The Kansas Tax Cuts Are Not to Blame for Revenue Woes
Wisconsin Democrats Don't Know Much about Taxes
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has come under fire from his Democrat challenger Mary Burke and the Wisconsin Democrat Party for rolling back the Wisconsin Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Despite passing historic tax cuts, Walker’s Democrat opponents insist that he has raised taxes on Wisconsin’s middle class. It appears that Democrat Mary Burke and her allies need to brush up on their tax policy, because they are flat out wrong.
The thrust of the Wisconsin Democrat attack on Gov. Walker is that he cut the Wisconsin EITC while in 1986 President Ronald Reagan expanded the Federal EITC. Thus Gov. Walker raised taxes while President Reagan cut them. Unfortunately for Mary Burke and the Wisconsin Democrat Party, there is little truth in their attacks.
Here are the facts: In both instances, the EITC is refundable, meaning that even if a taxpayer is able to zero-out their personal income tax liability, they can still claim the credit and receive money from the state. Simply put, the EITC allows for the government to use the tax code to spend money. The U.S. Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation scores all refundable tax credits as spending, not as tax cuts. Democrat candidate Mary Burke, in an ad attacking Gov. Walker, praised President Reagan for expanding the EITC, saying he had a “good idea about taxes.” Burke shows a complete lack of understanding of what the EITC is by tying it to taxes. Again, Congress’s own Joint Committee on Taxation scores the EITC as spending. The Wisconsin Democrat Party takes a similar line as Burke, again showing a complete lack of knowledge regarding the EITC and what it is actually scored as. Gov. Walker did not raise taxes on Wisconsin's middle class, nor was President Ronald Reagan's expansion of the EITC a tax cut for the middle class. The EITC is scored as spending, not a tax cut or a tax increase.
In reality, Gov. Walker – by rolling back the Wisconsin EITC – cut state spending reducing the state’s reliance on taxpayers. Since taking office in 2010, Gov. Walker has enacted over $2 billion in tax relief, while creating a more efficient and effective state government that is not burdensome to taxpayers or a hindrance to economic growth.
ATR Releases List of 2014 State Pledge Signers Ahead of Elections in Tennessee
As the Tennessee primary approaches, Americans for Tax Reform has released a new list of state legislative and state-wide candidates seeking office who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. These candidates have shown a strong commitment to their state’s taxpayers by putting their convictions against new and/or higher taxes in writing. Please show your support at the ballot boxes on Thursday, August 7th.
The list for Tennessee is as follows:
- Mae Beavers (S-17)
- Jack Johnson (S-23
- Bill Ketron (S-13)
- Randy McNally (S-5)
- Steve Southerland (S-1)
- Harry Brooks (H-19)
- Kevin Brooks (H-24)
- Glen Casada (H-63)
- Bill Dunn (H-16)
- Jeremy Faison (H-11)
- Steve Hall (H-18)
- Beth Harwell (H-56)
- Ryan Haynes (H-14)
- Matthew Hill (H-7)
- Curtis Johnson (H-68)
- Kelly Keisling (H-38)
- Jon Lundberg (H-1)
- Steve McDaniel (H-72)
- Steve McManus (H-96)
- Dennis Powers (H-36)
- Courtney Rogers (H-45)
- Charles Sargent (H-61)
- Tony Shipley (H-2)
- Mike Sparks (H-49)
- Terry Weaver (H-40)
- Rick Womick (H-34)
- James R. “Jim” Finney (S-29)
- Matt Swallows (S-15)
- Dan Howell (H-22)
- Tonya Miller (H-53)
Photo Credit: Corey Seeman
Kansas Tax Cuts Are Working
Despite the objections of some – perhaps biased – observers, the Kansas tax cuts appear to be working. Christopher Ingram at The Washington Post’s Wonkblog declared the failure of the Kansas tax cuts based on a single metric – when compared to average US job growth, Kansas job growth has lagged. It should also be of note that Ingram bases part of his criticism off of a Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) study, citing them as a “nonpartisan think tank” – the The New York Times has called CBPP “left-leaning”, The Washington Post has called them “progressive”, and Time Magazine has called them “liberal” as has the National Journal.
To really understand the success of the Kansas tax cuts, one would need to look not at a US aggregate of unemployment data, but at the Kansas-Missouri border where two states share a split metro area and for all-intents-and-purposes a porous boundary.
