The vast majority of the attention given to the Bush tax cuts has been focused on changes in top marginal rates, the treatment of capital gains income, and the estate tax.  But another, less visible component of those cuts has been gradually making itemized deductions more unfair and expensive over the last five years.  Since the vast majority of states offering itemized deductions base their rules on what is done at the federal level, this change has also resulted in state governments offering an ever-growing, regressive tax cut that they clearly cannot afford. 

In an attempt to encourage states to reverse the effects of this costly and inequitable development, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) this week released a new report, "Writing Off" Tax Giveaways, that examines five options for reforming state itemized deductions in order to reduce their cost and regressivity, with an eye toward helping states balance their budgets.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia currently allow itemized deductions.  The remaining states either lack an income tax entirely, or have simply chosen not to make itemized deductions a part of their income tax — as Rhode Island decided to do just this year.  In 2010, for the first time in two decades, twenty-six states plus DC will not limit these deductions for their wealthiest residents in any way, due to the federal government's repeal of the "Pease" phase-out (so named for its original Congressional sponsor).  This is an unfortunate development as itemized deductions, even with the Pease phase-out, were already most generous to the nation's wealthiest families.

"Writing Off" Tax Giveaways examines five specific reform options for each of the thirty-one states offering itemized deductions (state-specific results are available in the appendix of the report or in these convenient, state-specific fact sheets).

The most comprehensive option considered in the report is the complete repeal of itemized deductions, accompanied by a substantial increase in the standard deduction.  By pairing these two tax changes, only a very small minority of taxpayers in each state would face a tax increase under this option, while a much larger share would actually see their taxes reduced overall.  This option would raise substantial revenue with which to help states balance their budgets.

Another reform option examined by the report would place a cap on the total value of itemized deductions.  Vermont and New York already do this with some of their deductions, while Hawaii legislators attempted to enact a comprehensive cap earlier this year, only to be thwarted by Governor Linda Lingle's veto.  This proposal would increase taxes on only those few wealthy taxpayers currently claiming itemized deductions in excess of $40,000 per year (or $20,000 for single taxpayers).

Converting itemized deductions into a credit, as has been done in Wisconsin and Utah, is also analyzed by the report.  This option would reduce the "upside down" nature of itemized deductions by preventing wealthier taxpayers in states levying a graduated rate income tax from receiving more benefit per dollar of deduction than lower- and middle-income taxpayers.  Like outright repeal, this proposal would raise significant revenue, and would result in far more taxpayers seeing tax cuts than would see tax increases.

Finally, two options for phasing-out deductions for high-income earners are examined.  One option simply reinstates the federal Pease phase-out, while another analyzes the effects of a modified phase-out design.  These options would raise the least revenue of the five options examined, but should be most familiar to lawmakers because of their experience with the federal Pease provision.

Read the full report.

The vast majority of the attention given to the Bush tax cuts has been focused on changes in top marginal rates, the treatment of capital gains income, and the estate tax.  But another, less visible component of those cuts has been gradually making itemized deductions more unfair and expensive over the last five years.  Since the vast majority of states offering itemized deductions base their rules on what is done at the federal level, this change has also resulted in state governments offering an ever-growing, regressive tax cut that they clearly cannot afford. 

In an attempt to encourage states to reverse the effects of this costly and inequitable development, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) this week released a new report, "Writing Off" Tax Giveaways, that examines five options for reforming state itemized deductions in order to reduce their cost and regressivity, with an eye toward helping states balance their budgets.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia currently allow itemized deductions.  The remaining states either lack an income tax entirely, or have simply chosen not to make itemized deductions a part of their income tax — as Rhode Island decided to do just this year.  In 2010, for the first time in two decades, twenty-six states plus DC will not limit these deductions for their wealthiest residents in any way, due to the federal government's repeal of the "Pease" phase-out (so named for its original Congressional sponsor).  This is an unfortunate development as itemized deductions, even with the Pease phase-out, were already most generous to the nation's wealthiest families.

"Writing Off" Tax Giveaways examines five specific reform options for each of the thirty-one states offering itemized deductions (state-specific results are available in the appendix of the report or in these convenient, state-specific fact sheets).

The most comprehensive option considered in the report is the complete repeal of itemized deductions, accompanied by a substantial increase in the standard deduction.  By pairing these two tax changes, only a very small minority of taxpayers in each state would face a tax increase under this option, while a much larger share would actually see their taxes reduced overall.  This option would raise substantial revenue with which to help states balance their budgets.

