Last week we wrote about Governor Cuomo’s ill-conceived Tax-Free NY initiative.  We reserve judgment as to whether it’s politically motivated ( a New York Post column called him “Gov $uck-up”, for instance, and this column also questions the motivation) but we can be pretty sure it will cost more than it will benefit the people of New York, because this is what business tax credits do.

Still, since that post, the Governor has continued his promotional tour of New York campuses, so we spent some time digging into how actual businesses would fare under his plan. As it turns out, the Governor’s focus on rewarding new investment could end up arbitrarily discriminating against existing small businesses (and their employees) who are already doing the same things Cuomo’s plan will reward others to start doing.

Capraro Technologies, Inc. (CTI), for example, has been based in Utica (home to SUNY Institute of Technology) for almost two decades. The company shares the SUNY-IT mission of advancing the field of information technology through research and innovation, and appears to be a model of the kind of business the Governor hopes to attract. But CTI would be ineligible for any benefits under Tax-Free NY, and the company could find itself at a disadvantage relative to other firms who do qualify for the tax-free treatment.

To gain eligibility, CTI would need to “expand its New York operations while maintaining its existing jobs.” But such an expansion would need to take place within one mile from the SUNY-IT campus. Unless CTI were able to obtain a special waiver, this would mean having to open a new office about two miles down the road from its current location; hardly an example of economic efficiency.

CTI is only one of many existing companies throughout the state that could be placed at a disadvantage relative to new competitors. BlueRock Energy, a Syracuse-based company that helps customers lower their energy costs and environmental footprint and would be ineligible for Tax-Free NY benefits if it expanded at its current lots, is another case-in-point. Located about 2.5 miles away from the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, BlueRock Energy shares a common mission with SUNY-ESF.

And the list goes on. From mobile app creator miSoft Studios near SUNY Binghamton to software developer Wetstone Technologies near SUNY Cortland, existing local businesses across the state will all reap zero rewards for having already done exactly what the Governor will allegedly incentivize other businesses to do in the future.

And of course, you are not only out of luck if you started your business at the wrong time, but place matters, too. State tax expert David Brunori at Tax Analysts summed up one of Tax-Free NY’s absurdities by highlighting, “if you are in the community you don’t pay taxes. If you are outside, even by six inches, you do.”

Existing small businesses are not the only losers because the plan extends to employees, too. Professor John Yinger, an expert in fiscal policy from Syracuse University, says the Governor’s plan “means some businesses are getting lower taxes than others and in this case it means some people are getting much lower taxes than others, those are new sources of inequities.”

There are so many problems with Governor Cuomo’s idea for tax-free zones, it’s hard to know where to begin. But the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s (ITEP) policy briefs library is a good place to look, and we invite the Governor to consider this guidance (all links are PDF’s).

Taxes and Economic Development 101: “Lawmakers are under intense pressure to create a healthy climate for investment. But the simplistic view that tax cuts are the best medicine can result in unintentionally making this climate worse. Unaffordable tax cuts shift the cost of funding public services onto every business that isn’t lucky enough to receive these tax breaks—and makes it harder to fund the public investments on which all businesses rely.”

Accountable Economic Development Strategies: “Some lawmakers are wising up to the idea that subsidies don’t work. But for policymakers who insist on offering incentives, there are some important, simple, and concrete steps that can be taken to ensure that subsidies aren’t allowed to go unchecked.”

Tax Principles: The principle of neutrality (sometimes called “efficiency”) tells us that a tax system should stay out of the way of economic decisions. Tax policies that systematically favor one kind of economic activity or another can lead to the misallocation of resources, or worse, to schemes whose sole aim is to exploit such preferential tax treatment.”

During the tax cut debate last year in Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback characterized his own radical tax cuts as a “real live experiment.” Now, following the actions of the legislature this past weekend, the experiment continues.

To fully understand the scope of the tax cuts that passed in a recent Sunday morning session, it’s necessary to review what was signed into law last year: Income tax rates were reduced (the top rate dropping from 6.45 to 4.9 percent and the bottom rate dropping from 3.5 to 3.0 percent). Kansas became the only state in the nation that levies an income tax to exempt all “pass-through” business income from the personal income tax base. A variety of targeted tax credits, including the Food Sales Tax Rebate, Child and Dependent Care Credit, and the Homestead Property Tax Refund for renters, were eliminated and the standard deduction for head of household filers and married couples was increased to $9000. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) estimated that the cost of the tax cuts would be $760 million.

Kansans hadn’t even had a chance to file income tax returns reflecting this slew of new provisions before Governor Brownback was advocating for yet another round of tax cuts. After several weeks of pretty cantankerous negotiations it became clear that the Kansas “experiment” would now have even higher stakes. As this ITEP analysis shows, it didn’t matter whether the House or the Senate plan was adopted because both of them pave the way for complete elimination of the state’s personal income tax.

Two groups that usually find themselves on opposite sides of tax debates, the Tax Foundation and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, agreed that the Kansas experiment part deux was “the worst in the nation.” But the Sunflower State’s elected leaders aren’t letting facts and policy experts get in their way.

Instead, Governor Brownback is expected to sign the new legislation that further reduces income tax rates (to 2.3 and 3.9 percent), reduces the standard deduction, increases the sales tax (from 5.7 to 6.15 percent), disallows 50 percent of all itemized deductions (except for charitable donations, which will be fully deductible) and allows for the potential elimination of the income tax entirely if revenues targets are reached. ITEP found that the bill would cost $186 million, raise taxes on the poorest 20 percent of Kansans but give every other income group a tax cut. The impact of these last two rounds of tax cuts in Kansas will be a whopping $1.1 billion, according to ITEP’s estimates (to be published soon).

Tax cuts don’t actually pay for themselves, and Kansans will likely face some serious fallout from their failed experiment. Lawmakers are on a path to complete elimination of the most progressive major revenue source the state levies (the income tax) and this will force the state to depend on regressive sales and property taxes to make ends meet. Phase one of this experiment made it a fiscal cautionary tale for other states, and its political leaders are making their state’s tax structure even more regressive.

In Arizona, The Republic explains the “mixed legacy” left by the temporary, 1 percent sales tax increase that expired last week.  Rather than using the revenue for education, as voters expected when they approved the increase, “the tax revenue also partially subsidized an ambitious $538 million business tax-cut package that lawmakers approved less than a year after passage of [the sales tax increase].”  

Pennsylvania lawmakers are likely to vote this week on a bipartisan bill that would uncap the state’s gas tax. Pennsylvania’s gas tax is supposed to rise alongside gas prices, but an outdated tax cap still on the books prevents that from happening when gas prices exceed $1.25 per gallon. The result has been hundreds of millions in lost revenue as the gas tax has failed to keep pace with the rising cost of construction. The change is supported by Governor Corbett, and is just one of many transportation revenue enhancements that have been debated or enacted this year.

In reaction to the complete failure of radical tax reform this year, Nebraska lawmakers unanimously passed legislation forming the Tax Modernization Committee to study the state’s tax structure. Fourteen senators are expected to sit on the Committee and issue recommendations in December.

Here’s an interesting piece on the donation “check offs” available on the Wisconsin income tax forms. Interested in knowing which nonprofits are most popular in terms of giving? Check out the article and then ponder whether state Department of Revenues should be burdened with the administration of collecting donations for these (albeit worthy) causes.

First it was the ill-advised TV campaign to lure new business to his state by bragging about tax cuts, and now New York  Governor Andrew Cuomo has launched his “Tax-Free NY” initiative which would turn many of the state’s public universities, private universities, and community colleges into tax-free havens. Providing a full complement of tax breaks, the Governor’s plan would exempt qualified businesses from paying any sales, property, and corporate taxes for a decade, and would exempt employees of those businesses from the personal income tax.

These no-tax zones include all state university campuses outside of New York City, some private colleges, up to 200,000 square feet in certain campus-adjacent zones, and 20 undisclosed “strategically located” state-owned properties. The Governor’s plan vaguely defines eligible businesses as companies with a relationship to the academic mission of the university and then includes: new businesses, out-of-state businesses that relocate to New York, and existing businesses that expand their New York operations.

Touting the plan as a way to revitalize the upstate economy, the Governor claims the free pass on taxes would “attract start-ups, venture capital, new business, and investments from across the world.” However, economists from across the political spectrum have their doubts (and so do we).

Professor John Yinger of Syracuse University said in response to Cuomo’s plan that: “In New York we have a dizzying array of tax breaks with no evidence they help, and now here’s a new version. You’d do much better improving our schools and infrastructure than giving tax breaks to businesses who would be in the state anyway.”

Others, such as Danny Donohue of the Civil Service Employees Association, argue the plan is another tax giveaway to businesses at the expense of local communities and the middle-class. Donohue says: “The governor doesn’t get the fact that more corporate welfare is no answer to New York’s economic challenges… it’s outrageous that the governor and legislative leaders think we can give away even more to businesses without any guarantee of benefit to taxpayers.”

In addition to creating little if any economic growth, the plan is likely to worsen the state’s already precarious fiscal situation. With the state budget office projecting (PDF) shortfalls ranging up to $3 billion per year in the coming years, removing entire companies from the tax rolls is hardly fiscally responsible.

To move the plan forward, the Governor will need legislative approval before the state’s legislative session ends on June 20^th. Quick – someone get this policy brief (PDF) up to Albany!

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Update: The Wisconsin legislature’s Joint Finance Committee approved a budget early this morning that included an income tax cut that reduced income tax rates from 4.6%, 6.15%, 6.5%, 6.75%, and 7.75% to 4.4%, 5.84%, 6.27%, and 7.65%. The legislation also reduced the number of tax brackets from five to four. This plan stops short of Rep. Kooyenga’s plan plan described below, but is more costly than Governor Walker’s $340 million initial proposal. According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau (PDF) these permanent tax cuts cost $632.5 million over two years and the distribution is again skewed to benefit the wealthiest Wisconsinites. Current reporting suggests this plan will pass the full legislature.

This week Wisconsin Representative Dale Kooyenga, an accountant who’s taking a lead roleon tax policy, released his plan to reform the state’s tax code. In a proposal that would more than double the tax cuts proposed by Gov. Scott Walker, Kooyenga seeks to reduce personal income tax rates and cut the number of income tax brackets from five to three. The latter would, as one report put it, put middle income earners like a secretary at a law firm in the same tax bracket as the high-earning lawyers.  Kooyenga touts simplifying the forms taxpayers file and eliminating nearly 20 tax credits.

Earlier this year, Governor Scott Walker proposed his own income tax cut ,which was slammed for mostly benefiting the wealthy (in large part because an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analysis showed that it was tilted that way). The Governor’s proposed income tax rate cuts were expected to cost the state $343 million over two years; Representative Kooyenga’s would cost $760 million in the upcoming budget and $914 million in the 2015 budget.

And it’s not just costly, it’s regressive. As the lawmaker himself concedes, “[i]t is nearly impossible to create a tax reform or tax cut that is not going to disproportionately lower taxes for upper-middle-class and rich taxpayers,” and a new ITEP analysis of Kooyenga’s plan shows his is no different. ITEP ran the numbers for the Wisconsin Budget Project (WBP) the impact of the Kooyenga income tax plan was shown to be even more skewed to the wealthy that Governor Walker’s, as WBP writes:

Here is how the tax cut would be distributed among income groups:

- The top 5% of earners alone, a group with an average income of $392,000, would receive more than 1/3 of the benefit of the income tax cuts.

- The top 20% of earners, a group with an average income of $183,000, would receive more than 2/3 of the benefit.

- The bottom 60% of earners – those making $60,000 a year or less – would only receive 11% of the benefit of the income tax cuts.

- The 20% of the Wisconsinites with the lowest incomes would receive just two cents out of every $100 in individual income tax cuts under this proposal.

WBP says that the Kooyenga tax plan’s expansion of Governor Walker’s proposal is a “bad idea made worse,” and they are right.  
 

The Ohio Senate is considering a fiscal 2014-15 budget that includes a $1.4 billion business tax cut. The cut – which would exempt a full $375,000 in business income from the income tax – is similar to a widely-criticized plan enacted by Kansas last year. As Policy Matters Ohio explains, however, none of the tax cuts under consideration (including the Governor's) will help Ohio’s economy: “They are bad for low- and moderate-income Ohioans, and slash revenue Ohio needs to support our economic success and improve our quality of life.”

On May 23, the Massachusetts Senate approved a fiscal 2014 budget that would generate $430 million in new tax revenues, in part by extending the sales and use tax to some computer-related services, raising the gas tax by 3 cents, and increasing tobacco excise taxes.  Differences between the Senate budget and a broadly similar plan passed by the State House will now be worked out by a six-member conference committee.

If he ever decides to leave Hollywood, Nicolas Cage might have a future ahead of him in lobbying. After Cage visited Nevada, the state Senate approved a $20 million tax break for filmmakers. Unfortunately for Nevadans, however, film tax credits have been shown time and time again to be ineffective at spurring economic growth.

The Virginia Commonwealth Institute discusses the problems with lawmakers’ recent decision to cut the state’s gas tax by roughly 6 cents per gallon.  As the Institute explains: “gas taxes are not to blame for high and volatile gas prices… [and] Virginia’s gas tax, which has been a steady 17.5 cents per gallon since 1987, was failing to produce enough resources to fuel adequate investment in our infrastructure.” The same is generally true nationwide.

At 2:00am on Monday morning, Minnesota House members passed groundbreaking tax legislation that raises $2.1 billion over two years. The Senate then approved the legislation and Governor Dayton, long a champion of progressive tax reform, signed it yesterday. The bill increases income taxes on the top two percent of earners, raises the cigarette tax to $1.60, closes some corporate tax loopholes, and extends the sales tax to a handful of services primarily used by businesses, including warehouse storage and telecommunications equipment. Wayne Cox, with Minnesota Citizens for Tax Justice expects much from the legislation: “Shifting taxes from the middle class to those with highest incomes will help the economy.”

A helpful summary of the compromise legislation is available here from the Minnesota Budget Project. Revenues from the cigarette tax will be used to help pay for a new Vikings stadium. This is round two for stadium funding because gaming revenues that were supposed to pay the state’s share of the stadium came in below revenue projections (not surprisingly, PDF). Of course, cigarette taxes (PDF) aren’t very stable revenue sources either, and are likely to decline overtime.

Nan Madden, Director of the Minnesota Budget Project, said of the legislature’s work, “In past years, the response to budget shortfalls has been deep cuts to services and use of timing shifts to kick the problem down the road. This year’s tax bill and budget take a better approach, raising the revenues needed to balance the budget and invest in the future; and reforming our tax system so that we share the responsibility for funding public services more equally.”

So, kudos to Minnesota’s elected leaders for making some difficult decisions and finding a way to balance the state’s books and still provide for quality services into the future. It’s a model other states can learn from.

Governor Terry Branstad has made “reforming” (cutting) the property taxes paid by Iowa businesses a top priority since taking office. We described the latest attempts to reduce commercial property taxes here. But Senator Joe Bolkcom (chair of the Ways and Means Committee) has repeatedly demanded that any change to corporate property taxes must be accompanied by an increase in the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

Now a compromise bill has passed the Iowa Senate and is on its way to Governor Branstad’s desk. And, as tends to happen with compromise, nobody is completely happy with the final product.

If signed into law by the Governor, here is what that legislation would do: assess commercial and Industrial property at 90 percent of its value (down from 100 percent); introduce a new assessment cap of 3 percent for residential and agricultural property; introduce a new nonrefundable income tax credit if the Taxpayers Trust Fund exceeds $30 million; and double the EITC from 7 to 14 percent.

The Governor would have prefered  that commercial and industrial property be assessed lower, at 80 percent of its value, but said this of the compromise: “I’m hopeful maybe we can do more in future years. But I think this is the art of what was possible with this General Assembly. I’m pleased with the compromise bill that we’ve got tentative agreement on.”

Peter Fisher of the Iowa Fiscal Partnership pointed out, however, “It’s Christmas for Walmart and McDonald’s, which will happily receive property-tax breaks that they don’t need, while their low-wage employees receive a better Earned Income Tax Credit. This Christmas tree will grow bigger with each passing year, leaving less room in local budgets to respond to needs.”

Of course we applaud any increase in the EITC, and doubling that credit is a meaningful tax cut for low and middle income workers. But as the Iowa Fiscal Partnership reminds us, “If there is any question as to who benefits, Iowans should note that the EITC boost will be $35 million when fully phased in, compared to about 10 times that for property owners.”  The pricetag for these property tax changes is likely to increase in future years, and will become a constant strain on local government budgets.

Kentucky’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Tax Reform released its very useful findings in December, but regrettably little action has resulted from the comprehensive document. Many of the Commission’s recommendations were bold and forward-looking, like the proposal to expand the sales tax base to services  (PDF) and simultaneously institute an earned income tax credit (PDF). But Commissioners themselves aren’t confident that anything will come from their hard work developing those recommendations. Commissioner Sheila Schuster recently said, “I haven’t heard anything since the end of the (legislative) session that would suggest that it’s got legs... So it’s pretty discouraging.”

Legislators in many states are putting the cart before the horse when it comes to budgeting for the next fiscal year. This article (subscription required) from the Wall Street Journal tells of states like Maryland and Virginia who have already passed spending bills that assume new revenues from online Internet sales tax collections when Congress passes the Main Street Fairness Act. Of course, the Act has actually only passed the Senate, and by all accounts the bill faces an unclear future in the House.

This November, Colorado voters will vote on raising their state’s income tax to better fund education. The details of that increase have yet to be worked out, but former state representative Don Marostica has taken to the pages of the Denver Post to argue in favor of his preferred alternative: ditching the state’s flat income tax in favor of a more progressive, graduated income tax used by most states. Marostica explains that “businesses and middle-class Coloradans alike would be better off with a two-step income tax to provide the resources for top teachers and great facilities. The No. 1 priority for businesses seeking a new location is a well-educated, fully prepared workforce. … Yet we're under-investing in education, in part because we've prioritized low taxes ahead of everything else.”

Bad tax ideas are in the news in the District of Columbia.  Mayor Vincent Gray recently reiterated that he wants to cut taxes for DC investors who do their investing outside of the District.  But it’s Councilwoman Anita Bonds’ idea that recently made headlines. Bonds wants to give a super-sized tax break to most people over 80 years old: a full exemption from property taxes, provided their income is below $150,000 per year and they’ve lived in the District for 25 years or more.  But property tax relief should be distributed based on income, not age. Rather than cutting taxes for the well-off elderly, DC lawmakers would be wise to follow the advice of the DC Fiscal Policy Institute and expand the city’s low-income property tax credit for DC residents of all ages.

Earlier this spring, Alabama lawmakers approved a bill establishing a state income tax credit (up to $3,500) to reimburse parents for the cost of sending children to private school or transferring them to a better performing public school.  The legislation also created a tax credit for corporations and individuals who contribute to scholarship funds. These kinds of credits are often referred to as back-door or neo-vouchers as they divert taxpayer money away from public schools, indirectly via the tax code.  Due in part to concern over the unknown cost of the credits and seemingly in part due to public displeasure with the new program, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley (who had been a supporter of the bill) attempted to delay the implementation of the school tax credits last week.  He told lawmakers they “had better be listening to the people” who he says are not supportive of using public tax dollars to fund private school education.  However, the House decided this week to ignore the Governor’s request; they rejected his suggested amendment and took a vote to show they could override any veto attempts.

More than a month after Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal “parked” his widely-panned proposal to repeal the state’s income tax, state policymakers now are returning to what should be a more straightforward tax reform issue. A new report (PDF) from the Louisiana Legislative Auditor critically evaluates the workings of the state’s film tax credit, which gives Louisiana-based film productions a tax credit to offset part of their expenses when they hire Louisiana workers or spend money on production expenses locally.

From a cost perspective alone, it makes sense to take a hard look at this provision: the state has spent over $1 billion on these Hollywood handouts in the past decade.

But the Auditor’s report is also a good reminder of just how little the state is getting in return for this massive outlay. The report estimates that after doling out almost $200 million in film tax breaks in 2010, the state enjoyed just $27 million in increased tax revenue from the film-related economic activity supposedly encouraged by this tax break.

This means a net loss to the state of about $170 million in just one year.

It’s hardly news that film tax credits offer little bang for the buck: last year the Louisiana Budget Project reported (PDF) that each new job created by the film tax credit is costing the state $60,000, and a recent report (PDF) from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue found that a huge chunk of that state’s film tax credits were going to wealthy taxpayers living in other states. Even when these credits create in-state jobs (and they do generate some economic activity), the transitory nature of film productions means those jobs probably will be gone when the production leaves town. And it’s virtually impossible for lawmakers to know whether they’re really attracting film productions to the state—or just rewarding moviemakers for doing what they would have done anyway (as “incentives” often do). Either way, Louisiana taxpayers are still doling out more than they are getting back.

But it’s not all bad, according to the Auditor’s report: the Louisiana credit does appear to be going largely to film productions that are technically eligible for it. So, as far as the Auditor can tell us, the film tax credit is simply ineffective and not an outright scam. Or at least, it wasn’t until this guy pleaded guilty to fraudulently claiming the credit, which is similar to what happened repeatedly in Iowa after that state’s disastrous experiment with Hollywood tax breaks.

After surviving the three-month train wreck that was the rollout of Governor Jindal’s tax plan, Louisiana lawmakers should find the film tax credit an easy problem to solve since they know how much it costs and just how little they’re getting in return. Right now they’re just tinkering around the edges, but pulling the plug on handouts to Hollywood should be high on policymakers’ to-do list.

It’s a remarkable thing to see somebody propose $2.3 billion in state and local tax cuts in a single press conference, with absolutely no ideas for paying for them.  That’s exactly what Virginia’s Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, recently did at a Richmond yogurt shop as part of his campaign to become his state’s next governor.

Under Cuccinelli’s 163-word plan, a commission would be appointed to identify any “loopholes that promote crony capitalism,” and the savings from eliminating those loopholes would be funneled toward cuts in the state corporate income tax and three local business taxes.  The single largest component of Cuccinelli’s tax plan, however, is eliminating the state’s top personal income tax bracket.  This change would lower Virginia’s top rate from 5.75 to 5.0 percent, and would dramatically flatten the state’s income tax structure; for example, the new top rate would kick-in at taxable income of just $5,000.

Our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), recently analyzed the personal income tax cut in the Attorney General’s plan in a report just published by the Virginia-based Commonwealth Institute.  Unsurprisingly, ITEP found that this flattening of the income tax would overwhelmingly benefit Virginia’s most affluent residents, even as Virginia’s wealthiest taxpayers already pay far less of their income in state and local taxes than their less well-off neighbors. More specifically, ITEP found that:

• Almost 4 in 10 Virginians (39 percent) would see no change in their income tax bill.

• Lower and moderate income families are the groups least likely to benefit from this cut: nobody among the poorest 20 percent of Virginia families would receive a tax cut, and only half of all families among the next 20 percent would see their taxes reduced. 

• In fact, the Cuccinelli plan runs the risk of actually raising taxes on a significant number of Virginians because “loopholes” of the non-crony-capitalism kind  that benefit moderate income families would likely have to be scaled-back or eliminated to pay for the larger rate cut.

• Among the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, a majority (71 percent) would see their state income taxes fall, but by an average of just $98 per year.

• The state’s wealthiest taxpayers would receive the largest tax benefits by far.  Three-fourths (76 percent) of the benefits from repealing Virginia’s top personal income tax bracket would go to the wealthiest 20 percent of households.  The top 1 percent of earners alone would take home a full 27 percent of the benefits, for an average state tax cut of over $8,000 per household.

Read the report.

Colorado lawmakers recently decided to enact a pair of poverty-fighting tax policies: an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and a Child Tax Credit (CTC). Both had been on the state’s books at some point but had either been eliminated or were often unavailable. The EITC, equal to 10 percent of the federal credit, will become a permanent feature of Colorado’s tax code once state revenue growth improves – likely not until 2016. Similarly, the CTC will not take effect until the federal government enacts legislation empowering Colorado to collect the sales taxes due on online shopping.

Kansas legislative leadership and Governor Brownback are in the midst of secret meetings to discuss how the House and Senate will reconcile their varying tax plans. The largest sticking point is whether or not to allow a temporary increase in the state’s sales tax rate to expire. But the larger issue, that is getting less attention, is that (as ITEP’s recent analysis points out) both the House and Senate plans could eventually phase out the state’s income tax altogether.

The Rockefeller Institute is warning (PDF) states and the federal government not to get too excited about the recent “surge” in income tax revenues. Rather than indicating an economic recovery, the surge is likely a result of investors realizing their capital gains a few months earlier than usual in order to avoid the higher federal tax rates that went into effect on January 1st. As the Institute points out: “over the longer term, this could be bad news — it could mean that accelerated money received now, used to pay current bills, will not be there to pay for services in the future.”

California is one state enjoying a sizeable revenue surplus this year. The state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office understands that a good portion of the bump is thanks to rich Californians cashing in on capital gains in 2012 to avoid higher federal tax rates in 2013. Yet as budget season kicks off, lawmakers are sure to be at odds over exactly what to do with the more than $4 billion in unanticipated revenues they will have to either spend or save.  

Here’s an excellent editorial from the Wisconsin State Journal urging Governor Scott Walker and the legislature to be wise about a projected uptick in revenues and invest any “surplus” in public schools, which have endured cuts in recent years. “Our editorial board is less convinced a showy income tax cut makes sense. Up is certainly better than down when it comes to revenue predictions. But some caution is required.” It seems that the Governor may not heed this caution, however, as he appears poised to propose an expansion of his current income tax cut proposal.

The Missouri House and Senate have hammered out a hybrid version of the tax bills each chamber recently passed, but with luck, it will never become law.  When the Senate passed its version in March, we wrote:

This package is billed as Missouri’s answer to the radical tax package passed last year by Kansas Governor Brownback. Its sponsor explained, “I’m trying to stop the bleeding. I’m trying to stop the businesses from fleeing into Kansas,” and then invokes the kind of magical thinking that almost always results in a deficit. According to the Associated Press, State Senator Kraus predicted his plan would “create an economic engine in our state” that would generate enough new tax revenues to make up for the losses.”

The bill the legislature will now send to Governor Nixon is a regressive income tax cut package that includes: a reduction in the corporate income tax rate, a 50 percent exclusion for pass-through business income, an additional $1,000 personal and spouse income exemption for individuals earning less than $20,000 in Missouri adjusted gross income, and a reduction in the top income tax rate from 6 to 5.5 percent.

In order for the legislation to become law, Governor Jay Nixon will have to give his okay, but he has signaled he’s going to veto the legislation. Recently he said, "Taking more than $800 million — literally the equivalent of what you spend on higher education, or literally more than you have for all of corrections or mental health — is not the fiscally responsible approach.”  He reiterated that message again this week.

Assuming Nixon, a Democrat, does veto this expensive tax package (its annual cost will be upwards of $700 million), the Republican-controlled legislature will put an override on their agenda when they return in September for a special veto session.

While major tax swap proposals have collapsed this year in Louisiana, Nebraska and Ohio, plans to pay for personal and corporate income tax cuts with a greater reliance on a regressive sales tax are still very much alive in North Carolina. This week, North Carolina’s Senate President and Senate Finance chairs released the latest version of a tax swap for the Tarheel State which they named the Tax Fairness Act. They are billing it as the largest tax cut in the state’s history.

Details of the plan are lacking despite the unveiling of a flashy website showcasing a tax calculator and video of the Senate President pontificating about the “plan.”  Vaguely, we know the proponents intend to flatten the income tax, reduce taxes on businesses, eliminate the estate tax, and expand the sales tax base to most consumer services, food and prescription drugs.

It is clear that the result of the plan will be threefold: a significant tax hike on low- and middle-income families; a large tax cut for the state’s wealthiest households and profitable corporations; and a loss of more than $1 billion in revenue annually for vital public investments.

An editorial in Wednesday’s Raleigh News and Observer suggested the proposal should be renamed the “Let Working Families Pay More And The Rich Pay Less Act”.  Indeed. Here is more from the editorial, which does an excellent job explaining the problems with the State Senate tax swap proposal:

“What’s being sold is North Carolina’s future. Berger, Rucho and Rabon promise it will be a future in which tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations will bring a flowering of new jobs. That promise, so often tested and always found wanting, will fail again. Tax cuts don’t create jobs, and they aren’t a primary reason why businesses come to this or any state. What fuels an economy and fosters business growth are a strong infrastructure, a clean environment and good schools. Those things would be undermined by tax cuts that would reduce public spending in a growing state with growing needs.

"To Berger, the new arrangement would be fair because the sales tax would be applied more broadly, services would be taxed equally and everyone would pay according to what they consume. “The more you spend, the more you pay,” he said. “The less you spend, the less you pay.” Berger tries to sweeten the bitter realities of the plan by touting the reduction in tax revenue as “the largest tax cut in state history.” But that claim doesn’t define the effect by income. Senate Democratic leader Martin Nesbitt did. “This plan actually amounts to the largest tax increase in North Carolina history on the middle class and working families,” he said....

Lowering income taxes on the rich and expanding the sales tax paid by all doesn’t make taxation fairer, no matter what you call it.”

In an excellent op-ed, Jason Bailey of the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy makes the case for real tax reform in Kentucky, and that means a tax code that can raise revenues to keep Kentucky thriving. He explains that after years of budget cuts and a sluggish economy, the Bluegrass State cannot make public investments needed to recover economically and get on a sustainable fiscal footing. Bailey lists the various stop-gap measures lawmakers have already deployed and concludes they are all out of tricks. With a good roadmap to reform available, Bailey writes, it’s time to begin that hard work.

This otherwise fine article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, about competing tax proposals in Missouri, provided online readers with a calculator – that utterly failed in calculating how those proposals would affect taxpayers. The state policy team at ITEP quickly responded with a Letter to the Editor pointing out that “the tax calculator omits some key information about who wins and who loses under these plans.”

Tax policy is taking center stage in Virginia’s gubernatorial race. Republican candidate Ken Cuccinelli is reportedly in the process of designing a major tax cut on which to campaign.  While precise details have yet to be announced, a 20 percent cut in the personal income tax and elimination of the corporate income tax altogether are under consideration. Watch this space for a full analysis of the plan’s impact on Virginians at different income levels once more details are announced.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has a new report that clarifies a lot of misconceptions about the existence of fraud in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). For starters, CBPP explains that most EITC overpayments “reflect unintentional errors, not fraud.”  On top of that, it turns out that IRS studies of EITC overpayments suffer from “significant methodological problems that likely cause them to overstate the actual EITC overpayments.”

The Oklahoma legislature recently approved a cut to the state’s top personal income tax rate, at the urging of Governor Mary Fallin. When the plan is fully implemented in 2016, the state’s top tax rate will fall from 5.25 to 4.85 percent, at a cost to the state of $237 million per year.  While a slim majority (52 percent) of Oklahomans support the idea of an income tax cut in the abstract, that support evaporates (falling to 31 percent) once the plan is explained in more detail.

That detail is as follows. According to an analysis by our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), roughly 4 in 10 Oklahomans—generally lower- and middle-income families—will receive no tax cut at all under the plan, while the average tax cut for a middle-income family will be just $30.  The wealthiest 5 percent of taxpayers, by contrast, will receive 40 percent of the benefits, with the state’s top 1 percent of earners alone taking home a tax cut averaging over $2,000 per year.

When these basic facts about the tax plan now on Governor Fallin’s desk were explained to a random sample of registered Oklahoma voters, 60 percent of them said they opposed it, with a full 47 percent describing themselves as “strongly opposed.”

Voters’ reaction was similar upon being informed that the plan will require reducing state services like education, public safety, and health care. This vital piece of information resulted in support for the tax cut dropping to just 34 percent, and opposition rising to 56 percent (with 44 percent “strongly opposed.”)

These polling results are backed up by interviews with Oklahoma citizens conducted by the state’s largest newspaper, The Oklahoman. One Oklahoma resident explains, for example, that “If [the tax cut] harmed education I don't want it. I have a niece that is a schoolteacher and I'd rather have more teachers than the little bit of money.” Another says that “It sounds like the rich are just getting richer.”

Meanwhile, the Oklahoma Policy Institute (OPI) explains that the plan isn’t just unpopular—it’s fundamentally irresponsible: “We have seen no evidence that Oklahoma will be able to afford a tax cut in [2015, when the first stage of the cut takes effect]. Indeed, we are already seeing signs of faltering revenue collections, with revenue falling below last year.” Concern about the sustainability of Oklahoma’s revenues is compounded by the possibility that “the state could be on the hook for as much as $480 million” in additional expenses if a court ruling against its tax break for capital gains is upheld. The Associated Press reports that when the impact of this court ruling is “combined with an estimated $237 million price tag for a tax cut approved by the Legislature this year and expected to be signed into law by Gov. Mary Fallin… the cost to the state could amount to 10 percent of the total state appropriated budget.”

Given these challenges, it’s hard to argue with OPI’s policy prescription: “Now that cuts are scheduled, the only responsible path forward is to pursue real tax reform that goes beyond the top income tax rate. To fund education and ensure a prosperous future for Oklahoma, we need real action to reign in unnecessary tax credits and exemptions that cost us hundreds of millions of dollars every year.”

The debate over how to effectively tax property in Iowa has raged for years. A new report from the Iowa Fiscal Project (IFP) compares and contrasts the property tax reform proposals put forward by the Iowa House and Senate. The report was described in this Des Moines Register editorial with high praise: “No matter which approach prevails, the Iowa Fiscal Partnership deserves credit for an unbiased examination of the impact of the competing property tax proposals on real businesses in Iowa.”

Currently, commercial property taxes are based on 100 percent of their actual values. Residential property is treated very differently. IFP reports that most recently residential property was assessed at just 52.8 percent of actual value. This disparity is something that Governor Branstad, the Iowa House and Senate are working to address. The Senate bill would create a property tax credit which would ultimately mean that some commercial property would be taxed like residential property. The House bill (which has the support of Governor Branstad) would ultimately tax commercial property at 80 percent of its actual value. In its report, IFP raises important questions about how local governments will be reimbursed for the resulting reductions in a significant local government revenue source should either bill become law. The Senate bill provides more targeted tax relief to corporations, whereas the House bill provides a property tax reduction to all businesses.

It could be that this issue gets put on hold for yet another year because Senator Joe Bolkcom (chair of the Ways and Means Committee) is vowing, as he has before, that no compromise on a tax bill will be reached until an increase in Earned Income tax Credit (EITC) is signed into law.

Michigan’s former Treasurer, Robert Kleine, explains in a Detroit Free Press op-ed that “there is no evidence that … [a 2011 tax change] reducing business taxes by $1.7 billion has created new jobs in Michigan.”  Among other things, Kleine observes that “state business taxes are such a small part of a business’ costs that even large changes have a minor impact.”

Gas taxes remain a major topic of debate in the states.  Since publishing our mid-session update on state gas tax debates two weeks ago, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed a gas tax increase into law, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad reiterated that a gas tax hike is still on the table in his state, and The Olympian reports that raising Washington State’s gas tax is “now widely seen as a topic for special session.”

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been traveling the state seeking support for his more than $2 billion tax cut proposal (once fully phased-in) ever since using Tax Day 2013 to announce his renewed push for the plan he first championed last year. An op-ed from the Better Choices for New Jersey Campaign says the proposal was “a bad idea then, and it remains one today.”  Why?  Simply put, the state cannot afford even the scaled-back tax cut the governor is proposing for 2013 without reducing spending.

A new report from the North Carolina Budget and Tax Center takes on two common myths about the state’s economy that policymakers often use to justify cutting or eliminating taxes: North Carolina’s economy is uncompetitive compared to neighboring states and high tax rates drive North Carolina’s high unemployment. The report found that North Carolina is actually either leading or in the middle of the pack in every major indicator of economic health except for unemployment.  And, the explanation for high unemployment? A decline in specific industries the state has long relied on – like textiles and furniture – that are highly vulnerable to offshoring, outsourcing and other global pressures, not high tax rates.

Anti-Taxer-in-Chief Grover Norquist recently travelled to Minnesota where he met up with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to rally against taxes. Minnesota is actually one of the bright lights this year for tax justice advocates who are supporting House and Senate plans there that would raise taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans.

The Missouri House and Senate have each passed their own versions of a “race to the bottom” tax plan in a misguided effort to keep up with neighboring Kansas, where a radical tax plan that is eviscerating the state’s budget might actually be followed up by another round of tax cuts (currently being debated by the legislature).

Both the Missouri Senate and House plans would reduce income tax rates, introduce a 50 percent exclusion for “pass-through” business income, reduce corporate income tax rates, and increase the sales tax. The Senate plan is summed up in this St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial, Missouri Senate Declares Class War Against Citizens.

“The poorest 20 percent of Missourians, those earning $18,000 a year or less, will pay $63 a year more in taxes. Those earning between $18,000 and $33,000 a year will pay $129 more. The middle quintile — those earning between $33,000 and $53,000 a year — will pay $150 a year more. The fourth quintile ($53,000 to $85,000 a year) will pay $149 a year more. That’s a grand total of 80 percent of Missourians who will pay more and get less: crummier schools, higher college tuitions (because state aid will continue to fall) and less access to worse state services. The poor are used to this. It remains to be seen whether the middle class will put up with it.”

