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.

Nearly breaking the record for delay, the New York Senate passed the final piece of its budget on Tuesday night. The most significant components of the $1 billion-plus revenue measure are the elimination of the sales tax exemption on clothing and footwear below $110 and a temporary reduction in the itemized charitable contribution deduction for households with incomes above $10 million. The bill however did not include a measure which had been considered to change the taxation of out-of-state hedge fund managers.

The legislation, which passed 32 to 28 on party lines, also includes a series of smaller measures such as expanded tax breaks for film production, an increase in the taxation of video gambling, new rules allowing casinos to stay open later, and laws forcing online travel companies to collect sales taxes on hotel rooms. The measure did not, however, include a provision allowing State of New York University schools to raise tuition rates.

The change in the itemized charitable deduction would raise $100 million in revenue by reducing the deduction from 50% to 25% for households with incomes above $10 million for three years including 2010. This builds on a change enacted last year which completely eliminated the use of itemized deductions for households with incomes over $1 million except for allowing them to deduct a maximum of 50 percent of their charitable contributions.

The failure to keep the $50 million tax change affecting out-of-state hedge fund managers represents a “rare concession” (in the words of The Wall Street Journal) by the New York Legislature to the wealthiest income earners. The measure would have changed the law to tax the carried interest of out-of-state hedge fund managers at ordinary income rates rather than the lower capital gains rates. It ran into controversy as the managers met with Connecticut officials to show their alleged willingness to take their businesses out of New York.

Besides the larger budget passage, the New York Senate also approved two other bills with important budgetary impacts. The first would allow for across-the-board cuts in spending if federal Medicaid and education funding is not approved by Congress (which seemed more in doubt before the Senate approved it Thursday). More problematically, the Senate passed a 4% property tax cap, which, although relatively loose compared to the one passed in New Jersey, still represents bad policy. If passed by the New York Assembly, this measure would only provide poorly targeted tax cuts while restricting the flexibility of local government to raise the revenue needed to provide basic services.

With less than two weeks to go before setting the record for lateness in completing its budget, Democratic Governor David Paterson called the New York state legislature into special session on Wednesday in order to close the remaining $1.5 billion budget deficit.

The New York legislature has struggled for months to close the $9.2 billion budget gap, working well past the initial budget deadline of April 1st. In order to finish the budget and push his own initiatives, Gov. Paterson has vowed to continue to keep up the special sessions until the budget is done, even if it means pursuing court orders to enforce participation.

The Governor is pushing for a new tax on sugary drinks, tuition increases for state colleges, allowing grocery stores to sell wine, and property tax caps that have already been rejected by the Assembly.

On July 1, 2010, the New York State Assembly passed an alternative revenue measure to close the budget gap. The bill raises revenue primarily through suspending the sales tax exemption on clothes and footwear under $110 from October to March, deferring business tax credits, reducing itemized deductions for those with an adjusted gross income above $10 million, and by limiting the STAR property tax exemption program to those with incomes under $500,000.

The Senate, on the other hand, left for the July 4th holiday weekend without having passed the revenue part of the budget. The roadblock stopping the passage of the bill is two Democratic lawmakers who oppose the effort to allow state colleges to adjust their tuition. With the legislature back in session, Gov. Paterson is hoping the Senate will take a second look at proposals that have failed so far in the Assembly, using the divide to create a competing revenue proposal in the Senate that is closer to his plan. On Thursday, Gov. Paterson met with lawmakers to come up with a compromise on the issue of state college tuition in hopes of finally finishing the budget. 

New York is not the only state stuck in budget gridlock. In California, legislators are going into their fifth week of the new fiscal year without a spending plan.

The organization New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness has put out a useful outline of the measures that the New York legislature should consider in dealing with the current budget gap and in making future budgets.

The New York Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) released its twentieth annual budget briefing last week, including, among other things, a list of criticisms of Governor Paterson’s proposed property tax circuit breaker program.  This list serves as a useful checklist for good circuit breaker policy across the country.

Among the FPI’s criticisms of the Governor’s plan are that it:

- Excludes county and municipal property taxes, instead applying only to school property taxes;
- Attempts to provide some relief to a large group of taxpayers, rather than targeting meaningful benefits more toward households struggling to make ends meet;
- Excludes renters;
- Utilizes different income brackets for different regions of the state, thereby creating complications and inequities;
- Reduces the size of the tax credit for taxpayers in districts where the school tax levy has grown faster than inflation, while increasing it for those taxpayers whose levy has grown more slowly.

When property values inevitably rebound from the recent bursting of the housing bubble, property taxes will almost certainly become a hot button issue in the states once again.  Enacting a circuit breaker (or strengthening an existing one) is the best possible route for states to take when this occurs.  For more on circuit breakers, be sure to read ITEP’s policy brief.

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.