Note to Readers: Over the coming weeks, ITEP will highlight tax policy proposals that are gaining momentum in states across the country. This week, we’re taking a closer look at proposals which would lessen a state’s reliance on progressive income taxes, often by shifting to a heavier reliance on regressive sales taxes. 

Georgia – A legislative proposal gaining traction in Atlanta would undercut the state’s reliance on the personal income tax – its only major progressive revenue source.  It would make up those revenues by raising the sales tax – every state’s most regressive source of revenue.  The plan also includes two other components that hit the poorest Georgians the hardest: taxing groceries and adding a dollar to the cigarette tax.  A sensible, comprehensive proposal from the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute is the template lawmakers should be following. It starts with fairness, ends with increased revenues and is all about modernization and reform. 

Kansas – If the expectations about Governor Sam Brownback’s proposed income tax changes are right, Kansas could have a hard time balancing its books. Tonight, the Governor, (who has received technical assistance from supply side guru Arthur Laffer), is expected to propose drastic reductions to state income tax rates.  Details on how the governor plans to make up the lost revenue haven’t been revealed, but his sidekick Laffer was recently quoted as saying, “It’s a revolution in a cornfield. Brownback and his whole group there, it’s an amazing thing they’re doing. Truly revolutionary.”

Kentucky –  Fresh off his reelection to the Governor’s office, Steve Beshear is expected to propose his own tax reform plan, but Representative Bill Farmer, who’s been itching to change Kentucky’s tax code for years, has already pre-filed his own tax overhaul bill, which would slash the state income tax, expand the sales tax base to include more services and lower the sales tax rate.  ITEP conducted an in depth analysis of an earlier Farmer proposal and found that his proposal would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars and raise taxes on the poorest 20 percent of Kentuckians by an average of $138. We expect that his current proposal won’t do much to fix the state’s regressive tax structure either.

Missouri – Perhaps the most destructive proposal of this type gaining traction is Missouri’s mega-tax proposal, so called because it amounts to a massive consumption tax hike for ordinary Missourians. Proponents of the related ballot initiative that would eliminate the state’s personal income tax and replace that revenue by adding goods and services to the sales tax base are currently collecting signatures in an attempt to place the initiative on the ballot this November. Show-Me-Staters would be unwise to provide their signatures for this kind of campaign, however, because its passage would result in higher overall taxes for working families. Click here to see ITEP testimony on a similar proposal.

Oklahoma – Two seriously bad proposals that would increase the unfairness of Oklahoma’s tax system are currently under consideration. Working with (the aforementioned supply side guru) Arthur Laffer, the free-market Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs is proposing to eliminate the state income tax altogether. An ITEP analysis found that the bottom one-fifth of Oklahoma taxpayers -- those earning less than $16,600 per year -- would be paying on average $250 a year more in taxes, or about 2.5 percent more of their income. Similarly, the Tax Force on Comprehensive Tax Reform (dominated by business interests) suggests lowering the state’s top income tax rate and eliminating a variety of tax credits, many of which are designed to help low and middle income families. David Blatt, director of the non partisan Oklahoma Policy Institute recently said of the proposal, "This would hit hardest the poor and middle class families who are struggling most to make ends meet in a tough economy.”

Photo of Governor Steve Beshear via  Gage Skidmore and photo of Art Laffer via Republican Conference Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Just weeks after a six-month effort by Georgia lawmakers to enact ambitious tax reform legislation fell apart, Governor Nathan Deal is signaling that lawmakers may be asked to continue their deliberations on this issue when they return for a special legislative session on redistricting this August.

But if Deal's views on the shape of "tax reform" are any indicator, a special session could run into the same difficulties encountered during this year's tumultuous regular legislative session.

The failure of this year's tax reform effort was due to an inexorable rule of tax accounting: when you design a tax plan that is revenue-neutral overall and gives big tax cuts to the wealthiest families, someone else has to pay higher taxes.

