Author: tarek

The state corporate tax study Citizens for Tax Justie and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released today shows that three very profitable Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Indiana paid an effective corporate income tax rate ranging from just 0.4 to 1.5 percent over the last five years.  Eli Lilly, NiSource, and WellPoint earned a total of over $35 billion in profits between 2008 and 2012, but thanks to a variety of tax avoidance techniques none of these companies even came close to paying the statutory 8.5 percent rate that was in effect in Indiana for most of this five-year period.  Despite this fact, Indiana lawmakers inexplicably decided last week to enact yet another corporate income tax rate cut, as well as a property tax break for business equipment.

Less than three years ago, former Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law a bill gradually lowering the state’s corporate tax rate from 8.5 percent to 6.5 percent.  The final stage of that tax cut is still over a year away, and yet Governor Pence says he’s “pleased” with the fact that the current legislature just sent him another corporate tax bill that will eventually lower the rate to 4.9 percent.  The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), notes: “When some of Indiana’s most successful corporations are paying such a small fraction of their profits in state income taxes to states around the country, it raises serious questions about whether reducing the corporate income tax is a worthwhile priority.”

But this corporate tax rate cut isn’t the only giveaway for big business that Governor Mike Pence will soon be signing into law.  The same legislation containing the corporate tax rate cut also grants localities the option to begin a race-to-the-bottom by eliminating their property taxes on new business equipment.  A report (PDF) from the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute explains that giving localities this option is unlikely to draw any new businesses into the state, though it may reshuffle existing businesses around within the state’s borders.  And the president of the Institute explains that “I’m a little worried about the nature of allowing local governments to adopt this when some counties depend so much on business personal property tax and some don’t.”

Indiana’s largest and most successful companies already enjoy a shockingly low tax rate, and that rate is about to get a lot lower.  Hopefully next session lawmakers will turn their attention toward initiatives that could actually benefit ordinary Indiana residents—like improving the state’s education system and infrastructure.

Tax credits for the film industry are receiving serious attention in at least nine states right now. Alaska’s House Finance Committee cleared a bill this week that would repeal the state’s film tax credit, and Louisiana lawmakers are coming to grips with the significant amount of fraud that’s occurred as a result of their tax credit program. Unfortunately for taxpayers, however, the main trend at the moment is toward expanding film tax credits. North Carolina and Oklahoma are looking at whether to extend their film tax credits, both of which are scheduled to expire this year. And California, Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia lawmakers are all discussing whether they should increase the number of tax credit dollars being given to filmmakers.

The best available evidence shows that film tax credits just aren’t producing enough economic benefits to justify their high cost. While some temporary, relatively low-wage jobs may be created as a result of these credits, the more highly compensated (and permanent) positions in the film industry are typically filled by out-of-state residents that work on productions all over the country, and the world. And with film tax credits having proliferated in recent years, lawmakers who want to lure filmmakers to their states with tax credits are having to offer increasingly generous incentives just to keep up.

Saying “no” to Hollywood can be a difficult thing for states, but here are a few examples of lawmakers and other stakeholders questioning the dubious merits of these credits within the last few weeks:

North Carolina State Rep. Mike Hager (R): “I think we can do a better job with that money somewhere else. We can do a better job putting in our infrastructure … We can do a better of job of giving it to our teachers or our Highway Patrol.”

Richmond Times Dispatch editorial board: [The alleged economic benefits of film tax credits] “did not hold up under scrutiny. Subsidy proponents inflated the gains from movie productions – for instance, by assuming every job at a catering company was created by the film, even if the caterer had been in business for years. The money from the subsidies often leaves the state in the pockets of out-of-state actors, crew, and investors. And they often subsidize productions that would have been filmed anyway.”

Oklahoma State Rep. James Lockhart (D): According to the Associated Press, Lockhart “said lawmakers were being asked to extend the rebate program when the state struggles to provide such basic services as park rangers for state parks.” “How else would you define pork-barrel spending?”

Alaska State Rep. Bill Stoltze (R): “Some good things have happened from this subsidy but the amount spent to create the ability for someone to be up here isn’t justified. And it’s a lot of money … Would they be here if the state wasn’t propping them up?”

