Our nation’s gas tax policy is horribly designed, and the consequences have never been more obvious at either the federal or state levels.  Construction costs are growing while the gas tax is flat-lining, and the resulting tension has made even routine transportation funding debates too much for our elected officials to handle.  Just last week, President Obama signed into law the ninth temporary, stop-gap extension of our nation’s transportation policy since 2009, and numerous states are similarly opting to kick the proverbial can down the crumbling road.

Much of our collective transportation headache arises from our “fixed-rate” gas taxes that just don’t hold up in the face of rising construction costs.  The federal gas tax hasn’t been raised in over 18 years, and most states have gone a decade or more without raising their tax.  There’s no doubt that we’re long-overdue for a gas tax increase, but political concerns have kept that option largely off the table.  In addition to the embarrassing federal Band-Aid fix just signed into law by the President, here’s what we’re seeing in the states:

The Michigan Senate has voted to permanently take millions in sales tax revenue away from health care, public safety, and other services in order to complete basic road repairs.  But as the Michigan League for Human Services explains, the state would be much better off modernizing its stagnant gas tax.

Both the Oklahoma House and Senate have voted to raid the general fund as a result of lagging gas tax revenues.  These proposals are very similar to the one under consideration in Michigan, and when fully phased-in they would divert $115 million away from education and other services in order to improve some of the state’s wildly deficient bridges.

Luckily, Virginia lawmakers didn’t agree to Governor McDonnell’s proposal to raid the general fund in a manner similar to what’s being considered in Michigan and Oklahoma.  But they also failed to enact a much smarter proposal passed by the Senate that would have indexed the state’s gas tax to inflation.  It looks like rampant traffic congestion will remain the norm in Virginia for the foreseeable future.

Iowa and Maryland appear likely to follow Virginia’s lead and do nothing substantial on transportation finance this year.  Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen says that after much talk, a gas tax increase is not happening.  And while Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is trying hard to end almost two decades of gas tax procrastination in the Old Line State, it doesn’t look like the odds are on his side.

Connecticut lawmakers aren’t just continuing the status quo, they’re actually making it worse.  Connecticut is among the minority of states where the gas tax actually tends to grow over time, since it’s linked to gas prices.  But the Governor recently signed a hard “cap” on the gas tax that prevents it from rising whenever wholesale prices exceed $3.00 per gallon.  Lawmakers in North Carolina briefly considered a similar cap last year, but as the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy ( ITEP) explains, blunt caps are very bad policy and there are much better options available.

For more on adequate and sustainable gas tax policy, read ITEP’s recent report, Building a Better Gas Tax.

Photo of Governor Martin O'Malley and Sunoco Gas Station via  Third Way and MV Jantzen Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Indiana’s inheritance tax will soon be no more.  Under a bill signed by Governor Mitch Daniels this week, the state inheritance tax will be gradually eliminated over the next decade.  Of course, this will further benefit the state’s wealthiest taxpayers even as the state’s poorest residents already pay an effective state and local tax rate more than twice that paid by the rich.  

Connecticut lawmakers are seriously considering capping the state’s gasoline tax rate, due to the political pressures created by high gas prices.  A permanent cap, as some lawmakers prefer, would be extremely poor policy because it would flat line the gas tax as a revenue source for years to come.  A temporary cap would be preferable, but the best solution would be one that ITEP recommended for North Carolina last summer: design a cap that limits volatility. This protects consumers from price spikes and stabilizes state budgets without undermining a key source of revenue.

A new ITEP analysis finds that under a South Carolina House Republican plan, poor South Carolinians would see their income tax increase while wealthy taxpayers would pay less. The effect on individual taxpayers in any bracket are not substantial, but the revenue implications for the state are enormous and depend on the working poor to pick up the tab. The Ruoff Group policy shop does a nice job here of explaining why the plan is neither flat nor fair, as its advocates claim.

An outstanding news analysis in the Cincinnati Inquirer describes Ohio Governor John Kasich’s longstanding desire to eliminate the personal income tax altogether, and his current (failing) effort to pay for it with a fracking tax. The story cites a wide range of policy sources, including ITEP’s report debunking the myth that states without income taxes do better, and concludes that low income taxes alone do not make for stronger economies.