But Deal's stated goal of shifting to a "consumption-based approach" to revenue-raising would necessarily reserve the biggest tax cuts for the very best-off Georgians, and the Republican leadership's Grover Norquist-inspired refusal to raise any new revenues through tax reform means inevitably that middle- and low-income families will foot the bill for these high-end tax cuts.

Lawmakers who correctly found this "Robin Hood in reverse" swap unpalatable this spring will presumably feel the same way come August.

The sad part of the story is that this year's tax battles began as an honest discussion of important tax reform principles. When an appointed Georgia tax reform commission issued its recommendations in January, the focus of the plan was on achieving a more sustainable Georgia tax system by eliminating unwarranted tax loopholes — and the original proposal would have done a decent job of achieving this important goal.

But in the hands of Republican leaders in the state legislature, the plan's loophole-closing provisions gradually fell by the wayside under pressure from special interests, which meant that this formerly revenue-neutral plan ended up being a revenue loser that missed important opportunities to modernize the state's tax system.

In their zeal to satisfy Grover Norquist and his no-new-taxes acolytes by removing provisions that would have hiked taxes on anyone at all, legislative leaders lost sight of the broad tax-reform principles that had motivated the reform commission in the first place.

More than anything, this outcome shows the utter incompatibility of the "no new taxes" mantra with the type of sustainable tax reforms that are needed at both the federal and state level. If lawmakers insist that tax reform can't involve tax hikes on anyone, but must include substantial tax cuts for the best-off Americans, sustainable tax reform simply can't happen.

Georgia’s Special Council on Tax Reform recently released recommendations to overhaul Georgia’s tax structure in a way that would improve the state's finances but also shift taxes to Georgians who are less able to pay.

As anticipated, the recommendations were quite sweeping and dealt with every major tax the state levies.  The recommendations included a lot of good base-broadening measures, like repealing the state’s generous pension exclusion, eliminating itemized deductions from the personal income tax, and including more services in the sales tax base. The Council also recommended regressive changes, like replacing the state’s progressive income tax with a flat 4 percent rate, adding groceries back to the sales tax, and increasing the cigarette tax.

The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute (GBPI) offered improvements to the Council’s proposal to prevent tax increases on those who could least afford them.

A House committee came up with their own proposal as a substitute to the Council’s initial recommendations. This new plan includes a 4.5 percent flat income tax rate, no corporate income tax rate changes, and no changes to the cigarette tax. Read GBPI’s complete analysis of this substitute proposal.

The substitute hit a snag too. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported, “A clunky but effective coalition of Democrats, tea partiers and Baptists forced state Republican lawmakers into a desperate attempt to save their troubled tax reform bill.” The bill even caused infighting between an unlikely cast of characters: Georgia tea partiers and the national leader of the anti-tax movement, Grover Norquist.

Now we are hearing that another set of tweaks to the original recommendations from the Special Council on Tax Reform is in the works and will be unveiled next week. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, this latest iteration ensures that more Georgians get a tax cut, but the price tag for such “reform” according to the official fiscal note is $220 million.  This latest and presumably final attempt (because of the legislative calendar constraints) at reform is expensive and makes the state’s tax structure even more unfair for low-income families.

GBPI concludes, “It is better to do nothing this session and come back next year with true tax reform than pass a bill that gives large tax cuts to the wealthiest Georgians and a few favored businesses interests, resulting in further cuts to what is most needed for the broad business sector to prosper—education and basic infrastructure.” Read the full GBPI statement.

There were high hopes that the Council’s efforts would produce tax reform that would improve the state’s already flawed tax structure, but if the legislation that stems from these efforts doesn’t ensure fair and sustainable tax reform, then it’s not worth passing.

Debate over the recommendations from Georgia’s Special Council on Tax Reform continues. Should the state flatten its income tax rates? Should the state broaden the income tax base? Folks are likely still making up their minds about how they feel about adding groceries back to the sales tax base, among other possible changes.

