Connect with us

Published

on

The Empire State is losing its grip as the nation’s financial services capital.

New York’s financial services industry – a great contributor to the state’s gross domestic product – has been imperiled by the plummeting population of high-income residents, who are fleeing amid towering taxes and rising housing costs, according to a sobering new study.

“As other states attract talent and investment in the sector, there is no guarantee of future success,” said the report from the Business Council of New York State.

“Addressing the states tax burden, business climate, and cost of living can help to ensure New Yorks position as a national and global leader for finance.”

Over the last three years, the top four states landing new high-paid financial services and insurance jobs over the last three years were Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Georgia, the analysis conducted by the Business Council found.

New York ranked 36th in terms of percentage growth — at a rate of a puny two-tenths of 1%.

“North Carolina and Florida have rapidly added jobs in the finance and insurance sector while New Yorks employment has remained below national growth trends,” the report said. 

Each finance sector employee generates nearly an additional three jobs in other sectors — so any loss of employment ripples through the entire economy, the study noted.

“This report should serve as a call to action for leaders across New York to forcefully address the competitiveness issues that threaten one of its most valuable and critical economic forces, the finance industry,” the study said.

The average compensation package in New York’s financial services industry is a nation-high $309,000 per year — $275,800 in salary plus $34,000 in other benefits.

The figures showed continuing trends of population decline in New York – with a 2.7% decrease from 2019 to 2022 — marking the worst loss among the 50 states during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Most of the population loss was in New York City and its suburbs, home of most of the state’s wealthiest residents.

A review of net migration of residents showed that the largest flight of gross income was from Manhattan at nearly $11 billion.

“The data confirms the flight of the wealthiest from the New York City area,” the business group’s review found.

In 2021 alone, the Empire State saw a net decline of $9.8 billion in income that migrated to Florida, according to the report.

It’s not a coincidence, the study said, noting that the Tax Foundation think tank rates New York as having the highest combined state and local tax rate on residents, and the Sunshine State the lowest.

“This single competitive factor [taxes] is likely playing an influential role in the migration of high-net-worth individuals as they have the most to gain by leaving a high-income tax state for a low, or zero, income tax state,” the study said.

It also pointed out that New York is also one of a small collection of states that levies a tax on estates, derisively referred to as the “death tax.”

“High-wealth individuals are likely factoring this tax into their location decisions,” the report said.

“Forceful action is necessary,” the analysis concludes. “The state will need to address the tax burden, business climate, and cost of living issues that hurt the states competitiveness.

“If the state does not address these issues, it risks losing its dominance in the finance and insurance industry, and ultimately, jeopardizes the health and prosperity of New Yorks economy.”

Continue Reading

Politics

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

Published

on

By

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

After nearly a year of legal proceedings, a South Korean court acquitted former Wemade CEO Jang Hyun-guk of market manipulation charges.

Continue Reading

Politics

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules?

Published

on

By

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules?

Are Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules quite as iron clad as she insists?

How tough is her armour really? And is there actually scope for some change, some loosening to avoid big tax hikes in the autumn?

We’ve had a bit of clarity early this morning – and that’s a question we discuss on the Politics at Sam and Anne’s podcast today.

Politics Live: Reeves to reform financial regulations

And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.

You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.

For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.

And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.

But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.

And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.

There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.

And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.

It’s outlined in paragraph 3.6 on page four of the Charter for Budget Responsibility.

This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.

In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.

Rachel Reeves during a visit to Cosy Ltd.
Pic: PA
Image:
A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA

Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.

But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.

This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.

But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?

The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.

But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?

Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?

And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?

I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.

And this morning, they issued one.

A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”

So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?

Read more:
Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn
Tough decisions ahead for chancellor

The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.

But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?

I’m still unsure that change has been ruled out.

Continue Reading

Politics

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

Published

on

By

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.

Continue Reading

Trending