- Bureau of Labor Statistics data details a significantly better trend for Kansas as opposed to Missouri following the passage of the first round of tax cuts in 2012. In the year 2012, both Missouri and Kansas saw significant drops in state unemployment rates. Kansas began in January, 2012 with a rate of 6.1% and finished out the year at 5.4%. Missouri began 2012 at 7.5% and finished out the year at 6.7%. However, in 2013 after the 2012 Kansas tax cuts had kicked in, the two states diverged. Kansas continued to reduce their unemployment rate, dropping from 5.5% in January 2013 to 4.9% in December. Missouri, on the other hand, saw their rate fluctuate – beginning the year at 6.5%, then climbing to 7.2% in August of 2013 before finally seeing a drastic drop in December to 5.9% (partially due to holiday hires in the retail sector – note: this applies to Kansas as well). The preliminary rates for 2014 show Kansas holding steady at 4.8% (comparable to nearby Iowa holding steady at 4.3/4.4%, Nebraska at 3.6%, and Colorado around 6%). Missouri, unlike Kansas, has seen their unemployment rate increase – moving from 6% in January of 2014 to 6.6% in May.
- An examination of the non-farm employment data provided by the BLS for the Kansas City Metro-Area, specifically, shows a drastic shift of employment growth from the Missouri side to the Kansas side:
The greatest job growth in the Kansas City metro-area has been generated in Kansas, not in Missouri. It is arguable that the 2012 spike was caused by businesses anticipating a better tax climate in Kansas after the 2012 tax cuts.
From a broader regional view, Kansas still remains a relatively high tax state with a top rate of 4.9% – at least until further income tax rate reductions kick in. Colorado, by comparison has a flat rate of 4.63%. Prior to 2013, Kansas was higher – at 6.3% – than Missouri which has a top rate of 6%. Additionally, the current 4.9% rate is relatively on par with Oklahoma which has a top rate of 5.25% - though, again, prior to 2013 the top rate in Kansas was higher.
While the state budget shortfall has made news, there is strong evidence that most of the shortfall can be traced to federal tax policy changes and not state changes – though Josh Barro writing at The New York Times disagrees. CBO data, that I have detailed here, points to a shift in capital gains filings out of 2013 and into the end of 2012 to avoid President Obama’s “Fiscal Cliff” which resulted in an increase in the federal capital gains tax. This left many states – from California to Connecticut – with shortfalls and downward revisions in revenue projections this past tax year. Long story short, other states who have not enacted tax reforms like Kansas are also struggling with the accuracy of their revenue projections this year.
One final note, Kansas is required by law to have a balanced budget, unlike the Federal government. A significant budget surplus this year will alleviate much of the concern with the lower than expected revenue collections. Opponents of tax reform and spending interests want to try and write an early obituary for the Kansas tax reform. Unfortunately for them, the tax cuts are working and will continue to improve the Kansas economy for years to come.
ATR Releases List of 2014 State Pledge Signers Ahead of Elections in Colorado, Maryland, Oklahoma, and Utah
With the primary elections of several states slated to take place Tuesday, Americans for Tax Reform has released an updated list of incumbents and challengers for state legislative and state-wide office who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge for the states of Maryland, Oklahoma, Utah, and Colorado. These candidates have made a written commitment to their constituents to oppose any and all efforts to increase taxes. ATR strongly encourages taxpayers to consider those who have made this commitment when they vote on Tuesday, June 24. The list of incumbents and challengers who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and will be on the ballot Tuesday can be found in the following links:
D.C. Budget Provides Overall Tax Relief for City Residents
For the first time in 15 years, residents of the District of Columbia will receive significant tax relief. The budget, approved by the city council would provide a net $158 million in tax relief over the next five years. Initially, the tax cuts would impact low and middle income residents – once fully phased in, residents earning up to $1 million a year would see income tax relief as well as tax relief on inheritance.
It was incorrectly reported that Americans for Tax Reform supported the expansion of the city sales tax to yoga and gym services specifically. Americans for Tax Reform does NOT endorse this tax increase, NOR do we endorse the targeted excise tax increase on high-end tobacco products, among others. We do acknowledge that the overall budget is a net $158 million tax cut on District of Columbia taxpayers and view this as a step in the right direction.