Georgians concerned about tax fairness should read the new brief from the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. It offers several alternatives (using ITEP data) that would tweak the Council’s recommendations and would improve the tax fairness implications of the Council’s initial proposal.

In a recent op-ed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Sarah Beth Gehl of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute makes the case that the Special Council on Tax Reform and Fairness hit a triple when they came out with their policy recommendations for modernizing the state’s tax structure. The Council emphasized sales tax base expansion to include more services and broadening the state’s income tax base. 

Triples are good, but home runs are better and Gehl makes the case that the Council missed out on a homerun because they overlooked a key tax policy principle when devising its recommendations — tax fairness.  Citing ITEP data, she writes, “The best-off 1 percent of Georgians, those making more than $389,000 in 2010, would receive an almost $7,800 average yearly tax decrease. In the case of a Georgian making around $40,000, taxes would rise by about $400 a year.” 

Gehl identifies several sensible alternatives that the legislature could tack onto the Council’s recommendations that would take into account tax fairness, including more generous low-income tax relief and exempting groceries from the sales tax base.

There seems to be a contingent that is steering away from the debate and instead focusing on what Grover Norquist would approve of. In fact, to appease Norquist and his group, Americans for Tax Reform, the Council actually reconvened earlier this week to vote on a resolution which claimed that the intent of the Council’s recommendations was that they were to be “revenue-neutral.” Because, of course, Norquist’s group would never give the thumbs up to a proposal that actually raised revenue to meet the needs of Georgians.

The Special Joint Committee on Georgia Revenue Structure met this week to debate the Council’s recommendations. We’ll be watching their actions closely and it sounds like Grover will be too.

Faced with huge budget deficits, many state lawmakers are eyeing dangerous short-sighted budget cuts that threaten to gut essential services and state infrastructure.  In response, dedicated advocacy organizations, service providers, religious communities, concerned citizens, and professional associations have formed coalitions in more than 35 states to battle for smart fiscal policies that will protect core services and ensure that states have the resources to meet current and future needs. 

Here’s a brief overview of the newest of these coalitions:

In Georgia, the coalition 2020 Georgia officially launched on January 18th to promote a balanced approach to their budget that adequately addresses the long-term needs of the state instead of pursuing damaging cuts to services that can hurt the state’s economy.  The coalition consists of a wide variety of partners, including AARP, the League of Women Voters of Georgia, and the Georgia Public Health Association.  2020 Georgia hopes to maintain smart investments in education, public safety, health, and the environment.

In Texas, a wide coalition of organizations have created Texas Forward, a group that hopes to spur continued investment in vital public services instead of devastating budget cuts.  Texas Forward believes that smart investment now can prevent future generations from shouldering the burden of the lasting damage caused by disinvesting in services during this time of financial need.  Recently, Texas Forward urged state lawmakers to seek new revenue sources and federal funding to minimize the impact of the projected $24 billion deficit.

In Iowa, the Coalition for a Better Iowa was formed with the express mission “to maintain and strengthen high quality public services and structures that promote thriving communities and prosperity for all Iowans.”  The Coalition for a Better Iowa includes organizations representing children, seniors, human service providers, environmental organizations, and politically engaged citizens.  The coalition is committed to creating a balanced solution to the budget shortfalls while protecting vital services and investing sustainably in the state’s future.

In Montana, a group called the Partnership for Montana’s Future offers an extensive list of revenue-raising mechanisms to solve the state’s budge crisis.  The list has many specific proposals, generally categorized as collecting new revenue through improved tax compliance, closing tax loopholes, targeted tax increases, and other miscellaneous options.  The coalition consists of a wide variety of health, education, environmental, labor, and policy organizations.