Note to Readers: Over the coming weeks, ITEP will highlight tax policy proposals that are gaining momentum in states across the country.  This article takes a look at efforts to roll back business taxes in states based on the shopworn, erroneous argument that tax cuts are good for the economy.

Robust corporate income taxes ensure that large and profitable corporations that benefit from publicly subsidized services (transit that delivers customers, education that trains workers, electricity that powers industry, etc.) pay their fair share towards the maintenance of those services. But, as ITEP’s recent report, Corporate Tax Dodging in the Fifty States, 2008-2010, found, twenty profitable Fortune 500 companies paid no state corporate income taxes over the last three years, and 68 paid none in at least one of those three years, even as state budgets are stretched to the point of breaking.  

As a new legislative season gets underway, too many political leaders are bashing taxes in general and business taxes in particular.  Here are some states to watch for more bad business tax policy (followed by a few glimmers of hope).

South Carolina – South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is following through on her misguided campaign promise and recently proposed eliminating the state’s corporate income tax over four years. This despite the fact that South Carolina’s corporate income taxes as a share of tax revenue are among the lowest in the country, at a mere 2.4 percent.

Kentucky – State Representative Bill Farmer has filed legislation that, instead of strengthening the tax, would repeal the state’s corporate income tax entirely. Farmer worked as a “tax consultant” and has been an anti-tax crusader in the Kentucky legislature since 2003.

Nebraska – Governor Dave Heineman recently unveiled his plan to reduce the top corporate income tax rate from 7.81 to 6.7 percent (and eliminate other key state revenue sources, too).

Florida – In his recent State of the State address, Governor Rick Scott said that taxes and regulations were “the great destroyers of capital and time for small businesses.”  And – no surprise here – he also called for lowering business taxes.

Idaho – Governor Butch Otter has called for $45 million in tax cuts but is leaving the details to the legislature.  Of course, when a lobbyist from the Idaho Chamber Alliance of businesses calls the governor’s position “ manna from heaven,” there’s a good chance some of those cuts will be given to business.

A few signs of sanity. In Connecticut , the governor is looking to improve the return on tax-break investment for the Nutmeg state. Perhaps he’s learned from states like Ohio, where a recent report issued by the attorney general showed that fewer than half of all companies receiving tax subsidies actually fulfilled their commitments in terms of job creation or economic growth.   We also see combined reporting getting attention in a couple of states.  It’s smart policy that discourages companies from creating multi-state subsidiaries to shelter their profits from taxes. We will report on other positive developments as warranted – so watch this space.

Photo of Rick Scott via Gage Skidmore and Photo of Nikki Haley via Mary Austin Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Naughty

Michigan’s legislature and Governor Snyder top the naughty list by giving away more than $1.6 billion in tax cuts for business and paying for it with tax increases on low-and middle-income working and retired families.

Florida continued to dole out more corporate pork this year, including a property tax break that happens to benefit huge commercial land owners, like Disney World and Florida Power and Light, and other corporations (that also happen to be major donors to the state’s Republican governor and legislative majority party).

Minnesota’s legislature missed an opportunity to do the right thing when it rejected a tax increase on the state’s wealthiest residents. The plan was proposed by Governor Dayton and supported by 63 percent of Minnesotans over the alternative, which was cuts to spending on education, health care and other vital public services.

Anti-tax activists in Missouri were hard at work again. This year they were collecting signatures for a ballot initiative that would eliminate the state’s personal income tax and replace it with a broadened and increased sales tax.

Nice

Connecticut’s Governor Malloy and the legislature adopted a $1.4 billion tax increase that improved tax fairness in the state and protected public investments like education and health care.  Most notably, the state added an Earned Income Tax Credit, a significant tax break for low-income working families.

District of Columbia lawmakers greatly reduced the ability of corporations to dodge their fair share of taxes by adopting combined reporting (which makes it harder to hide profits in other states) and a higher corporate minimum tax. The Council also temporarily increased taxes for individuals making more than $350,000 a year and limited itemized deductions, which are most often taken by high income filers.

