There are few areas of policy where lawmakers’ shortsightedness is on display as fully as it is with the gasoline tax.  Now, with a series of twenty six new charts from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy ( ITEP), you can see the impact of that shortsightedness in most states as shareable graphs.

Overall, state gas taxes are at historic lows, adjusted for inflation, and most states can expect further declines in the years ahead if lawmakers do not act.  Some states, including New Jersey, Iowa, Utah, Alabama, and Alaska, are levying their gas taxes at lower rates than at any time in their history.  Other states like Maryland, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Wyoming will approach or surpass historic lows in the near future if their gas tax rates remain unchanged and inflation continues as expected.

These findings build on a 50-state report from ITEP released last month, called Building a Better Gas Tax.  ITEP found that 36 states levy a “fixed-rate” gas tax totally unprepared for the inevitable impact of inflation, and twenty two of those states have gone fifteen years or more without raising their gas taxes.  All told, the states are losing over $10 billion in transportation revenue each year that would have been collected if lawmakers had simply planned for inflation the last time they raised their state gas tax rates.

View the charts here, and read Building a Better Gas Tax here.

Note for policy wonks: Charts were only made in twenty six states because the other twenty four do not publish sufficient historical data on their gas tax rates.  It’s also worth noting that these charts aren’t perfectly apples-to-apples with the Building a Better Gas Tax report, because that report examined the effect of construction cost inflation, whereas these charts had to rely on the general inflation rate (CPI) because most construction cost data only goes back to the 1970’s.  Even with that caveat in mind, these charts provide an important long-term look at state gas taxes, and yet another way of analyzing the same glaring problem.

Example:

A slew of tax credit programs in Iowa that have failed to live up to their job-creation promises is further evidence that while companies will happily take taxpayer money when it’s offered, no amount of corporate pork can make a company hire people when there’s no demand for its products.

An excellent piece of journalism from The Des Moines Register reveals that 15 companies enjoying tax credit dollars given to them by the state have defaulted on the job-creation requirements tied to those credits.  All together, those companies created one-third fewer jobs than they promised when they took the money.  (This story echoes a recent report from Texas showing that just 26 percent of projects receiving funding from the Texas Enterprise Fund (TEF) fully complied with their 2010 job creation requirements.)

The reasons for these failures should be obvious.  When the economy is weak, businesses generally can’t sell as much of their product as they used to.  You can throw money at them and ask them to hire more people, but ultimately it doesn’t make sense for a company to bring on more employees unless there’s some new, unmet demand that needs to be filled.  In good economic times, companies simply rake in tax credit dollars and create jobs they would have created anyway. But in bad economic times, companies rake in tax credit dollars, the façade collapses, and you end up with exactly the situation we see in Iowa.

Iowa State University economist David Swenson provided some valuable insight to The Des Moines Register on this issue: “Tax credits in Iowa are used very injudiciously.  Everybody qualifies for something. It makes no sense from a business or government point of view. … But government officials can’t take credit for job creation if they don’t hand out some sort of subsidy.”

He goes on to provide an important recommendation to legislators currently reviewing 35 of Iowa’s tax credits: “Everybody is living with a lot less,” due to the down economy. “That really does mean businesses should be living with a lot less public subsidy.”

Photo of Iowa State Capito via  Jimmy Wayne Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Being a member of the working poor has never been easy, but these past few years have been particularly tough on working families who must contend with increasing health care costs, high unemployment, food inflation and high gas prices, among other things.  This makes now an ideal time for policymakers to work together to make it a little easier for families to make ends meet.

But Iowa Governor Branstad appears to be moving in the opposite direction. Exhibit A is his veto last week of a minor increase in the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This credit has received bi-partisan support for decades because of its unique ability to lift working families out of poverty. It is smart, targeted policy that everyone can get behind.

But the Governor couldn’t find his way clear to increase Iowa’s EITC credit from seven to ten percent of the federal credit; and with 15 percent being the national average, ten is not even particularly generous.  For now, Branstad says he is most interested in “reducing those taxes that are impeding our state’s ability to compete for new business and jobs.” Yet another governor who’s been drinking the Chris Christie kool aid.

This may be one of the worst cases we’ve seen of kicking them while they’re down.  We share the sentiments of the Iowa Fiscal Partnership when they write the veto “hurts working people and the economy.”

