Recently in Florida Category

For over two decades, Mississippi and Florida have bucked the national trend of increasing cigarette taxes. But now, staring down massive budget deficits, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour recently signed a 50 cent-per-pack cigarette tax increase, and Florida Governor Charlie Crist appears ready to do the same with a $1 per pack hike. Given that each is a conservative governor with at least some national aspirations, the result is a bit surprising to say the least.

In the case of Governor Barbour, his approval was especially unexpected in light of his status as a former tobacco industry lobbyist. Governor Crist's support was likewise unanticipated, largely because he has signed pledges to oppose tax increases as both a Governor and as a candidate for federal office. Crist was careful to frame his support as entirely focused on the public health aspects of cigarette tax increases, though it's hard to believe that his desire to avoid forcing a special session to balance the budget had nothing to do with his decision. Thus is the responsibility of governing. Sometimes tax increases cannot be kept off the table.

Some good news for proponents of sound state corporate income taxes: Florida may be on its way to shoring up its corporate levy and to putting an end to some egregious tax avoidance schemes. Earlier this month, the Senate Commerce Committee approved a measure to institute combined reporting of corporate income for tax purposes. As an ITEP policy brief on this topic explains, combined reporting is the single most effective option available to state lawmakers for preventing corporations from shifting income out of Florida and into states where they will not be taxed.

As a recent report from the FloridaCenter for Fiscal and Economic Policy documents, the need for combined reporting is clear. Florida loses in excess of $375 million per year to the sort of legal and accounting ploys that combined reporting would prevent.

While passage of the measure is not assured, Florida could join Wisconsin as the second state to adopt combined reporting this year. Senate President Jeff Atwater has expressed support for this critical reform and public interest groups like the League of Women Voters are actively promoting it.

At the state level, the usual response to recommendations that taxes be increased to preserve vital state services has generally been: "Now is not the time". The most notable exception to this trend so far has been with the cigarette tax, as we've explained before. Increasingly, however, policymakers appear to be coming around to the idea of boosting gas tax rates in order to raise the revenue needed to maintain our nation's infrastructure. Given that most state gas taxes haven't been increased for quite a few years, and that during that time inflation has significantly eroded the value of most gas tax rates, our only response can be, "It's about time."

In Maryland, for example, the Senate President recently expressed an interest in raising the gas tax, urging that "there's got to be an increase in the transportation trust fund somewhere, and there's got to be a way we can find people with the political will to make it happen". Numerous governors have echoed this call as of late, most recently in Massachusetts, and Idaho.

In Idaho, especially, the Governor was able to hit the nail on the head with his observation that, "[we last raised] the fuel tax... 13 years ago. And now here we are trying to accomplish 2009 goals with 1996 dollars. Everyone in this room or listening to me throughout Idaho today -- everyone who has a household budget or runs a business -- knows that just doesn't work".

In response to this problem, Idaho Governor "Butch" Otter has recommended bumping the gas tax upward by 2 cents in each of the next 5 years. Addressing the root of the problem even more directly, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle has proposed indexing the gas tax rate to inflation -- a practice that had existed in Wisconsin up until 2006. Maine and Florida continue to index their gas tax rates today, with very favorable results in terms of providing each state with a somewhat more adequate and sustainable source of transportation revenue.

Importantly, the federal gas tax is not indexed to inflation, meaning that the Federal Highway Trust Fund is suffering from many of the same problems we see plaguing the states mentioned above. The federal gas tax has not been increased in over 15 years. President Obama's new Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has previously gone on the record as supporting raising the gasoline tax. The views of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood are not yet clear. What is clear, however, is that something will have to be done at the federal, as well as the state level, if gas tax revenues are to be restored to their previous purchasing power.

Of course, the gas tax is not perfect. Aside from the long-term issues arising out of improved fuel efficiency (which we need to begin planning for now), the regressivity of the tax is very worrisome, especially in these difficult times. Fortunately, low-income gas tax credits, as we've advocated on multiple occasions, are very capable of remedying this shortcoming.

Washington state residents are in for a heap of trouble if Governor Christine Gregoire has her way when it comes to balancing the state's budget. To remedy their budget shortfall, Governor Gregoire has proposed this week to slash valuable state services, and has expressed no interest whatsoever in increasing any taxes. $6 billion worth of cuts in children's health care, unemployment benefits, education, and other key services have been put on the chopping block. The Washington Times reports that some of the Governor's cuts would even "violate voter-approved initiatives and previously negotiated labor contracts."

