards and improved labor protections will ensure the benefits of corporate subsidies are shared broadly among business owners, their workers, and local communities alike.

“We look forward to working with Governor Murphy and members of the Legislature in the pursuit of economic development policies that are fiscally responsible and prioritize the best interests of everyday New Jerseyans.”

New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic justice and prosperity for all New Jerseyans through evidence-based, independent research, analysis and advocacy. NJPP has long-advocated for reforming New Jersey’s corporate subsidy programs.

# # #

Driver’s License Expansion Would Pay for Itself and More

Expanding access to driver’s licenses to all New Jersey residents, regardless of immigration status, would make the state’s roads safer and its economy stronger. The proposal would also pay for itself by bringing in tens of millions of dollars in recurring revenue for the state’s general fund, according to an NJPP analysis of new data from the New Jersey Office of Revenue and Economic Analysis. This is a win-win for drivers, working families, and the state’s finances.

Over the first three years of implementation, driver’s license expansion is projected to generate $21 million in revenue from permit, title, and driver’s license fees. Once fully implemented, new drivers will generate $90 million annually from registration fees, the gas tax, and the sales tax on purchases made at gas stations and motor vehicle and auto parts retailers.[1]

New Jersey is one of the most diverse states in the nation and is home to approximately 484,000 undocumented residents, representing 5.4 percent of the state’s total population. Of the nearly half million undocumented residents, 91.5 percent are of driving age (16 and older). Based on the experiences of the twelve states that have already expanded access to driver’s licenses, NJPP estimates that 222,000 residents would obtain a drivers license during the first three years of implementation. This equates to a 3.5 percent increase in the total number of people in New Jersey with a driver’s license.[2]These new drivers would pay a collective $6 million in permit and license fees over the first three years of implementation.

These drivers are also estimated to purchase 80,000 cars over the same three year period, representing a three percent increase in the number of vehicles registered.[3] Title and plate fees associated with these new vehicles will generate almost $15 million in revenue.

According to NJPP’s analysis of new data from the New Jersey Treasury Department’s Office of Revenue and Economic Analysis, driver’s license expansion would also generate the state tens of millions of dollars in recurring revenue as new drivers register their vehicles and purchase gasoline as well as auto parts and associated retail goods at gas stations and auto part dealers. Using the Treasury’s data on sales taxes collected from gasoline stations and auto parts stores, combined with revenue figures from the petroleum gross receipts and motor fuels tax, NJPP projects that driver’s license expansion would generate $90 million annually in sales and gas tax revenue. Revenue from the gas tax would go directly to the Transportation Trust Fund, which currently collects 41.5 cents per gallon of gas sold. This will make the state’s gas tax collections less volatile and could lower the odds of a future gas tax increase.

In addition to making New Jersey’s roads safer and its economy stronger, expanding access to driver’s licenses would more than pay for itself, generating $90 million in tax revenue every year.


Methodology

Number of Undocumented Immigrants of Driving Age and the Number Who would obtain a driver’s license during the first three years of implementation

There are three estimates used to quantify the number of undocumented immigrants: 452,000 (Center for Migration Studies), 475,000 (Pew Hispanic Center), and 526,000 (Migration Policy Institute). The average of the three estimates is 484,000. There are two estimates for the percent of New Jersey’s undocumented immigrants who are 16 years or older: 90 percent (Center for Migration Studies) and 93 percent (Migration Policy Institute). NJPP took the average of the two numbers (91.5) and multiplied that by average number of undocumented immigrants to get the estimated number of undocumented residents who are of driving age: 444,000. We assume that New Jersey would have a high-end participation rate after three years, similar to Illinois’ rate of 47 percent. We project New Jersey’s rate will be slightly higher at 50 percent given driving is necessary to getting around the state’s sprawling suburbs. The Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) similarly uses this take up rate in their projections for New York. Thus, we multiply the number of undocumented residents of driving age by the take up rate of 50 percent to project that approximately 222,000 undocumented immigrants who would obtain a driver’s license during the first three years of implementation.