In Pennsylvania, Better Choices for Pennsylvania is a coalition of health, education, labor, and religious organizations that recognize that all Pennsylvanians benefit from the services and infrastructure provided by state government.  Like the other coalitions featured, Better Choices for Pennsylvania refutes the proposition that deep tax cuts can solve the state’s budget problems.  Instead, BCP is pushing for closing special tax breaks and loopholes.  The coalition believes that helping working families through hard times will put the state in a better position towards long-term financial stability.

In Michigan, the revenue coalition, A Better Michigan Future recently issued a press release reviewing Governor Snyder’s budget proposal.  The group supports smart revenue-raising tactics like eliminating redundant and wasteful loopholes and modernizing the state sales tax to reflect the changing marketplace.

While not a new coalition, North Carolina’s revenue coalition, Together NC, recently launched a web ad.  The ad is meant to remind North Carolinians about the smart budget choices the state has made in the past that allowed it to prosper and spur citizens to take action to protect their state from falling behind (or, as the ad says, to keep North Carolina from becoming its neighbor to the south).

In recent weeks, tax commissions in Georgia and Vermont issued reports recommending a major overhaul of their states' tax systems.  The recommendations share many things in common, including sensible proposals to broaden the bases of major taxes and to make the changes revenue-neutral. In fact, when ITEP staff testified before each of these commissions over the last year, our testimony highlighted the importance of base-broadening as a first step towards sustainable tax reform. However, it’s clear that only one commission was concerned about the general welfare of its low-income taxpayers while the other seemed to have little interest in ensuring that a major tax overhaul doesn't disproportionately impact working families.  

Georgia’s Special Council on Tax Reform Releases Recommendations

Earlier this month Georgia’s Special Council on Tax Reform released its recommendations for how Georgia’s tax structure should be changed. CTJ has been following the Council's work closely over the past few months.  

As anticipated, the recommendations are quite sweeping and deal with every major tax the state levies.  Among the recommendations are broadening the income tax base by repealing the state’s generous pension exclusion and broadening the sales tax base by including more services and groceries. The Council also recommends replacing the state’s progressive income tax with a flat 4 percent rate, increasing the corporate income tax rate and increasing the cigarette tax. (Read the Council’s full recommendations.)

Unfortunately, no thought was given to how these sweeping changes impact low and middle-class working families. Broadening tax bases is sound tax policy, but base-broadening must be coupled with targeted measures to ensure that the brunt of this tax modernization isn’t borne by the most vulnerable.

Vermont’s Tax Commission Releases Final Report

On the heels of Georgia, Vermont’s Blue Ribbon Tax Structure Commission released its final report last week after more than a year of review, research, outreach and discussion about the state’s tax system.  The report offers a clear path forward for Vermont to “strengthen its tax system for the 21st century” which means “questioning critically every assumption in the tax system.” 

If enacted as a comprehensive package, which Commission members have requested lawmakers to consider, the recommendations would indeed make the state’s tax system more sustainable, adequate, and fair over the long run. 

The Public Assets Institute issued a statement on the report, saying it “was badly needed and long overdue…a  good first step in strengthening our revenue system so it can support the essential public services that all Vermonters deserve.”

The recommended income tax changes include basing Vermont’s taxes on federal adjusted gross income (AGI) and eliminating itemized and standard deductions.

The personal exemption would be replaced with a $350 non-refundable per-filer credit, plus an additional $150 for each spouse or dependent, which is capped at $800 and only available to taxpayers with AGI below $125,000.

The revenue gained from broadening the income tax base would be used to lower income tax rates.

The Commission recommended expanding the sales tax to most consumer-purchased services in order to bring their sales tax in line with current consumer patterns which favor services rather than goods.  They also suggested that all consumer-based sales tax exemptions should be eliminated with the exception of food and prescription drugs.  The revenue gained from broadening the sales tax base would be used to lower the sales tax rate from 6 percent to 4.5 percent.

Additionally, the Commission wants more scrutiny of the state’s tax expenditures and called for the state to develop the capacity to conduct tax incidence studies to better inform policymakers on tax policy changes.

