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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As state policymakers craft their budgets for the upcoming fiscal year, they must confront a pair of daunting challenges, one fiscal, the other economic. The budget outlook for the states is, at present, the most dire in several decades. In this context, then, states must find ways to generate additional revenue that create neither additional responsibilities for individuals and families struggling to make ends meet nor additional distortions in the economy as a whole.

For nine states -- Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin -- one straightforward approach would be to repeal the substantial tax breaks that they now provide for income from capital gains. In tax year 2008 alone, these nine states are expected to lose a total of $663 million due to such misguided policies, with individual losses ranging from $10 million to $285 million per state. A new ITEP report explains that repealing these tax preferences would help states reduce their large and growing budgetary gaps, enhance the equity of their current tax systems, and remove the economic inefficiencies arising from such favorable treatment.

This report explains what capital gains are, how they are treated for tax purposes, and who typically receives them. It also details the consequences of providing preferential tax treatment for capital gains income for states' budgets, taxpayers, and economies in nine key states. Lastly, it responds to claims about both the relationship between capital gains preferences and economic growth and the role capital gains taxation plays in state revenue volatility. (Appendices to the report provide detailed state-by-state estimates of the impact of repealing capital gains tax preferences.)

Read the report.

We've recently highlighted a variety of progressive revenue raising options gaining serious attention in New York and Wisconsin. This week we bring you yet another idea that's recently been the subject of debate, though this one applies to fewer states. Those seven states still offering income tax deductions for federal taxes paid (i.e. Alabama, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Louisiana, and Oregon), should immediately repeal, or at the very least dramatically scale back, that deduction.

The federal income tax deduction takes what is perhaps the best attribute of the federal income tax -- its progressivity -- and uses it to stifle that very attribute at the state level. Since wealthy taxpayers generally pay more in federal taxes than their less well-off counterparts, allowing taxpayers to deduct those taxes from their income for state income tax purposes is a gift to precisely those folks who need it least. And since most state income tax systems possess a degree of progressivity, those better-off taxpayers who face higher marginal tax rates are benefited even more by being able to shield their income from tax via this deduction.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver most recently drew attention to this problem while urging lawmakers this week to end the deduction. The idea has also recently garnered attention in Missouri, where ITEP recently testified on a bill that would, among other changes, eliminate the deduction. Finally, another bill making its way through the Alabama legislature seeks to end the deduction for upper-income Alabamians.

With three of the seven states that still offer this deduction considering its elimination, this is definitely one progressive policy change to keep an eye on.

We've been lamenting for the past several years about the folly of Ohio's former Governor Bob Taft pushing through a phased-in 21 percent cut in income tax rates. Of course, the tax reductions made Ohio's overall tax structure less fair. Policy Matters Ohio recently released a report detailing the impact of the Taft tax cuts. Analysts there found that "key economic trends continued to go in the wrong direction after the tax overhaul." Despite this evidence, current Governor Ted Strickland has vowed to continue Taft's tax cutting legacy. But there is some hope brewing in the Buckeye state.

Representative Michael Skindell has called for freezing the phase-in of the Taft tax cuts for the wealthiest Ohioans. It's estimated that adopting Skindell's recommendation would bring in over $200 million and it's certainly a step toward making Ohio's income tax more progressive.

For tax justice advocates in Minnesota, it's a bleak time. Governor Tim Pawlenty is vehemently anti-tax, and his 21st Century Tax Reform Commission has largely followed his lead with recommendations to eliminate the state's corporate income tax and enact several investment tax credits, though in fairness the Commission does recommend two revenue raising options: expanding the sales tax base and increasing cigarette taxes. It's too bad that progressive revenue raising options weren't mentioned. It's hardly a surprise that some would like to see income tax cuts for the wealthiest Minnesotans preserved. But Wayne Cox at Minnesotans for Tax Justice argues against tax cuts in a recent commentary, correctly arguing that increasing the progressivity of Minnesota's tax structure would not harm the state's business climate. He warns that "the alternative is carrying out an even riskier plan that trims muscle, not fat."