Sara Okos, Policy Director at the Commonwealth Institute: “How you spend your money reveals what your priorities are. By that measure, Virginia lawmakers would rather help Hollywood movie moguls make a profit than help low-wage working families make ends meet.”

Maryland Del. Eric G. Luedtke (D): Upon learning that Netflix’s “House of Cards” will cease filming in Maryland if lawmakers do not increase the state’s film tax credit: “This just keeps getting bigger and bigger … And my question is: When does it stop?”

Picture from Flickr Creative Commons

New CTJ Reports Explain the Tax Provisions in President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Proposal

Two new reports from Citizens for Tax Justice break down the tax provisions in President Obama’s budget.

The first CTJ report explains the tax provisions that would benefit individuals, along with provisions that would raise revenue. The second CTJ report explains business loophole-closing provisions that the President proposes as part of an effort to reduce the corporate tax rate.

Both reports provide context that is not altogether apparent in the 300-page Treasury Department document explaining these proposals.

For example, the Treasury describes a “detailed set of proposals that close loopholes and provide incentives” that would be “enacted as part of long-run revenue-neutral tax reform” for businesses. What they actually mean is that the President, for some reason, has decided that the corporate tax rate should be dramatically lowered and he has come up with loophole-closing proposals that would offset about a fourth of the costs, so Congress is on its own to come up with the rest of the money.

To take another example, when the Treasury explains that the President proposes to “conform SECA taxes for professional service businesses,” what they actually mean is, “The President proposes to close the loophole that John Edwards and Newt Gingrich used to avoid paying the Medicare tax.”

And when the Treasury says the President proposes to “limit the total accrual of tax-favored retirement benefits,” what they really mean to say is, “We don’t know how Mitt Romney ended up with $87 million in a tax-subsidized retirement account, but we sure as hell don’t want to let that happen again.”

Read the CTJ reports:

The President’s FY 2015 Budget: Tax Provisions to Benefit Individuals and Raise Revenue

The President’s FY 2015 Budget: Tax Provisions Affecting Businesses

With pothole season well under way, our partner organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), has been in the news quite a bit recently for its research on the need for more sustainable federal and state gasoline taxes. USA Today ran a story this week featuring quotes from ITEP staff and six different infographics based on ITEP data that explain where state gas taxes are, and aren’t, being raised.  In addition, ITEP’s Carl Davis appeared on both CBNC and NPR’s Marketplace to talk about the gas tax.

The Missouri legislature is poised to offer Kansas a truce in the never-ending battle to shower Kansas City-area companies with tax credits. Both the Missouri Senate and House recently passed similar bills that would ban state tax incentives for companies that agree to move from the Kansas side of the Kansas City border (Wyandotte, Johnson, Douglas, or Miami counties) to the Missouri side (Jackson, Clay, Platte, or Cass counties). It seems Missouri has finally realized that tax breaks used to lure companies across the border — otaling $217 million between both states in recent years by one estimate — don’t actually create new jobs for the region’s residents and would be better spent on much needed public services. The one catch: the Missouri bill would only go into effect if Kansas agrees to a similar ceasefire within the next two years.

Perhaps this is the year that Utah will establish a state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). A bill creating the much-heralded working family tax credit was passed out of the House Revenue and Taxation Committee last month. Last year, a similar bill was passed by the full House, but stalled in the Senate. This year’s bill, which is again sponsored by Representative Hutchings, would give over 200,000 low-income Utahns a refundable tax credit worth 5 percent of the federal EITC, or roughly $113 on average. But one change from last year’s bill is that the credit will not go into effect until Utah is allowed to start collecting sales tax from online shoppers — something that won’t happen until Congress passes legislation granting the states that power. Such a bill has already passed the U.S. Senate and is supported by President Obama, but it is still pending in the U.S. House.

While a full solution to the problem of uncollected sales taxes on online shopping will have to come from the federal government, Hawaii’s House of Representatives wants to chip away at the problem by expanding the number of online retailers that have to collect sales tax right now. Under a bill backed by the state Chamber of Commerce, retailers partnering with Hawaii-based companies to solicit sales would have to collect sales taxes on purchases made by their Hawaii customers.  This move to apply the state’s sales tax laws more uniformly to both online retailers and traditional brick-and-mortar stores would be one step toward a more modern sales tax in the Aloha State.