Another reform option examined by the report would place a cap on the total value of itemized deductions.  Vermont and New York already do this with some of their deductions, while Hawaii legislators attempted to enact a comprehensive cap earlier this year, only to be thwarted by Governor Linda Lingle's veto.  This proposal would increase taxes on only those few wealthy taxpayers currently claiming itemized deductions in excess of $40,000 per year (or $20,000 for single taxpayers).

Converting itemized deductions into a credit, as has been done in Wisconsin and Utah, is also analyzed by the report.  This option would reduce the "upside down" nature of itemized deductions by preventing wealthier taxpayers in states levying a graduated rate income tax from receiving more benefit per dollar of deduction than lower- and middle-income taxpayers.  Like outright repeal, this proposal would raise significant revenue, and would result in far more taxpayers seeing tax cuts than would see tax increases.

Finally, two options for phasing-out deductions for high-income earners are examined.  One option simply reinstates the federal Pease phase-out, while another analyzes the effects of a modified phase-out design.  These options would raise the least revenue of the five options examined, but should be most familiar to lawmakers because of their experience with the federal Pease provision.

Read the full report.

Efforts are underway in a variety of states to give voters the opportunity to change their state's tax structure for the better. Advocates are laying the ground work for tax reform in Colorado. Tax justice advocates in Arizona can celebrate that a Proposition 13-like initiative didn't garner enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. California voters will get the chance to repeal various corporate tax loopholes while Washington is closer than ever before to introducing a personal income tax.

In Colorado, folks are thinking about the 2012 ballot already. Representatives of the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute (CFPI) have filed two initiatives that are currently being reviewed to determine if they abide by the state's "single subject" per initiative rule. According to The Denver Post, "the measures also call for reducing the state sales tax but taxing services as well as goods, changing the income-tax system to a graduated system and making a tax credit for low-income workers permanent." Specifically the proposal would change Colorado's flat rate income tax into a graduated system with a least five brackets. Carol Hedges with CFPI recently said of the initiatives that "the overriding objective is to have our tax system more appropriately matched with economic realities."

Arizonans swerved and missed the tax policy equivalent of a Mack truck slamming into them when it was announced that "Prop. 13 Arizona" failed to garner enough signatures to qualify for the 2010 ballot. The proposal was modeled after California's Proposition 13. The measure would have rolled back the assessed value of property sold before 2004 to 2003 levels, limited property value increases, and taken away voters' rights to override levy limits. This is the second time that the proposal failed to garner enough signatures. For more on capping assessed value, see ITEP's primer on the subject.

In November, California voters will get to vote on the Repeal Corporate Tax Loopholes Act. The measure, if passed, would eliminate several business tax breaks enacted in 2008 and 2009. They include elective single sales factor, tax credit sharing, and net operating loss carrybacks. For more details on these tax breaks, see California Budget Project's Budget Brief on this issue. Perhaps more upsetting than these tax breaks actually passing is the way they were passed. Initially, according to the California Budget Bites Blog, these tax deals were of the "dark-of-night" variety. Now Californians themselves will decide if these costly corporate tax breaks should remain the law of the land.

Washingtonians are closer than they have ever been to establishing a personal income tax. Washington has repeatedly been named by ITEP as the state with the most regressive tax structure largely because of their high reliance on sales taxes and absence of a personal income tax. Initiative 1098 introduces an income tax that has two brackets targeted at high income Washingtonians, reduces the state property tax, and reforms the business and occupation tax. Supporters of the initiative this week turned in well over the 241,000 signatures required to get on the ballot. It appears that Washingtonians will have an exciting and historic opportunity to reform their state's tax structure this fall.

Voters this November in a variety of states may have the opportunity to vote against anti-tax initiatives, as well. Right-wing activists were successful recently in gathering signatures for a handful of misguided anti-tax initiatives in Colorado, Massachusetts and Washington.  

Colorado voters are going to have a congested ballot come November. Proposition 101 and Amendments 60 and 61 have all qualified for the ballot and would have an enormous impact on Coloradans' way of life. About these three proposals the Denver Post opines, "The operating language within each one is a virus that would cripple the ability of our local and state governments to provide the most basic of services — from building schools for our children to supplying clean water to our homes. Both Democratic and Republican politicians have joined leaders in business and community organizations to oppose the initiatives."

