Tax Justice Digest stories about Oregon
In the
On the other side of the country, Oregon legislators gave final approval to changes in their corporate and personal income taxes that are expected to yield more than $700 million in additional revenue; those changes are expected to be signed into law by Governor Ted Kulongoski. Among the changes pending in Oregon are the creation of two new (albeit temporary) top income tax brackets with rates of 10.8 and 11 percent and increases in the state's corporate minimum tax.
For more on the need to raise additional revenue in
Unfortunately, the financing mechanisms contained in the measure --
principally, a 6 cent increase in the gas tax scheduled for 2011 and
increases in a variety of registration, title, and other fees -- will
fall most heavily on low- and middle-income families, precisely those
Oregonians bearing the brunt of the state's economic crisis.
A new report from the
With the start of fiscal year 2010 generally only a little more than a month away and with the overall fiscal picture continuing to look rather bleak, two more states have gotten serious about using progressive income tax increases to generate much needed revenue. In
The federal income tax deduction takes what is perhaps the best attribute of the federal income tax -- its progressivity -- and uses it to stifle that very attribute at the state level. Since wealthy taxpayers generally pay more in federal taxes than their less well-off counterparts, allowing taxpayers to deduct those taxes from their income for state income tax purposes is a gift to precisely those folks who need it least. And since most state income tax systems possess a degree of progressivity, those better-off taxpayers who face higher marginal tax rates are benefited even more by being able to shield their income from tax via this deduction.
Iowa Governor Chet Culver most recently drew attention to this problem while urging lawmakers this week to end the deduction. The idea has also recently garnered attention in Missouri, where ITEP recently testified on a bill that would, among other changes, eliminate the deduction. Finally, another bill making its way through the Alabama legislature seeks to end the deduction for upper-income Alabamians.
With three of the seven states that still offer this deduction considering its elimination, this is definitely one progressive policy change to keep an eye on.
Repeating the familiar mantra that “now is not the time for tax increases”, far too many state policymakers have completely dismissed the idea of raising additional revenue to fill their looming budget shortfalls. Other lawmakers, however, have at least left some modest revenue raising ideas on the table. In this piece, we highlight just a few of the ways to boost revenues that have sprung up in states such as Kansas, Oregon, and Massachusetts.
Kansas should be in a somewhat better position than many states, at least politically, when it comes to raising additional revenue. Before Kansas’ budget fell into such disarray, legislators passed a variety of unwise business tax cuts that have yet to be completely phased in. Now, with the economy having made a turn for the worst, vulnerable Kansas families are in need of state assistance to weather the storm. At least one Kansas lawmaker has
Oregon's governor has taken things a step further by proposing three concrete, though not terribly progressive or innovative, ways to boost revenue during these desperate times. First, the Governor would like to raise the state's cigarette tax, a move that many other states have also identified as one of the most politically palatable options available (e.g. Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia). We've written about the connection between the cigarette tax and budget shortfalls before here.
Second, the Governor is seeking some very minor increases in the gas tax, vehicle registration fees, and title fees in order to pay for transportation. Though the two cent gas tax increase he's pondering (and some hikes in various vehicle fees) won't fix Oregon's transportation woes, such a move is certainly preferable to pretending there isn't a need for additional revenue.
Finally, the Governor recommends increasing the state's corporate minimum tax. As was pointed out in the Governor's release, Oregon's corporate minimum tax has not been raised since 1929. As a result, the minimum tax has ceased to be an effective protection against companies who seek to manipulate the tax code to escape taxation. But while the Governor's increase in the minimum tax would generate approximately $40 million per year, this would ultimately be only a very minor step toward a better system of corporate taxation. Fortunately, the Oregon Center for Public Policy has played a leading role in advocating much more meaningful tax solutions in the state, especially in their recent report titled, "Rolling Up Our Sleeves: Building an Oregon that Works for Working Families".
And lastly, a valuable reminder regarding the potential revenue to be had from taxing internet sales surfaced in Massachusetts this week, where the Governor proposed (and significant legislative support has formed around) an idea to tax companies that have agreed to participate in the streamlined sales tax initiative. Since participation is currently voluntary, such a move is estimated to produce only $15 million per year for the state -- not a huge sum, but it certainly doesn't hurt. Should a comprehensive internet sales tax plan be passed by the federal government, however, the state could enjoy as much as $545 million in additional annual revenue. Continuing the forward momentum of the streamlined sales tax initiative could ultimately prove quite valuable in enhancing the sustainability of state revenue systems.
