Tax Justice Digest stories about Indiana

Over the past few months, there’s been a movement in Missouri to expand the circuit breaker program that benefits low-income property taxpayers.  In addition, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels recently signed legislation increasing his state's renter deduction.  Clearly Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty didn't get the memo about the trend to help ease property tax burdens in targeted ways.  Instead, Governor Pawlenty is proposing to reduce his state's renters' credit by 21 percent.  The Minnesota Budget Project rightly points out that approving the Governor's proposal "would not only have a significant impact on ... low-income households, but also increase the regressivity of the property tax."  As ITEP notes in its policy brief describing circuit breaker credits, whether such credits are designed to aid renters as well as homeowners is a critical consideration, since it’s widely understood that some portion of the rent people pay consists of property taxes.

To read more about benefits of the Minnesota renters' credit, check out the Minnesota Budget Project's report here.

Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana finally got the property tax reforms he wanted. The central components of the plan, signed by the Governor on Wednesday, cap property taxes at 1% of the value of a home, 2% of the value of rental property, and 3% of the value of business property.

The revenue loss to government will in large part be offset by a variety of tax increases, meaning the plan is actually more of a tax “swap” than a tax “cut”.  The sales tax is raised from 6% to 7% by the bill, and most localities can be expected to raise their flat-rate income taxes to help compensate for the property tax reductions. 

Reducing one tax (the property tax) and replacing the revenue with a more regressive tax (an increased sales tax) can often mean that low-income people really face a tax hike rather than a cut. Or, if the tax increases are not enough to replace the lost revenue, this tax "reform" could result in a loss of funding for state and local public services. "Swapping" lower property taxes for higher sales taxes is not a fair deal for working families.

As discussed in a previous Digest, earlier versions of the bill contained modest protections for low-income taxpayers, including an expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC) and some relief for renters.  The final version of the bill did expand and make permanent the EITC, as planned, though the relief to renters was scaled back to a meager 20% of the original proposal.

Under this bill, the state now assumes responsibility for funding a variety of programs previously handled by local governments.  Even combining this with the prospect of local income tax increases, however, some local governments are already preparing for budget shortfalls. 

A better policy would provide tax relief in a more targeted way (i.e. based on one's income) and would be much less costly. The legislature did pass a constitutional amendment that would move in this direction, but under the state's ratification rules this measure must be approved again by the next legislature before it's put to the voters. But even this plan, while it has the right idea, has some flaws that are outlined in an earlier Digest article.

Committees in both houses of the Indiana legislature this week proposed major changes to the property tax reform legislation first reported in the Digest in early February.  A Senate Committee left untouched the heart of the bill, which would pay for across-the-board property tax cuts with a sales tax rate increase, but made several serious changes at the margin that strip even the modest gains in tax fairness for low and middle income residents that the original bill had offered.  Most importantly, the proposed increases in the state’s EITC and renter deduction were pared back, eliminating the only two clearly progressive components of the entire proposal.

In contrast to the Senate plan, a new proposal passed by the House Ways and Means Committee departs fundamentally from the Governor’s original plan.  The plan endorsed by the House Committee limits homeowner property tax bills to a maximum of 1% of a household’s income.  Though income-based “circuit-breakers” such as this one are by far the most effective method for ensuring that nobody’s property tax bill rises beyond their ability-to-pay it, the version endorsed in this instance has an unknown (but likely large) cost, and unlike every other circuit-breaker credit in existence, would be available even to the wealthiest homeowners.  The best circuit-breakers exempt very low income individuals from property taxes entirely, and then limit everybody else’s property taxes based on a graduated rate system that may range anywhere from 1% to 9% of income.

Given the constant concerns voiced by Indiana residents since at least July regarding their inability to afford their property tax bills, it is astounding that it took this long for a proposal that directly measures ability-to-pay in calculating property taxes to be given any notable attention.  Though in this case the plan is unrealistic and unlikely to pass, adopting an income-based circuit-breaker is especially important in Indiana since its tax system would be made much less fair by the proposed sales tax hike.

Yet another bill attempting to swap a property tax reduction for a sales tax increase is working its way through a state legislature, this time in Indiana.  Low-income Hoosiers can expect to lose out not only because of the regressive sales tax hike (from 6% to 7%). They will also find the distribution of $700 million in property tax credits completely divorced from need-based considerations. Further, the expansion of property tax caps (deceptively labeled "circuit breakers") will inevitably create inequities akin to those running rampant in Florida. The bill also caps the taxes that can be levied by Indiana localities in a manner that does not adequately take account of the rising cost of providing public services.

In an effort to offset the myriad regressive implications of the bill, the Indiana legislature also expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and provided some income tax relief to renters. But these comparatively minor steps will not be enough to offset the harm done to low-income Hoosiers.  A recent report released by the Indiana Association for Community Economic Development includes a number of recommendations for reforming Indiana’s tax system, most of which are not addressed by the current bill.

If It Sounds Too Good...

|
This week, taxpayers in Indiana will read promising headlines like, "Daniels announces property-tax plan" and assume that their angst about the property tax will disappear. But one doesn't have to read very far to know that Governor Daniels' proposal is an empty promise for low-and middle-income taxpayers. He is proposing $1 billion in property tax relief by 2009, but the relief comes at a steep price in the form of raising the state sales tax by 1 percent and capping homeowner property taxes at 1 percent of assessed value.  Property tax caps are a long proven foe for taxpayers with less ability to pay. For more on property tax caps check out ITEP's policy brief.

As we've told you in past Digests, some Indiana taxpayers are threatening a revolt over property taxes. Rather than considering constructive reforms to the property tax, some anti-tax zealots are using the current situation as a reason to call for its outright elimination. Last week members of the Commission on State Tax and Financing Policy heard about the impact that property tax repeal would have on the state. The Legislative Services Agency (LSA) rightly titled their presentation "Challenges of Change."  