According to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center: "Amendment 60 would overturn voters' decision to opt out of Colorado's TABOR limitations. The initiative also cuts property tax rates in half over a ten-year period. The statutory Proposition 101 would slash state and local revenues to the tune of $1.7 billion by reducing the state income tax, motor vehicle fees, and telecommunications fees." Amendment 61 would prohibit all levels and divisions of government from bonding, even if they previously had the authority to do so. These measures would have a disastrous impact on Coloradans' way of life.

The Boston Herald is reporting that an initiative proposing to reduce the Massachusetts sales tax from 6.25 to 3 percent is likely headed to the November ballot. The proposal would cost the state a jaw-dropping $2.4 billion annually. Proponents of the legislation delivered more than the required 11,099 signatures to the Secretary of State's office Wednesday. In somewhat brighter news, none of the four candidates for governor appear to support the initiative and have said that if it passes, deep cuts in state and local services would be all but guaranteed. Despite the regressive nature of the sales tax, it's important because slashing it would cripple Massachusetts' ability to provide for its residents.

Another initiative that reportedly has enough signatures to appear on the November ballot, backed by beer and wine wholesalers, would eliminate the new sales tax on alcohol.  Last year, state lawmakers removed the sales tax exemption on beer, wine and liquor and added them to the state’s sales tax base in order to raise $80 million for substance abuse programs.

Tim Eyman, Washington state's notorious anti-tax crusader, is up to his old, tired tricks again. Initiative 1053 would permanently re-establish the requirement for a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Legislature or a statewide popular vote in order to pass tax increases.  A similar measure won at the ballot in 2007, but that measure allowed the legislature to repeal the rules by a simple majority vote after two years.  Facing a $2.8 billion budget gap this year, Washington legislators suspended the requirement in February for 16 months to pass tax increases to mitigate cuts to vital state services.  If passed this initiative impairs the ability of Legislators to do what they were elected to do — legislate.

Eyman is also supportive of Initiative 1107, which would roll back the new state taxes on a variety of goods including soda, bottled water, and candy. (Advocates of both initiatives turned in over 700,000 signatures to see that these issues will be placed before the voters in November.) Of course sales taxes are regressive, but the cost of removing the sales tax from these items is pretty stark. According to the Children's Action Alliance, "The choice for us is clear, a few extra pennies or the loss of essential services for kids."

Not surprisingly, the main financial backer of Initiative 1107 is the American Beverage Association, which has reportedly spent more than $1 million on the ballot effort thus far.

Washington recently joined with 30 other states to tax candy. If you want to see how your state taxes candy, see Washington State Budget and Policy Center's handy map on the subject.

Across the nation, state lawmakers wary of further increasing their general sales tax rates are looking (sensibly) for ways of broadening the tax base in order to maximize their "bang for the buck" from the existing tax rates. As a recent New York Times survey documents, half a dozen states are thinking seriously about expanding their sales tax to include previously untaxed services, from haircuts to hot-air-balloon rides.

From a policy perspective, this approach is a slam dunk: a good first principle for sales tax design is that your sales tax liability should depend only on how much you spend — not on what you buy. However, proposals to tax services in Maryland and Michigan have recently run aground because of politics, not policy.

But there is a much more straightforward (and more politically viable) sales tax base broadening strategy that virtually every state can tap right now. Interestingly, even the Wall Street Journal found it difficult to argue against a growing effort by states to enforce collection of their "use tax" (a companion to the sales tax that is designed to apply to goods and services purchased in other states).

From a policy perspective, this is every bit as sensible as taxing services: if you buy a book, the sales tax should be the same whether you buy it in a store or on-line. But the politics are substantially more promising in this case: among the parties most aggrieved by the use tax loophole are small, "bricks and mortar" businesses that collect sales taxes on all their purchases and face a clear tax-based disadvantage compared to Amazon.com and other Internet-based retailers.

In the wake of recently passed legislation in Colorado designed to encourage more taxpayers to pay the use tax on their own, more states will likely seek to replicate Colorado's approach.