Number of new cars on the road

To analyze new cars on the road after driver’s license expansion, NJPP projects similar automobile purchases and new licenses as FPI projected for New York. Multiplying FPI’s take-up ratio by the number of New Jersey residents that would get a driver’s license during the first three years of implementation projects 80,000 new cars. Note that new cars means new car purchases, not brand new automobiles. For more information, see: Expanding Access to Driver’s Licenses: Getting a License Without Regard to Immigration Status and Expanding Access to Driver’s Licenses: How Many Additional Cars Might Be Purchased? (http://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/FPI-Additional-cars-report-2017.pdf)

Numbers for Annual Revenue  

The annual revenue includes: registration fees, gas station and auto part sales tax revenue, and gas tax revenue. The projected 80,000 new cars after three years represents a 2.86 percent increase in registered cars in New Jersey. We multiplied the 2.86 percent increase to the latest figures on gas station and auto part retailer sales tax revenue and to annual gasoline purchases subject to the state gas tax (including petroleum gross receipts and motor fuels).

Revenue from the first three years of implementation

Regardless of a person’s age, first time drivers must pay a $10 dollar permit fee. NJPP multiplied this fee by 222,000, the number of estimated new drivers during the first three years of implementation. We also include revenue associated with title and license plates fees. We multiplied the one time fee of $46.50 times the number of estimated new cars, 80,000. Finally, we multiplied the number of people who would get a driver’s license during the first three years of implementation, 222,000 by $18 the price of a basic driver’s license according to Assembly bill A4743.


End Notes

[1] Does not include the revenue from sales tax of new car purchased.

[2] NJPP divided the estimated number of people who would get a license during the first three by the number of licenced drivers in NJ. Highway Statistics 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2017/dl201.cfm

[3] See Methodology.

Pension and Benefit Cuts Are Bad Public Policy and Even Worse Optics

Earlier today Senate President Steve Sweeney unveiled a package of 27 bills from his Path to Progress working group. In response to proposals to reduce working class pensions and health benefits, NJPP President Brandon McKoy released the following statement.

NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE PRESIDENT BRANDON McKOY

“Trickle down economic policies got New Jersey into its current fiscal mess and more of the same will not lift the state out of it. It is bad public policy — and even worse optics — to ask more than 350,000 working families to make further sacrifices while protecting 17,000 millionaires from a modest tax increase. In this era of historic inequality and wage stagnation, the choice before lawmakers is clear. They can continue to balance budgets on the backs of middle class families or ensure the wealthiest among us pay their fair share.”

“Lawmakers must not forget history. Under the Christie administration, the state cut taxes time and time again for the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations. As a result, middle class families now pay a higher share of their income in state and local taxes than millionaires do.

“Last year, lawmakers challenged Governor Murphy to find significant savings before they would consider a millionaires tax, and he did just that. It’s time for lawmakers to fulfill their promise and ask the wealthiest among us to pay a little bit more.”

# # #

Treasurer’s Testimony Highlights Need for Sustainable Revenue

Earlier today the Office of Legislative Services and State Treasurer Muoio testified at the Senate Budget Committee hearing and delivered updated revenue collection figures for FY 2019. In response to today’s testimony, NJPP releases the following statement.

NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE SENIOR POLICY ANALYST SHEILA REYNERTSON

“Today’s budget testimony delivered good news that revenue collections are above projections for the remainder of the fiscal year. But just as the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services warned, this is good news that should be taken with caution. This year’s budget relies on over $1 billion in one-shot revenue sources that are set to disappear. Lawmakers must pursue reliable and sustainable sources of revenue, like the proposed millionaires tax, to make up for these lost funds and continue investing in assets proven to grow the economy. A millionaires tax would also promote tax fairness, as the current tax code results in middle class families paying a higher share of their income in state and local taxes than the state’s top earners.

“The $317 million deposit into New Jersey’s rainy day fund — the first in eleven years — is a noteworthy accomplishment and a good budgeting practice that will reflect well in credit agency evaluations. However, more can and must be done to help prepare the state for the next recession or natural disaster. The state must build on last year’s successes and commit to new, renewable sources of revenue, robust surpluses, and continued deposits into the rainy day fund.”

# # #

Lobbyists Drafting EOA is Privatization of the Legislative Process

Earlier today New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) President Brandon McKoy testified at the Economic Incentive Task Force hearing on the NJ Economic Development Authority and crafting of the Economic Opportunity Act of 2013. In response to the hearing and yesterday’s exposés by WNYC and the New York Times, NJPP releases the following statement:

NEW JERSEY POLICY PERSPECTIVE PRESIDENT BRANDON McKOY

“The fraud and abuse at the Economic Development Authority extend far beyond lax oversight and personnel — they are a direct result of the legislation guiding the state’s tax subsidy programs. Quietly drafted by corporate lobbyists who had a financial interest in the bill, the Economic Opportunity Act of 2013 is riddled with narrowly tailored loopholes ripe for exploitation. There is no question that this law was written to benefit already wealthy and well-connected individuals and corporations, not ordinary New Jerseyans. This represents a privatization of the legislative process and corporate cronyism at its worst. New Jersey taxpayers deserve better.