One criticism of the Commission is that their recommendations were revenue-neutral, meaning the changes would not increase or decrease current state revenues.  Given that Vermont must fill a $150 million budget gap next fiscal year, some advocates and lawmakers have suggested that the plan should raise some new revenue, at least temporarily, to fill the gap. 

The good news, however, is that if taken as a comprehensive package, the recommended changes would maintain the state’s reliance on a progressive income tax and would use revenue gained from broadening the sales tax base to lower the sales tax rate rather than moving to a greater reliance on consumption-based taxes.

Commission members asked state leaders to give serious consideration to their findings and recommendations. There is a good chance their request will be answered, because Vermont policymakers are making tax reform a priority during this legislative session.

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.

Good Jobs First (GJF) released three new resources this week explaining how your state is doing when it comes to letting taxpayers know about the plethora of subsidies being given to private companies.  These resources couldn’t be more timely.  As GJF’s Executive Director Greg LeRoy explained, “with states being forced to make painful budget decisions, taxpayers expect economic development spending to be fair and transparent.”

The first of these three resources, Show Us The Subsidies, grades each state based on its subsidy disclosure practices.  GJF finds that while many states are making real improvements in subsidy disclosure, many others still lag far behind.  Illinois, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Ohio did the best in the country according to GJF, while thirteen states plus DC lack any disclosure at all and therefore earned an “F.”  Eighteen additional states earned a “D” or “D-minus.”

While the study includes cash grants, worker training programs, and loan guarantees, much of its focus is on tax code spending, or “ tax expenditures.”  Interestingly, disclosure of company-specific information appears to be quite common for state-level tax breaks.  Despite claims from business lobbyists that tax subsidies must be kept anonymous in order to protect trade secrets, GJF was able to find about 50 examples of tax credits, across about two dozen states, where company-specific information is released.  In response to the business lobby, GJF notes that “the sky has not fallen” in these states.

The second tool released by GJF this week, called Subsidy Tracker, is the first national search engine for state economic development subsidies.  By pulling together information from online sources, offline sources, and Freedom of Information Act requests, GJF has managed to create a searchable database covering more than 43,000 subsidy awards from 124 programs in 27 states.  Subsidy Tracker puts information that used to be difficult to find, nearly impossible to search through, or even previously unavailable, on the Internet all in one convenient location.  Tax credits, property tax abatements, cash grants, and numerous other types of subsidies are included in the Subsidy Tracker database.

Finally, GJF also released Accountable USA, a series of webpages for all 50 states, plus DC, that examines each state’s track record when it comes to subsidies.  Major “scams,” transparency ratings for key economic development programs, and profiles of a few significant economic development deals are included for each state.  Accountable USA also provides a detailed look at state-specific subsidies received by Wal-Mart.

These three resources from Good Jobs First will no doubt prove to be an invaluable resource for state lawmakers, advocates, media, and the general public as states continue their steady march toward improved subsidy disclosure.

This week the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute (GBPI) released a new issue brief detailing the impact of taxing groceries. In it, they recommend that “all exemptions, credits, and deductions should be examined and weighed against each other and against the principles of tax reform.” 

Loophole-closing reform is a vital step toward a more sustainable sales tax, to be sure. But there are many other exemptions in Georgia’s tax code that should be studied closely and potentially eliminated before Georgians pay sales taxes on food. For example, Georgia offers one of the nation’s most generous exemptions for retirement income, and the state also offers an unusual and regressive tax deduction for state income taxes paid.

The debate over exemptions is heating up because the Special Council on Tax Reform and Fairness for Georgians will make their tax reform recommendations soon, and the media is reporting that one potential “reform” would be to add food back to the sales tax base. Let’s hope their recommendations take aim at other exemptions that wouldn’t so dramatically raise taxes on low-and middle-income families.

