Public employee union pensioners ducking income taxes
In a comment to a piece I wrote about New York state regulators nixing two badly needed natural gas pipelines, the writer noted a phenomenon that in my opinion should be brought to a quick and permanent halt. That many New Yorkers, like denizens of other northern states, like to retire in warmer climes is not news, and it is completely understandable. However, there is unique twist on this retirement gambit that most of us have probably not considered.
New York governments at all levels offer a fertile environment for public employee unions and, as a consequence, highly paid public servants whose union negotiators and colluding Democrat politicians have secured for them lucrative pension plans. Not only that, but these public servants can retire at relatively early ages after relatively short periods of service so that they have many years of life remaining to enjoy these taxpayer-funded perquisites.
It’s that term taxpayer-funded that is the sore spot for the commenter, and not for the reason you might think – that his taxes fund generous retirements for public servants that most taxpayers can’t afford. Nope, that’s one of those “death and taxes” certainties it does no good to gripe about. No, the issue that has him ticked off is how so many of these public employee retirees take their lucrative pensions and move to Florida, where they have to pay no state income taxes. This further reduces the tax base in the state paying their tax-funded retirements, thus increasing the tax burden on still working New Yorkers who already pay more taxes than any other state.
Your first inclination might be to dismiss this complaint as just more taxpayer grousing, until you discover that government just happens to be the single largest employer in New York, meaning that this is a double-whammy problem that is only going to grow until that government wakes up and realizes it has a growing revenue problem. Huge numbers of huge pensions paid from tax coffers, but untaxed as income so as to return any of that income to those coffers, is going to hurt badly at some future point. Consider as well that when these public servants head south, it’s not just their state pensions that go untaxed, but also their top-dollar Social Security checks, which, based on their other income, would surely be fully taxable. Also, how many will hang onto their New York homes? What about the possible loss to the state in property taxes? Consider as well that all the sales taxes generated by those very generous retirement incomes from sales of booze, boats, and beauty treatments are going to be collected in Florida, not in the state writing the checks.
Are you starting to get the picture here? A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money. And the state writing the checks gets zip.
Factor also into the equation the reality that many of these public servant retirement incomes are greater than those of many working New Yorkers, and you can better understand how this tax-ducking situation might grate as being a grossly unfair example of biting the hand that feeds you. However, despite the sting of ingratitude, it is unlikely that any blue state in thrall to the collective greed of public service unions, like New York, will take any steps to close this tax drain. The situation certainly serves to illustrate to ordinary citizens that public service nowadays is all about the bucks and not about any higher sense of loyalty to the state and the citizens who are paying your very generous retirement.
Liberals are truly talented when it comes to devising new means of taxing the working stiffs. Perhaps the New York liberals responsible for all these budget-busting pension programs and their counterparts in other blue states facing a similar situation should enact a non-resident pension tax on all these tax-paid tax avoiders to be withheld from their fat retirement checks.
Call it the Flight to Florida Surtax…
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Politics
PT: CA and NY tried to do exactly that about 2 decades ago. After they began, Federal law was changed specifically to prohibit the practice.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/114
I’d also recommend you be extremely careful what you wish for in this area. If what you suggest were to become legal again, then any state you ever lived in could in theory tax your retirement income on a pro-rata basis, based on the fraction deemed to have been “earned or acquired” while you lived there. Ditto any state where you earned anything that contributed to retirement income while traveling on business.
It could also make military retirement income taxable by every state in which a military retiree has been stationed or traveled on TDY, again on a pro-rata basis.
Dunno about you, but there’s no way in hell I want to “go there”. Pensions are in general earned property (Social Security, in contrast, is a government benefit vice property). Unless I’m resident of a particular state, that state has no right to tax my property unless the property is real property physically located within its borders.
First, Hondo, the point is moot as I have since learned that New York law exempts public employee retirement income from state income taxes, another generous giveaway the unions extorted by contract. Were I a citizen of that state I would be howling to high heaven about the unfairness of that and calling for its repeal.
Second, I would never advocate for anything that would impose any penalty on retired military income and in fact never mentioned retirees whose checks are issued by the federal government. Income earned by military retirees post military retirement should be governed by the same laws that apply the other citizens of the states where earned unless the voters of that state wish to make exceptions.
Whatever the current situation in New York, it is assuredly unsustainable and those current public employees with visions of huge pension payments coming to them in Florida might as well be counting on the Tooth Fairy to deliver the checks.