 

 

You don't know it, but you are probably a tax scofflaw-- because you haven't paid your "use tax." If you purchase, say, a stereo from a store in your state (and your state has a sales tax), you'll pay sales tax on that purchase. But when you buy the same stereo on-line from, say, Amazon.com, odds are that Amazon won't add sales tax to your purchase price. The laws of all sales tax states are quite clear on what is supposed to happen in this situation: you, as the purchaser, are supposed to pay the "use tax", which has exactly the same tax rates and tax base as the regular sales tax. But individual consumers purchasing items online very rarely pay the tax in this situation, and states typically make little effort to enforce it, as least with respect to household purchases (as opposed to business purchases).

If one wanted to make a short list of tax reforms that could lead to effective enforcement of the use tax, two things high on that list would be (a) that when a retailer in state X sells a sales-taxable item to a consumer in state Y, and does not collect sales tax on that item because they have no physical presence in state Y, then the retailer should have to remind the purchaser that they are legally required to pay the use tax, and (b) that under this same scenario, the retailer should have to alert state Y's Dept. of Revenue that these transactions took place.

This is precisely what Colorado did when it enacted House Bill 1193 earlier this year. The new law requires companies like Amazon, which has no physical presence in the state, to send a reminder to purchasers that they are supposed to pay the use tax. It also requires these companies to send an end-of-year statement to the state revenue department summarizing the value of untaxed sales to each customer. The law does NOT require Amazon to collect a dime of additional tax.

Earlier this week, Amazon responded to this law by dropping all its affiliates in the state of Colorado. (Affiliates are individuals or companies who put a link to Amazon on their own website, and earn a share of the take when customers click-through to buy things on Amazon's website.) As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' Michael Mazerov notes in a statement on Amazon's actions, this is a purely punitive action that has no relationship to the new law: the new reporting requirements under HB 1193 don't depend on whether a sale was made through a "click-through" affiliate, and even after dropping its affiliates, Amazon will still have to comply with the law. Amazon's actions can only be interpreted as a politically motivated attempt to rile up anti-tax sentiment sufficiently so that Colorado lawmakers will repeal the new law.
The use tax should be enforced by every state. Colorado's approach to doing so is sensible and fair, and does not impose substantial burdens on sellers like Amazon. By hitting its own affiliates in their wallets, Amazon is avoiding an open discussion of why they apparently believe the use tax should be repealed.

This week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), in partnership with state groups in forty-one states, released the 3rd edition of “Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States.”  The report found that, by an overwhelming margin, most states tax their middle- and low-income families far more heavily than the wealthy.  The response has been overwhelming.

In Michigan, The Detroit Free Press hit the nail on the head: “There’s nothing even remotely fair about the state’s heaviest tax burden falling on its least wealthy earners.  It’s also horrible public policy, given the hard hit that middle and lower incomes are taking in the state’s brutal economic shift.  And it helps explain why the state is having trouble keeping up with funding needs for its most vital services.  The study provides important context for the debate about how to fix Michigan’s finances and shows how far the state really has to go before any cries of ‘unfairness’ to wealthy earners can be taken seriously.”

In addition, the Governor’s office in Michigan responded by reiterating Gov. Granholm’s support for a graduated income tax.  Currently, Michigan is among a minority of states levying a flat rate income tax.

Media in Virginia also explained the study’s importance.  The Augusta Free Press noted: “If you believe the partisan rhetoric, it’s the wealthy who bear the tax burden, and who are deserving of tax breaks to get the economy moving.  A new report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the Virginia Organizing Project puts the rhetoric in a new light.”

In reference to Tennessee’s rank among the “Terrible Ten” most regressive state tax systems in the nation, The Commercial Appeal ran the headline: “A Terrible Decision.”  The “terrible decision” to which the Appeal is referring is the choice by Tennessee policymakers to forgo enacting a broad-based income tax by instead “[paying] the state’s bills by imposing the country’s largest combination of state and local sales taxes and maintaining the sales tax on food.”

In Texas, The Dallas Morning News ran with the story as well, explaining that “Texas’ low-income residents bear heavier tax burdens than their counterparts in all but four other states.”  The Morning News article goes on to explain the study’s finding that “the media and elected officials often refer to states such as Texas as “low-tax” states without considering who benefits the most within those states.”  Quoting the ITEP study, the Morning News then points out that “No-income-tax states like Washington, Texas and Florida do, in fact, have average to low taxes overall.  Can they also be considered low-tax states for poor families?  Far from it.”