“Nothing about the laws guiding New Jersey’s economic subsidy programs is normal. New Jersey is an outlier in how much it spends on incentives and how little it gets back in return. Taxpayers cannot afford for the Economic Development Authority to continue doing business as usual. New Jersey must follow best practices utilized by other states and reform its subsidy programs so they are targeted, properly monitored, and capped. These common-sense reforms will ensure the EDA promotes developments that benefit all New Jerseyans, not just a select few.”

Watch Brandon McKoy’s testimony to the Tax Incentive Task Force here:

https://youtu.be/U-GG3tP7chA?t=22410

# # #

 

A Proposal to Fix the Federal Tax Code for Working Families

A new proposal introduced last week by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) would help fix the tax code and provide relief for low-paid workers as they support themselves and their families by putting money back in their pockets for basic necessities like home repairs, car maintenance, or in some cases, additional education or training to get a better, higher-paying job.

The bill, aptly named the Working Families Tax Relief Act, would substantially expand both the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), boosting the incomes and economic security of 46 million households nationwide, including 1,049,000 million households in New Jersey. The EITC and CTC are widely recognized as some of the most impactful policies that help working people with low-paid jobs make ends meet, reduce poverty, and improve children’s opportunities and outcomes later in life.

Specifically, the bill would:

  • Increase the EITC for families with children by roughly 25 percent
  • Substantially increase the EITC for workers not raising children and lower the eligibility age to 19
  • Make the full $2,000 CTC available to all low- and moderate-income families
  • Create a new Young Child Tax Credit that would provide families with children under 6 years old an extra $1,000 per child (for a total of $3,000 per child)
  • Make the CTC equally accessible to families in Puerto Rico and expand Puerto Rico’s EITC

Addressing the upside down tax code and 2017 federal tax cuts

Working families have seen their incomes stagnate for decades — through no fault of their own — without much relief from the federal government. Instead, recent tax law changes have exacerbated inequality and skewed the tax code to further benefit already wealthy individuals and corporations. This is exemplified by the deeply flawed 2017 federal tax cuts, which delivered large cuts to the wealthy and profitable corporations, yet failed to strengthen the EITC and left more than 11 million children in low-income working families with either no CTC increase or a token increase of $75 or less. The Working Families Tax Relief Act  would begin to fix the upside down nature of the tax code in three important ways. It would strengthen the EITC for working people not raising children, ensure that millions of poor children aren’t left out of the Child Tax Credit, and target additional income support to low-income families with very young children.

Boosting the incomes of working-class people across racial and ethnic backgrounds

Working-class households of all races — especially those with working-age people without a college degree — have enjoyed only small income gains in recent decades. Many of these working people have low-paid jobs that do not allow them to meet their most basics needs. The problem of low wages is further compounded in communities of color, where many people face barriers like housing discrimination. Under the Working Families Tax Relief Act, a single mom of two earning $20,000 a year would get a $3,700 annual boost. A married couple with two young kids making $45,000 a year would get a $3,500 boost. This is real relief for families that need it the most — and it would have a ripple effect throughout the broader economy.

Lasting benefits for millions of children and their families

The Working Families Tax Relief Act recognizes that the best investment a government can make is in its children. Refundable tax credits like the CTC and EITC have many direct and indirect benefits for kids, as parents who have higher incomes from tax credits tend to get more prenatal care, experience less maternal stress, and have healthier babies. Research also indicates that children receiving tax credits do better in school and are more likely to attend college. This improves kids’ economic prospects well into adulthood through more years of schooling, higher skills, and thus higher earnings. Kids whose families receive tax credits are also likelier to avoid the early onset of illnesses associated with child poverty.

It’s time to fix the federal tax code for working families

Many of America’s low-income working families are struggling to stay afloat as decades of stagnant wages have not kept pace with rising costs of living. This has resulted in far too many parents with low-paying jobs struggling to provide for themselves and their families. The Working Families Tax Relief Ac would begin to fix the federal tax code to better serve working people and help those struggling to keep their heads above water and give their children a good start in life.

