Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Neoliberalism2024 t1_j9db0s3 wrote

New York State is ridiculous in general with taxes. They withhold bonuses at ~11% even though the max marginal tax rate is ~7%, so they can get a free interest free loan every year. And they make it illegal to set allowances (e.g., pay a lower tax rate the rest of the year since you over paid with your bonus). I work in finance and my New York State refund is close to $10k every year because of this.

102

AlexProbablyKnows t1_j9dbqu9 wrote

Yea this is the biggest scam of all. Having to get a giant tax refund each year because NYS decides to purposefully overtax bonuses.

I didn't know this about allowances? I recall setting my allowances higher middle of last year because I had already vastly overpaid my annual state tax.

47

titleywinker t1_j9dd83g wrote

You have guidance on this illegal allowance adjustment? I’d definitely advise my clients to update their withholding during the year if they overwithhold

18

the_lamou t1_j9e6d0v wrote

That's how bonuses work literally everywhere — the withholding is ALWAYS significantly higher than the rate you end up paying.

3

AmericanCreamer t1_j9emzdl wrote

Not what he’s saying though. Normally, well for federal taxes, bonus is withheld at the top marginal rate, but NYS withholds rate that’s higher than what’s even possible

9

HowDoWeAccountForMe2 t1_j9eujt6 wrote

That's not true either Fed bonuses are taxed at 22% which is the 3rd of 7 tax brackets. Right in the median household income.

This would be like the fed government holding bonuses at 37% and then a extra few percent as an added FU.

7

D14DFF0B t1_j9evj6u wrote

Uh, below a million, the federal withholding rate for supplement income is 22%. For someone that has a $900k bonus, that's going to severely underwithhold.

1

[deleted] t1_j9dz94y wrote

[deleted]

0

Astoria321 t1_j9emd67 wrote

Not OP but that's very interesting if cool and I appreciate you sharing this

1

Colonel-Cathcart t1_j9evlfn wrote

any source for that? From what I understand you don't get interest paid back to you when you get a tax refund.

1

kiklion t1_j9ex4jx wrote

Not sure about NYC but the fed pays you interest in what they owe you, but, AFAIK, only to the extent there is a delay in distributing any refund you are owed.

1

Colonel-Cathcart t1_j9g9g80 wrote

Yeah that's a little different though. We're talking about how overwithholding itself is an interest free loan until the refund comes. The interest that would get paid out is only if the refund is issued late, it doesn't catch you up on interest you might have earned if you didn't overwithhold in the first place

1

MikeDamone t1_j9fa9zs wrote

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. Your tax refund, from the IRS or the state, is 100% absent any interest. You are absolutely giving them an interest free loan in the form of over withholding.

1

oreosfly t1_j9dj46k wrote

The state tax AND the city tax AND the property tax AND the hard capped SALT deduction ensures that you'll always get slapped across the face multiple times for living here.

47

Zodiac5964 t1_j9ekg69 wrote

AND the sales tax.

you'd think by literally profit-sharing our incomes, we'd have a squeaky clean city, modern public transportation and significantly fewer public safety issues.

But no. We pay significantly more than residents of comparable tier one cities across the world, yet get back significantly less.

i get it there are other priorities, but it's only right for the city to pay a little more attention to the priorities of those who, you know, fucking pay the bills.

i'm so fed up with how little NY's elected officials actually cared to represent some of our real interests. From City Council all the way to Albany. All of you elected officials out there ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

15

MikeDamone t1_j9fb465 wrote

Not to mention that the wealthiest among us in this city deliberately plan their lives around owning out-of-state homes and owing minimal state/city tax. The ones without absurd means are left holding the bag. And we have derelict stations, 50 year old train cars, and trash strewn streets to show for it. Meanwhile the Buffalo Bills, and their billionaire owner, get a free $800m subsidy on their new stadium.

Right wingers across the country love to get frothy mouthed about crime and other Democrat-city misdeeds, but it is fascinating to me that they give relatively little attention to the real rot, waste, and corruption that we have in our state.

3

D14DFF0B t1_j9evo66 wrote

You call and write to them about this, right? And you vote for people that act to reduce waste and corruption, right?

0

birdsaflutter t1_j9dhc0q wrote

Absolutely agree, I found out about the same issue a few years ago when I did my taxes manually to double check Turbo Tax. I was shocked to find that I fell right in the “recapture” zone. I don’t remember exactly, but I thought that the “slide up” from NY state in that zone, combined with city and federal taxes, meant that I took home less money than if I was just below the zone threshold. I called the tax department in disbelief, they agreed that I had it right. Unbelievable! I tried to find articles about it online, nothing. I even wrote to The NY Times personal finance section requesting they do an article on it, they didn’t.

