What portion of NYC taxes come from the top 1% of earners?

1. Why the headline numbers differ — a look at the most cited claims and their math

Analysts most often quote the share of personal‑income‑tax liability attributable to the top 1%, not the share of all city tax revenue. The Independent Budget Office and related city reporting find the top 1% paid around 40–48% of NYC PIT in recent years, with the jump to the high end driven by capital‑gains spikes among the very richest in 2020–2021 ^{[1] [3]}. The Citizens’ Budget Commission and Empire Center present older or alternative slices that show filers earning $1M+ (roughly the top 0.7–1%) contributed close to 39% of PIT in prior years; when PIT is multiplied by PIT’s share of total tax revenue (about 21% in a cited FY2016 estimate), that produces the widely circulated ~8% of total tax revenue figure for the top 1% ^{[2] [4]}.

2. Recent shifts and why 2020–2022 data matter

Recent years changed the ratios because capital gains are volatile and concentrated among the top 0.1–1% of filers. Official Comptroller and IBO accounting shows the top 0.1% generated outsized gains that pushed the top 1% share of PIT higher in 2021 compared with 2019 — rising from roughly 40% to about 48% of PIT liability ^[3]. At the same time, broader population and millionaire counts shifted: analyses note New York City’s share of national millionaires declined between 2010 and 2022, which policymakers cite as evidence that the tax base is moving even as the top‑earner share of PIT can spike year‑to‑year ^[5]. These contrasting trends explain why short‑term PIT shares can jump while longer‑term revenue implications are more complex.

3. How analysts convert PIT shares into “share of all city taxes” and the controversy

Converting PIT contribution into a share of all city taxes requires multiplying the top‑1% PIT share by PIT’s share of total tax receipts. The Citizens’ Budget Commission used FY2016 ratios — top‑1% ≈ 38.9% of PIT and PIT ≈ 21.2% of total taxes — to derive an ≈8% contribution to total city taxes (0.389 × 0.212 ≈ 0.08) ^[2]. Critics note this approach omits taxes where high earners pay less proportionally (sales, property components), and that PIT’s share of total taxes changes over time. Alternative calculations using higher PIT shares or different baseline years can move the total‑tax share toward the teens; that explains reported ranges from about 8% up to near 15–20% depending on assumptions ^{[6] [1]}.

4. Where partisan or advocacy framing appears and what it hides

Think tanks and advocacy groups emphasize different metrics to support policy positions: groups focused on fiscal risk highlight the top 1%’s dominance of PIT to argue for revenue volatility and the need for broader bases, while groups arguing about fairness emphasize effective tax rates by income bracket to argue either under‑ or over‑taxation of the wealthy. The Empire Center and City Limits, for example, stress effective tax rates and shares of income versus tax burden to make normative points, while Comptroller and IBO data are used to report raw liability shares and capture capital‑gains effects; these choices shift the apparent size and stability of high‑earner contributions ^{[4] [6] [3]}.

5. Bottom line for readers and policymakers seeking clarity

Use two clear guardrails: first, top‑1% figures almost always refer to PIT liability, not total city revenue; second, PIT is only one component of NYC’s tax base, so the top 1% account for a large fraction of PIT but a much smaller fraction of total tax revenue. Acceptable working figures from recent official analyses are ~40–48% of PIT and ~8–10% of total city taxes if you use older PIT‑share-to-total conversions; alternative assumptions about PIT’s share or year‑to‑year capital‑gains swings can push that total‑tax share higher. For policy discussions, cite the specific year, whether the measure is PIT liability or total taxes, and whether capital gains or millionaire counts drive the number ^{[1] [2] [3]}.