In the wake of the worst fiscal crisis in decades, several states -- most notably, New York and Hawaii -- have recently adopted income tax increases targeted at upper-income individuals and families. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, they may well be joined by several other states in the coming months as more lawmakers realize that this is the most responsible way to address budget shortfalls.

Critics of progressive income tax increases like to suggest that such changes will only spur the wealthy to pack up and head to more tax-friendly climes like, say, Wyoming or South Dakota. Yet, as ITEP observed earlier this week, at least three of the states that turned to income tax increases during the last fiscal crisis (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) saw an upturn in the number of affluent taxpayers over the ten year period from 1997 to 2006. Guess it's hard to find the equivalent of Per Se or Le Bernardin in Sioux Falls!

Few would envy the position most state lawmakers now find themselves in. Nearly every state is required to balance its budget each year and the vast majority of states face substantial budget deficits in the coming years. Those lawmakers will have to support either cuts in essential public services or increases in politically unpopular taxes -- and do so in the midst of a deepening recession.

Under these circumstances, the best way to eliminate state budget deficits is through tax increases on upper-income individuals and families, as such changes would reduce consumer demand the least. Three states in the northeast -- New York, Connecticut, and Delaware -- seem ready to do just that.

In the Empire State, Governor David Paterson and members of the legislative leadership this week reached agreement on a plan to close a $17.7 billion budget gap. The centerpiece of the plan is the addition of two new tax rates. A rate of 7.85 percent would apply to income in excess of $300,000 and a rate of 8.97 percent would apply to income above $500,000. While those changes would only be temporary in nature (lasting only through 2011) they are expected to bring in about $4 billion per year in revenue.

In the Nutmeg State, budget deficits are projected to total $8.7 billion over the next two years. In response, the Assembly's Finance Committee approved legislation that, among other changes, would add four new income tax brackets, with rates ranging from 6 percent to 7.95 percent, all affecting married Connecticuters with incomes over $250,000 annually (and single taxpayers with incomes above $132,500).

Finally, in the First State, Governor Jack Merkell has put forward a broad-ranging budget plan that would take the constructive step of raising Delaware's top income tax rate from 5.95 percent to 6.95 percent, the first income tax increase since 1974. Even though it would impose pay and benefit cuts on state employees and rely more heavily on gaming and excise tax revenue, this budget plan is a step forward on progressivity.

As we noted last week, up until now, New York has been the most encouraging example of a state considering a progressive approach to filling its budget gap. Now, with the unveiling of Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle's proposed budget, another state can be looked to by progressives as an example to be followed.

Gov. Doyle's budget includes two main progressive reforms. First, the income tax rate on income over $300,000 per year would be raised by one percentage point. Second, the state's unusual exemption of 60% of capital gains income would be lowered to 40%. While a 40% exemption is still unnecessary and regressive, this change would be a major first step toward taxing those who live off their wealth at a rate more similar to those who work for a living. Both of these changes would primarily affect the upper-income individuals most capable of making it through this economic storm.

More good news for tax fairness advocates comes from a recent poll of New York State voters conducted by Quinnipiac University. As the poll shows, it turns out that progressive solutions make sense not just on policy grounds, but on political grounds as well. The poll found that nearly 80% of New York voters support raising the income tax on income over one million dollars. That number falls only slightly when New Yorkers are asked if they support raising income taxes on income over $500,000. Additionally, proposals to raise tax rates on income over $250,000 enjoy well over 50% support in New York. Click here for the complete poll results.

Finally, in addition to the progressive reforms described above, the Wisconsin governor is also pushing a proposal to institute combined reporting of corporate income. Enacting such a proposal is an absolutely vital part of maintaining the viability of any state's corporate income tax.

Even though the conference committee significantly scaled back state aid relative to the House version of the bill, states can still expect some pretty significant assistance in the near future. Unfortunately, those states are also facing even more significant budget gaps, which are likely to continue to grow larger in the coming months. To make up the difference, states will have to take responsibility for finding ways to close their budget gaps.

Policymakers in New York are readying themselves for the challenge. As the New York Times reported earlier this week, members of the state Senate are preparing legislation to close $6 billion of the state's roughly $14 billion budget deficit by raising income taxes on individuals and families making more than $250,000.