Those who now prosper by Democrat math are doomed to be screwed by Democrat math. What’s going to be very interesting is to see how younger employees react when they see how the current retirees are bleeding out the system. Want to bet whether they’ll begin to see the wisdom of more moderate pensions for all than unrealistically unsustainable pensions for current retirees?
Actually, Poetrooper – you advocated making all retirement income, including military pensions, subject to such treatment without realizing it in your article above. A bit of history: in the early/mid-1990s, both New York and California attempted to assert the right to tax retirement income – of all types – based on a “source tax” concept. Specifically, that concept was that those states had the right to tax any pensions received due to work performed within that state, from any source, regardless of the present state of legal residency of the retiree or their physical location in retirement, in perpetuity. As I recall, military and federal civilian retirements were specifically included in the income both states proposed to make subject to such taxation. It was nothing but a naked revenue grab by both states. Bluntly, they were trying to assert the right to tax former residents in perpetuity. That, sir, is bullsh!t. Individuals who have permanently relocated to another state cease to be residents of their former states; they are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of those former states. That means, among other things, that they are in general no longer are subject to those states’ tax codes (current employment in their former state on a commuter basis or property located in their former state are exceptions, of course). Congress – in a rare fit of sanity – quickly realized that this would open the a can of worms that would make the Federal Tax Code soon seem like “See Spot Run” by comparison. What this would have allowed is that ANY state you ever lived or worked in to tax your retirement income, pro-rata, based on the amount attributable to work performed in or income earned in that state – regardless of where you lived afterwards. That would include retirement derived from income earned during business travel to that state as well. The result: if implemented nationwide, that would require everyone to file a state tax return annually in every state in which they’d ever earned income – until the day they died. Each year they would also have… Read more »
Hondo, where did you miss that I was talking only about unionized public servants? I never said a word about any other employee category, especially nothing about military retirees. Where are you reading that into my words?
My ire was directed at public servants in New York who are paid much better than non-public employees and enjoy much more generous pension benefits. Where are you finding in that any attack by me on universal retirement benefits?
Besides, I’ve already stated that my argument has been shot down by existing law that exempts New York public service employees from state income taxes.
Do you not understand how ordinary New York taxpayers might feel like they’re getting screwed royally, first by having to pay these unfairly high salaries and unrealistic pensions, only to have insult added to injury by the recipients of all that tax-paid largesse skipping out to avoid paying taxes themselves?
Poetrooper: whether you mentioned other categories of retirement income or not is immaterial. In advocating allowing states to tax former residents, you are advocating repeal of existing Federal law prohibiting states from doing so. That is precisely what CA and NY tried to do back in the early/mid 1990s – and what Congress changed Federal law to forbid explicitly in 1996.
IMO it is extremely doubtful whether Congress could pass a law allowing states the authority to tax former residents on pensions earned from state employment within that state without broadening that authority to include Federal and private pensions as well. And if you think there’s resentment now, just imagine what the outcry of telling all 50 states “Federal pensions are no longer subject to “. No way in hell that happens.
New Yorkers and Californians have no one but themselves to blame. I’ll be damned if I want to see residents of other states taxed to pay for New York’s and California’s idiocy. And I’ll be doubly damned if I’ll agree it’s a good idea to let states tax former residents who (1) have permanently departed, (2) no longer work in the state in question, and (3) own no property there.
A state has no authority – moral or legal – to tax property owned by a resident of another state when that property is located outside its boundaries. Pension rights are property. And if I no longer live or work there, they no longer have any authority to tax my income. End of story.
I personally don’t give a hoot in hell how “cheated” residents of New York or California feel. They have the right to vote, and can elect people who can change their public pensions any time they please. All they have to do is elect candidates that will do so. If they refuse to do that, they deserve what they get.
Hondo, I give up. You’re not arguing against what I said; you’re arguing around it. It’s like arguing with my wife:
“But honey, that’s not what I said.”
“Yeah, but it’s what you meant and you damned well know it!”
I never win with her either…
Poetrooper: I am most certainly arguing against what you proposed. I’m also taking exception to the logical consequences of the change you propose – along with pointing out the fact that it’s illegal under Federal law.
You apparently don’t want to trace the foreseeable consequences of your proposal through to their logical consequences, or to accept them. Fine; that’s your right.