Hawaii lawmakers also limited upside-down tax giveaways (itemized deductions) for their state’s richest residents and passed other tax changes to raise much needed revenue.

A Little Bit Naughty and Nice

New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo reversed his campaign vow not to raise taxes and supported a tax increase on residents earning more than $2 million a year.   The plan, passed by the legislature, also included a tax break for those with income under $300,000.

However, New York lawmakers passed the governor’s cap on property taxes this summer, which is predictably creating crises and forcing dramatic cuts in local education, medical, and public safety services.

Illinois raised significant revenue earlier in the year through temporary personal and corporate income tax rate increases, all designed to stave off harsh spending cuts, but then turned right around and gave away hundreds of millions of dollars to Sears and CME, allegedly to keep them in the state.

This week Kansas Revenue Secretary, Nick Jordan, said that by the end of the year Governor Sam Brownback will have recommendations for how to reform the state’s tax structure. He said, “We're looking at tax policy in a very comprehensive way. We're not just focusing on business or individual incomes, I don't know that we are targeting numbers. We're targeting what is the best economic growth policy for the state." This statement, combined with other media reports that the governor is working with supply side guru, Arthur Laffer, and that the governor seeks to reduce and eventually eliminate income tax rates, should cause grave concern for Kansas taxpayers.

In anticipation of the governor’s tax proposals, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) recently issued a memo to media outlets in Kansas. ITEP’s analysis shows the impact of repealing the Kansas income tax and replacing part or all of the revenue with increased sales taxes.  For example, if every dime of an income tax repeal were ultimately paid for by increases in state sales taxes, the poorest 80 percent of Kansans would, as a group, see a tax hike overall and require a statewide average sales tax rate of a whopping13.5 percent.

Governor Brownback recently told the Kansas Chamber of Commerce that in terms of low taxes and regulation, “We’ve got to look more like Texas and a lot less like California.”

But Kansas shouldn’t want to look more like Texas! The Texas tax structure doesn’t have an income tax, making it the fifth most regressive in the country and chronically unable to fund public investments. Texas ranks 45th in SAT Scores and 50th in terms of the percent of the population with a high school diploma. Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured citizens, and the second highest percentage of the population experiencing food insecurity in the nation.

We will keep an eye on the governor’s plans for Kansas, but if he’s looking for a state on which to model his tax reforms, he should take a look at Connecticut.

Photo of Sam Brownback via KDOTHQ Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

In a year when most state leaders across the country embraced an anti-tax, cuts-only approach to addressing short- and long-term budget shortfalls, Connecticut lawmakers agreed to a budget for the current fiscal year that addressed the state’s deficit crisis with a balance between spending cuts and (if you can believe it) significant new taxes.

Not just new taxes that fall heavily on the working poor, which are politically easy but fiscally insignificant (and far more common that you’d think), but new taxes on the rich, which are often political suicide even as they are fiscally smart.

Starting yesterday, August 1, high income taxpayers started seeing more taxes withheld from their paychecks, and Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, (whose party opposed the package) wailed, “It is a sad day when state government decides to reach back in time to garnish the wages of our hard working residents because it can't get its own fiscal house in order."

But wait. Middle-income households with taxable incomes (not salaries, but adjusted gross income) under $100,000 ($50,000 if single), will not see any change in their withholding. And, as Connecticut for Children’s Voices points out using ITEP data, even though the tax changes boosted fairness by reducing taxes for low-income residents and increasing them for wealthy ones, the state and local tax system remains highly imbalanced: the wealthiest Connecticut households still only pay on average 5.5 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes while the poorest 20 percent pay 11.4 percent of their incomes.

The other, mostly progressive, tax package features kick in this summer, too, including sales tax changes that took effect in July.

The Connecticut budget is a national model. It introduces a program (Earned Income Tax Credit) repeatedly proven to boost economic activity, and it increases taxes on those in the highest brackets to help restore revenues needed for core services and municipal budgets.  We wish the state well, and will check back as the results begin to take effect.