Despite the fact that similarly reckless tax proposals in other states have failed (Louisiana and Nebraska) or been scaled back (Ohio), it seems the proposals are moving forward in Missouri, thanks in large part to Americans for Prosperity. This national group uses state chapters to throw money at anti-tax, anti-government agendas its corporate funders like, and it has launched a “Bold Ideas Tour” to travel Missouri advocating for deep tax cuts as the state’s legislature approaches its closing date of May 17.

Governor Jay Nixon has vowed he will veto a tax cut bill of this magnitude, rightly saying, "Making a veteran with aches and pains pay more for an aspirin so that an S Corporation can get a tax cut does not reflect our values or our priorities. I have long opposed schemes like this one that would shift costs onto families because they reflect the wrong priorities and do not work.”

The Governor’s position is supported by multiple experts, including the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), and it looks like Missouri could be a state where good information comes between the national anti-tax movement and their legislative agenda.

When Indiana Governor Mike Pence was campaigning last year, a centerpiece of his campaign was a regressive 10 percent cut in the state’s already low personal income tax rate  It now appears that the Governor has convinced legislative leaders to agree to a tax cut about half that size, though it won’t be fully implemented until the end of his current term as Governor in 2017.

A new analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) shows that while this new agreement is more modest than Governor Pence’s original proposal, its impact on the distribution of Indiana taxes is similar. Namely, most of its benefits will flow to the state’s wealthiest households. ITEP analyzed the effect that this agreement would have had on Indiana residents’ tax bills if it were in effect for 2012—the year for which most households just finished filing their tax returns. When this plan takes full effect in 2017, the size of the tax cuts will be slightly larger, but their distribution will be roughly the same. Among other things, ITEP found that for 2012:

- Cutting Indiana’s personal income tax rate to 3.23 percent would reduce the tax bill of the richest 1 percent of Indiana households by an average of $1,181.

- That same cut in the state’s income tax rate would reduce the average tax bill of middle-income households by just $56. 

- Low income households fare worst of all. The recently announced agreement would amount to a tax cut for the poorest 20 percent of Indiana households of just $10 on average in 2012, and roughly one in three members of this group would receive no tax cut at all.

Read the report here.

Tuesday, the Ohio House of Representatives approved their budget bill which included an across the board 7 percent reduction in income tax rates. Though the House tax plan is less costly than the Governor’s original proposal, Policy Matters Ohio, using Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) data, makes the point that this reduction will still benefit the wealthiest Ohioans. “For the top 1 percent, the tax plan would cut $2,717 in taxes on average. For the middle 20 percent, it would amount to a $51 cut on average. For the bottom 20 percent, it would result in $3 on average.”

This week the Minnesota Senate unveiled their tax plan which, (unlike Governor Dayton’s plan and the House plan wouldn’t create a new top income tax bracket,) would raise the current top rate from 7.85 to 9.4 percent. About 6 percent of taxpayers would see their taxes go up under the Senate plan. Both houses of the legislature and the Governor are committed to tax increases and doing the hard work necessary to raise taxes in a progressive way. Senator Majority Leader Tom Bakk recently said, "Some people are probably going to lose elections because we are going to raise some taxes, but sometimes leading is not a popularity contest."

We’d be remiss if we didn’t draw your attention to this study (PDF) by Ernst and Young for the Council on State Taxation which cautions state lawmakers about expanding their sales tax bases to include services purchased by businesses. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s failed attempt at income tax elimination included broadening the sales tax base to include a variety of services, including business-to-business services. Ironically, Ernst and Young was hired by the Governor to consult about his plan. Toward the end of the tax debate there, the AP pointed out the disparity between the Governor's consultants’ stance on taxing business-to-business services and what the Governor himself was proposing.

Rhode Island analysts are urging lawmakers to take a closer look at the $1.7 billion the state doles out in special tax breaks each year.  A new report from the Economic Progress Institute recommends rigorous evaluations of tax breaks to find out if they’re working. It then recommends attaching expiration dates to those breaks so that lawmakers are voting whether to renew them based on solid evidence about their effectiveness. These goals are also reflected in a bill (PDF) under consideration in the Rhode Island House -- Representative Tanzi’s “Tax Expenditure Evaluation Act.”

We’ve criticized Virginia’s new transportation package for letting drivers off the hook when it comes to paying for the roads they use, and now the Commonwealth Institute has crunched some new numbers that make this very point: “Currently, nearly 70 percent of the state’s transportation revenue comes from driving-related sources ... But under the new funding package, that share drops to around 60 percent ... In the process the gas tax drops from the leading revenue source for transportation to third place; and sales tax moves into first.”

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin and legislative leaders recently announced their intention to repeal the state’s top personal income tax bracket, bringing the top rate down from 5.25 to 5.0 percent in 2015. The rate could be dropped even more by 2016 if a revenue growth target is hit. Our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), analyzed the initial cut down to 5.0 percent when it was proposed earlier this year, and found that its benefits would be heavily tilted in favor of the state’s wealthiest taxpayers. This is despite the fact that Oklahoma’s high-income taxpayers already pay far less (PDF) of their income in state and local taxes than any other group.

ITEP found that almost two-thirds of the tax cuts distributed under this plan would flow to the wealthiest 20 percent of Oklahomans, while the vast majority of the state’s poorest residents would receive no tax cut at all.  Moreover, while a family in the middle of the income distribution could expect about $39 in tax cuts per year, Oklahoma’s most affluent taxpayers would receive tax cuts averaging $1,870 every year.

A new statement from the Oklahoma Policy Institute provides some important context for understanding the budgetary impact of this proposal (excerpt below).

Since 2008, Oklahoma public schools have endured the third largest budget cuts in the nation. Out of control tax breaks contributed to a collapse in revenue from oil and gas drilling. We still don’t know what will be the full cost of State Question 766 or what impact federal budget cuts will have on Oklahoma’s core services.

In this situation, it’s not the time for more tax cuts that would do little to help average Oklahomans, take $237 million from schools and other core services, and make Oklahoma more vulnerable to an energy bust or economic downturn. … Yet the proposal announced today would commit us to tax cuts two years from now, when we have no way of knowing what Oklahoma’s needs or economic situation will look like.

This week Missouri is offering a sales tax holiday on energy efficient appliances. Not only are these holidays costly for state budgets, they are poorly targeted. That is, it’s generally wealthier folks who have the cash flow flexibility to time their purchases to take advantage of these holidays, when it’s poorer residents who feel the brunt of sales taxes in the first place. To learn more about why these holidays aren’t worth celebrating, check out The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s (ITEP) policy brief here (PDF).

Here’s a great investigative piece from the Columbus Post Dispatch about the nearly $8 billion in tax code entitlements (aka tax expenditures) Ohio currently offers. The state needs to closely study these tax expenditures and determine if they are actually producing the economic benefits promised. Before debating extreme income tax rate reductions, Ohio lawmakers should also take a look at this ITEP primer on what a thoughtful, productive discussion of state tax expenditures looks like.

In this Kansas City Star article, ITEP’s Executive Director, Matt Gardner, talks about the fate of many radical tax plans this year in the states. “The speed with which these plans have fallen apart is as remarkable a trend as the speed with which they emerged,” he says. Kansas and its budget crisis have become a cautionary tale for other states considering tax cuts, but even the latest plans passed by the Kansas House and Senate are radical and could eventually lead to the complete elimination of the personal income tax.

Criticism of the tax cuts enacted in Kansas last year continues to mount.  We already wrote about Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma’s caution that his state might become another Kansas, but now a number of media outlets have picked up on the fact that both the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Tax Foundation called that Kansas tax cuts the “worst” (ouch!) state tax changes enacted in 2012.

Watch out, North Carolinians! It appears that Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is coming to town to the tune of $500,000 to pay for town hall meetings, “grassroots” advocacy and advertising all to support the dismantling of the state’s tax structure. Let’s hope the facts can defeat AFP’s cash.

In a stark departure from the last few years, one of the most debated state tax policy issues in 2013 has been the gasoline tax (PDF).  Until this February, it had been almost three years since any state’s lawmakers approved an increase or reform of their gasoline tax.  That changed when Wyoming Governor Matt Mead signed into law a 10 cent gas tax hike passed by his state’s legislature.  Since then, Virginia has reformed its gas tax to grow over time alongside gas prices, and Maryland has both increased and reformed its gas tax.  By the time states’ 2013 legislative sessions come to a close, the list of states having improved their gas taxes is likely to be even longer.

Massachusetts appears to be the most likely candidate for gas tax reform.  Both the House and Senate have passed bills immediately raising the state gas tax by 3 cents per gallon, and reforming the tax so that its flat per-gallon amount keeps pace with inflation in the future (see chart here).  In late 2011, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that Massachusetts is among the states where inflation has been most damaging to the state transportation budget—costing some $451 million in revenue per year relative to where the gas tax stood in 1991 when it was last raised.  Governor Deval Patrick has expressed frustration that legislators passed plans lacking more revenue for education—in sharp contrast to his own plan to increase the income tax—but he has also signaled that there may be room for compromise.

Vermont lawmakers are also giving very serious consideration to gas tax reform.  At the Governor’s urging, the House passed a bill increasing the portion of Vermont’s gas tax that already grows alongside gas prices.  The bill also reforms the flat-rate portion of Vermont’s gas tax to grow with inflation.  The Senate is now debating the idea, and early reports indicate that the package may be tweaked to rely slightly more on diesel taxes in order to reduce the size of the increase on gasoline.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has also proposed raising and reforming his state’s gasoline tax.  While Pennsylvania’s tax is technically supposed to grow alongside gas prices, an obsolete tax cap limits the rate from rising when gas prices exceed $1.25 per gallon.  Corbett would like to remove that cap in order to improve the sustainability of the state’s revenues, and members of his administration have been traveling the state to explain how doing so would benefit Pennsylvanians.  While the legislature has yet to act on his plan, the fact that it has the backing of the state’s Chamber of Business and Industry is likely to help its chances.

In New Hampshire, the Governor has said she is open to raising the state gas tax and the House has passed a bill doing exactly that.  But there are indications that lawmakers in the state Senate might continue procrastinating on raising the tax, as the state has done for over two decades.

Nevada lawmakers are discussing a gas tax increase following the release of a report showing that the state’s outdated transportation system is costing drivers $1,500 per year.  ITEP analyzed a gas tax proposal receiving consideration in the Nevada House and found that even with the increase, the state’s gas tax rate (adjusted for inflation) would still remain low relative to its levels in years past.

Iowa lawmakers have been debating a gas tax increase for a number of years, and there may be enough support in the legislature to finally see one enacted into law.  The major stumbling block is that Governor Branstad will only agree to raise the gas tax if it’s part of a larger package that cuts revenue overall—particularly revenues from the property tax.  As we’ve explained in the past, such a move would effectively benefit the state’s roads at the expense of its schools.

Earlier this year, Washington State House lawmakers unveiled a plan raising the state’s gas tax by 10 cents per gallon and increasing vehicle registration fees.  Senate leaders are reportedly less excited about the idea of a gasoline tax hike, though there are indications they would consider such an increase if it were to pass the House.  While talk of a 10 cent increase has since quieted down, there are rumors that a smaller increase could be enacted.

Unfortunately, some states where the chances of gas tax reform once appeared promising have since begun to move away from the idea.  In Michigan, while the Governor and the state Chamber of Commerce have voiced strong support for generating additional revenue through the gas tax, neither the House nor the Senate appears likely to vote in favor of such a reform this year.  Meanwhile, the chances for a gas tax increase in Minnesota seem to have faded after the Governor came out against an increase and the House subsequently unveiled a tax plan that leaves the gas tax untouched.

Overall, 2013 has already been a significant year for state gas tax reform.  Both Maryland and Virginia have abandoned their unsustainable flat gas taxes in favor of a better gas tax that grows over time, just like construction costs inevitably will.  Hopefully, within the next few months, more states will have followed their lead.

Last week we brought you news that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was abandoning his plan to eliminate the state personal and corporate income taxes and replace the revenue with an expanded sales tax. Instead, the Governor asked the legislature to “Send me a plan to get rid of our state income tax.” But now the legislature is denying the Governor’s request.

House Ways and Means Committee Chair Representative Robideaux has asked his colleagues to “defer” the bills they already had in the works to repeal the state income tax, and he’s said that he won’t allow hearings on any income tax repeal bill, closing the door on any attempt to eliminate the state’s income tax. Robideaux said, “I think it’s probably dead for the session, right now, there’s probably income tax fatigue.”  Importantly, he also asks, “Is there a constituent base out there demanding repeal of the income tax?” The answer is that two thirds of Louisianans actually opposed the Governor’s plan for this tax swap, which happens to be about the same percentage of Louisianans who stand to lose the most if any such tax plan gets implemented.

Jindal’s failure is a victory for tax justice advocates and a may serve as a lesson for lawmakers in other states entertaining similarly radical tax ideas.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch, for instance, editorialized, “Louisiana's lawmakers realize what Missouri's don't: Income tax cuts are suicidal.” Missouri lawmakers are debating their own draconian tax plan that would roll back income taxes. The Post Dispatch continues, “What Louisiana has recognized is that the supposed benefits of cutting state income taxes are vastly overstated. The impact of service cuts is vastly understated. The effect is that rich people and corporations get richer. Everyone else gets poorer.”  

In another state, Georgia, income tax elimination has been debated for years, but this columnist with the Atlanta Journal Constitution is hopeful that the tax justice victory in Louisiana will lead to Georgia lawmakers reconsidering their own proposal, which eliminates the personal and corporate income tax for no good reason.

Tax plans similar to Jindal’s have hit road blocks in Nebraska and Ohio this year. Among the many reasons these plans fail, it seems, is that when people realize that they amount to unwarranted tax cuts for the rich that raise taxes for everyone else and probably bust the budget, too, common sense prevails and these ideas are defeated. 

We know that Louisianans dodged a bullet when the Governor’s plan fell apart.  And while it’s good news that a big reason was widespread concern over its fundamental unfairness, the fact is Bobby Jindal is not the only supply-sider committed to eliminating the income tax. So we savor the victory, yes, but also prepare for the next battle as similar plans are winding their ways through other state capitals.

The Indiana Senate recently passed a budget that speeds up the phase-out of the state’s inheritance tax (PDF), cuts taxes for the politically well-connected financial industry, and reduces the state’s flat personal income tax rate from 3.4 to 3.3 percent.  

The income tax cut in the plan, though a scaled-back version of a plan that Governor Pence originally proposed on the campaign trail, is similarly regressive. A new report from our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), shows that while the Senate income tax cut is significantly smaller than the Governor’s, the two plans are equally lopsided—distributing the lion’s share of the benefits to the state’s most affluent residents.

ITEP finds that over half (55 percent) of the income tax cuts under either plan would go to the best-off 20 percent of Indiana residents. Out of this group, the top 1 percent would fare best of all—receiving an outsized 14 percent share of the benefits.  Their average tax cut would range from $694 under the Senate’s plan to $2,361 per tax filer under the Governor’s preferred approach.

Middle- and lower-income taxpayers would not fare nearly as well. The entire bottom 60 percent of households would be divvying up just 23 percent of the tax cuts enacted under either plan, while the poorest 20 percent of Indiana residents in particular would see a tiny 2 percent share.  Under the Senate plan, this group would see an average tax cut of just $6, while the $20 cut they’d see under the Governor’s proposal is only marginally more generous.

This lopsided tax cut comes on top of a state tax system that is already, according to ITEP’s ranking, the ninth most regressive in the country.

But even putting fairness considerations aside, a recent letter from House Speaker Brian Bosma referenced by ITEP points out that Indiana’s last round of tax cuts wrecked the state’s budget. Even with late news of a boost in revenue projections, Indiana lawmakers would be wise to avoid a repeat of that fiscal history for the sake of tax giveaways that serve no greater economic good.

For more detail, see ITEP’s new report: Indiana Senate’s Income Tax Cut: Just as Lopsided as the Governor’s.

On April 15, the majority of Americans file their income taxes, federal and state. As CTJ and ITEP demonstrate in their annual Who Pays Taxes in America, state tax systems are overwhelmingly regressive and the federal system just barely makes up for that. Today we highlight some great, creative efforts in a few states promoting the importance of state tax fairness.

Michigan: The Michigan League for Public Policy organized a social media campaign and video called “Pay it Forward Michigan.” The League explains that “its aim is to remind us about the good things our tax dollars create or protect — clean water, parks, good schools, safe streets, good roads, protection for children, great universities, the arts, bike paths, pristine beaches and more.”

North Carolina: Russell the Public Investment Hound was back and starring in a new film, The Great Tax Shift.  Also, check out this tax day Fair Fight Luchadora (Mexican wrestling) showdown that was staged across the street from the North Carolina General Assembly building. From the press advisory: “Tax Day is a reminder that wealthy and powerful special interests aren’t made to pay their fair share because too few lawmakers in Raleigh and in D.C. care about being champions of the People who elected them. This year, working people will get to settle the score!” Spoiler alert: the people’s champ won!

Ohio: Amy Hanauer of Policy Matters Ohio writes in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer about why income tax cuts won’t help the state’s economy, and highlights research from ITEP to make her case.  She also shares a personal experience with a fire in the basement of her home just days before Tax Day in 2001. “The firefighters arrived in minutes and put out the still-tiny fire ... and I suddenly had a more vivid picture of what my un-mailed taxes would pay for. Twelve years later, I can thank countless teachers, crossing guards, snowplow drivers, police officers, water inspectors and others for helping keep my kids educated, protected, safe and happy in our community.”

Wisconsin: Ever wonder what Wisconsin income taxes help fund? Read all about it here and check out the gorgeous infographic showing how tax revenues are an economic investment.

Photo courtesy of FairFight North Carolina.

Idaho Senate leadership took a difficult stand on a high-profile issue in favor of good tax policy by refusing to give the Girl Scouts a special tax break on their famous cookies. Their counterparts in the Idaho House, however, weren’t nearly as principled, bowing to the pressure of some of the nation’s youngest tax policy lobbyists and voting 59-11 in favor of the special break. The Girl Scouts plan to return to the statehouse next year in hopes of convincing the Senate to support the new tax subsidy, which is like any other (PDF) subsidy.

Nevada lawmakers are debating whether they should join Maryland and Wyoming as the third state to raise its gasoline tax this year.  The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) provides some important context with a new chart showing that even if the state’s gas tax were raised by 20 cents over the next 10 years (as the Senate is considering), the rate would still be below its historical average in value.

Texas business owners are pushing state lawmakers to repeal the state’s largest business tax, trotting out familiar arguments about the economic benefits of tax cuts. Fortunately, as the Austin American Statesman reports, “a $1.2 billion annual price tag ... appears to have doomed the effort.”

Massachusetts House lawmakers set up a showdown with Governor Patrick over transportation funding in the Bay State with the passage of their less ambitious revenue package this week. Governor Patrick’s budget includes almost $2 billion in new revenues to boost transportation and education spending raised primarily through increasing the personal income tax. The Governor’s plan also includes a sharp reduction in the state’s sales tax. The House package, by contrast, raises just over $500 million through increases in fuel and cigarette taxes as well as a few business tax changes. Governor Patrick threatened to veto any tax package from the House or Senate that does not raise significant revenue for both transportation projects and education.

(Photo courtesy Bitterroot Star)

In a speech to the Louisiana Legislature yesterday, Governor Bobby Jindal announced that he would “park” his tax plan. There is no doubt this is a huge blow to supply-side advocates and Arthur Laffer enthusiasts who tout false claims that tax cuts will ultimately pay for themselves and increase economic development.

The Governor’s controversial plan would have repealed the state’s personal and corporate income and franchise taxes and then paid for these tax cuts by increasing the sales tax. The sales tax changes included increasing the state tax rate from 4 percent to 6.25 percent, and expanding the base of the tax to include a wide variety of previously untaxed services and goods. ITEP found that the Governor’s plan would have raised taxes on the bottom 60 percent of Louisianans, as tax swaps tend to do.

The Governor’s plan met enormous resistance “in recent weeks as business groups and advocates for the poor have assailed its effects and think tanks have questioned whether the math in the proposal adds up.” Now the Governor is backing away from his proposal and urging the legislature to send him its own bill – one that would also eliminate the personal income tax – leaving “tax reform” up to the state legislature.

The key fact to bear in mind for Louisiana is that aside from raising the sales tax, there is really no way for the state to replace nearly $3 billion in revenue that will be lost if the income tax is eliminated. Lawmakers would do better to stay away from supply-side theories and instead close corporate tax loopholes, reverse the regressivity of the state’s tax structure and invest in public infrastructure because that is what real reform looks like.

Since January, we’ve brought you updates as best we could about Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s controversial tax swap plan, but details remained elusive. Finally, late last week, the Governor released enough information – including a newly calculated, bigger sales tax rate increase – and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) was able to complete a full analysis of the Governor’s tax plan. The centerpiece of the Jindal plan is the outright repeal of the state’s personal and corporate income and franchise taxes. These tax cuts would be paid for primarily by increasing the state sales tax rate from 4 percent to 6.25 percent, and expanding the base of the tax to include a wide variety of previously untaxed services and goods.

ITEP’s analysis shows that, if fully implemented in 2013, the plan would increase taxes on the poorest sixty percent of Louisianans overall, while providing large tax cuts for the best-off Louisiana taxpayers. In fact, ITEP found that the poorest 20 percent of Louisianans would see a net tax increase averaging $283, or 2.4 percent of their income, while the very best-off Louisianans would see a tax cut averaging almost $30,000, or 2.5 percent of this group’s total income.

Louisiana Department of Revenue (DOR) Executive Counsel Tim Barfield continues to insist that all Louisianians will be better off under the Governor’s plan. But, as ITEP’s report points out, DOR’s estimates are flawed: they only include the impact of taxes paid directly by individuals and they ignore the impact of taxes paid initially by businesses. This approach presents an incomplete picture of how the Jindal plan would affect Louisianans, though, because a substantial share of the current sales tax, and the large majority of the expanded sales tax base the Governor proposes, would be paid initially by businesses. Economists generally agree that these business sales taxes are ultimately passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Louisianans themselves aren’t buying the Governor’s numbers either. His tax swap plan has the support of only 27 percent of Louisianans – and that was before he upped the sales tax increase even further.

Read ITEP’s full analysis of Govenor Jindal’s tax plan here.

Here’s some happy news: a recent poll finds that just 27 percent of Louisianans support Governor Bobby Jindal’s tax swap, and that’s before the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) released its latest analysis showing that the poorest 60 percent of taxpayers in Louisiana would see a tax hike as a result of the Governor’s plan.

A robotics company based in Nevada recently decided to abandon the state’s allegedly “business friendly” environment in favor of Silicon Valley in California, where there are better trained employees and plenty of deep pocketed investors. Nevada does not levy a personal or corporate income tax, but as Romotive founder Keller Rinaudo explains: "It was not a short-term economic decision ... We have to find experienced roboticists, and that really only exists in a few places in the world, and California is one of them."

Maryland’s gas tax will be increased and reformed starting July 1 under a bill just sent to Governor Martin O’Malley by the state’s legislature.  This year’s increase will be something less than 4 cents per gallon, but the tax will now rise each year alongside inflation and gas prices, as recommended by ITEP. ITEP showed that even with the increase, Maryland’s gas tax rate will still remain below its historical average and be less than the state probably needs.

Here’s an interesting story in the Minnesota Star Tribune about how Governor Dayton’s tax plan would impact the wealthiest Minnesotans. While opponents resort to the usual tax-hikes-kill-jobs refrain, Wayne Cox of Minnesotans for Tax Justice notes, “Economists believe keeping teachers and firefighters on the payroll is at least three times more helpful to the economy than keeping income tax rates at the top the same.”

Tax cuts for opposite ends of the income spectrum are getting opposite treatment in Maine and Arkansas. This week, Maine lawmakers rejected a bill that would cut taxes on capital gains (which heavily benefits wealthy taxpayers) and approved an increase in the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (PDF), which amounts to a tax cut to low- and moderate-income families. But last week in Arkansas, a House panel approved a cut in taxes on capital gains while passing up an opportunity to enact a state EITC.

This week the Supreme Court heard arguments on two cases looking at the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Specifically, the cases were about measures that ban recognition of gay marriage by the federal government and the state of California. At the federal level, the Court heard about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bans the recognition of a same-sex marriage and entails over 1,100 different laws that consider marriage status when determining an individual’s rights and responsibilities.  And some of those laws determine how much that individual owes in taxes.

The discriminatory effect of the DOMA, which was signed into law in 1996, in tax law is at the center of United States v. Windsor. The original petitioner in the case, Edith Windsor, was forced to pay $363,000 more in federal estate taxes because under DOMA, her same-sex marriage is not recognized for tax purposes and thus is not eligible for the “surviving spouse” estate tax exemption available to heterosexual spouses. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Windsor and declares DOMA unconstitutional, it would mean that same-sex marriages will be recognized by the federal government for all purposes, including taxes.

While such a ruling would have a relatively small impact in terms of the estate tax since almost no one pays it, there are many other federal tax provisions that do affect most married couples. The New York Times, for example, points to the fact that DOMA prevents same-sex spousal health benefits from being treated as a tax-exempt benefit, therefore increasing the tax bill of individual same-sex couples by a few thousand dollars each year. 

Perhaps the most widespread tax impact would be on same-sex spouses who are not currently allowed to file their federal tax returns jointly. According to an analysis by CNN and tax experts, some same-sex spouses may currently be paying as much as $6,000 in extra taxes each year because of DOMA. While many same-sex spouses could receive a substantial tax benefit from filing jointly, they could also end up paying more in taxes due to the infamous marriage penalty, depending on each spouse’s level of income.

There is also a larger fiscal effect to consider. A 2004 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report (PDF) estimated that federal recognition of same-sex marriage would actually reduce the deficit by roughly $450 million each year, through a combination of higher revenues and lower outlays. In other words, ruling DOMA unconstitutional would not only end same-sex marriage discrimination in the tax code and other parts of federal law, but would also have the bonus effect of slightly reducing the deficit.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin’s proposal to repeal the state’s top personal income tax bracket is “gaining traction,” according to The Oklahoman.  The plan has already passed the House, and has the support of the state Chamber of Commerce. But the Oklahoma Policy Institute explains that this cut is stacked in favor of high-income residents: “the bottom 60 percent of Oklahomans would receive just 9 percent of the benefit from this tax cut, while the top 5 percent would receive 42 percent of the benefit.”  

Texas and Washington State are continuing to search for ways to make it easier to identify and repeal tax breaks that aren’t worth their cost.  The Texas Austin American-Statesman reports on a bill that “would put the tax code under the microscope, examining tax breaks in a six-year cycle similar to the Sunset process that evaluates whether state agencies are performing as intended.”  And the Washington Budget and Policy Center explains in a blog post how “all three branches of state government have taken, or are poised to take, actions that could greatly enhance transparency over the hundreds of special tax breaks on the books in Washington state.”

This Toledo Blade editorial gets it right about Ohio Governor Kasich’s plan to broaden the sales tax base to include more services: “There is merit, in theory, to expanding the sales tax to include more services. But the experience in states such as Florida — which broadened its tax base, then abandoned the effort as unworkable — suggests it should be done slowly and for the right reasons.” Broadening the sales tax base is good policy, but the Kasich plan is bad for Ohioans because overall the plan (according to an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analysis) increases taxes on those who can least afford it while cutting taxes for the wealthy.

ITEP is waiting for full details of Louisiana Governor BobbyJindal’s tax swap plan, but already clergy and ministers in the state are weighing in against the Governor’s plan to eliminate state income taxes and replace the revenue with a broader sales tax base and a higher rate. In this commentary, the Right Rev. Jacob W. Owensby, (bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Western Louisiana), worries: “It is difficult to see how increased sales taxes will pass the test of fairness that we would all insist upon. Our tax system has lots of room for improvement. But relying on increased sales tax will not give us the fair system we need. Raising sales taxes will increase the burden on those who can least afford it.”

New Mexico lawmakers recently approved a cut in the corporate income tax rate and special tax breaks for manufacturers and filmmakers. State officials estimate that the bill will eventually cost (PDF) the state about $55 million in lost revenue per year, but they admit that they’re not especially confident in their estimates.  The Santa Fe New Mexican explains how the vote in the House literally came down to the final seconds of the legislative session, and says that House Speaker Kenny Martinez “acknowledged that some [House] members may not have been familiar with [the bill] at all.”

The largest single tax cut contained in the bill is a reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 7.6 to 5.9 percent, phased-in over five years.  Our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), recently found that the corporate income tax is one of New Mexico’s few progressive taxes in a tax system that is sharply regressive overall.  On top of this cut, lawmakers voted to give manufacturers the option to use a tax break known as single sales factor (PDF) that only benefits businesses selling most of their products out-of-state.  The package also expanded tax giveaways for filmmakers that are widely understood to offer little economic benefit.

To pay for a portion of the cost of these cuts, the bill raises sales taxes on manufacturers, cuts aid to local governments (though it lets them raise their own sales taxes), trims some existing tax credits, and limits the tax avoidance opportunities available to some “big box” retailers through the adoption of mandatory “combined reporting” (PDF) for those companies.

Overall, however, the corporate tax rate cut represents a case of misplaced priorities in a state whose tax system is fundamentally unfair and where funding for things like higher education has been slashed in recent years.

A story in the Arkansas News show why all citizens should be concerned about the bad design (PDF) of state gasoline taxes. Arkansas’ gas tax hasn’t been raised in over a decade, during which time it has lost about a quarter of its value due to rising construction costs alone. In order to offset those losses, lawmakers are debating a bill that would transfer $2.3 billion away from other areas of the state budget in order to pay for roads and bridges over the next 10 years.  At a rally protesting the idea, Rich Huddleston of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families ticked off just some of the state services that would have to be cut: “education, higher education, Medicaid and health services for vulnerable populations, services for abused and neglected children, juvenile justice services for kids … public safety and corrections and pre-K and child care for our youngest populations.”

Girl Scouts in Idaho are seeking out a special sales tax loophole for selling their cookies so that they can keep an extra 22 cents on every box sold. There is no tax policy reason to exempt Girl Scout cookies from the sales tax. If enacted, this break would be a true “tax expenditure” -- a state spending program grafted onto the tax code (PDF) in a way that exempts it from the normal processes used to manage state spending year in and year out.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton is traveling the state on a “Meetings with Mark” tour to discuss his budget and tax plans with voters. Last week the Governor unveiled a revised tax plan, but minus the sales tax base expansion from his original proposal.  Wayne Cox of Minnesota Citizens for Tax Justice supports the new proposal as it retains two crucial pieces of the original – an income tax hikes for wealthy Minnesotans and a cigarette tax hike. “Gov. Mark Dayton’s new budget is a blueprint for fairer taxes and a brighter future for Minnesota families.  His reforms pave the way for new jobs, healthier lives and a better-educated workforce. Education and health experts around the state have praised Gov. Dayton’s reforms. Future economic growth depends on these changes.”

In response to Ohio Governor John Kasich’s regressive proposal to expand the state sales tax base and lower income taxes, Policy Matters Ohio (using ITEP data) released a paper reminding Ohioans how beneficial an Earned Income Tax Credit (PDF) could be to low-income families hit hardest by an increased sales tax.

Here’s a powerful column from the Atlanta Journal Constitution citing ITEP data. Advocating against a state Senator’s proposal to raise the Georgia sales tax and freeze revenues into the future, Jay Bookman writes: [h]e has proposed two amendments to the state constitution that, if approved by voters, would lead to significantly higher taxes on the vast majority of Georgia households, while sharply reducing taxes on the wealthiest. That ought to be controversial under any circumstances. As it is, lower- and middle-income Georgia households already pay a significantly higher percentage of their income in state and local taxes than do the wealthy. The Shafer amendments would make that disparity considerably worse.”

UPDATE: As of March 29, 2013 this plan has passed both the House and Senate and is expected to be signed into law by the Governor.

This week, the Maryland House will vote on a plan to raise and reform the state’s gasoline tax. The plan is very similar to one proposed by Governor Martin O’Malley that our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), analyzed when it was released two weeks ago.

An updated chart from ITEP shows that Maryland’s flat gas tax has long been declining as inflation has chipped away at its value.  If the legislature does not raise the gas tax, ITEP projects that by 2014 Maryland’s gas tax rate will reach its lowest (inflation adjusted) level in 91 years. Only in 1922 and 1923 did Maryland levy a lower gas tax.

Moreover, the gas tax increase under consideration in the House, like the one proposed by the Governor, is actually very modest. The plan (which would tie the gas tax to both inflation and gas prices) would result in roughly a 12 cent increase by 2015. That’s significantly less than the nearly 16 cent increase that ITEP found would be needed to return Maryland’s gas tax to its purchasing power as of 1992, when it was last raised. Taking an even longer-term perspective, ITEP finds that Maryland’s inflation-adjusted gas tax rate has historically averaged 41.1 cents per gallon.  If the House plan is enacted, the inflation-adjusted rate over the next decade would average just 32.8 cents.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal today announced some details of his long-awaited “tax swap” plan. He proposes to repeal the state’s personal and corporate income taxes in a “revenue-neutral” way—that is, the revenue loss from repealing these taxes would have to be entirely offset by tax hikes in other areas.

We know the Governor’s so-called reform plan would increase the state sales tax rate from 4 to 5.88 percent—which in local-tax-heavy Louisiana means the average combined state and local sales tax rate statewide would shoot up from about 8.75 percent to a whopping 10.6 percent.

Since the sales tax rate hike would only pay for about a third of the revenue lost from repealing the income and corporate taxes, Jindal’s plan also relies heavily on expanding the state sales tax base to make up the remaining difference. Acccording to the Governor, he’d do it by eliminating close to 200 currently-existing sales tax exemptions. Jindal would also raise the cigarette tax by over $1 per pack.

There’s a lot we still don’t know about the plan (which was the case with his earlier plan, too). Jindal has said he will provide tax relief to seniors and low-income families to offset the impact of these potentially huge sales tax hikes. But how that would be implemented—and, critically, how much it would cost—remains unknown.

Still, the specific details we’ve heard so far are enough to raise several important concerns about the plan’s plausibility—and its impact on tax fairness and sustainability if it is enacted.

Eliminating sales tax exemptions is perhaps the most politically difficult tax reform challenge for state lawmakers – as Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton is the most recent to discover. Sure, every state tax commission for decades has identified expanding the sales tax base, mainly to services that account for more consumer dollars every year, as a way of making the sales tax a more sustainable revenue source for the long haul. But the fact is that the potentially devastating impact of this move on low-income families, coupled with the entrenched opposition of lobbyists for the many industries that would be newly taxed under these proposals, have generally meant that these proposals die a quick death in legislatures.

And even if the Louisiana Legislature could achieve what virtually no other state has ever done—wiping the slate clean by broadly erasing sales tax exemptions from the books—it seems inevitable that the plan as a whole would result in a massive tax shift onto middle- and low-income families—and a giant tax cut for the best-off Louisianans. Unless, that is, Louisiana is prepared to enact a low-income tax credit, one so generous it would dwarf anything offered by other states. But it appears that Governor Jindal's plan would only provide a tax rebate only to families earning less than $20,000, which does nothing to offset the sales tax increases facing a large group of middle-income Louisianans.

In recent months, Jindal has also made it clear that his motivation for this tax plan is to be more “competitive” and more like Texas and other “low tax” states. (Never mind that Texas is a high tax state for its poorest residents.)  Jindal has bought into a talking point crafted by Arthur Laffer (and disseminated by groups like ALEC and the Tax Foundation) about job growth resulting from low taxes.  But Laffer’s argument is a house of cards, entirely unsupported by the evidence, as ITEP has shown.  Early news reports of Jindal’s plan are that anti-tax groups love it and it boosts his odds of getting the Republican presidential nomination. But unless a tax plan is well received by ordinary constituents and boosts the state’s odds of economic success, it isn’t worthy of the word “reform.”

The nation is watching Indiana’s tax debate, according to Tim Phillips, national president of the anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity.  But the outcome that Phillips is looking for —a regressive cut in the state’s personal income tax—is facing an uphill battle. The Indiana House, under supermajority Republican control, chose not to include Governor Pence’s proposed tax cut in its budget. Senate leadership has yet to embrace the tax cut either, and the state’s largest newspaper recently editorialized against the plan, explaining: “What holds back faster economic growth now is less about taxes than the lack of a well-educated workforce and higher than average business costs associated with Hoosiers’ poor health.”

But despite all this resistance, Americans for Prosperity is determined to gin up some interest in cutting Indiana’s income tax rate. The Indiana chapter of the group announced that it will spearhead a major TV, radio, online advertising, and door-to-door campaign.  As Phillips explained, “In Washington, it’s gridlock and really that’s not where the action is.” 

There's reason to hope this campaign doesn’t pressure lawmakers into enacting a tax cut against their better judgment, though. In a letter to state GOP officials, House Speaker Brian Bosma recently made a compelling case against the cut and offered a warning about the dire consequences that could arise from following Kansas as it staggers and stumbles down its own tax-cutting path (excerpt below):

“With respect to the Income Tax cut proposal, legislative leaders have expressed caution on this issue for a variety of reasons, which I want you to understand.  First, in 1998, the last time the state had a $2 billion surplus, a series of Income Tax and Property Tax cuts coupled with an unexpected downturn in the economy turned that surplus into a $1.3 billion deficit in a short six year period.  When Republicans regained the majority in 2004, our first order of business was to fill that hole through cuts (and not tax increases), and we did it.  It was painful and difficult, but we knew that the most important job of state government is to be lean, efficient, and most importantly, sustainable in the long run, avoiding wild shifts in one direction or another.  That uncertainty of big shifts leads to uncertainty for business investment and family security.  With pending sequestration, looming federal mandates and an uncertain national economy on the horizon, caution is certainly advisable.