Far too often, lawmakers use tax cuts to score political points and throw around phrases such as “more effective government” to gloss over the lasting, negative effects of starving public investments.

In the case of Kansas, public schools are paying the price. The state Supreme Court ruled last Friday that the state Legislature hasn’t allocated enough money to poorer school districts but must do so by July 1. Although the Court didn’t designate a specific dollar amount, state Department of Education officials have estimated that complying with the Court ruling will cost at least $129 million.

Unfortunately, state political leaders have already signaled their intention to skirt the Court’s decision. Quoted in the New York Times, state Rep. Kasha Kelly, the Republican chair of the House Education Committee, said the legislative branch has the “power of the purse.” And Gov. Sam Brownback lauded the Court for not declaring a dollar amount, stating that equity is more about equality of opportunity rather than dollars spent.

Such rhetoric has no basis in reality. Indeed, state lawmakers have a responsibility to be stewards in the public interest. This means deciding how to raise revenue as well as spend revenue. Too often, lawmakers interested in backing the narrow interests of an elite few discuss taxes in a vacuum as though they are unrelated to how states fund critical priorities. This makes it easier to push through tax cuts under the guise of stimulating the economy without talking at the same time about long-term implications of less revenue for basic public services—or, in the case of Kansas, equitable funding for public schools.

Gov. Brownback has led the way in a recent wave of governors advocating for large tax cuts for the affluent under the misguided premise that tax cuts pay for themselves.

In Kansas, recent state budget cuts have meant increased classroom sizes and fewer resources for extra-curricular activities, not to mention cuts in other public services.  State funding per student has dropped since the economic recession from $4,400 five years ago to a reported $3,838 today. Kansas lawmakers initially claimed they had to cut funding for K-12 education due to the lingering effects of the recession. But even as state revenue rebounded, legislative leaders astonishingly moved to cut income taxes rather than restore funding for public education and other services.  In fact, the Legislature enacted two rounds of major tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Kansans. The first round, in 2012, dropped the top tax rate from 6.45 to 4.9 percent and exempted all “pass-through” business income from the personal income tax.

The next round, enacted in 2013, doubled down by dropping the top tax rate even further, to 3.9 percent, and setting the income tax on track for complete elimination if, as Gov. Brownback has said, the state meets revenue targets. The long-term fiscal impact of these tax cuts in Kansas will be a whopping $1.1 billion.

If, as Gov. Brownback says, he is for equality of opportunity, he should concede that overcrowded classrooms and reduced services are not the way to achieve this. Lawmakers would be wise to consider rolling back some of Gov. Brownback’s tax cuts by not allowing the top income tax rate to fall further and by eliminating the costly deduction for pass through business income.

The tax reform plan released last week by Congressman Dave Camp, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, fails to accomplish what should be the three basic goals for comprehensive tax reform: 1) raise revenue from individuals and corporations, 2) make our tax system more progressive than it is now, and 3) tax the offshore profits and domestic profits of our corporations at the same time and at the same rate. (See more details on these three goals.) As explained below, Camp’s plan also manages to restrict state and local governments’ ability to make important public investments.

 Our lastest study documenting corporate tax avoidance dispels the myth that corporations need the sort of revenue-neutral tax reform that Rep. Camp proposes. But that is only one of  many problems with his plan. Here are some other basic ways in which it fails.

FAILS TO RAISE REVENUE:
Tax reform should result in more revenue collected from both the personal income tax and the corporate income tax.

The United States is the least taxed of all OECD countries besides Chile and Mexico. Neither individuals nor corporations are taxed at high rates. American corporations even pay lower effective tax rates in the United States than they pay in other countries where they do business. At a time when Congress continues to bitterly argue whether we have the resources to fund important public investments that most Americans support like Head Start and medical research, we need to take a critical look at our nation’s tax structure and determine how we can raise more revenue in a way that is fair and just. Rep. Camp’s proposal makes no attempt to raise more revenue from wealthy individuals or profitable corporations.