Earlier this week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released a new report highlighting the key tax components of Connecticut’s recently enacted budget, which raised more than $1.4 billion in new taxes to mitigate cuts to core services.

 
The mostly progressive tax package includes increases in personal income taxes for the state’s best-off residents, a new 30 percent refundable state Earned Income Tax Credit, a reduction in the state’s property tax credit, an increase and expansion of the sales tax, a new ‘Amazon’ tax, a corporate income tax surcharge, a lowered threshold for the estate tax, and increases in cigarette and alcohol taxes.

In a year when most state leaders across the country have embraced an anti-tax, cuts-only approach to addressing short- and long-term budget woes, Connecticut lawmakers boldly took a stand for the vital role of government and for progressive tax policy.  Connecticut’s approach addresses current fiscal challenges and is forward-looking, putting the state on a path towards fiscal and economic recovery.

State policymakers and advocates still in the throes of crafting their state spending plans for next year should look to Connecticut as a guide for a sensible approach to addressing ongoing fiscal woes.

Bucking the anti-tax, anti-government, cuts-only approach to state budget shortfalls embraced by most state leaders across the nation this year, Connecticut governor Dan Malloy signed a two-year state spending plan this week that raises $1.4 billion in new taxes to mitigate cuts to core services.
 
The tax package includes increases in personal income taxes for the state’s best-off residents, a new 30 percent refundable state Earned Income Tax Credit, a reduction in the state’s property tax credit, an increase and expansion of the sales tax, a new ‘Amazon’ tax, a corporate income tax surcharge, a lowered threshold for the estate tax, and increases in cigarette and alcohol taxes.

What makes Connecticut truly unique among the states in its revenue-raising approach this year was the care given to make the tax changes progressive and reform-minded rather than simply relying on quick or one-time fixes that postpone fundamental decisions and ignore the more significant structural and fairness flaws in state and local tax systems.

As previously noted, Connecticut is one of only a handful of states where state leaders have given serious consideration to raising revenue as part of a balanced solution to closing their budget gaps. 

In February, new Governor Dan Malloy (who calls himself the “Anti-Christie” referring to New Jersey’s notoriously conservative governor) released his budget proposal for fiscal year 2012. The plan would have closed roughly half of a $3 billion shortfall with a mix of new revenues from the personal income tax, sales tax, excise taxes, business taxes, and the estate tax. 

As of this week, the governor moved one step closer to enacting his vision for Connecticut when he reached an agreement with House and Senate leadership on his tax and spending packages.

Both chambers’ Finance and Appropriations Committees approved the revised budget plan on Thursday and the full House and Senate will take it up next week.  Not surprisingly, Republican lawmakers criticized the proposal and unsuccessfully offered a no-tax increase amendment that would have meant more than $1.4 billion in additional cuts to essential services.
 
One common criticism of the Governor’s original tax package was that it hit middle-income households the hardest.  While a new 30 percent refundable state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) ensured low-income households would not see a tax increase (and in some cases would receive a net tax cut), the proposed elimination of the state’s property tax credit would have disproportionally impacted middle-income households. 

As a result, an ITEP analysis found that middle-income households would have seen the biggest tax increase as a share of income under the Governor's proposal.  Tied to that criticism, several key House and Senate members as well as the Better Choices for Connecticut coalition pushed for a more progressive tax package (equipped with an ITEP analysis of that plan) that would ask the state’s wealthiest households to pay for the largest share of the tax increase.
 
The revised package appears to have addressed these criticisms.  A scaled back version of the property tax credit would be restored and result in a smaller tax increase for middle-income households.  And, changes to personal income tax rates and a mechanism to recapture the benefits of lower tax rates will mean that the top 5 percent will pay more than under the Governor’s original plan.

The Connecticut tax package also includes several significant changes to the state’s sales tax including broadening the base to include several services and currently exempted goods, a new ‘Amazon’ law, a 7 percent tax on luxury goods, and a small rate increase from 6 to 6.25 percent. 