There are more good proposals on improving the progressivity of state income taxes. Next we turn to Montana where Representative Dave McAlpin is trumpeting a "fix" to the state's 2003 major tax revision that reduced the top tax rate and bracket. State estimates were that the tax changes were supposed to cost $26 million a year, but in reality they actually cost the state $100 million. His legislation would introduce a new top income tax rate of 7.9 percent on Montanans with taxable incomes over $250,000, and help to right the wrongs of the 2003 revisions. If Rep. McAlpin's bill is adopted, the state could see $26 million in additional revenue and improve the progressivity of Montana's tax structure.

For more on the importance of progressive income taxes read ITEP's policy brief on this topic.

It's that time again. Right-wing activists, unable to convince lawmakers to gut their tax systems, are asking voters to do it themselves through the ballot. This update explains that ballot initiatives to enact regressive tax policies died in Michigan and Montana, but survived to secure spots on the ballot in Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts and Oregon.

The Good News: Two Regressive Proposals Did Not Make It onto the Ballot

Michigan "Fair "Tax": The Michigan Fair Tax proposal, a highly regressive measure that was anything but fair, failed to make it onto the November ballot. The proposal would have eliminated both the Michigan Business Tax and the personal income tax, raised the state sales tax to 9.75% and expanded it to include services, food, prescription drugs and out-of-pocket health care expenses.

Montana Property Tax Limitations: CI-99, a measure that would have capped property tax increases at no more than 1.5% annually, fell short of landing a spot on the Montana ballot. In addition to the limits on tax hikes, the proposal would have ensured that homes can only be reappraised when sold (as opposed to every seven years). Sound familiar? It looks like, at least this year, Montana averted the disastrous path followed by California's Proposition 13.

The Bad News: Other Regressive Tax Proposals ARE on the Ballot in November

Arizona Sales Tax Hike: On June 27, the Digest described the Arizona sales tax initiative which will be on the ballot in November. The proposal would hike the sales tax by one cent. The increased revenues would be directed toward a faltering transportation system. Arizona already has sales taxes bordering on 10% and a nearly flat income tax. As a result, its tax policy is already highly regressive and this initiative would make it more so.

Florida Tax Swap: In November voters will decide on Amendment 5, a 25% property tax cut and a 1 cent sales tax hike. The property tax cut would hit Florida's schools, already in shambles, the hardest. The Amendment would come at a cost of $9 billion in lost revenue and the subsequent sales tax increase would only produce about $4 billion, plunging the Sunshine State even further into debt and shifting the tax burden to lower-income Floridians.

Abolishing Massachusetts' Income Tax: In Massachusetts, voters will have the opportunity to decide on an initiative that would eliminate the state's income tax. Such irresponsible policy would cost the state $12 billion in lost revenue -- a whopping 40% of its budget. The price would be paid with teacher layoffs, school closings, cuts to higher education, worker training programs and health care services, and delays of road and bridge repairs.

Cutting Oregon's Income Tax for the Rich: Oregon voters will have the opportunity to vote on a measure that would drastically cut income taxes for its wealthiest taxpayers. The proposal would create an unlimited deduction on the state income tax form for federal income taxes paid.The state's general fund would lose about $4 billion over four years from the proposal. The general fund is used primarily for education, public safety, the justice system, human services (including health care, care for seniors and child protective services) and state parks. Meanwhile, the average tax cut for the top one percent of Oregon earners would be about $15,000. Those who fall among the middle 20% of earners would receive about $1 on average.

Property tax reform continues to make headlines in several states. Some Indiana property taxpayers are revolting against what they perceive to be an unfair system. Recently more than 3,000 Hoosiers signed post cards addressed to their state policymakers urging them to fix the state's property tax mess permanently. In fact, a legislative commission began hearings last month and Governor Mitch Daniels' appointed blue ribbon commission started work this week. The problems are that taxes are not based on a homeowner's ability to pay and that assessments are executed poorly.