Talk of the study has quickly spread everywhere from Florida to Nevada, and from Maryland to Montana.  Over the coming months, policymakers will need to keep the findings of Who Pays? in mind if they are to fill their states’ budget gaps with responsible and fair revenue solutions.

Next month, voters in two states will go to the ballot to decide whether to cap the growth in public budgets according to a formula based on the annual rate of population growth plus inflation. In Washington, the ballot initiative brought forward by anti-taxer Tim Eyman is called I-1033. Researchers at the Washington State Budget and Policy Center and the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute refer to it as the "toxic twin" of Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).  In Maine, the initiative, dubbed TABOR II, is more akin to an annoying younger brother (well, if that brother had the ability to wreak complete havoc with sound fiscal policy).  You can tell him to go away -- as Maine voters did in rejecting an earlier version of the initiative in 2006 -- but he unfortunately keeps coming back.
 
Colorado's experience makes it clear that arbitrary funding formulas are an ineffective way to run government, leading to devastating impacts on vital public services. In fact, Colorado voters chose to suspend TABOR in 2005, due to the effects it was having on education, transportation, and human services. 

The limits that I-1033 in Washington and TABOR II in Maine would impose are especially dangerous in light of the current recession.  Under these initiatives, funding caps would be the lesser of the previous year's cap or the previous year's actual funding levels.  As a result, during economic downturns, when revenues are especially low, the cap is permanently “ratcheted” down to lower levels.

As to the consequences that these initiatives would have if enacted, Washington State  Senator Rodney Tom was recently quoted in the New York Times as saying, "If I-1033 passes, I think we just all go home and bury our heads in the sand." 

As discouraging as that image may be, there are reasons to be hopeful.  The Maine Chamber of Commerce, which had initially backed TABOR II earlier this year (despite opposing its predecessor in 2006), recently withdrew its support, a clear sign that the measure goes too far even for business leaders.

For more on the impact of I-1033, see the Washington Budget and Policy Center's report “I-1033 Undermines Public Priorities.”   For more on Maine’s TABOR II, check out these resources from the Maine Center for Economic Policy or read the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recent analysis.

The poorly named Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR) is a cap on allowable spending enacted in Colorado in 1992. Since then, it has become clear that the measure demolished the state's ability to fund higher education, infrastructure and health care. Despite voters approving a ballot measure to suspend Colorado's TABOR for five years, the concept of a spending limit is still rearing its ugly head in both Maine and Missouri.

In Maine, the Heritage Policy Center has a revised TABOR proposal (a previous proposal was defeated by a vote of the people two years ago), which promises to combat the state's "overspending" problem while making it quite difficult for taxes to be raised. This November, Mainers will be asked to vote once again on the TABOR. Read the Maine Center for Economic Policy's report about the many serious problems with this proposal.

Meanwhile, a proposal to cap spending is making its way through the Missouri House of Representatives, which will serve as another test for the pro-TABOR forces. Read the Missouri Budget Project's warning about TABOR's impact on the state.

California legislators appear to finally be in the early stages of negotiations over a method to fix the current year's budget shortfall. As has been obvious to most observers for quite some time, California's budget gap is far too large to be fixed with spending cuts alone, and will require some kind of tax increase. Convincing California Republicans to recognize this fact was no easy task, and it now appears that the cost of securing their support could come in the form of a spending cap. Unfortunately, while a tax increase is absolutely necessary to solve California's short-term problems, allowing a spending cap to be slipped into the deal would be nothing short of devastating in the long-term.

The case against the spending cap was articulated brilliantly by Jean Ross of the California Budget Project in a recent op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times. Ross noted that "far from being a cure-all, a hard spending cap would place an arbitrary stranglehold on the state's ability to improve its schools, rebuild its infrastructure, care for its senior population and respond nimbly to future challenges. Disguised as a solution, this cap could quickly become one of California's most serious budgetary problems". She goes on to point out that her organization "found that if this cap had been enacted in 1995, using that year's budget as the base, it would have resulted in a 2008-09 budget $39.7 billion below what was enacted in September. While this would bring the budget into balance, it also would require spending cuts more than twice as large as those proposed by the governor."