But I certainly will. Your proposal requires allowing something that has been tried before, and which is decidedly NOT good public policy. Congress correctly made it illegal nearly 2 decades ago for precisely that reason.
Poetrooper. This really doesn’t sound like you. I would expect you to say, “Quit whining, New York. It’s your law, your government, so you fix it.”
Cav, I actually don’t have a dog in the fight. I don’t live anywhere near either New York or Florida. The issue was brought to my attention by a commenter at American Thinker.
I think readers here are missing my point and that is how the public employees of New York, through their public service unions, are really sticking it to the ordinary folks of New York. That and nothing more. And I do believe I recommended that they fix it:
“Perhaps the New York liberals responsible for all these budget-busting pension programs and their counterparts in other BLUE STATES FACING A SIMILAR SITUATION SHOULD ENACT A NON_RESIDENT PENSION TAX on all these tax-paid tax avoiders to be withheld from their fat retirement checks.”
Now where in the hell in that am I saying anything about federal action or intervention? Hondo is the one who raised the federal issue not Poe.
Look, I told Jonn when I sent him this it might cause a ruckus on TAH because so many readers are military retirees and any question regarding pensions is going to raise defensive hackles. Quit being so defensive and you’ll see my point that the ordinary folks in New York are getting shafted and because New York City Democrats/Unions control their state government the folks are helpless to do anything about it.
C’mon, Cav, that’s not whining. That’s looking out for the little guy.
Okay. This is maybe the only instance since you’ve been posting here in which I have to disagree with you. You say that the NY taxpayers are getting screwed. I say, tough shit. Neither one of us will lose sleep over it.
Bingo. NY taxpayers elected the tools who created the problem; they allowed it to happen.
They made their bed; they can lie in it. And they can pay for it themselves.
I originally enlisted in a state that taxes military retirements. I retired in one that doesn’t. So….I’m biased in this matter.
SARC, I was not referring to federal pensions. Folks drawing federal pensions worked for the entire country, not one state or the other. And such pensioners are paid by taxpayers of the entire country not a single state.
Yeah, but it’s a slippery slope.
Social Security is federally taxed at 50% of the annual total. Any of that 50% that exceeds the standard deductibles is therefore subject to tax. Not all states have a tax on Social Security but do tax other retirement income.
That clever ploy, get the pension and retire to another state, is nothing new and certainly not illegal. If New York is running low on cash because its overloaded state employee roster is scamming cash from it for retirement, that’s New York’s problem. And frankly, the biggest single employer in most states IS the state government.
In Illinois, teachers do not pay into Social Security. They pay into the state teachers’ pension fund, which is always out of money.
But saying that other employers such as small businesses are insufficient in any state, including New York, doesn’t mean that the state in question does not benefit from those tax revenues.
Depending on other income received, up to 85% of Social Security benefits may be subject to Federal Income taxes. The maximum taxable fraction of Social Security benefits used to be 50%, but that was raised some years ago to 85%.
If you have more than around $2800/month in income (filing single; $3650/month if filing jointly) you’ll probably end up paying taxes on 85% of your Social Security benefits.
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/taxes/T051-C000-S001-are-your-social-security-benefits-taxable.html
Well, it being New Yawk, and being a deep blue Libtard state, in serfdom to the eternal circle of unions and DemonRats, I don’t see any solution to their pity problem.
Until the state goes absolutely belly up bankrupt…
Frankly, I’d like to throw up walls and crossing points all around the state. Every time one of those union goons leaves to another state, that’s one more Libtard influence in that state.they’re like plagues of locusts, mice, lice, bedbugs, cockroaches, bacteria and virus.
This is a tough one…I get what you’re saying, but the reality is that New York State is solely responsible for this mess they’ve created. They are driving business away and driving population away. The same is true here in the PRoM…if not for children and grandchildren I’d already be gone as have so many others. The state pretends it’s working to attract businesses but try running any business here that uses chemicals, solvents, etc…and you’ll soon realize they don’t really want you here. I’ve already started the process of separating myself from the tax burdens here, I keep my boat in Rhode Island which deliberately chose in 1993 to excuse boats from sales and use taxes and from property taxes…makes it real attractive to keep the boat there since I’m in Western Mass it’s a two hour drive to the Massachusetts shore or 90 minutes to Rhode Island or Connecticut, and Connecticut is a no go because they tax as bad or worse than Massachusetts. New York would have no trouble funding retirement obligations if they didn’t drive private sector business away. As you point out they state is the largest employer. That’s a non-workable proposition on every level. There is no possible way an entity that never turns a profit can be funded by a smaller privatized external group of profit makers… Government might be an essential function required by the nation, but one truth that has always been a truth is that government never actually produces wealth. Government can only take wealth. Consequently no one working for the government is creating wealth they are just taking it from somewhere else. I don’t mean their work has no value and don’t misunderstand my point. My point is simply in a finite supply of wealth those who create it must always outnumber those who take it, otherwise the system fails. Chicago, Detroit, New York, pretty much my entire home state are all examples of what happens when one party rules the roost…Massachusetts has lost a congressman due to population shifts, I believe New York is facing a similar reality…people… Read more »
Illinois’ solution to no budget bill passed to date is to not pay state legislators until a budget is passed.