“Finally, the Governor cites the recent experience of Kansas in cutting income taxes last year under the leadership of Governor Sam Brownback.  I would encourage you to get online and see what is going on in Kansas right now, as news reports abound of projected deficits, delays in proposed tax cuts, and lawsuits for underfunding public education.  This is just the type of economic unpredictability and unsustainability that we hope to avoid here in Indiana.”

Need further proof that the poor are often taxed more heavily than wealthier folks? Take a look at this recent New York Times piece by sociologist Katherine Newman based on her book. She writes that “tax policy is particularly regressive in the South and West, and more progressive in the Northeast and Midwest. When it comes to state and local taxation, we are not one nation under God. In 2008, the difference between a working mother in Mississippi and one in Vermont — each with two dependent children, poverty-level wages and identical spending patterns — was $2,300.” Newman concludes with suggestions for offsetting the regressive impact of state taxes.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution is doing an investigative series on tax breaks and incentives, and here’s their latest article – a look into “the Georgia Agricultural Tax exemption program, [designed] to allow farmers and companies that produce $2,500 in agricultural services or products a year to receive sales tax breaks on equipment and production purchases.” What they found, however, is that construction firms, mineral companies, horse ranches and even dog kennels have applied for the breaks, along with hundreds of out-of-state businesses, with addresses as far afield as Texas and Colorado.” The newspaper found very few requests for this tax break were being rejected, and the governor is imploring businesses to police themselves. The newspaper concludes that it was the absence of clear criteria and lack of resources for screening and evaluating applications that’s resulted in the fiscal and logistical chaos.

Washington State lawmakers are trying to get a better handle on the numerous special tax breaks (PDF) being added to the state’s tax code every year. Under a bill that passed the state senate unanimously, new tax breaks would have to include a statement of purpose against which to judge their subsequent success, and an expiration date that would force lawmakers to vote on them again after a certain number of years.  Both of those reforms (along with others) have been recommended by our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick cited a recent report from ITEP’s “Debunking Laffer” series while testifying in favor of his proposed income tax increase: “Last month, the non-partisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy issued a report evaluating the economic growth per capita of several states. The report compared nine states with relatively high income taxes to nine states with low or no income tax. The analysis made clear that the nine states with “higher” income taxes actually saw considerably more economic growth per capita than the nine states with low or no income tax. The states with no income tax have seen a decline in median income.”

The Missouri Senate preliminarily approved legislation that would slash the state’s revenues because it is stacked with tax cuts. Though a preliminary legislative step, it’s worth noting that if the law does get implemented, restoring the lost revenues would be nearly impossible given Missouri’s constitutional amendment restricting tax increases. The bill, originating in the state Senate, cuts the top personal income tax rate, reduces corporate income taxes, offers a tax deduction for pass-through business income and increases the personal exemption. The only tax increase is in the sales tax, which is any state’s most regressive revenue source.  

This package is billed as Missouri’s answer to the radical tax package passed last year by Kansas Governor Brownback. Its sponsor explained, “I’m trying to stop the bleeding. I’m trying to stop the businesses from fleeing into Kansas,” and then invokes the kind of magical thinking that almost always results in a deficit. According to the Associated Press, State Senator Kraus predicted his plan would “create an economic engine in our state” that would generate enough new tax revenues to make up for the losses.”

But the revenue losses -- which are certain -- are not justified. A report from the Missouri Budget Project, Racing to the Bottom: Senate Gives Initial Approval to Extreme Tax Cut Bill Which Would Devastate Missouri Services, Infrastructure, and the State’s Economy, using Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) data helps show that the biggest beneficiaries of this tax package are the wealthiest 1 percent who have an average income of over $1 million, and who will see an average tax cut of $8,253 if the legislation becomes law. Middle income families would generally break even, but lower income Missourians would experience a tax increase.  

The Missouri Budget Project points out the obvious: “To truly compete with Kansas and other states, Missouri must invest in its quality of life and what families and businesses need to thrive: strong schools to educate our children and provide a skilled workforce, quality transportation to get to school and work and bring companies’ products to market, and safe, stable communities.”

Conspicuously absent from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s new 2014 fiscal year spending plan were the across-the-board personal income tax cuts he defended so vehemently just last year.  Governor Christie now wants Garden State residents to believe Democrats in the legislature are to blame for the lack of promised tax relief.  But, the facts are that the state cannot afford a tax cut this year any more than it could last year, the Governor’s overly optimistic revenue growth projections notwithstanding.  

A new editorial from the New Jersey Star Ledger calls Governor Christie’s rhetoric “pure fantasy” and lays out the facts:

“Gov. Chris Christie knows that New Jersey can’t afford a tax cut right now, so he didn’t include one in his budget plan.

But he also knows he can’t admit this if he wants to win a Republican presidential primary in 2016. So he made clear during his budget address Tuesday that he intends to campaign on the merits of an income tax cut this year anyway.

“I am content to let the voters decide this in November,” he warned Democratic legislators.

Here we go again. The governor even promised Democrats that if they agree to cut taxes this year, he will find a way to pay for it.

That’s a remarkable claim. Because he says he can’t afford to rescind the tax hike he imposed on the working poor, or restore the funding for the six Planned Parenthood clinics he shut down. He can’t afford to restore property tax rebates, as promised. He can’t afford to provide adequate funding for state colleges and universities, among the most starved in the nation. And he can’t replenish the fund for open-space purchases…

So the governor’s suggestion that he has a secret vault with enough money to finance a tax cut is pure fantasy. The income-tax cut he proposed would cost $1.4 billion a year when phased in, with the wealthiest 1 percent claiming almost half the benefit.

If the governor really campaigns on this, understand that is pure show. It is a pitch designed for national TV, where gullible hosts who don’t know New Jersey will no doubt bobble their heads some more. It is an act for the national audience, and New Jersey is his prop…”

If an unexpected revenue bump does come along, Christie’s tax cuts for the wealthiest cannot be where it gets spent. Instead, it should be used to reverse the Governor’s previous cuts to the Earned Income Tax Credit, to restore property tax rebates he gutted and generally reinvest in programs that have been revenue starved since the Great Recession began.

A new talking point from tax cut snake oil salesman Arthur Laffer is making the rounds. It’s been seen in the pages of The Wall Street Journal and cited by Indiana Governor Mike Pence, Iowa House Majority Whip Chris Hagenow, and Tim Barfield, Governor Jindal’s point man for income tax elimination in Louisiana.   

As the Journal put it: A new analysis by economist Art Laffer for the American Legislative Exchange Council finds that, from 2002 to 2012, 62% of the three million net new jobs in America were created in the nine states without an income tax, though these states account for only about 20% of the national population.

But as they’ve done with many of Laffer’s previous analyses, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) explains why this talking point is all rhetoric and no substance. Laffer’s research is like a house of cards, depending on data selected and placed precisely to help reach the conclusion he wanted, as ITEP details:

1) Most of the states without income taxes contributed just one percent or less to the nation’s job growth over the period Laffer examines.  Laffer’s claim has nothing to do with the “nine states without an income tax,” and everything to do with one of those states: Texas.

2) Texas’ economy differs from that of other states in many significant ways, and comparing its job growth to the rest of the country provides no insight into the economic impact of its tax policies.  This is particularly true of the time period Laffer examines, since it includes the housing crisis that Texas largely avoided for reasons unrelated to tax policy.

3) Looking beyond the specific Recession-dominated time period chosen by Laffer, Texas’ job growth has otherwise generally been in line with its rate of population growth.

The four-page report with graphs and footnotes is here.

In 2011, Michigan lawmakers enacted a huge “tax swap” that cut taxes dramatically for businesses and raised them on individuals – especially lower-income and elderly families. Given that many of these changes went into effect at the beginning of 2012, and that many Michiganders are just now beginning to file their 2012 tax forms, the Associated Press provides a rundown of the ways in which the tax bills of typical Michiganders will look different from previous years. Our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), estimated (PDF) that changes in the personal income tax would result in tax increases of $100 for a poor family, $300 for a middle income family and $7 from a rich one.

South Carolina is considering jumping onto a bandwagon heading the wrong way: supplementing the state’s transportation revenues by taking money away from schools and other state services. If enacted, the plan under consideration would raid $80 million from the state’s general fund every year and use it for roads instead. ITEP estimated, however, that South Carolina could raise more than $400 million for transportation every year just by updating its stagnant gasoline and diesel taxes to catch up to over two decades of inflation.

There’s some good news on the gas tax issue in Iowa. This week, an ad hoc transportation lobby will rally to support the “It’s Time for a Dime” campaign. These builders, farmers and contractors are urging lawmakers to raise the state’s gas tax to pay for needed infrastructure repairs. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s (ITEP) Building a Better Gas Tax concludes that Iowa hasn’t raised its gas tax in over two decades and has lost 43 percent of its value since the last increase.

In case you missed it, here’s a great read from the New York Times about how we shouldn’t be so quick to assume that millionaires are ready to pack up their bags and move at the slightest increase in their tax bills. In “The Myth of the Rich Who Flee From Taxes,” the Times cites ITEP’s work on the Maryland millionaire tax: “a study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a nonprofit research group in Washington, found that nearly all the decline in millionaires was the result of a drop in incomes largely attributable to the stock market plunge and recession, and not to migration — “down and not out,” as the study put it.”

UPDATE: On April 3, 2013 Governor McDonnell signed the package described below with only minor changes.  Those changes are discussed at the end of this article.

If Governor Bob McDonnell signs the transportation bill just passed by his state’s legislature, as he is expected to do, Virginia will join Wyoming as the second Republican-led state in less than a month to raise taxes to pay for transportation.  Virginia Delegate David Albo, one of Grover Norquist’s no tax pledge signers, explained his vote in favor of the bill by saying, “I looked at every single way to raise money for roads, and it is literally impossible to do without raising revenue.”

But as encouraging as it is to see opposition to taxes waning in some circles, the tax bill passed by Virginia’s legislature is far from perfect. The bill will shift the responsibility for paying for roads away from the drivers who use them most, and its reliance on sales taxes will shift Virginia’s already regressive (PDF) tax system even more heavily toward lower-income families.  Here’s a quick rundown of the bill’s major components:

Gasoline tax:  The 17.5 cent per gallon gasoline tax will be cut, at least in the short-term, by replacing it with a tax based on 3.5 percent of the wholesale price of gasoline.  At the current wholesale price of $3.30 per gallon, the new tax should be about 11.5 cents—the lowest in the country outside of Alaska—but it will rise over time as the price of gas climbs. Virginia will become the 15^th state to levy a gas tax that grows automatically over time, which allows the tax to better keep pace with the rising cost of construction.  But wholesale gas prices will have to rise to $5.00 per gallon before the tax returns the 17.5 cent level that Virginians have been paying for the last quarter century.  The bill amounts to a gas tax cut that lets frequent and long-distance drivers off the hook for paying for the transportation enhancements that benefit them the most.

Diesel tax:  Taxes on diesel fuel will increase both in the short- and long-term, as the 17.5 cent per gallon tax is replaced by a 6 percent tax based on the wholesale price of diesel.  Diesel prices are generally higher than gasoline prices, so at a wholesale price of $3.50, for example, the new tax should equal 21 cents per gallon and will grow over time as diesel prices rise. 

Remote sales tax:  The bill assumes that Congress will enact legislation empowering Virginia to require online retailers to collect the sales taxes owed by their customers (PDF), but it also puts in place a stopgap measure in case that doesn’t happen.  If Congress hasn’t acted by 2015, the wholesale gasoline tax rate will rise from 3.5 percent to 5.1 percent.  At current prices, this would bring the gas tax to16.8 cents per gallon.  Virginia should raise its wholesale gas tax rate to at least this level, regardless of the outcome of the federal debates over taxing online purchases.

Sales tax:  The largest single revenue-raiser in the bill is an increase in the state sales tax rate from 5 percent to 5.3 percent in most parts of the state. In the densely populated and congested areas of Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, residents will see their sales tax rates rise to 6 percent, and will be forced to dedicate the additional revenue to transportation.

General fund raid:  Following the unfortunate precedent set by Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and the federal government, the bill also prioritizes roads over other areas of government by shifting $200 million away from the general fund every year.  The Roanoke Times previously blasted a similar proposal from Governor McDonnell by pointing out: “The highway program is starved for money because the gas tax rate has not changed since 1987. Are teachers and their students to blame? No, they are not. Did doctors and mental health workers cause the problem? Absolutely not. Did sheriff's deputies and police officers? No.”

Motor vehicle sales tax:  The sales tax break on motor vehicle purchases will be reduced, but not eliminated.  The rate will rise from 3 percent to 4.3 percent – still short of the 5.3 percent general sales tax rate.

Hybrid tax:  Hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles will have to pay an additional $100 in registration taxes every year.  So, while drivers of gas-guzzling vehicles are receiving a break in the form of a lower gas tax, fuel-efficient hybrid owners will actually pay more.

Low-income offsets: The state and local sales taxes used to raise the bulk of new road funding under this plan will hit lower- and moderate income families hardest.  And yet, the bill lacks any kind of targeted tax relief for those families.  In-state analysts urged the creation of a sales tax rebate or the enhancement of the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), but the final bill did not include either of these measures.

UPDATE: The version of this package that was signed into law is slightly different than the one originally passed by the legislature: the motor vehicle sales tax is raised to 4.15 percent instead of 4.3 percent, the hybrid tax is $64 per year instead of $100, miscellaneous local tax increases in northern Virginia were scaled back, and technical changes were made to local taxes in order to avoid a constitutional challenge.

In his budget address this week, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker followed through on his promise to provide middle class tax cuts. His proposal reduces the bottom three income tax rates and costs $343 million over two years. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s (ITEP) analysis of this proposal found that middle-income taxpayers do get some benefit from Governor Walker’s proposal ($43 on average), but many low-income Wisconsinites do not. In fact, those in the bottom twenty percent of the income distribution, many of whom were already dealt a blow in Wisconsin’s last budget, see an average tax cut of a mere $2. The Governor’s proposed tax cuts come on the heels of reductions to the state’s earned income tax credit and property tax homestead credit, both of which effectively raised taxes on low-income working families. A better approach would be to reverse the damage recently inflicted on the poorest Wisconsinites, by increasing the earned income tax credit and homestead credit.  

In his speech last week, the Governor also assured Wisconsinites that the state could afford his tax cuts because of a current budget surplus. That “surplus,” however, is not the result of economic growth in the state and it is not permanent, either. Instead, the Wisconsin Budget Project (WBP) offers the reality check that the surplus was created as “a result of a number of painful cuts and lapses” that were implemented to avert previous shortfalls. This year, “coupled with a rebound in revenue from the low level anticipated a year ago, state lawmakers now find themselves in the very unusual position of carrying a solid balance into the next biennial budget.” WBP also cautions that the budget surplus “isn’t an ongoing revenue stream” and that Governor Walker is wrong to assume that the state can afford his permanent tax cuts.

The Governor may be keeping a narrow political promise with his latest budget, but he is neglecting the state’s poorest residents, jeopardizing its fiscal future and potentially setting up a tax swap that middle income families will pay for in the long run.

We’ve been closely following tax proposals in Nebraska and have been especially concerned that both of Governor Heineman’s plans were of the tax swap variety – reductions in progressive taxes paid for by increases in regressive sales taxes.

This scathing op-ed in the Lincoln Journal-Star points to the tax impact of the Governor’s proposals as one strike against his policy prescription: “Strike one came with release of a study by the OpenSky Policy Institute that said 80 percent of wage earners in the state would pay more in taxes if the bill were implemented. Taxes would go up by an average of $631 a year under LB405 for people earning less than $21,000 a year. Taking the biggest hit were taxpayers earning between $37,000 to $59,999, who would pay an additional $722 a year. Taxes would go down by $4,851 for people earning more than $91,000 a year, the institute said.” CTJ’s partner organization, The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), generated those numbers for OpenSky. The editors said the “second strike” against the governor’s plan was business groups’ opposition. (Evidently they want tax rates cut but don’t want to lose their own exemptions to pay for it.)

We learned this week that Nebraska tax policy debates don’t follow the rules of baseball, fortunately, and that two strikes were enough to send the Governor back to the dugout. Now he and legislators seem to be taking a more cautious approach and potentially forming a tax commission to better understand the state’s tax structure and get more expert input on modernizing it.

After a year in which tax issues dominated national policy debates, President Barack Obama has signaled that immigration issues will be at the forefront of his legislative agenda in 2013. With immigration reform evidently gaining momentum, some old tax-related bugaboos are sure to resurface as the debate gets underway: in particular, some have argued that undocumented immigrants pay no taxes to states or to the federal government.

A couple of years ago, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) worked with the Immigration Policy Center to assess the truth of this claim. Our finding? Far from being tax avoiders, undocumented families pay many of the same regressive taxes that hit all low-income families at the state and local level. We estimated that nationwide, undocumented families paid about $11 billion in state and local taxes in 2010.

The main reason for this is that the sales and excise taxes that fall most heavily on low-income taxpayers don't depend on your citizenship status. Anytime you buy a cup of coffee, a pair of jeans or fill up your tank up with gas, you're paying state and local sales and excise taxes. There are also property taxes, including for renters, who pay them indirectly because landlords frequently pass some of their property tax bills on to their tenants in the form of higher rents. And, many undocumented taxpayers have state income taxes withheld from their paychecks each year.

The bottom line? Even if there were 47 percent of the population paying no taxes (and there isn’t), undocumented immigrants would not be among them. In fact, to find people who don’t pay taxes, take a closer look at the wealthiest among us.

Note to Readers: This is the fifth of a six part series on tax reform trends in the states, written by The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).  Previous posts in this series have provided an overview of current trends and looked in detail at “tax swaps,” personal income tax cuts and progressive tax reforms under consideration in the states.  This post focuses on one of the most debated tax issues of 2013: raising state gasoline taxes to pay for transportation infrastructure improvements.

States don’t tend to increase their gas tax rates very often, mostly because lawmakers are afraid of being wrongly blamed for high gas prices.  The result of this rampant procrastination is that state gas tax revenues are lagging far behind what’s needed to pay for our transportation infrastructure.  Until last week, the last time a state gas tax increase was signed into law was three and a half years ago—in the summer of 2009—when lawmakers in North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia all agreed that their gas tax rates needed to go up, albeit modestly in some cases.  (Since then, some state gas taxes have also risen due to provisions automatically tying the tax to gas prices or inflation.)

But Wyoming was the state that ended the drought when Governor Matt Mead signed into law a 10 cent gas tax increase passed by the state’s legislature.  And Wyoming is not alone.  In total, lawmakers in nine states are seriously considering raising (or have already raised) their gas tax in 2013: Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming. And until recently, Virginia appeared poised to increase its gas tax, too.In addition to Governor Mead, Republican governors in Pennsylvania and Michigan and Democratic governors in Massachusetts and Vermont have proposed raising their state gas taxes despite the predictable political pushback that such proposals seem to elicit.  The plans under discussion in these four states are especially reform-minded since they would not just raise the gas tax rate today, but also allow it to grow over time as the cost of asphalt, concrete, machinery, and everything else the gas tax pays for grows too.

In New Hampshire, meanwhile, Governor Hassan has said that the state needs more funding for transportation and is open to the idea of raising the gasoline tax, among other options.  The state House is debating just such a bill right now.  The situation is similar in Maryland where Governor O’Malley, who pushed for a long-overdue gasoline tax increase last year, recently met with legislators to discuss a gas tax increase proposed this year by Senate President Mike Miller.  Washington State Governor Jay Inslee has also not ruled out an increase in the gas tax—an idea backed by the state Senate majority leader and the House Transportation Committee chair.  And in the Hawkeye State, Governor Branstad once described 2013 as “the year” to raise Iowa’s gas tax (which happens to be at an all-time low, adjusted for inflation), although he has since said that he would support doing so only after lawmakers cut the property tax.

Other states where gas tax increases have gotten a foothold so far this year include Minnesota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, though it’s not yet clear how far those states’ debates will progress in 2013.

Across the country, no state has received more attention this year for its transportation debates than Virginia, where Governor Bob McDonnell kicked off the discussion by actually proposing to repeal the state’s gasoline tax.  But while Governor McDonnell’s idea was certainly attention-grabbing, it also failed to gain traction with most lawmakers, and the Virginia Senate responded by passing a bill actually increasing the state gasoline tax and tying it to inflation.  Since then, the preliminary details of an agreement being negotiated between House and Senate leaders are just now emerging, but early indications are that the legislature will try to cut the gas tax in the short-term, but allow the tax to rise alongside gas prices in the future.  The size of the cut will also depend on whether Congress enacts legislation empowering Virginia to collect the sales taxes owed on online purchases.

It’s good to see Virginia lawmakers looking toward the long-term with reforms that will allow the gas tax to grow over time.  But asking less of drivers through the gas tax today—when the state is facing such serious congestion problems—is fundamentally bad tax policy.  For more on the merits of the gas tax and the reforms that are needed to improve its fairness and sustainability, see Building a Better Gas Tax from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).

A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) outlines the anti-tax agenda of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and ALEC scholar and economist, Arthur Laffer.  It explains the multitude of problems with their policy recommendations and the so-called research they produce to make the case for those recommendations.  The CBPP report builds on the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s (ITEP) work debunking Arthur Laffer as it examines the “weak foundation of questionable economic and fiscal assumptions and faulty analysis promoted by ALEC and its allies.”

The DC Fiscal Policy Institute explains how closing corporate tax shelters has significantly improved the District of Columbia’s finances.  The city saw its strongest growth in corporate income tax collections in almost two decades, due in part to a reform called “combined reporting” (PDF) that makes it more difficult for companies to disguise their profits as being earned in other states, particularly those with low or no corporate income tax.

This Columbus Dispatch article cites academic research, policy experts and the Congressional Budget Office to examine Ohio Governor Kasich’s repeated assertion that tax cuts lead to jobs, including critiques that “when one dives deeper into the numbers, the correlation between income-tax cuts for small-business owners and more jobs is strained at best.”  The story also covers that larger supply-side economics debate, which the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has engaged with here and elsewhere.

Tax hikes on low- and moderate-income working families are under debate in both Vermont and North Carolina where lawmakers have proposed reducing the benefit of their states’ Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) (see this PDF on state EITC policy). Vermont’s Governor Shumlin wants to cut the EITC and redirect the revenue to child care subsidy programs. In North Carolina, lawmakers are advancing a bill that would cut the EITC from 5 to 4.5 percent of the federal credit and potentially let it expire altogether – a rejection of Washington’s recent five-year extension of a more robust federal EITC. A recent op-ed by Jack Hoffman at Vermont’s Public Assets Institute as well as a new brief from the North Carolina Budget and Tax Center both cite ITEP’s Who Pays data to make a case for why each state should maintain its EITC.

North Carolina’s newly-elected Governor, Pat McCrory, is keeping everyone guessing about his plans for tax reform in the Tarheel State.  During his state of the state address this week, McCrory said tax reform would be a priority of his administration but was short on specifics, saying only that he wants to lower rates, close loopholes and make North Carolina’s tax code more business friendly. The state’s Senate leadership has been touting a plan to eliminate the personal and corporate income taxes and replace the lost revenue with a higher sales tax and new business license fee.  It remains to be seen whether the Governor will follow the Senate’s lead or puts forth his own version of reform.

Last year at this time, CTJ predicted, based on Facebook’s IPO paperwork, the company would get a federal tax refund in 2012 approaching $500 million, and the company’s SEC filing this month tells us we were right: Facebook is reporting a $429 million net tax refund from the federal and state treasuries. And it’s not because they weren’t profitable. Indeed, Mark Zuckerburg’s little company earned nearly $1.1 billion in profits.

CTJ’s new 2-pager on what Facebook’s February 2013 SEC filing means is here.

Facebook’s income tax refunds stem from the company’s use of a single tax break, that is the tax deductibility of executive stock options. That tax break reduced Facebook’s federal and state income taxes by $1,033 million in 2012, including refunds of earlier years’ taxes of $451 million.

Of course, Facebook is not the only corporation that benefits from stock option tax breaks.  Many big corporations give their executives (and sometimes other employees) options to buy the company’s stock at a favorable price in the future. When those options are exercised, corporations can take a tax deduction for the difference between what the employees pay for the stock and what it’s worth (while employees report this difference as taxable wages).  On page 12 of our 2011 Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Tax Dodgers report, we discuss how 185 other large, profitable companies have exploited the stock option loophole.

Note to Readers: This is the fourth of a six part series on tax reform in the states. Over the coming weeks, The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) will highlight tax reform proposals and look at the policy trends that are gaining momentum in states across the country. Previous posts in this series have provided an overview of current trends and looked in detail at “tax swap” and personal income tax cut proposals.  This post focuses on progressive, comprehensive and sustainable reform proposals under consideration in the states.

State tax reform proposals are not all bad news this year.  There are some good faith efforts underway that would fix the structural problems with state tax codes, rather than simply dismantling or eliminating entire revenue sources and calling it “reform.”  Proposals in Minnesota, Kentucky, Utah, and Massachusetts would improve the fairness, adequacy and sustainability of those states’ tax systems through various combinations of base broadening, tax breaks for low- and moderate-income families, and increases in the share of taxes paid by wealthy households. Other states to watch include Nevada, California, New York and Hawaii, though the specific proposals that will be considered in these states have yet to be fully fleshed out.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton recognizes that his state’s tax structure is in need of an overhaul and is looking at long-term solutions that will set the state’s revenues on a sustainable path now and in the future.  As he sees it, the current system is fraught with problems. It does not reflect the modern economy in many ways. It has shifted the responsibility for funding government to those with the least ability to pay. It is out of balance due to its heavy reliance on property taxes.  And, it is riddled with expensive and ineffective tax breaks that make the state’s revenues less sustainable.  Out of all the high-profile state tax reform plans unveiled this year, Governor Dayton has put forth the best example of a comprehensive and progressive tax reform proposal.  It will make Minnesota’s tax code more fair, adequate, and sustainable.  The Governor’s plan includes: broadening the sales tax base to services and using some of the additional revenue to lower the state’s sales tax rate; reducing property taxes; adding a new personal income tax bracket for the state’s wealthiest taxpayers; and closing corporate tax loopholes.  The plan also raises more than $1 billion a year to boost investments in public education and restore structural balance to the state’s budget.

Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear signaled his support for overhauling the Bluegrass State’s tax code in his State of the State address in early February and indicated he would be looking to the recommendations from his appointed Blue Ribbon Tax Commission as a starting point for a proposal.  With a few exceptions, the Commission’s recommendations (released in December) were courageous and forward-looking, including a proposal to expand the sales tax base to services (PDF) while simultaneously adopting an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (PDF) to offset the impact on low-income working families.  The recommendations also included broadening the personal income tax base by limiting itemized deductions for wealthy households, lowering the very large exclusion for pension income (and phasing it out for high wealth retirees), and lowering personal income tax rates.  Like the Minnesota plan, if taken as a whole, the Kentucky Tax Commission’s recommendations would shore up state revenues over the long term and more immediately raise revenue for current needs.

Utah lawmakers are looking at a proposal to raise the sales tax rate applied to groceries and couple that change with two new refundable credits to offset the impact on low- and moderate-income families: a food credit (PDF) and a state EITC (PDF).  While less comprehensive than the proposals under consideration in Minnesota and Kentucky, an ITEP analysis found that the Utah plan would reduce the regressivity of Utah’s tax code (PDF).  In other words, low-income working families would ultimately pay less of their income in taxes while upper-income families would pay slightly more.  Simply exempting food from state sales taxes (or taxing it at a lower rate) is a poorly targeted and costly policy that narrows the tax base and extends the break to wealthier taxpayers who don’t need it. Therefore, refundable credits of the kind Utah is considering are a smart, less costly alternative that can be designed to reduce taxes for specific groups of taxpayers in need of relief.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s FY14 budget included a tax package that will boost revenues now and in the future and make slight improvements to the fairness of the state’s tax system. While many governors this year are looking to replace progressive income taxes with regressive sales taxes, Governor Patrick wants the Bay State to do the reverse and rely more on the personal income tax and less on the sales tax.  His plan would raise the state’s flat personal income tax rate from 5.25 to 6.25 percent, double the personal exemption, and eliminate more than 40 personal income tax breaks that tend to benefit the wealthiest families.  The sales tax rate would drop from 6.25 to 4.5 percent and computer software, soda, and candy would be newly subject to the tax.  He also recommends a $1 increase to the cigarette tax. Governor Patrick’s plan would raise close to $2 billion when fully phased in. The Campaign for Our Communities coalition praised the proposal, saying that it “creates growth and opportunity through long-term investments in education, transportation and innovation funded by making our tax system simpler and fairer.”

For months, Idaho lawmakers have been seriously considering repealing the personal property tax on business equipment.  If enacted, repeal would cost local governments and public schools over $140 million a year, and would likely force cuts in public services and increases in property taxes on other taxpayers.

The single biggest winner under repeal would be Idaho Power, held by IDACorp, which will reportedly see its taxes fall by $10.5 to $15.3 million per year if repeal is enacted.  A new report from our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), helps put this costly tax proposal into perspective by looking at the state income taxes being paid (or not) by the plan’s largest beneficiary.

According to IDACorp’s financial disclosures, the company earned $623 million in U.S. profits over the last five years (2007-11) but paid nothing in state income taxes to the states in which it operates.  In fact, the company’s effective state income tax rate across all states was actually negative.  IDACorp received $7 million in tax rebates from the states between 2007 and 2011, giving it an effective tax rate of negative 1.1 percent for the five year period as a whole.

The proposed repeal of the personal property tax in Idaho would leave the state corporate income tax as the main means by which companies like IDACorp contribute to the public investments that allow them to do business and generate profits. Before lawmakers take such a step, they should at least know whether the state corporate tax is working to begin with. In Idaho and virtually every other state, however, neither elected officials nor the tax-paying public have access to this kind of information. Obviously, they should (PDF).

Read the report

The Cleveland Plain Dealer published a new analysis of Ohio Governor Kasich’s “tax swap” plan that “suggests lower and middle income families would not do as well as higher earners under the new system.”  The Plain Dealer notes that its findings bolster a new report by Policy Matters Ohio and our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).

Online retailer Amazon.com just struck a deal with yet another state to begin collecting sales taxes.  The new agreement with Connecticut will go into effect in November, just in time for the holiday shopping season.  The company also announced that it plans to build an order-fulfillment center in the state – a move which would have clearly established a “physical presence” (PDF) and therefore required the company to begin collecting sales taxes anyway.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Georgia may soon join Connecticut on the long list of states that have struck deals with Amazon.  According to the paper, “the world’s largest online retailer has not collected the tax [this year], despite a new state law requiring online retailers to charge it at the start of the year.”  But the Georgia Retail Association expects that Amazon will build a distribution center in the state soon, which would make it impossible for the company to continue ignoring this legal requirement.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton reaffirmed his support for progressive, comprehensive and revenue-raising tax reform in his State of the State address last week and mentioned our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) when referring to the upside down nature of his state’s tax structure:

“Thanks to the excellent work of Minnesota 2020, I recently became aware of a new study, by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which confirms the Department of Revenue’s analysis. It found that middle-class Minnesotans pay 26 percent more state and local taxes per dollar of income than do the top one percent of our state’s income earners. When people who have the most pay the least, this state and nation are in trouble. When lobbyists protect tax favors for special interests at the cost of everyone else’s best interests, this state and nation are in trouble. My goal is to get us out of trouble.”

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s Secretary of Administration, Mike Huebsch, caused a kerfuffle recently when he said that the Governor “is considering” eliminating the state’s income tax and replacing the revenue with a larger sales tax. This is not a new concept, but to say it’s a flawed approach to tax reform is an understatement.  “For the first time in, I would say the last 20 years,” said Huebsch, “this is getting much more discussion across the nation. And I think it’s being led by governors like Bobby Jindal in Louisiana who are trying to figure out ways that they can eliminate their income tax. That’s really the motivation here. They want to eliminate the income tax.”  

Emulating Governor Jindal would be misguided. An Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analysis found that Jindal’s proposal to eliminate income taxes and replace the revenue with higher sales taxes would actually increase taxes on the bottom 80 percent of Louisianans. Specifically, the poorest 20 percent of taxpayers, those with an average income of $12,000, would see an average tax increase of $395, or 3.4 percent of their income. The largest beneficiaries of his tax proposal would be the top one percent, with an average income of well over $1 million, who'd see an average tax cut of $25,423.

Since Secretary Huebsch’s comments, the Governor’s office has responded saying that Walker will propose a “middle class tax cut,” but not the complete elimination of the state’s income tax. For now, anyway.

The Governor’s spokesman did open the door to future, potentially more radical tax proposals when he said, “Governor Walker will propose a middle class income tax cut in the 2013-15 state budget. He considers this to be a down payment on continuing to drop the overall tax burden in Wisconsin in future years. He will review the impact of tax policy on job growth in other states as he considers future reforms."

Wisconsinites should know that a middle class tax cut is, like a Unicorn, commonly mentioned but rarely seen. While there are tax credits (like the making work pay credit and property tax circuit breakers(PDF)) that are genuinely targeted towards middle income families, a tax rate cut for middle income groups is almost always also a tax cut – and a bigger one, at that – for high income groups. That’s just how marginal tax rates work (and the reason across-the-board income tax cuts are such budget busters).

Income tax cuts and even elimination are practically epidemic this year. We’ll be watching to see if Governor Walker catches the bug, too. Meantime, he can already “review the impact of tax policy on job growth in other states” right here, and see that cuts do not, in fact, lead to growth.

Note to Readers: This is the third of a six part series on tax reform in the states. Over the coming weeks, The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) will highlight tax reform proposals and look at the policy trends that are gaining momentum in states across the country. Previous posts in this series have provided an overview of current trends and looked in detail at “tax swap” proposals.  This post focuses on personal income tax cuts under consideration in the states.

While not as dramatic as wholesale repeal of the income tax, five states this year are likely to consider regressive income tax cuts that will compromise their ability to adequately fund public services now and in the future.

In Indiana, Governor Pence campaigned last fall on cutting the state’s already low, flat personal income tax rate from 3.4 to 3.06 percent, and has shoehorned that idea into a budget proposal that also fails to help schools that are “still reeling from the cuts” enacted during the recent recession. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that Pence’s tax plan would primarily benefit the state’s most affluent residents: 56 percent of the benefits would go to the best-off 20 percent of Indiana residents, while one in three of the state’s poorest residents would see no tax cut at all.  The South Bend Tribune, among others, has urged lawmakers to “pass on this tax cut” because of its high revenue cost and the way in which it would add to the unfairness (PDF) already present in Indiana’s tax code.

In Oklahoma, Governor Fallin has significantly scaled back her tax cut ambitions from last year.  Rather than aiming for a fundamental restructuring of the income tax, the Governor has proposed simply repealing the state’s top personal income tax bracket, thereby cutting the state’s top rate from 5.25 to 5.0 percent.  The Oklahoma Policy Institute explains that this proposal “would take $106 million from Oklahoma schools, public safety, and other core state services without offering any way to pay for it.”  And ITEP’s new Who Pays? report shows that last time Oklahoma cut its top income tax rate, in 2012, the vast majority of the benefits (PDF) went to the highest-income taxpayers in the state.  Meanwhile, State Senator Anderson has once again proposed a dramatic flattening of the income tax that would actually raise taxes on most of the state’s lower- and moderate income residents.

In Montana, two different proposals for cutting personal income tax rates have been floated in recent weeks.  A House proposal to cut the bottom income tax bracket has already been defeated, with Democrats opposing it because of its revenue cost and some Republicans opposing the idea of tax relief for the poor, despite the disproportionate impact (PDF) the state’s tax system currently has on low-income families.  Meanwhile, a Senate bill to repeal the top personal income tax bracket and cut the next tax rate is still alive.  A small portion of the bill would be paid for through scaling back the state’s regressive preference for capital gains income and hiking the state’s corporate income tax rate.  Overall, however, the bill would reduce both the fairness of Montana’s tax system and the revenue it generates.

In Arkansas, the debate over the income tax has yet to heat up, but the House Revenue and Taxation Committee Chairman says he’s “very bullish” about the possibility of enacting a large tax cut, and other Republicans in the legislature are reportedly discussing options for cutting the income tax. 

Finally, in Wisconsin, rumors briefly swirled that there may be a push to eliminate the state’s income tax and replace it with a much larger sales tax, akin to what’s been proposed in Louisiana, Nebraska, and North Carolina.  Governor Walker, however, responded by saying that he will wait and see how those debates play out in other states before deciding whether to advocate for such a change in 2015.  In the meantime, the Governor says he will propose what he claims will be a “middle-class” tax cut of about $340 million.  Assembly Speaker Robin Vos is hoping for a proposal of at least that size.  The Governor’s budget proposal is due out on February 20, and by then we should have a better idea of whether the plan will actually be aimed at middle-income Wisconsinites, as well as its true price tag.

Last month, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback proposed, for the second straight year, major tax changes during his State of the State speech. These new changes include lowering the state’s two tax bracket rates to 1.9 and 3.5 percent, eliminating itemized deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes paid, and raising the sales tax. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analyzed the impact of the Governor’s proposal on Kansans and found that his plan is quite costly and raises taxes on the poorest Kansans. Read the full analysis here.

