Tax Justice Digest stories about Illinois
Ideas are being floated in Alabama and Illinois to address the regressive nature or their tax structures. Proponents of a revenue-neutral plan that has gained some attention in Alabama claim that it would cut taxes or keep them at their current level for 80% of taxpayers, while increasing taxes on only the wealthiest 20% of payers. Since the Alabama tax system is incredibly regressive, this would be a very welcome change.
Under the proposed plan, the income tax would be made more progressive by increasing personal exemptions and standard deductions, at a cost of about $250 million per year. Additionally, the regressivity of the Alabama sales tax would be reduced by exempting groceries. The grocery exemption would bring Alabama closer in line with the overwhelming majority of states, as Alabama is one of only two states that makes no effort to mitigate the regressive effects of the grocery tax. The $550 million price tag attached to these tax cuts would be paid for by eliminating Alabama's regressive tax deduction for federal income taxes paid. Only two other states allow for a full deduction of federal income taxes paid. Eliminating this deduction would increase taxes the most for those wealthiest Alabamians who have the highest federal income tax liabilities.
The reforms proposed in Illinois, and just recently approved by a Senate committee, would result in a net tax increase of about $3.8 billion to be used to fund education, early childhood programs, pensions, health care, and construction projects. Given that Illinois is projected to have budget deficits this year and for years to come, progressive tax increases seem like a very good idea. To ensure tax fairness, revenues would be raised by the most progressive tax available – the income tax. The personal income tax rate would increase from 3% to 5%, and the corporate income tax rate would rise from 4.8% to 8%. Offsetting much of this tax increase would be property tax cuts (a minimum of 20% of the school portion of property tax bills) and income tax credits for low-income families.
Unfortunately, the governors in each of these states are opposed to the plans (primarily to the tax increases for wealthier taxpayers). This means that if tax reform is to occur in 2008, it could be much less progressive than what has been proposed thus far. It's certainly refreshing, however, to see state lawmakers discussing these kinds of relatively major tax overhauls with fairness considerations obviously on the top of their agendas.
The governors of Illinois and Pennsylvania are each seeking to follow the feds’ lead and stimulate their economy with tax breaks. Governor Rendell’s plan in Pennsylvania is to rebate up to $400 to low-income families with children, with the precise amount of the rebate being determined by the number of parents, number of children, and income earned in the family. In Illinois, Governor Blagojevich’s plan is similar to Rendell’s proposal in that it is only available to families with dependent children, though it differs in that its income eligibility thresholds are much higher: single-parent families earning up to $75,000, and two-parent families earning $150,000 will be eligible for the full $300 per child credit. Blagojevich’s plan could be made more effective and less expensive by lowering the income limits to make these credits available primarily to the low and middle income families who would be most likely to immediately spend tax rebates on everyday needs.
Fortunately, both of these stimulus proposals are refundable, meaning that families receive the money regardless of how much, if any, state income tax they paid. This is an extremely important component of any fair credit or rebate since even though those in the greatest need often pay no income taxes because of their low incomes, they do pay huge portions of their incomes in regressive sales and property taxes.
One additional flaw with each plan is that low-income individuals without children will see no benefit. In terms of both stimulating the economy and assisting those in need, both of these plans could be improved by extending the rebates/credits in some form to individuals without children. This could be done very easily in Illinois by lowering the income eligibility criteria and using the resulting savings to assist low-income, childless individuals.
In Kansas, several school districts are fighting to lure casinos into their boundaries. As the Kansas City Kansan notes, "Each of the five casino proposals on the table would bring different levels of funding to each of the local school districts." These local school districts are lobbying hard for casinos that would add to their their district's property tax base. Millions of dollars in new tax revenue -- as well as millions of dollars in social costs -- could result for the school district "lucky" enough to be the recipient of a new casino.
Meanwhile, Illinois lawmakers continue to grapple with funding education, construction, and Chicago area public transportation. Some are predicting a financial "doomsday" next year for the state if new revenues aren't created in a hurry. House Speaker Michael Madigan has come out in favor of a plan to increase state gambling to forestall the doomsday. His plan "would put a casino in Chicago, auction off two other licenses, expand existing riverboats and put thousands of slot machines and video poker at horse tracks." Illinois House members are expected back in Springfield on Monday to consider increased gambling.
Policymakers in both Kansas and Illinois have the opportunity to meet the needs of their residents through progressive and stable means, like income tax reforms. Unfortunately, gambling revenue is not stable over the long term and is certainly a regressive revenue source. Residents in both states lose when gambling proposals like these are on the table.