In particular, the bill would impose a tax rate of 10.3 percent on those taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1 million. In other words, faced with a mammoth fiscal and economic crisis, legislators in New York seem ready to respond accordingly -- with a proposal that reforms their tax structure in a fundamental and progressive fashion. Their counterparts in other states (many of whom are trying to muddle through with a combination of budget gimmicks, one-time fixes, and minor tweaks to sin taxes) should do the same.

For more on the steps needed to tackle New York's budget problems, see this commentary by Frank Mauro and James Parrott of the Fiscal Policy Institute.

The New York Times reported earlier this week that the Empire State may use tax increases on the very wealthiest residents to help close a budget gap of roughly $15 billion. This is common sense, particularly since, as the Times notes, "Over the last 30 years, the trend has been to pare back income tax rates on the rich, federally and in the state. Since the mid-1970s, the state has cut its top tax rate from 15.375 percent to 6.85 percent." For more on New York's fiscal condition and ways to improve it, see this presentation by the Fiscal Policy Institute.

Progressive tax reform may also be on the horizon for Illinois. Much hope accompanies newly elected Illinois Senate President John Cullerton. Cullerton replaces retiring Senate President Emil Jones who often stood with Governor Rod Blagojevich against constructive tax changes to solve Illinois' budget woes. Senator Cullerton recently hinted that needed tax hikes may be in the state's future, alluding to the fact that all options to solve the state's infamous budget shortfall are on the table.

In a speech to the Senate Cullerton said, "In recent years, we have seen all the gimmicks and listened to all the quick-fix promises. But, we know they won't solve our problems. Instead we need a cooperative partnership -- and that requires sacrifice." Let's hope Cullerton can work to solve the state's budget with progressive solutions like increasing reliance on income taxes and lowering the state's dependence on property taxes instead of the litany of solutions floated in recent years (like increased borrowing and dependence on gambling) to solve the state's fiscal woes.

The news out of New York in recent weeks hasn't been especially encouraging for those concerned about the impact of the recent economic downturn on vulnerable lower-income families. Unfortunately, that trend seems to be continuing, as New York Governor David Patterson proposed a budget this week devoid of the type of progressive tax increases the state needs to responsibly make it through the current recession. This is despite the fact that just days earlier, over 100 economists joined the New York-based Fiscal Policy Institute in calling for tax hikes on high-income earners as a way to avoid painful cuts in the state services lower- and middle-income families rely upon. All told, the Governor's budget relies about twice as heavily on spending cuts as it does on tax and fee increases.

On the revenues side of the budget, the proposal lacks broad-based increases and instead takes a more piece-meal approach. While this is far less than ideal, it is worth noting that some of those piece-meal items are certainly worthy of being included in the final budget deal. An expansion of the sales tax to include more services, limitations on the deductions claimed by wealthy families, and a scaling back of some of the state's "broken" tax breaks for businesses are among the revenue raisers included. The Governor's budget also includes a new "luxury tax" on items such as yachts, jewelry, and furs. While such a tax would most likely be progressive, it's hard to see what advantages it brings over simply enhancing the progressivity of the state's income tax.

To enjoy an interesting and heated sub-plot, check out this New York Times piece on the tax on "unhealthy" beverages that the Governor has included in his budget plan. Despite insistence that the idea is motivated by concern over the public health ramifications of these drinks, it's hard to take seriously such claims when New York is facing a budget deficit. More meaningful, broad-based tax reform would be a preferable route to addressing the budgetary issues.

Of course, not every idea floated during these tough fiscal times is worth adoption or even consideration. Some are just downright bad. Take New York, for instance. As the National Conference on State Legislatures (NCSL) indicated earlier this week, the Empire State is expected to face a budget deficit of $12.5 billion in the coming fiscal year. Unfortunately, that dire outlook has not stopped Governor David Paterson from continuing to embrace an ill-advised property tax cap. On December 1, New York's Commission on Property Tax Relief issued its final report, recommending a 4 percent limit on annual property tax growth. Governor Paterson had backed the idea previously and does not seem likely to change his position any time soon, remarking upon the report's release that "Property taxes... have been the enabler of Albany's dysfunctional culture." As the Fiscal Policy Institute and others have observed, the problem with tax caps are legion and could be particularly harmful if put in place during a recession.

