• Kansas Governor Brownback’s insistence on steep tax cuts has met more resistance.  A group called Traditional Republicans for Common Sense has come out against  even a watered down version of Brownback’s vision in the legislature. One of the group’s members (a former chair of the state’s GOP) said, “Now is not the time for more government intervention. Topeka needs to stay out of the way and make sure proven economic development tools – like good schools and safe roads – remain strong so that the private sector can thrive.” 

• Stateline writes about the problems with “the spending that isn’t counted” – meaning special breaks that lawmakers have buried in state tax codes.  The article highlights efforts in Oregon and Vermont to develop more rational budget processes where tax breaks can’t simply fly under the radar year after year.  CTJ’s recommendations for reform are in this report.

• In this thoughtful column, South Carolina Senator Phil Leventis writes, "I have been guided by the principle that government should invest in meeting the needs and aspirations of its citizens. This principle has been undermined by an ideology claiming that government is the cause of our problems and, accordingly, must be starved.” He praises tax study commissions and says being “business friendly” cannot be the only measure of state policy.

• An op-ed from the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center (PBPC) calls on lawmakers to address the issue of rampant corporate tax avoidance, and to do so responsibly. It raises concerns that legislation currently under consideration to close corporate loopholes could be a “cure worse than the disease.”  The legislation takes some good steps but is paired with business tax cuts that could cost as much as $1 billion over the next several years.  PBPC argues for a stronger and more effective approach to making corporations pay their fair share such as combined reporting, which makes it harder for companies to move profits around among subsidiaries in different states.

• Just four days after Amazon agreed to begin collecting sales taxes in Nevada in 2014, the company announced a similar agreement with Texas that will take effect much sooner – on July 1st.  As The Wall Street Journal reports, “With the deal, the Seattle-based company is on track to collect sales taxes in 12 states, which make up about 40% of the U.S. population, by 2016.”
  
  

Picture from Flickr Creative Commons.

We couldn’t help but laugh when we saw the title of last week’s Wall Street Journal editorial.  For those of you that have followed the “millionaire migration” debate, it should be a very familiar one.

First, a little background: Over the last couple years, the Wall Street Journal has run three editorials claiming that state income tax hikes in Maryland and Oregon were major factors in the shrinking of those states’ millionaire populations.  According to the Journal, while the recession did reduce the number of rich folks in those states, the tax hikes enacted by the “redistributionists” and “class warriors” (to use their words) just had to have something to do with it as well.  No self-respecting rich person would sit around and pay more in taxes when they could quit their job, pull their kids out of school, and move to a state with lower taxes on the rich – like South Dakota.

Our sister organization, ITEP, went to great lengths to point out the problems with the Journal’s migration theory, responding to those editorials in three separate reports, one letter to the editor, and a Huffington Post piece.  All of those publications analyzed official state data and reached the same conclusion: there’s no evidence to suggest that the shrinking of Maryland and Oregon’s millionaire populations was anything other than a predictable result of the recent recession.

That’s what makes last week’s Journal editorial so amusing.  It’s been a little over two years since the Journal first popularized the Maryland millionaire migration myth with a 2009 piece titled “Millionaires Go Missing.”  Apparently, members of the Journal’s editorial board have short memories, because they’ve recycled that same title, but used it to argue the opposite point (and the one ITEP insisted was the case all along): new federal tax data shows that the recession caused a huge decline in the number of millionaires all across the country.  “Told you so” just doesn’t seem sufficient.

Looking back, it’s really unfortunate how much influence the Journal’s made-up story about “Maryland’s fleeced taxpayers fighting back” (as the sub-title of their 2009 article read) actually had.  It resulted in countless misinformed debates about a “millionaire migration” phenomenon that never even existed, and played no small role in the eventual defeat of efforts to extend a very good tax policy in Maryland.

But even against that backdrop, perhaps we should all feel just a bit relieved right now.  At least the Journal opted not to use the new federal data to concoct a fiction about wealthy Americans migrating to low-tax Mexico.  Well, at least not yet.

It’s no secret that once enacted, tax breaks receive far too little scrutiny from state lawmakers.  Consider the debacle in Missouri, for example, where the state accidentally spent $1 billion more on tax credits beyond what lawmakers originally intended, in large part because the state's budget rules left lawmakers with very few options for properly overseeing those tax breaks.

