Recently in Iowa Category

When a state government hands out cash to businesses, you'd think that the state's taxpayers would at least have a right to know who exactly they're subsidizing. This is especially true in Iowa, a state that offers businesses a research tax credit that is refundable -- meaning businesses actually get checks from the state when their credits exceed their tax liability. In 2006 alone, those checks cost the state nearly $44 million, with about 85% of that going to just 10 companies.

Last week, Iowa policymakers decided that their constituents might at least want to know where those millions are going. Governor Chet Culver signed a bill requiring that any business receiving a research credit check from the state of more than a half million dollars have its name made public.

Iowa is unusual in its generosity to businesses conducting (or claiming to conduct) research. Of the 38 states offering a research credit, only five actually pay businesses for conducting research even if their tax credit exceeds the amount of taxes they paid.

Despite the unusual generosity of the Iowa credit, one business industry representative had the gall to suggest that businesses may decide to conduct their research elsewhere as a result of the measure. The phrase "crying wolf" comes to mind.

But ultimately, the new Iowa law is little more than a baby step. It's hard to believe that Iowans are not also interested in knowing which businesses receive $100,000 or $200,000, for example, from the state for conducting research. Furthermore, even businesses not receiving refunds, but nonetheless benefiting from the research credit, are effectively being subsidized by the state and should be identified as well. And limiting the disclosure provision to only the research credit is also disappointing.

If Iowa really wants to improve government transparency, it should consider reporting on the jobs and other benefits created as a result of this and other subsidies -- as opposed to just offering the company's name. See this report from Good Jobs First for more on appropriate state subsidy disclosure practices.

As we've discussed in recent digest articles, this year saw a flurry of activity in the debate over state deductions for federal income taxes paid. Presently, seven states (Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and Oregon) offer state taxpayers some form of income tax deduction for the federal income taxes they pay. This basically undoes, at least partially, the progressivity of the federal income tax. The upper-income taxpayers who pay more in federal income taxes receive the largest deductions on their state income taxes, even though they have the greater ability to pay. Proposals to reform the deduction for federal income taxes paid in Alabama and Iowa came up short this year, but state lawmakers are vowing to bring up the issue again next year.

Removing the sales tax on food and offsetting the revenue loss by phasing out the deduction for federal income taxes paid for wealthier Alabamians was the number one priority for Democratic lawmakers, but this week the House came up just one vote shy of the three-fifths needed to debate a bill before the state's budget passes. The bill's sponsor, Representative John Knight, has vowed to bring up the bill again next year and says, "I consider this an economic incentive package for working families of this state."

Lawmakers in Iowa proposed to completely eliminate the deduction and use the revenue generated to fund a reduction in state tax rates. The debate over the proposal was quite heated. According the Des Moines Register, "The debate included a rowdy public hearing where hundreds of Iowans -- most of whom opposed the plan -- were escorted from the House chambers by Iowa State Patrol troopers after they persisted in booing, hissing and applauding speakers." Despite support from the House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, the legislation didn't have enough support and ultimately wasn't debated in either the House or the Senate. Senator Gronstal is predicting that the legislation will be introduced again next year, saying, "There are times when issues are right but they're not ripe."

At present, seven states (Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and Oregon) offer state taxpayers some form of an income tax deduction for the federal income taxes they pay. This basically undoes, at least partially, the progressivity of the federal income tax. The upper-income taxpayers who pay more in federal income taxes receive the largest deductions on their state income taxes, even though they still have the greater ability to pay.

Efforts to limit or to repeal these deductions -- and to use the additional revenue to provide tax reductions for low- and moderate-income taxpayers -- have been underway in two such states. In Alabama, Representative John Knight has proposed legislation to pare back his state's federal income tax deduction in order to finance a sales tax exemption for groceries. Unfortunately, House Republicans may have successfully prevented further consideration of the bill this session, voting en bloc to keep it from coming before the House for debate.

Meanwhile, in Iowa, momentum is building for a plan that would repeal the deduction outright while also lowering tax rates across the board and increasing a pair of tax credits. House Speaker Pat Murphy recently voiced his support for the changes and the Senate seems poised to act as well.

For more on efforts in Alabama and Iowa to improve tax fairness, see the web sites for Alabama Arise and the Iowa Policy Project.

It's hard to believe, but there may actually be a trend in state tax policy more prominent than increasing cigarette taxes. Business tax credits aimed at spurring economic development have been among the most popular ideas in statehouses scrambling for ways to reduce unemployment. Just last week, we described a plan in Minnesota to boost investment tax credits and a budget in California containing a few credits of its own. This week, proposals to do the same in Iowa, Kentucky, and Missouri are under discussion.

In Iowa, Republican lawmakers have suggested paying (via tax credit) half the salary of each new job created by private businesses. Oddly, because this payment would be administered through the tax code rather than as a direct grant, the debate has become confused to the extent that this policy has been labeled as a way to return to a "market-based, capitalistic system".

An excellent op-ed out of Kentucky helps clear things up a bit, noting that Gov. Beshear's proposed expansion of business tax incentives would be a costly, nontransparent, and likely ineffective way of encouraging job growth. The op-ed goes on to argue that a "broader" approach, including better targeted and more closely scrutinized spending programs, could do far more good than creating more tax credits.

Finally, as an expansion in economic development tax credits works its way through Missouri's legislature, the admission of at least one legislator that he is a "recovering tax credit addict" helped to shine some light on the unfortunate politics behind these types of tax credits. These programs can cost a state enormously, and are rarely defensible on principled tax policy grounds. Instead, they constitute a type of spending done through the tax code -- commonly referred to as "tax expenditures" -- which add complexity, shrink the tax base, require higher marginal rates, and offer little if anything in terms of making the system more responsive to individuals' and businesses' ability to pay.

We've recently highlighted a variety of progressive revenue raising options gaining serious attention in New York and Wisconsin. This week we bring you yet another idea that's recently been the subject of debate, though this one applies to fewer states. Those seven states still offering income tax deductions for federal taxes paid (i.e. Alabama, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Louisiana, and Oregon), should immediately repeal, or at the very least dramatically scale back, that deduction.

The federal income tax deduction takes what is perhaps the best attribute of the federal income tax -- its progressivity -- and uses it to stifle that very attribute at the state level. Since wealthy taxpayers generally pay more in federal taxes than their less well-off counterparts, allowing taxpayers to deduct those taxes from their income for state income tax purposes is a gift to precisely those folks who need it least. And since most state income tax systems possess a degree of progressivity, those better-off taxpayers who face higher marginal tax rates are benefited even more by being able to shield their income from tax via this deduction.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver most recently drew attention to this problem while urging lawmakers this week to end the deduction. The idea has also recently garnered attention in Missouri, where ITEP recently testified on a bill that would, among other changes, eliminate the deduction. Finally, another bill making its way through the Alabama legislature seeks to end the deduction for upper-income Alabamians.

With three of the seven states that still offer this deduction considering its elimination, this is definitely one progressive policy change to keep an eye on.

This week, the Iowa Fiscal Partnership (IFP) released a study examining Iowa's budget woes with an eye toward understanding how the state's fiscal situation will be impacted by Iowa's growing senior population. Not only are Iowa lawmakers currently grappling with a budget shortfall, this report predicts that more tough decisions are coming. One of the reasons that even harder times may be on the horizon is that Iowa, like many states, offers elderly preferences that are going to become more costly as America grays.

In fact, IFP found, "The aging of the population will probably produce a decline in state income tax revenue of 2 to 3 percent in Iowa, due largely to the adoption of tax preferences for seniors. If there were no elderly preferences in Iowa's income-tax code, the very small projected increases in total population combined with the aging of the population would increase income-tax revenues for a period of time, reaching a peak in 2015 at $2.27 billion."

The report offers helpful insight into why revenues aren't able to keep up with growing needs (beyond elderly preferences). Most notable is the sales tax base erosion taking place both because the state's tax base is made up of mostly goods and not services, and because of the continuing need to close the sales tax loophole which ensures that online purchases aren't subject to the sales tax. Resolving the problem of sales tax base erosion and poorly targeted elderly preferences is something many states could tackle now in their attempt to deal with their own budget mess. ITEP has written a variety of policy briefs on topics discussed here: elderly preferences in the tax code, sales tax base expansion, and taxing internet sales.

The Virginia based Commonwealth Institute recently issued their own set of recommendations offering suggestions on ways that the Old Dominion state could dig itself out of its budget crisis. These recommendations are good ideas any time, but will likely receive more attention now because of the state's budget crisis. Their recommendations include further means-testing of elderly tax preferences, and closing corporate loopholes through steps such as enacting combined reporting. The Institute takes a balanced approach and acknowledges that some cuts may need to be made and the state's rainy day fund may need to be tapped to deal with the state's shortfall. This balanced and comprehensive approach including both revenue enhancers and tax cuts may be the best solution for many states in crisis.

As we mentioned last week, this is the season for fiscally irresponsible sales tax holidays to purportedly give relief to working people on their back-to-school shopping. Sales tax holidays are a bad idea for the states' budgets and tax-payers alike. Low-income families probably cannot time their purchases to take advantage of a sales tax holiday, and it can be an administrative headache for retailers and government. Sales tax holidays are also poorly targeted to low-income individuals compared to other policy solutions such as low-income tax credits.

Now another group of states is ready to forgo needed tax revenue in exchange for a few dollars off the purchase price of various goods. These states include Alabama, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia among others with holidays scheduled Friday through Sunday.

Meanwhile, a Birmingham News editorial points out that the sales tax holiday is a "gimmick" that has allowed state lawmakers to divert attention from their outrageously regressive tax code. Alabama is one of only two states that doesn't exempt or provide a low-income credit for its sales tax on groceries. If that were done, Alabama consumers would save far more money than they do on a three-day sales tax holiday (an average family of four would save about seven times as much). But instead of exempting groceries from sales taxes or raising the state's second-lowest in the nation income tax threshold, lawmakers pretend to help low-income Alabamians with a few tax-free shopping days a year.

Georgia's sales tax holiday began on Thursday and exempts articles of clothing costing less than $100, personal computers cheaper than $1500, and school supplies under $20. This week, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution mentioned some of the more amusing exemptions covered by that state's sales tax holiday. These exemptions include corsets, bow ties and bowling shoes. As the author noted, guys headed to their first day back in school "might combine the bow ties and bowling shoes, then just head straight for the restroom to collect their free swirlie." The article also mentions ski suits, highly unlikely to be big sellers in Georgia, and adult diapers, seemingly unrelated to the average family's back-to-school needs. Georgia lawmakers may want to revise their list of exemptions to concentrate on discounting necessities, or better yet, end this farce once and for all.

North Carolina is suffering from an increase in the cost of asphalt. Asphalt is made of petroleum derivatives, and its cost has increased 25% since the end of 2006. This is causing the state to cut back on road repaving projects which are likely to cost more money to accomplish the longer they go unrepaired.

In Missouri, the state has a projected $1 billion transportation fund deficit. It is only expected to be able to meet 40% of obligations starting July 2009. In spite of this, all three major candidates for Missouri Governor pledge not to raise the state motor fuels tax. The two Republican gubernatorial contenders, Sarah Steelman and Kenny Hulshof suggest dedicating general funds revenue to transportation and privatizing some state roadways respectively.

Virginia is currently confronting a "growing bridge and road maintenance shortfall" which is depriving money from road construction. Governor Tim Kaine has recently released a proposal to raise vehicle registration fees and sales taxes on vehicles, while keeping the state fuel tax unchanged.

These states have in common a tendency to tinker around the edges of transportation funding policy while failing to address the taboo topic of gas taxes. The root cause of these transportation troubles is that the gas tax has been kept too low to finance the transportation needs in all these states.

Most states have a "per gallon" gas tax that leaves them unable to cope with rising costs of transportation as inflation erodes the value of the tax collected on each gallon. North Carolina's gas tax has been capped at 29.9 cents since 2006 due to pressure from anti-tax activist Bill Graham, although it was formerly readjusted to reflect price changes twice a year. Missouri has not raised its gasoline tax since 1996 and Virginia's gasoline tax has stayed constant since 1992. None of these states index their gasoline tax either to transportation costs or the general inflation rate.

Sometimes even a major crisis is not enough to get politicians to consider gas tax adjustments. Due to Iowa's recent flooding, Iowa's legislature is likely to convene an emergency session to confront their newly pressing infrastructure needs and find sources of funds for disaster recovery. Legislators rejected efforts to raise the gasoline tax earlier in the year to fill the $200 million highway maintenance deficit, opting instead to tinker around the edges and simply raise vehicle registration fees. But even now, the Iowa House Majority Leader considers a hike in the gasoline tax "an absolute, absolute last resort," with gas selling for $4/gallon.

Even a spectacular tragedy is sometimes not enough to get politicians to wake up. Before the August 2007 Minnesota I-35W bridge collapse, Governor Tim Pawlenty vetoed a bill raising the gasoline tax 7.5 cents per gallon, calling it "an unnecessary and onerous burden" as consumers were paying $3 per gallon for gasoline in May 2007. This was in a state that hadn't adjusted its gasoline tax in 19 years. Not even a bridge collapse and transportation funding shortfall of nearly $2 billion were enough to change the governor's position that gas taxes are anathema. Needed road and bridge repairs were being neglected, with obviously dire consequences. Fortunately, Minnesota lawmakers were finally able to override Governor Pawlenty's veto in February, raising the gas tax by 8.5 cents.

For many, there will never be a "right time" to raise the gas tax. It wasn't the right time at $2 per gallon in 2005 when Gov. Pawlenty first vetoed a gas tax increase, nor at $3 per gallon in 2007, nor now at $4 per gallon. In fact, it's never the "right time" to raise any kind of tax... no one wants to pay more than they have to. But sometimes in order fund vital services policymakers need to come together and bite the bullet as they did in Minnesota, even if it is politically difficult.

Opponents have sometimes successfully argued that raising the gasoline tax would be regressive and particularly damaging to the economy in such a car-dependent nation. But gas tax increases can be done in conjunction with progressive measures, such as raising the Earned Income Tax Credit and creating a refundable gas tax credit as was done in Minnesota and proposed in Virginia.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver is usually committed to closing corporate tax loopholes. As in 2007, he is championing combined reporting legislation, which would reduce corporate tax avoidance by requiring a multi-state corporation to add together the profits of all of its subsidiaries, regardless of their location, into one report. This is better from a tax enforcement perspective than separate accounting, which allows companies to report the profit of each of its subsidiaries independently. Separate accounting is often cited by critics as an "open highway for tax avoidance." Despite studies from the Iowa Policy Project and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which show that combined reporting is an essential tool for policymakers looking to close tax loopholes and level the playing field for all types of businesses, the Iowa Legislature has reacted lukewarmly to the idea.

The state's legislature shows no such hesitation, however, when it comes to providing tax giveaways to large corporations like Microsoft. This week the Legislature passed HF 2233, which will expand certain property and sales tax exemptions for "web search portal business and property," apparently in a bid to lure the software giant to the state. The governor, despite his stance on other corporate tax issues, signed the bill on Thursday.

Many states are in a fiscal crunch and the number of states facing budget shortfalls may be growing. This week the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a state fiscal update saying that, "At least twenty-five states, including several of the nation's largest, face budget shortfalls in fiscal year 2009." A sluggish economy, bursting housing bubble, and the decline of tax revenues have all had a significant impact on states and their ability to keep budgets balanced.

It's not always clear that states can act as effectively as the federal government to kick start a sluggish economy, but that doesn't stop them from trying. For any legislation to be effective as a stimulus to counteract a recession, it must be "temporary, timely and targeted," as argued by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Some of the stimulus initiatives being proposed on the state level meet these goals better than others. Tax cuts that are not temporary can do more harm to states in the long-run, and provisions that will not have any benefit until after a recession has passed are useless as a stimulus. Most importantly, those tax cuts not targeted towards low- and middle-income people are not likely to result in new spending that immediately spurs the economy, but will go largely towards savings, which takes much longer to have a positive effect.

Stimulus Plans in the States: Connecticut, Iowa, Georgia, and Ohio

In Connecticut, Governor Jodi Rell has asked legislators to reconsider their economic stimulus proposals, arguing that there is no money available to pay for tax cuts. Senate Democrats there proposed increasing the state's property tax credit by $250 and House Republicans proposed offering tax credits to offset medical and energy costs. It's certainly not obvious that an increased property tax credit is well-targeted, since property-owners tend to have higher incomes than everyone else. Depending on how it's implemented, it may not be timely either.

Policymakers in Georgia have proposed legislation to expand the state's personal exemptions temporarily. The legislation is targeted to the degree that it benefits middle-income people, but it doesn't reach those too poor to pay state income taxes. It's also flawed because it's not entirely timely. A lot of people won't benefit until next year.

Some Iowa lawmakers have adopted a completely different approach to providing economic stimulus by proposing a five-year property tax break for Iowans who improve their homes. According to one state senator, the tax break "really rewards all homeowners that have pursued the American dream of owning their own home." But a five-year tax break does not qualify as temporary, at least for the purpose of responding to a recession. It's also hard to believe that it would be targeted to those who need help and will spend the extra money right away, and it's not clear that any home improvements that result will happen quickly enough to qualify this as timely. Another idea being tossed around is a proposal that would expand the state's sales tax holiday to include all items subject to the sales tax. ITEP has long argued that sales tax holidays are not good policy. In this context it's worth noting that they are usually not targeted well at all, since the benefits go to everyone who shops during the sales tax holiday and because people who need help the most are less capable of shifting the timing of their consumption to take advantage of it.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland isn't proposing increased tax credits. Instead, his plan includes borrowing $1.7 billion in an attempt to stimulate the state's economy and create 80,000 jobs. If approved by voters, more money would be available for transportation, renewable energy technologies, and local infrastructure projects. Borrowing to fund important investments makes sense in some contexts, but as a stimulus it's unclear whether these investments will give a timely boost to the economy to counteract a recession that is occurring now.

Iowa

Governor Chet Culver's Condition of the State address was a shot in the arm to advocates for fair business taxation. In his speech the Governor unveiled his plan for combined reporting of corporate income for tax purposes. He said, "It's just not fair that big, out of state, multi-billion dollar corporations that do tens of millions of dollars of business in Iowa avoid paying Iowa income taxes because of an outdated tax loophole." Read the Iowa Fiscal Partnership's release on the importance of closing this costly loophole. Another proposal included in Culver's speech was a 2-cent tax on the purchase of bottles and cans. Part of this increased revenue would go towards enhancing environmental programs.

This week the Iowa Policy Project (IPP) issued a report called Undocumented Immigrants in Iowa: Estimated Tax Contributions and Fiscal Impact. The study's release received much attention in the press by rightly debunking the myth that undocumented immigrants in Iowa don't pay taxes. The study includes estimates of the average property, sales/excise, and income taxes paid by undocumented immigrants in Iowa. The results of the study may surprise many as IPP estimates that undocumented families contribute more than $40 million dollars to state revenues. Similar studies have been conducted in other states and similar myth-busting findings were revealed.

This November Maine voters will have the opportunity (unless the Legislature acts first) to vote on a proposal that would provide tax cuts to assist college graduates as they pay back their student loans. If the initiative is approved, college students in Maine who stay and work in the state after graduation may claim a tax credit of about $2,100. Advocates of the proposal say that offering the tax credit will make education more affordable for students and also "raise the wage and skill levels of Maine's workforce." However, some important questions remain regarding how much the tax credits will cost, where the money to pay for the credits would come from, and whether or not offering a tax credit will really ensure that students stay in Maine.

In Iowa a similar proposal is focused on keeping college graduates in the state and slowing the state's "brain drain." The proposal allows businesses who repay new employees' student loan debt (up to $25,000) to receive tax credits of up to $7,500. In order to qualify for the credit, employers have to pay a minimum salary of $25,000 and start repaying the employee's loan within six months. The Des Moines Register's editorial board sharply critiques this proposal and raises good points about whether or not providing tax credits to businesses really is the best strategy for ensuring that college graduates stay or move into the state. Instead, the Register rightly suggests, "To reduce student loan debt, public money would be better used to hold down tuition costs at state universities, so students don't graduate with huge debt in the first place."

Wednesday, Iowa Governor Chet Culver signed into law a bill that raises cigarette taxes by $1 a pack and also increases taxes on various other tobacco products. The Governor predicts that the new $1.36 tax will cause 20,000 Iowans to quit smoking and prevent twice as many from ever picking up the habit. The tax increase goes into effect immediately and revenues generated are expected to be used for healthcare. Unfortunately, evidence from other states shows that revenues generated from this regressive tax will decline over time.

In Mississippi, a proposal to swap a cigarette tax hike for a sales tax cut appears to be dead for the second time. While promising to propose a "serious tax cut" in the future, Governor Haley Barbour refused to support a bill that would increase the state's cigarette tax from 18 cents to $1 and cut the tax on groceries by half. The problems with Mississippi's tax code go beyond sales and excise taxes, so perhaps now is the time for discussing a complete overhaul of Mississippi's tax structure.

As expected, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick this week joined the ranks of chief executives calling for the use of combined reporting of state corporate income taxes to combat tax avoidance by large and profitable companies. Like the Governors of New York, Pennsylvania, and Iowa, Governor Patrick, in his FY2008 budget plan, recommended adopting this approach to corporate taxation, which would require corporations operating in multiple states to report all of their income... including that attributable to subsidiaries. This would negate any tax benefit derived from accounting schemes designed to shift profits out-of-state. A fact sheet from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center explains how combined reporting works and why it's needed in the Bay State. While Martin O'Malley has not yet added his name to this growing gubernatorial roster, Maryland legislators this week considered a bill to institute combined reporting in their state. ITEP Executive Director Matt Gardner was among those who testified on the measure.