The ITEP analysis found that if fully implemented in 2012, Brownback’s latest proposal would have reduced state revenues by close to $340 million and the poorest 20 percent of Kansas taxpayers would pay 0.2 percent more of their income in taxes each year, or an average increase of $22. However, upper-income families would reap the greatest benefit from his plan, with the richest one percent, those with an average income of over a million dollars, saving an average of $6,528 a year, which is about 0.6 percent of their income. Taxpayers in the middle income groups would see a more modest tax cut, up to $200 on average, amounting to roughly 0.3 percent of their income. When combined with the cuts from last year, wealthy Kansans benefit overwhelmingly – to the tune of an average tax cut of nearly $28,000. And the only group who’d pay higher taxes are the lowest earners.

In his Kansas City Star op-ed, ITEP’s director notes that the first rule of tax reform ought to be to first do no harm, but it seems pretty clear Governor Brownback’s plan would harm low-income Kansans. At the same time, it’s a second round of cuts for Kansans who don’t need them, and when the state can’t afford them.

Earlier this week, a district court in Texas ruled for a second time that the state’s system of paying for schools is unconstitutional, both because it fails to provide enough revenue to deliver an adequate education for Texas children and because it creates huge inequities in the quality of education enjoyed by richer versus poorer districts. The lawsuit prompting this decision was brought by hundreds of school districts in the wake of a 2011 decision by the state legislature to dramatically cut state aid to local schools. The state of Texas is expected to appeal, in which case it goes to the Texas Supreme Court.

As the Texas Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) notes (PDF), the 2011 spending cuts came after a misguided decision by the 2006 legislature to replace local property tax revenue with revenues from cigarette taxes (of all things) and a new, untested approach to taxing business income. CPPP finds that the tax hikes in that 2006 “tax swap” have paid for only about a third of the lost property tax revenue, leaving a gaping $10 billion hole in the state’s 2011 budget. This probably also helps account for what the 600 school districts in the lawsuit say is a $43,000 gap between rich and poor classrooms, too.

The choice to pay for the growing cost of education using a flat-lining tax such as the cigarette tax (whose returns are famously diminishing, PDF) reflects the limited options available in a state that refuses to levy a tax on personal income.

Texas is one of only a handful of states with no income tax, and its current Governor has made a big show of his intention to keep it that way. At a time when a number of states’ elected officials are expressing a desire to restructure their tax systems to more closely resemble the Texas tax system (usually by simply repealing their personal income tax), this week’s court decision is a harsh reminder that the short term politics of tax cuts has long term consequences for citizens. Texas, for example, has abysmal numbers on education and its poverty rate continues to rise.

So when someone like Kansas Governor Sam Brownback crows “Look out Texas. Here comes Kansas!” it might be he didn’t read the brochure before planning this particular trip. It’s not the first time he – like other political leaders – has talked up the Texas tax structure.  But given the Lone Star State’s track record, and the budget havoc tax cuts are causing in Kansas, all lawmakers should think twice before embarking on the no-income-tax path.

Photo courtesy Texas Tribune.

Our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is continuing to generate a lot of publicity in the states for its recent Who Pays? report examining the fairness (or lack thereof) of every state’s tax system.  The Tennessean explains, for example, that: “Tennessee is often championed as a low-tax state. But for struggling families, it might not be among the fairest.”

In Pennsylvania, meanwhile, Sharon Ward of the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center explained ITEP’s report to CBS Philly by saying that: “We are in a club we don’t want to be in — one of the ‘Terrible Ten States’ that has the most regressive tax systems. And really, we got here for a very important reason: we have a flat income tax that fails to offset the more regressive taxes: sales and property taxes.”

And in Wyoming, the Equality State Policy Center (ESPC) is using ITEP’s new Who Pays? data to make the case for enacting a state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).  ESPC explains that the credit could make a long-overdue increase in the state’s gasoline tax much fairer by mitigating its impact on low-income families.

We recently profiled the four states looking most seriously at “tax swaps” that would offset big income tax cuts with a regressive sales tax hike -- Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, and North Carolina.  New Mexico can now be added to that list.  Two lawmakers there say they would like to expand the sales tax to apply to "virtually everything that happens" in the state and then repeal the personal and corporate income taxes.  But economists in New Mexico say that the plan is “pretty much guaranteed to be regressive and shift the tax burden.”

Bipartisan legislation in Texas would remedy the state’s “astounding deficit of knowledge when it comes to tax expenditures” -- or special tax breaks (PDF). The report proposes a number of smart reforms recommended by ITEP.  Those reforms include rigorous reviews aimed at determining whether tax breaks have fulfilled their goals, and “sunset provisions” designed to force a vote on special tax breaks that would otherwise continue on autopilot for years or decades on end.

Comprehensive New 50-State Study Provides Detailed Profiles and Comparisons of Tax Systems and Distribution Including “Terrible Ten” Most Regressive States

State tax systems take a much larger share from middle- and low-income families than from wealthy families, according to the fourth edition of “Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States,” released today by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).  Combining all of the state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes state residents pay, the average overall effective tax rates by income group nationwide are 11.1 percent for the bottom 20 percent, 9.4 percent for the middle 20 percent and 5.6 percent for the top one percent. The report is online at www.whopays.org.

The ten states whose tax systems are tilted most heavily towards high earners (from most to least regressive) are Washington, Florida, South Dakota, Illinois, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Alabama. In these states, middle-income families pay up to three times as high a share of their income as the wealthiest families; low-income families pay up to six times as much.

“We know that governors nationwide are promising to cut or eliminate taxes, but the question is who’s going to pay for it,” said Matthew Gardner, Executive Director of ITEP and an author of the study. “There’s a good chance it’s the so-called takers who spend so much on necessities that they pay an effective tax rate of 10 or more percent, due largely to sales and property taxes.  In too many states, these are the people being asked to make up the revenues lost to income tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest taxpayers.” State consumption tax structures are particularly regressive, with an average 7 percent rate for the poor, a 4.6 percent rate for middle incomes and a 0.9 percent rate for the wealthiest taxpayers nationwide.

The income tax in particular is being targeted for elimination by self-described tax reformers across the country, and Who Pays? shows that of the ten most regressive states, four do not have any taxes on personal income, one state applies it only to interest and dividends and the other five have a personal income tax that is flat or virtually flat across all income groups.  “Cutting the income tax and relying on sales taxes to make up the lost revenues is the surest way to make an already upside down tax system even more so,” Gardner stated.

The data in Who Pays? also demonstrates that states commended as “low tax” are often high tax states for low- and middle- income families.  The ten states with the highest taxes on the poor are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Washington. Noted Gardner, “When you hear people brag about their low tax state, you have to ask them, low tax for who?"

The fourth edition of Who Pays? measures the state and local taxes paid by different income groups in 2013 (at 2010 income levels including the impact of tax changes enacted through January 2, 2013) as shares of income for every state and the District of Columbia.  The report is available online at www.whopays.org.

Lawmakers in North Carolina are looking seriously at repealing the state’s personal and corporate income taxes, and replacing them primarily with a larger sales tax.  As is often the case with plans to gut the income tax, the proposal is being sold as a way to “kick-start” the state’s economy.  In an attempt to bolster that argument, a conservative group in North Carolina called Civitas recently hired supply-side economist Arthur Laffer to write a report claiming that 378,000 new jobs and $25 billion in new income could be created through income tax repeal.  Our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic (ITEP) took a close look at the study and found that, as with Laffer’s previous work, the study is severely flawed to the point of making it entirely useless.  Among the study’s many flaws:

- Fails to control for a large range of important non-tax factors that affect state economic growth.
- Confuses cause and effect by assuming that recent declines in personal income were due to taxes rather than the Great Recession.
- Does not explain, or completely ignores, the economic impact of various tax changes it proposes to pay for income tax repeal.
- Cherry-picks blunt, aggregate economic measures in comparing state economies, and simply asserts that tax policy is the driving force behind these measures.
- Ignores the important role that public investments have to play in any successful state economy.

ITEP concludes that “In proposing a policy course that no state has ever taken—repealing the personal and corporate income taxes without a wealth of oil reserves to fall back on—ALME and the Civitas Institute have laid out an untested plan without any evidence that it will benefit the state’s economy.”

Read the full ITEP report

Note to Readers: This is the second of a six part series on tax reform in the states.  Over the coming weeks, The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) will highlight tax reform proposals and look at the policy trends  that are gaining momentum in states across the country. This post focuses on “tax swap” proposals.

The most extreme and potentially devastating tax reform proposals under consideration in a number of states are those that would reduce or eliminate one or more taxes and replace some or all of the lost revenue by expanding or increasing another tax.  We call such proposals “tax swaps.”  Lawmakers in Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska and North Carolina have already put forth such proposals and it is likely that Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio and Virginia will join the list.

Most commonly, tax swaps shift a state’s reliance away from a progressive personal income tax to a regressive sales tax. The proposals in Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska and North Carolina, for example, would entirely eliminate the personal and corporate income taxes and replace the lost revenue with a higher sales tax rate and an expanded sales tax base that would include services and other previously exempted items such as food.   

In the end, tax swap proposals hike taxes on the majority of taxpayers, especially low- and moderate-income families and give significant tax cuts to wealthy families and profitable corporations. For instance, according to an ITEP analysis of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s tax swap plan (eliminating the personal income tax and replacing the lost revenue through increased sales taxes) found that the bottom 80 percent of Louisianans would see their taxes increase. In fact, the poorest 20 percent of Louisianans, those with an average annual income of just $12,000, would see an average tax increase of $395, or 3.4 percent of their income. At the same time, the elimination of the income tax would mean a tax cut for Louisiana’s wealthiest, especially in the top 5 percent.  ITEP concluded that any low income tax credit designed to offset the hit Louisiana’s low income families would take would be so expensive that the whole plan could not come out “revenue neutral.” The income tax is that important a revenue source.

These proposals also threaten a state’s ability to provide essential services, now and over time. They start out with a goal of being revenue neutral, meaning that the state would raise close to the same amount under the new tax structure as it did from the old.  But, even if the intent is to make up lost revenue from cutting or eliminating one tax, these plans are at risk of losing substantial amounts of revenue due in large part to the political difficulty of raising any other taxes to pay for the cuts. Frankly, it’s taxpayers with the weakest voice in state capitals who end up shouldering the brunt of these tax hikes: low and middle income families.

Proponents of tax swap proposals claim that replacing income taxes with a broader and higher sales tax will make their state tax codes fairer, simpler and better positioned for economic growth, but the evidence is simply not on their side. ITEP has done a series of reports debunking these economic growth, supply-side myths. In fact, ITEP found (PDF) that residents of so-called “high tax” states are actually experiencing economic conditions as good and better than those living in states lacking a personal income tax. There is no reason for states to expect that reducing or repealing their income taxes will improve the performance of their economies; there is every reason to expect it will ultimately hobble consumer spending and economic activity.

Here’s a brief review of some of the tax swap proposals under consideration:

Last week Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman revealed two plans to eliminate or greatly reduce the state’s income taxes and replace the lost revenue by ending a wide variety of sales tax exemptions. ITEP will conduct a full analysis of both of his plans, though it’s likely that increasing dependence on regressive sales taxes while reducing or eliminating progressive income taxes will result in a tax structure that is more unfair overall.

If Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has his way he’ll pay for cutting personal income tax rates by eliminating the mortgage interest deduction and raising sales taxes. An ITEP analysis will be released soon showing the impact of these changes – made even more destructive because of the radical tax reductions Governor Brownback signed into law last year.

Details recently emerged about Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s plan to eliminate nearly $3 billion in personal and corporate income taxes and replace the lost revenue with higher sales taxes. ITEP ran an analysis to determine just how that tax change would affect all Louisianans. ITEP found that the bottom 80 percent of Louisianans in the income distribution would see a tax increase. The middle 20 percent, those with an average income of $43,000, would see an average tax increase of $534, or 1.2 percent of their income. The largest beneficiaries of the tax proposal would be the top one percent, with an average income of well over $1 million, who'd see an average tax cut of $25,423. You can read the two-page analysis here.

North Carolina lawmakers are considering a proposal that would eliminate the state’s personal and corporate income taxes and replace the lost revenues with a broader and higher sales tax, a new business license fee, and a real estate transfer tax. The North Carolina Budget and Tax Center just released this report (using ITEP data) showing that the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers would experience a tax hike under the proposal. In fact, “[a] family earning $24,000 a year would see its taxes rise by $500, while one earning $1 million would get a $41,000 break.” The News and Observer gets it right when they opine that the “proposed changes in North Carolina and elsewhere are based in part on recommendations from the Laffer Center for Supply Side Economics.  Supply-side economics (or “voodoo economics,” as former President George H.W. Bush once called it) didn’t work for the United States…. We wonder why such misguided notions endure and fear where they might take North Carolina.”

In reference to Indiana Governor Mike Pence’s proposed tax plan, The South Bend Tribune urges lawmakers to “pass on this tax cut” and cites data (PDF) from our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), to makes its case.  As the Tribune explains, “Needs of poor children, the elderly and mentally ill aren't being met … now is not the time to further stem income tax revenue. Gasoline tax revenue is down. Corporate taxes have been trimmed. The inheritance tax is being phased out. And then there's the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy's analysis of Pence's across-the-board tax cut plan which concluded it would mostly benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. The poorest Hoosiers, who devote more of their household budgets to state and local taxes than any other income group, would be helped little, if at all.”

New Jersey’s expiring film tax credit is still paying out big bucks for TV shows and movies filmed years ago – even though these credits are billed as incentives. The state Economic Development Authority just handed the makers of Law & Order SVU $10.2 million of New Jersey taxpayers’ dollars for work done on the 2009-10 season of the show.  Hopefully New Jersey’s credit won’t be resurrected after 2015, given that studies have repeatedly shown them to be a poor use of taxpayer dollars.

Kudos to Wisconsin’s Transportation Finance and Policy Commission which will recommend to the legislature that the state increases its gas tax by five cents. This would be the first increase in the state’s gas tax since 2006. In more gas tax news, Washington State Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom recently said that he would support an increase in the state’s gas tax. For more on the vital role that state gas taxes play in funding transportation needs across the state (and why states should raise theirs) read ITEP’s  Building a Better Gas Tax Report.

And in housekeeping news… We’ve done lots of behinds the scenes work to improve your experience when visiting the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (www.itep.org) and Citizens for Tax Justice’s (www.ctj.org) websites. Please take a minute and check out our slightly reorganized (and improved) site!

This weekend, Professional Golf Hall of Fame member Phil Mickelson hinted that he might move from California, and even expatriate to Canada, because of recent tax increases on the wealthy in his home state.  Aside from the fact that he would face higher taxes in Canada, if his tax rate is such a concern, Mickelson might consider Myanmar or Chad whose citizens enjoy some of the lowest tax rates in the world.

Many have been critical of Mr. Mickelson’s comments, since he is the 7^th wealthiest athlete in the world, and yesterday he walked them back. “Finances & taxes are a personal matter and I should not have made my opinions on them public. I apologize to those I have upset.” 

We tried to guess which of his corporate sponsors was most upset by the remarks and persuaded their 50-million dollar man to quit talking about taxes and issue the apology.  The pharmaceutical giant, Amgen, perhaps, which is uniquely skilled at dodging taxes by parking its profits in tax havens?  Or maybe it was Exxon Mobil, which has found ways to pay less than half the U.S. corporate tax rate in recent years.  Most ironic would be accounting behemoth KPMG, whose job is to help multinationals and high wealth individuals reduce their tax bills year after year.  Mickelson’s message that there are some tax increases you just can’t avoid can’t be good for business.

During his walk-back, Mickelson also said he was still learning about the new tax laws.  He might also want to brush up on his math, too, because he said his combined state and federal tax rate is 62 or 63 percent.  But with the highest average combined tax rate on the very wealthiest Americans hovering around 30 percent, that’s not likely.  Maybe that’s why it’s so very rare that Americans move to lower to their tax rates, once they understand how they work.

Note to Readers: This is the first of a six part series on tax reform in the states.  Over the coming weeks, CTJ’s partner organization, The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) will highlight tax reform proposals and look at the policy trends that are gaining momentum in states across the country.

Following an election that left half the states with veto-proof legislative majorities, 37 states with one-party rule and more than a dozen with governors who put tax reform high on their agendas, 2013 promises to be a big year for changes to state tax laws.

The scrutiny lawmakers will be giving to their state and local tax systems presents an extraordinary opportunity to assess and address structural flaws and ensure that states have the necessary revenue to provide vital public services now and in the future. Yet, it is already clear that “tax reform” for some state lawmakers may be little more than a vehicle for ideological goals like shrinking government spending or cutting taxes for profitable corporations and the wealthy.

Lawmakers in more than 30 states will take on taxes in some shape or form this year – at least 15 states are expected to consider a major tax overhaul (CA, IA, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, NC, NE, NY, OH, OK, OR, VA, WI) and the list seems to grow by the week.

In the past week, Governors’ proposals in Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin have been taking shape and what we are seeing is not pretty. Tax cutting and wholesale elimination of the progressive personal income tax is high on these governors’ agendas, and North Carolina is likely to be the next state to join this list.

As a historic number of states gear up for major tax changes, we know that Grover Norquist, Arthur Laffer, and other anti-tax advocates will be making their case for less taxes, smaller government and a higher reliance on the sales tax.  There needs to be a real policy discussion in the states that helps people understand there’s a smart way to do tax reform, that it can’t just mean cuts or eliminating revenue sources, and that reform has wide ranging, long term consequences.

Enter the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), CTJ's partner organization. ITEP is closely monitoring tax reform proposals as they develop and will run them through the microsimulation model to see how proposed changes get distributed across different groups of taxpayers – who benefits and who doesn’t and by how much.

ITEP has identified several emerging trends and this series will examine and explain these five major kinds of proposals anticipated this year:

1) Proposals that would sharply reduce or eliminate one or more taxes and replace some or all of the lost revenue by expanding or increasing another tax (“Tax Swaps”)

2) Proposals that would significantly reduce the personal income tax paid by individuals or businesses

3) Proposals to revamp gas taxes

4) Real tax reform- proposals that fix tax codes’ structural flaws rather than dismantling or eliminating taxes

5) Other tax reform ideas including reducing or eliminating property taxes and cutting business taxes

Not only does Hawaii have the highest cost of living in the country, it also has some of the highest overall taxes on the poor. A new report from the Hawaii Appleseed Center, however, explains how to change the tax code to take some pressure off the state’s low-income families. Using data from CTJ’s partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the report proposes a new poverty tax credit that would eliminate state income taxes for any Hawaii family below the poverty line.  This change would end the state’s embarrassing distinction as one of just 15 states that actually taxes its poor deeper into poverty through the state income tax.

Rather than simply enacting the poverty credit in isolation, the report also recommends pairing it with a refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) equal to 20 percent of the federal EITC.  Together, these two reforms would both incentivize work and chip away at the regressivity of a state tax system that requires its poorest residents to pay more of their household budgets in taxes than any other group (PDF).  As the Appleseed report shows, these two credits would boost the after-tax income of Hawaii’s poorest families by 1.4 percent, while costing the state $47 million in foregone revenue.

Like many states, Hawaii has more than a few tax breaks on the books that are expensive and unjustified, and the Appleseed experts offer up five of them as suggestions for how the state could replace that foregone revenue (and then some) without compromising vital state services:

1- Repeal the state’s sharply regressive tax break (PDF) for capital gains income.

2- Phase-out the benefits of lower tax brackets for high-income taxpayers.

3- Pare back the state’s enormous tax breaks for wealthy retirees (PDF).

4- Eliminate the state’s nonsensical deduction for state income taxes paid.

5- Enact an “Amazon law” to require more online retailers to collect and remit the sales taxes currently due (PDF) on purchases made by Hawaii residents.

Taken together, the reforms in the Appleseed report could greatly reduce the unfairness built in to Hawaii’s tax code, and put it on a more sustainable footing for generating sufficient revenues in the years ahead.

Late last week details emerged of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s plan to eliminate nearly $3 billion in personal and corporate income taxes and replace the lost revenue with higher sales taxes. Knowing that sales taxes take the biggest bite out of low-income family budgets, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) decided to issue an analysis to determine just how that tax change would affect all Louisianans. 

Though the governor indicated interest in some unspecified mechanism to mitigate the impact for the state’s poorest residents, he didn’t provide any details so ITEP couldn’t analyze it. But in any case, ITEP concluded that the “overall shift in tax liability is so dramatic that the plan is virtually guaranteed to have a regressive impact regardless of whether or not a low-income relief program is added to the package.”

In particular, ITEP found that the bottom 80 percent of Louisianans in the income distribution would see a tax increase. Specifically, the poorest 20 percent of taxpayers, those with an average income of $12,000, would see an average tax increase of $395, or 3.4 percent of their income. The middle 20 percent, those with an average income of $43,000, would see an average tax increase of $534, or 1.2 percent of their income. The largest beneficiaries of the tax proposal would be the top one percent, with an average income of well over $1 million, who'd see an average tax cut of $25,423.

You can read the 2-page analysis here.

The Governor said, “[e]liminating personal income taxes will put more money back into the pockets of Louisiana families and will change a complex tax code into a more simple system that will make Louisiana more attractive to companies who want to invest here and create jobs.” But this is doubly not the case. Far from putting more money back into the pockets of Louisiana families, his proposal would raise taxes on the poor and middle class. It would also threaten Louisiana’s ability to provide critical services (from schools to roads to a public health) in the future that are essential to the health of the state’s economy.

Fortunately, ITEP’s report is already helping inform the debate. Jindal tax reform proposal equates to increase for bottom 80%, Jindal tax plan draws mixed reviews and Cutting income tax is the easy part; filling the gap is trickier are a few of the news stories the report has generated.  If Governor Jindal offers more specifics or modifications, you will find updated analyses here and at www.ITEP.org.

To see ITEP’s recent preview of state tax reform prospects nationwide, click here.

There’s no doubt the fiscal cliff compromise reached on New Year’s Day will impact state budgets in complex ways, as CTJ’s partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) will be explaining in the coming weeks.  In the meantime here’s an important blog post from the Wisconsin Budget Project on why extending the federal estate tax cut will actually reduce Wisconsin state tax revenues.

The Roanoke Times is wrong to call Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s plan to eliminate the gas tax “worth debate” (we explain why here), but the editors hit the nail on the head with this: “The component of McDonnell's plan that does not merit consideration is his reliance on money plundered from education, health care, public safety and other programs to backfill transportation. The highway program is starved for money because the gas tax rate has not changed since 1987. Are teachers and their students to blame? No, they are not. Did doctors and mental health workers cause the problem? Absolutely not. Did sheriff's deputies and police officers? No. Legislators themselves are at fault, and it is shoddy business for them to strangle other services rather than accept responsibility.”

Focus on State of the State: In his combined inaugural and state-of-the-state address last week, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin proposed cutting his state’s refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (PDF) by more than half to pay for an expanded low-income child care subsidy.  The Public Assets Institute called the governor out, observing that his proposal “would take from the poor to give to the poor.”  Rather than supporting broad-based tax increases to boost available revenue to pay for state priorities such as affordable child care, Governor Shumlin’s plan will substantially raise taxes on the very families he purports to help. From the Public Assets Institute: “...if the governor is going to insist on a zero-sum game and take from one group of Vermonters in order to “invest” in another, he should look elsewhere for the child care money. Vermont’s business tax credits would be a good place to start. The EITC was created to reduce poverty, and it’s been a great success. The same can’t be said about business tax credits and jobs.”

Focus on State of the State: During his 2013 State of the State speech, Idaho Governor Butch Otter officially outlined his intention to eliminate the state’s personal property tax. The state policy team at ITEP recently previewed this proposal (among others), saying that Idaho’s “personal property tax raises 11 percent of property tax revenue statewide, and in some counties it raises more than 25 percent. Some legislative leaders in the Senate have expressed doubts about the affordability of repeal, especially on the heels of last year’s $35 million income tax cut for wealthy Idahoans—a change that put more than $2,600 in the pocket of each member of Idaho’s top one percent (PDF), while failing to cut taxes at all for four out of every five Idaho families.”

Perhaps he was just floating a trial balloon when Governor Bob McDonnell said he was open to increasing Virginia’s gas tax in some way.  If so, it seems to have been a lead balloon because this week he announced his intention to eliminate the gas tax altogether.

But, experts at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy have concluded that the Commonwealth’s gas tax actually needs to be raised by 14.5 cents per gallon, right now, just to make up the revenue ground it’s lost having been stagnant for a quarter century.

Calling the gas tax an unviable revenue source (which is true only when lawmakers like McDonnell fail to modernize it!), the Governor proposed replacing it by raising the sales tax (from 5 percent to 5.8 percent) and increasing vehicle registration fees by $15 for most vehicles and $100 for alternative fuel vehicles.

McDonnells’ plan is riddled with flaws. For starters, this “tax swap” shifts the responsibility for paying for roads away from frequent and long-distance drivers (and the owners of heavier passenger vehicles), onto everybody else.  He very literally gives drivers a “free ride” by eliminating the gas tax, likely leading to more congestion, more wear-and-tear on roads, more air pollution and probably even excessive sprawl in the long run.

Oddly, by repealing only the gasoline tax and leaving the diesel tax untouched, his plan also discriminates sharply between motorists depending on the type of fuel they use to fill up.  The aim here is clearly to continue requiring the trucking industry to pay for their use of the roads (since heavy, diesel-powered trucks produce a disproportionate amount of wear-and-tear, as the Governor understands).  But many light trucks, vans and even some passenger vehicles run on diesel as well, and owners of these vehicles will see their sales taxes rise but won’t see any benefit from the gas tax cut.

McDonnell’s plan also does nothing to improve the fairness of Virginia’s taxes from a progressivity perspective, since both gas and sales taxes are regressive.  If the Governor were instead using a progressive income tax increase to fund transportation, at least he could argue that his plan improves Virginia taxes from an ability-to-pay perspective, even if it makes tax fairness much worse from a “benefits principle” (PDF) perspective—that is, a taxing in accordance with the benefits a given taxpayer receives.

Aside from the changes in tax policy, the Governor’s plan includes an expensive bailout of the transportation fund, when that fund could easily be fixed through gas tax reform.  The legislature has rejected such bailouts in the past for the very good reason that the state can’t afford to spend less on education and the other services which will necessarily have to be cut to fund McDonnells’ bailout.

Following an election that left half the states with veto-proof legislative majorities, 39 states with one-party rule and more than a dozen with governors who put tax reform high on their agendas, 2013 promises to be a big year for changes to state tax laws, and that could end up being a good thing. From the National Governors Association to the State Budget Crisis Taskforce, there is widespread consensus that most states have been patching and punting for too long and their tax systems are no longer able to provide adequate and sustainable revenue to deliver services that citizens rely on.

But it could also be a bad thing. As an historic number of states gear up for major tax changes, we know that Grover Norquist is targeting the states and Arthur Laffer is getting some new clients. There needs to be a real policy discussion in the states that helps people understand there’s a smart way to do tax reform, that it can’t just mean cuts, and that reform has wide ranging, long term consequences.

Enter the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), CTJ's partner organization. They hosted a phone briefing on December 19, 2012 outlining challenges and solutions with a focus on state tax fairness, and going into greater depth on fifteen states most likely to undertake major tax overhauls in 2013 (CA, IA, KS, KY, LA, MN, MO, NC, NE, NY, OH, OK, OR, VA, WI). As the new legislative sesions get underway, ITEP will be monitoring proposals as they develop and will run them through the microsimulation model to see how their costs and benefits get distributed across different groups of taxpayers.

Right now, however, you can read over the briefing materials and listen to the 30 minute presentation from ITEP's state policy experts. It's all at this link.

While we’re not regular listeners to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, we caught the fact that Limbaugh cited data from our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), during his monologue the other day. Not surprisingly, Limbaugh both misconstrues ITEP’s analysis and ignores basic economic realities.

Echoing a talking point circulating in conservative media that the tax code has no role in mitigating income inequality (and that somehow immigrants cause it), Limbaugh argued that, therefore, higher taxes on the rich cannot reduce income equality.  He said this is proven by simply making “a quick comparison of state inequality data and their corresponding tax codes.” He went on to assert that because California and New York have two of the most progressive tax systems but also some of the highest levels of income inequality, this means progressive taxes do nothing to reduce income inequality.

Honestly, it’s hard to know where to even start with breaking down this nonsense.

For one, Limbaugh must have overlooked the central conclusion of ITEP’s Who Pays report, which is that ALL state tax systems are regressive, meaning that even the most “progressive” state tax systems in the US still exacerbate income equality. Even in California, which Limbaugh claims has one of the most progressive tax systems (it doesn’t), 10.2 percent of family income for those in the bottom 20 percent is spent on state taxes, whereas only 9.8 percent of the top 1 percent’s income goes toward state taxes.

Another critical problem with Limbaugh’s monologue is that he did not actually do much analyzing, but instead opted to cherry-pick New York and California off the list of states with high levels of income inequality. By doing this, Limbaugh ignores the fact that Arizona and Texas have two of the most regressive tax systems and – what? – also happen to top of the income inequality list. To actually support his point, Limbaugh would have had to compare the relative progressivity of different tax systems with their level of income inequality, an impossible task considering that ITEP does not actually rank the states according to progressivity. In addition, Limbaugh does not even consider the myriad of factors (besides immigration) that contribute to income inequality, such as  government safety net and income supports, the types of jobs available and their wage levels, or the presence of industries, like finance, that generate unusually high wealth.

One last fatal flaw is that Limbaugh utterly ignores the reality that progressive taxes straightforwardly take more money from the wealthy and redistribute that money more evenly to the population through government services, which, for obvious reasons, affects income inequality. The fact is that basic economic logic and decades of economic analysis have shown that lower taxes on the rich directly increase income inequality. As a definitive study by the non-partisan and widely respected Congressional Research Service (CRS) puts it, “lowering top marginal tax rates has the effect of further increasing the disproportionate amount of income earned by the wealthiest of the wealthy.” Similarly, the OECD’s economic analysis of the US earlier this year found that our failure to implement a more progressive federal tax code was a critical factor in making the US the fourth most unequal country in the developed world and that this must be reversed in order to stave off even high income inequality.

Next time Rush Limbaugh wants to use ITEP numbers, he should check with us first – we’d be happy to enlighten him!

Late last week, Kentucky’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Tax Reform released their tax reform recommendations. Many of the Commission’s recommendations are bold and forward-looking, like their proposal to expand the sales tax base to services  (PDF) and simultaneously institute an earned income tax credit (PDF). Not only does the Commission deserve kudos for trying to shore up tax revenues over the long term while keeping an eye on tax fairness, the Commission also clearly understood the need to raise more revenue. As one Herald-Leader columnist said,  “task force members had the courage to recommend a plan that would add $690 million in revenue during the first year.”  But the Commission’s recommendations aren’t without their flaws, such as $100 million in cuts to the corporate income tax. Jason Bailey from the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy reminds us, "Business tax cuts are really a race to the bottom between states.”

Nebraska think tank Open-Sky Policy Institute released, “Feeling the Squeeze- The Negative Effects of Eliminating Nebraska’s Inheritance Tax” detailing the impact of eliminating the state’s inheritance tax. The tax generates about $43 million annually for counties. These revenues are an important part of county budgets, and its counties assist with natural disasters, keeping roads safe and administering elections, among other things. Tax cuts don’t happen in a vacuum and that revenue will need to be made up with new revenue or reductions in services. Open Sky found that if “counties replaced all of the lost inheritance tax revenue with an increase in property taxes, the average overall county tax rate would have to increase by 7 percent.”

The majority of Hoosiers are telling Indiana Governor-elect Mike Pence “not so fast” on his tax cutting plan.  A new poll shows that taxpayers would rather see their tax dollars spent on investment priorities rather than tax cuts. Just 31 percent of those surveyed supported Pence’s proposal of slashing taxes by 10 percent across the board versus 64 percent of voters who would rather see tax revenue spent on education and workforce development.

Read this fantastic op-ed from Remy Trupin, executive director of the Washington State Budget & Policy Center, which makes the case for fundamental tax reform. “Washington needs a revenue mix built for the 21st century. That means eliminating wasteful tax breaks, modernizing our state sales tax to include more consumer services and taxing gains on the sale of stocks, bonds and other high-end financial assets held by the wealthiest two percent of Washingtonians.”

A Los Angeles Times report out of Hawaii illustrates why all tax breaks need to be subjected to more scrutiny.  The state’s well-intentioned and wildly popular tax “incentive” for solar energy has gotten more than a little out of control, skyrocketing in cost from $34.7 million in 2010 to $173.8 million in revenues this year, and even jeopardizing the reliability of the state’s power grid. Tax authorities have responded by slicing the credit in half for now.  Had Hawaii implemented some of the tax break accountability reforms we’ve recommended before, (first among them establishing measurable outcomes!), they could have prevented some of this chaos.

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard is encouraging Congress to take action on a national Amazon tax policy because he worries about the impact that exempting online sales from his state’s tax base has on tax fairness and revenues. In the wake of a record settling Cyber Monday he points out that the “gift-buying binge also likely broke another record: most purchases made in South Dakota without paying sales tax.” For more on taxing Internet sales see this Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) brief (PDF).

The Illinois Senate deserves kudos for passing legislation that would require publicly traded corporations to disclose their Illinois income tax bill.  Currently about two-thirds of the companies doing business in Illinois aren’t paying state income taxes. If the bill passes the House and is signed into law by Governor Quinn, important, never-before-known information will be available about corporate taxpayers.  House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie said, "Public policymakers can't make good public policy if they don't know what's going on. We don't know whether those 66 percent of corporations that pay no income tax in fact don't have any profits."

In case you missed it -- Good Jobs First and the Iowa Policy Project recently collaborated to release this must read report, Selling Snake Oil to the States, which debunks the tax and regulatory recommendations made by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) for building economic growth in the states. Here’s a sneak peak of the study’s findings: “the states ALEC rates best turn out to have actually done the worst.”

Michigan House members will likely approve a proposal in the next week to repeal the tax businesses pay on industrial and commercial personal property (equipment, furniture and other items used for business purposes). Idaho lawmakers are considering a similar proposal.  An editorial in the Battle Creek (MI) Enquirer, however, urges lawmakers to put the plan on hold until there is a “better understanding of the impact on local units of government, along with a plan to mitigate that impact.”  Indeed, the overwhelming majority of revenue generated by this tax helps to fund  local governments, and it would be difficult for localities to absorb a cut that severe. 

Recent reports and opinion pieces in two states caution lawmakers about the affordability and fairness implications of excessive tax cuts.

In Indiana the Associated Press is reporting on “apprehension about [Governor Elect] Pence’s call for a 10 percent cut in the personal income tax … among top Republican lawmakers.”  Recent corporate income tax cuts, the elimination of the state inheritance tax, and declining gambling revenues have created a thick “fiscal fog,” as Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma describes it, which keeps him from committing to an income tax cut, at least for now.  To see how Pence’s plan would affect Indiana residents of different means, read the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s report: Most of Indiana Tax Rate Cut Would Flow to Upper-Income Taxpayers (PDF).

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is making tax cutting a major priority in 2013. During a major policy speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library he said, “We are working on massive tax reform…. We are going to continue to lower our property taxes.  We are going to put in place an aggressive income tax reduction reform in the state of Wisconsin.” This analysis from the Capital Times reminds us that the Governor really can’t do that much more for small businesses because the tax package he signed into law in his first budget actually eliminated taxes on many businesses altogether. The article also points out that tax cuts cost money -- money the state can ill afford to spend -- and the state’s “economy is sputtering.” If Governor Walker succeeds in making his tax cut proposals a reality, it warns, “something will have to give.”

Kansas First Lady Mary Brownback has been appointed an unofficial advisor to a task force addressing childhood poverty in the state. The Hays Daily News predicts that this could lead to some uncomfortable conversations between Governor Sam Brownback and his wife, especially regarding the tax package he recently signed into law that raised taxes on low-income families. The editors suggest, “[m]aybe the first lady can ask why the governor and state legislature agreed to an unprecedented reduction in income tax rates while at the same time eliminating various tax credits, such as the food sales tax rebate and breaks for child care and renters.”

Monday was the biggest day ever for online shopping. “Cyber Monday” shoppers spent 30 percent more this year than last. The Illinois Retail Merchants Association and other brick-and-mortar business groups used Monday’s online shopping surge to remind shoppers and policymakers alike that sales taxes should be collected on Internet purchases just as on items purchased in traditional stores: “The tax is supposed to be paid. If someone orders something from an online retailer or a catalog retailer that doesn’t collect the tax, the customer owes the money to the state.”

It appears that the gap between Wisconsin’s rich and poor continues to widen. The bottom two fifths of the state’s residents actually saw their incomes decline while the top fifth – and especially the top one percent – saw theirs climb over the last 25 years. One solution to this problem, identified by the Center on Wisconsin Strategy and the Wisconsin Budget Project, is to reform the state’s regressive tax structure because currently, “state and local taxes in Wisconsin increase income inequality rather than reduce it.”

A recent policy brief from the Washington State Budget and Policy Center identifies eight strategies to rebuilding the state’s economy. One of the goals identified is implementing a “Productive, Equitable Revenue System” through modernizing the tax structure and making it more fair. Washington has the most regressive state tax structure in the country; low income people pay far more of their income in taxes compared to wealthy Washingtonians. If state policymakers want to rebuild their economy, improving their tax structure is a good place to start.