In an attempt to encourage lawmakers to spend more time discussing the true costs and benefits of tax breaks, Oregon enacted a law in 2009 requiring the vast majority of its tax credits to sunset within two, four, or six years.  Last week, with the first batch of credits scheduled to expire at the end of this year, the Oregon legislature sent Governor Kitzhaber a bill that will scale back the size of the expiring tax breaks by some 75 percent over the next two years – from $40million to $10million.  Similarly, the credits' six-year, $500million price tag (had the legislature simply extended all the credits) will fall to roughly $136million.

Among the credits reduced by the legislation are the film tax credit, the biomass credit, and the research and development credit.  The much maligned business energy tax credit (BETC) will also be replaced with new and smaller credits designed to encourage conservation and renewable energy.

Unfortunately, there is one troubling addendum to this story.  Just days after passing these tax credit reductions, the legislature also gave approval to a costly new credit based on the federal New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC).  The NMTC is ostensibly designed to encourage business investment in low-income communities, but as our friends at the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP) point out, the credit often flows straight to the pockets of wealthy investors building upscale hotels and condominiums in areas that are hardly impoverished. 

Moreover, the OCPP notes that this credit “will subsidize projects that will occur anyway,” and “despite all the talk about creating jobs, the bill does not attach job standards to receipt of the subsidy.”  Additionally, “nothing in the bill matches the rhetoric that investments will be made in small businesses. The bill has no provision limiting the investments to small businesses.”  On the bright side, there’s still time for Governor Kitzhaber to veto the NMTC, and regardless of whether or not the NMTC becomes law, Oregon’s tax credit spending will be much lower in the years ahead than would otherwise have been the case.

This success is thanks in no small part to the role Oregon’s 2009 sunset law played in pushing these costly tax breaks into the spotlight.

For more information on steps states can take to enhance the level of scrutiny applied to tax breaks, read CTJ’s report, How to Enact (and Maintain) Tax Reform.

California, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin have all experienced better than expected revenue growth over the past few months.  This is unambiguously good news, but for many lawmakers it’s unfortunately an excuse to ditch any restraint on tax-cutting.

California

In California, stronger-than-expected revenue growth has made the GOP even more vocal in opposing efforts to extend a variety of temporary income, sales, and vehicle tax increases.  Governor Jerry Brown’s continued push to extend these tax hikes is very sensible given that the unanticipated revenue boost was still quite small compared to the state’s total budget.  

Brown has behaved much less sensibly, however, in deciding to abandon efforts to end a variety of business tax credits.  As Jean Ross of the California Budget Project points out, “One of the virtues of the original budget was that there was some level of shared sacrifice.  But now, some businesses are going to come out ahead of where they were last year.”

Delaware

In Delaware, a surprise bump in revenue collections has inspired the state’s Democratic Governor, and a number of Republican legislators, to begin pushing for tax cuts.  

Specifically, the Governor has proposed cutting taxes for banks, businesses, and individuals with taxable incomes of over $60,000.  

In reference to the windfall that banks would receive under the Governor’s plan, Rep. John Kowalko argues that "They do pretty damn well with the federal handouts … I want to see a return on the investment before I will blindly vote on that."

Michigan

In Michigan, better-than-expected revenue growth in the current fiscal year may be used to reduce cuts in school spending that are currently under consideration.  

Any unexpected revenue growth in subsequent fiscal years, however, will be swallowed up by the massive business tax cuts that Michigan’s legislature passed last week.

New Jersey

In New Jersey, unanticipated revenue growth is expected to be used by Governor Chris Christie as yet another excuse for doling out billions in corporate tax breaks.
 
As New Jersey Policy Perspective points out, however, “the state remains stuck in a very deep hole … even with that growth, the state’s revenue collections would still be $3.4 billion less than was collected in FY2008, the year prior to the recession … the state must choose to invest these revenues wisely, using the money to restore the devastating cuts made to services and to pay into the state pension system.”

Oregon

In Oregon, unexpected revenue growth will likely be used to restore cuts to human services and public safety, at least in the short term.  By 2013, however, the state’s “kicker” law will probably require that some amount of revenue growth be dedicated to tax cuts.  

As Rep. Phil Barnhart points out, "Because this budget is so bad, we don't take care of schoolchildren, basic health issues and maintaining prisons — and we have a kicker at the end … We are stuck with this kicker law when we really need to spend some of this money on the budget."

Wisconsin

Finally, in Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker has stubbornly refused to adapt to changing conditions on the ground.   If Walker gets his way, $1 billion will still be slashed from public schools, despite the state’s recently improved revenue picture.