The governor’s original sales tax proposal was even more comprehensive, but several items (expanding the sales tax to include haircuts and boat repairs, an elimination of the sales tax holiday and elimination of exemption on auto-trade-ins) were left out of the revised package. 

Otherwise, the revised package mostly mirrors the original and includes tax increases on estates, cigarettes, alcohol, and corporate income.

Last week Illinois joined New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island by enacting legislation requiring Amazon.com and other online retailers working with in-state affiliates to collect sales taxes.  Arkansas’s Senate and Vermont’s House recently passed similar legislation, and Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Mississippi, and New Mexico are considering doing the same.  Interestingly, lawmakers in each of these states are being spurred to do the right thing by major retailers like Wal-Mart, Sears, and Barnes & Noble.

In most states, Amazon and other online retailers are not currently required to collect sales taxes unless they have a “physical presence” in the state, though consumers are still required to remit the tax themselves.  Unfortunately, very few consumers actually pay the sales taxes they owe on online purchases — in California, for example, unpaid taxes on internet and catalog sales are estimated to cost the state as much as $1.15 billion per year.

The so-called “Amazon laws” recently adopted in Illinois, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island are all designed to limit this form of tax evasion by broadening the class of online retailers that must pay sales taxes.  Specifically, under these new laws, any retailer partnering with in-state affiliate merchants is required to pay sales taxes on purchases made by residents of that state.

Up until recently, the reaction to these laws has been mostly hostile.  Grover Norquist has branded them a (gasp) “tax increase,” despite the fact that they’re designed only to reduce illegal tax evasion.  More importantly, Amazon has challenged the New York law in court, and has ended relationships with affiliates in North Carolina and Rhode Island in order to avoid having to pay sales taxes on sales made within those states.  Amazon has also promised to severe ties with its Illinois affiliates, and has threatened to do the same in California if a similar law is adopted there.  These tactics mirror a recent decision by Amazon to shut down a Texas-based distribution center in order to avoid having to remit taxes in that state as well.

But Amazon may not be able to bully state lawmakers for much longer.  Since New York passed its so-called “Amazon law” in 2008, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and now Illinois have already followed suit despite all the threats.  And it appears that Arkansas and Vermont may very well do the same — as proposals to enact Amazon laws in each of those states have already made it through one legislative chamber.  In addition, at least seven other states (listed in the opening paragraph) have similar legislation pending.

According to State Tax Notes (subscription required), Wal-Mart, Sears, and Barnes & Noble are each attempting to partner with affiliate merchants recently dropped by Amazon.  Even more importantly, several of the large retail companies (like Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot) are joining forces to lobby in favor of Amazon laws. These companies’ interest is in large part due to the fact that they already have to remit sales taxes in the vast majority of states because of the “physical presence” created by their large networks of “brick and mortar” stores.  If more traditional retailers begin to voice support for Amazon laws, the progress already being made on this issue is likely to accelerate.

For more background information on the Amazon.com tax controversy, check out this helpful report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

CTJ’s critique of claims that wealthy New Yorkers are fleeing the state’s so-called “millionaires’ tax” was publicized by two media outlets this week.  Similar claims being made in Connecticut and Rhode Island were also shot down in the media.

In last week’s Digest, CTJ pointed out numerous distortions in the Partnership for New York’s claims that wealthy New Yorkers were fleeing as a result of a recent tax increase on high-income earners.  (The Fiscal Policy Institute also issued a detailed rebuttal). 

For starters, the Partnership erroneously claimed that a “9.4 percent decrease in the state's taxpayers who earn $1 million or more” occurred between 2007 and 2009.  But the data it used (but failed to cite) actually show a 9.4% drop in New Yorkers with wealth exceeding $1 million.  Since New York’s income tax obviously applies to income — not wealth — this is an important distinction. 