Photo via Gage Skidmore Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

A group of Iowa business leaders recently voiced their support for an increase in the state fuel tax to pay for much needed road repairs. Speaking in front of Governor Terry Branstad’s Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission, a wide array of business (subscription required to view link) interest groups called for the fuel tax hike, including the Associated General Contractors of Iowa, Iowa Farm Bureau, Iowa Bankers Association, Iowa Motor Truck Association, and the Iowa Good Roads Association.

The Commission is tasked with assessing the condition of Iowa’s roads and the revenue sources used to pay for those roads.  More specifically, the Commission is seeking to address what the state’s Department of Transportation estimates is a $215 million shortfall in transportation spending, relative to the amount of money needed to complete certain high-priority projects. 

Most of those who spoke at the July 7th hearing agreed that the best way to address this shortfall would be through an increase in the fuel tax.  One virtue of the tax is that it functions like a “user fee” in that those who drive more (and wear down state roads more) pay more to have them maintained and repaired.  Advocates for progressive taxes, on the other hand, point out that the gas tax impacts low-income taxpayers most heavily.  If the regressivity of the gas tax is mitigated through an expansion of the state’s EITC, however, an increased gas tax could be a very responsible and equitable way of fixing Iowa’s – or any state’s – deteriorating roadways.

Ultimately, it’s refreshing to see these business leaders – a group that too often exhibits a knee-jerk opposition to all tax increases – recognize that new tax revenues will be absolutely essential in bettering the state of Iowa and its roadways.  Iowa business leaders are well aware that working roads are the kind of infrastructure that allows them to succeed economically and transport their goods and services around the state. It’s also worth noting that the path being urged by Iowa business leaders is preferable to the one taken just next door in Nebraska, where chronic transportation funding shortfalls have been “addressed” by simply taking money away from education and other public services.

Photo via Will Merydith Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

In the final hours before the state’s new fiscal year was to begin, Iowa lawmakers agreed on a two year, nearly $6 billion, budget plan. The new budget was heavily debated during the state’s third longest legislative session. The state’s budget is now balanced for the next two fiscal years, and compromise on some key issues was reached.

For example, the Press-Citizen reports that Democrats agreed to freeze school spending for the current fiscal year and then to increase funding by two percent in 2013. Republicans agreed to provide $59 million for the state's preschool program, more than they originally proposed.

In the case of costly cuts to corporate property taxes, however, no final agreement was reached; and that is a victory for tax justice advocates.

Governor Terry Branstad wanted to drastically reduce corporate property taxes. His proposal would have allowed businesses to shelter a full 40 percent of their property’s value from the property tax (by assessing commercial property at only 60 percent of its actual value for tax purposes). When fully implemented, the price tag for this measure was about $500 million. 

House Republicans weren’t willing to go that far, offering to shelter 25 percent of a property’s value. Senate Democrats were only interested in allowing targeted tax credits instead of across the board cuts. Ultimately, Iowa policy makers weren’t able to come to any sort of agreement.

But then, when it comes to handouts for corporations, that's not such a bad thing.

Photo via Gage Skidmore Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad has made it very clear that he prioritizes corporations over working families. Earlier this week, the Governor vetoed a slight increase in the state’s earned income tax credit (EITC) from 7 to 10 percent of the federal credit. The EITC is one of the most effective and popular anti-poverty programs states can offer, but Branstad has insisted that Iowa’s “limited budget” requires a single-minded focus on slashing business taxes instead.

The Governor’s veto letter makes his reasoning crystal clear, saying "Iowa should instead focus its energies on improving our state's long-term competitive tax position for new job creation.”  The letter goes on to explain that in Branstad’s mind, this means that corporate income taxes and commercial property taxes must be slashed.

In an effort to fulfill Branstad’s vision, legislation was introduced Wednesday that, when fully phased in, would allow businesses to shelter a full 40 percent of their property’s value from the property tax (by assessing commercial property at only 60 percent of its actual value for tax purposes). When fully implemented, the price tag for this measure is about $500 million.  

Many local officials are wary of the proposed change since local governments are heavily dependent on the property tax to fund their day-to-day operations.  The state has promised to replace the revenue localities are sure to lose as a result of this legislation, but most would prefer to have control over their own revenue streams. Making matters worse, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Thomas Sands has acknowledged that “the state doesn’t always honor its commitments.”  