40

PostPostMinimalist OP t1_j9dk37t wrote

>meant that I took home less money than if I was just below the zone threshold

I don't believe it works this way. Basically at the top of the zone, you pay marginal rate on every dollar. One dollar above, what you pay is the 'table' calculation plus the recapture base amount. This recapture base amount is precisely the difference between your current marginal rate and the previous one times the amount where the new bracket starts, IE it's calculated so that these numbers are the same. Then you add on top of that (incremental benefit) based on a ratio of X/50,000 where X is your amount in the new bracket, so it starts at 0.

Took me a few tries to wrap my brain around it....

19

Frisco_Danconia t1_j9f2iln wrote

I had a similar issue last year and did the math multiple times because I just refused to believe it, but there is a zone in which you actually take home less if you earned more and I fell into it. Admittedly, I may have fucked up the math but I don’t think so.

I hate our tax system so much. It’s not at all surprising that high earners are moving to Florida and elsewhere.

1

ironichaos t1_j9d6q5h wrote

I honestly don’t know how anyone stays up to date with the tax codes. As much as I hate turbo tax, I would hate working there even more updating the software each year for all of these rules.

38

PostPostMinimalist OP t1_j9d6x3g wrote

I stayed up to date because the numbers from everywhere else didn't add up. So I did it all 'manually' until it made sense and made this discovery. I think it's been like this in NY State for years at least, but not sure.

It took hours to understand fully and this is relatively simple I'm sure.

23

ironichaos t1_j9d77ub wrote

thanks for posting the explanation, it definitely is something that seems really confusing. I wish they could simplify it, but I doubt it will ever happen.

7

G4M35 t1_j9du964 wrote

> Ex: If you make $220k married filing jointly, your marginal rate is 6.25% and you owe the full 6.25% on ALL of your taxable income, not just the marginal portion related to that bracket.

I don't know where you see that.

This is from page 43 https://i.imgur.com/sbluTTJ.png

So 9,021 + ((220,000 - 161,550) x 6.25%) = 12,674.13 or an effective tax rate of 5.68%

4

parkerpyne t1_j9dxz3l wrote

So what I find is this claim here: "New York is one of only two (2) states that have a “tax benefit recapture”. This is where the top tax rate of 10.90% is applied to all your income if it exceeds the top tax bracket (the other state is Connecticut)."

However, I can't easily find that corroborated in the instructions for form IT-201.

I always knew that NYC income tax is essentially highway robbery since you pay on your whole income with no deductions whatsoever. I was however under the assumption so far that I'd be paying state income tax according to usual marginal tax rate rules.

I am looking at my 2022 W-2 right now, and the numbers don't make any sense to be frank. It comes out to an effective tax rate of 7.37% which doesn't correspond to any of NY State's marginal tax rates but is at the same time higher than the marginal tax rate I should be paying (which in 2021 was 6.25%). I didn't include earned interest and dividends but I somehow doubt they account for over a percentage point in this discrepancy.

These numbers don't make any sense to me.

EDIT: Alright, I think I've figured it out. The effective tax rate was not in fact 7.37% because I didn't consider what NY State had paid me back last year. Somewhere in the vicinity of $5k as I recall which would put the effective tax rate below the marginal and refute OP's claim that the marginal tax rate is the effective one above certain incomes.

8

PostPostMinimalist OP t1_j9ever3 wrote

As for the top rate claim, that one is spelled out the most explicitly. Look at tax computation worksheet 6.

Are you just considering taxable income? Are you less than 50k above the start of a new bracket (and a bit different single vs married).

1

parkerpyne t1_j9f32aq wrote

>As for the top rate claim, that one is spelled out the most explicitly. Look at tax computation worksheet 6.

Well, sure: "If your New York adjusted gross income (line 33) is more than $25,000,000...". While not poor, I am still a wee bit away from that.

The numbers aside, I do find it strange that at this income state tax becomes flat at the marginal rate.

>Are you less than 50k above the start of a new bracket (and a bit different single vs married).

It's more than 50k in my case. I actually just noticed that yesterday I was looking at the married table rather than the one for head of household. That only changes where each bracket begins and ends however. My effective tax rate in NY still does not correspond to any of those rates and is below the marginal one.

You seem to have done some research on how it works but I remain doubtful that what you were saying is true. I am looking at tax computation worksheet 2 (from https://www.tax.ny.gov/forms/html-instructions/2022/it/it203i-2022.htm#tax-computation) which makes references to recapture base amount and incremental benefit amount. I suspect these numbers are used as a sort of mini-progression within the marginal bracket of 6.25% whereby your taxable income gets adjusted a bit depending on how much your income was above $161,500. That multiplier from line 8 is at most 1 which means that the taxable income will not get reduced if your income is $50k or more above the entry amount for that bracket.