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
The three states with the most intense cigarette tax debates at the moment are
As we’ve argued in past Digest articles, there are good reasons for relying on gas tax revenues to fund transportation – at least when an effort is made to offset the tax’s stark regressivity. To the extent that the gas tax falls most heavily on those people who drive the furthest distances, or who drive the heaviest vehicles, there are certainly some advantages to the gas tax. But when the people driving the furthest distances are doing so because they can’t afford to live near their places of work, for example, that advantage becomes much less appealing. In this light, recent news regarding the funding of transportation has been both good and bad. While states are seemingly beginning to come around to the idea that gas taxes will need to be raised to provide an adequate transportation infrastructure, interest in offsetting the tax’s regressivity has yet to pick up steam.
Support for increasing the gas tax has gained some notable momentum in New Hampshire and Massachusetts as of late, and in Oregon, the Governor even included a small gas tax hike in his recent budget proposal.
Unfortunately, while there has been an increasing acceptance of the fact that existing gas tax revenues are inadequate in many states, little notice has been given to the idea of offsetting the stark regressivity of gas tax hikes with low-income refundable credits. This idea was recently made a reality in
The votes in these three states are especially important given the economic slowdown that is laying waste to state budgets across the country. Massachusetts is already projecting a mid-year budget deficit, while Oregon is projecting a deficit in the next fiscal year. North Dakota, though doing well relative to other states, is unlikely to escape the slowdown without similar budgetary wounds. Given such a difficult environment for state budget-makers, it’s not at all hard to see that tax cuts are the exact opposite of what is needed -- especially if those cuts are targeted overwhelmingly to the rich.
Multiple stories and descriptions of each of these failed measures can be found in the Tax Justice Digest’s Massachusetts, Oregon, and North Dakota archives.
A proposal to be voted on in Oregon seeks to allow taxpayers to deduct (in full) their income tax payments to the federal government for state income tax purposes. Currently, only the first $5,600 one pays to the federal government is allowed to be deducted on Oregon state income tax forms. This arrangement already has regressive results, and by uncapping the deduction limit completely, those wealthy individuals who owe the most in federal income taxes will be allowed to slash their Oregon tax payments substantially.
Though the workings of the Oregon proposal may seem a bit confusing, its results most certainly are not. The vast majority (78 percent) of Oregonian families will get nothing, the wealthiest 1 percent will enjoy a nearly $16,000 annual tax cut, and the government of Oregon will have to make due with between $500 million and $1 billion less in revenues each year. (Six other states, Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and North Dakota, currently allow for some deduction of federal income taxes, and they should all end this regressive practice.)
So how are backers of the Oregon proposal justifying this giveaway to the rich? You guessed it. One news account informs us that "[Russ] Walker, Oregon director of the national fiscal conservative group FreedomWorks [and co-sponsor of Measure 59], says the tax reduction would produce a supply-side result of economic expansion with more income and more tax revenue to offset the cut." The argument is that the tax cut will at least increase revenue enough to pay for itself -- the most extreme form of supply-side thinking.
North Dakota voters will also be taking a look at their income tax this fall. Backers of an income tax rate cut are enthusiastically pushing a plan that offers an average tax cut of just $83 to the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers statewide. What's the big deal? The wealthiest 1 percent of North Dakotans would save an average of over $11,000 per year. And those numbers don't even include the corporate income tax cuts, which are sure to also disproportionately benefit the wealthy. And to make matters worse, the proposal would cost the state over $200 million annually.
And how do backers of this measure justify giving away revenue to the rich? Well, if a tax cut simply pays for itself through supply-side magic, backers hope that the practical, common sense folk of North Dakota won't ask such uncomfortable questions. As one news account explains, "Measure 2 proposes to cut income taxes 50 percent and corporate taxes 15 percent, said Duane Sand of the group Americans for Prosperity [the measure's principal backer]. Sand said the state's tax policies have forced young and old to leave the state. The OMB estimates Measure 2 would cut state revenue about $415 million for the next biennium. That money would be replaced by higher tax collections from increased economic activity, Sand said."
A proposal on the ballot in Massachusetts provides perhaps the most obvious example of the recklessness so often involved in anti-tax ballot initiatives. Massachusetts voters will once again have to decide this November on a proposal to constitutionally end the income tax -- a move that would reduce government revenues by a whopping 40 percent, and would undoubtedly have dire consequences in the form of reduced government services. But while all Massachusetts residents would have to share in the pain of a 40 percent reduction in their government's budget, the wealthy would be the primary beneficiaries of the tax cut, since the income tax is the only major progressive tax levied by the state. Even more alarming is the fact that over 45 percent of Massachusetts voters supported a similar measure in 2002.