Similarly, North Dakota Governor John Hoeven, as part of his budget plan for the 2009-2011 biennium, has proposed cutting property taxes by $300 million and income taxes by $100 million. Fiscal circumstances in North Dakota are, to be sure, markedly different than those in New York; after all, the Peace Garden State is one of the few expected to experience a budget surplus by the end of the current fiscal year. Yet, as the Grand Forks Herald recently warned, "oil prices already have plunged, threatening the energy boom that has dramatically boosted the state's surplus," suggesting that state legislators should proceed slowly and carefully. Caution certainly seems to be what the voters of North Dakota want anyway -- in November, they resoundingly defeated a ballot measure that would have cut income taxes by more than $200 million.

Legislators in Virginia, despite that state's $2 billion plus budget deficit, seem bent on cutting taxes too, as a special House-Senate subcommittee has recommended that the state offer a new corporate tax break known as single sales factor. Where North Dakota officials should listen to the recently expressed views of their constituents, Virginia should follow the hard-learned lessons of other states. Simply put, single sales factor is a costly and ineffective means of spurring economic activity. Just ask Massachusetts: In 1995, Massachusetts adopted single sales factor for manufacturers, a move that was hailed by some proponents as "a bold step towards restoring Massachusetts as a manufacturing state." After thirteen years -- and millions of tax dollars and thousands of manufacturing jobs lost -- it's clear that that restoration has not occurred.

Late last month, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) held a hearing on Capitol Hill to investigate the nearly $950 million in tax exempt bonds approved to build the new Yankee Stadium. One of the most egregious discrepancies so far is that the appraiser hired by the city estimated the value of the land for the new stadium at about $40 million. The figure used in documents city officials turned in to the IRS to qualify for tax-exempt bonds was $204 million. Even a columnist for ESPN cited New York Assemblyman Richard Brodsky's report which said that taxpayers will be charged between $550 and $850 million for the new stadium. To add to taxpayer outrage, the Yankees have even raised their ticket prices significantly for next year, even though the Yankees didn't make it to the playoffs. Assemblyman Brodsky put it best when he said, "We do things for professional sports we wouldn't do for any other business. When it comes to professional sports, we become socialists; for everyone else, we're capitalists." Good Jobs First New York has followed the development of the new stadium for some time. To read more about how New Yorkers won't benefit from the stadium deal, check out Good Jobs First New York.

Four of the nation's most populous states, together home to more than one out of every four Americans, are facing serious budget problems. Important new developments occurred in each of those states this week, the theme of which is perhaps best conveyed through California Republican Mike Villines' question: "How many times can we say no to taxes?" State residents will soon learn that this is really saying "no" to keeping alive public services like education, transportation and health care that families depend on.

See the following posts on the budget situations in California, Florida, New York, and Virginia.

New York this year has also had to face the reality of declining tax revenues. Without giving a second thought to the idea of reinstituting the higher income tax rates paid by wealthy New Yorkers just a few years back, Governor Paterson this week spear-headed an effort to slash the budget into balance. Legislators and the Governor agreed to cut over $400 million from the budget, primarily from Medicaid and aid to local governments. This is in addition to about $1 billion in administrative cuts the Governor instituted himself over the last several weeks.

As in Florida, the more relevant question now is what to do about next year's projected deficit. This session also featured the slashing of about $1 billion in spending from next year's budget, though that still leaves a $5.3 billion projected deficit. Will lawmakers decide just to cut deeper next year? With the Governor still supporting tax cuts (in the form of a local property tax cap) despite the condition of the state budget, that prospect unfortunately appears quite likely.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has put out a critical appraisal of the Tax Foundation's latest rankings of states by their relative state and local tax levels. Due to some methodological changes and recently revised data, some states underwent huge shifts in their ranking (changes of 10 to 15 places were not uncommon) which are not explained by the minor shifts in tax policy that may have taken place within the states. They've revised downward their estimates of the overall state and local tax burden by a full percentage point since 2007. They also no longer call 2007 a "25-year high" in state and local tax burdens, now considering the year lower tax than the mid-90s.

