NJ Taxes (3A) Personal Income

Personal income taxes are supposed to generate 11.1% more in FY19 with the mega-millionaire tax though I could not find any bill confirming that it will raise tax rates from 8.97% to 10.75%  on income over $5 million as every news outlet is reporting (hence the 3A in the title) though dentss dunigan in a comment here believes differently:

Murphy’s slick …he got his millionaires tax after all. According to a source in Trenton, the fine print Murphy presented the legislature today set the millionaires tax to be triggered at $5 million, but for the 10.75% to be applied on the taxable income over $1 million. Sweeney and Coughlin made a deal that would require a wealthy taxpayer with $6 million in taxable income to pay New Jersey $107,500 in tax on the million earned above the threshold. The legislation Murphy presented would require that taxpayer to pay $537,500.

When that legislation appears we will come with with 3B but for now, according to the Citizen’s Guide to the FY18 budget some history:

The FY19 line item is $15,977,737,000, an extra $1.6 billion, which seems like an awful lot to squeeze out of 1,760 people – unless dentss dunigan’s source is right.

5 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Eric on July 9, 2018 at 3:11 pm

    It seems as if David Tepper will have a whole lot of company in Florida. It is already fashionable to have been from New Jersey, as a previous address. Only fools remain in the political cesspool of the once proud Garden State.


  2. Posted by boscoe on July 9, 2018 at 3:32 pm

    As I already noted in another post, Dentss Dunigan’s source is wrong. The 10.75% marginal tax rate applies only to INCOME over $5 million. It does NOT go back and tax all income over $1 million at the highest rate for those taxpayers with $5 million or more gross income.

    Second, your income tax figures in that chart are out of date and inaccurate. The figure you list for 2018 income tax was published in the Citizen’s Guide to the FY2018 Budget. That document came out in March 2017 when the FY 2018 budget was introduced by former Governor Christie. The tax estimates have been updated at least three times since then. The latest projection given by the State Treasurer on May 21, 2018 for income tax receipts in 2018 was $15.153 billion, more than $770 million higher than the figure in your table. And the number for FY2019 as contained in the just-signed budget is $15,977,737,000 — an increase of $825 million (not $1.6 billion as you stated), or 5.45% (not 11.1% as you stated).

    Bottom line: if you’re going to play around with these numbers, you have to use the latest figures available. Revenue estimates change constantly, and if you’re not citing certified figures from a closed-out fiscal year, you’re on quicksand.


  3. Posted by Tough Love on July 9, 2018 at 11:26 pm

    Off topic but important re this Blog’s focus………….

    The following is a link to a discussion of the implications of Public Sector funds divesting from certain investments to accomplish “socially/environmentally responsible” investing.


    And here is a key paragraph:

    “According to a November 2016 study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, funds with divestment policies earned an average of 0.4 percentage point less than other plans. In New Jersey, that translates to more than $300 million a year.”

    Given that Public Sector employee contributions are FIXED, all REMAINING contributions necessary to provide for the full amount of their promised pensions become the responsibility of the Taxpayers.

    So isn’t that nice of those making such decisions (Yes, that was cynicism). They make such choices ……….. WITHOUT Taxpayer consent …………….. and then stick the Taxpayers for the shortfall caused by such decisions.

    No, how about handing the Public Sector workers the bill, either by increasing THEIR contributions by $300 Million (annually) or reducing the value of their promised pensions by an equivalent amount.


  4. Posted by geo8rge on July 10, 2018 at 10:14 am

    Off topic: The article does not mention pension issues but the jist of it is a 55 yo Illinois firefighter married a woman 27 years younger than him. Assuming she qualifies for spousal benefits, that means Illinois will be paying 27(?) years of pension+medical for her than a woman more his age. It is not clear from the article if she and her child qualify for spousal benefits at all and the article does not mention an x wife. I also wonder what the cost in increased benefits of gay marriage was?

    Couple with a 28-YEAR age gap say they are determined to prove that love comes in ‘all shapes and sizes’ after she fell for his ‘wrinkles’ during a first date in McDonald’s


    Possibly not the same guy but a fireman with his same first and last name got a disability pension in 2016.

    Click to access 09-21-2016.pdf


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: