Recently in Massachusetts Category

As the New York Times reported earlier this month, California's tax incentive for film production - a loss of $100 million in exceptionally revenue scarce tax revenue - seems likely to escape the budget cutting axe, despite the state's mammoth deficit. Meanwhile, Utah's Film Commission Director Marshall Moore recently leapt to the defense of his state's tax giveaway for movies and television.

Lawmakers in both states should think again. A new and detailed evaluation of Massachusetts' film tax credit should lead policymakers across the country to ask whether they are getting their money's worth from such incentives. Between 2006 and 2008, the Commonwealth paid out a total of $166 million in film tax credits. According to the report, the new revenue resulting from film production activity was just $26 million.

The report further notes that "feature films, television series, commercials, and documentaries produced in the Commonwealth" between 2006 and 2008 generated roughly 3,200 full time equivalent jobs. But approximately 60 percent of those jobs were held by non-residents, while over 80 percent of the wages paid on film productions accrued to employees living out of state. (The full report is available here.)

Connecticut Voices for Children highlights many of the same problems in its recent and valuable analysis of that state's film tax credit.

In an effort to stave off draconian cuts in vital public services in the face of plummeting revenues, the Massachusetts House of Representatives this past week passed a bill to increase the state's sales tax rate from 5.0 percent to 6.25 percent. If enacted into law, the bill is expected to generate some $900 million in additional revenue each year.

The bill's fate in the Senate is unclear at present, but what is clear is that the Senate should modify the bill to mitigate its impact on low-income individuals and families. For instance, the Senate could use some of the revenue that the rate increase would produce to enhance one of two features of the Massachusetts income tax designed to ease poorer families' tax responsibilities.

Like more than 20 other states, Massachusetts offers a refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The BayState's EITC is set to 15 percent of the federal credit, which is now well below the level of the credit provided in several other Northeastern states. (Vermont's version of the credit is 32 percent of the federal, New York's is 30 percent, and New Jersey's is 25 percent.)

In addition, Massachusetts allows elderly taxpayers to claim a refundable "circuit-breaker" credit to ensure that the property taxes they pay do not exceed a given level of income. A number of states allow non-elderly taxpayers, as well as seniors, to partake of similar credits.

Expanding either one (or both!) of these credits would, in effect, help to keep an increase in the sales tax from imposing too great a tax responsibility on those Massachusettans struggling to make ends meet.

For more on Massachusetts' fiscal situation, visit the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center's informative web site.

Despite their obvious unfairness, tax amnesties are a tool frequently used by states during tough budgetary times. By waiving late fees and sometimes reducing the interest rate charged on overdue taxes, state policymakers can provide their state with a quick band-aid fix without having to make the much harder choice of raising taxes or cutting valued services. But penalizing similar taxpayers at different rates dependent only upon whether they decide to pay up during an amnesty period is plainly unfair. The problems associated with amnesties become even worse, however, as soon as a state establishes a habit of repeatedly offering amnesties during tough economic times.

With the possibility of another amnesty always on the horizon, delinquent taxpayers will think twice before settling their debts with the state during normal times, and at normal penalty rates. Creating multiple sets of penalties (one for normal times, and one, lower penalty when budgets shortfalls are projected) therefore reduces fairness by penalizing similar taxpayers differently based only on the timing of their payment, and can also reduce the effectiveness of enforcement efforts and the tax system broadly. These effects can continue long after the most recent amnesty period ends. (Note that this is very similar to the argument against allowing corporations to "repatriate" their profits to the U.S. at a lower rate, a proposal which was recently rejected at the federal level).

Despite the obvious problems, Maryland and New Mexico are both considering legislation to once again provide temporary tax amnesty programs some time in the coming months. New Mexico last provided an amnesty less than a decade ago, while Maryland's last amnesty came in 2001. After that 2001 amnesty, the Maryland comptroller's office noted that "repeated use of amnesties is likely to create cynicism among law-abiding taxpayers, and lessen the need for voluntary compliance with state tax laws, which is vital for our system of taxation". Should another amnesty be offered less than a decade after the 2001 amnesty, growth in taxpayer cynicism seems unavoidable, especially in light of the fact that a similar program offered in 1987 in the state was billed as a "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity for delinquent payers.

Without a doubt, the momentum in favor of such programs is strong. Alabama is already in the mist of an amnesty period (the state last offered an amnesty in 1984). Massachusetts is currently in the process of deciding upon a date for its amnesty program (Massachusetts last provided amnesty in 2003). Connecticut's program is already slated to take effect on May 1st (Connecticut's last amnesty took place in 2002). And Oklahoma just recently closed its most recent amnesty period, just seven years after its 2002 amnesty.

In this environment, it is extremely important for state policymakers to not only oppose more amnesties, but also to convincingly state that another amnesty will not be offered any time in the near future. For states looking to responsibly close their tax gaps, stepping-up enforcement spending is often a route that can produce sizeable returns, and is undoubtedly much more fair than trying to get something for nothing by arbitrarily waiving penalties in an effort to boost voluntary "compliance". For more specific alternatives to the tax amnesty approach, take a look at these recent enforcement recommendations from Oregon's Department of Revenue.

Even in the best circumstances, Massachusettsis likely to face a budget deficit of some $3.1 billion in the coming fiscal year, according to a new report issued this week by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center (MBPC). The report demonstrates that the expected shortfall is not simply the result of the current recession, but rather, is in part the extension of ongoing structural problems, with permanent revenues failing to meet necessary expenditures. A companion report by the MBPC explains that some of those long-term structural problems can be traced to affirmative changes in tax policy, such as reducing the overall income tax rate from 5.95 percent to 5.3 percent and dropping the tax rate on dividend and interest income from 12 percent to 5.3 percent. Other problems stem from failure to modernize the state's sales tax -- for instance, by broadening its base to include services. With Governor Deval Patrick set to announce his plans to cut spending in the current fiscal year by $1.1 billion, even before tackling the looming fiscal 2010 shortfall, the time has clearly come to reconsider the tax cuts that are at the root of Massachusetts fiscal woes.

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.

Repeating the familiar mantra that "now is not the time for tax increases", far too many state policymakers have completely dismissed the idea of raising additional revenue to fill their looming budget shortfalls. Other lawmakers, however, have at least left some modest revenue raising ideas on the table. In this piece, we highlight just a few of the ways to boost revenues that have sprung up in states such as Kansas, Oregon, and Massachusetts.

Kansas should be in a somewhat better position than many states, at least politically, when it comes to raising additional revenue. Before Kansas' budget fell into such disarray, legislators passed a variety of unwise business tax cuts that have yet to be completely phased in. Now, with the economy having made a turn for the worst, vulnerable Kansas families are in need of state assistance to weather the storm. At least one Kansas lawmaker has pointed to freezing the phase-in of these business tax cuts as one possibility for protecting state revenues and the families that rely on them. Other states in the process of phasing-in tax breaks may want to re-think their priorities before allowing the phase-in to occur.

Oregon's governor has taken things a step further by proposing three concrete, though not terribly progressive or innovative, ways to boost revenue during these desperate times. First, the Governor would like to raise the state's cigarette tax, a move that many other states have also identified as one of the most politically palatable options available (e.g. Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia). We've written about the connection between the cigarette tax and budget shortfalls before here.

Second, the Governor is seeking some very minor increases in the gas tax, vehicle registration fees, and title fees in order to pay for transportation. Though the two cent gas tax increase he's pondering (and some hikes in various vehicle fees) won't fix Oregon's transportation woes, such a move is certainly preferable to pretending there isn't a need for additional revenue.

Finally, the Governor recommends increasing the state's corporate minimum tax. As was pointed out in the Governor's release, Oregon's corporate minimum tax has not been raised since 1929. As a result, the minimum tax has ceased to be an effective protection against companies who seek to manipulate the tax code to escape taxation. But while the Governor's increase in the minimum tax would generate approximately $40 million per year, this would ultimately be only a very minor step toward a better system of corporate taxation. Fortunately, the Oregon Center for Public Policy has played a leading role in advocating much more meaningful tax solutions in the state, especially in their recent report titled," Rolling Up Our Sleeves: Building an Oregon that Works for Working Families".

And lastly, a valuable reminder regarding the potential revenue to be had from taxing internet sales surfaced in Massachusetts this week, where the Governor proposed (and significant legislative support has formed around) an idea to tax companies that have agreed to participate in the streamlined sales tax initiative. Since participation is currently voluntary, such a move is estimated to produce only $15 million per year for the state -- not a huge sum, but it certainly doesn't hurt. Should a comprehensive internet sales tax plan be passed by the federal government, however, the state could enjoy as much as $545 million in additional annual revenue. Continuing the forward momentum of the streamlined sales tax initiative could ultimately prove quite valuable in enhancing the sustainability of state revenue systems

As we've argued in past Digest articles, there are good reasons for relying on gas tax revenues to fund transportation -- at least when an effort is made to offset the tax's stark regressivity. To the extent that the gas tax falls most heavily on those people who drive the furthest distances, or who drive the heaviest vehicles, there are certainly some advantages to the gas tax. But when the people driving the furthest distances are doing so because they can't afford to live near their places of work, for example, that advantage becomes much less appealing. In this light, recent news regarding the funding of transportation has been both good and bad. While states are seemingly beginning to come around to the idea that gas taxes will need to be raised to provide an adequate transportation infrastructure, interest in offsetting the tax's regressivity has yet to pick up steam.

Support for increasing the gas tax has gained some notable momentum in New Hampshire and Massachusetts as of late, and in Oregon, the Governor even included a small gas tax hike in his recent budget proposal. Utah has taken the idea to another level, as top officials are reportedly considering both increasing and restructuring the state's gas tax. In Vermont, however, while raising the gas tax has gotten some attention, the more prominent proposal has been to simply obtain permission from the federal government to continue using federal highway dollars without having to match that money with state funds (of which it has none). But while there are persuasive reasons for considering aid to the states as one form of stimulus for our troubled economy, one has to wonder why some Vermonters are apparently more averse than these other four states to the idea of paying for their own transportation network.

Unfortunately, while there has been an increasing acceptance of the fact that existing gas tax revenues are inadequate in many states, little notice has been given to the idea of offsetting the stark regressivity of gas tax hikes with low-income refundable credits. This idea was recently made a reality in Minnesota, and has been proposed by the Commonwealth Institute in Virginia as well. Notably, eight states already offer similar credits to offset the regressivity of the sales tax (usually designed specifically to offset the tax on groceries). Nineteen states and D.C. offer refundable EITC's, which while not designed specifically to offset regressive taxes, could perhaps be used in a similar matter. In states in need of additional transportation dollars, coupling any transportation related tax increases with the enactment of a low-income refundable credit, or the enhancement of an existing credit, should be a top priority.

Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Oregon residents rejected regressive and costly income tax cuts (or even outright repeals, in the case of Massachusetts) in each of their respective states this Tuesday. The results in every state were fairly lopsided, with between 60% and 70% of voters coming out in opposition. As we noted in earlier Digest articles, these victories for fair tax policy are partly the result of hard work by progressives and also partly the result of very broad (and sometimes unexpected) coalitions. This cooperation symbolized a growing recognition of the importance of taxes in paying for valued government services and generally improving Americans' quality of life.

The votes in these three states are especially important given the economic slowdown that is laying waste to state budgets across the country. Massachusetts is already projecting a mid-year budget deficit, while Oregon is projecting a deficit in the next fiscal year. North Dakota, though doing well relative to other states, is unlikely to escape the slowdown without similar budgetary wounds. Given such a difficult environment for state budget-makers, it's not at all hard to see that tax cuts are the exact opposite of what is needed -- especially if those cuts are targeted overwhelmingly to the rich.

Multiple stories and descriptions of each of these failed measures can be found in the Tax Justice Digest's Massachusetts, Oregon, and North Dakota archives.

Last week, we informed you about a couple of surprising allies in Massachusetts and Oregon in the fight against regressive and irresponsible ballot proposals. Since then, more valuable support in favor of reasoned tax policy has come from another surprising source: key business groups in Massachusetts and Colorado.

Ballot Proposal to Repeal Massachusetts Income Tax

In Massachusetts, that support (in opposition to the proposed repeal of the state's income tax) comes in the form of a 26 page report prepared by the Global Insight consulting firm on behalf of the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Massachusetts Business Roundtable, and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. Among the report's criticisms is that the measure would slash funds so drastically that low- and middle-income residents would be effectively deprived of access to higher education. The report also places emphasis on the inevitable decline in the state's infrastructure (a key component of doing business) that would accompany the repeal. An apt summary of the report, in the words of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, is that repealing the income tax would "devastate the state's economy".

Ballot Proposal to Undo Part of the So-Called "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" in Colorado

Equally influential business groups in Colorado have expressed a similar desire for sound tax policy. In Colorado, the debate is over a proposal to alter the requirement under the "TABOR" amendment, passed a decade ago, that requires surplus revenues to be used for rebate checks sent to households. The proposal on the ballot this year would redirect the automatic TABOR refunds into a special fund for education, which would help free the state from the unrealistic restraints on revenue imposed by TABOR. Among the business groups in support of the measure are the Associated General Contractors, Boulder Chamber of Commerce, Colorado Hotel and Lodging Association, Colorado Retail Council, Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. In the words of the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, "this proposal will help Colorado get out of the bottom in funding", and is simply "smart business".

The broad coalitions forming in each of these states vividly demonstrate the importance of the coming vote on these proposals. And at least in Massachusetts, a recent poll indicates that this broad-base of opposition appears to be producing results. But in Colorado, unfortunately, the numbers are looking much less favorable, although the vote is still too close to call.

One does not have to be elected to Congress or hired to anchor a national news show to become addicted to supply-side economics. State government and local media are equally at risk. This November, voters in several states will decide on ballot questions that are being promoted with supply-side justifications.

A proposal to be voted on in Oregon seeks to allow taxpayers to deduct (in full) their income tax payments to the federal government for state income tax purposes. Currently, only the first $5,600 one pays to the federal government is allowed to be deducted on Oregon state income tax forms. This arrangement already has regressive results, and by uncapping the deduction limit completely, those wealthy individuals who owe the most in federal income taxes will be allowed to slash their Oregon tax payments substantially.

Though the workings of the Oregon proposal may seem a bit confusing, its results most certainly are not. The vast majority (78 percent) of Oregonian families will get nothing, the wealthiest 1 percent will enjoy a nearly $16,000 annual tax cut, and the government of Oregon will have to make due with between $500 million and $1 billion less in revenues each year. (Six other states, Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and North Dakota, currently allow for some deduction of federal income taxes, and they should all end this regressive practice.)

So how are backers of the Oregon proposal justifying this giveaway to the rich? You guessed it. One news account informs us that "[Russ] Walker, Oregon director of the national fiscal conservative group FreedomWorks [and co-sponsor of Measure 59], says the tax reduction would produce a supply-side result of economic expansion with more income and more tax revenue to offset the cut." The argument is that the tax cut will at least increase revenue enough to pay for itself -- the most extreme form of supply-side thinking.

North Dakota voters will also be taking a look at their income tax this fall. Backers of an income tax rate cut are enthusiastically pushing a plan that offers an average tax cut of just $83 to the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers statewide. What's the big deal? The wealthiest 1 percent of North Dakotans would save an average of over $11,000 per year. And those numbers don't even include the corporate income tax cuts, which are sure to also disproportionately benefit the wealthy. And to make matters worse, the proposal would cost the state over $200 million annually.

And how do backers of this measure justify giving away revenue to the rich? Well, if a tax cut simply pays for itself through supply-side magic, backers hope that the practical, common sense folk of North Dakota won't ask such uncomfortable questions. As one news account explains, "Measure 2 proposes to cut income taxes 50 percent and corporate taxes 15 percent, said Duane Sand of the group Americans for Prosperity [the measure's principal backer]. Sand said the state's tax policies have forced young and old to leave the state. The OMB estimates Measure 2 would cut state revenue about $415 million for the next biennium. That money would be replaced by higher tax collections from increased economic activity, Sand said."

A proposal on the ballot in Massachusetts provides perhaps the most obvious example of the recklessness so often involved in anti-tax ballot initiatives. Massachusetts voters will once again have to decide this November on a proposal to constitutionally end the income tax -- a move that would reduce government revenues by a whopping 40 percent, and would undoubtedly have dire consequences in the form of reduced government services. But while all Massachusetts residents would have to share in the pain of a 40 percent reduction in their government's budget, the wealthy would be the primary beneficiaries of the tax cut, since the income tax is the only major progressive tax levied by the state. Even more alarming is the fact that over 45 percent of Massachusetts voters supported a similar measure in 2002.

Now, even supply-siders would have trouble arguing that reducing a tax to zero can result in increased revenues. (Except that apparently the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representative do believe that about the capital gains tax, as we said in a previous article in this Digest).

But backers of the Massachusetts measure do argue, using supply-side logic, that less taxes will result in so much economic growth that no one will feel the loss of public services that would inevitably result.

Carla Howell, chairperson of the group backing the measure (and Libertarian candidate for governor in 2002) says that "In addition to giving each worker an annual average of $3,700, it will take $12.5 billion out of the hands of Beacon Hill politicians -- and put it back into the hands of the men and women who earned it. Every year. In productive, private hands this $12.5 billion a year will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Massachusetts."

Actually, this proposal to slash state government revenue by 40 percent is so extreme that even business groups cite a report showing just how devastated infrastructure, education and other services would be if this proposal is approved.

So it seems that many states are on the verge of ruining themselves with the narcotic of supply-side tax economics. If these states fail to resist, then what? Rehabilitation is possible, but it's a long and hard road. Colorado is trying to break free of the mess it created a decade ago when taxes and revenues were strictly suppressed by the so-called "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" (TABOR) that was approved by voters. TABOR poses a serious problem given that the cost of government services sometimes increases at a rate greater than general inflation. Also, another amendment to the state's constitution requires regular increases in education spending. Reconciling these two competing demands proved impossible, and in 2005 Colorado voters temporarily suspended a significant portion of the TABOR requirement.

This year, it appears many Coloradans have finally had enough with having to deal with inadequate government services under the unrealistic TABOR requirements. Voters will have the opportunity to decide on Amendment 59, which would end the automatic refunds to taxpayers used to suppress state revenues, in favor of diverting that money toward education. This effort gives hope to those who realize that public services like schools and roads are the building blocks of a state economy, and that to have these services we have to pay for them. It also should serve as a warning to people in other states where supply-siders are promising voters that they can have their cake and eat it too.

It's sometimes easy to forget that the Presidential race isn't the only battle over policy proposals going on right now. But Massachusetts and Oregon provide two examples of states where voters are about to make some very important decisions affecting the future of their tax systems.

There may be a silver-lining in the regressive and irresponsible nature of the proposals facing these two states. In both states, the anti-tax groups pushing these ridiculous proposals appear to have gone too far, causing groups traditionally supportive of tax cuts to fight these initiatives.

An Expensive and Unfair Tax Cut, Part 1: Massachusetts

The Massachusetts proposal is perhaps the worst tax-related question on any ballot in the nation. It would repeal the state's income tax. Aside from being the only major progressive tax levied by the state, the income tax is also a source of 40% of Massachusetts' revenue. The results of depriving the state of 40% of its funding are nearly unfathomable. So unfathomable, in fact, that the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF), a group that just last year opposed reforms to make Massachusetts' tax system more fair, recently released a report in opposition titled The Massive Consequences of Question 1.

The MTF report does not focus solely on the budgetary consequences of income tax repeal. Those consequences have already received tremendous publicity in recent months, especially given the state's already strained budgetary situation as documented in this brief from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. Instead, what stands out about the MTF report is its examination of the distributional consequences of the tax cut. In contrast to the claims of those supporting the repeal, the vast majority of Massachusetts residents will not be receiving a $3,700 tax cut if the measure is approved. Instead, as the report indicates, that cut will be much smaller for those low-income residents most in need, and much, much larger for the most well-off taxpayers in the state.

An Expensive and Unfair Tax Cut, Part 2: Oregon

Oregon's proposal also seeks to reduce state revenues in a way that disproportionately benefits the wealthy, though on a much smaller scale than that proposed in Massachusetts. The proposal: allowing Oregonians to write off their federal income tax payments when determining their state income taxes. Since residents can already write off up to $5,600, this measure will only benefit the wealthiest 22% of households in the state who pay more than $5,600 in federal income taxes. As this report from the Oregon Center for Public Policy notes, 78% of Oregonians will see no benefit from this proposal. In fact, as another release explains, some 120,000 Oregonians -- most of them retirees -- would see their taxes rise if Measure 59 were made law, as the measure would prohibit Oregonians from deducting taxes paid on Social Security benefits or certain pensions, as they are allowed to do under current law.

Recent actions by a collection of Oregonian business groups demonstrate the degree of irresponsibility contained in the plan. The Associated Oregon Industries, Oregon Business Association, Oregon Business Council, and Portland Business Alliance recently came together to issue a joint statement against the proposal. These businesses worried the measure would "deeply hurt basic services, including those critical to our economy". And these groups are absolutely right: why throw money at those taxpayers already doing quite well, if it's going to result in a reduction in the education, healthcare, and safety protections that Oregon families and workers depend on?

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.

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.

Last week, Massachusetts became the twenty-second state, and the sixth in the last four years, to institute combined reporting, a vital reform that will help to prevent highly profitable businesses from shifting income out of the Commonwealth in order to avoid taxation. In addition, it ended its unique and deleterious "check the box" loophole, which allows corporations to elect a different entity classification for state tax purposes than for federal purposes. Together, these two changes will make the economic playing field in Massachusetts far more level and will ensure that businesses that profit from operating in the Commonwealth pay their fair share towards public services, just as private citizens do. More immediately, they will generate close to $300 million in revenue in FY 2009, thus reducing a budget deficit that, earlier this year, was expected to reach nearly $1.2 billion.

Unfortunately, the long-term contribution that these two changes will make to Massachusetts' fiscal health is mitigated by the fact that state policymakers also felt compelled to reduce the corporate rate from 8.75 percent to 8.0 percent between 2010 and 2012, and the rate paid by financial institutions from 10 percent to 9 percent over the same period. Because of these lower rates, many businesses will, in effect, be allowed to keep some or all of the tax breaks that they took for themselves through avoidance schemes like passive investment companies and captive REITs prior to the advent of combined reporting.

Bay State legislators didn't stop at the corporate income tax, though. They also raised cigarette taxes by $1 per pack, bringing the total excise to $2.51, the third highest in the country. While the change will yield an additional $170 million at a time when the Massachusetts budget is under significant stress, ITEP and others have detailed numerous flaws with tobacco taxes, particularly when they are used to finance on-going programs and services. This appears to be the case in Massachusetts, where the new cigarette tax revenue is expected to help defray the higher-than-anticipated costs of Massachusetts' mandatory health insurance plans.

For more details, be sure to read the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center's recent publications on tax reform and the broader budget debate.