Tax Justice Digest stories about Texas
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:
The Texas-based Center for Public Policy Priorities (CPPP) released a report this week that explains how enacting a state income tax could actually lower taxes overall for most Texans and at the same time improve public education. The vast majority of states already have an income tax, but those few states still lacking this important revenue source (
The report provides details on how an income tax could provide sufficient revenues to simultaneously slash property taxes and boost education funding. Under the income tax the CPPP proposes (modeled on the fairly typical income tax used in
The report also notes that an income tax could help to free
Additional data contained in the report helps explain how an income tax could contribute to a more sustainable tax system. Property values and taxable sales have both been growing more slowly than the incomes with which Texans pay taxes. Linking state revenues to the growth of income (via an income tax) would provide
And as if all this weren’t enough, estimates from ITEP indicate that $2.2 billion of the new income tax (approximately 10% of the tax) would be essentially paid for by the federal government in the form of federal income tax deductions for state income taxes paid.
The only catch is getting
The Comptroller’s decision comes on the heels of new legislation in New York – enacted as part of the state’s FY 2009 budget – to require on-line retailers to collect sales taxes on sales made to New York residents, if those retailers rely on affiliated web sites based in New York to refer customers to the retailer’s own site. The change, which effectively expands the criteria for determining whether a business has a presence in New York, is expected to generate $50 million in additional revenue each year. Not surprisingly, Amazon – one of the parties most affected by the statutory change – has already filed suit against New York, questioning the constitutionality of the measure.
To be sure, the most effective and most sustainable solution to this problem would be Congressional action permitting states to require “remote sellers” to collect sales taxes (in addition to more widespread participation in the Streamlined Sales Tax Project). In the absence of such action, though, no one should be surprised that states – many of which are under substantial fiscal strain – are now using any means at their disposal to shore up an important source of revenue.
To learn more about Texas’ current financial situation, see the Center on Public Policy Priorities’ 2008 Tax and Budget Primer.
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.
Worse still, lowering the cap would leave less money avaible for both local and state governments. The effect would be particularly severe in small towns that do not generate much sales tax revenue, and must rely on property taxes to fund local services. The Metropolitan Organization has come up with a better solution: a property tax "circuit breaker". Circuit breakers, which help protect the most vulnerable from high property tax bills without gutting state coffers, are already in place in thirty-five states. Texans should urge Governor Perry to adopt this solution.
New Jersey continues to struggle with property tax reform. A task force has signaled that it will call for a July special legislative session to deal with the state's growing homeowner property taxes. One lawmaker has proposed paying for major homeowner tax cuts with an income tax hike, while others think consolidating school districts is a necessary first step.
Meanwhile, Texas lawmakers are wrapping their special session up after finally figuring out a way to cut school property taxes -- but a lot of people are unhappy with the outcome. The new law reduces school property tax rates across the board, and pays for this major tax cut with three major sources: the state's short-term budget surplus, a cigarette tax hike, and a revamp of the state's major business tax. The Texas Center for Public Policy Priorities sensibly points out that since the budget surplus part of this equation will eventually disappear, once these changes are fully phased in, this "tax swap" will create a $10.5 billion hole in the state's biennial budget.