Thankfully, the Washington-based Economic Opportunity Institute presented more responsible ideas this week that add a much-needed progressive voice to the otherwise bleak landscape. Among their proposals are a variety of expansions in the state's sales tax base, a tax on high-income earners, and a tax on oil companies' profits.

Along similar lines, as Florida's budget situation continues to worsen, Republican legislative leaders have announced a special January session to deal with a $2.3 billion budget deficit for the current year. Options on the table include spending cuts and raiding trust funds -- but tax hikes have been explicitly ruled out by legislative leaders. Democratic lawmakers are showing renewed interest in hiking the state's cigarette tax -- even though the projected yield of such a hike has fallen dramatically in the last year. One editorial observer points out that avoiding sensible tax-raising solutions amounts to "eating the seed corn."

While reports such as those out of Iowa and Virginia (see "Budget Fixes Worth Embracing", in this week's Digest) highlight some of the best ways for states to dig themselves out of their current budgetary nightmares, in many cases it appears that the cigarette tax is continuing to hold on to its title as the single most popular tax to increase among the states. Policy advocates and even many legislators are often careful to frame their support of cigarette tax hikes in terms of fighting smoking or reducing health care costs, but in times as desperate as these, it's hard not to suspect that revenue needs may be the driving force. The fact is that revenue from the cigarette tax is almost never sustainable over time because the U.S. smoking population is constantly on the decline. It's therefore difficult to get excited about the cigarette tax as a budget-fix for any period of time beyond the very short-term -- and even then, states should never be excited about raising revenue through such a regressive tax. But in states that have held their cigarette taxes constant at low levels for a number of years, it's also hard to get too upset over such proposals. Five states in particular made news this week in their debates over the cigarette tax: Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina, and Utah.

The three states with the most intense cigarette tax debates at the moment are Florida, Mississippi, and Oregon. Florida and Mississippi haven't increased their cigarette tax rates in 18 and 23 years, respectively, and therefore have some of the lowest cigarette tax rates in the nation. Hikes in the range of 50 cents to $1 per pack are being proposed in Florida, while Mississippi's debate appears to be over a range of 24 cents to $1 per pack. In Oregon, the governor recently proposed a 60 cent hike as part of his budget. The intent of that hike is use the new revenue as part of a package to expand health care in the state -- such an arrangement is likely to result in tensions down the road as cigarette revenues fall and health costs continue to rise.

South Carolina provides another example of a state with a cigarette tax debate worth following. In this past year's session, the legislature approved a cigarette tax hike, only to eventually be vetoed by the governor, ostensibly out of concern over linking such an unsustainable revenue source to a permanent expansion of Medicaid. As the appearance of a recent op-ed praising the benefits of hiking SC's lowest-in-the-nation rate suggests, this debate is not yet over.

Utah provides another example of a potential budding cigarette tax debate. With the American Cancer society enthusiastically seeking to capitalize on what appears to be a favorable climate for a cigarette tax hike, one has to expect the idea to pick up steam during discussions over how to close the state's looming budget gap.

As the fiscal contagion spreads among the states, policymakers are clearly casting about for ways to close large and growing budget deficits. In Nevada, Governor Jim Gibbons may be open to tax increases in light of a shortfall that is projected to reach $1.8 billion over the next two and half years, but he has also floated the idea of 'voluntary' payroll reductions of 5 percent. New Hampshire faces an approximately $600 million budget gap over the same period, with lawmakers weighing such options as selling state properties, legalizing gambling, or deferring needed payments to the state pension fund. Florida may have to confront an eye-popping deficit of $6 billion over just 18 months, driving elected officials to think about raiding a variety of trust funds and imposing a 4 percent across-the-board cut in agency budgets.

Of course, these three states have more in common than difficult days ahead. They also share a steadfast refusal to levy a personal income tax. Rather than continue to cast about for half-measures and temporary fixes -- or, worse, policies that would undermine working families' already precarious economic situations -- policymakers in states like Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Washington, and Tennessee need to acknowledge the elephant in the room and consider whether the tax policies that brought them to this point are the ones that will carry them to a better future.

Recently, the Tax Foundation released its annual ranking of state business tax climates. As always, there are more than a few good reasons to be skeptical of the results contained in the report. But aside from the traditional methodological criticisms of any ranking of this type, this year's report includes at least one assertion that should turn the head of even the most casual state tax policy observer.

Florida, a state with one of the most obviously unfair and criticized tax systems in the nation, ranks 5th in overall business tax climate. According to the authors of the report:

"[Florida is] one of just four states to rank in the top half on all five tax-specific indices. Even Florida's much-maligned property tax system ranks fairly well, scoring 19th out of 50 states. Of course, improvements can be made to any state's tax code... but Florida is in a better position than most states to be content with the tax code it has."

