New York City: Is It Always Getting Poorer? Or Just Getting Poorer Now?
So this new study by the Empire Center for New York State Policy is totally fascinating. Their agenda is anti-tax, so their framing for the exodus of 1.5 million New York residents from 2000 to 2008 is about tax burdens. So their point is mostly that rich people are leaving and poor foreign people are coming in. In real fact, the population of New York state grew 2.7% from 2000 to 2008; Manhattan's migration zeroed out in that time period (someone's always ready to take your apartment!), although New York City overall had 1.1 million people leave. (Is this atypical? No idea!) And also notably, departures from New York state for other states slowed radically in 2007 and 2008. But! Here is the most captivating thing.
The average adjusted gross income of taxpaying households leaving New York between 2006 and 2007 was $57,144, while the average income of households moving into New York was $50,533-a difference of 13 percent. Non-migrating New York households as of 2007 had an average income of $63,277.
Wow. So poorer people-most likely skewed poorer by being younger and/or foreign, but also possibly by virtue of not being New Yorkers, who are usually richer than the rest of the country-are moving in, while really richer people are definitely going. But the people in the middle are staying put?
There's also this issue with Manhattan itself, "where the average out-migrant income of $93,264 was 28 percent higher than the in-migrant average of $72,726." And 35,000 total people left Manhattan in 2006 and 2007.
And, of course, almost a third of New York state leavers went to Florida.
But isn't New York City chronically in a condition where people move here poorer, and depart richer? How atypical could this be of previous decades? (Like, why do you think there are suburbs!)
This is not what the New York Post is straightforwardly billing it as: "New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers-and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows." Because you know what? I'd sure like to see how this corresponds to the 70s and 80s, know what I'm saying?
Still, I will be up all night thinking about this! Please call me if you have any insight.
Yeah, but by the looks of it, there were 1.1 million babies born in that time frame, so it evens out.
Would love to see the numbers on average income for non-migrating Manhattanites, but it seems to be omitted in the report.
Ignore it. NYC has one of the highest median incomes (and for a city this size, the highest) in the country. So people move here and there income goes up. They leave because of real estate costs more than taxes, since they ended up allocating tax earned in the city as long they are in the tri-state area (NJ and CT have reciprocal tax relationships). The only tax you can really point to is unincorporated biz tax, but even that deducts against state. Short version is, if you live in CT and work here, you tax burden is probably pretty similar, but your living quarters are more generous.
Except you get out of paying NYC municipal income tax. I guess the real question would be if the repeal of the commuter tax had an real influence on people leaving the city to live in NJ, LI or Westchester.
Not really true, except at the highest level. City tax nets against State (NY), so if you owe $5K to the city and $8K to the state, you don't pay $13K (again, unless you are in the very upper brackets, and then there are plenty of ways to avoid that). There are plenty of what-have-you's, but the short version is, if you derive income from NYC and live within the tri-state area, the amount of money you pay in taxes is going to be close enough that it doesn't impact your migration patterns nearly as much as other significant cost and lifestyle choices (school districts, home ownership, etc). Unless you are some Wesley Snipes sort of nut job, in which case you already moved to a cave in New Hampshire.
Oh, and why would the repeal of the commuter tax encourage migration out of the city? As much as people carp about taxes, there's very little causal evidence that anyone every moves anywhere because of tax rates. It's an expense like anything else. People flock to New York even though it housing costs should be a massive deterrent.
"And, of course, almost a third of New York state leavers went to Florida."
All right, so it's 1.1 million rich old Jews leaving (my Aunt Charla among them) to Miami Beach.
There money circulates back into our economy anyway by way of birthday and Hanukkah cards to their grandchildren.
Their. Ewwwwww.
The people moving in are in thigh-high boots.
Maybe Moe could explain?
hmm, but according to NYC.gov, the population of the 5 boroughs increased by 355,432 people between 2000 and 2008.
The fact that the NYC population is growing overall–even if you do assume that the newcomers make slightly less than people who have left–means that if you use the report's $72K ballpark, taxable income in NYC increased to the tune of more than $25 billion since 2000. Which seems like it would cancel out what was lost by the flight of the richies. no?