If history is any indication, the Tax Foundation's inconsistent methodology and reliance on early projections without hard data will lead to further rankings revisions in the future. The problem is that when state and national media pick up a juicy story along the lines of, "Your taxes are too high," they don't report the numbers as estimates or tentative. They report them as fact and don't report it when figures for previous years are revised. This is problematic because if politicians take the numbers at face-value, they may overreact to the almost certainly flawed numbers that indicate an enormous shift like, "New Jersey edged out New York to become the highest taxed state in 2008" after being ranked 10^th for two previous years.

But because the numbers used to derive this conclusion are so preliminary and based on a shifting methodology, no responsible policy analyst would confidently claim that New Jersey has higher taxes than New York, Connecticut, or other similarly ranked states. The media don't mention the cautionary details that the Tax Foundation includes in its final report and methodology but excludes in its press releases. Its website even contains a sensational headline that glosses over the limitations of their study.

There are also several more fundamental problems with the Tax Foundation's ranking scheme. The Tax Foundation attempts to determine the combined tax impact from all states on a given state's residents. This is different from how most organizations would identify an average tax load, by simply dividing total state and local tax receipts by total income within a state. This is an important distinction because states generally cannot influence tax policy in other states. Also, while the Census Bureau takes two years or more to compile the official data for a given fiscal year, Tax Foundation relies on proxies (such as dividend income to estimate capital gains) to obtain data for a fiscal year that has barely ended. Using such fly-by-night estimates as a basis for ranking states against one another is so unreliable as to provide almost meaningless numbers.

Of course, the most fundamental criticism of the Tax Foundation report is that it lumps all of a state's residents, from the very poorest to the wealthiest, together in one group for purposes of measuring tax levels. As an excellent Birmingham News editorial reminds us, calling Alabama a "low tax" state conceals the harsh reality that it is among the highest-tax states in the nation in its effect on low-income families. As the editorial points out, "[Our tax fairness ranking] is the ranking that most needs to change. "

Earlier this week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) released a brief report using IRS data and revealing that the most unequal states in the country also happen to be states that lack the type of progressive tax provisions that could reduce this inequality and raise badly needed revenue. The most unequal states either don't have a personal income tax or have one in need of improvement. Consequently, these states are left with tax systems that, on the whole, are unsustainable, inadequate, and unfair over the long-run.

The IRS data show that, in 2006, ten states -- Wyoming, New York, Nevada, Connecticut, Florida, the District of Columbia, California, Massachusetts, Texas, and Illinois -- have greater concentrations of reported income among their very wealthiest residents than the country as a whole. Yet, the tax systems in these states generally ignore that very important reality. Of those ten states, four lack a broad-based personal income tax and three either impose a single, flat rate personal income tax or have a rate structure that all but functions in that manner. Three do use a graduated rate structure, but of these, two have cut income taxes for their most affluent residents substantially over the past two decades.

Given this mismatch, it should not be too surprising that over half of these states face severe or chronic budget shortfalls. After all, the lack of an income tax, the lack of a graduated rate structure, or moves to make the income tax less progressive all mean that a state's revenue system will not completely reflect the concentration of income among the very wealthy and therefore will not yield as much revenue.

Case in point: New York. As the Fiscal Policy Institute observes, over the last 30 years, the state has reduced its top income tax rate by more than 50 percent. Most recently, in 2005, it allowed to lapse a temporary top rate of 7 percent on taxpayers with incomes above $500,000 per year. Today, the state must confront a budget deficit of more than $6 billion for the coming year and more than $20 billion over the next three. New York residents seem to understand the disconnect between the enormous disparities of wealth in their state -- where the richest 1 percent of taxpayers account for 28.7 percent of reported income -- and the state's fiscal woes. A poll released this week shows that nearly 4 out of 5 people surveyed support increasing the state's income tax for millionaires. Hopefully, Governor David Paterson is listening. As it stands, he'd rather cap property taxes than ensure that millionaires pay taxes in accordance with their inordinate share of New York's economic resources.