Tax Justice Digest stories about Illinois
Now ITEP has released its own tax reform proposal. In a new report, ITEP shows that an income tax rate increase, in combination with targeted tax credits, could raise $3.6 billion in new state revenues while actually cutting the overall taxes paid by the poorest sixty percent of Illinoisans.
There's good reason for this emphasis on income tax reform. The Illinois income tax is undeniably one of the lowest income taxes in the nation. Its 3 percent flat tax rate is the lowest top income tax rate in the U.S. And of the 41 states that levied broad-based income taxes in 2006 (the most current year for which data are available), only four states' income tax collections were lower, as a share of personal income, than Illinois.
For too long Illinois has chosen to balance its budget on the backs of low and middle income taxpayers. Progressive revenue-raising options (like those discussed in the ITEP report) that alter the income tax are key if Illinois lawmakers want to solve the state's budget crisis.
Progressive tax reform may also be on the horizon for Illinois. Much hope accompanies newly elected Illinois Senate President John Cullerton. Cullerton replaces retiring Senate President Emil Jones who often stood with Governor Rod Blagojevich against constructive tax changes to solve Illinois' budget woes. Senator Cullerton recently hinted that needed tax hikes may be in the state's future, alluding to the fact that all options to solve the state's infamous budget shortfall are on the table.
Resignation, impeachment, conviction (maybe even two out of three) are all possible outcomes for the chief executive with the lexicon of a longshoreman.
Obviously,
To stay abreast of all the latest budget developments in
Vendor discounts allow retailers to legally keep a portion of the sales tax revenue they collect as compensation for the costs involved in collecting and remitting the tax. Twenty six states currently provide retailers with such compensation, amounting to a total of over $1 billion in annual revenue losses for those states.
The policy prescription in many states is fairly clear. While there may be room for debate over whether any compensation is warranted, what is not in question is that there should be a sensible limit on the maximum amount that any one business can receive via this practice. As author Philip Mattera points out, “the main expenses that retailers incur with regard to sales taxes, especially software programs to track them, are fixed costs that do not rise in tandem with growth in receipts.”
Those states without such a limitation in many cases forfeit quite substantial amounts of revenue through vendor discounts. Illinois, for example, loses over $126 million annually due to the practice. Texas, Pennsylvania, and Colorado each lose in the neighborhood of $70 - $90 million per year. Thirteen of the twenty six states offering vendor discounts do not cap the amount any individual retailer can claim. In addition, five states that do impose limits on maximum compensation have set those limits at seemingly excessive levels, ranging from $10,000 to $240,000 per retailer.
For state-by-state details on existing vendor compensation practices, as well as other ways in which retailers are being subsidized through the sales tax, see the report here.
Earlier this week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) released a brief report using IRS data and revealing that the most unequal states in the country also happen to be states that lack the type of progressive tax provisions that could reduce this inequality and raise badly needed revenue. The most unequal states either don’t have a personal income tax or have one in need of improvement. Consequently, these states are left with tax systems that, on the whole, are unsustainable, inadequate, and unfair over the long-run.
The IRS data show that, in 2006, ten states -- Wyoming, New York, Nevada, Connecticut, Florida, the District of Columbia, California, Massachusetts, Texas, and Illinois -- have greater concentrations of reported income among their very wealthiest residents than the country as a whole. Yet, the tax systems in these states generally ignore that very important reality. Of those ten states, four lack a broad-based personal income tax and three either impose a single, flat rate personal income tax or have a rate structure that all but functions in that manner. Three do use a graduated rate structure, but of these, two have cut income taxes for their most affluent residents substantially over the past two decades.
Given this mismatch, it should not be too surprising that over half of these states face severe or chronic budget shortfalls. After all, the lack of an income tax, the lack of a graduated rate structure, or moves to make the income tax less progressive all mean that a state’s revenue system will not completely reflect the concentration of income among the very wealthy and therefore will not yield as much revenue.
Case in point:
In Illinois, Lt. Gov Pat Quinn and Cook County Commissioner Forrest Claypool are leading the charge to allow taxpayers to use the ballot to block local tax changes. Currently voters in the state don't have the power to decide tax questions through the ballot. But in response to the Cook County sales tax's recent increase to 10.25 percent, some now want the state assembly to give voters the power to stop tax increases by local governments.
To decide whether or not this is a good idea, one need only look around at the states that are already deciding tax issues via the ballot. One can look to Maine, where business interests are spending large amounts of money to convince voters to choose cheap beer over health care. Or look to Massachusetts, where some well-funded individuals have managed to secure a ballot question that would abolish the state's income tax, the source of 40 percent of the state's budget, without any provision to replace the money. Or look to the train wreck that started it all, California's Proposition 13, the infamous ballot referendum approved by the state's voters 30 years ago. One of the changes it made requires that the legislature approve any income tax increase by a two-thirds majority. Another provision limited property taxes to one percent of property's assessed value and limited increases in assessments to 2 percent each year. California's schools went from the best in the nation to among the worst as a result.
Why does direct democracy produce unfair tax policy? The answer is obvious. Every single state has people who are elected and paid to make policy decisions. It's their job. They are supposed to study up on issues, talk to the people who care about the issues, and make a an educated decision. Most of us don't have the time to put that kind of work into learning about public policy and formulating positions. That's why we pay our lawmakers to do it. If they do a good job we reelect them, if they do a terrible job we throw them out. Ballot referenda allow lawmakers to escape this responsibility by placing issues before the voters, who have not thought through certain intricate questions (like whether or not eliminating a state's income tax will make it impossible to pay for schools, health care and road repair).
As budget watchers have noted, the Illinois state government would probably not receive any awards for excellent fiscal policy these days. They will only make matters worse if they saddle the local governments with what is possibly the worst conceivable process for determining fiscal policy.
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.