We’ve known for a while that government subsidies and tax breaks for sports stadiums are a raw deal for taxpayers. But a new book by Harvard University urban planning professor Judith Grant Long reveals that the costs are worse than we thought. According to Long’s book, Public/Private Partnerships for Major League Sports Facilities, taxpayers spent over $31 billion in tax or direct subsidies for the 121 sport facilities in use in 2010, which is $10 billion more than the cost estimated by the industry itself.

Most of the difference between Long’s and industry calculations is explained by the industry’s failure to fully account for the cost of land, infrastructure, operations, and lost property taxes as part of the cost of stadium construction deals. When all factors are taken into account, cities bore, on average, 78 percent of the cost of the public-private (so-called) partnership stadium construction deals. Long found in some particularly egregious cases, such as Indianapolis’s Lucas Oil Stadium and Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati, the public’s share of the cost actually surpassed the entire cost of building the stadium because of these unaccounted for external costs to the city.

What do taxpayers get in return for the billions they have to pay in subsidies? Not all that much, frankly. As the watchdog group Good Jobs First has chronicled, the costs of new stadiums do not pay off in terms of economic growth or job creation. The primary reason for this is that these entertainment venues tend to redirect consumer spending from other activities rather than generating entirely new economic activity. Even if you accept that new stadiums do generate some jobs (rather than just shifting those jobs from other industries), they aren’t any bargain considering that they can cost taxpayers as much as $200,000 per job “created.”

Just this week, the Miami Marlins reinforced every bad stereotype of sports teams acting in bad faith when it traded away its best players – and its National League competitiveness – in order to reduce salary costs. The trades were made in spite of the explicit promise by the team’s owner that he would spend whatever it took to build a power house team as part of a sweetheart deal that will end up costing taxpayers an astounding $2.4 billion.

With the case against subsidizing stadiums with public dollars growing ever stronger, lawmakers need to finally put a stop to this ludicrous form of corporate welfare.

A non-partisan group called “TBD Colorado” spent much of 2012 talking to Coloradans about the state’s long-term problems, and now has some sensible things to say about the state’s tax policies. While light on specifics, TBD urges (PDF) lawmakers to consider raising more revenue for things like education and transportation, and said that the state’s tax base should be broadened “so that it more accurately reflects Colorado’s underlying economy.”

For Colorado lawmakers that want a more specific assessment of what’s wrong with the state’s tax system, the Bell Policy Center’s new infographic: “5 trends that explain why Colorado’s revenue resources are shrinking” provides some additional insights.  The problems facing Colorado are familiar to many states, including exempting sales taxes for services (PDF), the decline of the gas tax and recent federal tax cuts on which the state has piggybacked.

A comprehensive overhaul of Minnesota’s tax and budget system is in the works for 2013. Governor Mark Dayton and other state policymakers are looking at long-term solutions that will set the state’s revenues on a sustainable path now and into the future.  At a public forum this week, Revenue Commissioner Myron Frans said that the Dayton administration is looking for changes that will make the system “fair, simple and support a strong and growing economy."

A lot of attention has been given this past week to the passage of California’s revenue-raising ballot measure, Proposition 30.  But, the arguably more important election news from the Golden State is that when the dust settled, Democrats ended up with a supermajority in both houses, giving lawmakers the ability to tackle tax policy through the legislative process versus the ballot.  Senate leader Darrell Steinberg intends to make the most of the new makeup and will pursue tax reform in the coming year saying, “when we talk about revenue it ought to be in the context of tax reform, about broadening the base, about lowering rates, about creating a more competitive environment for business, and potentially bringing in more revenue.”

Utah lawmakers are looking at a proposal to double the sales tax applied to the purchase of food. They would couple the sales tax increase with two new refundable credits to offset the impact of the tax increase on low- and moderate-income families: a food credit (PDF) and state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (PDF).  Generally, exempting food from a state’s sales tax base is a poorly targeted and costly policy since it makes the base much narrower, yields less revenue, and gives a large tax break to wealthier taxpayers who can easily afford to pay the sales tax on food.  Refundable credits of the nature being proposed in Utah are a less costly alternative that can be designed to reduce taxes for specific income groups.  

On Saturday, a stretch of the legendary I-495 Beltway encircling Washington, DC will grow from eight lanes to twelve.  But this modest expansion of the region’s famously inadequate transportation network isn’t designed to benefit everyone.  With so many federal and state lawmakers terrified to raise taxes for the public good, the Beltway’s new “express lanes” will be paid for in a different way—specifically, by the wealthier drivers who can afford to buy their way out of the congested lanes (Kia Lanes, perhaps?), and into these heavily tolled, so-called Lexus Lanes.

AAA Mid-Atlantic initially opposed the new Lexus Lanes, since by definition they only work when the rest of the transportation system is failing.  But an “acceptance of reality … about the sad state of transportation funding” led AAA to eventually change its mind and embrace the lanes on the grounds that they’re better than nothing.

Sad indeed.  The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has shown that much of our nation’s transportation funding woes can be traced back to the short-sighted design of federal and state gas taxes, and that there are straightforward ways to fix these glaringly broken taxes.  But raising and reforming the gas tax can be politically difficult, and thus here we are, with Band-Aid fixes like Lexus Lanes instead.

Last night Americans in states from coast to coast cast their ballots on a wide range of tax and budget issues.  On the whole, they should feel proud of their choices.

Generally, just as voters nationally favored a presidential candidate who supports higher taxes on the best-off Americans and made tax fairness a centerpiece of his candidacy, when given the opportunity at the state level to raise taxes on, or reject tax cuts for, the wealthy, voters overwhelmingly were on the side of fairness. In California Governor Jerry Brown’s revenue raising plan, which increases income taxes on the richest Californians and raises the sales tax by a quarter cent, passed handily. Californians also voted to repeal a special billion-dollar tax break for multi-state corporations. In Oregon, voters shot down a measure that would have repealed the state’s estate tax and allowed family members to transfer property tax-free. Oregonians also voted to eliminate the state’s “corporate kicker” refund program. Instead of providing a tax rebate to corporate income taxpayers when total corporate tax revenues exceed expectations, now that excess revenue will be used to support K-12 education.

The vote on the Oregon “kicker” refund was part of a broader rejection of measures designed to strangle future revenue growth in the states.  Voters in Florida rejected both a “TABOR” style state tax limitation and a cap on local property tax increases. Michigan voters decisively rejected a measure that would have required a two-thirds vote of each legislative chamber to eliminate any tax break or raise any tax rate.  And New Hampshire voters opted not to ratify a constitutional amendment that would have handcuffed future lawmakers by banning them from ever enacting a tax on earned income (which the state does not currently levy).

Unfortunately, some lower-profile efforts to curb state revenue growth met with success.  Oklahoma slightly tightened an existing cap on its property tax, and Arizona created a new property tax cap. Washington voters also approved a statutory change requiring a supermajority vote of the legislature to raise taxes, though since the requirement is not enshrined in the state’s constitution it’s possible for lawmakers to work around it as they have similar limitations in the past.

Proposals to increase taxes that fall most heavily on middle- and low-income Americans, like the sales tax and cigarette tax, generally didn’t fare as well as the more progressive tax plan put before California voters. In Arizona and South Dakota, measures that would have increased the sales tax rate were rejected handily, and Missouri voters rejected a measure that would have hiked the cigarette tax. Arkansas voters, however, gave their approval to a half cent sales tax increase that state lawmakers had already passed.

Below is a complete listing of the results for the state tax ballot initiatives we’ve been following:

Arizona Proposition 204 FAILED
Proposition 204 would have made permanent a temporary 1 percent sales tax increase that voters approved in 2010, and that is scheduled to expire in mid-2013.

Arizona Proposition 117 PASSED
Proposition 117 limits property taxes by preventing the taxable assessed value of properties from rising by more than 5 percent per year.

Arkansas Issue #1  PASSED
Issue #1 amends the Arkansas constitution to allow for a temporary increase in the state’s sales tax to pay for large-scale transportation needs like highways, bridges, and county roads.

California Proposition 30 PASSED and Proposition 38 FAILED
Governor Jerry Brown’s revenue raising measure, Proposition 30, won handily while the rival revenue raising proposal was defeated.  Proposition 30 will raise significant revenue to stave off cuts to education through a tax hike on wealthy Californians and sales tax increase.

California Proposition 39  PASSED
California voters supported Proposition 39 which repeals a billion dollar tax break for multi-national corporations.

Florida Amendment 3 FAILED
Amendment 3 would have created a Colorado-style TABOR (or “Taxpayer Bill of Rights”) limit on state revenue growth, based on a formula tied to population and cost-of-living growth.

Florida Amendment 4 FAILED
Amendment 4 would have cut property taxes for businesses, non-residents, and Floridians with multiple homes by capping growth in the taxable value of their properties at no more than 5 percent per year.

Michigan Proposal 5 FAILED
Proposal 5 would have amended the state constitution to require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to raise revenue either by increasing tax rates or eliminating special tax breaks.

Missouri Proposition B FAILED
Proposition B would have increased the state’s cigarette tax by 73 cents to 90 cents a pack.

New Hampshire Question 1 FAILED
Voters rejected Question 1 which would have enshrined a permanent ban on taxing earned income into the Granite State’s constitution.  New Hampshire is already one of nine states without a broad-based personal income tax.

Oklahoma State Question 758 PASSED
State Question 758 tightens the state’s property tax cap by limiting increases in home’s taxable assessed value to 3 percent per year, rather than the previous limit of 5 percent.

Oklahoma State Question 766 PASSED
State Question 766 creates a new exemption for certain corporations’ intangible property, such as mineral interests, trademarks, and software.

Oregon Measure 84 FAILED
Voters rejected Measure 84 which would have eliminated the state’s inheritance and estate tax and allowed for tax-free property transfers between family members.

Oregon Measure 85 PASSED
Voters approved Measure 85 choosing to eliminate Oregon’s “corporate kicker” refund program which provides a rebate to corporate income taxpayers when total state corporate income tax revenue collections exceed the forecast by two or more percent. Now, the excess revenue above collections will go to the state’s General Fund to support K-12 education.

Oregon Measure 79 PASSED
Measure 79 constitutionally bans the state from levying real estate transfer taxes and fees even though such taxes are currently nonexistent in Oregon.

South Dakota Initiated Measure #15 FAILED
Initiated Measure #15 would have raised the state’s sales tax by one cent, from 4 to 5 percent. The additional revenue raised would have been split between two funding priorities: Medicaid and K-12 public schools.

Washington Initiative 1185  PASSED
Initiative 1185 requires a supermajority of the legislature or a vote of the people to raise revenue.

A Missouri child advocacy group is planning on lobbying for an extension of the “Children in Crisis” tax credit during the upcoming legislative session.  But Missouri doesn’t need more tax breaks, even if they are designed with noble causes in mind. Instead, lawmakers should be looking at ways to sustainably raise enough revenue to adequately support children’s programs so they don’t have to resort to special tax breaks.

Some Wisconsin lawmakers continue to insist that Wisconsin’s progressive income taxes are too complex and unfair and that the best remedy is a flatter tax structure with a single rate. But this post from the Wisconsin Budget Project reminds us that moving to a flatter income tax structure “would benefit the biggest earners and could raise taxes for people in the working class.”  Flatter does not mean fairer.

In their brief arguing for increasing the state’s earned income tax credit, the Louisiana Budget Project (LBP) cites Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) data showing how the state’s tax structure asks low income families to pay more taxes as a share of their income than wealthier Louisianans. LBP advocates doubling the state’s current 3.5 percent tax credit saying, “the benefits for Louisiana families and children are proven.”

We’ve made the case for why tax breaks for big oil and gas companies should be repealed at the federal level, and now the Oklahoma Policy Institute has weighed in with their take on why state tax breaks for oil and gas should be jettisoned as well. According to the Institute, “Oklahoma’s oil and gas companies have ranked tax incentives as the least important factor affecting drilling decisions,” and offering these breaks is therefore unnecessarily “squeezing out resources for schools, roads, public safety, and other keys to long-term economic growth.”

Local governments in Ohio have taken tremendous fiscal hits in recent years and now many are resorting to the ballot box to close their budget gaps. Next week Ohio voters will be voting on 194 school levies, including 123 for additional funding. According to the Columbus Dispatch this is “the highest percentage of new tax issues in a general election in at least the past decade.” Recently, the state cut aid to local governments from by more than a billion dollars and then eliminated the state’s estate tax, a key revenue source for cities and towns which brought in $230 million to local government coffers in 2010, for example.  Wendy Patton with Policy Matters Ohio wrote earlier this summer, “Gov. John Kasich and the General Assembly pushed the fiscal crisis down to local schools and communities.”  

Ohio is not the only state where local governments are turning to voters this year to approve new revenue in the wake of state aid reductions.  More than 1000  local governments across the country in more than a dozen states have tax or fee related questions on their November 6 ballots.

California voters will not only have to decide on two competing statewide tax increase measures, but will also likely face similar decisions at the local level.  Hundreds of measures will appear on local ballots including sales tax increases, school parcel taxes, and hotel tax hikes.  The revenue raised from these initiatives will be used for everything from schools to police and fire services to the upkeep of parks.

Happy Halloween to our readers!

In honor of the spookiest of all holidays, we want to start by sharing this recent Wall Street Journal piece called Meet One of the Super-PAC Men which profiles Missouri’s Rex Sinquefield, the masked financier behind of one of the scariest state tax policy proposals around -- eliminating Missouri’s income tax and replacing it with increased sales tax revenues.

Word is that fracking taxes, income tax cuts, bank “tax reform” and possibly privatizing the Ohio Turnpike could all be priorities for Ohio’s ghoulishly anti-tax governor, John Kasich. Given the Governor’s track record of supporting tax cuts above all else, we are more than a little afraid about what is to come in the Buckeye State.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback recently proposed a “property tax transparency” plan which will prevent automatic property tax increases when property values rise. But this proposal leaves local governments who depend on the property tax at the mercy of a zombie math formula. Brownback’s plan should spook all the citizens who depend on local government services.

This one will send a shudder up the spines of supply-siders who want to cut taxes on businesses and the wealthy under the guise of economic development.  The Wisconsin Budget Project is reporting on a national poll which found that a “majority of small-business owners believe that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers is the right thing to do.” On this issue, anyway, it looks as though the good goblins are giving Grover a run for his money!

There’s been a lot of good research these past few years debunking claims that state taxes – particularly income taxes on the rich – send wealthy taxpayers fleeing from “unfriendly” states.  CTJ’s partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), took a lead role in disproving those claims in Maryland (PDF), New York, and Oregon (PDF), for example. CTJ has also been covering the controversy in several states and in the media.

Some particularly thorough research on this topic has come out of New Jersey, where researchers at Princeton and Stanford Universities were granted access to actual tax return data, which is not available to the public, in order to investigate the issue in more detail. The resulting paper (PDF) found a “negligible” impact of higher taxes on the migration patterns of the wealthy.

And now, for the further benefit of lawmakers seeking to become better informed about tax policy, those same Princeton and Stanford researchers were recently granted access to similar confidential taxpayer data in California. Unsurprisingly, the findings of their newest paper (PDF) were similar to those out of New Jersey: “the highest-income Californians were less likely to leave the state after the [2005] millionaire tax was passed… [and] the 1996 tax cuts on high incomes … had no consistent effect on migration.”

That’s right.  California millionaires actually became less interested in leaving the state after the tax rate on incomes over $1 million rose by one percentage point starting in 2005.

Another important finding: migration is only a very small piece of what determines the size of a state’s millionaire population.  “At the most, migration accounts for 1.2 percent of the annual changes in the millionaire population,” they explain.  The other 98.8 percent is due to yearly fluctuations in rich taxpayers’ income that moves them above or below the $1 million mark.  

This finding (which is not entirely new) defeats the very logic that anti-tax activists use to argue their “millionaire migration” case. Here’s more from the researchers:

“Most people who earn $1 million or more are having an unusually good year. Income for these individuals was notably lower in years past, and will decline in future years as well. A representative “millionaire” will only have a handful of years in the $1 million + tax bracket. The somewhat temporary nature of very-high earnings is one reason why the tax changes examined here generate no observable tax flight. It is difficult to migrate away from an unusually good year of income.”

But for every new piece of serious research on this issue, there are just as many bogus studies purporting to show the opposite.  Of particular note is a September “study” from the Manhattan Institute, recently torn apart by Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters.

Somewhat surprisingly for a right-wing organization’s study of this topic, the Manhattan Institute report actually concedes that other variables, things like population density, economic cycles, housing prices and even inadequate government spending on transportation, can motivate people to leave one state for another.  But while the Institute doesn’t claim that every ex-Californian left because of taxes, regulations, and unions, it does, predictably, assign these factors an outsized role. But their “analysis” of the impact of taxes spans just six paragraphs and is, in essence, nothing more than an evidence-free assertion that low taxes are the reason some former Californians favor states like Texas, Nevada, Arizona – even, oddly, Oregon, where income tax rates are similar to California’s.

Obviously, the guys looking at the actual tax returns have a better idea of what’s actually going on, and state lawmakers need to listen.

The Pennsylvania legislature just sent a bill to Governor Corbett that would allow most companies to keep the income tax payments they withhold from their employees as a kind of reward for having hired them. Normally, of course, those tax dollars would go to pay for the public services all Pennsylvanians, including the workers, rely on.  As Sen. Jim Ferlo argues, “All of sudden we're waylaying those employees' wages, almost akin to Jesse James robbing a bank, and we're going to put it back in the pockets of one company, in one locale, in one county, in one jobsite.”  This type of tax break is not uncommon, and it’s explained in Good Jobs First’s “Paying Taxes to the Boss.”

The Olympian editorializes against Washington State’s Initiative 1185, the newest attempt by anti-tax activist Tim Eyman to empower a small minority of legislators to block the closing of any tax loophole.  The proposal is known as a “supermajority requirement,” since it would require approval by two-thirds of each legislative chamber to enact any revenue-raising tax change.  But as the editorial explains, “A supermajority gives unprecedented and undemocratic powers to the minority in just one area: tax increases. Lawmakers who oppose a tax proposal get twice the voting power of those who support it.”

Iowa tax revenues appear to be on the rise, but instead of using that money to fill in gaps after years of “starv[ing] state government” or, say, restoring anti-poverty tax credits like the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC),  Governor Terry Branstad is pushing for proposals that will “dramatically” reduce both personal and corporate income tax rates. This is par for the course with Governor Branstad. He has a history of prioritizing the wrong tax cuts while vetoing those for working families, like an expanded state EITC.

Looking for evidence that states shouldn’t heavily depend on cigarette tax (PDF) revenues as a stable source of revenue? Check out this Clarion Ledger article which reports that “per capita consumption of cigarettes — 67.9 packs a person in 2011 — is the lowest it’s ever been in Mississippi.” Thanks to federal and state tax increases, tax revenues have actually increased, but as fewer and fewer Mississippians smoke, those cigarette tax revenues are bound to decline as well.

In a recent survey, conducted by the Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University, Kansans said they would rather see property tax cuts than income tax cuts. This finding isn’t surprising given the unpopularity (PDF) of regressive property taxes. Earlier this year, however, Kansas lawmakers did the opposite and passed sweeping reductions to the income tax.  The Institute’s Director said it was clear that, “the tax structure [Kansans] want seems to be completely the opposite of the tax policies coming from the Legislature.”

California is not the only state this election season taking taxing decisions directly to the people on November 6.  The stakes will be high for state tax policy on Election Day in nine other states with tax-related issues on the ballot. With a couple of exceptions, these ballot measures would make state taxes less fair or less adequate (or both).

Arizona

• Proposition 204 would make permanent the one percentage point sales tax increase originally approved by voters in 2010.  The increase would provide much-needed revenue for education, particularly in light of the worsened budget outlook created by a flurry of recent tax cuts.  But it’s hard not to be disappointed that the only revenue-raising option on the table is the regressive sales tax (PDF), at a time when the state’s wealthiest investors and businesses are being showered with tax cuts.

• Proposition 117 would stop a home’s taxable assessed value from rising by more than five percent in any given year.  As our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) explains (PDF), “Assessed value caps are most valuable for taxpayers whose homes are appreciating most rapidly, but will provide no tax relief at all for homeowners whose home values are stagnant or declining. As a result, assessed value caps can shift the distribution of property taxes away from rapidly appreciating properties and towards properties experiencing slow or negative growth in value - many of which are likely owned by low-income families.”

Arkansas

• Issue #1 is a constitutional amendment that would allow for a temporary increase in the state’s sales tax to pay for large-scale transportation needs like highways, bridges, and county roads. If approved, the state’s sales tax rate would increase from 6 to 6.5 percent for approximately ten years, or as long as it takes to repay the $1.3 billion in bonds issued for the relevant transportation projects. Issue #1 would also permanently dedicate one cent of the state’s 21.5 percent gas tax (or about $20 million annually) to the State Aid Street Fund for city street construction and improvements. It’s no wonder the state is looking to increase funding for transportation projects. ITEP reports that Arkansas hasn’t increased its gas tax is ten years, and that the tax has lost 24 percent of its value during that time due to normal increases in construction costs. Governor Beebe is supporting the proposal, and his Lieutenant Governor Mark Darr recently said, “No one hates taxes more than me; however, one of the primary functions of government is to build roads and infrastructure and this act does just that. My two primary reasons for supporting Ballot Issue #1 are the 40,000 non-government jobs that will be created and/or protected and the relief of heavy traffic congestion.”

California

• For a detailed description of two competing revenue raising ballot measures in California, read California Voters to Choose Which Tax Proposals Will Pay for Schools on November 6

• Thus far overshadowed by the competing Prop 30 and 38 revenue raising proposals, Proposition 39 would close a $1 billion corporate tax loophole that Governor Brown and other lawmakers have tried, but failed to end via the legislative process.  Currently, multi-national corporations doing business in California are allowed to choose the method for apportioning their profits to the state that results in the lowest tax bill.  If Prop 39 passes, all corporations would have to follow the single-sales factor apportionment (PDF) method.  Half of the revenue raised from the change would go towards clean energy efforts while the other half would go into the general fund.

Florida

• Amendment 3 would create a Colorado-style TABOR (or “Taxpayer Bill of Rights”) limit on revenue growth, based on an arbitrary formula that does not accurately reflect the growing cost of public services over time.  As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) explains, Amendment 3 is ““wolf in sheep’s clothing” because it would phase in over several years, which obscures the severe long-term damage it would cause.  Once its revenue losses started, however, they would grow quickly. To illustrate its potential harm, we calculate that if the measure took full effect today rather than several years from now, it would cost the state more than $11 billion in just ten years.” The Orlando Sentinel's editorial board urged a No vote this week writing that voters “shouldn't risk starving schools and other core government responsibilities that are essential to competing for jobs and building a better future in Florida.”

• Amendment 4 would put a variety of costly property tax changes into Florida’s constitution, including most notably an assessment cap (PDF) for businesses and non-residents that would give both groups large tax cuts whenever their properties increase rapidly in value.  Moreover, as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) explains, “Amendment 4’s biggest likely beneficiaries would be large corporations headquartered in other states, with out-of-state owners and shareholders,” including companies like Disney and Hilton hotels.

Michigan

• Proposal 5 would enshrine a “supermajority rule” in Michigan’s constitution, requiring two-thirds approval of each legislative chamber before any tax break or giveaway could be eliminated, or before any tax rate could be raised.  As we explained recently, the many flaws associated with handcuffing Michigan’s elected representatives in this way have led to a large amount of opposition from some surprising corners, including the state’s largest business groups and its anti-tax governor. Republican Governor Rick Snyder wrote an op-ed in the Lansing State Journal opposing the measure saying it was a recipe for gridlock and the triumph of special interests. Proposal 5 is also bankrolled by one man to protect his own business interests.

Missouri

• Proposition B would increase the state’s cigarette tax by 73 cents to 90 cents a pack. The state’s current 17 cent tax is the lowest in the country.  Increasing the state’s tobacco taxes would generate between $283 million to $423 million annually. The Kansas City Star has come out in favor of Proposition B saying, “It’s not often a single vote can make a state smarter, healthier and more prosperous. But Missourians have the chance to achieve all of those things on Nov. 6 by voting yes on Proposition B.”

New Hampshire

• Question 1 would amend New Hampshire’s constitution to permanently ban a personal income tax.  The Granite State is already among the nine states without a broad based personal income tax and proponents want to ensure that will remain the case forever. As Jeff McLynch with the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute explains, a Yes vote would mean that “you’d limit the choices available to future policymakers for dealing with any circumstances, and by extension, you’re limiting choices for future voters.”

Oklahoma

• State Question 758 would tighten an ill-advised property tax cap (PDF) even further, preventing taxable home values from rising more than three percent per year regardless of what’s happening in the housing market.  As the Oklahoma Policy Institute explains, “Oklahomans living in poor communities, rural areas, and small towns would get little to no benefit, since their home values will not increase nearly as much as homes in wealthy, suburban communities.”  And since many localities are likely to turn to property tax rate hikes to pick up the slack caused by this erosion of their tax base, those Oklahomans in poorer areas could actually end up paying more.  

• State Question 766 would provide a costly exemption for certain corporations’ intangible property, like mineral interests, trademarks, and software.  If enacted, the biggest beneficiaries would include utility companies like AT&T, as well as a handful of airlines and railroads.  The Oklahoma Policy Institute explains that the exemption, which would mostly impact local governments, would have to be paid for with some combinations of cuts to school spending and property tax hikes on homeowners and small businesses.  And the impact could be big.  As one OK Policy guest blogger explains: “In 1975, intangible assets comprised around 2 percent of the net asset book value of S&P 500 companies; by 2005, it was over 40 percent, and the trend is likely to continue. If SQ 766 passes, Oklahoma will find itself increasingly limited in its ability to tax properties.”

Oregon

• Measure 84 would gradually repeal Oregon’s estate and inheritance tax (PDF) and allow tax-free property transfers between family members.  If the measure passes, Oregon would lose $120 million from the estate tax, its most progressive source of revenue.   According to many legal interpretations of the measure, the second component - referring to inter-family transfers of property - would likely open a new egregious loophole allowing individuals to avoid capital gains taxes (PDF) on the sale of land and stock by simply selling property to family members.  Oregon’s Legislative Revenue Office released a report last week that showed 5 to 25 percent of capital gains revenue could be lost as a result of the measuring passing. The same report also found no evidence for the claim that estate tax repeal is some kind of millionaire magnet that increases the number of wealthy taxpayers in a state.

• Measure 79, backed by the real estate industry, constitutionally bans real estate transfer taxes and fees.  However, taxes and fees on the transfer of real estate in Oregon are essentially nonexistent, prompting opponents to refer to the measure as a “solution in search of a problem.”

• Measure 85 would eliminate Oregon’s “corporate kicker” refund program which provides a rebate to corporate income taxpayers when total state corporate income tax revenue collections exceed the forecast by two or more percent. Instead of kicking back that revenue to corporations, the excess above collections would go to the state’s General Fund to support K-12 education. Supporters of this measure acknowledge that a Yes vote will not send buckets of money to schools right away since the kicker has rarely been activated.  But, it is a much needed tax reform that will help stabilize education funding and peak interest in getting rid of the Beaver State’s more problematic personal income tax kicker.

South Dakota

• Initiative Measure #15 would raise the state’s sales tax by one cent, from 4 to 5 percent. The additional revenue raised would be split between two funding priorities: Medicaid and K-12 public schools. As a former South Dakota teacher writes, “[w]hile education and Medicaid are important, higher sales tax would raise the cost of living permanently for everyone, hitting struggling households the hardest, to the detriment of both education and health.”  This tax increase is the only revenue-raising measure on the horizon right now; South Dakotans deserve better choices.

Washington

• Initiative 1185 would require a supermajority of the legislature or a vote of the people to raise revenue. A similar ballot initiative, I-1053, was already determined to be unconstitutional. As the Washington Budget and Policy Center notes about this so called “son of 1053” initiative:  “Limiting our state lawmakers with the supermajority requirement is irresponsible, and serves only  to limit future opportunity for all Washington residents.”

The Iowa Policy Project’s Research Director Peter Fisher is quoted in a Des Moines Register piece where he recommends that Iowa increase it Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as one way to help low- and middle-income children. ITEP has long championed EITCs as a vital anti-poverty tax policy.  

With Halloween just around the corner, Renee Fry of Nebraska’s Open Sky Policy Institute shares the scary news that Nebraska ranks 27th among states for its regressive tax structure. Taxes are expected to be a contentious issue this year and “fiscal guru” Fry says the state’s “tax system is taking its toll in how much Nebraskans invest in schools, roads and communities. Outdated tax codes also complicate state leaders’ ability to plan strategically.”

Here’s a familiar problem, this time from Tennessee.  Big property tax breaks for farmers are reducing local tax bases by up to 20 percent. Worse, a state report says that the break is “being used by some people who clearly aren't farmers.”  Among the so-called “farmers” benefiting from this giveaway are some of the state’s wealthiest residents, like country music stars Billy Ray Cyrus and Wynonna Judd, as well as the founder of Autozone.

With a Maryland version of the DREAM Act on the November ballot, columnist Dan Rodricks at the Baltimore Sun wants readers to be aware of  the taxes that are often paid by undocumented workers, including state income taxes, federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, sales taxes, and fees.

When Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law a $4.5 billion (over six years) tax cut package ealier this year, he told Kansans, “I think we are going to be in good shape.” He promised tens of thousands of new jobs and insisted “[w]e will meet the needs of our schools ... Our roads will be built.”  But after claiming as recently as July that the state was in “an excellent fiscal position,” the Governor is conceding that even across-the-board spending cuts may not be enough to make up for the massive revenue losses (projected to be $2.5 billion over six years) from these tax cuts – that will go disproportionately to the state’s most affluent.  

The Governor received national praise from conservative quarters for the tax package he signed into law in May. The plan included income tax rate reductions, elimination of several low-income credits, completely eliminating taxes on some business income, and was supposed to put the state “on a road to faster growth.” But the reality is that tax cuts cost money and Governor Brownback is now indicating he is open to a sales tax hike to pay for them.

The current 6.3 percent sales tax (a temporary revenue fix from 2010) is scheduled to drop back to 5.7 percent in July.  The Governor’s own original tax package, proposed in January, would have permanently held that sales tax rate steady, and thus cost much less than the tax legislation he eventually signed.  His plan was also seriously flawed: the bottom 80 percent of Kansas taxpayers would have seen a tax hike under the Governor’s plan because it reduced reliance on the state’s income tax in exchange for a higher sales tax. But once again, Governor Brownback finds himself relying on a higher sales tax (even though he ran against it in his 2010 campaign) because of income tax cuts that gut his state’s budget.  He rationalizes the need for a sales tax increase by saying, “There's going to be a two-year dip. That's the nature of these, when you cut taxes. If you cut them right, you get growth on the other side, but there's a dip first."

Unlike a progressive income tax, sales taxes (PDF) require low and middle income taxpayers to pay more of their income in taxes than wealthier taxpayers. This way of handling what Brownback euphemistically calls a “dip” that results from radical tax cuts actually falls hardest on the Kansas families who can least afford it.

Bad news out of Louisiana, where the chairman of a commission reviewing the state’s tax breaks says they will likely fail to make recommendations for which breaks should be reformed or eliminated.  Turns out no one has been collecting useful data on their cost and performance, and no methodology for comparing tax breaks against each other is available. Both of these shortcomings could have been prevented had the state followed ITEP’s five recommendations for tax expenditure reform .

Policy Matters Ohio has a new report reinforcing the idea that gambling revenue is not a panacea (PDF) for ailing state and local budgets.  The report’s major finding?  “New casino tax revenue will provide less than a quarter of the nearly $1 billion in annual losses local governments will see because of cuts in state aid... Ohio needs to boost its investment in schools, local governments and human services with additional revenue from those who can afford to pay. Revenue from gambling does not suffice.”

Here’s a great blog post from our friends at the Oklahoma Policy Institute (OKPolicy) about the diastrous tax plan that Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed last May, and why Oklahoma policymakers shouldn’t pursue the same sorts of costly and regressive tax cuts enacted by their neighbors in the Sunflower State.  OKPolicy concludes, “Oklahoma does not need to be the next laboratory for Kansas’ radical tax experiment.”

Picking up on Mitt Romney’s infamous assertion about the 47 percent, this post from the Wisconsin Budget Project answers the question “Who’s in the “47%” in Wisconsin?” They use Census data and figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) to figure out who really are the “moochers.” The Budget Project argues that there are “numerous Wisconsin workers who would probably love to earn enough to owe income taxes,” so the smart move would be implementing policy options to improve their compensation and help them join the tax -paying ranks.

In November, California voters will decide on two not-so-different revenue raising ballot measures.  Proposition 30, backed by Governor Jerry Brown, temporarily raises income taxes on the state’s wealthiest taxpayers and increases the sales tax by a quarter cent.  The rival measure, Proposition 38, temporarily raises personal income tax rates on all taxable income upwards of about $50,000.  Californians can technically vote for both measures on the ballot, but even if both “win” only the one with the most votes will become law, so voters must choose carefully.

Both measures would raise billions of dollars in much needed revenue for education spending, primarily from the wealthiest Californians. An Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analysis published by the California Budget Project found that the wealthiest one percent of Californians, with incomes averaging $532,000, would pay for close to 80 percent of the tax increase under Proposition 30 and around 45 percent under Proposition 38.  

As ITEP’s Meg Wiehe explained it to the San Francisco Chronicle recently, the big question for voters is not so much a tax fairness one but more about “'where do I want the money to go?  They both have very different end goals with the amount of money raised.”

California is one of a dozen or so states handicapped by a law that says a supermajority of lawmakers must approve of any tax changes. (Just as invoking the filibuster rule requires 60 votes to get anything done in the U.S. Senate, and we’ve all seen how well that works!) Facing a multi-billion dollar budget gap, Governor Jerry Brown first tried to raise revenues via the normal legislative process, but was stopped short of the two-thirds support needed. So he turned to the ballot process – and the people – to get the revenue increase the state needed.  The revenue from Proposition 30 would go into a new Education Protection Account in the state’s General Fund, increasing funding for K-12 and community colleges and freeing up other general fund dollars to address other spending priorities.  Importantly, Brown also built $6 billion of trigger cuts into his FY12-13 budget if Proposition 30 does not pass in November.  In other words, the governor’s budget was built on the premise that the revenue from his measure would be available and if it loses, naturally spending would have to be reduced by that amount mid-year.

All revenues from Proposition 38 would go directly to K-12 schools and only K-12 schools. None of the revenue could be spent on any other budget priorities since it can only supplement rather than supplant current spending on K-12 education; however, about a third of the funds can be used to reduce state debt. Even with the billions of dollars in new revenue Proposition 38 would bring to the Golden State, if it gets more votes than Proposition 30, $6 billion in spending cuts would automatically go into effect as per the Governor’s budget, forcing reductions in vital programs such as community colleges, universities, corrections and others. 

In large part due to this one striking difference between the two measures – that Proposition 30 would prevent devastating spending cuts and Proposition 38 would not – both the LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle have endorsed Proposition 30.

It’s worth mentioning that some opponents of both measures have hauled out the millionaire migration canard, suggesting California’s wealthiest residents will flee if asked to pay higher taxes. But as ITEP’s Carl Davis explained to the Silicon Valley Mercury News, "There just isn't any persuasive evidence out there to make you think that there would be a significant number of Californians moving because of this tax change.” In fact, the newspaper’s own analysis found that over the past 15 years, the share of the country’s ultra rich living in California has gone unchanged, even with a series of temporary tax increases and a new millionaire’s tax in 2004.

For more detail on who would pay for each of the ballot initiatives, ITEP’s analysis can be found in three California Budget Project reports: What Would Proposition 30 Mean for California?, What Would Proposition 38 Mean for California?, and How do Propositions 30 and 38 Compare?

It recently came out that one man—billionaire Manuel Moroun—is almost singlehandedly responsible for getting Proposal 5, (dubbed the “two thirds” tax proposal by supporters), onto Michigan’s November ballot.  If enacted, the proposal would require two-thirds approval of each legislative chamber before any tax break or giveaway could be eliminated, or before any tax rate could be raised.  The results of such a “supermajority” restriction would be unambiguously bad for Michigan.

Paying for schools, roads, and police would become much more difficult over time as the costs of these services grow and Michigan’s narrow sales tax, flat income tax, and flat gas tax would struggle to keep up. The risk of a downgrade in Michigan’s credit rating would also increase under a supermajority rule, as the range of options for keeping the state’s finances in order would be drastically reduced.  Tax reform would become much more difficult, as many loophole-closing proposals could suddenly be blocked by a small minority of legislators.  And the ability of Michigan’s government to deal responsibly with unexpected fiscal crises would be greatly reduced.

Unsurprisingly, all of these dangers are of little concern to folks like Stephen Moore at the Wall Street Journal, who’s almost certainly never met a tax cut he didn’t like.  But many stakeholders based in Michigan, who would actually have to deal with these consequences, have concluded that a supermajority requirement would do far more harm than good.

