Month: September 2011

President Barack Obama nominated Alan Krueger to chair the White House Council of Economic Advisors on Monday and he will likely be easily confirmed. Although as a labor economist Krueger has earned many accolades for his robust work, including a seminal article defending the minimum wage, his record on tax policy is a little more mixed.

For example, in recent months Krueger voiced support for a jobs tax credit that would give companies $5,000 for every additional employee they hire. As Citizens for Tax Justice explained when President Obama proposed a similar plan, such tax credits are a poor way to encourage job creation because they inevitably go to companies who would have hired additional employees even without the credits. In fact, those companies that are struggling the most, those shrinking or unable to expand because of weak consumer demand, would receive no help from the credit.

The most controversial position Krueger has taken on tax policy was in a 2009 guest blog post arguing that a national consumption tax (specifically a 5% rate that would raise $500 billion) should be considered as one solution to the long run budget deficit. Many conservatives exaggerated the seriousness of this blog post, failing to mention Krueger’s caveat that this was “only as a suggestion for serious discussion,” and that he was “not sure it is the best way to go.”

In any case, a broad-based national consumption tax is the wrong policy because it would inevitably be severely regressive.

To be sure, Krueger has frequently stood up for good progressive tax policy. For instance, he has laid out the strong case for eliminating billions in tax subsides for oil and gas companies, opposed the ridiculous tax subsidies cities offer to sports teams and is a long time critic of the regressive Bush tax cuts.

As House lawmakers signal their intention to move forward with tax reform this fall, let’s hope we see Krueger in his new position focus on measures that will make our tax system more progressive and better for the overall economy.

Photo via Center for American Progress Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Just a few months back, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder barely managed to push through a massive bill cutting the state’s largest business tax by over 80% — paid for by raising taxes on Michigan’s elderly and low-income families.  Now, Snyder’s administration is apparently readying for Round Two, as Lt. Gov. Brian Calley has declared that his new top priority is slashing business taxes even further.  Clearly there’s not a lot of original thinking going on in Lansing.

Calley is referring to the Snyder administration’s plan to repeal the tax businesses pay on industrial and commercial personal property (equipment, furniture and other items used for business purposes).  This change would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 million in lost revenue each year – revenues that flow overwhelmingly to local governments in Michigan.  As a result, state lawmakers will be tempted to pass the buck to local officials when it comes time to make the many hard choices required by a tax cut of this size.

On average, Michigan municipalities receive about eleven percent of their property tax revenues from these business personal property taxes.  As The Detroit News points out, however, that average varies widely across jurisdictions.  While the tax usually amounts to just two percent of local property taxes in wealthy residential communities, it can account for 20 to 50 percent, or more, of property tax revenues in some industrial towns.

The most vocal critic of Snyder’s proposed tax cut right now is the Michigan Municipal League, whose main concern is ensuring that the state doesn’t leave local governments high and dry when it comes to paying for repeal.  This is a very real concern.  When Ohio repealed its personal property tax, the state offered to replace lost local funds on only a temporary basis, and withdrew support even more quickly once the state encountered its own budget difficulties.  Governor Snyder’s recent remarks to Gongwer News Service (subscription required) indicate that he’s aware of this concern, describing his plan to be “largely revenue-neutral.” But we can forgive local governments if they are dubious about the governor’s assurances their budgets won’t suffer.

The issue here goes beyond just ensuring that localities aren’t unduly harmed by repeal.  Even if the state does pick up the tab, that money is going to have to come from somewhere.  And with anti-tax lawmakers in control of both houses of the state legislature and the Governor’s mansion, any tax increase large enough to fully cover the cost of repealing the business personal property tax has a hard road ahead of it. In all likelihood, lawmakers will be tempted to raid existing revenue streams, thereby forcing even deeper cuts on top of those already enacted.

Before going that route, it would be a good idea for the anti-tax true believers in Lansing to take a step back, and ask whether the state will actually gain anything by granting businesses yet another tax cut.