The Governor has chosen to favor corporations over middle class Iowans. What remains to be seen is how far the state’s legislature is willing to go to give handouts to corporations while working families struggle.

Earlier this week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released a new report, Topsy-Turvy: State Income Tax Deductions for Federal Income Taxes Turn Tax Fairness on its Head.  The report highlights an unusual tax break that currently exists in only six states (Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and Oregon): a state income tax deduction for federal income tax payments.  Collectively these states stand to lose over $2.5 billion in tax revenues in 2011 due to these tax breaks, with losses ranging from $45 million to $643 million per state.

Unfortunately, the high price tag of this tax giveaway yields remarkably little benefit to low-and middle-income families.  In states where the deduction is uncapped, the best off 1 percent of taxpayers enjoy up to one-third of the benefits from this provision, while the top 20 percent enjoy up to 80 percent of the benefits.  Wisely, several states have eliminated or scaled back this expensive and poorly targeted deduction in the last few years.  North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah have all eliminated the deduction, and Oregon lawmakers voted recently to further limit their deduction.

Deductions for federal income taxes seriously undermine the adequacy and fairness of state income taxes. These deductions also leave state budgets vulnerable to changes in federal tax law.  As the recession lingers and states look to enhance their long term fiscal solvency, elected officials in states with a deduction for federal income taxes paid have a real opportunity to close fiscal shortfalls in a way that has minimal impact on low-and middle-income families.

Read the Report

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership has issued a policy brief about the destructive tax cuts that are being proposed in the state legislature. The cuts being debated carry a hefty price tag, $1.6 billion, most of which is from a proposal to cut income tax rates by 20 percent across the board.

As we’ve previously noted, these income tax cuts are very regressive. ITEP found that the wealthiest 1 percent of Iowans would receive an average of $6,822, while those in the bottom quintile would enjoy a break of just $18 on average.

According to IFP, the revenue picture in Iowa is improving and the budget can be balanced without drastic cuts to spending and without raising taxes. But it’s mind boggling that legislators would want to cut taxes as they're just barely crawling out of a fiscal crisis.

Charles Bruner, Executive Director of the Child and Family Policy Center, recently said, "Nobody is saying we're flush with revenues, but the picture has improved and we can get through without major cuts. But that assumes we don't dig a bigger hole with unnecessary and unwise cuts in revenues." For more on the tax cut proposals and why they are shortsighted, read IFP’s report.

In more disturbing tax cut news, the Kansas House has passed legislation that would link the state’s personal and corporate income tax rates to changes in revenue. If revenues increase, the rates for the state’s two major progressive taxes will decrease. Eventually the income tax could even be phased out altogether. 

Supporters of the legislation say that this proposal will increase the likelihood that businesses will locate in the state. But a more thoughtful critique was offered by two state Representatives in explaining their vote against the proposal. "When it (the income tax) is gone, our three-legged stool is cut to two — and the worst two we can choose. [The] sales tax is a regressive tax that impacts low-wage earners most.” The legislation now goes to the state Senate.

The Iowa House of Representatives has approved a bill to cut income taxes by 20 percent, despite an analysis from ITEP showing that the richest 1 percent of Iowans would receive an average of $6,822 while those in the bottom quintile would enjoy a break of just $18 on average.

The bill, H.F. 194, which reduces income tax rates by 20 percent across the board, will now go to the Senate. For more information, see the Iowa Policy Project’s brief on this enormous tax cut.

It’s pretty evident that state corporate income taxes are especially flawed and riddled with loopholes. But, of course, that doesn’t have to be the case. In fact, there are lots of things that legislators can do (given the political will) to strengthen their corporate income taxes, including enacting combined reporting, increasing corporate tax disclosure, and closing selected loopholes.

Despite all these options to strengthen the corporate tax, lawmakers from coast to coast are doing their best to undermine this inherently progressive tax. This seems especially sort-sighted given the revenue needs of many states.

Here are some recent bad ideas regarding state corporate income taxes:

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s budget outline includes a proposal that would phase out the state's corporate income tax over four years.  

Florida Governor Rick Scott has proposed reducing the corporate income tax rate from 5.5 to 3 percent.