Both of the state’s largest business groups—the Chamber of Commerce and Business Leaders for Michigan—have come out against the measure.  In noting just how restrictive the measure would be Chamber President Rich Studley quipped that “on some days you couldn’t get a two-thirds vote in the Legislature on what time of day it is.”  Even Governor Rick Snyder, whose record on tax policy we’ve criticized a number of times, opposes the supermajority rule on the grounds that it’s “not good public policy” and would have “unintended consequences.”  Other opponents include the Senate Majority Leader, AARP Michigan, the Farm Bureau, and the Michigan Municipal League, among many other groups.

And it appears that Michigan voters are getting the message.  As the Detroit News reports, polling show that “support for Proposal 5 … plunged 17.5 percentage points, from 68 percent a month ago to 50.5 percent” in mid-September. That is not only the most recent poll, but it’s also relevant because ballot measures usually need at least 60 percent support in September to have much chance of passing in November, since support tends to wane closer to the election.

The Michigan League for Human Services has more details on why a supermajority requirement is a super-bad idea (PDF) for Michigan, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a report on the issue as well. And at CTJ, we’ve been writing for years about how these rules cripple legislatures and hamstring democracy by undermining the power of elected representatives.

Oh, and there’s a chilling, masters-of-the-universe twist to the story, too. The reason this one man went to all that trouble and expense to buy the proposal a spot on the ballot is not because he’s on some ideological crusade. Rather, he wants to make sure Michigan can never afford to invest in a new bridge to Canada – because it would compete with the one he owns. 

Image from Metro Times, Detroit.

The difficulty of enacting real tax reform is on display in Louisiana, where a commission studying the state’s tax breaks just heard from some of the industries and interests seeking to protect their special breaks and loopholes.  For example, a retail group claimed that a sales tax exemption for international tourists doesn’t actually cost the state because it raises $1.80 in revenue for every $1.00 foregone. In the end, though, it did cost the state $1.1 million in sales taxes last year.

Transportation officials in Kansas and Tennessee are in an increasingly common situation: looking for new revenues as their states’ gas taxes dwindle because of rising construction costs and improving vehicle fuel-efficiency.  Officials in both states seem to recognize that a gas tax hike is needed, but in Tennessee at least, the state’s anti-tax governor has reportedly ruled that out.

In November, voters in Kansas will be asked to decide whether their state constitution should be changed to lower taxes on boats and other watercraft. Changing a state’s constitution to reward boat purchases? Seriously? The experts who wrote the ITEP Guide warn that “tax policies that systematically favor one kind of economic activity or another can lead to the misallocation of resources or, worse, to schemes whose sole aim is to exploit such preferential tax treatment.”  Let’s hope Kansas voters don’t start down this slippery slope.

The Savannah Morning News editorial board is urging the state legislature to fix a tax break in the Georgia Tourism Development Act which was intended to encourage development but “apparently is indecipherable” and can’t be implemented. The bureaucratic quagmire the legislation created highlights one of many problems with trying to micromanage economic development through the tax code.

Missouri might just be the poster child for why it’s so important to ramp up the amount of scrutiny given to special tax breaks.  From 2005 to 2009, the state accidentally spent over $1.1 billion more on tax credits than lawmakers expected.  More recently, despite its budget being squeezed by a poor economy, Missouri’s tax credit spending continued on auto-pilot, actually rising by some 15 percent, while education and health spending fell well short of Missourians’ needs (PDF).  Making matters worse, the only tax credit “reform” to come close to passage in recent years was an unsuccessful effort to scrounge up some tax credit savings and blow them on a massive giveaway designed to turn the St. Louis airport into a futuristic hub for freight between China and the Midwest.

What Missouri and other states need is a way to carefully evaluate all of their tax breaks on an ongoing basis, and an incentive to get lawmakers to act when a tax break is proven to not be worth the cost.  Our sister organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), just published a new resource outlining five steps that states can take to make this basic standard of good governance a reality, and showing that over a dozen states have already taken at least one of these steps.

In brief, those steps are:

1. Require tax breaks to include specific goals and measurable objectives.
2. Require rigorous analyses of the success (or lack thereof) of tax breaks by trained, non-partisan analysts.
3. Use “sunsets” (or expiration dates) to spur lawmakers to debate and vote on tax breaks after they’ve been analyzed.
4. Require the Governor’s budget proposal to include recommendations on tax breaks after they’ve been analyzed.
5. Require the legislature to hold hearings on tax breaks after they’ve been analyzed.

Every state has significant room for improvement when it comes to the level of scrutiny it applies to special tax breaks.  To learn more, read ITEP’s report: Five Steps Toward a Better Tax Expenditure Debate.

Let’s start with the good news.  There's a growing recognition among even the most virulently anti-tax lawmakers that one core area of government is actually underfunded and needs revenues: transportation maintenance and construction.

Unfortunately, there’s some bad news, too. Rather than fixing the gas tax shortcomings that have led to transportation coffers (quite predictably) running dry, many of those same lawmakers want to divert money away from education, health care, and other services, and spend it on roads and bridges instead.

One lawmaker touting this approach is Iowa Governor Terry Branstad.  While Branstad should be praised for realizing that the gas tax should be raised next year, his broader plan to couple that increase with big cuts in income taxes and local property taxes completely misses the mark.  If enacted, everything from schools to police departments will have to be scaled back just so that Branstad can avoid the “tax raiser” label some political operatives might pin on him for favoring a long-overdue and much-needed gas tax hike.

Governor Branstad's approach echoes one outlined earlier this year by his counterpart in Virginia, Governor Bob McDonnell.  During a conversation with the Associated Press (AP), McDonnell hinted that he might reverse his opposition to raising the gas tax if it’s done as part of a broader, revenue-neutral tax “reform” package.  As we explained then, however:

“Even if McDonnell believed the state’s gas tax needs to be raised and indexed, his opposition to raising any new revenue overall is almost guaranteed make his reform agenda bad for the state.  That’s because every dollar in new revenue McDonnell might generate for transportation would have to be offset with a dollar in tax cuts elsewhere in the budget—presumably from a tax that funds education, human services, public safety, and other core government functions.”

These proposals to actually increase the gas tax might seem remarkable at first, coming from governors who are as opposed to taxes as Branstad and McDonnell.  But when you peel away the layers, the logic behind the proposals is nothing new.  In the face of lagging gas tax revenues, politicians have frequently raided other revenue streams in order to avoid raising taxes but still keep their transportation systems afloat. Nebraska, Utah, and Wisconsin did it in 2011, and Michigan, Oklahoma and the federal government did it in 2012.  At their core, Branstad and McDonnell’s approaches are just accomplishing the same outcome but in a more roundabout way: shifting money around in a way that benefits roads at the expense of everything else.

For a smarter approach, see the recommendations made in Building a Better Gas Tax, from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).

Looks like the “spin room” in Topeka has been busy lately. Read how Kansas Governor Brownback and his staff “fashion[ed] a new budget narrative” in reaction to criticism over massive budget cuts he signed (PDF) earlier this year and possible further reductions. Insisting that revenue lost to his pet tax cuts (which take effect next year) won’t be responsible for budget shortfalls, the governor is saying that somehow the European debt crisis and other things beyond the state’s control are forcing spending cuts.

It’s been a while since we’ve heard much about “marriage penalties” imposed by state tax structures (a so-called marriage penalty is imposed when single filers pay more tax as married couples than if they filed as two single filers). But the issue is rearing its head in Wisconsin and this thoughtful blog post from the Wisconsin Budget Projects helps to put the concept in context.

In order to debunk the absurdity of Mitt Romney’s 47 percent claim, an opinion piece in the Las Vegas Sun reminds Nevadans -- by pointing to research from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy -- that low income people are paying more than their fair overall share because of state and local taxes.

Here the Charlotte Observer editorial board decries both gubernatorial candidates’ calls for politically popular rate reductions and their failure to commit to genuine, comprehensive reform for North Carolina. “Today’s tax code is riddled with exemptions, loopholes and preferential treatment that sap the state of needed revenue... [and] it’s time for tax code reform to take a prominent place on the agenda of the state’s chief executive. The public – the voting public – should insist on it.”

Kentucky’s tax structure is broken - so broken that policymakers have convened 12 commissions since 1982 to study the state’s revenue stream.  And yet the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that still the state continues to tax low and middle-income people at a higher rate than the wealthy. This year the Governor Beshear formed the Blue Ribbon Commission on Tax Reform, and the consulting economists assisting the Commission have released their report (PDF) which offers a variety of recommendations that are worth legislative consideration. The full commission, consisting of stakeholders and leaders from organizations across the state, will release its recommendations in November.

The Commission was tasked with analyzing the tax structure with these five goals in mind: fairness, competitiveness, simplicity and compliance, elasticity, and adequacy. The economic consultants found (and most analysts agree) that “a broader tax base is needed so that revenue can keep pace with future economic growth.” The report predicts a dire future for the state’s finances unless the tax structure is improved, “Without fundamental reforms Kentucky could face a $1 billion shortfall by 2020, and could find itself at a competitive disadvantage to neighboring states for business growth, retention, and recruitment.”

The experts’ comprehensive report included some common sense, positive proposals like eliminating itemized deductions, instituting an Earned Income Tax Credit, and broadening the sales tax base to more personal services. The Louisville Courier Journal, in the culmination of three months of quality, in-depth reporting on the issue notes that, “many lawmakers and others expect the governor’s effort will fall far short of any significant reform — just as reform attempts by most of Beshear’s immediate predecessors failed.” The reason? Getting legislators to agree to any tax increase (even if other taxes are lowered) may be a political bridge too far.

The Governor, however, has said that he is not abandoning the idea of a special session focused solely on tax reform. He admits, “It’s always difficult to address the issue of taxes. But I think it is do-able if we all will work together.” The full tax commission is expected to come out with its recommendations by November 15. The question remains whether Kentucky can not only study its tax system, but also reform it.

The Washington Post explains why so-called “budget surpluses” in Maryland and Virginia are nothing to get excited about: “In both cases, the surpluses are modest, amounting to no more than a percentage point or two of state spending. And in both cases, the states’ present and pending obligations have sponged up most of the so-called extra cash. In a budgetary environment that remains severely austere, no one should equate a surplus with a windfall.”

Missouri is not alone in planning to give corporate income tax credits a much closer look in 2013. The head of a special committee tasked with reviewing Oklahoma’s tax credits said that he will push for a two-year moratorium on over two dozen corporate tax credits.  He will also propose eliminating the “transferability” of tax credits, which allows companies that don’t owe any income tax to benefit from tax credits nonetheless, by selling them to other individuals or businesses.

Iowa State Senator and chairman of the senate’s Ways and Means Committee recently wrote in the DesMoines-Register that Governor Terry Branstad should “strengthen the best anti-poverty program this nation has ever had: the earned income tax credit. This state tax cut will put more money in the pockets of working Iowa families with incomes less than $45,000. That’s money that will be spent in communities across the state.”  

Progressive tax advocates will be happy to hear that Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has recommitted himself to advocating for legislation in the next legislative session that raises taxes on the wealthiest Minnesotans.

Today the Census Bureau released new data showing that in 17 states, the number of Americans living in poverty increased in 2011.  Lawmakers and advocates interested in helping to lift families out of poverty can and should look to their states’ tax structures, which are often part of the problem but can also be part of the solution and play a role in helping to eliminate poverty.

When all the taxes imposed by state and local governments are taken into account, almost every state imposes a higher effective tax rate on low-income families than on upper- income taxpayers.  A new Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy report, “State Tax Codes as Poverty Fighting Tools,” recommends four key anti-poverty tax policies: the Earned Income Tax Credit, property tax circuit breakers, targeted low-income tax credits, and child-related tax credits.  The report identifies the states where each of these policies is in place, and finds that seven states (Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee and Texas) don’t offer any of these four recommended anti-poverty tax policies.

The report also includes a survey of state-by-state anti-poverty tax policy decisions made this year and offers specific recommendations tailored to policymakers in each state as they work to combat poverty. Read ”State Tax Codes as Poverty Fighting Tools” here.

Slow but steady progress toward enforcing state sales taxes on online purchases continues.  Amazon.com has agreed to begin collecting sales taxes in Pennsylvania, and the state’s Revenue Department plans to start auditing and penalizing other online retailers with a physical presence in the state that fail to collect the tax.

Promises from Iowa lawmakers to flatten and lower income tax rates and roll back business property taxes are worrisome. But when House Republicans and the governor recently sketched out their ideas for pursuing this agenda, they actually (and deliberately) “offered no specifics on any of their tax relief and reform commitments.”  The state requires a balanced budget, so these tax cuts will need to be paid for and the choices available are limited: cut services or increase other taxes

While state lawmakers love to offer tax breaks in the name of job creation, Missouri might be learning to resist the urge. Governor Jay Nixon has asked his Tax Credit Review Commission, which he created in 2010 to provide an independent review of the state’s many tax credits, to update its 2010 report, which was harshly critical of many Missouri tax credits. While the original report’s advice was never followed because the state legislature was unable to agree on paring back these tax breaks, House lawmakers are now signaling their interest in critically reviewing the tax breaks the state currently provides in the name of job creation – welcome news since there is remarkably little evidence (PDF) that state tax breaks are an effective job-creation strategy.

Last weekend, Louisiana shoppers took advantage of the Second Amendment sales tax holiday, which allows the purchase of guns and ammunition tax free.  Read why sales tax holidays are silly (PDF) and a political racket.

As part of the governor’s campaign to redistribute wealth to corporations and the state’s wealthiest citizens, Wisconsin lawmakers last year reduced the state's Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for low income, working families.  Now, leading Republican legislators have signaled their intention to build on this tax hike for the poor by dramatically cutting income taxes for the best-off Wisconsinites next year.

To that end, a joint House-Senate committee convened a hearing on income tax reform this week that was generally understood to be designed to give cover to legislative leaders' goal of replacing the state's graduated income tax with a flat-rate income tax (thus undermining the most progressive feature of any tax system, the graduated income tax).

Matt Gardner, Director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, was one of four panelists invited to testify before this hearing, and neither he nor any of the witnesses offered meaningful support for the lawmakers’ plan. Gardner's testimony pointed out that graduated income taxes (PDF) are the most sustainable long-run funding source available to states, and that moving to a flat rate income tax would actually slow revenue growth over time. Gardner also explained that the alleged “volatility” of this revenue source (e.g. revenues dip during economic downturns) is more a fiscal management problem than a tax problem. Most states maintain a rainy day fund that functions like a family savings account – it grows in good times and is there to help during bad times. Most states should also be significantly expanding their tax base by expanding the sales tax to services, modernizing their gas tax and closing loopholes in the personal and business tax codes. Gardner also reminded legislators that they should not consider relying on a broader sales tax to make up revenues lost to income tax cuts because sales taxes (PDF) are volatile in the short run as well as regressive, putting the heaviest burden on the lowest income households.

Instead, Gardner advised that the first step toward reforming Wisconsin's income tax should be eliminating loopholes such as the state's 30 percent capital gains tax break. Other panelists agreed.

It’s not necessarily what all of the lawmakers wanted to hear; we will learn when they return to session in January, 2013, if they decided to listen anyway.

Like the Republicans last week, Democrats are featuring governors at their national nominating convention. Because convention speakers are chosen as the parties’ ambassadors to new audiences during these TV spectacles, the state policy team at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy are providing quick sketches of current governors from both parties who have been leaders – for better and for worse – in state tax policy. Below are profiles of tonight’s speakers, in order of appearance, at the DNC in Charlotte, NC. (The Sept. 5 speakers are profiled here.)

Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy: Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy championed a balanced and sensible approach to his state’s budget crunch last year (his first in office) that put the Nutmeg State on a path to fiscal sustainability while also protecting critical and core public services that all Connecticut residents depend on.  Malloy’s budget raised substantial new revenue by asking his state’s wealthiest residents and highly profitable corporations to pay more, and by broadening the sales tax base to include more goods and services.  At the same time, Malloy cut taxes for the state’s poorest working families with the introduction of a significant refundable state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a great example of how the tax system plays a key role in alleviating hardship and boosting incomes for low-income working families.  Governor Malloy (who earned CTJ’s Most Likely to Make the Rich Pay Their Fair Share award)   frequently refers to himself as the “Anti-Christie” in juxtaposition to the New Jersey Governor who has rejected even a temporary tax increase on Garden State millionaires passed by his legislature, but has had no qualms about increasing taxes on his poorest constituents.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper: Despite coming into office after defeating two anti-tax candidates, Governor Hickenlooper has done very little to fix Colorado’s devastatingly regressive tax system. In fact, he refused to support a Democratic backed ballot initiative to raise taxes, Proposition 103, that would have protected funding for public schools and universities in Colorado. One small step he has taken was signing legislation that ended the agricultural property tax loophole, which had somewhat famously allowed Tom Cruise to claim massive tax breaks for letting sheep occasionally graze around his mansion.

Governor Hickenlooper has the chance to be a great reformer, however, if he uses his signature TBD Initiative (a year-long series of town halls across the state) to make the case for repealing Colorado’s crippling TABOR law and enacting graduated income tax brackets.

Delaware Governor Jack Markell: As the newly elected chair of the National Governor’s association, Governor Markell will play a leadership role in setting the policy agenda across the states over the next year. This could be a very good thing if Governor Markell sticks to the principles laid out his Washington Post op-ed, which argued that providing robust infrastructure, education, and other critical government services are more important to job creation than lower taxes. Unfortunately, last year Governor Markell did not fully stand by these principles when he squandered the improved budget outlook of Delaware by signing a wasteful tax break for banks in the state.

In addition, while Governor Markell cannot be blamed for making Delaware one of the world’s worst tax havens, he has been complicit in maintaining the low tax rates and corporate opacity that have allowed this tax haven to thrive.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (not yet scheduled): Governor Schweitzer has yet to come out strongly in favor of significantly improving Montana’s regressive tax structure.  He has advocated for reducing taxes on business equipment and offering property tax breaks for homeowners. There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of fixes necessary to the Montana income tax, which currently offers a costly deduction for federal income taxes paid (PDF) and a capital gains tax break -- which both disproportionately benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. The Governor has missed an opportunity to come out squarely for repeal of these measures, but Schweitzer, who’s said he would boast about his state’s low taxes and strong finances during his DNC appearance, deserves credit for not squandering the state’s surplus on unjustified tax cuts, unlike governors in other states.

Like the Republicans last week, Democrats are featuring governors at their national nominating convention. Because convention speakers are chosen as the parties’ ambassadors to new audiences during these TV spectacles, the state policy team at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy are providing quick sketches of current governors from both parties who have been leaders – for better and for worse – in state tax policy. Below are profiles of tonight’s speakers, in order of appearance, at the DNC in Charlotte, NC.

North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue: Governor Bev Perdue took over leadership of the Tarheel state in 2009 during the worst economic recession in modern history, which had caused revenues to plummet and budget gaps to widen.  Perdue recognized the need for tax increases to be part of a balanced and sensible approach to solving North Carolina’s fiscal crisis.  The final budget adopted in 2009 included two temporary taxes – a one cent increase in the state’s sales tax rate and a personal income tax surcharge on the state’s wealthiest residents.  In 2011, revenues were still not fully recovered and Perdue proposed extending most of the temporary sales tax for another two years to prevent deeper cuts to education spending, but her proposal was blocked by the newly minted Republican majority in the state’s House and Senate.  She tried again in 2012, but was once again stopped in her tracks.  Perdue cannot be called the most progressive governor on taxes, but her strong commitment to public education gave her the courage to increase taxes early on and to later propose more, even in a politically challenging environment.  North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue announced earlier in the year that she is not seeking reelection for a second term in office.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn: Illinois Governor Pat Quinn’s record on taxes is a mixed bag. While he’s shown leadership in terms of advocating for personal and corporate income tax increases and increasing the state’s personal exemption and Earned Income Tax Credit, the Governor has too often offered handouts to companies threatening to leave the state. Under this Governor’s watch, Illinois also stopped funding a property tax credit designed to specifically help low-income seniors and the disabled.  The Illinois tax structure is one of the worst in the country in terms of asking low-income people to pay far more than their fair share. So far, Governor Quinn has not stood up for real progressive policy changes and his piecemeal, situational approach to tax policy is only making his state’s tax code more complicated.

Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee: Governor Lincoln Chafee, an independent, called for tax increases aimed at refilling Rhode Island’s depleted coffers during his election campaign in 2010.  Chafee made good on that promise and earned the A+ for Effort at Sales Tax Reform award in Citizens for Tax Justice’s Governors Yearbook.  In his first year in office, Chafee introduced a sensible tax reform package that would have modernized his state’s sales tax and raised revenue needed to mitigate spending cuts.  Chafee also supported changes to the Ocean State’s corporate income tax, including combined reporting, a smart rule that levels the playing field for small business by preventing multi-national corporations from sheltering profits in other states, as well as an improved corporate minimum tax.  Unfortunately, lawmakers rejected most of his proposal.  Chafee is one of only a handful of governors over the past two years to propose tax increases in order to restore investments or prevent deeper cuts in education, transportation, health care and other spending priorities.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick: Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has spent his six years in office largely punting on tax policy for the Bay State.  With the exception of creating a Tax Expenditure Commission last year to examine the more than $26 billion in tax breaks the state hands out each year (which amounts to more money than the state is expected to take in this year!), Patrick has not proven himself to be a leader on improving his state’s tax system. Patrick has publicly supported making the state’s personal income tax more progressive by moving from a flat rate to a graduated rate, but also said he would not “pursue” it in his second term. The governor has supported some revenue increases in his two terms to prevent spending cuts, but mostly they have been  low-hanging fruit in the form of excise taxes (alcohol, tobacco, etc) or have relied heavily on the sales tax.  And last year, Patrick supported yet another annual sales tax holiday in his state despite admitting that he supported it, “frankly, not because it is particularly fiscally prudent, but because it is popular…. People want it."

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley: Last but definitely not least, Governor O’Malley has been one of the nation’s boldest leaders in standing up to anti-tax forces and protecting critical public programs, which is why Citizens for Tax Justice gave him the Defender of Public Services award in our 2012 Governors Yearbook. While many governors across the nation were continuing to slash public services in order to expand unsustainable tax breaks, Governor O’Malley bucked the national trend and ushered in a progressive tax increase that allowed Maryland to stop further cuts to education, health services and other crucial state government services. Continuing his record, Governor O’Malley has also shown his willingness to stand up for good policy – even if it’s unpopular – with his advocacy of a responsible increase in the gas tax to improve Maryland’s transportation infrastructure.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin is not backing down from her quest to phase out the Sooner State’s personal income tax.  Despite her best efforts, lawmakers adjourned earlier this summer after defeating every single tax cut proposal (more than half a dozen serious versions) debated during the session. But in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore (a frequent collaborator with Governor Fallin’s tax advisor, supply-sider Arthur Laffer) the governor vowed, "[w]e are going to get that tax cut done next year." 

Hear, Hear! The Cleveland Plain Dealer editorializes that Ohio Governor John Kasich shouldn’t reduce income taxes anymore and should “leave Ohio’s income tax alone.” The Governor first tried (and failed) to pay for income tax cuts through increased fracking taxes, and now through increases in the sales tax. The progressive income tax (PDF) is the only major revenue source directly linked to a taxpayer’s ability to pay and the income tax can help to offset regressive sales and property taxes.

Wyoming’s gas tax is low by historical standards and shrinking, but perhaps not for long.  Members of an interim legislative committee on revenues approved a draft bill to increase the rate from 14 to 24 cents per gallon, which would raise an additional $72 million annually for road construction and repair.  It’s only one of several fixes Wyoming should make to restructure its gas tax, including, as the experts at Equality State Policy Center point out, provisions to “reduce the effect on lower-income residents in Wyoming” of a gas tax increase.

Both Republicans and Democrats are featuring governors at their national nominating conventions. Because convention speakers are chosen as the parties’ ambassadors to new audiences during these TV spectacles, the state policy team at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy are providing quick sketches of current governors from both parties who have been leaders – for better and for worse – in state tax policy. Below are profiles of two governors: Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, who was scheduled to speak tonight but bowed out to handle Hurricane Isaac, and Susana Martinez of New Mexico.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal: Last year, the Governor dismissed a legislative plan to eliminate the state’s personal and corporate income taxes as too radical. This year, the budget he ultimately signed was full of “one-time” money lifted from other parts of the budget to fill in gaps. Still, as he turns his attention toward reforming the state’s tax structure, he is opposed to raising more revenue, saying, “[w]e are not going to do anything that raises revenue. It needs to be revenue-neutral.”

New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez:  In her 2011 State of the State Address, Governor Martinez waxed eloquent about supporting small business, saying, "It's the small businesses — the mom-and-pop shops, the small startups — that get lost in the layers of red tape….We will help them…."  But the fact is, Martinez failed even in her ill-advised effort to exempt roughly half the state’s small businesses - those earning less than $50,000 per year - from the gross receipts tax. And, when she had a chance to sign a bill that really did support small business owners (and that had widespread support from business groups in her state!), Martinez vetoed it. She always said she would, actually, oppose combined reporting, which is a smart rule that levels the playing field for small business by preventing large corporations from creating subsidiaries in other states to avoid paying taxes.

Both Republicans and Democrats are featuring governors at their national nominating conventions. Because convention speakers are chosen as the parties’ ambassadors to new audiences during these TV spectacles, the state policy team at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy are providing quick sketches of current governors from both parties who have been leaders – for better and for worse – in state tax policy. Below are profiles of more of Tuesday night’s prime time speakers.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin:  Governor Mary Fallin led an unsuccessful (hooray!) attempt this year to wreak havoc on Oklahoma’s tax system which included eventual elimination of the Sooner State’s personal income tax.  To pay for the preliminary rate cuts, Fallin wanted to eliminate the personal exemption, Earned Income Tax Credit, and other credits - all tax provisions that overwhelmingly benefit low and moderate income Oklahomans.  The legislature generally supported her plan and introduced about a dozen versions of tax reform.  Every plan had one common feature: they would have raised taxes on a majority of Oklahoman families while cutting them – dramatically - for the richest.

Fortunately, despite strong legislative support to deliver a large tax cut package (and the expertise of Fallin’s supply-side consultant, Arthur Laffer), all efforts stalled this year.  But the fight to preserve Oklahoma’s personal income tax and protect the state’s poorest residents is far from over. Governor Fallin recently vowed, “[w]e are going to get that tax cut done next year." 

Ohio Governor John Kasich: When he was running for office, candidate Kasich supported eliminating the state’s personal income tax altogether. And though he later softened his radical stance, citing the inability of the state to afford such a massive change, it is clear that cutting the personal income tax has been on his agenda ever since. As governor, he first advocated paying for income tax rate cuts with revenue from a new fracking tax, but that failed. Now, he’s exploring eliminating some tax exemptions to pay for income tax reductions. Clearly, Kasich has it out for the income tax even though he already succeeded in eliminating Ohio’s estate tax and pushing through a tax credit that benefits investors.

Governor Brian Sandoval: Of all the GOP governors across the country, Brian Sandoval stands out as the one most likely to put his constituents over politics.  Working with Republicans and Democrats, Sandoval extended $620 million in temporary taxes first in 2011 and again this year to avoid deep cuts to education spending.  Significantly, Sandoval even abandoned on Grover Norquist’s “no-tax pledge” after taking a careful look at the fiscal conditions in Nevada. 

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker: Governor Walker’s tax policy positions make him no friend to low income working families. The budget he signed reduced the value of the state’s earned income tax credit and froze the state’s circuit breaker (for low income property owners). The Governor’s budget also includes $2.3 billion in tax breaks over the next decade in the form of a domestic production activities credit (a needless business tax giveaway), two different capital gains tax breaks (that benefit the most affluent), and a variety of new sales tax exemptions.

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley: Governor Haley’s tax policy position is clear – she’s on the side of corporations and businesses rather than working South Carolina families. Governor Haley has long supported eliminating the state’s corporate income tax.

Both Republicans and Democrats are featuring governors at their national nominating conventions. Because convention speakers are chosen as the parties’ ambassadors to new audiences during these TV spectacles, the state policy team at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy are providing quick sketches of current governors from both parties who have been leaders – for better and for worse – in state tax policy.

[UPDATE 8/30/12: The good people at FactCheck.org reviewed Governor Christie's RNC speech and call it a Fact Free Keynote. Read why here.]

Tonight, America will hear from New Jersey's Governor Chris Christie, a man known for his bombastic, no-apologies approach and who we crowned "Fiscal Drama Queen" in our 2012 gubernatorial yearbook.

Since taking the reigns as the Garden State’s leader in January 2010, Governor Christie’s fiscal agenda has done “serious damage to virtually every constituency imaginable in this state – except for corporations and the super-rich.”  Christie raised taxes on the working poor and on fixed-income seniors while at the same time insisting on tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest New Jerseyans.  He has thrice vetoed a temporary millionaire’s tax (impacting a mere .2 percent of the state’s taxpayers, temporarily!) that would have prevented hundreds of millions of dollars in spending cuts to schools, health care for working families and legal assistance for low-income individuals, to name just a few programs impacted by Christie’s priorities. 

And now, Governor Christie wants a significant income tax cut so much that he continues to swear by a fantastical revenue forecast despite consensus among nonpartisan experts that 2013 revenues are likely to fall a staggering $1.3 billion below that projection, (much like the last fiscal year, which ended with $542 million less in the bank than predicted).

An ideologue with political ambitions who fails to serve his constituents, Christie is nonetheless the keynote darling of the 2012 GOP.

Here’s a follow up to our previous post describing the effort to get a much needed severance tax increase on the ballot in Arkansas.  The former natural gas executive, Sheffield Nelson, who was behind the effort has said that he won’t have enough signatures to qualify this proposal for the November ballot.

Last month, a Louisiana Revenue Study Commission began looking into the state’s tax exemptions to see if these government handouts are effective. Now that Governor Bobby Jindal has been passed over as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, it appears he’s going full speed ahead with revenue neutral tax “reform” efforts.  As part of the efforts to reform the tax structure and examine tax expenditures the Governor, other policymakers and taxpayers should review these new materials from the Louisiana Budget Project.

This week, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law legislation that imposes a new tax on strip clubs. Revenue generated from this new tax will fund programs for victims of sexual assault. By choosing to enact an entirely new tax that seems destined to raise little revenue, rather than enacting needed reforms in the taxes the state already levies, Illinois lawmakers have missed a chance to make the tax system fairer. The worthy goal of funding anti-abuse efforts would be better served by eliminating income, sales and corporate tax loopholes.

Iowa’s gas tax is at an all-time low and shrinking- and transportation infrastructure is suffering because of it.  Earlier in the year, we thought Governor Terry Branstad would champion an increase in the tax to address the state’s transportation funding needs.  Now we have learned the governor will only support a “modest” change in the gas tax if lawmakers first reduce property, personal income and corporate income taxes.  Which begs the question- how will Iowa pay for much needed road and bridge repairs if the state is left with even less revenue than it had before this so-called “reform” plan?

Photo of Bobby Jindal via Gage Skidmore Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

The Olympics may be over, but some US lawmakers are still competing for the lousy tax policy medal. Weeks after Florida Senator Marco Rubio proposed—and President Barack Obama endorsed—a bill to exempt US Olympians’ gold-medal bonuses from federal income tax, a California Senate Committee approved a plan last week to exempt these bonuses from the state’s income tax.  

An unusually pointed Senate Governance and Finance Committee staff analysis of the bill, however, noted that “the measure is the exact opposite of sound tax policy” and tartly suggested that “[t]he Committee may wish to consider whether running afoul of good tax policy is worth the bill's kind gesture.”

The staff analysis also pointed out that, like the federal legislation that inspired it, the California bill could inadvertently exempt from tax not just the $25,000 bonus Kobe Bryant will receive from his basketball gold medal, but also Olympics-related compensation he might receive from advertisers and sponsors.

Seemingly undeterred by this analysis, the Senate Committee initially approved the bill by a 5 to 1 vote last week, but its sponsor couldn’t get it past the Appropriations Committee for a full vote. He has said he will add amendments and try again.

As we’ve noted previously, the trivial cost of this measure does not change the fact that it would add one more brick to the wall of tax complexity. Meaningful tax reform requires weeding out special tax breaks for privileged groups rather than adding them; any politician who knows this and endorses an Olympic winnings tax exemption is engaging in political opportunism of hypocritical proportions.

Uber-supply side economist Arthur Laffer and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback gave small business owners a “pep talk” earlier this week about the massive tax cuts that the Governor signed into law earlier this year. It’s part of the Governor’s PR Offensive to brand a regressive tax plan, that costs $2.5 billion over five years, as somehow fiscally sound.

Wednesday Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal released a statement that should make Louisianans nervous: “Our top priority next legislative session is to reform Louisiana's tax system so that we can make our tax code fairer, flatter, and lower for Louisiana families and businesses.” They already had to scrounge up “one time” money to fill state budget gaps; reducing revenues further by cutting taxes will only exacerbate Louisiana’s fiscal problems. 

California Governor Jerry Brown officially launched a campaign this week to gain support for his temporary income tax increase for the state’s wealthiest residents and permanent ¼ cent increase in the sales tax. It will be on California’s November ballot as Proposition 30.  At a press conference, Brown stressed that a rejection of his measure would trigger automatic budget cuts amounting to $6 billion less for K-12 schools and universities and called the measure an “opportunity to say 'yes' to our schools [and] about one simple question: Shall those who have been blessed beyond imagination give back 1, 2 or 3 percent for the next seven years, or shall we take billions out of our schools and colleges to the detriment of the kids standing behind us and the future of our state?"

Add this one to the long list of bad ideas put forth by New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie.  For the paltry sum of $120 million in cash up front, Christie is selling off the Garden State’s lottery.  The deal will require the buyer to increase ticket sales by at least 7.5 percent annually – or face a penalty.  This, Christie believes, will make the sale worthwhile. But the chosen vendor will have their work cut out: even in a record year, New Jersey’s lottery grew by only 1.2 percent (it raised $2.6 billion last fiscal year, a reported $31.5 million increase over the previous year).  

Utah policymakers have decided to get serious about their state’s deteriorating gas tax revenue. The crisis shouldn’t surprise anyone since Utah has had the same state gas tax rate for 14 years which has lost more than 30 percent of its value over time.  Rather than confronting that erosion in its value, Utah lawmakers have been raiding their general fund in order to pay for transportation. They need to increase the tax by at least 12.6 cents a gallon – and get other key recommendations from Building a Better Gas Tax from ITEP.

As the back- to-school sales tax holidays season winds down, this Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) op-ed is a reminder that consumers and citizens “should not accept tax-free weekends as a replacement for the types of real reforms that clean out unnecessary breaks at the top and solve the problems that will still be there, long after this year's sales tax holidays have passed.”  

Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe has a message for Republican lawmakers bent on eliminating the state’s personal income tax: “If you’re going to eliminate the income tax, you better figure out where you’re going to get a couple billion just to stay where we are.”  The Arkansas Republican Party platform includes replacing the state’s personal income tax with what they call a “more equitable method of taxation.”  In Beebe’s words, “I don’t think there is more equitable… the income tax was designed to be more equitable than a flat, for example, sales tax.”

Now that Governor Jack Dalrymple has unveiled his tax cut plan, North Dakota voters (who rejected a ballot measure eliminating property taxes altogether in June) will hear from two gubernatorial candidates who want to cut property taxes, but in very different ways. While the incumbent, Dalrymple, would give across-the-board property tax cuts to every property owner (including profitable businesses and the wealthiest North Dakotans) and a token cut to older low-income adults, the Democratic challenger, Ryan Taylor, targets his tax cuts to homeowners and renters, with the largest cuts as a share of income going to low- and moderate-income taxpayers.  The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy is working up a full analysis of the candidates’ competing tax plans, which have roughly the same revenue cost.

• The Boston Globe covers an important new report finding that: “Over the past 16 years [Massachusetts] has more than doubled the amount of tax breaks it provides businesses to spur economic development but has only a vague idea whether the incentives are worthwhile.”  The full report, from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, has more data on the large and growing cost of these breaks, and urges the state to thoroughly evaluate whether these so-called “incentives” are the best use of Massachusetts taxpayers’ dollars.

• The value of Louisiana’s film tax credit is being seriously questioned.  According to the Louisiana Budget Project (LBP), the cost of the credit has ballooned in recent years, while producing little in the way of long-term benefits.  LBP finds that the state is paying a steep price of $60,000 for each job created by the credit, despite many of those jobs being only temporary.

• Low-income Garden Staters are feeling the pinch from Governor Christie cutting back the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (PDF) – an effective, targeted tax reduction for low- and moderate-income workers.  According to a New Jersey Policy Perspectives analysis, at a time when the number of New Jersey families living below the poverty line has increased by 25 percent, the reduced EITC has meant that nearly 500,000 families have lost on average $200 a year.  State lawmakers have attempted to restore the credit to 25 percent of the federal version (Christie cut it to 20 percent in 2010) and even the governor included a restoration in his original budget proposal this year.  However, politics got in the way and Christie vetoed legislation to restore the EITC until lawmakers agree to his expensive tax cut plan that benefits the wealthiest New Jersey residents.

Photo of Chris Christie via David Shankbone Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

In a recent Wichita Eagle op-ed the Kansas Governor defended his harsh, regressive, and costly tax bill saying “our new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy.” He is proud that he signed the largest tax cut in state history and claims that the state will still be able to provide for its neediest residents and provide “high-quality” education despite the fact that the tax bill he signed will take more than $760 million a year from state coffers.