For years, both state and federal lawmakers have opted to forgo the hassles of the appropriations process in favor of enacting tax breaks — or “tax expenditures” — aimed at exactly the same goals.  The result has been a steady rise in tax code spending, and a corresponding decline in transparency and fiscal responsibility.  Recent developments in Missouri, Georgia, New Mexico, and Maine, however, indicate that at least some lawmakers are interested in getting a grip on this type of out-of-control spending.

In Missouri, the Tax Credit Review Commission, created by Governor Jay Nixon in July, finally issued its recommendations this week.  In addition to recommending the elimination of 28 tax credits and the reform of 30 more, the Commission also took the commendable step of proposing some broader reforms to the way Missouri lawmakers deal with tax credits.  Most notably, the Commission suggested sunsetting every state tax credit in order to force their review, and even proposed a schedule for sunsetting them in waves two, four, and six years from now.  This proposal closely resembles a reform enacted by Oregon in 2009.

In addition to sunsets, the Missouri Commission also proposed capping tax credits in order to reverse the explosion in tax credit spending the state has experienced in recent years.  In support of this proposal, the Commission notes that “as State revenues have declined and spending for other programs has been reduced, spending on the State’s tax credit programs has continued to grow.”  Finally, the Commission also recommends eliminating and/or reducing the ability of businesses to carry-back their tax credits to prior years’ tax bills, and enacting additional “clawback” provisions to ensure that companies only benefit from tax credits if they consistently meet all of the eligibility requirements.

The Georgia Council on Tax Reform and Fairness seems to be contemplating a similar path.  While the group’s report won’t be out until early January, the chairman has suggested sunsetting most tax exemptions on a five year schedule.  Hopefully, the final report from the Council will include this recommendation and enhance it further by bringing all tax expenditures — not just tax exemptions — within its scope.  The Council would also be wise to offer some specific ideas for ensuring that the debate over expiring tax provisions is sufficiently rigorous (like by implementing a complementary tax expenditure review system).

In Maine, a working group comprising various state agency heads recently came out with recommendations that are quite similar to those being considered in Missouri and Georgia.  While not advocating the use of sunset provisions, the group has suggested the creation of a review system similar to the one that exists in Washington State.  Multiple lawmakers have voiced support for the idea, though Maine’s recent switch from all-Democratic to all-Republican control could complicate things.

Finally, in New Mexico, the drive to review state tax code spending is coming not from a commission or working group, but from lawmakers themselves.  Back in 2007, New Mexico lawmakers passed a bill enacting a tax expenditure reporting requirement, only to be thwarted by Gov. Richardson’s veto.  As a result, New Mexico is one of just seven states without a legal requirement that tax expenditure reports be released on a regular schedule.  Now, the Albuquerque Journal reports that some lawmakers — including the Governor-elect — are pushing for enhanced disclosure and review of the state’s film tax credit, among other tax expenditures.

Hopefully, the difficult budgetary situations confronting each of these states will spur lawmakers to do what’s long overdue: finally get a grip on out-of-control tax code spending.

Georgia’s gubernatorial candidates are touting competing tax plans which they claim will stimulate the state's economy and help businesses create and maintain jobs.  Neither plan is likely to do that, but both would deprive the state of revenue that is sorely needed to address the state’s short- and long-term budget shortfalls.

Democrat Offers Capital Gains Tax Break

Roy Barnes, the Democratic candidate, recently released his "Jobs Plan" to "revive Georgia’s economy."  The main element of his plan to "stimulate business growth and reduce the burdens on Georgians" is a proposal to exempt capital gains income from taxation for two years for investors who reinvest their gains in Georgia-based companies.  Barnes believes his plan will increase investments, incentivize companies to rehire, and lead to new job creation.  He has also suggested that the plan will more than pay for itself.

Capital gains tax breaks are costly, inequitable, and ineffective and thus there are a lot of problems with Barnes' plan and his assertions that it will stimulate Georgia’s economy.    