If it was really as simple as you said (above $107,650 you pay a flat tax on all income) then this convoluted calculation wouldn't be required.

2

PostPostMinimalist OP t1_j9f576d wrote

As I said in the original post, there is a sliding scale above each bracket for the next $50k where you move up to full marginal tax at the next bracket. That’s why it needs to be complicated, because within that $50k it isn’t so simple.

Also where are you getting the effective rate from? The W2 doesn’t show what you actually owe, just what was withheld, so who is telling you?

The numbers appear as magic, but they aren’t, they are calculated exactly to achieve this effect. I know because I checked explicitly.

1

Ethoannalol t1_j9dx15p wrote

Top of page 43 there's a section called "how to compute your 2022 new york state tax", which references the additional calculations starting bottom of page 45.

7

parkerpyne t1_j9dzt1g wrote

These calculations however to me look like they're still the traditional marginal tax rate brackets, only spelled out per each marginal tax rate that exists.

4

G4M35 t1_j9eujnz wrote

That is correct, and the point of my comment above.

2

PostPostMinimalist OP t1_j9ev4g8 wrote

Did you add all of lines 3, 4, and 9? Line 3 is the traditional calculation, but then you add 4 and 9.

Those magic constants on lines 4 and 5 are what get your total to the full marginal rate (at least, once you are 50k above the new bracket starting point). I’d share the full calculation here but am on my phone at the moment.

1

parkerpyne t1_j9f3o1h wrote

>Those magic constants on lines 4 and 5 are what get your total to the full marginal rate (at least, once you are 50k above the new bracket starting point).

I don't think that's true. These numbers are relatively tiny and they certainly cannot have the effect that you are describing. All they do is slightly modify the overall dollar amount on which the tax debt is calculated using the usual bracket math.

1

PostPostMinimalist OP t1_j9f4qne wrote

Either do the math or don’t, I’ve done it and it comes out like I said, so I’ll only believe math which shows otherwise. I commented elsewhere on exactly how those numbers are calculated if you want to confirm.

The numbers are “small” because they are capturing marginal differences on top of the usual calculation. You’ll note they get much bigger as you move up the brackets (look at worksheet 4)

0

inthefIowers t1_j9euxtb wrote

Can someone explain like I’m 5 because I don’t think I’m understanding what a marginal rate is.

3

Dont_mute_me_bro t1_j9ex1kh wrote

Adjusting the tax rate to all income instead of just the portion in excess of the cap is dirty business. It seems like the middle class- because making $225,000 per couple in this city is middle class- gets hit every which way.

3

gonzo5622 t1_j9dbw1f wrote

Jesus, I need to leave and go back to CA. Having a federal, state and city tax, with nothing to show for it sucks. At least CA let’s you know you’re on your own and you keep more money.

1

SockDem t1_j9dfujm wrote

Yeah, and zero public transit, piss-poor public parks network, and a homeless problem that’s orders of magnitude worse than in NY.

56

Zlec3 t1_j9du9ao wrote

California has amazing natural parks what are you smoking lol.

14

SockDem t1_j9dubse wrote

I meant inside cities.

5

Zlec3 t1_j9duj2d wrote

San Diego has balboa park which is significantly larger than Central Park. But yeah LA has very few although if you count Griffith park that’s a pretty bad ass park too

9

brooklynlad t1_j9dzqeu wrote

What about Echo Park?

1

Zlec3 t1_j9e03ns wrote

Was horrible until they cleaned it up a year or two ago. But yeah it’s a dope spot too. Lots of nature all over SoCal. I mean just having the canyons to explore is amazing. Santa Monica mountains etc. the nature is absolutely stunning

2

SockDem t1_j9durcx wrote

Sure, but I meant on the basis of the system as a whole, NYC is pretty unparalleled in the US in that regard. Although Balboa park does look awesome and something to add to a potential future visit.

0

Zlec3 t1_j9duzzg wrote

Def recommend check it out. It’s an amazing place ! Nothing beats nyc parks for me but I also have spent a lot of time in San Diego so wanted to defend SoCal a bit haha

2

atyppo t1_j9dx30h wrote

California sucks for a lot of reasons but public parks aren't one of them. Cities or statewide.

2

sutisuc t1_j9dfmtd wrote

CA also taxes high income earners at a higher rate than NYS while not taxing low income earners at a lower rate. NYS taxes all income earners starting at 4 percent and going up from there. CA starts at 1 percent for lowest income earners then works up from there. Plus the parts of California that are equivalent to cost of NYC are much nicer than NYC

10

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j9dgrqs wrote

SF and LA are much nicer than NYC? I beg to differ

19

AceContinuum t1_j9dj6gh wrote

The previous commenter may be thinking of places like Palo Alto or Marin County that are plenty expensive ("equivalent to cost of NYC"). But those places are really much more comparable to Westchester or the North Shore of LI than NYC.