One thought-provoking solution described in the Indianapolis Star is to closely study the property in the state that is not being taxed. Indiana, like most states, exempts nonprofit organizations and religious institutions from paying the property tax. In Marion County alone millions of property tax dollars could be collected if religious institutions paid property taxes. Estimates show there is $2.7 billion in property that goes untaxed in Marion County. Should churches and nonprofit organizations pay property taxes? It's probably the case that no politician in Indiana would seriously propose to tax churches, but the fact that some are contemplating such a move could startle legislators enough to enact real reform.

Are Rebates the Answer?

Indianans will receive locally-funded property tax rebates this winter, but those rebates aren't being greeted with much enthusiasm. Many question the motives of the legislators who approved these rebates. The Post-Tribune writes that instead of offering credits that would be applied to a homeowner's property tax bill directly, "The General Assembly instead decided property owners should receive checks in the mail, so they can see what their elected officials did for them this year."

This week Montana homeowners can begin to apply for a $400 state-funded property tax rebate. The rebates were a highly contested issue in the legislative session as Republicans pushed for permanent property tax cuts instead of the one-time rebates supported by Governor Brian Schweitzer. The Montana rebates shed light on a problematic aspect of property tax rebates and circuit breakers. Because states don't often know how much property tax a homeowner paid, it becomes the homeowner's responsibility to know about and apply for the credit.

Itemized Deductions on State Tax Are No Better

Another misconceived approach to property tax reform is the itemized exemption for property taxes, which is allowed for most states' income taxes. One problem with this is that in the low- and middle-income families hit hardest by property taxes typically don't itemize. Also, income tax deductions are an "upside-down" tax break, since deductions are worth more to the wealthy taxpayers who typically pay higher income tax rates. If property taxes are problematic for some families, offering a deduction that is largest for the wealthiest and not available at all to many middle-income families is certainly not the solution.

In the current skirmish between Missouri and Kansas discussed above, some Missouri legislators have asked why people should be granted such an itemized deduction for property taxes paid in another state (which certainly angers those who pay Missouri income taxes because they work in Missouri, even though they live in and pay property taxes in Kansas). But the better question is why should Missouri allow an itemized deduction for property even if its located in Missouri. The deduction probably does little to help those who could actually use some help.

Montana's Special Session adjourned Tuesday after the state's biennial budget received final approval. The regular 2007 legislative session ground to an acrimonious halt late last month. The main stumbling blocks were how to spend a projected $1 billion surplus and whether lawmakers would enact a temporary property tax "rebate," as Democratic leaders proposed, or a more permanent property tax reduction, as Republicans suggested. Ultimately a one-time $400 rebate for homeowners survived the cantankerous debate, but a tax credit of up to $120 for renters failed to win final approval. Property tax cuts for businesses that would have exempted the first $80,000 of business equipment from tax were also left out of the final budget. Ultimately the agreed upon budget is likely to be viewed as a political win for Governor Brian Schweitzer as no doubt he and other policymakers will take credit for "cut[ing] more taxes for more Montanans than any time in history."

In a welcome trend, lawmakers and advocates in Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Mexico, Montana, Hawaii, Utah, Ohio, and Iowa are considering enacting Earned Income Tax Credits ... or expanding existing EITCs. The federal EITC has been hailed by policymakers of all stripes as an especially effective tool for lifting working families out of poverty. At the state level, the EITC offers the additional benefit of helping to offset the regressive sales and property taxes that hit low-income families hardest. To find out more about whether EITC legislation is active in your state, check out the Hatcher Group's State EITC Online Resource Center.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has a plan for disposing of the state's projected budget surplus. On the tax side, he is proposing a one-time property tax rebate for homeowners that would cost about $400 million. His proposal also includes more funding for education, mental health facilities, and corrections. Republicans are skeptical and may push for permanent (and potentially unaffordable) property tax cuts.

Kiplinger reports that business are expected "to mount pitched battles to defeat" TABOR-esque spending tax cap initiatives in Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and Oregon. In fact, there's a concerted effort forming in Oklahoma that is actually being lead by business groups. The Chairman of Tulsa's Chamber of Commerce was even quoted as saying that TABOR would be a "train wreck" for Oklahoma.