Don't be so confused, Yoda. If you just bothered to go to the original sources before posting your comments, you wouldn't be so confused. In the original IBO study, which was done in 2000 based on fy 1997 tax data, the IBO noted that Giuliani was, indeed, substantially lowering the city's tax burden. It noted, for instance, that in just the two fiscal years following 1997 (which weren't included in the report's tables) tax cuts had lowered the city's tax burden by 63 cents on every $100 of productive income, from $7.99 to $7.36.  As the report stated: "Availablel information indicates that other cities have not matched the tax cutting vigor of New York City, suggesting that the tax effort gap between New York and other cities has shrunk since 1997."

 The new IBO report, which is a follow up to the previous report, is for fy 2004 and includes the effect of the Bloomberg property tax increase--the largest single tax increase in NYC history, as well as other tax increases, which have reversed the overall decline in tax effort of the Giuliani years. The report also includes state taxes, which the previous report did not measure.

 Had Bloomberg not panicked and raised property taxes so precipitiously, and had he subsequently used the city's surpluses in recent years to cut taxes,  in short, had he continued in the direction Giuliani was going, it is very likely that today the city's tax effort would be up to $1.50 lper $100 ower than it was in 1997.

Some of Rudy's tax cut were real, and are still there. Some were offset by soaring debt and deferred pension obligations (the latter in exchange for fatter pensions). They are gone, along with a chunk of public services.

Moreover, the portion of our tax burden that is sent outside the city continues to rise, in part because we are better off, in part because Albany believes our higher taxes (and less complaining) means we don't need the money.

During Giuliani's tenure, city-funded spending rose at an annual average rate of less than 3 percent a year, well below inflation. City-funded spending under Bloomberg has been rising at an annual average of about 6.5 percent. That's why Bloomie has had to raise taxes. 

The size of the budget deficit that Bloomberg closed with his $2 billion tax hike was smaller, relative to the total city budget, than the deficit that Rudy closed in 1994 without raising taxes.

In addition to cutting taxes during his so-called spending spree, Rudy banked more than a $1 billion in surpluses in a rainy day fund to cushion the city from future fiscal shocks. It was that more than $1 billion that the city drew on after the unprecedented 9-11 attacks to keep city government operating. Had it not been for 9-11, something on a scale no one could anticipate, Giuliani would have handed the next mayor more than $1 billion in surpus funding, even though at the time it distressed Giuliani to imagine that he wa going to be handing that windfall to  Mark Green or Freddy Frerrer.

In any case, there's no way around the fact that under the IBO method of calculating, Giuliani cut the tax burden in NYC probably by about 10 to 12% (taking into account years that the first IBO study did not include), and that the city's current high rate of taxation is a function of high state taxes combined with Bloomberg tax increases necessitated by city-funded spending growing at twice the inflation rate.

Are you including pension spending in that? I would argue that some of the pensions we are paying for now was actually spent then. That is most of the cost increase.

Are you including schools and MTA support in that? Bloomberg can't cut MTA support to less than zero.

Much of the Bloomberg increase has been for eduation. NYC teachers are still paid far less, and its employment/student ratio is still less, than all the places that surround it. I'm still waiting for you to call for BIG cutbacks in the rest of the state. In the city the increase was needed.

Giuliani got the benefit of the decline in welfare expenditures. With welfare recipiency down to the truly unemployable, Bloomberg would be unable to match that. Instead, the cost of these recipients is being shifted to the city's budget as federal time limits are reached. Bloomberg could have cracked down on Medicaid services for the elderly. He threatened to once, but did not. Since many of the recipients are White, that would have been less popular.

I'm not one to imply (as the inital post did) that Giuliani is responsible for NYC's above average taxes. He operated within constraints. So does Bloomberg. And Giuliani did raise the cebt and defer pension costs. If Bloomberg were to call $2 billion more of his budget capital spending and borrow it, he could run a $2 billion "surplus" too.

They all do this. They might even make a case that the law requires it (balanced budget).