Recently in South Dakota Category

Last week brought with it a flurry of news stories discussing the issue of how to pay for transportation infrastructure.  This topic is never too far from the agenda in statehouses across the country, in large part because most states fund their infrastructures primarily with a fixed-rate gasoline tax (levied as a specific number of cents per gallon) which inevitably becomes inadequate over time as inflation erodes the value of that tax rate.  What's more, with fuel efficiency becoming an increasingly important criterion in Americans' car-buying decisions, drivers are able to travel the same distance while purchasing less gasoline, and paying less in gasoline taxes.

With all this in mind, Mississippi's top transportation official last week
publicly stated that the state's lawmakers need to increase their flat 18.5 cent per gallon gas tax rate.  As evidence of this need, the official also noted that 25% of the state's bridges are deficient.

In a similar vein, one recent
op-ed in Michigan called for increasing the state's gas tax and restructuring it to prevent it from continually losing its value due to inflation.  Another op-ed ran in the same paper that day, this one written by the President of the Michigan Petroleum Association, insisting that the state eliminate the gas tax altogether and pay for the lost revenue with increased sales taxes.  The most obvious flaw with this plan is that it would shift the responsibility for paying taxes away from long-distance commuters and those owners of heavier (and generally less fuel-efficient) vehicles -- despite the fact that these are precisely the people who benefit most from the government's provision of roads.

More
news coverage of the transportation issue came out of South Dakota last week, where a committee of legislators is currently in search of additional revenue to plug the hole created by predictably sluggish gas tax revenues.  While some have expressed an interest in raising the gas tax, others have suggested replacing it entirely with hugely increased licensing fees.  But licensing fees are not as capable as the gas tax in charging frequent and long-distance drivers for the roads they use.

The best way to ensure that those drivers pay for the roads they use, however, is to simply levy a tax on each mile they drive (known as a "vehicle miles traveled" tax, or VMT).  While the idea has yet to be implemented in practice in the U.S.,
recent coverage of a pilot project involving 1,500 drivers in New Mexico shows that such a tax is a very real possibility in the future.  Basically, a small computer is installed in each car which keeps track of the number of miles driven.  That information is then reported to the tax collection agency, and the driver is sent a bill.  


This method avoids the scenario in which drivers of vehicles of similar weights (which produce similar wear-and-tear on any given road) can end up with vastly different gas tax bills due differences in fuel efficiency.  Interestingly, this new study is examining a system that would allow the computer to know which state somebody is driving in, so that the correct amount of tax can be paid to the correct state.  Unsurprisingly, despite the public finance appeal of this method, privacy concerns remain a major obstacle to implementation.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently released a very useful report summarizing tax expenditure reporting practices in the states, as well as methods for improving a typical state's tax expenditure report.  For those unfamiliar with the term, a "tax expenditure" is essentially a special tax break designed to encourage a particular activity or reward a particular group of taxpayers.  Although tax expenditures can in some cases be an effective means of accomplishing worthwhile goals, they are also frequently enacted only to satisfy a particular political constituency, or to allow policymakers to "take action" on an issue while simultaneously being able to reap the political benefits associated with cutting taxes.

Tax expenditure reports are the primary means by which states (and the federal government) keep track of these provisions.  Unfortunately, most if not all of these reports are plagued by a variety of inadequacies, such as failing to consider entire groups of tax expenditures, or not providing frequent and accurate revenue estimates for these often costly provisions.  Shockingly, the CBPP found that nine states publish no tax expenditure report at all.  Those nine states Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming, undoubtedly have the most work to do on this issue.  All states, however, have substantial room for improvement in their tax expenditure reporting practices.

For a brief overview of tax expenditure reports and the tax expenditure concept more generally, check out this ITEP Policy Brief.

While the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives (and apparently also the Senate) on Tuesday has has given new hope to advocates of progressive tax policies at the federal level, the results of ballot initiatives across the country indicate that state tax policy is also headed in a progressive direction. 

In the three states where they were on the ballot, voters rejected TABOR proposals, which involve artificial tax and spending caps that would cut services drastically over several years. Washington State defeated repeal of its estate tax. Several states also rejected initiatives to increase school funding which, while based on the best intentions, were not responsible fiscal policy. Two of four ballot proposals to hike cigarette taxes were approved and the night also brought a mixed bag of results for property tax caps. 


Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR):
Maine - Question 1 - FAILED 
Nebraska -
Initiative 423 - FAILED 
Oregon -
Measure 48  - FAILED
Voters in three states soundly rejected tax- and spending-cap proposals modeled after Colorado's so-called "Taxpayers Bill of Rights"
(TABOR). Apparently people in these three states had too many concerns over the damage caused by TABOR in Colorado

Property Tax Caps:
Arizona -
Proposition 101 - PASSED - tightening existing caps on growth in local property tax levies.
Georgia -
Referendum D - PASSED - exempting seniors at all income levels from the statewide property tax (a small part of overall Georgia property taxes. (The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute evaluates this idea here.)
South Carolina -
Amendment Question 4PASSED - capping growth of properties' assessed value for tax purposes. The State newspaper explains why the cap would be counterproductive
South Dakota - Amendment D - FAILED - capping the allowable growth in taxable value for homes, taking a page from California's Proposition 13 playbook. (The Aberdeen American News explains why this is bad policy here - and asks tough questions about whether lawmakers have shirked their duties by shunting this complicated decision off to voters.)
Tennessee -
Amendment 2 - PASSED - allowing (but not requiring) local governments to enact senior-citizens property tax freezes.
Arizona's property tax limit will restrict property tax growth for all taxpayers in a given district. South Dakota's proposal was fortunately defeated. It would have offered help only to families whose property is rapidly becoming more valuable, and those families are rarely the neediest. Georgia's is not targeted at those who need help but would give tax cuts to seniors at all income levels. The Tennesse initiative, which passed, is a reasonable tool for localities to use, at their option, to target help towards those seniors who need it.

Cigarette Tax Increase:
Arizona Proposition 203 - PASSED - increase in cigarette tax from $1.18 to $1.98 to fund early education and childrens' health screenings.
California - Proposition 86 - FAILED - increasing the cigarette tax by $2.60 a pack to pay for health care (from $.87 to $3.47) 
Missouri - Amendment 3FAILED - increasing cigarette tax from 17 cents to 97 cents
South Dakota - Initiated Measure 2PASSED - increasing cigarette tax from 53 cents to $1.53.
While many progressive activists and organizations support raising cigarette taxes to fund worthy services and projects, the cigarette tax is essentially regressive and is an unreliable revenue source since it is shrinking.

State Estate Tax Repeal:
Washington - Initiative 920 - FAILED 
Complementing the heated debate over the federal estate tax has been this lesser noticed debate over Washington Stats's own estate tax which funds smaller classroom size, assistance for low-income students and other education purposes. Washingtonians decided it was a tax worth keeping.

Revenue for Education:
Alabama - Amendment 2 - PASSED - requiring that every school district in the state provide at least 10 mills of property tax for local schools.
California - Proposition 88 - FAILED - would impose a regressive "parcel tax" of $50 on each parcel of property in the state to help fund education 
Idaho - Proposition 1 - FAILED - requiring the legislature to spend an additional $220 million a year on education - and requiring the legislature to come up with an (unidentified) revenue stream to pay for it.
Michigan - Proposal 5 - FAILED - mandating annual increases in state education spending, tied to inflation - but without specifying a funding source. The Michigan League for Human Services explains why this is a bad idea.
Voters made wise choices on education spending. The initiative in California would have raised revenue in a regressive way, while the initiatives in Idaho and Michigan sought to increase education spending without providing any revenue source. Alabama's Amendment 2 takes an approach that is both responsible and progressive.

Income Taxes:
Oregon -
Measure 41 - FAILED - creating an alternative method of calculating state income taxes.
Measure 41 was an ill-conceived proposal to allow wealthier Oregonians the option of claiming the same personal exemptions allowed under federal tax rules and would have bypassed a majority of Oregon seniors and would offer little to most low-income Oregonians of all ages.

Other Ballot Measures:
California - Proposition 87 - FAILED - would impose a tax on oil production and use all the revenue to reduce the state's reliance on fossil fuels and encourage the use of renewable energy  
California - Proposition 89 - FAILED - using a corporate income tax hike to provide public funding for elections 
South Dakota - Initiated Measure 7 - FAILED - repealing the state's video lottery - proceeds of which are used to cut local property taxes 
South Dakota - Initiated Measure 8 - FAILED - repealing 4 percent tax on cell phone users.

This November, South Dakotans will vote on the latest too-good-to-be-true policy solution — Amendment D, a constitutional amendment that would change how property is assessed for tax purposes. In most states a property's taxable value depends on what its really worth. Amendment D would confuse matters by creating two different property tax systems. Property that is sold would be assessed based on its value at the time of the sale. Property that does not change hands would be assessed by rolling back its value to 2003 levels and then increasing growth by an arbitrary 3% or the rate of inflation.

The ideas driving Amendment D are nothing new. In fact, almost identical laws have passed in New Mexico, Florida and California. These laws created a situation where one home located next to an identical home could be assessed at twice the value of the adjacent home, merely because it was sold more recently. As this excellent letter to the editor points out, South Dakota currently has several measures in place to support homeowners when property taxes are due. An expansion of the current homestead credit or a property tax circuit breaker would help those most in need of assistance.

In South Dakota, property tax reform became a hot topic this week when schools brought a suit against the state over education funding. In New Hampshire, where the role of property taxes has been debated for a while now, the State Supreme Court is hearing a case to determine and define the cost of adequate education. The districts bringing the suit argue that statewide property tax is geared to give wealthy towns a break compared to poor towns.

Meanwhile, another state looks to passively let its problem slide by. In response to an executive order by Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a 15-member panel will study property tax reform. Some speculate that the panel was formed for purely political reasons and that during an election year a study of this magnitude means that legislators can put off making politically difficult decisions.

Archives