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

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

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

Read the Report

State lawmakers across the country have heard again and again that wealthy taxpayers will pull up stakes and move in response to just about any progressive state tax increase. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Read the full ITEP article in the Huffington Post

In the past year, we've documented ad nauseum the lengths that anti-tax advocates will go to in order to convince lawmakers that the so-called "millionaire's tax" is prompting wealthy taxpayers to move to other states. In Maryland, New Jersey and Oregon, these groups have selectively presented data in order to "show" that resident millionaires are packing up their Lear Jets and moving to Florida. And in each case, we've shown that when the data are presented honestly and fully, there's simply no evidence that millionaires are voting with their feet.

But the latest such effort, by the Partnership for New York City, breaks new ground by simply making data up. For example, the report says that "Since the imposition of New York's surcharge in 2009, there has been a 9.4 percent decrease in the state's taxpayers who earn $1 million or more, decreasing from 381,786 in 2007 to 345,892 in 2009." Take a minute and read that quote again. What the Partnership is implying is that millionaires had the magical ability to see into the future and start moving out of New York in 2007 and 2008 as a result of a tax increase that hadn’t even happened yet.

Next, it’s worth taking a closer look at that 381,786 figure, the supposed amount of millionaires in New York in 2007. Interestingly enough there is state-by-state data available from the IRS which shows that there were actually only 375,265 returns with federal adjusted gross income over $200,000 in 2007. Of course, not all 375,265 returns were all millionaires. So the 381,786 figure sited by the Partnership is troubling to say the least.

What is even more troubling is that there isn’t actual data available (from New York or the federal government) for 2009 showing the number of tax returns by income group. Which leaves us with a very troubling question — where does the Partnerships earlier figure of 345,892 millionaires in 2009 actually come from?

The answer: they're using a forecast of the number of households in each state with wealth, not income, of $1 million or more. See the data. Released last September by a marketing firm, these estimates tell us a few interesting things. One is that between 2007 and 2009, the nation as a whole lost 13.9 percent of its net-worth "millionaires" between 2007 and 2009, which makes the 9.4 percent loss for New York seem not that impressive. Another is that 43 of the 50 states lost proportionally more of their net-worth "millionaires" over this period than did New York. So, leaving aside the minor detail that income taxes are based on income rather than wealth, which makes these marketing data utterly irrelevant to the point the Partnership is trying to make, any objective look at this data would suggest that New York is doing better than most other states.

For more on the many flaws of the Partnership’s paper, read this brief from the Fiscal Policy Institute. Suffice to say, the theory that New York millionaires are moving because of a targeted tax increase is based on deeply flawed (and perhaps even made up) data.

The last place you would ever expect a discussion of tax policy is in the sea of Super Bowl commercials about beer, cars, and Doritos, yet the organization Americans Against Food Taxes spent over $3 million to change that last Sunday.

The ad, called “Give Me a Break”, features a nice woman shopping in a grocery store,  explaining how she does not want the government interfering with her personal life by attempting to place taxes on soda, juice, or even flavored water. The goal of the ad is to portray objections to soda taxes as if they are grounded in the concerns of ordinary Americans.

But Americans Against Food Taxes is anything but a grassroots organization. Its funding comes from a coalition of corporate interests including Coca-Cola, McDonalds and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

It is easy to understand why these groups are concerned about soda taxes, which were once considered a way to help pay for health care reform. The entire purpose of these taxes is to discourage the consumption of their products. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains in making the case for a soda tax, such a tax could be used to dramatically reduce obesity and health care costs and produce better health outcomes across the nation. Adding to this, the revenue raised could be dedicated to funding health care programs, which could further improve the general welfare.

These taxes may spread, at least at the state level.  In its analysis of the ad, Politifact verifies the ad’s claim that politicians are planning to impose additional taxes on soda and other groceries, writing that “legislators have introduced bills to impose or raise the tax on sodas and/or snack foods in Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont and West Virginia.”

It's true that taxes on food generally are regressive, and taxes on sugary drinks are no exception according to a recent study. It's a bad idea to rely on this sort of tax purely to raise revenue, but if the goal of the tax is to change behavior for health reasons, then such a tax might be a reasonable tool for social policy. We have often said the same about cigarette taxes, which are a bad way to raise revenue but a reasonable way to discourage an unhealthy behavior.

With so many states considering soda taxes and the corporate interests revving up their own campaign, the “Give Me a Break” ad may just be the opening shot in the big food tax battles to come.

A new website, Oregon Open for Business, was launched this week to help dismiss claims that Oregon's recent voter-approved tax increases are driving corporations away from the state.  The website tracks the numerous businesses, including Google, Facebook, Genentech, IBM and Subaru, that have moved to or expanded their presence in Oregon in the past year.

