Hochul’s sneaky MTA tax hike is a job-killing train wreck

New York Post - May 4th, 2025

Governor Hochul and New York lawmakers have increased the Payroll Mobility Tax (PMT) to tackle funding challenges for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) ambitious $68 billion five-year capital plan. The tax, which affects employers on most downstate payrolls, has been raised from 0.6% to 0.895% for city firms with payrolls of $10 million or more, marking a 49% increase. This increase is expected to generate an additional $1.4 billion annually for the MTA. While this move aims to address funding shortfalls, it places a significant financial burden on large employers, who might resort to automation, hiring out-of-state workers, or expanding operations elsewhere to mitigate costs.

The decision to raise the PMT comes amidst a backdrop of economic challenges faced by New York, which has seen a substantial exodus of residents and income to states like Florida. Critics argue that such tax hikes may hinder job creation and economic growth, particularly in labor-intensive industries like supermarkets, hotels, and Broadway. Although smaller firms with payrolls under $1.75 million will see their PMT rate halved, this could lead to unintended consequences, such as stalling wage increases and encouraging the hiring of contractors. The story underscores the need for the MTA to deliver better service quality and more efficient capital spending to justify the increased financial burden on New York businesses.

Economic Impact Governor Hochul Payroll Mobility Tax Mta Funding New York Employers

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a critical perspective on the recent increase in the Payroll Mobility Tax and its implications for New York businesses and the economy. It effectively highlights potential negative consequences but lacks balance by omitting the rationale behind the tax increase and its intended benefits. The lack of direct citations and supporting evidence diminishes the credibility of the piece, and its alarmist tone may affect reader perception. However, the topic is timely and of significant public interest, addressing issues that impact a wide audience. To improve its quality, the article would benefit from a more balanced presentation, incorporating diverse perspectives and robust data to support its claims. Overall, while the article raises important concerns, it requires a more comprehensive analysis to effectively inform and engage readers.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims about the Payroll Mobility Tax (PMT) and its implications for New York businesses. It accurately notes the PMT rate increases and the history of the tax, such as the rate increase from 0.34% to 0.60% for city employers. However, some claims require further verification, such as the exact impact on job numbers and the specific economic effects on different sectors. The story's assertion that larger firms will likely automate or hire out-of-state workers due to increased taxes is plausible but not directly supported by data within the article. Additionally, while the article claims that the MTA is still $3 billion short of its capital goal, it lacks detailed evidence or official statements to back this figure.

Balance

The story predominantly presents a critical viewpoint on the tax increase, emphasizing potential negative impacts on businesses and the economy. It focuses heavily on the drawbacks of the PMT rate hikes without offering much insight into the potential benefits or reasons behind the policy decisions. This creates an imbalance, as it omits perspectives from policymakers or experts who might argue in favor of the tax as a necessary measure for funding critical infrastructure. The article could benefit from a more balanced discussion that includes the rationale for the tax increase and its intended benefits for the MTA and public transportation.

Clarity

The article is generally well-structured, with a clear focus on the implications of the PMT increase. However, the tone is somewhat alarmist, which may affect the perceived neutrality of the piece. While the language is straightforward, the lack of detailed data or evidence to support claims can hinder comprehension. The article could improve clarity by providing more concrete examples or data to back up its assertions, enabling readers to follow the argument more easily. Additionally, a more neutral tone would help maintain objectivity and improve the overall clarity of the piece.

Source quality

The article lacks direct citations or references to primary sources, such as official government documents or statements from the MTA or Governor Hochul's office. It relies heavily on the author's interpretations and opinions, which diminishes the credibility of the information presented. The absence of authoritative sources or data to substantiate the claims made in the article affects its reliability. Including quotes from policymakers, economists, or industry experts would enhance the article's credibility and provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose the basis for many of its claims, particularly those regarding the economic impact of the tax increase. It lacks transparency in terms of methodology or data sources, which makes it difficult for readers to assess the validity of the arguments presented. The author's affiliation with the Manhattan Institute is noted, providing some context for potential biases, but further disclosure about the author's position or any conflicts of interest would improve transparency. The article would benefit from clearer explanations of the sources of its information and the reasoning behind its conclusions.