A property tax that ranks "fairly well"? Content with the tax code it has? These assertions should come as a great surprise to anyone familiar with Florida's tax system. As has been documented at length in previous Digest articles, Florida's tax system is both unfair and inadequate.

Multiple rounds of budget cuts have become the norm each year in the state. Oddities with the property tax system have forced neighbors with similar homes to pay vastly different amounts in property tax. And all the while, the rich have been let off the hook despite vast income inequality in Florida.

In large part as a direct result of some of the abovementioned flaws with its tax code, a number of problems are immediately visible in Florida's quality of life. According to the Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, Florida ranks:

• 50th in per capita funding for higher education


• 49th in all education funding per capita


• 41st in state health rankings


• 49th in percent covered by health insurance


• 46th in Medicaid spending per child


• 2nd highest in percentage of uninsured children


• 48th in progressiveness of major state & local taxes

It's hard to imagine unhealthy and poorly educated workers being good for the state's "business climate". A tax system that fails to adequately fund these services should not be ranked among the best in the nation for business. In reality, Florida has an even longer and tougher road to travel than most states before it should be "content with the tax code it has".

The Florida Circuit Court ruling we reported on last month was upheld by the state's Supreme Court this week. As a result, the ill-conceived ballot proposal seeking to slash school property taxes will not be presented to Florida voters this November. The body that put the measure on the ballot -- The Taxation and Budget Reform Commission -- is not scheduled to meet again for another twenty years. That means the only option for enacting a property tax cut of the kind Florida has been stubbornly pursuing is to go through the Florida legislature. While it's not yet clear what the results of traveling down that path will be, it's fair to say that the cut, as proposed by the Commission, will not be adopted. Former state Senate President John McKay believes that "the effort, as it's currently conceived, is dead". The cries for property tax cuts aren't likely to face a similar demise anytime soon, however, and new developments from Florida seem inevitable in the coming weeks and months.

Four of the nation's most populous states, together home to more than one out of every four Americans, are facing serious budget problems. Important new developments occurred in each of those states this week, the theme of which is perhaps best conveyed through California Republican Mike Villines' question: "How many times can we say no to taxes?" State residents will soon learn that this is really saying "no" to keeping alive public services like education, transportation and health care that families depend on.

See the following posts on the budget situations in California, Florida, New York, and Virginia.

Late last week, the official estimates of general fund revenue collections in Florida during each of the next two years were reduced by 7% and 8%, respectively. For the current fiscal year, this means that the state is expected to have $1.8 billion less in funds than was thought in March. Slowing sales tax collections are the primary culprit.

Raising taxes to help fill this shortfall appears to be completely out of the question. The likely solution will involve some combination of:

-Relying on the $300 million the legislature set aside last year.
-Making permanent Governor Crist's order to cut state agency budgets by 4%, saving up to $1 billion.
-Tapping into reserves contained in the hurricane recovery fund (apparently ignoring the potential costs of Tropical Storm Fay) and health care endowment, which have about $1.6 billion available.

Lawmakers could, of course, also convene in a special legislative session to make the needed adjustments, though election-year politics make that option extremely unlikely.

Perhaps more important than how Florida will fix its budget this year, however, is how it will address the inevitable shortfall looming next year. State economists are projecting revenues to be $2.2 billion lower than was originally thought. Tapping into reserves this year will only reduce the number of options available next year, and with cuts in vital programs already having gone quite deep, that option will undoubtedly be even more painful next year. Perhaps the dire situation on the ground in Florida will eventually begin to loosen the seemingly unshakeable grip of anti-tax advocates in the state. On a somewhat encouraging note, the Orlando Sentinel this week even ran an editorial suggesting something previously unheard of in Florida... an income tax!

Late this week, Florida Circuit Court Judge John Cooper ordered that the amendment set to appear on the November ballot repealing most state-required school property taxes be removed because of the misleading nature of both the title and the summary of the proposal that voters would read. This comes a little over a week after Florida Governor Charlie Crist offered his full support for the proposal.

From a policy perspective, the proposal is extremely poorly targeted and overly expensive. Judge Cooper's opinion, however, highlights some more technical, though extremely important, reasons for why this proposal shouldn't make the ballot. First, the title of the proposal speaks only of school property taxes and replacement funds, but makes no mention of the fact that non-school property taxes would also be limited with a 5% cap on increases in the assessed value of non-homestead properties. Second, and more importantly, nothing in the title or summary of the proposal makes clear that the amendment's mandate that local school funding be held harmless applies only to the 2010-2011 fiscal year. After that time there is no guarantee that schools will not have to suffer through spending cuts as a result of this gutting of Florida's property tax system.