Californians familiar with Colorado's TABOR debacle should be especially wary of what Ross points out next: "The hard spending cap also would be incompatible with Proposition 98, which guarantees a minimum level of state funding for K-12 education and community colleges. That guarantee would generally outpace increases allowed under the cap, which would result in education crowding out all other state spending". The parallels with the difficulties created by Colorado's Amendment 23 (which requires increases in K-12 spending of 1% plus inflation each year) couldn't be more obvious.

There isn't any question that California needs more revenue. Just look at the fact that California's bond rating was recently decreased by two grades, or that the state Controller had to start issuing IOU's instead of tax refunds today. But while securing more revenue should be a top priority this year, accepting a spending cap as part of the compromise would be an action that Californians would regret for years.

The news from California just keeps getting worse. Faced with a budget deficit that could reach as much as $42 billion by June 2010 and the prospect that the state will soon deplete its cash reserves, State Controller John Chiang announced last week that the state may have to begin issuing IOU's to state employees and to contractors who do business with the state. There's also the chance that, rather than receive the refunds to which they may be entitled, California taxpayers may receive promises that they'll be paid later as well.

So, while Governor Schwarzenegger is busy vetoing the Assembly's latest budget plan, because, he maintains, it "punish[es] people with increased taxes," millions of Californians must now prepare themselves to pay, in essence, higher taxes than they expected to pay this year. Such an outcome hardly seems justifiable, given the likelihood that those residents entitled to refunds are low- and moderate-income families, families that would almost certainly use those tax refunds to pay off bills or to make long-planned purchases.

In light of these developments, the state's Legislative Analyst, Mac Taylor, is now urging policymakers to put tax increases before the states' voters as early as April, so that they can avoid the supermajority-induced gridlock that has plagued Sacramento in recent years.

Of course, California isn't alone in suffering through fiscal crises brought on by unsound tax limits and undemocratic procedural rules. Coloradoknows them quite well too, thanks to the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) approved by state voters in 1992. Unless some major changes are made this year, it will likely endure some considerable woes in the years ahead. Why is that? Well, as Erika Stutzman of Boulder's Daily Camera observes, during recessions, "double-whammy style, [ Colorado hits] the 'ratchet' effect: TABOR's requirement that the previous year's budget be used to determine next year's budget." So, if spending falls this year, that lower level of spending will serve as the baseline for growth in all future years. Quite sensibly then, Ms. Stutzman backs legislative changes to TABOR to prevent that from happening.

As the vast majority of state governments stare down budget shortfalls, new ideas about how to responsibly and fairly fill those gaps should receive an enthusiastic welcome. A new report from Good Jobs First, entitled Skimming the Sales Tax, does exactly that by revealing that states are currently giving away over $1 billion through "vendor discounts" or "dealer collection allowances" that reduce sales taxes.

Vendor discounts allow retailers to legally keep a portion of the sales tax revenue they collect as compensation for the costs involved in collecting and remitting the tax. Twenty six states currently provide retailers with such compensation, amounting to a total of over $1 billion in annual revenue losses for those states.

The policy prescription in many states is fairly clear. While there may be room for debate over whether any compensation is warranted, what is not in question is that there should be a sensible limit on the maximum amount that any one business can receive via this practice. As author Philip Mattera points out, "the main expenses that retailers incur with regard to sales taxes, especially software programs to track them, are fixed costs that do not rise in tandem with growth in receipts."

Those states without such a limitation in many cases forfeit quite substantial amounts of revenue through vendor discounts. Illinois, for example, loses over $126 million annually due to the practice. Texas, Pennsylvania, and Colorado each lose in the neighborhood of $70 - $90 million per year. Thirteen of the twenty six states offering vendor discounts do not cap the amount any individual retailer can claim. In addition, five states that do impose limits on maximum compensation have set those limits at seemingly excessive levels, ranging from $10,000 to $240,000 per retailer.

For state-by-state details on existing vendor compensation practices, as well as other ways in which retailers are being subsidized through the sales tax, see the report here.

Colorado's ballot outcomes represent the most serious defeat of good tax policy to take place in this election. A proposal to send the automatic TABOR refunds into a savings account for education, as well as another proposal to end a costly and unnecessary tax break for the oil industry both fell short. Each of these proposals had the potential to secure more revenues for the state at a time when Colorado services are suffering, and the state is facing a mid-year budget shortfall. Descriptions of both of these failed proposals can be found in our Colorado archives.

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

Ballot Proposal to Repeal Massachusetts Income Tax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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