We have been very critical of both Rep. Camp and President Obama for proposing that business tax reform be revenue-neutral. But Camp’s approach is far worse, proposing  that all of tax reform (including changes that affect individuals, as well as changes affecting businesses) be revenue-neutral.

FAILS TO ENHANCE FAIRNESS:
Tax reform should result in a tax system that is more progressive than the one we have now.

When you account for the different federal, state and local taxes that people pay, the tax code is just barely progressive. Camp’s plan fails to address this. Partly this is because Camp’s plan would continue to tax capital gains and stock dividends, which mostly go to the wealthy, at lower rates than income from work.

Under Camp’s plan, the personal income tax would have two regular rates, 10 percent and 25 percent, and then a surcharge (an additional tax) of 10 percent would apply to very high-income people. The rules for the regular tax and the surcharge would be somewhat different. For example, no itemized deductions could be taken against the surcharge, except the charitable deduction. But the combination of the regular tax and the surcharge would be similar to having one tax with rates of 10 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent.

The plan claims that capital gains and dividends would be taxed at the same rates as other income, but effectively they would be taxed at lower rates because 40 percent of capital gains and dividends would be excluded from taxable income. The top effective personal income tax rate on capital gains and dividends would be 21 percent. This is a one percentage point increase over the current top rate of 20 percent, which is probably enough to cause Grover Norquist to have an aneurism but will not address the fundamental unfairness of taxing income from wealth at lower rates than income from work.

Camp’s plan also reduces the EITC and eliminates personal exemptions while also increasing child tax credits and the standard deduction. Citizens for Tax Justice is currently producing estimates of how the combination of these changes would affect people in different income groups. But we already know that low-income families in certain situations would experience a substantial tax increase.

FAILS TO END OFFSHORE TAX SHELTERS:
Tax reform should result in rules that tax American corporations’ offshore profits and domestic profits at the same time and at the same rate.

This is the only way to end the tax incentives for corporations to shift jobs offshore and make their U.S. profits appear to be earned in offshore tax havens (countries where they are not taxed). Under the current system offshore profits and domestic profits are not taxed at the same time, because American corporations can indefinitely “defer” paying U.S. taxes on profits that are officially “offshore” until they are officially brought to the U.S. Under Camp’s plan, offshore profits and domestic profits would not be taxed at the same rate, and in fact the default rule would be for offshore profits to be taxed at a rate of 1.25 percent.

While Camp claims that various other measures he proposes would prevent corporate tax avoidance, it is impossible to believe that they would work since his overall proposal would dramatically increase rewards for any American corporation that can make its U.S. profits appear to be earned in offshore tax havens.

HURTS STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
Camp’s plan would hurt state and local governments by repealing the most justified deduction in the tax code.

Rep. Camp’s plan would limit and repeal many different tax breaks, but one of the most significant changes would be repeal of the deduction for state and local taxes. As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has argued, this is the one of the most justified of all the deductions in the federal personal income tax.

The deduction for state and local taxes paid is often seen as a subsidy for state and local governments because it effectively transfers the cost of some state and local taxes away from the residents who directly pay them to the federal government. For example, if a state imposes a higher income tax rate on residents who are in the 39.6 percent federal income tax bracket, that means that each dollar of additional state income taxes can reduce federal income taxes on these high-income residents by almost 40 cents. The state government may thus be more willing to enact the tax increase because its high-income residents will really only pay 60.4 percent of the tax increase, while the federal government will effectively pay the remaining 39.6 percent. This is why Rep. Camp and many anti-government lawmakers want to do away with this particular deduction.

But viewed a different way, the deduction for state and local taxes is not a tax expenditure at all, but instead is a way to define the amount of income a taxpayer has available to pay federal income taxes. Another view is that the deduction encourages state and local governments to make public investments that they would otherwise underfund because the benefits spill outside their borders. For example, state and local governments provide roads that, in addition to serving local residents, facilitate interstate commerce. They also provide education to those who may leave the jurisdiction and boost the skill level of the nation as a whole, boosting the productivity of the national economy.