The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center and Keystone Research Center introduced a  joint blog this week called Third and State.  The new progressive blog will present "sharp and timely commentary" on Pennsylvania's economy and help explain how the state budget and other policies impact the lives of Pennsylvanians.

Two weeks ago, while most people were headed home for the holidays, the Wall Street Journal put out an extremely misleading and factually inaccurate editorial suggesting that up to 10,000 wealthy Oregonians fled the state because of a recent tax increase.  Both ITEP and the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP) quickly responded with information refuting this claim.

The Journal’s claim hinges on the fact that 10,000 fewer Oregonians were affected by a tax increase on incomes over $250,000 than the state’s Legislative Revenue Office (LRO) originally expected.  Armed with just this single piece of information, the Journal enthusiastically jumped to the conclusion than 10,000 wealthy Oregonians must have moved to states like Texas, which lack an income tax.  But as ITEP points out in its report, Oregon’s shortage of high-income filers was accompanied by an even larger surplus of filers lower down the income distribution.  This strongly suggests that wealthy Oregonians simply earned less income (due to the recession) than the LRO expected.  And indeed, the LRO made this point explicitly when it released the data that eventually sparked the Journal’s editorial.

The analyses produced by ITEP and the OCPP were subsequently picked up by The Providence Journal, The New Republic, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), and numerous other outlets.

But the Wall Street Journal has continued to stick to its baseless narrative, publishing two letters to the editor echoing its claim about the damage done by Oregon’s tax increase.

If past experience is any guide, talk of tax-induced migration from Oregon isn’t likely to fade any time soon.  As ITEP reminds readers in its report, this most recent editorial very closely resembles a pair of editorials the Journal released in 2009 and 2010 claiming that Maryland’s millionaires had fled the state because of a similar tax increase.  Just as with this editorial, the Maryland editorials were both misleading and factually inaccurate, though they were still very influential in the debate over taxing high-income earners in Maryland and other states.  The steady stream of misinformation from the Journal isn’t likely to subside any time soon.

The Wall Street Journal recently published an editorial suggesting that a state income tax increase caused up to 10,000 wealthy taxpayers to flee the state of Oregon.  A new report from ITEP, however, explains why this assertion is totally unsupported by data from the Oregon Legislative Revenue Office (LRO).

Specifically, the Journal claims that because 10,000 fewer taxpayers were affected by a recent state income tax increase than the LRO originally anticipated, it must be the case that most of those 10,000 taxpayers packed their bags and moved to Texas.  But as ITEP's report explains, the decline wasn't due to migration; instead, Oregonians simply earned less than the LRO thought they would (because of the recession), and as a result fewer taxpayers were affected by the new tax rates on income over $250,000 (or $125,000 for single filers).

ITEP also criticizes the Journal for continuing to spread the myth that "one-third" of Maryland's millionaires "vanished from the tax rolls after rates went up" on millionaires in 2008.  ITEP has noted the fallacy of this claim on two separate occassions, and even the Journal itself has conceded as much in the past (see page 2 of ITEP's report).

Read the Report

For a review of the most significant state tax actions across the country this year and a preview for what’s to come in 2011, check out ITEP’s new report, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 2010 State Tax Policy Changes.

"Good" actions include progressive or reform-minded changes taken to close large state budget gaps. Eliminating personal income tax giveaways, expanding low-income credits, reinstating the estate tax, broadening the sales tax base, and reforming tax credits are all discussed.  

Among the “bad” actions state lawmakers took this year, which either worsened states’ already bleak fiscal outlook or increased taxes on middle-income households, are the repeal of needed tax increases, expanded capital gains tax breaks, and the suspension of property tax relief programs.  

“Ugly” changes raised taxes on the low-income families most affected by the economic downturn, drastically reduced state revenues in a poorly targeted manner, or stifled the ability of states and localities to raise needed revenues in the future. Reductions to low-income credits, permanently narrowing the personal income tax base, and new restrictions on the property tax fall into this category.

The report also includes a look at the state tax policy changes — good, bad, and ugly — that did not happen in 2010.  Some of the actions not taken would have significantly improved the fairness and adequacy of state tax systems, while others would have decimated state budgets and/or made state tax systems more regressive.

2011 promises to be as difficult a year as 2010 for state tax policy as lawmakers continue to grapple with historic budget shortfalls due to lagging revenues and a high demand for public services.  The report ends with a highlight of the state tax policy debates that are likely to play out across the country in the coming year.