The Governor’s op-ed may have been written in response to the heat he’s been getting since calling the bill “a real live experiment.” The conservative group Traditional Republicans for Commonsense writes (PDF) that the “’experiment’ will bankrupt our state and create a $2.7 billion deficit within five years.” In this op-ed, Bernie Koch from the Kansas Economic Progress Council writes that the legislation could actually discourage new businesses from locating to the state because the bill was so hastily written its implications for business are unclear.  He further notes that the bond credit rating organization Moody’s recently predicted “[n]o improvement in economic growth as a result of the tax cuts” in Kansas.

Brownback’s next public relations effort is a forum he’s hosting at a community college in Overland Park. He’s invited the self-proclaimed father of supply side economics and - his own tax policy advisor - Arthur Laffer, to join him, which is further evidence the governor is making no apologies about signing a law that many of his constituents deem irresponsible, at best.

It’s no secret that Indiana’s gubernatorial race has been a breeding ground for bad tax ideas this year.  So far on the tax front, the race has essentially been an endless barrage of promises regarding which taxes will be cut, and how deeply.

The most recent of these proposals comes from candidate Mike Pence, current U.S. Representative for Indiana’s 6th district.  Pence has proposed cutting the state’s flat income tax rate from 3.4 percent to 3.06 percent to provide an “across the board” tax cut for “every Hoosier.”  A new analysis from CTJ’s partner organization, however, shows that many Hoosier families won’t see any tax cuts at all under Pence’s plan, and that the cuts will hardly be distributed “across the board.”

Using its Microsimulation Tax Model, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) found that the largest tax cuts, by far, would be reserved for the state’s wealthiest taxpayers under Pence’s proposal.  While a typical middle-income family could expect their taxes to fall by about $102, the state’s richest one percent would receive a cut averaging $2,264.  Worse still, over half of all the tax cuts would flow to the best-off 20 percent of Indiana residents.

The story is dramatically different for the state’s poorest residents, however.  Looking at the lowest 20 percent of earners, the average tax cut would be just $18 per household, with about one-third of this group receiving no tax cut at all.  Many of these families are too poor to owe state income taxes, but they still pay significant amounts in sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, and other state and local taxes and fees.  In November 2009, ITEP found that the poorest 20 percent of Indiana households devote more of their household budgets to paying state and local taxes than any other income group.  Rep. Pence’s plan would do nothing to fix this fundamental inequity.

Of course, the broader issue is whether tax cuts should be a priority at all, given the uncertain budget situation created by recent taxpayer refunds, corporate tax cuts, and the repeal of the state’s inheritance tax.  Moreover, Indiana still has the lingering problem of how to pay for its transportation investments after revenue from leasing its toll roads runs out.  And the state also has yet to put money aside to expand its Medicaid program in order to take advantage of very generous federal matching dollars currently on the table.

Still, given all the talk coming from both sides of the aisle in favor of slashing Indiana taxes and the likelihood more cuts are in the state’s future, ITEP decided to ask a logical question: how difficult would it be to design a tax cut that’s fairer than what Rep. Pence has proposed? The answer?  Not very difficult.

By raising the state’s personal exemption (unchanged since 1963) from $1,000 to $3,400, Indiana lawmakers could provide larger tax cuts to most Indiana residents—relative to Pence’s proposed rate cut—at the same overall cost to the state.  Overall, 55 percent of Indiana residents would see a larger tax cut if lawmakers went with ITEP’s alternative of raising the personal exemption, rather than adopt Rep. Pence’s plan to cut the rate.  Just 33 percent of Indiana residents would be better off under Pence’s plan than under the exemption increase, while the other 12 percent would be unaffected by either proposal. 

The best part? Lower- and middle-income taxpayers would be the largest beneficiaries if lawmakers chose the personal exemption boost over the rate cut. (Not to mention that more cash in the pockets of lower income families provides a reliable economic boost.) If Hoosiers want a real “across the board” cut, it’s not the Pence plan they want, it’s ITEP’s.

For more detail, see ITEP’s new report: Most of Indiana Tax Rate Cut Would Flow to Upper-Income Taxpayers. 

New research from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy shows “there is little evidence that property tax incentives [for businesses] actually work” to boost economic growth or create jobs, and that “the use of these tax incentives continues to reflect the triumph of hope over experience.”  Among other things, the Lincoln Institute notes that: property taxes are a very small part of doing business (less than 1 percent of costs for manufacturers); and, that incentives frequently reward businesses for behavior they would have undertaken anyway.

State revenue collections may be on the rise in many states, but the Rockefeller Institute has an important new report putting that trend in perspective: “After adjusting for inflation … state tax revenues are still 1.6 percent lower compared to the same quarter four years ago, in 2008.  Even in nominal terms, total tax collections in the first quarter of 2012 remained lower than the first quarter of 2008 in 21 states.”

Here and here, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) talks back about misguided sales tax holidays, and makes some news explaining how the holidays are a distraction from real tax reform that would make state tax codes fairer.

State revenues remain low, and there are historic, structural reasons for this as well as more short term reasons, including the recession. It is increasingly clear that states can no longer afford the tax-cutting agenda that politicians of all ideological stripes have promoted, which includes targeting the progressive, personal income tax.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) continually combats the flawed logic and cherry picked data put out by Arthur Laffer and other “experts” who claim that income taxes stifle economic growth and must therefore be reduced.  ITEP’s latest effort to set the record straight is a concise new policy brief (PDF), The Progressive Income Tax: An Essential Element of Fair and Sustainable State Tax Systems.  It makes the case that in reality, “Not only do [income] taxes not harm economic growth, but the vital public investments that they make possible actually pave the way for better state economies.”  The income tax has an important role to play in tax fairness as well because it’s the only tax available to states that can meaningfully mitigate the unfairness of sales, excise, and property taxes, which take a larger bite out of working families’ budgets than from wealthier households. Read ITEP’s latest brief here (PDF).

Former Texas deputy comptroller, Billy Hamilton, explains why extreme proposals to repeal the property tax are a bad idea.  Among the reasons he cites: out-of-state property owners would get a massive tax cut, localities would lose control of their own finances, and the sales tax increase needed to fund repeal would be so large as to be both bad policy and bad politics.

Iowa filmmakers that benefited handsomely from the state’s now-suspended film tax incentive program have been rebuffed by the state’s Supreme Court, which rejected their claim that if their company financials were publicly released, it would cause them hardship. The Des Moines Register editorialized in favor of the decision, saying that: “Businesses that ask for the government to subsidize their ventures are in effect asking the taxpayers to share in the risk.  Those taxpayers have an interest in knowing if their investment is being spent properly.  Businesses should accept that as part of the deal, or they should look elsewhere for business partners.”

This weekend back-to-school shoppers in twelve states are gearing up for a political gimmick – a break from paying sales taxes known as sales tax holidays. This South Carolina editorial reminds policymakers and voters that these holidays aren’t a real solution to regressive taxes, “Lawmakers should get the state's sales tax house in order, not throw us a couple of short-term holidays.”

Federal efforts to fight consumer sales tax evasion facilitated by the likes of Amazon.com continue to make news.  Last week, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing in which lawmakers appeared to agree on the need to empower states to enforce their sales tax laws even on purchases made over the Internet.  Specifically, the Committee heard testimony on legislation that would require out-of-state Internet retailers to collect and remit the sales taxes owed by their customers—just as big box stores and Mom & Pop shops alike have done for decades.

This week the Senate followed the House’s lead, with the Senate Commerce Committee holding a hearing to discuss similar legislation.  Influential state lawmakers, as well as many major retailers are backing these federal efforts.  And while it’s too early to guarantee any particular outcome (especially in an election year), it’s also clear that the federal government is taking this issue more seriously than ever.

Many lawmakers, like Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), are “completely sold on the fairness issue” of collecting sales taxes on all purchases regardless of whether they’re made online or at the local shopping mall.  But there are some holdouts who think the states should be forced to sit idly by while their sales tax bases shrink, their local businesses suffer, and the sales tax increasingly becomes an optional payment for anybody with an Internet connection.  Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) falls squarely into this category.

This week, DeMint authored a Wall Street Journal opinion piece arguing that taxing online shopping would amount to an attack by “tax-hungry politicians” on “the essence of our democracy.”  As you might expect from such rhetoric, much of the piece is far-fetched.  Among other things, DeMint fears that improving the enforcement of state sales tax laws could lead to “talk of a streamlined national sales tax … with Washington taking a cut and destroying our nation’s healthy tradition of state tax competition.”  And throughout the piece, DeMint misses the mark by suggesting that states are trying to directly tax Amazon, eBay, and other online retailers, when in reality they’re only trying to involve those retailers in the collection of sales taxes already owed (but rarely paid) by their customers.

For more information, see this policy brief from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), as well as some of our previous coverage of this issue.

For Immediate Release: August 1, 2012

Sales Tax Holidays No Substitute for Tax Reform

Year Round Tax Breaks for the Rich Dwarf Annual Tax Holidays for Consumers

Washington, DC – Eighteen states will host sales tax holiday weekends in August this year at a cost somewhere north of $200 million. They are billed as offering relief to ordinary taxpayers, yet 11 of these 18 states also offer one or more special tax breaks for their most affluent residents which add up to an annual cost of more than $3 billion. Moreover, only one of these states (OK) provides a year-round sales tax credit for low income families to purchase necessities (a proven poverty-fighting tool).

“Year-round, state tax codes are notoriously hard on families near the bottom of the income ladder,” said Matthew Gardner, Executive Director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, “and a three-day holiday once a year doesn’t change that.  The real beneficiaries of the sales tax holidays are the politicians who get to act like they care about working families but don’t do any of the political heavy lifting real tax reform requires.”

Alabama offers a deduction for federal income taxes paid, at a cost of $516 million.
Arkansas offers a capital gains tax break that costs $53 million annually.
Florida offers a tax break on a particular kind of business income used by wealthy individuals that costs the state $1 billion a year..
Georgia allows a deduction for state personal income tax paid at a cost of $400 million a year.
Iowa offers the deduction for federal income tax paid at a cost of $642 Million.
Louisiana offers the federal personal income tax deduction at a cost to its treasury of $643 million a year.
Missouri allows the federal income tax deduction at a cost of $394 million.
New Mexico allows taxpayers a break on capital gains income at a cost of $48 million;
Oklahoma offers a deduction for state income tax paid at a cost of $100 million a year.
South Carolina allows a tax break on capital gains income which costs $115 million a year.
Tennessee’s estate tax repeal will cost $94 million a year in 2016 (after full phase in).

Even the other seven states that don’t have a gratuitous tax break for their wealthiest residents have overall tax systems that are regressive because they demand a much larger share from lower income households. “Governors who are serious about giving a break to working families in their states have sensible options for reforming their tax systems,” said Gardner. “None of them would break the bank but any of them, from the Earned Income Tax Credit to targeted sales tax credits, would make all the difference in a household budget.”

The number of states offering sales tax holidays is declining, and for good reasons. They are expensive and complicated to run for state revenue departments and for retailers. They exclude citizens who may need tax relief but have no back-to-school needs, such as seniors. They exclude consumers who lack the cash flow flexibility to time their shopping to a precise weekend. They also exclude retailers who sell products not on the somewhat arbitrary lists states devise. (E.G., New Mexico exempts prom dresses but not hair barrettes. Maryland exempts bridal veils but not tuxedos during its holiday, etc.)  ITEP’s two-page policy brief on sales tax holidays is at http://www.itep.org/pdf/pb17hol.pdf.

Founded in 1980, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization, based in Washington, DC, that focuses on federal and state tax policy. ITEP's mission is to inform policymakers and the public of the effects of current and proposed tax policies on tax fairness, government budgets, and sound economic policy. ITEP’s full body of research is available at www.itepnet.org.

North Carolina is home to one of the great examples of how economies flourish when government gets involved: the Research Triangle Park. It was developed in the 1950s by a public-private partnership, depended heavily on more than one governor’s leadership and on the proximity of three major research universities (two of which are public), and succeeded in fundraising after it was granted nonprofit status from the state. It was designed with the goal of helping North Carolina transition into the modern economy, and it worked.

But a candidate for governor named Pat McCrory wants to turn the state into a low-tax, low-service loser that could never undertake such a visionary project. While McCrory takes full credit for overseeing Charlotte’s economic boom while he ran that city as its Mayor, if he follows through on his anti-government campaign promises, North Carolina won’t have the resources to usher in the economic boom McCrory says he can deliver statewide.

McCrory has made cutting taxes the centerpiece of his campaign for governor. He has pledged to cut the corporate income tax, the individual income tax and the estate tax if elected. Sadly, yet predictably, this candidate has also refused to release any details about the structure of these proposals, including their bottom-line cost in terms of revenues. What we do know, though, is that he’d have a friendly audience in the state capital, where GOP leaders – who control the legislature – have already proposed the outright elimination of personal and corporate income taxes. 

As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has explained, corporate and personal income taxes are among the few tools state policymakers have for minimizing the stark regressivity of state tax systems, including North Carolina’s. An analysis (PDF) of all state and local taxes paid by Tar Heel State residents shows that the highest earners pay a far smaller portion of their income in taxes than do middle- and low-income families. McCrory’s proposed tax cuts would only exacerbate this gap. Indeed, the candidate has held up Tennessee and Florida as his models for state tax policy—two states that also happen to be among the five most regressive state tax systems in the country.

But McCrory doesn’t talk about tax fairness. Instead, he presents the party line and says tax cuts are a means to support North Carolina’s “economic development brand,” which he claims is diminished by high taxes.

Here are three reasons he is wrong.

One, while the state’s unemployment rate is stubbornly high (9.4 percent), the cause is the state’s dependence on waning manufacturing jobs, not its tax policy. The unemployment rate is just as high across the border in manufacturing-dependent South Carolina despite that state’s lower business and personal income tax rates. Two, as the News & Observer points out, North Carolina is already regarded as being very business-friendly in national surveys of executives and industrial recruiters. And three, as research from ITEP has shown, supply side arguments for cutting taxes to grow the economy simply do not hold up in the face of evidence.

Instead of making the state more enticing to business, McCrory’s race-to-the-bottom strategy on tax policy would threaten the public services that make the state so appealing. North Carolina’s public investments are already suffering from acute budget cuts. The legislature recently dealt a blow to the University of North Carolina system and the community college system, as well as to job recruitment and economic development programs. McCrory’s tax cuts would make additional cuts to such critical public programs all but inevitable, exacerbating the economic slump that is, of course, a nationwide phenomenon.

Any political candidate who’s serious about learning how taxes affect the economy should read ITEP’s Four Tax Ideas for Jobs-Focused Governors.  This short report explains that the way you make taxes support economic growth is not by cutting them, but rather by wisely deploying them as revenues in the public interest.

Cartoon by John Cole, NC Policy Watch

This year, 18 states will encourage consumers to buy back-to-school items tax free. These sales tax holidays get lots of promotion and lots of press, but the reality is that sales tax holidays are no kind of deal for most taxpayers. State tax systems are known for the way they demand more from lower income families, and a three-day break barely makes a dent in that.

The reality is that sales tax holidays offer too little relief to the families that need it most. They require that you do your shopping during a brief window of time, which requires a financial flexibility that more affluent families have but those on tight budgets often don’t. On the retailers' side, some stores have been shown to raise their prices during the tax holiday and others report it's no net gain for them since they end up selling products they would have sold some other weekend anyway.

Sales tax holidays are political side-shows that might distract taxpayers, but they don’t solve any problems. Responsible lawmakers should instead implement fundamental reforms.  For example, year-round sales tax credits that can be claimed on tax forms offer a stable, reliable and more substantial break for working families. States have multiple options (PDF) for using the tax code to genuinely help families make ends meet.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has updated its Sales Tax Holiday policy brief to coincide with the back-to-school shopping season. You can read it here.

To celebrate the five year anniversary of the first “Rich States, Poor States,” an Arthur Laffer/ALEC publication that ranks states based on how closely their tax and budget policies adhere to conservative economic principles, the Iowa Policy Project put it to the retrospect test and found it lacking.  They write, “The ALEC Outlook Ranking fails to predict economic performance. In fact, the less a state followed ALEC’s prescriptions, the better it did in terms of job growth, and the better it did on change in poverty rate and median income.”

New York just decided to throw even more taxpayer money at filmmakers, despite ample evidence that these giveaways don’t do much for long-term job growth or economic performance.

This Topeka Capital-Journal letter-to-the-editor from a registered Republican laments that the tax plan signed into law by Governor Brownback “will increase Kansas income tax on the poor and reduce taxes predominately for the wealthy.”

On Tuesday, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam told the House Judiciary Committee that states need to be able to collect sales taxes on internet purchases. He said plainly, “This discussion isn’t about raising taxes or adding new taxes.” Instead it’s about “collecting taxes already owed.” We couldn’t agree more.

Photo of Art Laffer via  Republican Conference Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

A new report about the long-term fiscal problems facing the states is making news, and for good reason. While much of the report focuses on spending-side issues that we’ll leave for others to address, one of the main findings of the State Budget Crisis Task Force is that state tax bases are narrow, shrinking, and increasingly inadequate.  That finding is largely spot-on, even if it’s not terribly surprising.  According to the report, the causes of this growing inadequacy are, in no particular order:

• Sales tax bases are shrinking as consumers spend more on personal services that, unlike tangible products, are not subject to sales taxes.

• States are often unable to enforce their sales taxes on online shopping—which is on track to account for ten percent of all purchases in the next few years.

• State corporate income taxes are declining due to a multitude of tax breaks given to business, and sophisticated tax avoidance strategies used by corporations.

• State gas taxes are being squeezed by rising construction costs and growing vehicle fuel-efficiency, due largely to a structure that has left rates stagnant for decades.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has an array of policy briefs and reports that elaborate on and confirm these findings, and that offer suggestions for reforming their tax systems.

One area where the Task Force seems to have strayed from its mission, however, was in devoting excessive attention to concerns over tax volatility.  The Task Force’s suggestion for dealing with volatile revenues is a good one (use rainy day funds (PDF) more responsibly).  But it misses the mark by failing to point out that more volatile taxes are often the best (PDF) at addressing the Task Force’s main concern—inadequate long-term revenue growth.

Volatility is an inevitable part of state tax systems that can be managed.  But anemic long-term revenue growth is a much more serious problem that can only be addressed with fundamental tax reforms designed to allow state tax systems to operate effectively in the 21st century economy.

• Louisiana is preparing to take a much closer look at the $4 billion it spends on special tax breaks each year, as the brand new Revenue Study Commission holds its first meeting this week.  The chairman of the state’s House tax-writing committee admits that “we don’t know” whether Louisiana’s tax breaks are working, even though “some of these things have been on the books for more than 80 years.”  Gov. Jindal may be the biggest obstacle to progress on this issue, as he’s said that eliminating an ineffective tax break is technically a “tax hike” that he would veto.
• An op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel highlights the problems with Florida’s tax system, and how to fix them: “Our tax structure is inadequate to our needs, poorly matched with today's economy and unfair to average Floridians and small business owners.”  Writing for the Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, the author urges closing corporate tax loopholes and other special interest tax breaks to begin addressing these problems.
• As we’ve pointed out before, most of Indiana gubernatorial candidate John Gregg’s tax ideas so far have been short-sighted and unaffordable.  But Gregg’s newest idea to create a child care tax credit is a good one, as has been recommended (PDF) by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).
• The Anniston Star Editorial Board has a numbers-heavy piece explaining the problems with the state’s tax system.  In a nutshell: “Alabama may be a low-tax state for people and businesses at the upper end of the income scale, but at the lower end, Alabama’s tax system adds to people’s misery.”  ITEP has found that Alabama has one of the ten most regressive state and local tax systems in the country.

In a little over a week, Georgia voters will decide whether to raise local sales taxes to better fund transportation.  The state’s business community supports the effort, but Jay Bookman at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reminds readers businesses are one reason the state’s transportation spending is 49^th in the nation. “In an effort to keep their own tax burdens as low as possible, Georgia business leaders have a long history of preaching that taxes are always destructive, government is always incompetent and untrustworthy and there is no problem that can’t be solved by cutting taxes even lower.”

Ohio Gov. John Kasich isn’t backing down from his plan to cut the state’s income tax, and pay for it with higher taxes on natural gas and oil.  All signs are that he’ll continue to push for that plan after the November election, but House Democratic Leader Armond Budish wants to go a different route, saying that: “Gov. Kasich’s proposal to modestly increase the severance tax on oil and gas companies is a step in the right direction … But we should be protecting local property taxpayers and prioritizing our communities, not passing more tax cuts that disproportionately benefit wealthy Ohioans.”

The Wall Street Journal writes about the trend toward more Republican governors embracing the enforcement of sales taxes on online purchases.  The trend has been so pronounced that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) says the federal government will enact legislation granting states sales tax enforcement powers “if not this year, then definitely by next year.”

Arizona voters may have a chance to vote on extending the temporary sales tax increase they approved in May 2010.  The Arizona Secretary of State initially blocked the measure from appearing on the ballot for technical reasons, but a Superior Court judge rejected that move, saying that 290,000 voter signatures should not be thrown out because of what amounts to “a photocopy error.”  It remains to be seen whether that decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

The Michigan government is facing an unprecedented lawsuit charging that some of its public schools are inadequate to the point that they violate state law.  You might think this would make lawmakers revisit the wisdom of their tax-cutting compulsion, but you would be wrong.

Last year, anti-tax lawmakers’ crowning achievement in the Great Lakes State was to slash business income taxes by some $1.6 billion, or 83 percent.  Some of that cut was funded with cuts in state services, though most of it was paid for with personal income tax hikes (PDF) on the state’s elderly and poor.  Some lawmakers viewed those personal income tax hikes as a political liability, however, so Gov. Snyder went ahead and signed a token tax cut, worth an average of ten dollars per taxpayer per year, conveniently designed to take effect about one month before voters head to the polls in November.

But more troubling than this political gamesmanship is a pair of larger tax cuts that lawmakers may try to enact this fall after returning from recess.

In May, the state Senate passed a bill, after many months of negotiations, that repeals the tax businesses pay on industrial and commercial personal property (equipment, furniture, and other items used for business purposes).  The Detroit Free Press said that “there’s general agreement across party lines and all levels of government” that the tax is bad for business and should be repealed, and noted that the House may follow the Senate in doing so this fall.

There is also consensus, however, that since the overwhelming majority of revenue generated by the business personal property tax flows to local governments, localities can’t absorb a cut that severe.  But while the state seems likely to make up part of the difference, there are also serious doubts regarding how much of the lost revenue the state can actually afford to replace, and whether that replacement revenue will dry up the next time the state’s budget is battered by a national recession.

But property tax cuts for businesses aren’t the only pricey tax cut on the legislature’s list. Last month, the House overwhelmingly voted to slash the state’s personal income tax rate, at a cost of $800 million per year by 2018.  The bill’s sponsor promises that revenue growth resulting from the cut will be so strong that it will “not lead to program cuts or shifted funds.” Forgive us if we’re skeptical of that claim.

Finally, to top things off, reversing these tax cuts if they prove destructive and unaffordable could soon become a lot harder.  That’s because the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity-Michigan has just submitted the signatures needed to put a measure on the ballot amending the state’s constitution to require a supermajority vote of the legislature to raise taxes. Just so we’re clear, supermajority requirements are one of the worst tax ideas of all time.  The Michigan League for Human Services explains the problems with the supermajority proposal in this report (PDF), including how it could entrench special interest tax breaks, damage the state’s credit rating, and pressure local governments to the point of breaking when state funds run short.

• Figures from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) are cited in this editorial explaining why making Kansas’ tax structure more like Texas’ is public policy at its worst.
• Dan Carpenter’s column in the Indianapolis Star explains who’s hurt by an Indiana law set to issue $300 million in automatic tax breaks as a result of the state’s allegedly rosy budget situation.  Taxpayers might be happy at first to see an extra $100 or $200 in their bank accounts, but at what cost?
• PolitiFact Oregon confirms what advocates long argued: special tax breaks are on autopilot and growing fast, while education and other services suffer as a result.
• North Carolina GOP gubernatorial candidate (and likely next Tarheel State governor) Pat McCrory is making big promises to cut taxes if elected.  What’s in his plan?  Cutting personal income taxes, lowering the state’s corporate income tax rate, and eliminating the state’s estate tax.  Sound familiar?
• Looking who’s playing politics now in New Jersey.  Just days after Governor Chris Christie chided Democrats for holding up his tax cut proposal for political reasons, the state’s Republican Party aired its second radio ad attacking Democrats.  From the ad: “Sadly, it’s the same old story from the Legislature.  Billions for special interest spending.  Not a dollar for tax cuts for New Jersey families.”
• A new budget and tax policy primer from the Open Sky Policy Institute offers a great overview of how Nebraska collects and spends public funds.  One of many important facts: Nebraska actually spends more on special tax breaks than it does on all General Fund appropriations combined.

Many residents of Washington, D.C. have found a good restaurant or shopping deal through an online facilitator like LivingSocial. These websites work by putting consumers in touch with local retailers looking to entice new customers with appealing discounts. But recent action from the D.C. Council could reverse the script, leaving the city’s citizens on the hook for a misguided and revenue-draining attempt at capturing high-tech businesses. After passing a sweet tax deal for one company, the Council is now considering slashing income taxes for just about anyone affiliated with a high-tech company at the expense of the working taxpayers of D.C.

The first tech-tax action taken by the D.C. Council was ensuring that LivingSocial, a high-tech company founded in D.C., remained within the city limits. While the leadership of LivingSocial have long trumpeted their D.C. roots—the chief executive, Tim O’Shaunghnessy, is the son-in-law of Washington Post Co. Chairman Donald E. Graham—they have also made no secret about the organization’s consideration (or threat) of leaving the city for a less “expensive” location. “We’ll make a commitment to the District if the District will make a commitment to us,” O’Shaunghnessy told the Washington Post.

This past week the city government solidified that commitment with LivingSocial in a deal that is far sweeter than anything LivingSocial offers its members. On July 10, the D.C. Council unanimously approved an agreement that keeps the fledgling company’s headquarters (and at least half of its new hires place of residence) within the District’s lines in exchange for a $32.5 million tax break. The deal provides LivingSocial with corporate and property tax abatements over a five-year period beginning in 2015.

What’s more troubling for the city and its residents, however, is a separate proposal to give away tax dollars to investors in online companies. The Technology Sector Enhancement Act of 2012 would allow so-called “angel investors” (qualified employees or stockholders in a qualifying tech company) to only pay a 3 percent tax rate when selling their stake in the company for a profit. Both new and preexisting investments would be covered by the new rate. Additionally, the bill exempts qualified companies from business franchise taxes for five years after the date the company first has taxable income.

Under D.C.’s current tax system, capital gains are taxed like any other income, with the maximum marginal tax rate at 8.95 percent. In fact, the special tax rate (3 percent) for tech investors would be even lower than the lowest income tax rate (4 percent) paid by working D.C. residents. As the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute has explained, the city would be creating a “Warren Buffett problem” by taxing high-income tech investors at far lower rates than all working D.C. residents. 

Moreover, as the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has previously noted (PDF), capital gains are among “the most unequally distributed sources of personal income.” By giving special treatment to such income, governments shift the responsibility for funding government services more heavily onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers.

In addition, the tax giveaway to high-income taxpayers could also be a huge drain on the city’s already stretched-thin budget. A financial impact statement from the city’s Chief Financial Officer notes that such tax cuts will reduce both corporate franchise and capital gains tax collections and that the negative impact “could be substantial.” Unfortunately, the cost of this legislation has not been projected in any detail. The financial impact study merely states that the revenue losses “cannot be reliably estimated at this time.” But the report does explicitly note that if a company were to have a successful IPO “the revenue losses could be significant.”

Such substantial revenue reductions have dire consequences for public investments. And as is often explained (though frequently forgotten), it is those public investments—an educated workforce, first-rate transportation infrastructure and quality health care—that are far more likely than tax incentives to attract high-value-added industries to cities and states.

The D.C. Council was set to vote on the tech tax cut the same day as the LivingSocial deal, but lobbying from anti-poverty groups in opposition to the legislation resulted in the vote being tabled until September. Let’s hope that in the meantime the Council puts some more thought into whether tax breaks for some of the District’s most fortunate residents should really be a top budgetary priority.

As the nation’s governors gather in Williamsburg, Virginia this week, their focus is on their Chairman’s initiative, Growing State Economies.  Too often, however, a governor’s knee-jerk response to a lagging economy is to start cutting taxes, even though state tax cuts offer very little economic bang-for-the-buck.  But while tax cuts aren’t the economic panacea that is often claimed, there are ways in which governors can reform their states’ tax codes to pave the way for improved economic success.

A new report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) identifies governors who get it right and governors who get it wrong, and outlines four commonsense options designed to create infrastructure jobs, boost consumer demand, improve business efficiency, and offer local retailers a more level playing field.

 Read the report.

The National Governors Association is meeting this week and our clickable yearbook of 22 governors is assigning honors to some and detention to others for the tax policies they pushed in 2011 and 2012.

(Single Infographic Version)

	Jan Brewer (R-AZ)	Jerry Brown (D-CA)	Sam Brownback (R-KS)
	Most Likely to Side with Wealthy Investors	Best at Playing a Bad Political Hand	Most Likely to Bankrupt His State
	Lincoln Chafee (I-RI)	Chris Christie (R-NJ)	Andrew Cuomo (D-NY)
	A+ For Effort at Sales Tax Reform	Fiscal Drama Queen	Best Reversal on Millionaires Tax
	Mark Dayton (D-MN)	Mary Fallin (R-OK)	John Kasich (R-OH)
	Most Willing to Stand Up to Legislature	Biggest Loser at Cutting Income Taxes	Fracking Tax Squanderer
	Paul LePage (R-ME)	John Lynch (D-NH)	Dan Malloy (D-CT)
	Reverse Robin Hood Award	Smartest Veto of the Year	Most Likely to Make Rich to Pay Fair Share
	Martin O’Malley (D-MD)	Butch Otter (R-ID)	Deval Patrick (D-MA)
	Defender of Public Services	Champion of the “1%”	Mr. Popular Gimmickry
	Beverly Perdue (D-NC)	Rick Perry (R-TX)	Pat Quinn (D-IL)
	Most Likely to Gamble with State’s Future	Grover Copy Cat Award	Least Likely to Prioritize Seniors
	Brian Sandoval (R-NV)	Rick Scott (R-FL)	Rick Snyder (R-MI)
	Most Likely to Defy Grover’s Tax Pledge	Corporate Tax Giveaway King	Biggest Tax Hiker on the Poor and Elderly
	Scott Walker (R-WI)
	Biggest Bully

The Orlando Sentinel’s editorial board explains the “slow-motion disaster” that is Florida’s tax system, cataloging the lack of sales taxes on services (PDF) and online shopping taxes (PDF), and gasoline tax shortfalls (PDF), among others.

Special tax breaks for businesses frequently reward behavior that would have occurred anyway.  The most recent examples come from Florida, where Publix, CSX, TECO Energy, NextEra Energy, and Mosaic Co. are seeking millions in tax breaks for capital spending they were already planning to undertake.

Online shopping in the DC-Metro area is about to become more expensive, according to this Washington Post article.  Here’s why that’s a good thing for tax fairness, the Marketplace Fairness Act and state coffers.

Advocates for increasing the Arkansas severance tax rate on natural gas from 5 to 7 percent and eliminating exemptions turned in nearly 70,000 signatures on Friday. If the Secretary of State verifies enough signatures, the long overdue rate increase worth $250 million in annual revenues will be put on the November ballot. 

Check out New Jersey Governor’s Chris Christie talk at the Brookings Institution today on “Restoring Fiscal Integrity and Accountability”.  Christie used the first several minutes to give his view on the current tax cut standoff in the Garden State, claiming Democrats were playing politics by holding up his tax cut proposal (when in fact what they’re doing is the right thing).

Good news: Wisconsin appears to be  gearing up for serious income tax reform. Bad news: the legislator heading up the effort is a flat tax proponent.

Illinois Governor Quinn began the legislative session in February proposing a variety of loopholes be closed, but the budget he signed on June 30 didn’t close those loopholes.

Think state budgets don’t have an impact on what services localities can provide? Read this article about eight South Carolina school districts facing cuts.

Millionaires don’t flee taxes. With help from ITEP, the millionaire migration myth takes a hit in this Baltimore Sun letter to the editor.

Illinois’ pension system is in crisis.  This insightful column by the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability’s Ralph Martire argues that the state’s tax policy is at least partially to blame:  “For decades, Illinois’ antiquated, poorly designed tax policy created an ongoing structural deficit.”

Seems New Jersey Governor Chris Christie will do or say just about anything to deliver on his reckless promise to cut personal income taxes.  His latest strategy is grandstanding in a very public spotlight (he’s enjoying all sorts of media appearances this week and more speculation of a VP nod) in an effort to get his way, and get it now, at the expense of the poorest New Jerseyans.

Here’s a sketch of how the New Jersey tax cut debate drama has played out in recent months:

Despite early and legitimate criticism from some lawmakers that Christie’s budget depends on overly optimistic revenue projections, and despite legitimate concerns that the state cannot afford any tax cut this year, the Assembly and Senate both got on board with the tax-cutting governor. Specifically, each chamber offered up plans to cut property taxes for households with incomes under $250,000, and the Assembly included a millionaire’s tax to help fund their more generous property tax credit program.

At first, Governor Christie dismissed these alternative proposals (particularly the common sense and highly popular millionaire’s tax component, saying he’d rather “rearrange his sock drawer” than talk about it).  But eventually he embraced the Senate version (which at this point had become his best chance to claim some victory on tax cuts) and struck a tentative compromise in May to deliver property tax cuts to households with incomes below $400,000.

Once again, though, revenue reality got in Christie’s way. Days later, the nonpartisan New Jersey Office of Legislative Services (OLS) estimated that New Jersey revenues would come in $1.3 billion behind the governor’s projections.  This revelation gave Senate and Assembly Democrats pause and left many unsure, again, about supporting any tax cuts. Stories in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal  explain Democrats’ concerns: Christie is banking on revenues to increase by 7.3 percent next year, yet average state revenue growth nationwide is only 4.1 percent, and, the Garden State’s current year revenues continue to lag.

Due to these concerns, the Senate and Assembly went around the Senate leader’s deal with the Governor and sent Christie a  budget with a $183 million earmark for a tax cut, contingent on the state meeting revenue projections later in the year.  The budget also includes restoring the state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a tax break (PDF) for low- and moderate-income working families, from 20 back to 25 percent of the federal credit.

Governor Christie bristled at this (very sensible) plan. He vetoed the EITC increase and called lawmakers back to Trenton the week of July 4 and presented his so-called compromise – give him his expensive tax cut and he’ll give back a modest tax credit for the working poor.

In a smart and comprehensive editorial on Christie’s latest demands, the Newark Star-Ledger wrote:

He is holding the working poor families of this state hostage by refusing to restore the tax credit he took away from them two years ago unless Democrats yield.

The credit is worth about $50 million a year, a pittance in a budget of nearly $32 billion. But for a single mom with a few kids and a job working as a cashier, the state credit is worth about $500 a year. Combined with a federal credit five times that large, it makes a meaningful difference…

He will restore the credit, he says, only if Democrats agree to take the blind leap and commit to his larger tax cut now, before the revenue numbers come in. Be reckless, he says, or he will shoot the hostages.

His predictions for revenue growth are the most optimistic in the nation, despite the fact the state economy is lagging behind other states. No one but his own obedient Department of Treasury believes this nonsense, including the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services and the Wall Street bond rating agencies.

So why not wait and see? If the tax cut isn’t scheduled to take effect until 2013 anyway, what does that simple prudence cost?

Just one thing: It would deny Christie a political win in advance of the party convention in August…. Christie scores a few political points. And the working poor absorbed one more of his blows.

The experts at New Jersey Policy Perspective also endorse patience and explain that the state is already moving money around and deficit-spending to make the already frayed ends meet.  They conclude that when the numbers are finally in, lawmakers should have a serious debate on the crucial question of whether any tax cuts should be enacted or whether the state should “invest the $1.5 billion to put New Jersey back on the path to good jobs, long-term economic growth, and middle-class tax relief.”

This is the kind of grown-up thinking New Jersey needs. But until and unless Chris Christie gets over his ideological commitment to slashing taxes and his personal commitment to climbing the political ladder, his constituents are in for a lot more theater and a lot less fiscal sanity.

Interested in knowing how much it costs to fund (or not) local firework shows this 4^th of July? Read this.

Meantime, 46 states now allow sales of high powered consumer fireworks rather than lose the revenues to other states – but often turn around and ban their use because of the fire hazard in dry July.

On Sunday, Texas started collecting state and local sales taxes on items purchased from Amazon.com – and the sky didn’t fall. Read why (PDF) items purchased online should be taxed.

Forbes’ estate tax expert cited the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy’s (ITEP) work discrediting claims that eliminating Tennessee’s gift and estate taxes (as Arthur Laffer advises) will lead to robust economic growth.

An exposé on Louisiana’s budget busting “alternative” fuels tax credit shows it (predictably) helped pay for plain old gasoline in flex fuel cars, too.

While Kansas recently repealed its only form of grocery tax relief (a credit for low-income families), West Virginia is moving in the opposite direction.  That state’s sales tax rate on groceries will drop by one percentage point starting on July 1 this year, and be repealed entirely midway through next year.

