We retired Tax Justice Blog in April 2017. For new content on issues related to tax justice, go to www.justtaxesblog.org
Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval campaigned on a promise of no-new-taxes but is breaking that promise (for a second time!) with his plan to balance the Silver State budget. In an effort to avoid deep cuts in education, Sandoval is once again supporting an extension of temporary sales, payroll, and car taxes originally enacted in 2009. Grover Norquist calls Sandoval the poster boy for why candidates can’t just promise no-new-taxes, they have to sign his pledge; in fact, Sandoval is a good example of why they shouldn’t.
We’ve already written that Arthur Laffer’s claims about economic growth and income tax repeal are fundamentally flawed and that in fact “high rate” income tax states are outperforming no-tax states. Now, three respected Oklahoma economists have come out in agreement, and are offering their own critique of Laffer’s findings. This is great news given that Laffer’s work has been so central to lawmakers’ efforts to eliminate the state income tax – the most progressive feature of any state’s tax system.
This week the Maryland Senate voted to raise personal income taxes in order to offset the anticipated “doomsday cuts” in public services that would otherwise have to occur. An analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) showed that the bill would be generally progressive. And in yet another bit of good news, a late amendment to the bill would enhance its progressivity even more, as Marylanders earning more than a half-a-million dollars will no longer be able to take advantage of the state’s lower marginal rate brackets.
The Wichita Eagle editorial board is watching the Kansas House and Senate take up tax reform, and they are worried. While they’re glad some lawmakers are dubious about “the suspect advice of Reagan economist Arthur Laffer,” the governor’s advisor, they don’t like a House plan that “makes permanent the punishing budget cuts of the past few years to education, social services and other programs.” They opine that “tax reform needs to make fiscal sense and broadly benefit Kansans,” and conclude that with the various and competing proposals right now, it’s anybody’s guess if that will be the outcome.