The Partnership has since revised its report to correct this mistake, but it continues to ignore a much more important one: according to the same dataset, every state in the country saw its number of wealthy taxpayers decline between 2007 and 2009 (due to the recession) and 43 states experienced declines exceeding New York’s 9.4% drop.  In fact, Phoenix International – the firm that released the data – made very clear in its 2009 press release that the U.S. as a whole saw its millionaire population decline by nearly 14%.  So it’s a little odd, to say the least, that the Partnership would interpret New York’s 9.4% rate of decline as providing any evidence that could be useful in its crusade against taxing high-income earners.

Fortunately, Robert Frank at the Wall Street Journal’s Wealth Report quickly publicized CTJ’s analysis, and labeled the Partnership’s migration claims a “myth.”  Frank also followed up with the Partnership’s CEO, who when confronted with the data problems described above retreated by saying: “It’s a very difficult thing to measure… We get a lot of it anecdotally.”

Crain’s New York Business similarly picked up on the CTJ analysis, ultimately declaring that “the nationwide decline suggests that New York lost millionaires primarily because New Yorkers made less money and saw their property values drop during the recession, not because they moved to other states.” 

Crain’s does err, however, in claiming that the data might partially reflect the fact that “New Yorkers could have left the state in mid-2009 and filed 2009 tax returns as residents of their new states.”  The 2009 data in question was actually released in early July 2009, and was left unchanged in the September 2010 update.  It is exceedingly unlikely that a dataset released just two months after the May 2009 enactment of New York’s “millionaires’ tax” could have captured the effects of any tax-induced wealth flight.

In addition to beating back ridiculous claims in New York, the WSJ’s Wealth Report also recently debunked similar claims being made in Connecticut by the Connecticut Policy Institute.  The story is a familiar one:

“How do we know why or even if high-earners moved out? It is possible that some previously high earners simply fell below the $1 million-dollar-a-year mark because their incomes fluctuated. In the land of hedge funds, this seems to be just as likely as people moving to Florida. It also is unclear whether the population of high-earners in Connecticut is aging and simply moved to warmer, more golf-friendly climes...The report doesn’t break down the destinations. Still, it says many go to Florida and New York. Florida, of course, has no state income tax. But New York state has a top tax rate of 8.97% and New York City’s top rate is 3.876%. Combined that is nearly twice as high as Connecticut’s tax. If the rich decide where to live based on taxes, why would they be moving to a higher-tax city? Perhaps because the quality of their life matters as much or more than the quantity of their taxes—up to a point, of course.”

Finally, Rhode Island claims of wealth flight ran into similar resistance in the media when Politifact took a lengthy look at the Ocean State Policy Research Institute’s (OSPRI) migration claims, and ultimately found them to be “false.” 

OSPRI’s report attempts to show that “the most significant driver of out-migration [from Rhode Island] is the estate tax.”  But as Politifact notes, “IRS data cited by OSPRI shows that Florida was increasingly attractive to Rhode Island taxpayers in the years when it had an estate tax. The flow slacked off significantly when the [Florida estate] tax was eliminated. That runs contrary to the trend OSPRI claims to have proven.” 

Moreover, Politifact points out that even the conservative Tax Foundation — hardly a big fan of the estate tax — hasn’t jumped onto the migration bandwagon: “Kail Padquitt, staff economist for The Tax Foundation … said he hasn’t seen any proof that the prospect of paying estate taxes drives people to move.”  We certainly haven’t either.

It seems that each week brings another round of regressive tax proposals from the states, but there are a few bright spots. As previously reported, the governors in Connecticut, Hawaii and Minnesota have been strong proponents for taking a balanced approach to their state’s budget gaps and have unabashedly supported raising revenue in mostly reform-minded and progressive ways.  More details emerged this week on the Connecticut and Minnesota governors’ revenue-raising proposals.   Also, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, who recently backed a successful initiative to increase the state’s flat personal income tax rate, started sending positive messages this week about the need to make his state’s tax system fairer.

On Wednesday, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy released his plan to deal a budget gap exceeding $3 billion. As promised, his plan would not to rely solely on spending cuts to close the gap. He offered a $1.5 billion package of new revenues including reforms to the personal income tax, sales tax, business taxes, and estate tax.
  