In this light, eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes is not a brave attempt to trim unnecessary breaks out of the tax code, but just one more attempt to restrict our ability to make the public investments that allow America’s economy and people to thrive.

This week Wisconsin’s Senate followed the lead of the General Assembly and approved Governor Scott Walker’s $537 million (over two years) in property and income tax cuts. Governor Walker proposed the tax cuts as a way to “return the state’s surplus to the people who earned it” and his signature on the legislation is all but guaranteed. The cuts include $404 million in across the board property tax cuts and $133 million in income tax cuts that result from lowering the bottom income tax rate from 4.4 to 4.0 percent and reducing the Alternative Minimum Tax.

It’s worth noting that the tax cuts are permanent yet the state’s “surplus” is not guaranteed to last. According to the Wisconsin Budget Project, the tax cuts will mean that “the next state budget will be $658 million in the red before budget deliberations even begin.”

Too bad lawmakers weren’t persuaded by editorial boards at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Wisconsin State Journal that both (rightly) responded to Governor Walker’s tax cut proposals by encouraging lawmakers to instead use the one-time surplus to help curb the state’s growing structural deficit, or use it towards serious problems like poverty reduction and enhancing K-12 education.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer provided a helpful history lesson in its recent editorial on Governor John Kasich’s State of the State speech. In the speech, Kasich predictably called for yet another round of tax cuts to fix all that ails the state, but as the editorial board smartly points out, “if tax cuts were the key to rebirth, Ohio’s troubles should have ended long ago.” The paper goes on to chronicle six substantial state income tax cuts implemented since 1985, none of which generated the economic boom promised by proponents. If state legislators unwisely go along with Kasich’s attempt to repeat history, they shouldn’t expect a different result.

The Idaho Trucking Association has come out in favor of a six-cent increase in the state’s 25-cent gas tax, adding Idaho to a list of states considering long-overdue gas tax hikes this year. If passed, the bill (PDF) would raise the state fuel tax two cents a year for the next three years, and would be the first such increase in 18 years. A gas tax increase is needed to close a $262 million hole in the state’s transportation budget, according to the Governor’s Task Force on Modernizing Transportation Funding. Republican Governor Butch Otter has been a vocal advocate of a gas tax increase, but was rebuked by the legislature on the issue in the past. AAA Idaho has come out against the bill in part because they don’t think it asks enough of the long-haul trucks that produce a disproportionate amount of wear and tear on the state’s roads. We will continue to monitor developments.

The Georgia Senate passed a constitutional amendment last week that would cap the state’s individual income tax rate at the current six percent level. As the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute has previously explained, this is an immensely silly idea, tying the hands of future policymakers by arbitrarily locking in current tax rules. The amendment’s key sponsor has described the effort as a “first step toward moving Georgia away from taxing income.” But personal income taxes are the fairest of the main revenue sources relied on by state governments. Senate Resolution 415 must now win a two-thirds vote in the House and then, if successful, approval by the voters in November.

In the 36 states where Governors are up for election, campaign season is well underway. This is especially true in Wisconsin. Governor Scott Walker isn’t likely to fulfill his 2010 campaign pledge of creating 250,000 jobs, but that isn’t stopping him from making a whole new promise. This time he is pledging that property taxes won’t be increased over his next term. Details about how he will keep property taxes at current levels aren’t available yet, but it’s likely he will recommend some kind of ill-advised property tax cap, as well as an increase in state aid to localities.

Tax cut one-upmanship continues to be a major theme in the race to be Maryland’s next governor. As of right now, at least two gubernatorial candidates want to completely eliminate the state’s personal income tax–a revenue source that funds about half of the state’s spending on schools, hospitals, and various other services. In terms of how to pay for this massive cut, the best that Harford County Executive David Craig could come up with is a 3 percent across-the-board spending cut (that math seems a little fishy to us), while businessman and candidate Charles Loller seems to have bought into Arthur Laffer’s wild claims that tax cuts pay for themselves. But even if the cost of repeal weren’t an issue, it’s still the case that the personal income tax is an essential element of any fair and sustainable tax system, and should not be on the chopping block in any state.