First, Georgia simply cannot afford to lose revenue when facing a projected budget shortfall of close to $2 billion next year.  State officials estimate that taxes on capital gains income under the current laws will raise an estimated $433 million next fiscal year.

ITEP State Tax Policy Director Meg Wiehe was quoted in an Atlanta Journal Constitution story on Barnes’ plan, saying, "The idea of losing any sort of revenue source seems pretty nonsensical to me when we know the things that revenue pays for — like education, teachers’ jobs and public safety — are really important for stimulating the economy." 

Second, and not surprisingly, the benefits of Barnes’ proposed capital gains break will go almost exclusively to the state’s wealthiest residents, not to the low-income households who are struggling the most to make ends meet. 

Furthermore, the idea that reducing taxes on capital gains will lead to a more robust economy is not supported by the evidence.  An array of experts agree there is little connection between lower capital gains taxes and higher economic growth, in either the short-run or the long-run.  A 2002 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study concluded that capital gains tax breaks "would provide little fiscal stimulus" in the short-run, since most of the benefits of such cuts would accrue to high-income households, households that are more likely to save than spend, when the very aim of such short-term stimulus is to boost consumption. As for the long-term economic effects, there is no correlation between investment and economic growth and the marginal tax rate on capital gains income.

The tide has actually been turning against this type of tax break.  In just the past year, Rhode Island eliminated their preferential rates for capital gains income. And, of the eight states that currently offer some sort of significant capital gains tax break, two of them — Vermont and Wisconsin — have both recently acted to reduce their exclusions for capital gains income.  It seems like Barnes has missed the boat entirely with his proposal.

Republican Offers Corporate Tax Break

Nathan Deal, the Republican candidate, is promoting his "Real Prosperity Plan" as the best means to maintain and grow jobs in Georgia.  The core component of the plan is a cut in the corporate income tax rate from 6 percent to 4 percent. Deal thinks such a cut will make Georgia more competitive with its neighbors and help the state attract potential new businesses that will bring new jobs with them.  As critics have pointed out, most local businesses will not even benefit from Deal’s plan because they are structured as S-corporations or limited liability companies and are not subject to the corporate income tax.   

The corporate income tax is one of the fairest taxes a state can levy.  Just as working families and individuals benefit from the services that state and local governments provide, so too do corporations. At a time when Georgia is facing yet another significant budget shortfall, losing revenue from a progressive tax such as the corporate income tax is a bad prescription for fixing the state’s ailing economy, especially when the evidence suggests cutting the corporate income tax will not have the positive impact on the economy that Deal claims to seek.

A recent report  from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities offers an excellent explanation for why proposals to cut corporate income taxes offer "false hope" and are "unlikely to have a positive impact on a state's rate of economic growth or the pace at which it generates private-sector jobs."  CBPP notes that "cutting corporate tax rates may be politically appealing, but neither logic nor evidence suggests that doing so will stimulate significant economic growth. The fact that no state has enacted such cuts in the past two or three years suggests that many policymakers already doubt the proponents’ claims."

On a side note, Deal is also an avid supporter of the so-called  Fair Tax, another indicator that he is no friend of sensible tax policy.

ITEP’s new report, Credit Where Credit is (Over) Due, examines four proven state tax reforms that can assist families living in poverty. They include refundable state Earned Income Tax Credits, property tax circuit breakers, targeted low-income credits, and child-related tax credits. The report also takes stock of current anti-poverty policies in each of the states and offers suggested policy reforms.

Earlier this month, the US Census Bureau released new data showing that the national poverty rate increased from 13.2 percent to 14.3 percent in 2009.  Faced with a slow and unresponsive economy, low-income families are finding it increasingly difficult to find decent jobs that can adequately provide for their families.