Under his plan, the state’s personal income tax would expand from 3 to 8 brackets, the top marginal rate would increase from 6.5 to 6.7 percent, and the bottom marginal rate of 3 percent would phase out for high-income earners.  The plan also eliminates an existing property tax credit which is most beneficial to middle-income families. 

Perhaps most significantly, Governor Malloy would buck a recent trend by adding a refundable state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) set at 30 percent of the federal program.  If enacted, Connecticut would become the 26th state to have an EITC.
 
Governor Malloy also proposed expanding the sales tax base by taxing several services, including pet grooming, boat repairs and hair cuts, eliminating the exemption on clothing under $50, and imposing an additional 3 percent sales tax on “luxury items.  The state sales tax rate would increase from 6 to 6.25 percent. 

Governor Malloy also supports positive changes to business taxation including adopting what is known as the "throwback rule," which mandates that sales into other states or to the federal government that are not taxable will be “thrown back” into the state of origin for tax purposes.  His plan would improve the estate tax by lowering the taxable estate threshold from $3.5 million to $2 million.

Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton ran on a pro-tax platform, promising to increase taxes on his state’s wealthiest households in order to stave off massive spending reductions.  Governor Dayton released a plan this week to raise $4.1 billion in new revenues over the next two years to help solve a $6.2 billion budget shortfall.   Sticking to his campaign pledge, the majority of the new revenue would be raised from the wealthiest 5 percent of taxpayers in the state. The plan would add a new top income tax bracket, charge a 3 percent surtax on filers with taxable income above $500,000, and add a new statewide property tax on homes valued at more than $1 million.

The Minnesota Budget Project had the following to say about Governor Dayton’s proposal: “The Governor’s tax proposal seeks to add balance to the state’s tax system. Over time, the state has cut progressive taxes (like the income tax) during good times and increased regressive taxes (like property taxes) during the bad times. These policy changes, combined with economic trends, have led to a tax system that has shifted more of the responsibility for funding state and local services on to low- and moderate-income Minnesotans. People at the highest income levels pay a smaller share of their income in state and local taxes (8.9 percent) than the average for all Minnesotans (11.2 percent).”

Illinois lawmakers should be applauded for temporarily raising the state’s flat income tax rate from 3 to 5 percent in January to help fill a $15 billion budget gap. However, they missed an opportunity to fix the state’s broken, outdated, and unfair tax system rather than just raise rates.  But the opportunity may still be available.  This week, Governor Pat Quinn asked state lawmakers to consider modernizing the tax system and making it fairer.  He did not offer specific suggestions on how to achieve this goal, but explained that Illinois’ tax system is regressive, requiring more from its poorest residents than from the rich. 

In response to his call for reform, some Democratic lawmakers offered a few suggestions, including moving the state to a graduated income tax, expanding the sales tax base to include services, and relying less on property taxes to pay for schools.

The last place you would ever expect a discussion of tax policy is in the sea of Super Bowl commercials about beer, cars, and Doritos, yet the organization Americans Against Food Taxes spent over $3 million to change that last Sunday.

The ad, called “Give Me a Break”, features a nice woman shopping in a grocery store,  explaining how she does not want the government interfering with her personal life by attempting to place taxes on soda, juice, or even flavored water. The goal of the ad is to portray objections to soda taxes as if they are grounded in the concerns of ordinary Americans.

But Americans Against Food Taxes is anything but a grassroots organization. Its funding comes from a coalition of corporate interests including Coca-Cola, McDonalds and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

It is easy to understand why these groups are concerned about soda taxes, which were once considered a way to help pay for health care reform. The entire purpose of these taxes is to discourage the consumption of their products. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains in making the case for a soda tax, such a tax could be used to dramatically reduce obesity and health care costs and produce better health outcomes across the nation. Adding to this, the revenue raised could be dedicated to funding health care programs, which could further improve the general welfare.

These taxes may spread, at least at the state level.  In its analysis of the ad, Politifact verifies the ad’s claim that politicians are planning to impose additional taxes on soda and other groceries, writing that “legislators have introduced bills to impose or raise the tax on sodas and/or snack foods in Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia.”