Lawmakers in Iowa are poised to give NASCAR a $9 million tax rebate. The bill (PDF), which passed a key Senate subcommittee last week, would extend a five percent rebate for all sales tax collected at Iowa Speedway, a racetrack located about 30 miles outside of Des Moines. The sweetheart deal had originally required that the track be owned at least 25 percent by Iowans, but the Florida-based NASCAR company bought the track last year, prompting legislators to scramble to amend the law. (Racetrack owners are already the beneficiary of a notorious federal tax break, which is part of the group of tax “extenders” currently languishing in Congress.) It is unclear why NASCAR, a profitable company in its own right, needs the handout. It already owns the facility and has plans to host four races there in 2014. Some in the state are hoping that the rebate will be used to upgrade the track so that it can host a lucrative Sprint Cup race, but NASCAR has made no such promise.

Our colleagues at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) have seen a lot of attention directed toward their analysis of an Oklahoma proposal to cut the state’s top income tax rate–including two opinion pieces, a front-page news story, and a paid advertisement (PDF) taken out by the state’s former Governor. While the top rate cut proposed by current Governor Mary Fallin is extremely lopsided (contrast a $29 tax cut for a middle-income family with a $2,000+ tax cut at the top), it appears that the Senate has some interest in improving upon the bill. Rather than simply cutting the top tax rate and slashing public investments, the Senate’s tax-writing committee recently advanced a bill that pairs the cut with a very sensible expansion of the state’s income tax base: eliminating the nonsensical state income tax deduction for state income taxes paid.

House of Cards–a Netflix show about politicians making bad decisions–is trying to get Maryland’s politicians to make some bad decisions in real life. The Media Rights Capital production company says they’ll shoot the third season of their program elsewhere unless lawmakers direct more taxpayer dollars their way in the form of an expanded film tax credit. Upon learning of the threat, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle had some entirely appropriate reactions: “Is it possible that they would just leave after we gave them $31 million?” “We’re almost being held for ransom.” “When does it stop?”

Denver and Baton Rouge are 1,200 miles apart (not to mention some steep elevation change), but state lawmakers in these distinct capitals are grappling with a similar challenge: a tax code increasingly clogged with special interest tax breaks.

In Colorado, legislators have proposed a “bumper crop” of tax credits this year. The legislature has already had to beat back a bill that would have provided $11.6 million in tax credits for parents who send their children to private schools, but dozens more are awaiting consideration. Tim Hoover, communications director for the Colorado Fiscal Institute, has compared the atmosphere at the Capitol to a recording of “Oprah”: “Tax incentives are handed out the way Oprah gives away cars to her audience members. You get a tax credit! You get a tax credit. Everybody gets a tax credit.”

In 2009, Colorado lost $2.7 billion to various tax credits, exemptions, and deductions. The only reason we’re even able to put a number on these otherwise hidden tax provisions is because the state recently joined most of the rest of the country by publishing a tax expenditure report (PDF). The good news is that some Colorado legislators are now trying to make this report a regular feature of the state’s budgeting process, published every two years. The bad news (other than all the new breaks that lawmakers are trying to pile on) is that the report does nothing to show if the state’s tax breaks are having their intended effect. This is one reason why Colorado was ranked as “trailing behind” in the pursuit of evidence-based tax policy by the Pew Center on the States.

While Louisiana is ranked higher by Pew as a result of having evaluated at least some of its tax breaks, its tax code is similarly jam-packed with special interest giveaways. But thanks to Louisiana State House Speaker Chuck Kleckley, the effectiveness of these exemptions will be the subject of a new, independent tax study this year, with recommendations to be released next spring. Don’t get too excited, though. In 2012, Louisiana created the Legislature’s Revenue Study Commission which recommended better monitoring of tax exemptions, but that recommendation has yet to have much of a tangible impact.

Colorado and Louisiana, like most states, still have a long way to go in making regular evaluation of their tax breaks a reality, but if they’re looking for a little inspiration they may want to direct their attention toward the progress being made in Rhode Island.  The Ocean State now requires that state analysts determine the number of jobs actually created by certain “economic development” tax breaks, and that the Governor make recommendations on those tax breaks in his or her budget proposal.