Millionaires Tax is the Right Policy at the Right Time

The millionaires tax will help tackle growing inequality and provide much needed revenue for critical investments in state assets.


In his fiscal year 2020 budget, Governor Murphy has once again proposed a true “millionaires tax” to ensure the richest households in New Jersey pay their fair share in taxes. Raising the marginal income tax rate on annual earnings over $1 million is a fair and modest policy — and it comes at a particularly important time. Income inequality in the United States, and New Jersey, is at a dangerously high level. Disparities between those at the top and everyone else are growing every day as the wealthy and well-connected take advantage of rigged federal and state tax codes to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

Runaway inequality is widely recognized across the political spectrum as one of the defining economic and political issues of our time.  And yet, Governor Murphy’s proposal is receiving the cold shoulder from members of the legislature — even among those who voted for the same exact policy five times during the Christie administration. This reluctance to make the tax code fairer persists despite the millionaires tax being incredibly popular with voters; despite the so-called “millionaire tax flight” myth being repeatedly debunked; and despite the serious and almost universally accepted need for increased investments in New Jersey’s critical assets and rainy day fund. But, before we go too far into the politics of the situation, it’s important to lay out the details of what the governor has proposed.

The Millionaires Tax as a Tool to Combat Income Inequality

Governor Murphy’s millionaires tax proposal is not a new tax, as it would simply apply the top 10.75 percent income tax rate to all annual earnings over $1 million. Right now, only annual income over $5 million is taxed at this rate, while income between $500,000 and $5 million is taxed at a rate of 8.97 percent. Legislative leaders have already indicated their opposition to a true millionaires tax, claiming it would result in New Jersey’s highest earning families moving to states with lower income tax rates. Given how critical this policy is in mitigating income inequality and fully investing in public programs, services, and infrastructure we all rely on, separating fact from fiction is vital.

First, it’s necessary to note that New Jersey’s income tax is a marginal tax. This means that the 10.75 percent tax rate on people who earn over $5 million doesn’t apply to their entire income — it only applies to earnings over $5 million. All earnings over $500,000 and up to $5 million are taxed at the 8.97 percent rate. Oftentimes, opponents of tax fairness like to confuse the  public by implying that the higher tax rate would apply to an individual’s entire income, but that is simply untrue.

In order to be in the top one percent in New Jersey, you have to make at least $588,575 in annual income. Considering this, millionaires are easily in the top one percent of earners in the Garden State. Compared to the rest of the state — the bottom 99 percent — those in the top one percent are doing exceedingly well. Their average income is $1,581,829, whereas the average income for the bottom 99 percent is $65,068. Simply put, on average the top one percent of New Jerseyans makes 24.3 times more than the bottom 99 percent. This level of inequality ranks New Jersey as 9th worst in the nation.

Source: Economic Policy Institute, The Unequal States of America

When measuring the collective income of all workers in New Jersey, the top one percent take home nearly one fifth — 19.7 percent — of the entire sum. This is not far off from the state’s historic high, which peaked just before the Great Depression. When economic inequality was at its lowest — between the 1950s and late 1970s — the share of total income that the top one percent of New Jerseyans owned was less than 10 percent. The top one percent owning this much of New Jersey’s total income should act as a bright red flag that inequality is out of control and now is an opportune time to implement measures that promote tax fairness, including the millionaires tax proposed by Governor Murphy.

And while there are many factors that contribute to rising inequality, New Jersey’s tax code isn’t helping. Under the current tax code, New Jersey’s middle-class families pay a greater share of their income in state and local taxes than the top 5 percent of households do. This is unfair, exacerbates income inequality, and makes it harder for middle class families to thrive. Increasing taxes on top earners will make New Jersey’s tax code more progressive and help ensure future state budgets are no longer balanced on the backs of middle class families. And because New Jersey’s income tax is dedicated to the Property Tax Relief Fund, this revenue will help to reduce property taxes throughout the state while also freeing up other revenues to invest in state assets.

Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Who Pays? 6th Edition

Dispelling Myths and Respecting Public Support

The need for a millionaires tax is clear. Inequality is dangerously high and continues to grow.  The state’s tax code is still not as progressive as it could and should be. But, despite mounting evidence that this proposal is necessary and fair, opponents of a millionaires tax contend that such a move would cause the state’s wealthiest residents to flee for lower-tax pastures, an argument known as “millionaire tax flight.” It’s a common misconception built on decades of misinformation and anecdotal evidence. Luckily, there’s plenty of research and data to show that “millionaire tax flight” is a total myth.