Indiana’s Senate is considering a bill to reduce the state’s corporate income tax by 20 percent. This bill recently passed the Senate Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad has said that he would like to cut Iowa’s corporate income tax in half, despite evidence that this tax change would only benefit large corporations.

Recently, bills have been dropped in the both the Kansas House of Representatives and the Senate which would phase out the state's corporate income tax altogether.

North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue is proposing that the corporate income tax rate be reduced to 4.9 percent from 6.9 percent.

Instead of slashing or completely eliminating the state corporate income tax, lawmakers should be working to strengthen this revenue source.

Lawmakers in a handful of states are pushing tax cuts for corporations and other businesses under the guise of spurring economic growth.  Florida, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, and Arizona all made headlines this week for proposed tax cuts of this sort.

In Florida, Governor Scott’s proposed budget plan was released on Monday, and as expected, it included enormous cuts to both corporate income taxes and property taxes.  Under Scott’s plan, which he unveiled before a crowd of tea party activists, the state’s already low corporate tax rate would fall from 5 percent to 3.5 percent.  At the same time, state spending would plummet by $4.6 billion, with pre-K through university education making up $3.1 billion of that total.  Fortunately, even the state’s conservative legislators don’t seem the least bit interested in Scott’s ultra-conservative (and exceedingly vague) ideas.

Kansas lawmakers generated similar headlines this week as bills were introduced in both the House and Senate to phase out the state’s corporate income tax.  According to the Wichita Eagle, proponents of the measure are actually claiming that phasing out this major tax would somehow increase tax revenue.  We seriously doubt it.

In Iowa, Governor Branstad’s proposal to slash the corporate income tax in half and cut business property taxes by 40 percent received renewed attention this week as the Des Moines Register attempted to summarize the absolutely massive number of tax cuts being proposed by Iowa lawmakers. 

Fortunately, Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal isn’t impressed, saying, “Taken as a whole, the Republican budget basically says we're going to squander the opportunities for the next generation of kids in this state — in terms of education, in terms of access to community college and training programs — we're going to push that aside and say the most important thing is to make sure corporations have tax cuts.”

Missouri lawmakers also garnered some attention this week when the state Senate endorsed legislation to repeal the state’s franchise tax on businesses over the course of the next five years.  Currently, a business must have more than $10 million in assets to be subject to the franchise tax.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an excellent editorial this week in response to the plan, noting: “Businesses were given tax breaks, tax credits, tax incentives, low corporate taxes and tort reform. So where are the jobs? Or did they just pocket the savings? … Business-friendly is one thing. Business-promiscuous is quite another.”

It probably wouldn’t change anything, but it sure would be nice if Arizona lawmakers gave the Post-Dispatch’s editorial a read before beginning debate on the business tax cut package that Governor Brewer plans to release on Monday.

Progressive tax reform ideas are getting attention in Colorado, where voters may get the opportunity to enact it by ballot, and Kentucky, where lawmakers have the opportunity to support a far-reaching reform bill. Meanwhile, Iowa may move in the opposite direction by choosing the most draconian tax proposal being debated in the state.

Supporters of progressive taxation in Colorado, led by the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, filed a mix of ballot proposals last week that would greatly enhance the adequacy and fairness of Colorado’s tax system.  (Multiple proposals were filed for technical reasons, and supporters intend to bring only one plan before the voters.) 

Each proposal would transition away from Colorado’s flat rate income tax in favor of a graduated rate system.  The tax rate on taxable incomes below $50,000 would fall from 4.63% to 4.2%, while progressively higher rates would apply to higher levels of income.  Incomes above $1 million would be taxed at 9.5%. 

The majority of Colorado residents would see tax cuts, or no change in their income tax liability, under this plan.  Some of the proposals would also raise the state’s corporate income tax rate, while others would institute a new corporate minimum tax.  The state’s EITC would also be made permanent under some of the proposals.  By reforming Colorado’s tax system in this manner, approximately $1.5 billion in sorely needed revenue could be raised each year in order to improve the state’s struggling school system and other public services.

In Kentucky, Representative Jim Wayne held a press conference last week to discuss his bill, HB 318, which would modernize and increase the progressivity of Kentucky’s tax structure. The bill would expand the sales tax base to include a variety of services, introduce an Earned Income Tax Credit, and change the personal income tax rates and brackets.

