Tax Justice Digest stories about Florida

For over two decades, Mississippi and Florida have bucked the national trend of increasing cigarette taxes. But now, staring down massive budget deficits, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour recently signed a 50 cent-per-pack cigarette tax increase, and Florida Governor Charlie Crist appears ready to do the same with a $1 per pack hike.  Given that each is a conservative governor with at least some national aspirations, the result is a bit surprising to say the least.

In the case of Governor Barbour, his approval was especially unexpected in light of his status as
a former tobacco industry lobbyist.  Governor Crist's support was likewise unanticipated, largely because he has

signed pledges to oppose tax increases as both a Governor and as a candidate for federal office.  Crist was careful to frame his support as entirely focused on the public health aspects of cigarette tax increases, though it's hard to believe that his desire to avoid forcing a special session to balance the budget had nothing to do with his decision.  Thus is the responsibility of governing. Sometimes tax increases cannot be kept off the table.


Some good news for proponents of sound state corporate income taxes:  Florida may be on its way to shoring up its corporate levy and to putting an end to some egregious tax avoidance schemes.  Earlier this month, the Senate Commerce Committee approved a measure to institute combined reporting of corporate income for tax purposes.  As an ITEP policy brief on this topic explains, combined reporting is the single most effective option available to state lawmakers for preventing corporations from shifting income out of Florida and into states where they will not be taxed. 

As a recent
report from the FloridaCenter for Fiscal and Economic Policy documents, the need for combined reporting is clear. Florida loses in excess of $375 million per year to the sort of legal and accounting ploys that combined reporting would prevent. 

While passage of the measure is not assured,
Florida could join Wisconsin as the second state to adopt combined reporting this year. Senate President Jeff Atwater has expressed support for this critical reform and public interest groups like the League of Women Voters are actively promoting it.

At the state level, the usual response to recommendations that taxes be increased to preserve vital state services has generally been: "Now is not the time".  The most notable exception to this trend so far has been with the cigarette tax, as we've explained before.  Increasingly, however, policymakers appear to be coming around to the idea of boosting gas tax rates in order to raise the revenue needed to maintain our nation's infrastructure.  Given that most state gas taxes haven't been increased for quite a few years, and that during that time inflation has significantly eroded the value of most gas tax rates, our only response can be, "It's about time."

 

In Maryland, for example, the Senate President recently expressed an interest in raising the gas tax, urging that "there's got to be an increase in the transportation trust fund somewhere, and there's got to be a way we can find people with the political will to make it happen".  Numerous governors have echoed this call as of late, most recently in Massachusetts, and Idaho

 

In Idaho, especially, the Governor was able to hit the nail on the head with his observation that, "[we last raised] the fuel tax … 13 years ago. And now here we are trying to accomplish 2009 goals with 1996 dollars. Everyone in this room or listening to me throughout Idaho today -- everyone who has a household budget or runs a business -- knows that just doesn't work".

 

In response to this problem, Idaho Governor "Butch" Otter has recommended bumping the gas tax upward by 2 cents in each of the next 5 years.  Addressing the root of the problem even more directly, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle has proposed indexing the gas tax rate to inflation -- a practice that had existed in Wisconsin up until 2006.  Maine and Florida continue to index their gas tax rates today, with very favorable results in terms of providing each state with a somewhat more adequate and sustainable source of transportation revenue.

 

Importantly, the federal gas tax is not indexed to inflation, meaning that the Federal Highway Trust Fund is suffering from many of the same problems we see plaguing the states mentioned above.  The federal gas tax has not been increased in over 15 years.  President Obama's new Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has previously gone on the record as supporting raising the gasoline tax.  The views of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood are not yet clear.  What is clear, however, is that something will have to be done at the federal, as well as the state level, if gas tax revenues are to be restored to their previous purchasing power.

 

Of course, the gas tax is not perfect.  Aside from the long-term issues arising out of improved fuel efficiency (which we need to begin planning for now), the regressivity of the tax is very worrisome, especially in these difficult times.  Fortunately, low-income gas tax credits, as we've advocated on multiple occasions, are very capable of remedying this shortcoming.
Washington state residents are in for a heap of trouble if Governor Christine Gregoire has her way when it comes to balancing the state’s budget.  To remedy their budget shortfall, Governor Gregoire has proposed this week to slash valuable state services, and has expressed no interest whatsoever in increasing any taxes.  $6 billion worth of cuts in children’s health care, unemployment benefits, education, and other key services have been put on the chopping block.  The Washington Times reports that some of the Governor’s cuts would even “violate voter-approved initiatives and previously negotiated labor contracts."

