Which progressive think tanks have evaluated New York tax reforms?

1. Who’s on the progressive side and what did they evaluate?

The clearest, repeated claim is that the Fiscal Policy Institute is an active progressive evaluator of New York tax reforms, with a stated “Taxes” initiative that examines state proposals including income tax changes and real‑estate transfer levies; InfluenceWatch’s profile dated March 7, 2022, identifies FPI as labor‑aligned and explicitly focused on New York tax policy ^[3]. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is named as a progressive national think tank that analyzed New York proposals such as millionaire taxes and ranked New York’s tax system in national progressivity comparisons; ITEP’s work is referenced as data‑driven commentary on distributional effects ^{[2] [5]}. Local progressive research centers—City Project and Center for an Urban Future—are listed by the Gotham Gazette as groups that study how tax and fiscal policy affect lower‑income New Yorkers, though the Gazette’s summary does not always attach a single signature report to each reform ^[1].

2. Networks, affiliations and repeated citations shaping the narrative

Many attributions point to networks rather than isolated reports: FPI is part of the State Priorities Partnership coordinated by CBPP and the Economic Analysis and Research Network coordinated by EPI, linking state‑level tax work to nationally known progressive organizations ^[3]. These affiliations mean evaluations attributed to FPI often feed into broader progressive tax narratives via CBPP/EPI channels. The presence of City Project and Center for an Urban Future in local listings suggests geographic specialization, which helps explain why New York tax reforms receive both localized—city‑specific—analyses and national distributional assessments from ITEP and allied institutions ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Areas of agreement and divergence across the progressive evaluations

There is broad agreement that New York’s income tax structure is relatively progressive and that targeted reforms—such as millionaire taxes, mansion/real‑estate transfer levies, and adjustments to the property‑tax cap—are key levers state progressives evaluate ^{[3] [2]}. Where sources diverge is in emphasis and policy prescriptions: ITEP focuses on distributional rankings and the effects on top incomes, while FPI and CBPP‑affiliated analyses often emphasize state revenue needs, impacts on middle‑ and lower‑income households, and administrative choices like the property‑tax cap or real‑estate transfer adjustments ^{[3] [2]}. The Gotham Gazette lists progressive actors but does not provide equal depth of evaluation for each group, leaving some assessments more documentary than analytical ^[1].

4. Gaps in the record and where claims overreach the evidence

Several analyses cite organizations without specific, dated reports on particular reforms; for example, Gotham Gazette lists progressive organizations that “study” tax policy but does not always link them to discrete evaluations of named reforms, creating an evidence gap between attribution and verifiable published analysis ^[1]. The Tax Policy Center, Brookings/Urban collaboration, and some state Office of Tax Policy Analysis documents appear in the pool of materials but do not substitute for progressive think‑tank evaluations; in one instance the OTPA report is an internal government document rather than an external progressive critique, and thus should not be conflated with independent progressive analysis ^[6]. Readers should note where sources identify networks and organizational missions rather than cite concrete, dated reports ^{[3] [6]}.

5. What this means for someone tracking New York tax reform debates

To follow progressive evaluations of New York tax reforms, prioritize reports from FPI (which has an explicit New York taxes initiative and network ties documented in 2022), ITEP (for national comparative distributional work), and local research centers like City Project and Center for an Urban Future for city‑level impacts; cross‑check these with CBPP/EPI network releases that aggregate state analyses ^{[3] [2] [1]}. Be cautious when sources list organizations without linking to dated, concrete reports; affiliations and mission statements indicate likely engagement but are not substitutes for specific analyses of discrete legislative proposals ^{[1] [6]}.