Now, even supply-siders would have trouble arguing that reducing a tax to zero can result in increased revenues. (Except that apparently the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representative do believe that about the capital gains tax, as we said in a previous article in this Digest).
But backers of the Massachusetts measure do argue, using supply-side logic, that less taxes will result in so much economic growth that no one will feel the loss of public services that would inevitably result.
Carla Howell, chairperson of the group backing the measure (and Libertarian candidate for governor in 2002) says that "In addition to giving each worker an annual average of $3,700, it will take $12.5 billion out of the hands of Beacon Hill politicians -- and put it back into the hands of the men and women who earned it. Every year. In productive, private hands this $12.5 billion a year will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Massachusetts."
Actually, this proposal to slash state government revenue by 40 percent is so extreme that even business groups cite a report showing just how devastated infrastructure, education and other services would be if this proposal is approved.
So it seems that many states are on the verge of ruining themselves with the narcotic of supply-side tax economics. If these states fail to resist, then what? Rehabilitation is possible, but it's a long and hard road. Colorado is trying to break free of the mess it created a decade ago when taxes and revenues were strictly suppressed by the so-called "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" (TABOR) that was approved by voters. TABOR poses a serious problem given that the cost of government services sometimes increases at a rate greater than general inflation. Also, another amendment to the state's constitution requires regular increases in education spending. Reconciling these two competing demands proved impossible, and in 2005 Colorado voters temporarily suspended a significant portion of the TABOR requirement.
This year, it appears many Coloradans have finally had enough with having to deal with inadequate government services under the unrealistic TABOR requirements. Voters will have the opportunity to decide on Amendment 59, which would end the automatic refunds to taxpayers used to suppress state revenues, in favor of diverting that money toward education. This effort gives hope to those who realize that public services like schools and roads are the building blocks of a state economy, and that to have these services we have to pay for them. It also should serve as a warning to people in other states where supply-siders are promising voters that they can have their cake and eat it too.
There may be a silver-lining in the regressive and irresponsible nature of the proposals facing these two states. In both states, the anti-tax groups pushing these ridiculous proposals appear to have gone too far, causing groups traditionally supportive of tax cuts to fight these initiatives.
An Expensive and Unfair Tax Cut, Part 1: Massachusetts
The Massachusetts proposal is perhaps the worst tax-related question on any ballot in the nation. It would repeal the state's income tax. Aside from being the only major progressive tax levied by the state, the income tax is also a source of 40% of Massachusetts' revenue. The results of depriving the state of 40% of its funding are nearly unfathomable. So unfathomable, in fact, that the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (MTF), a group that just last year opposed reforms to make Massachusetts' tax system more fair, recently released a report in opposition titled The Massive Consequences of Question 1.
The MTF report does not focus solely on the budgetary consequences of income tax repeal. Those consequences have already received tremendous publicity in recent months, especially given the state's already strained budgetary situation as documented in this brief from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. Instead, what stands out about the MTF report is its examination of the distributional consequences of the tax cut. In contrast to the claims of those supporting the repeal, the vast majority of Massachusetts residents will not be receiving a $3,700 tax cut if the measure is approved. Instead, as the report indicates, that cut will be much smaller for those low-income residents most in need, and much, much larger for the most well-off taxpayers in the state.
An Expensive and Unfair Tax Cut, Part 2: Oregon
Oregon's proposal also seeks to reduce state revenues in a way that disproportionately benefits the wealthy, though on a much smaller scale than that proposed in Massachusetts. The proposal: allowing Oregonians to write off their federal income tax payments when determining their state income taxes. Since residents can already write off up to $5,600, this measure will only benefit the wealthiest 22% of households in the state who pay more than $5,600 in federal income taxes. As this report from the Oregon Center for Public Policy notes, 78% of Oregonians will see no benefit from this proposal. In fact, as another release explains, some 120,000 Oregonians -- most of them retirees -- would see their taxes rise if Measure 59 were made law, as the measure would prohibit Oregonians from deducting taxes paid on Social Security benefits or certain pensions, as they are allowed to do under current law.
Recent actions by a collection of Oregonian business groups demonstrate the degree of irresponsibility contained in the plan. The Associated Oregon Industries, Oregon Business Association, Oregon Business Council, and Portland Business Alliance recently came together to issue a joint statement against the proposal. These businesses worried the measure would "deeply hurt basic services, including those critical to our economy". And these groups are absolutely right: why throw money at those taxpayers already doing quite well, if it's going to result in a reduction in the education, healthcare, and safety protections that Oregon families and workers depend on?