Faced with a looming budget hole, Illinois lawmakers shied away from addressing tax reform this year -- and elected officials in the state's biggest local government, Chicago's Cook County, now find themselves asking the hard questions state lawmakers avoided. A recent report from the Center on Tax and Budget Accountability shows that the county's current budget hole, estimated at $288 million, reflects a "structural deficit" -- that is, a recurring imbalance between the services a government provides and the revenues it uses to fund those services -- that will grow to over $800 million a year by 2012. The CTBA report explains that the county's heavy reliance on slow-growth property taxes and a narrow local sales tax base make the tax system incapable of keeping pace with the cost of funding important services. County lawmakers have proposed an increase in the county's already-high sales tax rate (without expanding the sales tax base to include currently-untaxed services), which would reduce the deficit but wouldn't directly address the sustainability concerns raised by the CTBA report.
Little progress has been made in the Illinois budget standoff. In fact, Governor Rod Blagojevich pleaded with state employees to continue working even though the state's one-month temporary budget extension ended on July 31. State Comptroller Dan Hynes says that the state must have some sort of budget by August 8 - when the state is scheduled to make school aid payments. In the meantime, legislative leaders have rejected the Governor's proposal for another one-month budget extension. Powerful House Speaker Michael Madigan has said, "I think we're close." Looking through our crystal ball we predict that Illinoisans can expect a modest budget that does little to improve education, expand health care coverage, or improve the state's tax structure.
Many observers thought this could be the year for progressive tax reform in Illinois. But in the wake of a disappointing regular legislative session that was dominated by one poorly-thought-out idea (Governor Rod Blagojevich's proposal for a "gross receipts tax"), lawmakers are back in Springfield for a special "overtime session." A new report from Voices for Illinois Children reminds lawmakers that reforming the state's low,flat-rate income tax could make the Illinois tax system both fairer and more sustainable. To read the Voices report, click here.
Gross Receipts Tax Is Not a Cure-All for the States
Over the past few years, both
IL Gov Won't Raise Taxes on People, Just Taxes That Are Passed onto People
Despite Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich coming before the Illinois House in a rare all-day hearing to promote his plan for implementing a gross receipts tax (GRT) his proposal was unanimously defeated by the Illinois House in a 107-0 vote. The Governor's proposal barely passed the Senate Executive Committee. Analyses by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy suggest that gross receipts taxes are generally passed on by businesses to consumers. The Governor, however, said in his address to the House, "I will not raise taxes on people. I won't do it today. I won't do it tomorrow. I won't do it next week, next month, next year." Ironically, the Governor also said that he would oppose any income or sales tax hike because "It's regressive, and people already are paying to much" but many experts think that the GRT is regressive and hits low- and middle-income people hardest.
Eliminating Revenue Source + No Plan to Replace Revenue = Government Shutdown
Since voting last year to repeal the state's Single Business Tax (SBT), which is set to expire on December 31,
Ignore Those Lobbyists Boring Holes into the Gross Receipts Tax
Part of the allure of gross receipts taxes - to hear proponents like Governor Blagojevich tell it, anyway - is that they don't have many of the same loopholes as corporate income taxes and will expand the base of economic activity and economic actors subject to taxation. The reality may prove quite different, however. Gross receipts type taxes have scarcely settled onto the pages of law books in Texas and Ohio, yet businesses in both states have already begun clamoring for - and will soon start receiving - concessions and special treatment. In Texas, the House of Representatives last week approved a bill that would double the exemption for small businesses under the margins tax, would lower the taxes paid by multistate financial services companies under the tax, and would attempt to prevent Sprint Nextel from passing the tax along to its customers.
At first glance, it looks like the holy grail of state governance: a way to raise more revenue without raising taxes. The idea of selling off or leasing state assets, such as the state lottery, is now under discussion in Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Texas. It is easy to see the idea's appeal: Texas Governor Perry predicts that the sale of his state's lottery would generate at least $15 billion, for example, while Indiana Governor Daniels expects that state's lottery to carry a price tag of over $1 billion, all without a single tax increase. However, there is a catch. While the boost to revenue is substantial, it is a one-time gain, and it comes at the cost of the yearly revenue contributions these assets would provide far into the future. While the seemingly painless financial gain offered by this privatization schemes is tempting, in the long run these sales would only diminish state coffers.