Most states have regressive tax systems which exacerbate this situation by imposing higher effective tax rates on low-income families than on wealthy ones, making it even harder for low-wage workers to move above the poverty line and achieve economic security. Although state tax policy has so far created an uneven playing field for low-income families, state governments can respond to rising poverty by alleviating some of the economic hardship on low-income families through targeted anti-poverty tax reforms.

One important policy available to lawmakers is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The credit is widely recognized as an effective anti-poverty strategy, lifting roughly five million people each year above the federal poverty line.  Twenty-four states plus the District of Columbia provide state EITCs, modeled on the federal credit, which help to offset the impact of regressive state and local taxes.  The report recommends that states with EITCs consider expanding the credit and that other states consider introducing a refundable EITC to help alleviate poverty.

The second policy ITEP describes is property tax "circuit breakers." These programs offer tax credits to homeowners and renters who pay more than a certain percentage of their income in property tax.  But the credits are often only available to the elderly or disabled.  The report suggests expanding the availability of the credit to include all low-income families.

Next ITEP describes refundable low-income credits, which are a good compliment to state EITCs in part because the EITC is not adequate for older adults and adults without children.  Some states have structured their low-income credits to ensure income earners below a certain threshold do not owe income taxes. Other states have designed low-income tax credits to assist in offsetting the impact of general sales taxes or specifically the sales tax on food.  The report recommends that lawmakers expand (or create if they don’t already exist) refundable low-income tax credits.

The final anti-poverty strategy that ITEP discusses are child-related tax credits.  The new US Census numbers show that one in five children are currently living in poverty. The report recommends consideration of these tax credits, which can be used to offset child care and other expenses for parents.

Convening a Georgia tax reform commission in the summer of 2010 is a bit like tightening environmental regulations after an oil spill — a fine idea, but one that would have been more helpful earlier in the game. Only months ago, the state legislature enacted a costly new income tax giveaway for the best-off seniors and paid for it, in part, by gutting the only refundable credit available to low-income Georgians. This week, the "Special Council on Tax Reform and Fairness for Georgians," which is charged with revamping the state's tax code, convened and heard testimony from ITEP staff and others. 

ITEP's testimony describes the long-term structural challenges facing Georgia's main revenue sources, and surveys the most creative (and most dangerous) responses to these structural threats. By focusing on options that have been implemented or seriously discussed in other states, the testimony provides a very practical working guide for moving Georgia's tax system into the 21st century.
 
ITEP's testimony focuses on four major categories of state taxes levied in Georgia: sales taxes, corporate income taxes, personal income taxes, and gas taxes. It identifies workable reforms (and unworkable red herrings) of which Council members should be aware as they formulate their recommendations. In each case, the testimony spotlights efforts to raise needed revenues and eliminate tax inequities by broadening the tax base to eliminate loopholes for various special interests.
 
On the income tax front, ITEP's testimony focused on the surprising, but laudable growth in the number of states that have pared back excessive tax breaks for capital gains, itemized deductions, and retirement income in recent years. In discussing the sales tax, ITEP noted that while relatively few states have succeeded in meaningfully expanding the sales tax base to include more services in recent years, a growing number are considering sensible plans to do so in 2010. The testimony also took note of the growing use of so-called "Amazon taxes" designed to ensure that e-commerce sales should be at least partially taxable.
 
The testimony also noted the folly of "racing to the bottom" to provide industry-specific or even company-specific tax breaks for businesses as a relocation incentive, and discussed how Georgia could enhance its long-inadequate transportation revenue streams by bolstering its gas tax. Numerous states have recently increased their gas taxes, and many more have seriously discussed gas tax increases or gas tax restructuring aimed at improving revenue sustainability.
 
More so than is usually the case with tax reform commissions, the Special Council's recommendations could carry some weight when the legislature convenes next year, not only because its high-powered roster includes Governor Sonny Perdue but also because its recommendations are required to be introduced, "without significant changes," for a vote in the legislature next year. Hopefully, the growing number of sensible base-broadening measures enacted by other states will provide the Council with a template for reform.

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.