New Jersey Policy Perspective has repeatedly busted the myth of “millionaire tax flight,” and our research echoes similar findings of  researchers at independent, national policy organizations and peer reviewed research institutions. The tax flight myth has been busted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Tax Policy Center, and Stanford University. And if you’re looking for a longer read on the subject, Cornell University professor Cristobal Young wrote the book on it. And yet, despite NJPP repeatedly publishing and sharing comprehensive analyses showing that high tax rates do not cause the wealthy to move, elected officials have continued to buy into the lie and use it as an excuse to protect the wealthy from fair and proper taxation.

After the 2017 federal tax changes, some legislators expressed concern that implementing a millionaires tax now would be a mistake, claiming that wealthy households in New Jersey couldn’t afford an increase in their income taxes because the federal changes negatively affected them. These fears are unfounded. When accounting for the federal tax changes along with a state millionaires tax, New Jersey’s top one percent of tax filers still receive a net tax cut of approximately $3,200.

And when legislators aren’t knocking the merits of a millionaires tax, they often claim it’s unpopular and their constituents don’t support it. This perspective is particularly hard to believe considering the recent federal election where progressive and liberal candidates, running on platforms that included fair taxation and policies to tackle income inequality, came within one seat of sweeping the state’s congressional races. But this isn’t a matter of opinion — there are mounting statewide polls that show Governor Murphy’s millionaires tax is incredibly popular.

When Governor Murphy first proposed a millionaires tax during last year’s budget negotiations, polls conducted by Rutgers University, Stockton University, Quinnipiac University, and a poll commissioned by NJPP, all came to the same conclusion: a millionaires tax has broad, bipartisan support across the state. The polls found that up to 75 percent — and no less than 68 percent — of voters support a millionaires tax. These polls should provide relief to legislators who fear the political consequences of taking on growing inequality. If anything, failing to support the millionaires tax would be more dangerous with three in four New Jerseyans supporting it. Combine this with the reality of growing inequality and bold proposals from 2020 presidential candidates to fairly tax the nation’s wealthiest residents and it’s clear that tax policy is becoming a more important issue in future elections.

The Legislature Must Finish the Job it Started in 2010 and Pass the Millionaires Tax

While many legislators are expressing opposition to implementing a millionaires tax — despite all of the evidence that it is extremely popular with voters and doesn’t cause the wealthy to flee — you don’t have to go too far back in history to a time when they were fully supportive of the idea. Under Governor Christie, the full legislature passed a millionaires tax  five times (in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, and 2015). Of course, the governor vetoed their efforts every time, but legislators took a bold stance, on the record, in support of tax fairness with each vote. In fact, in 2014, legislative leadership proposed putting the millionaires tax on the ballot as a constitutional amendment to help increase state revenues for critical investments and make the tax code more fair. All of this created anticipation and expectation that if a governor who supported the policy took office after Governor Christie, the legislature would gladly work with them to implement something that they tried and failed to do five times previously. Now with Governor Murphy including the proposal in his budget, the legislature would be wise to join him in completing the task.

Since those failed efforts by the legislature under the previous administration, income inequality has only gotten worse and state assets are still in desperate need of increased and reliable sources of funding. Many state departments continue to struggle with funding levels no higher than they were under Governor Christie, our institutions of higher education still have less general operating support than they did prior to the Great Recession, and New Jersey Transit — while better than it has been in recent years — remains in need of more funding so it can modernize its system and meet the daily needs of New Jersey commuters.

To summarize: there is no such thing as millionaire tax flight and the 2017 federal tax changes were a massive boon to wealthy earners, so concerns about the welfare of the rich have no basis in reality; voters have always shown high levels of support for a millionaires tax, so any worries by lawmakers that passing the policy on to the governor’s desk would have political consequences are completely unfounded; and the state’s assets still require significant investments after eight years of cuts.

The bottom line is a millionaires tax is a critical budgetary tool that will help New Jersey meet its needs. Lawmakers should have passed it last year when the governor proposed it in his first budget and they have even more reason to do so now. It’s far past time to take this important step and bolster our budget, make our tax code fairer, and respect the wishes of the state’s voters. Pass the millionaires tax now and make New Jersey a fairer and better place to live.