 
The LSA estimates that in order to replace the $6.1 billion Indiana property taxes currently bring in, lawmakers would have to either increase the state income tax rate from 3.4 to 9 percent, or hike the sales tax rate from 6 percent to a whopping 13.2 percent. The LSA's presentation shows that repealing all Indiana property taxes would be prohibitively expensive. While Indianans' angst over their rising property tax bills is understandable--property taxes are regressive, and are often not based on a homeowner's ability to pay them-- enacting targeted property tax reforms such as a low-income "circuit breaker" credit would allow local governments to retain this important revenue source, and would make Indiana property taxes less unfair without requiring a double-digit sales tax to pay for it.

Property tax reform continues to make headlines in several states. Some Indiana property taxpayers are revolting against what they perceive to be an unfair system. Recently more than 3,000 Hoosiers signed post cards addressed to their state policymakers urging them to fix the state's property tax mess permanently. In fact, a legislative commission began hearings last month and Governor Mitch Daniels' appointed blue ribbon commission started work this week. The problems are that taxes are not based on a homeowner's ability to pay and that assessments are executed poorly.

One thought-provoking solution described in the Indianapolis Star is to closely study the property in the state that is not being taxed. Indiana, like most states, exempts nonprofit organizations and religious institutions from paying the property tax. In Marion County alone millions of property tax dollars could be collected if religious institutions paid property taxes. Estimates show there is $2.7 billion in property that goes untaxed in Marion County. Should churches and nonprofit organizations pay property taxes? It's probably the case that no politician in Indiana would seriously propose to tax churches, but the fact that some are contemplating such a move could startle legislators enough to enact real reform.
 
Are Rebates the Answer?
 
Indianans will receive locally-funded property tax rebates this winter, but those rebates aren't being greeted with much enthusiasm. Many question the motives of the legislators who approved these rebates. The Post-Tribune writes that instead of offering credits that would be applied to a homeowner's property tax bill directly, "The General Assembly instead decided property owners should receive checks in the mail, so they can see what their elected officials did for them this year."
 
This week Montana homeowners can begin to apply for a $400 state-funded property tax rebate. The rebates were a highly contested issue in the legislative session as Republicans pushed for permanent property tax cuts instead of the one-time rebates supported by Governor Brian Schweitzer. The Montana rebates shed light on a problematic aspect of property tax rebates and circuit breakers. Because states don't often know how much property tax a homeowner paid, it becomes the homeowner's responsibility to know about and apply for the credit.
 
Itemized Deductions on State Tax Are No Better
 
Another misconceived approach to property tax reform is the itemized exemption for property taxes, which is allowed for most states' income taxes. One problem with this is that in the low- and middle-income families hit hardest by property taxes typically don't itemize. Also, income tax deductions are an "upside-down" tax break, since deductions are worth more to the wealthy taxpayers who typically pay higher income tax rates. If property taxes are problematic for some families, offering a deduction that is largest for the wealthiest and not available at all to many middle-income families is certainly not the solution.
 
In the current skirmish between Missouri and Kansas discussed above, some Missouri legislators have asked why people should be granted such an itemized deduction for property taxes paid in another state (which certainly angers those who pay Missouri income taxes because they work in Missouri, even though they live in and pay property taxes in Kansas). But the better question is why should Missouri allow an itemized deduction for property even if its located in Missouri. The deduction probably does little to help those who could actually use some help. 

Tax Trouble in Indiana

|

Emotions were running high this week in Indiana during the state legislature's public property tax hearing.  Hundreds of people showed up to protest in what some say is the beginning of a tax revolt.  Protestors were angry over what they see as the unacceptable rise in property tax bills this year. Many speakers called the current property tax system "broken" and advocated drastic cutbacks in school spending, or even a complete repeal of the property tax system.  Just this week, Governor Mitch Daniels ordered that property tax levies in four counties remain at their 2006 levels until reassessments are conducted and the list of counties where reassessments will be ordered is expected to grow. Governor Daniels has hinted at a calling a special session to deal primarily with property taxes. Expect this raging debate to continue.

In earlier Digests we've told you about how policymakers across the country have been dealing with increasing gas prices. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R) been asked recently to suspend the state's sales tax on the sale of gasoline. The Governor declined to do so, saying "...although I can appreciate the short-term popularity that would go with it, I don't think it is a responsible step when you consider all the factors." Now it looks like the Governor may be relieved of the burden of making any choice at all. The state's Attorney General ruled late last week that the Governor doesn't have authority under a specific statute to suspend the gas tax. However, the ruling hasn't ended the controversy as the Speaker of House is urging that the gas tax be suspended anyway.
During the final hours of Indiana's Legislative Session lawmakers attempted to provide some property tax relief, but missed out on an opportunity to truly reform the state's property tax. Legislators voted to temporarily send property tax rebate checks to homeowners (after they already paid their property tax) worth $300 million to help offset increasing property taxes. Republicans are calling the legislation a political trick and in the end taxpayers are the real losers because inherent issues with Indiana's property tax are allowed to continue. For more, check out the Talking Taxes blog.  Legislators also voted to allow counties to increase local income taxes in an attempt to allow locals to diversify their own revenue sources.  
 
Smokers are also impacted by this last minute lawmaking and will soon pay 44 cents more for a pack of cigarettes. The new revenues generated are going to be used for health care programs and are expected to lower the number of Hoosiers who smoke. Of course, the increase is quite controversial given the ongoing need to fund health care and the fact that cigarette tax revenue declines overtime. For more on cigarette taxes read ITEP's Policy Brief on the topic.

About this Archive

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

Illinois is the previous category.

Iowa is the next category.

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