The state literally has no money. And yeah, I blame the entire scorpion’s nest of democraps for that. ALL of them.
How many states that are historically iron-gripped by the democrats aren’t experiencing serious budget problems?
Umm…. ALL of them?
(Did I get a prize for my answer?)
So any state with an income tax should be able to tax a retiree resident of a non-tax state? Don’t think so. I am surrounded by NY-PA-CN retirees and would be greatly perturbed if those states taxed my now FL neighbors.
One of the few things to look forward to when you die: no taxes.
I hope.
I have no particular dog in this fight, and it’s hard to make sweeping statements about local policy elsewhere. Still, there’s been a convergence of a couple of near-history trends in California which might point to part of the problem.
As recently as the 1960s, a career in civil service was never seen as a path to fame and fortune. You went to work for, let’s say, the local water department because the pay might be lower, but there were modest benefits and it was highly unlikely that the water department would ever go out of business. This began to change when local governments started to push the idea that, in order to attract more competent workers, they needed to pay a wage competitive with the private sector.
In a sort of ironic twist, at about the same time the wage pressure was happening, there was also a push for more government transparency which resulted in California’s Brown, and Bagley-Keene Acts. In theory, everything local government did was supposed to be a matter of public record– with the iron-clad exception of those matters relating to personnel. The rationale for this was that an employee’s right to privacy superceded the public’s right to know about the employee.
One of the things that can be frustrating for the press trying to do its job is that it’s rarely known to what extent the privacy shield is acting as a net good, or when it’s a dark cloak covering nepotism, corruption, and general incompetence.
Personally, I have no clue how to resolve the New York to Florida retiree issue, but tend to think of it as a relatively minor part of a more general malaise.
Not a shock that New York is so bad that people will even move to Florida to get away from it!
I am actually told that outside the big cities, there are nice, rational, worth-knowing New Yorkers. I look forward to meting one someday.
“No, the issue that has him ticked off is how so many of these public employee retirees take their lucrative pensions and move to Florida, where they have to pay no state income taxes.” I do not understand the problem which, by the way, is New York’s. I doubt Florida minds even a little bit, just as Delaware’s merchants don’t mind selling big-ticket items to folks from PA, NJ, and MD. I don’t understand the beef here. If NY wants to change its laws, from pension taxes to collective bargaining, fine. I guess they like things the way they are, though, given the lefties they put in national, state, and (downstate) local office.
NY is hardly the only place where this is an issue. There are millions of retired folks who do not live in the state, perhaps not even the country, where they earned their pensions. I would be one of those and I know may others. My own pension fund has retired members all very the world and most of the states.
The problem is not where pensioners elect to live when they retire but in bloated government especially among the upper pay grades.
Although I disagree w/ our poet laureate on this matter, I enjoy discussion of federalism, which this topic broaches. There is the fed monolith and then there are the states. Time was that the states enjoyed much greater self determination then they once did. People identified with their home states much more than they do today. Indeed, allegiance to one’s state outweighed allegiance to the whole country, driving men to take up arms against the whole in support of their state. Over time, many factors reversed this once common thinking, from Supreme Court decisions–particularly involving the IC Clause– to the creation of a large standing army, to surrender of state power through federal bribery (the 55 mph speed limit is a perfect example) and coercion, to the country shrunk by modern transportation, roadways, air lines, radio, TV, and Al Gore’s brainchild, the world wide web.
In this instance one state’s laws hurt a large number of that state’s citizens and benefit the citizens of another state. Oh well. We know the remedy and those of us who do not reside in NY are w/o a voting voice to change it, if we wanted to do so. I like it that way.