Thankfully, the Washington-based Economic Opportunity Institute presented more responsible ideas this week that add a much-needed progressive voice to the otherwise bleak landscape.  Among their proposals are a variety of expansions in the state’s sales tax base, a tax on high-income earners, and a tax on oil companies’ profits.

Along similar lines, as Florida's budget situation continues to worsen, Republican legislative leaders have announced a special January session to deal with a $2.3 billion budget deficit for the current year. Options on the table include spending cuts and raiding trust funds -- but tax hikes have been explicitly ruled out by legislative leaders. Democratic lawmakers are showing renewed interest in hiking the state's cigarette tax -- even though the projected yield of such a hike has fallen dramatically in the last year. One editorial observer points out that avoiding sensible tax-raising solutions amounts to "eating the seed corn."

While reports such as those out of Iowa and Virginia (see “Budget Fixes Worth Embracing”, in this week’s Digest) highlight some of the best ways for states to dig themselves out of their current budgetary nightmares, in many cases it appears that the cigarette tax is continuing to hold on to its title as the single most popular tax to increase among the states.  Policy advocates and even many legislators are often careful to frame their support of cigarette tax hikes in terms of fighting smoking or reducing health care costs, but in times as desperate as these, it’s hard not to suspect that revenue needs may be the driving force.  The fact is that revenue from the cigarette tax is almost never sustainable over time because the U.S. smoking population is constantly on the decline.  It’s therefore difficult to get excited about the cigarette tax as a budget-fix for any period of time beyond the very short-term – and even then, states should never be excited about raising revenue through such a regressive tax.  But in states that have held their cigarette taxes constant at low levels for a number of years, it’s also hard to get too upset over such proposals.  Five states in particular made news this week in their debates over the cigarette tax:  Florida, Mississippi, Oregon, South Carolina, and Utah.

 

The three states with the most intense cigarette tax debates at the moment are Florida, Mississippi, and OregonFlorida and Mississippi haven’t increased their cigarette tax rates in 18 and 23 years, respectively, and therefore have some of the lowest cigarette tax rates in the nation.  Hikes in the range of 50 cents to $1 per pack are being proposed in Florida, while Mississippi’s debate appears to be over a range of 24 cents to $1 per pack.  In Oregon, the governor recently proposed a 60 cent hike as part of his budget.  The intent of that hike is use the new revenue as part of a package to expand health care in the state – such an arrangement is likely to result in tensions down the road as cigarette revenues fall and health costs continue to rise.

 

South Carolina provides another example of a state with a cigarette tax debate worth following.  In this past year’s session, the legislature approved a cigarette tax hike, only to eventually be vetoed by the governor, ostensibly out of concern over linking such an unsustainable revenue source to a permanent expansion of Medicaid.  As the appearance of a recent op-ed praising the benefits of hiking SC’s lowest-in-the-nation rate suggests, this debate is not yet over.

 

Utah provides another example of a potential budding cigarette tax debate.  With the American Cancer society enthusiastically seeking to capitalize on what appears to be a favorable climate for a cigarette tax hike, one has to expect the idea to pick up steam during discussions over how to close the state’s looming budget gap.

The Elephant in the Room

|

As the fiscal contagion spreads among the states, policymakers are clearly casting about for ways to close large and growing budget deficits.  In Nevada, Governor Jim Gibbons may be open to tax increases in light of a shortfall that is projected to reach $1.8 billion over the next two and half years, but he has also floated the idea of 'voluntary' payroll reductions of 5 percent.  New Hampshire faces an approximately $600 million budget gap over the same period, with lawmakers weighing such options as selling state properties, legalizing gambling, or deferring needed payments to the state pension fund.  Florida may have to confront an eye-popping deficit of $6 billion over just 18 months, driving elected officials to think about raiding a variety of trust funds and imposing a 4 percent across-the-board cut in agency budgets.

 

Of course, these three states have more in common than difficult days ahead.  They also share a steadfast refusal to levy a personal income tax.  Rather than continue to cast about for half-measures and temporary fixes -- or, worse, policies that would undermine working families' already precarious economic situations -- policymakers in states like Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Washington, and Tennessee need to acknowledge the elephant in the room and consider whether the tax policies that brought them to this point are the ones that will carry them to a better future.