Good Jobs First (GJF) released three new resources this week explaining how your state is doing when it comes to letting taxpayers know about the plethora of subsidies being given to private companies.  These resources couldn’t be more timely.  As GJF’s Executive Director Greg LeRoy explained, “with states being forced to make painful budget decisions, taxpayers expect economic development spending to be fair and transparent.”

The first of these three resources, Show Us The Subsidies, grades each state based on its subsidy disclosure practices.  GJF finds that while many states are making real improvements in subsidy disclosure, many others still lag far behind.  Illinois, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Ohio did the best in the country according to GJF, while thirteen states plus DC lack any disclosure at all and therefore earned an “F.”  Eighteen additional states earned a “D” or “D-minus.”

While the study includes cash grants, worker training programs, and loan guarantees, much of its focus is on tax code spending, or “ tax expenditures.”  Interestingly, disclosure of company-specific information appears to be quite common for state-level tax breaks.  Despite claims from business lobbyists that tax subsidies must be kept anonymous in order to protect trade secrets, GJF was able to find about 50 examples of tax credits, across about two dozen states, where company-specific information is released.  In response to the business lobby, GJF notes that “the sky has not fallen” in these states.

The second tool released by GJF this week, called Subsidy Tracker, is the first national search engine for state economic development subsidies.  By pulling together information from online sources, offline sources, and Freedom of Information Act requests, GJF has managed to create a searchable database covering more than 43,000 subsidy awards from 124 programs in 27 states.  Subsidy Tracker puts information that used to be difficult to find, nearly impossible to search through, or even previously unavailable, on the Internet all in one convenient location.  Tax credits, property tax abatements, cash grants, and numerous other types of subsidies are included in the Subsidy Tracker database.

Finally, GJF also released Accountable USA, a series of webpages for all 50 states, plus DC, that examines each state’s track record when it comes to subsidies.  Major “scams,” transparency ratings for key economic development programs, and profiles of a few significant economic development deals are included for each state.  Accountable USA also provides a detailed look at state-specific subsidies received by Wal-Mart.

These three resources from Good Jobs First will no doubt prove to be an invaluable resource for state lawmakers, advocates, media, and the general public as states continue their steady march toward improved subsidy disclosure.

ITEP’s new report, Credit Where Credit is (Over) Due, examines four proven state tax reforms that can assist families living in poverty. They include refundable state Earned Income Tax Credits, property tax circuit breakers, targeted low-income credits, and child-related tax credits. The report also takes stock of current anti-poverty policies in each of the states and offers suggested policy reforms.

Earlier this month, the US Census Bureau released new data showing that the national poverty rate increased from 13.2 percent to 14.3 percent in 2009.  Faced with a slow and unresponsive economy, low-income families are finding it increasingly difficult to find decent jobs that can adequately provide for their families.

Most states have regressive tax systems which exacerbate this situation by imposing higher effective tax rates on low-income families than on wealthy ones, making it even harder for low-wage workers to move above the poverty line and achieve economic security. Although state tax policy has so far created an uneven playing field for low-income families, state governments can respond to rising poverty by alleviating some of the economic hardship on low-income families through targeted anti-poverty tax reforms.

One important policy available to lawmakers is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The credit is widely recognized as an effective anti-poverty strategy, lifting roughly five million people each year above the federal poverty line.  Twenty-four states plus the District of Columbia provide state EITCs, modeled on the federal credit, which help to offset the impact of regressive state and local taxes.  The report recommends that states with EITCs consider expanding the credit and that other states consider introducing a refundable EITC to help alleviate poverty.

The second policy ITEP describes is property tax "circuit breakers." These programs offer tax credits to homeowners and renters who pay more than a certain percentage of their income in property tax.  But the credits are often only available to the elderly or disabled.  The report suggests expanding the availability of the credit to include all low-income families.

Next ITEP describes refundable low-income credits, which are a good compliment to state EITCs in part because the EITC is not adequate for older adults and adults without children.  Some states have structured their low-income credits to ensure income earners below a certain threshold do not owe income taxes. Other states have designed low-income tax credits to assist in offsetting the impact of general sales taxes or specifically the sales tax on food.  The report recommends that lawmakers expand (or create if they don’t already exist) refundable low-income tax credits.

The final anti-poverty strategy that ITEP discusses are child-related tax credits.  The new US Census numbers show that one in five children are currently living in poverty. The report recommends consideration of these tax credits, which can be used to offset child care and other expenses for parents.

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.