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.

Following the creation of a federal tax credit for new home buyers, two states are considering also wandering down this unproven and expensive path. North Dakota and Kentucky are each debating sacrificing taxpayer dollars to fund special tax breaks for newly built homes. In Kentucky, the break would come in the form of a $5,000 tax credit for purchasers of newly constructed homes, while in North Dakota, those fortunate enough to afford a newly built home during this downturn would enjoy a temporary doubling of their property tax homestead exemption (from $75,000 to $150,000).

In each case, the break would not be available for purchasers of older residences, suggesting that these breaks are more of a bailout for developers than they are aid for those in the market to buy a home. And in either case, the proposals still suffer from many of the flaws with the federal break -- such as their potential to re-inflate home prices, and the fact that these breaks won't provide homebuyers with any cash at the time of purchase.

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.

Just over one month after progressives defeated a costly, irresponsible, and regressive tax cut on the ballot in North Dakota, backers of an even more irresponsible TABOR-style cap that would have limited spending increases to the rate of inflation have abandoned their efforts. The group pushing the spending cap says they have dropped their plan in part because of the opposition to lower taxes (and lower services) that North Dakotans demonstrated at the ballot box last month.

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.

Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Oregon residents rejected regressive and costly income tax cuts (or even outright repeals, in the case of Massachusetts) in each of their respective states this Tuesday. The results in every state were fairly lopsided, with between 60% and 70% of voters coming out in opposition. As we noted in earlier Digest articles, these victories for fair tax policy are partly the result of hard work by progressives and also partly the result of very broad (and sometimes unexpected) coalitions. This cooperation symbolized a growing recognition of the importance of taxes in paying for valued government services and generally improving Americans' quality of life.

The votes in these three states are especially important given the economic slowdown that is laying waste to state budgets across the country. Massachusetts is already projecting a mid-year budget deficit, while Oregon is projecting a deficit in the next fiscal year. North Dakota, though doing well relative to other states, is unlikely to escape the slowdown without similar budgetary wounds. Given such a difficult environment for state budget-makers, it's not at all hard to see that tax cuts are the exact opposite of what is needed -- especially if those cuts are targeted overwhelmingly to the rich.

Multiple stories and descriptions of each of these failed measures can be found in the Tax Justice Digest's Massachusetts, Oregon, and North Dakota archives.

One does not have to be elected to Congress or hired to anchor a national news show to become addicted to supply-side economics. State government and local media are equally at risk. This November, voters in several states will decide on ballot questions that are being promoted with supply-side justifications.

A proposal to be voted on in Oregon seeks to allow taxpayers to deduct (in full) their income tax payments to the federal government for state income tax purposes. Currently, only the first $5,600 one pays to the federal government is allowed to be deducted on Oregon state income tax forms. This arrangement already has regressive results, and by uncapping the deduction limit completely, those wealthy individuals who owe the most in federal income taxes will be allowed to slash their Oregon tax payments substantially.

Though the workings of the Oregon proposal may seem a bit confusing, its results most certainly are not. The vast majority (78 percent) of Oregonian families will get nothing, the wealthiest 1 percent will enjoy a nearly $16,000 annual tax cut, and the government of Oregon will have to make due with between $500 million and $1 billion less in revenues each year. (Six other states, Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and North Dakota, currently allow for some deduction of federal income taxes, and they should all end this regressive practice.)

So how are backers of the Oregon proposal justifying this giveaway to the rich? You guessed it. One news account informs us that "[Russ] Walker, Oregon director of the national fiscal conservative group FreedomWorks [and co-sponsor of Measure 59], says the tax reduction would produce a supply-side result of economic expansion with more income and more tax revenue to offset the cut." The argument is that the tax cut will at least increase revenue enough to pay for itself -- the most extreme form of supply-side thinking.

North Dakota voters will also be taking a look at their income tax this fall. Backers of an income tax rate cut are enthusiastically pushing a plan that offers an average tax cut of just $83 to the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers statewide. What's the big deal? The wealthiest 1 percent of North Dakotans would save an average of over $11,000 per year. And those numbers don't even include the corporate income tax cuts, which are sure to also disproportionately benefit the wealthy. And to make matters worse, the proposal would cost the state over $200 million annually.