Recently, the Tax Foundation released its annual ranking of state business tax climates.  As always, there are more than a few good reasons to be skeptical of the results contained in the report.  But aside from the traditional methodological criticisms of any ranking of this type, this year's report includes at least one assertion that should turn the head of even the most casual state tax policy observer.

Florida, a state with one of the most obviously unfair and criticized tax systems in the nation, ranks 5th in overall business tax climate.  According to the authors of the report:

"[Florida is] one of just four states to rank in the top half on all five tax-specific indices. Even Florida's much-maligned property tax system ranks fairly well, scoring 19th out of 50 states. Of course, improvements can be made to any state's tax code … but Florida is in a better position than most states to be content with the tax code it has."

A property tax that ranks "fairly well"?  Content with the tax code it has?  These assertions should come as a great surprise to anyone familiar with Florida's tax system.  As has been documented at length in previous Digest articles, Florida's tax system is both
unfair and inadequate.

Multiple rounds of budget cuts have become the norm each year in the state.  Oddities with the property tax system have forced neighbors with similar homes to pay vastly different amounts in property tax.  And all the while, the rich have been let off the hook despite vast
income inequality in Florida.

In large part as a direct result of some of the abovementioned flaws with its tax code, a number of problems are immediately visible in Florida's quality of life.  According to the
Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, Florida ranks:

-        50th in per capita funding for higher education

-        49th in all education funding per capita

-        41st in state health rankings

-        49th in percent covered by health insurance

-        46th in Medicaid spending per child

-        2nd highest in percentage of uninsured children

-        48th in progressiveness of major state & local taxes

It's hard to imagine unhealthy and poorly educated workers being good for the state's "business climate".  A tax system that fails to adequately fund these services should not be ranked among the best in the nation for business.  In reality, Florida has an even longer and tougher road to travel than most states before it should be "content with the tax code it has".

The Florida Circuit Court ruling we reported on last month was upheld by the state’s Supreme Court this week.  As a result, the ill-conceived ballot proposal seeking to slash school property taxes will not be presented to Florida voters this November.  The body that put the measure on the ballot -- The Taxation and Budget Reform Commission -- is not scheduled to meet again for another twenty years.  That means the only option for enacting a property tax cut of the kind Florida has been stubbornly pursuing is to go through the Florida legislature.  While it’s not yet clear what the results of traveling down that path will be, it’s fair to say that the cut, as proposed by the Commission, will not be adopted.  Former state Senate President John McKay believes that “the effort, as it’s currently conceived, is dead”.  The cries for property tax cuts aren’t likely to face a similar demise anytime soon, however, and new developments from Florida seem inevitable in the coming weeks and months.

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.

Late last week, the official estimates of general fund revenue collections in Florida during each of the next two years were reduced by 7% and 8%, respectively.  For the current fiscal year, this means that the state is expected to have $1.8 billion less in funds than was thought in March.  Slowing sales tax collections are the primary culprit.

Raising taxes to help fill this shortfall appears to be completely out of the question.  The likely solution will involve some combination of

-        Relying on the $300 million the legislature set aside last year.

-        Making permanent Governor Crist’s order to cut state agency budgets by 4%, saving up to $1 billion.

-        Tapping into reserves contained in the hurricane recovery fund (apparently ignoring the potential costs of Tropical Storm Fay) and health care endowment, which have about $1.6 billion available.

Lawmakers could, of course, also convene in a special legislative session to make the needed adjustments, though election-year politics make that option extremely unlikely.

Perhaps more important than how Florida will fix its budget this year, however, is how it will address the inevitable shortfall looming next year. State economists are projecting revenues to be $2.2 billion lower than was originally thought.  Tapping into reserves this year will only reduce the number of options available next year, and with cuts in vital programs already having gone quite deep, that option will undoubtedly be even more painful next year.  Perhaps the dire situation on the ground in Florida will eventually begin to loosen the seemingly unshakeable grip of anti-tax advocates in the state.  On a somewhat encouraging note, the Orlando Sentinel this week even ran an editorial suggesting something previously unheard of in Florida… an income tax!

About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries in the Florida category.

District of Columbia is the previous category.

Georgia is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.