Unfortunately, the decision to keep this deceiving and poorly-conceived proposal off the ballot is not yet final. The state is virtually certain to appeal the ruling very soon.

Most business groups, including the Florida Chamber of Commerce, are pleased that this proposal may not make it to the ballot. The Chamber has, however, used this opportunity to advocate a variety of irresponsible property tax cuts it would like to see enacted without an accompanying sales tax hike. Realtors and Governor Crist, on the other hand, are much less excited by the verdict. Referring to the possibility of the verdict being overturned upon appeal, Crist said that Judge Cooper's verdict"doesn't mean anything. What really matters is what the last ruling is."

Hopefully, though, that last ruling will be the same as the first.

Earlier this week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) released a brief report using IRS data and revealing that the most unequal states in the country also happen to be states that lack the type of progressive tax provisions that could reduce this inequality and raise badly needed revenue. The most unequal states either don't have a personal income tax or have one in need of improvement. Consequently, these states are left with tax systems that, on the whole, are unsustainable, inadequate, and unfair over the long-run.

The IRS data show that, in 2006, ten states -- Wyoming, New York, Nevada, Connecticut, Florida, the District of Columbia, California, Massachusetts, Texas, and Illinois -- have greater concentrations of reported income among their very wealthiest residents than the country as a whole. Yet, the tax systems in these states generally ignore that very important reality. Of those ten states, four lack a broad-based personal income tax and three either impose a single, flat rate personal income tax or have a rate structure that all but functions in that manner. Three do use a graduated rate structure, but of these, two have cut income taxes for their most affluent residents substantially over the past two decades.

Given this mismatch, it should not be too surprising that over half of these states face severe or chronic budget shortfalls. After all, the lack of an income tax, the lack of a graduated rate structure, or moves to make the income tax less progressive all mean that a state's revenue system will not completely reflect the concentration of income among the very wealthy and therefore will not yield as much revenue.

Case in point: New York. As the Fiscal Policy Institute observes, over the last 30 years, the state has reduced its top income tax rate by more than 50 percent. Most recently, in 2005, it allowed to lapse a temporary top rate of 7 percent on taxpayers with incomes above $500,000 per year. Today, the state must confront a budget deficit of more than $6 billion for the coming year and more than $20 billion over the next three. New York residents seem to understand the disconnect between the enormous disparities of wealth in their state -- where the richest 1 percent of taxpayers account for 28.7 percent of reported income -- and the state's fiscal woes. A poll released this week shows that nearly 4 out of 5 people surveyed support increasing the state's income tax for millionaires. Hopefully, Governor David Paterson is listening. As it stands, he'd rather cap property taxes than ensure that millionaires pay taxes in accordance with their inordinate share of New York's economic resources.

After months of offering only lukewarm support (or in some cases, even "accidental" opposition) for a November ballot proposal that seeks to eliminate a substantial portion of school property taxes, Florida Governor Charlie Crist finally said this week that he would actively work to help secure the measure's passage. This announcement comes just days before state economists' are set to issue their revised projection of the state's looming budget deficit which one economist has already warned, "is going to be big". Unfortunately, unprecedented budget cuts have already been made in education, social services, and most other government functions, leaving Florida with few reasonable options for filling this additional gap. With revenues in such sad shape, there's even less reason now for Florida to move towards becoming more reliant on unpredictable sales taxes -- which this ballot measure proposes to do.

Previous Digest articles have already detailed the flaws with the plan Governor Crist now supports. (See Florida: Tax Swap or Tax Flop?; Florida: Good Thing We Don't Have To Do This Again For Twenty Years; and Florida Tax Commission Charges Ahead With Unfair and Fiscally Irresponsible Plan.) In short, it's regressive, inadequate, unsustainable, and does nothing to fix the "brokenness" of Florida's property tax system.

An article that ran in the Sun Sentinel this week provides some additional evidence on these points. One state economist has said that "the amendment's language isn't clear in some areas and creates uncertainty and multiple options." This, the Sentinel notes, means that "because economists don't know what offsetting tax increases will be imposed... there's no real way to gauge the economic impact of the property-tax cuts. In other words, nobody's certain who'd pay less taxes and who'd pay more."

Nonetheless, Governor Crist is now touting the measure as a "significant stimulant to Florida's economy". While the degree of disconnect here between rhetoric and reality is unsettling, it unfortunately has become the norm for any Florida tax debate. As things stand right now, voters appear about evenly split over the measure, though a sizeable 20% of those polled in a recent survey were undecided on the issue. Hopefully, Governor Crist's endorsement of the measure won't alter these numbers too significantly.