13

magnetic_yeti t1_j9dnovy wrote

Palo Alto is not particularly nice, though it is absurdly expensive. It’s fine if you’re OK sitting in your car for 30+ minutes every day, and having to drive everyone everywhere, including if you want to go for a run or to the dog park. But don’t expect to hang out with friends unless all your friends make $500k/year or more, or you drive for an hour each way (so you better not drink!)

It also practically only has 3+ bedroom homes: in NY you can buy a place for around 1 million, in Palo Alto those don’t exist. There is currently ONE 2 bed townhouse at $2 million for sale, right on the border of East Palo Alto. Then there’s a 2 bed bungalow (900 square feet) for sale for 2.6 million.

And you need a car! I cannot stress enough: you can’t live in Palo Alto comfortably without one. And your neighbors are all driving $60k+ cars, so add at least $1k each month in payments, insurance and maintenance. And enjoy your one “downtown” street with about as much to do as exists on the third-most-interesting commercial street in any Brooklyn neighborhood. Like imagine if the only place you could go grab a bite was the time out market building in dumbo. That’s as exciting as the entirety of Palo Alto’s downtown.

7

AceContinuum t1_j9dogbj wrote

Exactly! Yet to a certain demographic - those who live in Palo Alto, and those who wish they could afford to live there - that kind of "premium suburban" lifestyle sounds like a dream. Wouldn't it be so nice to sit in traffic in a $60k+ car??

2

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j9dticw wrote

It's a stockholm syndrome type thing. Their job forces them there so they have to pretend to like it if they want to be satisfied with their life.

2

payeco t1_j9ejt0k wrote

I don’t know man. I spend a lot of time in the Valley and a lot of people really do love living there. I mean the weather really is incredible year round if you’re not someone that cares about really warm weather.

3

PomegranateChance502 t1_j9e24jn wrote

Plenty of people could and would say the same about new York City lmfao. Get over yourselves

1

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j9fvga6 wrote

Lmao does your life consist entirely of nyc bashing?

1

PomegranateChance502 t1_j9i4gj0 wrote

No. I just find it ironic how small minded many New Yorkers are about the world. I don't think anyone who values quality of life could really stand to live in nyc. But the people living there fiercely defend the city. Which is a pretty great comparison to Stockholm syndrome if you ask me.

1

oreosfly t1_j9djb4c wrote

I'd throw Orange County to that list as well.

3

PostPostMinimalist OP t1_j9dkdu7 wrote

There is not a single place in the USA much nicer than NYC (only reason I'm bothering with this).

9

lemonjalo t1_j9dorco wrote

I guess it’s your definition of nice. I moved away because I couldn’t stand it anymore. The city is nice but it’s just not worth the premium.

1

huebomont t1_j9droxy wrote

you’ll pay for it with car payments and gasoline

1

jae343 t1_j9dppxx wrote

Maybe if you moved to San Diego definitely not that hell hole in SF or LA areas.

−1

payeco t1_j9ek2np wrote

I spend a lot of time in LA and SF as well and I don’t get how they haven’t elected an Eric Adams type candidate running on a campaign of getting rid of all the tent encampments. Whole city blocks just completely blocked by mountains of garbage and tents. It’s nuts people there just treat it as completely normal.

2

nyc-ModTeam t1_j9eyoan wrote

Rule 5 - No reposts, old content or content unrelated to NYC

(a). No reposts. If you're posting about breaking news, please check for an existing story first. If you found a better write-up, post it.

(b). No old content. Content that is more than 1 year old will be removed.

(c). No content unrelated to the five boroughs or New York metropolitan area. Try our neighbors (in the sidebar) instead.

1

guiltypooh t1_j9dhnxz wrote

I know when I got married every software had me paying the state like 500 when filing jointly but if we filed separately we owed like $50 each

0

azn_dude1 t1_j9djwh2 wrote

That can happen when federal taxes too. There's a "sweet spot" if you each make like 250k-400k (don't remember exactly) where getting married will increase your combined tax liability.

5

Babhadfad12 t1_j9dlef2 wrote

The 2017 tax cut and jobs act fixed this.

2

azn_dude1 t1_j9e5kjo wrote

I just checked with this site. It's for 2021 but still applies https://tpc-marriage-calculator.urban.org/

Enter 500k wage for each person, no children, and standard deductions. You pay 7k more in tax if you file as a married couple than if you filed two single returns.

3

Ethoannalol t1_j9fs0ru wrote

I didn't believe it at first, since at first glance the brackets for married are exactly double of the single ones. However, it looks like its the high end of the 35% bracket that ruins things. For single the 35% bracket is from 215951-539900, for married its 431901-647850. so any married totals that are above 647850 get penalized.

1