And how do backers of this measure justify giving away revenue to the rich? Well, if a tax cut simply pays for itself through supply-side magic, backers hope that the practical, common sense folk of North Dakota won't ask such uncomfortable questions. As one news account explains, "Measure 2 proposes to cut income taxes 50 percent and corporate taxes 15 percent, said Duane Sand of the group Americans for Prosperity [the measure's principal backer]. Sand said the state's tax policies have forced young and old to leave the state. The OMB estimates Measure 2 would cut state revenue about $415 million for the next biennium. That money would be replaced by higher tax collections from increased economic activity, Sand said."

A proposal on the ballot in Massachusetts provides perhaps the most obvious example of the recklessness so often involved in anti-tax ballot initiatives. Massachusetts voters will once again have to decide this November on a proposal to constitutionally end the income tax -- a move that would reduce government revenues by a whopping 40 percent, and would undoubtedly have dire consequences in the form of reduced government services. But while all Massachusetts residents would have to share in the pain of a 40 percent reduction in their government's budget, the wealthy would be the primary beneficiaries of the tax cut, since the income tax is the only major progressive tax levied by the state. Even more alarming is the fact that over 45 percent of Massachusetts voters supported a similar measure in 2002.

Now, even supply-siders would have trouble arguing that reducing a tax to zero can result in increased revenues. (Except that apparently the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representative do believe that about the capital gains tax, as we said in a previous article in this Digest).

But backers of the Massachusetts measure do argue, using supply-side logic, that less taxes will result in so much economic growth that no one will feel the loss of public services that would inevitably result.

Carla Howell, chairperson of the group backing the measure (and Libertarian candidate for governor in 2002) says that "In addition to giving each worker an annual average of $3,700, it will take $12.5 billion out of the hands of Beacon Hill politicians -- and put it back into the hands of the men and women who earned it. Every year. In productive, private hands this $12.5 billion a year will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Massachusetts."

Actually, this proposal to slash state government revenue by 40 percent is so extreme that even business groups cite a report showing just how devastated infrastructure, education and other services would be if this proposal is approved.

So it seems that many states are on the verge of ruining themselves with the narcotic of supply-side tax economics. If these states fail to resist, then what? Rehabilitation is possible, but it's a long and hard road. Colorado is trying to break free of the mess it created a decade ago when taxes and revenues were strictly suppressed by the so-called "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" (TABOR) that was approved by voters. TABOR poses a serious problem given that the cost of government services sometimes increases at a rate greater than general inflation. Also, another amendment to the state's constitution requires regular increases in education spending. Reconciling these two competing demands proved impossible, and in 2005 Colorado voters temporarily suspended a significant portion of the TABOR requirement.

This year, it appears many Coloradans have finally had enough with having to deal with inadequate government services under the unrealistic TABOR requirements. Voters will have the opportunity to decide on Amendment 59, which would end the automatic refunds to taxpayers used to suppress state revenues, in favor of diverting that money toward education. This effort gives hope to those who realize that public services like schools and roads are the building blocks of a state economy, and that to have these services we have to pay for them. It also should serve as a warning to people in other states where supply-siders are promising voters that they can have their cake and eat it too.

The runup to the 2008 elections has given us plenty of reminders of why direct democracy is generally not the best approach to tax reform. In North Dakota, a typo in the language of a proposed tax cut may actually result in a tax increase for some families. In Nevada, the failure of supporters to properly file thousands of signatures in favor of an (ill-conceived) property tax cap resulted in that measure being thrown off the ballot.

But while both of these rather innocent mistakes are undoubtedly serious, neither is as serious as the rampant dishonesty often involved in the signature collection process. In Arizona, for example, a staggering 42% of signatures for a transportation ballot proposal this year were found to be invalid. In North Dakota, though problem wasn't quite as rampant, one signature collector this week was found guilty of faking potentially hundreds of signatures for their regressive income tax cut.

While there may be compelling reasons rooted in democratic theory for allowing citizens to take matters directly into their own hands, it is also important to remember the benefits of representative democracy. A badly written ballot proposal backed by thousands of fraudulent signatures is hardly an improvement over whatever flaws the legislative process may have. The problems with the initiative process illustrate that there are good reasons for having those who we have elected (and whose salaries we pay) writing our laws.