ITEP estimates were used to show that, overall, the state would have a more progressive tax structure if the Wayne bill became law. Representative Wayne should be applauded for continuing to beat the progressive drum and arguing year after year that a tax system “should be equitable, it should be buoyant, it should be flexible, and it should grow with the economy.”

In less cheerful news, the Iowa House will have the opportunity to vote on a bill that passed through committee that, if approved, would reduce the state’s income tax rates across the board by 20 percent. This bill is one of the most expensive tax cut proposals currently on the table and threatens Iowa’s ability to provide public services over the long term.

In fact, the leader of the Democratic minority in the House recently said, "I'm not sure where the House ship is sailing. On one hand, we have all kinds of tax-cut bills moving through the process. ... It's about $2 billion over the next few years that would be eliminated from the state of Iowa's budget. How is that even remotely fiscally responsible?"

Of course, it's the opposite of fiscally responsible, as noted in a recent Iowa Policy Project brief finding that “[t]o develop long-term sustainability in the budget, it is important to examine what has given rise to current budget imbalances. Iowa’s long-term structural budget deficit has occurred in significant measure because lawmakers have adopted various tax breaks and reductions, not because they have expanded programs and services.”

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).

Some politicians in state capitals across the U.S. seem convinced that tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy are the best way to accelerate economic recovery. In two states, governors are proposing instead to cut taxes on groceries, which is a more effective, though not exactly flawless, way to help ordinary families. The tradeoff to any tax cut, of course, is unaffordable cuts to essential services including education, public safety, and health care.

In Wisconsin, state lawmakers agreed on a business tax cut that would add about $50 million to the budget deficit.  The Republican controlled legislature and newly elected Governor Scott Walker believe that the tax cuts will leave everybody with more money and leave the state with an improved economy.  Incredibly, Walker’s proposal rests on the assumption that the tax cuts will lure businesses away from Illinois, which recently saw an increase in its income tax, rather than fostering young, developing businesses. 

In Iowa, where a similar $300 million business tax cut is being discussed, critics of Governor Terry Branstad point out that essential social services are being axed in favor of pro-business policies.

In Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer is proposing to cut taxes on high-wage industries while further reducing funding for Medicaid, universities, community colleges, and K-12 education.  

Similar tax cuts are being proposed in New York, Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, and South Carolina. All of these plans prioritize tax breaks for business over providing essential services to those most affected by the economic downturn.  

The Governors of West Virginia and Arkansas have arrived at an entirely different tax-cutting proposal: reducing the sales tax on groceries.  Like lawmakers who support business tax cuts, Governors Tomblin and Beebe believe their brand of tax cuts will circulate quickly throughout the economy, providing necessary relief to the taxpaying public while stimulating the economy. 

Governor Mike Beebe of Arkansas wants to cut the sales tax on groceries by a half-cent and has said it is the only tax cut he will consider this year.  In West Virginia, Governor Earl Ray Tomblin wants to reduce the grocery sales tax from 3 to 2 cents and would ultimately like to see it eliminated entirely.

While the proposals to cut the sales tax on groceries are a welcome development compared to proposed tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy, there are still two problems with them. 

First and foremost, states are in dire need of revenue this year as they face the most significant budget challenge yet since the start of the recession.  Every dollar lost to a tax cut will have to be made up by an even deeper cut in spending. 

Second, reducing the sales tax on groceries is not the most targeted approach available to state leaders looking to support working families.  The poorest 40 percent of taxpayers typically receive only about 25 percent of the benefit from exempting groceries. The rest goes to wealthier taxpayers who can more easily afford to pay the sales tax on groceries. 

Enacting or increasing a refundable state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or other low-income refundable credit would be a more affordable and better targeted alternative to ensure that tax cuts reach low- and middle-income working families.  Tax cuts that directly benefit low-wage workers are especially beneficial to the general economy because low-wage workers immediately spend their refunds out of necessity.  By pumping the money back into the economy, the tax cut goes further in stimulating the economy than tax cuts for the wealthy or businesses.

Instead of pursuing tax cuts for businesses and wealthy individuals, state lawmakers should be working to alleviate hardship on the most vulnerable.  Indeed, the governors in West Virginia and Arkansas may end up being much more efficient at helping their state economies rebound than the “business friendly" governors in Wisconsin and Iowa.

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.