Check out the Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy's website for more information as the November election approaches.

As parents gear up to send children back to school this fall and economic uncertainty looms overhead, several states are reconsidering their August sales tax holidays. Despite their political appeal, back-to-school sales tax holidays are inherently flawed. Low-income taxpayers often do not have the luxury to time their purchases around these holidays. This is probably even more true during a period of higher gas prices, inflation and a faltering economy. States not only lose a great deal of income but must also work closely with retailers to ensure that the complicated provisions are carried out smoothly and correctly.

The Massachusetts legislature voted this week to continue the recent tradition of a back-to-school sales tax holiday for August 16th and 17th. Although initially reluctant to do so in the face of a faltering economy, lawmakers justified their approval of the holiday by continually calling it a "shot in the arm" for small business. But the fact is, a large majority of these purchases will be made regardless of the sales tax break. Back-to-school shopping occurs year in and year out; a weekend-long incentive is not going to change that nor is it going to stimulate the economy. And the cost to the state will amount to an estimated $16 million at a time when Massachusetts, like so many other states, faces a budget shortfall. A recent Boston Globe editorial blasted lawmakers for making such an irresponsble choice.

Floridamade a rare responsible policy decision in choosing not to have a sales tax holiday this year. State lawmakers acknowledged that because their tax system is in such sad shape, they cannot afford the annual back-to-school sales tax holiday and have decided not to enact it this year. Rep Keith Fitzgerald (D-Sarasota) explains that the "little holiday amounts to a significant amount of money" that is not available in the Sunshine state's already atrocious budget. Meanwhile, many retailers are competing to offer generous mark-downs, knowing that parents will go back-to-school shopping regardless of a tax break and that business will not be harmed by the scrapping of the holiday

It's that time again. Right-wing activists, unable to convince lawmakers to gut their tax systems, are asking voters to do it themselves through the ballot. This update explains that ballot initiatives to enact regressive tax policies died in Michigan and Montana, but survived to secure spots on the ballot in Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts and Oregon.

The Good News: Two Regressive Proposals Did Not Make It onto the Ballot

Michigan "Fair "Tax": The Michigan Fair Tax proposal, a highly regressive measure that was anything but fair, failed to make it onto the November ballot. The proposal would have eliminated both the Michigan Business Tax and the personal income tax, raised the state sales tax to 9.75% and expanded it to include services, food, prescription drugs and out-of-pocket health care expenses.

Montana Property Tax Limitations: CI-99, a measure that would have capped property tax increases at no more than 1.5% annually, fell short of landing a spot on the Montana ballot. In addition to the limits on tax hikes, the proposal would have ensured that homes can only be reappraised when sold (as opposed to every seven years). Sound familiar? It looks like, at least this year, Montana averted the disastrous path followed by California's Proposition 13.

The Bad News: Other Regressive Tax Proposals ARE on the Ballot in November

Arizona Sales Tax Hike: On June 27, the Digest described the Arizona sales tax initiative which will be on the ballot in November. The proposal would hike the sales tax by one cent. The increased revenues would be directed toward a faltering transportation system. Arizona already has sales taxes bordering on 10% and a nearly flat income tax. As a result, its tax policy is already highly regressive and this initiative would make it more so.

Florida Tax Swap: In November voters will decide on Amendment 5, a 25% property tax cut and a 1 cent sales tax hike. The property tax cut would hit Florida's schools, already in shambles, the hardest. The Amendment would come at a cost of $9 billion in lost revenue and the subsequent sales tax increase would only produce about $4 billion, plunging the Sunshine State even further into debt and shifting the tax burden to lower-income Floridians.

Abolishing Massachusetts' Income Tax: In Massachusetts, voters will have the opportunity to decide on an initiative that would eliminate the state's income tax. Such irresponsible policy would cost the state $12 billion in lost revenue -- a whopping 40% of its budget. The price would be paid with teacher layoffs, school closings, cuts to higher education, worker training programs and health care services, and delays of road and bridge repairs.

Cutting Oregon's Income Tax for the Rich: Oregon voters will have the opportunity to vote on a measure that would drastically cut income taxes for its wealthiest taxpayers. The proposal would create an unlimited deduction on the state income tax form for federal income taxes paid.The state's general fund would lose about $4 billion over four years from the proposal. The general fund is used primarily for education, public safety, the justice system, human services (including health care, care for seniors and child protective services) and state parks. Meanwhile, the average tax cut for the top one percent of Oregon earners would be about $15,000. Those who fall among the middle 20% of earners would receive about $1 on average.