It's official. When North Dakotans go into the voting booth this fall, they will be faced with a ballot initiative that would cut their state's personal income tax in half and reduce their state's corporate income tax by fifteen percent. The initiative, known as Measure 2, was approved late last month by Secretary of State Al Jaeger, despite the submission of several hundred fraudulent signatures, including at least one from beyond the grave.

While the process by which the initiative made its way onto the ballot may be troubling, its likely impact, should it make it into law, is even more worrisome. North Dakota voters and policymakers alike may be feeling flush due to an oil-boom-fueled budget surplus, but that surplus won't be around forever. The enormous tax cut that Measure 2 would engender, well in excess of $100 million per year, would be forever. Moreover, the vast majority of the tax reductions that Measure 2 would spawn would be realized by the very wealthiest North Dakotans -- at a time when the latest data from the Census Bureau show no improvement in income for the typical North Dakota household or in the state's poverty rate.

States' collective fiscal outlook appears to be quite dim and could get even darker in the months ahead according to a report released this week by the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). The report notes that, in the aggregate, states experienced a $40 billion budget gap for fiscal year 2009, a chasm that has been bridged largely through reductions in spending.

Not every state's budget is shrouded in gloom, however. Some states derive significant revenue from severance taxes (taxes imposed on the extraction of natural resources like oil and natural gas) and have economies closely tied to these industries. These states, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming for example, are enjoying substantial budget surpluses.

Given the volatility of energy markets, these surpluses are likely a temporary phenomenon, but that hasn't stopped states from considering and enacting tax cuts that would permanently reduce revenue. Earlier this year, Louisiana briefly weighed the idea of repealing its income tax altogether, only to settle on an oh-so-modest annual cut of $300 million. North Dakota has not only revived its property tax debate from a few years ago, but may also place on this November's ballot a measure that would slash the personal income tax by 50 percent and the corporate income tax by 15 percent. In this context, a plan backed by West Virginia Republicans to completely exempt groceries from the state sales tax appears far more reasonable in scope - and would certainly help to improve the progressivity of the state's tax system. However, it would still likely leave the Mountain State with inadequate revenues once oil and gas prices come back to earth.

Perhaps the most responsible - and fair - approach to surpluses generated by skyrocketing severance tax revenue comes from New Mexico, where Governor Bill Richardson this past week put forward a proposal to dedicate the majority of the state's projected $400 million surplus to one-time tax rebates and to highway construction. Richardson's proposal does contain some permanent changes in tax law, such as an expansion of the state's working families tax credit, but they appear to be targeted towards those low- and moderate-income taxpayers who are facing the greatest challenges from the nationwide foreclosure crisis and from rising fuel and food prices.

"Americans for Prosperity", a national anti-tax organization, has been gathering signatures for an initiative petition that would, if passed, cut the state income tax by 50 percent and the state corporate tax by 15 percent. The group is aiming to put the measure before the people on the November 2008 ballot. This week former North Dakota Lt. Governor Lloyd Omdahl published an editorial criticizing the initiative. Mr. Omdahl noted that North Dakota is already a low-tax state, ranking 37^th nationally. More importantly he also pointed out that North Dakota has real education needs and cutting taxes certainly won't provide students with the resources they need to learn. Mr. Omdahl's editorial is commendable for pointing out so succinctly the folly of what he terms a meat axe approach to tax reform.

Rural representatives in North Dakota's legislature have started a revolt against local option sales taxes used by some localities to help fund local education.State Rep. Mike Brandenburg argues that the lack of stores in more rural communities forces residents to shop in towns in more affluent districts, increasing the inequality between rich and poor districts.However, his proposed solution, House Bill 1314, may well create more problems than it solves.The bill would require stores to keep track of the home district of any shopper who spends more than $5, so the sales tax revenue can be directed to the shopper's home county.This system would create a huge administrative burden for both businesses and local governments.For a better solution to the problem of funding inequality between counties, North Dakota should consider revenue-sharing programs like those in Minnesota and Vermont.