It's true that taxes on food generally are regressive, and taxes on sugary drinks are no exception according to a recent study. It's a bad idea to rely on this sort of tax purely to raise revenue, but if the goal of the tax is to change behavior for health reasons, then such a tax might be a reasonable tool for social policy. We have often said the same about cigarette taxes, which are a bad way to raise revenue but a reasonable way to discourage an unhealthy behavior.

With so many states considering soda taxes and the corporate interests revving up their own campaign, the “Give Me a Break” ad may just be the opening shot in the big food tax battles to come.

Governors are in the midst of crafting their budget proposals for next year, and many state leaders continue to grapple with historic budget shortfalls due to lagging revenue recovery and a high demand for public services.  In 2009 and 2010, most states balanced their budgets with a mix of temporary and permanent tax increases, significant federal assistance, and spending cuts.  This year, state revenues continue to lag, many of the temporary tax increases are set to expire, and federal stimulus assistance will dry up, yet the need for quality education, safe communities, affordable health care, public transit and well-maintained roads has not diminished.

As the Tax Justice Digest has previously noted, so far this year we have seen mostly a slew of bad proposals from state leaders. Many states are offering tax breaks to corporations and wealthy households and refusing to consider new taxes, while choosing to cut state spending to historically low and damaging levels. A few governors, however, have recently bucked the cuts-only trend and have made it clear that taxes must be a part of the solution.
 
In Connecticut, newly elected Governor Dannel Malloy plans to address the state’s $3.7 billion budget shortfall with an almost equal share of spending cuts ($2 billion) and tax increases ($1.7 billion).   While the details of his tax plan will not be unveiled until February, he is likely to support eliminating a majority of the state’s sales tax exemptions as one part of his revenue raising plan.

Hawaii’s new governor, Neil Abercrombie, has also embraced the need to raise new revenues as part of a budget-fixing compromise.  Governor Abercrombie proposed raising $279 million, including taxes on soda, alcohol, and time-shares. Most significantly, Abercrombie would tax pension income (which is generally exempt from taxation currently) for taxpayers with incomes over $50,000, raising around $114 million a year.  He also supports eliminating the state deduction for state taxes, a smart reform measure that would raise $70 million a year.  

North Carolina lawmakers addressed their budget crisis in the previous two years in part with $1.3 billion in temporary taxes which are set to expire this year.  For months, Governor Bev Perdue opposed extending the taxes for another year despite a shortfall of nearly $4 billion.  She recently changed her tune, and is now considering including an extension of these temporary tax increases (a 1 cent sales tax increase and income tax surcharge on high-income households and corporations) in her budget proposal in order to stave off massive cuts to K-12 education.

For a review of the most significant state tax actions across the country this year and a preview for what’s to come in 2011, check out ITEP’s new report, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 2010 State Tax Policy Changes.

"Good" actions include progressive or reform-minded changes taken to close large state budget gaps. Eliminating personal income tax giveaways, expanding low-income credits, reinstating the estate tax, broadening the sales tax base, and reforming tax credits are all discussed.  

Among the “bad” actions state lawmakers took this year, which either worsened states’ already bleak fiscal outlook or increased taxes on middle-income households, are the repeal of needed tax increases, expanded capital gains tax breaks, and the suspension of property tax relief programs.  

“Ugly” changes raised taxes on the low-income families most affected by the economic downturn, drastically reduced state revenues in a poorly targeted manner, or stifled the ability of states and localities to raise needed revenues in the future. Reductions to low-income credits, permanently narrowing the personal income tax base, and new restrictions on the property tax fall into this category.

The report also includes a look at the state tax policy changes — good, bad, and ugly — that did not happen in 2010.  Some of the actions not taken would have significantly improved the fairness and adequacy of state tax systems, while others would have decimated state budgets and/or made state tax systems more regressive.

2011 promises to be as difficult a year as 2010 for state tax policy as lawmakers continue to grapple with historic budget shortfalls due to lagging revenues and a high demand for public services.  The report ends with a highlight of the state tax policy debates that are likely to play out across the country in the coming year.