West Virginia revenue officials aren’t too enamored with any suggestion to increase the state’s already generous property tax breaks for senior citizens.  Using a $300,000 home as an example, the state’s deputy secretary of revenue explained how under today’s rules, a homeowner under 65 would pay $2,334 on that house while a homeowner over age 65 using the credit could pay as little as $764. Moreover, with the state’s eligible senior population expected to grow by 37 percent over the next decade, the cost of any tax breaks for older West Virginians is going to grow dramatically.

After much debate, South Carolina lawmakers appear to have come to an agreement on a regressive tax change that allows “pass-through” business income (which tends to go mainly to wealthy individuals rather than businesses) to be taxed at three percent instead of the five percent currently levied.

After the legislature overrode Governor John Lynch’s veto, New Hampshire became the latest state to adopt neo-vouchers: tax credits for corporations who contribute money to private school scholarship funds which end up diverting taxpayer dollars into corporate coffers.  In his veto message, the Governor wrote: "I believe that any tax credit program enacted by the Legislature must not weaken our public school system in New Hampshire, downshift additional costs on local communities or taxpayers, or allow private companies to determine where public school money will be spent.”

Tax experts asked by the Associated Press couldn’t find anything nice to say about Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s proposed $1.7 billion tax break for Shell Chemicals – the largest-ever financial incentive offered by the state – for the company to build an oil refinery. David Brunori from George Washington University said, “There's absolutely nothing good about what the governor is proposing" and a libertarian policy expert pointed out that government shouldn’t be covering the cost of risk for businesses through tax subsidies.

Politifact highlights an increasingly common complication for those who sign Grover Norquist’s “no tax” pledge.  On July 31, Georgia voters will decide on a referendum to increase the sales tax to fund transportation, a measure that’s backed by Republican Governor Nathan Deal.  But having signed Norquist’s no-new-taxes pledge, the Governor is struggling to justify supporting a “new tax” that he believes will benefit his state’s economy.

More evidence that Wisconsin’s tax structure is unfair: two of the state’s billionaires paid no state income taxes in 2010.

Here’s a compelling read by former Congressman Berkley Bedell of Iowa, championing the “ability to pay” principle of taxation that he says accounts for the Great Prosperity period in post-war America.

An investigative series in the Toledo Blade reveals the Ohio Finance Agency isn’t properly overseeing the state’s low-income housing tax credit program.  Many of the beneficiaries of the credits are “large corporations such as banks, insurance companies, and tech firms [that] receive tax breaks even as the low-income rental homes for which they received the credits fall apart.”

Months after cutting the state income tax for wealthy taxpayers, Idaho’s budget situation isn’t looking good.  The Associated Press reports that “earlier this year it looked like the state had sufficient revenue to provide a $36 million tax cut, as well as give state employees a 2 percent raise” but that surplus has already evaporated. In fact, there was never real consensus about the state’s revenue projections in the first place.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback admits his radical tax cut package is a “real live experiment.”

The South Carolina House approved a measure to keep the state running if it doesn’t have a budget by July 1 when the new fiscal year begins.  The Senate and House are currently bickering over how to implement a (regressive) tax cut for so-called "small" business owners.

It’s back! New Jersey Assembly Democrats are once again planning to introduce a millionaire’s tax into the budget debate.  Proponents of the tax on the wealthiest New Jerseyans want to use the $800 million in revenue it would raise to boost funding to the state’s current property tax credit program for low and middle-income homeowners and renters.  Governor Chris Christie has already vetoed a millionaire’s tax twice. 

The clever folks at Together NC, a coalition of more than 120 organizations in North Carolina, held a Backwards Budget 5K race this week to “to shine a spotlight on the legislature’s backwards approach to the state budget.” 

California Governor Jerry Brown’s revenue raising initiative (which temporarily raises income taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents and increases the sales tax ¼ cent) has officially qualified for the state’s November ballot. Two additional tax measures will join Brown’s plan on the ballot: a rival income tax measure pushed by a billionaire lawyer to fund education and early childhood programs; and an initiative to increase business income tax revenues by implementing a mandatory single-sales factor (PDF backgrounder) formula.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorializes in favor of capping Pennsylvania’s “vendor discount,” a program (PDF) that allows retailers to legally pocket a portion of the sales taxes they collect in order to offset the costs associated with collecting the tax.  The Gazette explains that a handful of big companies are taking in over $1 million per year thanks to this “antiquated” giveaway.  Computerized bookkeeping takes the effort out of tax collecting and a cap would only impact the national chain stores who disproportionately benefit from the program.

A new report from the National Governors Association (NGA) and National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) explains that an uptick in revenues from modest economic growth is not enough to undo the damage from years of cuts to state governments during the recent economic downturn when revenues were underperforming.  According to NASBO, while state revenues are returning to pre-recession levels, spending is not, largely because lawmakers are being conservative – replenishing rainy day funds, for example – rather than restoring revenues to agencies that have been under-serving citizens for years.

Warnings of structural deficits at the state level predate the Great Recession. (See this PDF from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities for an excellent overview.) They result from states failing to change their tax systems in a changing world – new kinds of economic activity, shifting demographics and a virtual epidemic of corporate and personal income tax cutting has left states congenitally unable to maintain the revenues they need when they need them.

And right now, with the cost of education and health care (the two biggest chunks of total state spending) growing faster than the economy and taking an ever growing bite out of budgets, states are facing a genuine crisis. In fact, the NGA/NASBO report notes that state spending on Medicaid continues to outpace all other spending and is projected to increase annually by 8.1 percent over the next 10 years.

As NGA Executive Director Dan Crippen explained to the Washington Post, this growth in expenditures without an injection of sufficient revenues means government leaders will have to choose which public services (schools, roads, police, etc.) get adequately funded, and which don’t. Again. And not only state programs: locally provided services that rely on state aid that have already seen devastating cuts in the past few years because of squeezed state budgets will continue to atrophy, too.

If state governments are to continue providing even just the same level of services to their citizens, they must modernize their revenue systems—and soon. As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) detailed in a 2011 report, state governments can and should make systemic changes such as expanding the state sales tax base to include services, eliminating tax loopholes (like those for capital gains) and ending corporate tax breaks that allow corporations to dodge taxes with accounting tricks.

States that continue to duck the issue and craft tax policy with short-term tweaks, political games and downright backward fixes will soon find that they are unable to fully fund basic services—even if an economic recovery improves revenues — and will be forced to cut more deeply into basic services, like keeping water clean and the courthouse staffed.

So the real news in this fiscal survey is actually an old story: without serious, substantial and responsible tax reform, revenues cannot keep pace with the needs of modern government.

Image from NGA report charts.

New Analysis Finds GOP Approach to Bush Tax Cuts would Give Richest One Percent of Americans $50,660 Per Year More and Give Poorest 20 Percent $150 Less on Average than Obama’s Approach

Citizens for Tax Justice Compares the Two Approaches to Extending Some or All of the Bush Tax Cuts, Nationally and State-by-State

Washington, DC – Middle-income and low-income Americans would pay somewhat more in taxes under the Congressional Republicans’ approach to extending the Bush tax cuts than they would under President Obama’s approach, while high-income Americans would pay far less under the Republican approach, according to a new analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) and Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ).

Under the President’s approach, in 2013, the poorest 20 percent of Americans would receive an average tax cut of $270 while the richest one percent would get an average tax cut of $20,130.  Under the Congressional Republicans’ approach, the poorest 20 percent of Americans would receive an average tax cut of $120 while the richest one percent would receive an average cut of $70,790.

The Bush tax cuts extension outlined by the President would cost one trillion dollars less over 10 years than would making all the Bush tax cuts permanent, as the GOP proposes.

“Both President Obama and Congressional Republicans have proposed to extend far too many of these unaffordable tax cuts,” said Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice.  “But if we have to choose between the Congressional Republicans’ and President Obama’s approach, the President’s proposal is fairer and more responsible.”

The national and state reports are all available at: www.ctj.org/bushtaxcuts2012.php.

The term “Bush tax cuts” refers to income tax cuts and estate tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 and extended several times since then.  In 2009, President Obama expanded some parts of these tax cuts that benefit low income and working families.  In December of 2010, the President and Congress agreed to extend all of these tax cuts through the end of 2012.

Republicans in Congress have indicated that they would extend all of the tax cuts first enacted in 2001 and 2003, but not the 2009 expansions for lower income families. President Obama wants to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts only for the first $250,000 a married couple makes annually, or the first $200,000 a single person makes. Obama also wants to extend the 2009 expansions.

The findings from CTJ and ITEP also show:

• Of the tax cuts going to Americans, under Obama’s approach, three percent would go to the poorest 20 percent of Americans, 9.9 percent would go to the middle 20 percent and 11.4 percent would go to the richest one percent.

• Of the tax cuts going to Americans, under the Congressional Republicans’ approach, one percent would go to the poorest 20 percent of Americans, 7.4 percent would go to the middle 20 percent of Americans and 31.8 percent would go to the richest one percent of Americans.

CTJ and ITEP are also releasing state-specific versions of this report showing the specific distribution of the benefits, and amounts of tax cuts, from each approach in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.  All the reports are at www.ctj.org/bushtaxcuts2012.php.

The report also addresses the economic effects of tax cuts versus direct government spending and cites Moody Analytics research concluding that government spending is more stimulative by a factor of five or more than tax cuts.

#####

 Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ), founded in 1979, is a 501 (c)(4) public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation ( www.ctj.org).

Founded in 1980, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan research organization, based in Washington, DC, that focuses on federal and state tax policy. ITEP's mission is to inform policymakers and the public of the effects of current and proposed tax policies on tax fairness, government budgets, and sound economic policy (www.itepnet.org).

• The Detroit News’ editorial board recently criticized a plan to cut Michigan’s personal income tax rates which, despite its hefty $800 million price tag, managed to pass the state’s House.  The editors called it risky election year pandering.

• Oregon is launching a pilot program to figure out how road and bridge repairs will be funded when cars no longer run on gasoline and drivers no longer pay the gas tax.  One possible solution is a tax directly on miles traveled rather than gallons consumed, but the last time the state tested that out, it “didn’t sit well with the public” because the GPS-like technology made people worry the government would be spying on them.

• Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee signed a state budget that includes a small foray into sales tax base expansion.  Starting July 1, taxi and limo rides and pet grooming services will be subject to the state’s seven percent sales tax rate, as will clothing and shoes costing more than $250.

• The Associated Press offers a smart analysis of tensions within state Republican parties and their impact on a variety of state legislative activities, including tax policy debates. Written by a senior AP reporter in Missouri, it reveals (among other things) that moderate Republicans played a role in thwarting some of the more conservative members’ plans.

New Jersey and Ohio don’t have much in common when it comes to their gambling industries.  New Jersey’s Atlantic City is home to a dozen different casinos, the oldest of which has been in operation for over three decades.  Ohio, on the other hand, only legalized casino gambling in 2009, and its first two casinos opened barely a month ago.

But despite their differing backgrounds, all signs from both states are pointing to the same thing: legalized gambling isn’t the revenue miracle that lawmakers often promise.

In New Jersey, a brand new mega-casino called Revel is already a disappointment.  Even with the opening of Revel’s 2,500 slot machines, 120 table games, 1,800 rooms, and 14 restaurants, Atlantic City’s gambling revenues are down nearly 10 percent overall compared to a year ago.

And the explanation from gambling industry analysts (and anyone else who’s been paying attention)? Market saturation. With casinos popping up across the country, gamblers no longer need to travel to distant gambling destinations, and states that rely on casino revenue are increasingly raising that money from their own residents rather than pulling in the coveted out-of-state dollar.

In Ohio, meanwhile, recent reports indicate that the state’s new casinos will cut deeply into the casino revenues in Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.  Even so, a recent survey by the Cincinnati Enquirer found little optimism among Ohio’s local governments when it comes to the gambling revenues they expect to collect. “Everybody thinks it’s going to fix the world, and it isn’t … I have a hard time believing we have so many people around there that have this kind of money to throw into casinos,” says one county official. According to another, “This is all a big shell game … We’re not really getting anything. All the new money we’re getting is going to be offset by cuts in [state aid].” And in Ohio, the state cuts to cities and counties continue to mount.

For more on the empty promise of gambling revenue, read this policy brief (PDF) from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).

• Last night’s Washington Gubernatorial debate did not answer the call  to shift their focus to the state’s broken revenue system.  Instead, the Republican candidate, Attorney General Rob McKenna said that the Democrats “just keep insisting we need higher taxes.”  Whoever wins, they will have to contend with the fact that Washington State has the most regressive tax structure in the nation.

• Last week we reported on public scrutiny of a $336 million “small business” tax break in North Carolina that is, in fact, going to benefit some of the state’s wealthiest individuals. Yesterday, Senate Republicans - torn between public outrage and affluent constituents - successfully wiggled out from under having to vote on a measure to modify it so it targets truly small businesses, as intended.  

• New Hampshire voters will go to the polls in November to decide whether the state’s lack of a personal income tax should be enshrined in the constitution. In better news, the state’s lawmakers heeded the advice of the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute and defeated a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority to pass any tax or fee increase.

• Here’s an interesting read on the economic development impact of the arts. A new study contends that not only do the arts make Nebraska (for example) a better place to live, but they also contribute to state and local coffers to the tune of $18 million. For more on the impact of the arts in other states check out the study, Arts & Economic Prosperity IV.

 

North Dakota voters hit the polls yesterday and overwhelmingly (76 percent) said No to Measure 2, a proposal to eliminate -- and constitutionally ban into perpetuity -- their property taxes.

Among those against the measure, the state’s tax commissioner opposed it on the grounds it was fiscally unsustainable, and the state’s League of Cities opposed it for undermining local control over revenues and budgets.

Spearheading the measure was a group called Empower the Taxpayer, ET for short.  Proponents regularly cited North Dakota’s recent energy boom and the surplus of oil revenue it has created as one reason the state could afford to get rid of such a reliable revenue source – which constitutes roughly a quarter of all state revenues.  We note, however, that ET’s director said, “We started this movement before the oil boom…. This isn’t about being flush with oil money.”  

It is true that, thanks in large part to the state’s energy boom, North Dakota was the only state to weather the economic recession without taking a hit to its revenues.  But the oil and gas making the state rich today will run out one day, and banning property taxes would have undoubtedly made North Dakota more vulnerable when that happens, leaving the state unable to fund even the most basic level of services in future “bust” years.  In the end, voters recognized it was unwise to permanently eliminate a relatively stable revenue source in favor of a highly volatile and unsustainable one.

The North Dakota property tax repeal failure is the latest in a line of unsuccessful attempts this year to repeal, reduce or phase out major state taxes.  Its advocates have vowed to fight another day but for now, it goes to show that just as Americans want federal taxes to support government services, they also value strong schools, safe communities, accessible health care, and well maintained roads over tax cuts in the states they call home.

Photo of North Dakota Oil Field via Porchlife Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

• North Dakotans go to the ballot box today to decide the fate of their state’s property tax.  If it passes, it won’t be good news. Stay tuned.

• It looks like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has agreed to abandon his tax cut plan (which cut income taxes and favored the wealthy) in support of a Senate alternative (which limits property tax credits to homeowners and renters with incomes under $250,000).  Still, some Senators are saying any tax cut at this time is “insanity” and will attempt to stop the compromise.

• Voodoo economics is alive and well in Tennessee.  Gov. Haslam continues to insist  that the state’s recent phase out of the inheritance tax is actually going to increase tax revenue for the state, citing  research from Arthur Laffer – that has been thoroughly debunked by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) and seriously questioned by other researchers.

• ITEP responds to an unusually biased opinion piece and sets the record straight about the Illinois and California tax systems . See ITEP’s letter in the Chicago Tribune.

• Cutting taxes has consequences.  When Ohio’s estate tax expires, local governments will be forced to make up the $6.1 million annual difference.  One local government official said, “Losing the estate tax is basically a police car” for his town.

Political gamesmanship is on full display in the tax policy debates happening in Michigan.  Last Wednesday, the state House passed a tiny, temporary income tax cut that would kick in a month before voters head to the polls in November.  This after paying for a $1.6 billion business tax cut last year with a $1.4 billion individual tax hike which falls most heavily (PDF) on Michigan’s poorest taxpayers.

Do Lansing politicians really think that temporarily cutting the state’s flat tax rate a fraction, from 4.35 to 4.32 percent, is going to make voters forget their recklessness? Here’s how the Associated Press is reporting on the plan:

A few dollars in savings doesn’t make a big difference for Mark Lankin, a machine operator who lives in the Detroit suburb of Ferndale. He said he’d rather see more money go to fixing roads.  “I don’t think a lot of normal people would miss $10 … if that money could go to something more useful,’’ said Lankin, 53, who described himself as politically independent. “If you didn’t have it in your hands, it really wouldn’t matter.’’

The token tax cut was also panned in a Detroit Free Press editorial:

“Some people have more money under their couch cushions than the amount the Legislature intends to give back to Michigan taxpayers this year…. The point is that a $103-million tax cut, which might allow an individual taxpayer to buy an extra can of name-brand soup every other week, is a decent chunk of change when it's aggregated and put to work for everyone in Michigan.

They’re right. An analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) showed that a family of four earning $25,000, for example, would see just three percent of last year’s tax hike offset by this election year stunt.  But if used in a more thoughtful way, that money could do a lot of good, as the Detroit Free Press’ impressive list of alternatives showed.

All this criticism apparently got to House lawmakers, but rather than drop the tax cutting charade, they decided to up the ante.  On Thursday, they proposed a much more expensive proposal that would drop the state’s flat income tax rate to 3.9 percent.  Unlike their previous plan, it certainly can’t be accused of being “token” relief, but that doesn’t make it good policy.  And lest anyone think they were serious policy makers, these legislators even designed the cut to phase in slowly, so they wouldn’t face any tough decisions about what public services to eviscerate in order to pay for it.

ITEP will soon complete a full analysis of this newest plan, but two things are already clear.  First, Michigan can’t afford to pile a personal income tax cut on top of the massive business tax cuts enacted last year unless the corporate income tax is increased.  And second, if lawmakers do insist on providing individual tax relief, there are much fairer and more affordable options for doing so, like boosting the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), as recommended by the Michigan League for Human Services.

Massachusetts taxpayers now have a better idea of where $171 million of their tax dollars are going.  Thanks to legislation enacted in 2010, the state’s Department of Revenue just issued its first-ever report identifying recipients of so-called economic development tax credits.  The biggest winner in 2011 was Columbia Pictures, which received $11.6 million Bay State tax dollars for a movie that, ironically, depicts a teacher trying to raise money for his under-funded public school.

Then there’s the fraudulent use of film tax credits, which is a whole other thing!

Revenue to fund bridge repairs is falling short in Oklahoma, so Governor Mary Fallin signed a bill this week that takes money away from education and other general fund services to cover the costs.  The move follows similar actions taken last year in Nebraska, Utah and Wisconsin (and almost in Virginia).  Oklahoma has gone 25 years without raising its gas tax—the state’s traditional source of transportation revenue.  That’s longer than any state except Alaska.

Calling all Kentuckians! Here’s a chance to make your pitch for tax fairness to the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission, which holds public hearings through the summer.

Late in North Carolina’s legislative session last summer, lawmakers quietly passed a $336 million tax cut – one of the largest tax cuts the state has seen in the past decade.  Originally intended to target “small businesses” – defined as those with less than $850,000 in annual revenue – the final legislation removed the cap and exempted the first $50,000 of pass-through income for any size pass-through business. That’s a roughly $3,500 tax break that is now available to law firm partners, doctors, dentists, and in some cases the same lawmakers who passed the legislation.

An article in the Raleigh News and Observer this week finally shone some light on this expensive and ill-targeted tax break, and illustrates the provision’s effect with examples like this:

"…lawyers who are equity partners at Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, the state’s largest law firm, will each receive that tax break for income they earned in North Carolina. The Winston-Salem based firm brought in $279 million in 2011, and generated profits equal to $590,000 per partner, according to The American Lawyer, a trade publication.”

That is, because it’s a structured as a pass-through firm, the partners report its profits and pay its taxes. The proponents of the tax cut argue (as usual) that it will spur private-sector job creation- close to 4,000 jobs over the next two years, according to a study they cite.  But as the article points out, the cost of the tax break is equivalent to 6,400 state employee positions.  You do the math there. As Gary Hancock, a lobbyist interviewed for the article, said:

 "...it makes no sense to provide a tax break – particularly to those who don’t need it – while cutting teachers and other public employees who perform needed services…As a general proposition, tax breaks for the wealthy while we are starving public schools and public services is bad government.”

The News and Observer story was cited in a scathing editorial from the Charlotte Observer which had this to say:

“When many of the people being helped by a tax break end up criticizing it, questioning it or refusing comment on it, something’s badly amiss. N.C. lawmakers in the Republican-dominated General Assembly should take note of this reaction to a tax break they gave to businesses in last year’s legislative session…. At a time when lawmakers are slashing funding for schools, law enforcement and other vital services, a perk for those who don’t need it is misguided and feels callous."

The Observer editorial characterizes the state’s current tax system as “inadequate, outdated and unfair” and in need of real reform. We concur. And given the enterprising journalism and good policy analysis available, it’s time to get that process started.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker survived yesterday’s recall attempt. Walker has often been described as courageous by his supporters, like New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and  Senator Ron Johnson and by ideological allies like David Denholm and Gary Bauer. 

Walker seems to think of himself as courageous, too. In his victory speech he reprised a theme he’s struck before, in which he becomes the bearer of a legacy that dates back to the founding fathers and “men and women of courage” throughout history “who stood up and decided it was more important to look out for the future of their children and their grandchildren than their own political futures.”  He stops just short of calling himself one such “leader of courage” but it’s clear that’s what he’s getting at.

And how does he display this courage? By picking on people nowhere near his own size.  People like the state’s working poor whose low wages can’t support a family and who rely on the Earned Income Tax Credit to make up some of the difference.  Walker cut that.  He also cut medical programs and property tax credits that the state’s poor and elderly depend on.

This is courage?

The state’s most influential, on the other hand, got all kinds of perks from their governor, like a widely abused tax loophole for corporations and a nice tax break on capital gains for investors.

Since when does it take courage to pander to people in power?

Walker has made consistently bad choices about who wins and who loses in Wisconsin, and his all out assault on public sector workers is just one part of that.

It seems unlikely that the post-election, temporary change in the state’s Senate will slow Walker’s relentless pursuit of his boilerplate conservative agenda, which he admitted has been frenetic.

Governor Walker fancies himself some kind of hero taking on powerful forces at great personal cost, but it’s well documented that the powerful forces are actually some of Walker’s biggest fans. Call it what you will, but you can’t call it courage.

In November 2010, Washington State voters reached an unfortunate verdict and passed Initiative 1053, a law which mandates that the legislature assemble a two-thirds “supermajority” for any legislation deemed to raise taxes.

These supermajority requirements are not only anti-democratic but make sustainable and fair tax reform difficult because they, in effect, require legislators to enlarge one tax loophole in order to diminish or eliminate another. That’s right: in this upside down world, closing a loophole is a tax increase, so you have to create a new one or cut a tax to offset any that you close.  In short, majority-plus requirements like Washington’s provide yet another incentive for politicians to convolute the tax code with special interest giveaways.

Until, that is, a judge decides such a law is not just dumb, but unconstitutional. And in a bit of good news, Washington State’s legislative supermajority requirement for raising taxes and closing tax loopholes was recently struck down by a superior court judge for “[violating] the simple majority provision” of the state constitution.

In his decision, Judge Bryce Heller stated that the framers of the Washington constitution were well aware of supermajority rules (they required them to amend or repeal voter-passed initiatives, for example), and therefore the simple majority rule on tax and other legislation was intended by those framers and can, therefore, only be changed with an amendment to the state constitution. 

State Attorney General Rob McKenna (and now Republican candidate for governor), who defended the initiative in court, pledged to appeal the decision directly to the state Supreme Court.

Aside from the legal questions at issue in this case, several organizations have recently pointed out the damaging fiscal effects of supermajority requirements. The lawmakers and education organizations that brought the suit are concerned that the law prevents a majority of lawmakers from sufficiently funding state services such as education and transportation. They also point out a state Supreme Court’s ruling from last year concluding that Washington State is not, in fact, meeting its constitutional obligation to fully fund basic public education.

Moreover, as the Washington State Budget & Policy Center wrote prior to the ruling, Initiative 1053 has prolonged the state’s recession “by forcing unnecessarily deep cuts to health care, education, and other job-creating investments.” The Center reports that the state’s budget has been cut by more than $10.6 billion over the past three years.

The DC based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities lays out how supermajority rules also force lawmakers to raise fees, tuition and other revenue devices not covered by the law, as well as depress capital investments (investors are less willing to buy bonds from states with such requirements). Furthermore, with so few votes necessary to dictate legislative outcomes—for example, the Washington rule required the objection of only 17 senators to derail any bill—supermajority laws “increase the power of extremists and special interests” who can hold hostage even popular legislation.

It’s all very common sense that the supermajority requirement be struck down. (One setback to this case might result from a recent vote in the state legislature that was politically designed to “prove” a supermajority can be achieved on tax issues. It’s complicated and you can read more about it here.)  With the AG’s appeal, the state Supreme Court will be taking up the case, and both sides are hoping for swift action: the plaintiffs want to see more funding for schools and see the democratic process restored, while the law’s opponents want to get on with the task of shackling the Evergreen State’s government.

Americans are living in communities with fewer teachers, firefighters and police officers.  They are facing larger class sizes, reduced trash pickup and less access to parks and libraries. That’s the gloomy conclusion of a new report from the Pew Charitable Trusts’ American Cities Project that acutely, painfully details the severe budget cuts local governments have made in response to declining revenues and their increasingly curtailed capacity to raise the revenues they need to keep things running.

While some local governments have responded to what Pew calls the “local squeeze” by raising property tax rates, the report notes that state lawmakers are forcing localities to make tough decisions and cuts by imposing restrictions on the growth of local property taxes. Nearly all states (46) have property tax restrictions (limiting a property’s assessed value or tax rate, for example) that prevent municipalities from even considering raising additional revenue to mitigate painful budget cuts.

Property tax revenue and aid from state governments together make up more than half of all local government funds, and they are declining – in tandem – for the first time since 1980. State aid to local governments declined by $12.6 billion in 2010, and would have fallen further if not for the infusion of federal stimulus funding. Even so, 37 states still had to cut aid to local school districts in 2011-2012.

In the past, recession-induced revenue declines have been buffered by a steady flow of property tax revenue. But with the housing market collapse and epidemic foreclosures, property tax revenue declined by $11.9 billion in 2010 (the first real drop in property tax revenue since 1995) and then by a further $14.6 billion in 2011.

As a result of diminished funds, reports Pew, localities are cutting back on some of government’s most basic services; New York State is one example of what the current struggle looks like, Minnesota is another. In total, local governments cut half a million public sector jobs between September 2008 and December 2011. Half of these jobs came from the education sector in the form of teachers, guidance counselors and support staff. It’s been noted that these local workforce reductions offset modest private sector job growth and have contributed to stubbornly high national unemployment rates.

Cities and counties have attempted to balance budgets through other kinds of cuts that once seemed unthinkable. Some have reduced the school week from five to four days. Others have stopped paying police officers. One municipality cut garbage collection entirely. The full report provides numerous and specific accounts of how local governments and communities from Phoenix, Arizona to Foley, Minnesota to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania have been hurt by the “local squeeze.”

And for more on the revenue side of the equation, see “The ITEP Guide to Fair State and Local Taxes” and ITEP testimony to Congress on how federal tax reform could help or hurt state and local budgets.

• The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy talks back to the Wall Street Journal about its failure to cover the consequences of the new Kansas tax bill for the state’s working poor.

• Tomorrow Wisconsin Governor Walker will face a recall election. What’s his record on taxes? Taking from the poor and giving to the rich. 

• North Dakota Tax Commissioner Cory Fong comes out against a radical ballot initiative that would do away with the state’s property tax. The Commissioner writes that Measure 2 is risky, and will be destabilizing for North Dakotans. The vote is on June 12.

• Louisiana’s legislature appears to be nearing adjournment now that the House approved a nearly $26 billion budget for the next fiscal year. The budget, now sitting on Governor Jindahl’s desk, includes $270 million in “one-time money” scavenged from various programs to balance the budget.

• Read this op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times from the CEO of the National Retail Federation calling for fairly taxing Internet sales and pointing out that “modern software, allowing sales taxes to be calculated as quickly and easily as shipping costs, renders” any remaining objections a so-called Amazon Tax obsolete.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin admitted last week that she and her allies had failed in their efforts to roll back the state’s income tax this legislative session, despite high hopes among supply siders that the tax would be not only cut but entirely repealed.  As The Oklahoman explains, however, both voters and businesses recognized that reducing taxes would mean further cuts in education and public safety piled on top of those already inflicted in recent years.  Public opposition aside, however, it did seem all too possible that Arthur Laffer (the Governor’s tax advisor) and his colleagues’ pitch that shredding the tax code would lead to economic rebirth was going to be enough to get an income tax cut through the legislature.

Over a half dozen tax cut plans were given serious consideration this year in Oklahoma, most of which would have, in fact, raised taxes on low-income families by repealing important tax credits, and all of which would have tilted Oklahoma’s overall tax system even more heavily in favor of the wealthy.  Some of the proposals, like the modified version of Arthur Laffer’s plan pushed by Governor Fallin, would have repealed the income tax entirely.

In the final days of the session, it looked like lawmakers had come to an agreement on a comparatively modest plan to cut the top personal income tax rate from 5.25 to 4.8 percent, and then possibly to 4.5 percent a few years later.  Noticeably absent from the proposal, fortunately, was any repeal of low-income credits— likely due in part to analyses by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) showing that repealing these tax credits would mean a significant tax increase for a large number of the state’s most vulnerable residents.

Instead, lawmakers hoped to pay for their proposed rate cuts with a combination of spending cuts, repealing various business tax credits and eliminating a handful of tax breaks for individuals.  Even then, however, analyses by ITEP and the Oklahoma Tax Commission showed that a significant number of low- and middle-income Oklahomans would see their taxes rise under the plan.  And just as the state’s largest newspaper editorialized about these revelatory analyses, support evaporated in the state House of Representatives.

As the Oklahoma Policy Institute explained last week, “The failure of every tax cut proposal that was debated this session is a victory for Oklahoma… We know, however, that this is just a brief intermission in a long battle over the right tax policy for Oklahoma.  We need to look with renewed seriousness at our outdated tax system and do away with unnecessary tax preferences. And we must improve tax fairness and not allow middle- and low-income families to shoulder a larger share of the load.” 

(Photo from NPR State Impact)

• There’s a trend this year of Republican governors striking deals with Amazon.com to begin collecting sales taxes on purchases made by their states’ residents.  New Jersey’s Chris Christie penned a new agreement with the company that can be added to the list of similar deals struck in Indiana, Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

• When the richest woman in Wisconsin (and the governor’s biggest donor) pays no income tax to the state in 2010, it gets people asking about loopholes in the tax code.

• We aren’t the only think tank taking issue with the Kansas tax bill recently signed into law.  The fiscally conservative Tax Foundation recently issued a report which says that provisions in the bill to exempt “pass through” business income are “problematic” and an invitation to tax avoidance.  

• With summer road tripping underway, it’s bad news for Iowans that the state’s Department of Transportation appears to be more than $200 million short. Governor Branstad was right to say the state gas tax should be increased next year (as should almost every state’s).

Photo of Governor Christie via Bob Jagendorf Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Last week Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law Senate Substitute for House Bill 2117, a tax bill that dramatically changes the Kansas income tax structure and makes Kansas a real outlier when it comes to tax fairness. ITEP released a report which finds that the legislation includes a broad tax cut that will cost the state over $760 million a year, and yet will actually increase taxes on some low- and middle-income families – while the wealthiest Kansans will see their taxes reduced by $21,000 on average.

As a result of this legislation, Kansas is now a member of a uniquely regressive tax policy club; it joins Mississippi and Alabama in taxing food, but not offering any targeted tax relief for the poorest families who have to spend a larger portion of their budgets on groceries.  Until last week’s bill signing, Kansas offered a Food Sales Tax Rebate (FSTR) that targeted tax relief to Kansans over 55 and those with children and an income less than $35,400. Families with income of less than $17,700 could claim a flat $91 per family member to offset the sales tax they paid on food.

Even after cutting income tax rates and increasing the standard deduction, a family of four with $17,000 of income will still lose $294 because of the elimination of the food sales tax credit.

For more on the new law and to learn more about the various tax plans that were debated in Kansas this legislative session, check out ITEP’s Kansas Tax Policy Hub.

(Photo courtesy Wikipedia)

• Michigan lawmakers recently slashed income taxes for businesses by about $1.6 billion, and paid for it mostly with income tax hikes on the elderly and poor.  Now lawmakers are debating a gimmicky income tax cut that would take effect about a month before voters head to the polls in November but do little to offset recent tax increases on the state’s working poor.

• Late last week, the Illinois House voted to raise the state’s cigarette tax. This is big news not only because the tax increase will help to fill a nearly $3 billion budget hole in the state’s Medicaid program, but because anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist was resoundingly defeated despite threats from his Illinois staffers that voting for the cigarette tax could “ruin the GOP brand in the state for a generation.”

• Question: Could the popularity of the no-new taxes pledge championed by Grover Norquist be waning? Answer: Yes. Read this.

• To understand how the regressive, multi-billion dollar tax cut bill signed into law last week in Kansas is being received, check out this news round up from the Wichita Eagle.  A lot of people are “horrified.”

• Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed a progressive income tax increase into law this week and successfully avoided large spending cuts.  An analysis of the tax package by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) showed that while 87 percent of the new revenue would come from the state’s richest five percent of taxpayers, the tax increases are fairly modest and would still leave Maryland with a regressive tax system on the whole.

• The North Carolina Budget and Tax Center issued a new report urging lawmakers not to enact the gas tax cap recently proposed by Governor Bev Perdue.  Among other things, the report uses data from ITEP to show that North Carolina’s gas tax rate, adjusted for inflation, is quite low by historical standards (all claims about the rate being at an “all-time high” to the contrary).  ITEP’s take on the long-running debate over a North Carolina gas tax cap can be found here.

• Last week it appeared that Oklahoma lawmakers had reached agreement on a plan to cut the state income tax, but that agreement might be unraveling.  The Associated Press reports that House lawmakers are unhappy with the fact that some low and middle-income taxpayers would see their taxes rise under the agreed-upon plan, and there’s a chance a tax cut won’t be enacted at all before the legislative session ends on Friday.  ITEP’s analysis of the controversial plan was recently blogged by the Oklahoma Policy Institute, and picked up by The Oklahoman and other outlets.

• One more hurdle remains before New Hampshire voters get the chance to amend their state’s constitution to permanently ban a personal income tax.  The Senate voted 20-4 on a measure, but made a few changes that must now be reconciled with the House version before sending it to the public ballot this fall.  The New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute points out, however, that this amendment seeks to solve a problem that doesn’t exist since there have been no serious income tax proposals in years, and, that it will tie the hamstring future generations of citizens and lawmakers.

• A New York tax fairness coalition called on Governor Cuomo this week to keep his promise to appoint a commission that would comprehensively review and make recommendations to improve the state’s tax system. The coalition’s recommendations for the commission are here. Cuomo has repeatedly pledged to appoint a “Tax Reform and Fairness Commission” but has yet to do so.

Photo of Governor Martin O'Malley and Governor Andrew Cuomo via Friends of Hillary and Patja Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

The nonpartisan New Jersey Office of Legislative Services (OLS) released estimates on Wednesday predicting that New Jersey revenues will fall a staggering $1.3 billion short of Governor Chris Christie’s previous estimate through fiscal year 2013. The estimated revenue shortfall is bad news for Christie because it makes his ten percent across the board income tax cut proposal appear that much more reckless.  Even the bean counters at Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s are worried.

The discrepancy between Christie’s previous revenue predictions and the estimated shortfall is due to the wildly unrealistic revenue estimate put out by the Christie administration in March, which an analysis by the New Jersey Star Ledger found to be the most optimistic in the country. In fact, Christie’s promised 7.4 percent in revenue growth was more than 2.5 times the national average of 2.8 percent.

For the moment, Christie is standing by his income tax cut plans, saying that the budget gap is actually only $676 million – and he is proposing to fill it by cutting $295 million in transportation funding next year. The Governor’s reduced gap estimate is derived from his faith in the millions in tax breaks his administration has given to the state’s wealthiest residents and corporations already being at work, unleashing unprecedented economic growth. This is what he’s been calling the “New Jersey Comeback.” Unfortunately, his predictions are based on the same old myths that have proven to be wrong time and again across the country.

The failure of Christie’s approach is borne out by New Jersey’s wobbly economy. As New Jersey Policy Perspective points out, the reality is the state is actually lagging behind the rest of the country, with its unemployment rate increasing slightly, to 9.1 percent in April 2012, higher than the regional rate of 7.9 percent. Rather than helping drive a recovery, it looks like Christie’s policy of favoring expensive tax breaks over critical government services has actually driven up joblessness by putting tens of thousands of public sector employees out of work.

The Governor is doubling down on tax breaks and service cuts when he should instead protect New Jersey’s basic quality of life and embrace, rather than veto, a millionaire’s tax -- which his constituents love, his Assembly passed, and would generate $500 million in desperately needed revenues for the Garden State.

Making matters worse, the Democratic Senate President Stephen Sweeney continues