New Jersey battles over tax on millionaires

PHILADELPHIA Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:11pm EDT

Related Topics

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - New Jersey politicians are due to battle on Monday over whether to slap a tax on millionaires or cut services for low-income senior citizens and the disabled.

The clash in the state legislature is part of a wider battle over how to erase a $10.7 billion budget deficit and is emblematic of the decisions facing states across America whose budget deficits have soared during the recession.

Democrats want to re-impose a one-year tax on millionaires that has been vetoed by Republican Governor Chris Christie. The 10.75 percent tax on income above $1 million would hit 16,000 people, some of them likely to work as financial professionals just across the Hudson River in New York.

Both houses of the legislature, which are controlled by Democrats, previously approved the tax in May but it was immediately vetoed by Christie, who has pledged not to raise taxes.

The tax would raise $637 million that the state would use to fund rebate checks of up to $1,295 for some 600,000 senior citizens who would otherwise face steep increases in their property taxes during fiscal 2011.

According to the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, a retired couple living on a fixed income of $40,000 would see an increase of $1,320 in taxes under the governor's plan while a family making $1.2 million would receive a tax cut of $11,598.

"Governor Christie's heartless vetoes denied property tax relief to senior citizens struggling to make ends meet," Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Cryan said in a statement.

The governor vetoed the tax because it would deter hiring, Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said.

"These are the people who invest in New Jersey," Drewniak said. "That's where a lot of the hiring and the business expansion would come from."

Cryan appealed to the minority Republicans to join Democrats in Monday's vote after the original legislation passed by 46 to 32, along party lines. Democrats need 54 votes to override a veto.

Senate President Stephen Sweeney said he would immediately hold a vote in the Senate if the override is passed in the Assembly. If it succeeds, the override would be the first since 1997.

Two months after taking office in January, Christie announced cuts to hundreds of state programs and spending reductions in every department, calling New Jersey's budget hole a "grand canyon."

In his May 20 veto of the tax, Christie said the bill would have represented the 116th increase in taxes in the last eight years.

New Jersey's shortfall, at 37.4 percent of the current year's budget, is the second-highest among U.S. states behind Nevada, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

(Reporting by Jon Hurdle; Editing by Daniel Trotta and Sandra Maler)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (74)
Zarkon wrote:
It won’t work. The millionaires can just pack up and move. Pure economics. New Jersey needs to find a diffent solution. How about cutting spending: reducing the size of government: or (gasp) eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs? Nah, its easier to just raise taxes.

Jun 20, 2010 1:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bck555 wrote:
Why is it always a “choice” between raising taxes on the “rich” OR punishing poor people, the elderly, children, and/or teachers and firefighters? It isn’t. This “choice” is always the mantra of progressive democrats that only see the buying of votes and increase in government power. They refuse to see or admit the obvious that we have overspent! Stiffeling business growth or development is not the answer. Cutting costs and spending is. Man-up NJ assembly! Make the hard but correct choices and reduce costs and spending. Everyone will benefit in the long run.

Jun 20, 2010 1:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
josefski wrote:
Republicans have absolutely no shame. If lowering taxes on the rich helped the job market, then incomes of the majority of Americans wouldn’t have STAGNATED in real terms ever since the beginning of the Reagan era tax cuts and the destructive anti-tax initiatives of the last 30 years. If you’re rich, you owe your success to a functioning society, so pay your fair share, which is a higher percentage of your income than someone who’s barely making ends meet.

Jun 20, 2010 2:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.