While sound tax reform often involves expanding the sales tax base, ending credits and deductions, and lowering overall tax rates accordingly – in at least a revenue neutral manner – the Washington, D.C. city council would have better served taxpayers by eliminating wasteful spending and outdated city programs to pay for income tax relief. Too often politicians engage in tax shifting – hiking taxes on specific industries to pay for broad based income tax relief. Tax shifting is NOT sound tax policy.
The net income tax cut for taxpayers in the city budget is a step in the right direction for an overtaxed city like Washington, D.C. However, taxpayers and members of the city council should be leery of tax shifting schemes. It is far better to reduce spending as a means to reduce the tax burden on Washington, D.C. residents than by increasing taxes on specific industries.
ATR Releases List of 2014 State Pledge Signers Ahead of Primaries in Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota
As the next round of state primary elections approaches, Americans for Tax Reform is proud to release a new list of candidates, both challengers and incumbents, who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge for the states of Iowa, Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota. The candidates on this list have announced their strong commitment to the taxpayers of their states and districts and pledged to oppose any and all efforts to increase the tax burden on their constituents. ATR urges taxpayers to consider the individuals who have staked their career to protecting the interests of the American citizen when they cast their ballots on Tuesday, June 3. The list of incumbents and challengers who have signed the Tax payer Protection Pledge and will be on the ballot Tuesday can be found in the following links:
Photo Credit: Ras67
Oklahoma Moving in the Right Direction on Pension Reform
Earlier today, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin signed into law legislation the Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, a move that will begin to help the state address it’s $11 billion pension debt. House Bill 2630 would require all new state employees to participate in a 401(k) style defined contribution plan.
Oklahoma is just one of several states to recently address the growing state level pension crisis by enacting sensible pension reforms such as moving public employees to a defined contribution system versus a defined benefit system. The legislation, sponsored by State Representative Randy McDaniel will help to curb the state pension liability without forcing current state employees into the new system.
The changes to the Oklahoma pension system mirror those made in Utah in 2010. Legislation sponsored by State Senator Dan Liljenquist shifted the state pension system to a defined contribution – 401(k) style – plan for new state and municipal employees. Like Oklahoma, the Utah legislation allowed for – then current – workers to remain on the previous state pension plan. The Wall Street Journal, at the time, noted:
The sponsor of the Utah reform was Senator Dan Liljenquist, who watched in horror during the 2008 stock market plunge as the state pension fund lost 22% of its assets. From nearly 100% funded in 2007, it fell to 70% funded by 2009. Utah suddenly faced a long-term $6.5 billion funding gap, and the state would have had to nearly double its annual contributions out of the current budget to make up the shortfall.
Other states continue to look to Utah and now Oklahoma as an example of sound fiscal stewardship when it comes to public pension reform. Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey may be considering a hybrid pension system much like what was enacted in Rhode Island. The plan has been reported to include, “…a smaller defined-benefit payout supplemented by a 401K-style defined contribution plan.”
Bob Williams, president of State Budget Solutions, has recommended the City of Chicago move to a defined contribution plan to address the city’s staggering unfunded liability of $87.3 billion and save taxpayer dollars. Williams notes the success of a similar reform in Michigan:
In 1997, the Michigan State Employees' Retirement System implemented a DC plan for all new employees. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy found that, from 1997 to 2010, the DC plan saved Michigan taxpayers $167 million in pension normal costs and between $2.3 billion and $4.3 billion in defined-benefit plan unfunded liabilities.
Michigan's DC plan includes an employer contribution equal to 4 percent of salary, plus a 100 percent match on the next 3 percent of an employee's own contribution. That is a far more manageable approach than the Municipal Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund because, unlike Chicago's current approach, the DC plan cannot develop unfunded liabilities.
Oklahomans should laude Gov. Fallin and their representatives in the state legislature for making real strides in addressing the state’s pension woes. The move to defined contribution for new hires is a tremendous step in the right direction and helps provide a sound, solvent retirement system for state employees.
Illinois Democrats Looking To Make Income Tax Hike Permanent
In 2011, Illinois Democrats, led by Gov. Pat Quinn, decided to raise taxes rather than cut spending in order to fix its budget. This resulted in a ‘’temporary’’ income tax increase from 3% to 5%. Now Gov. Quinn and his Democrat allies in the legislature want to make the 2011 income tax hike permanent after failing to enact a progressive income tax and a millionaire’s tax this legislative session.
Already, Gov. Quinn is the most prolific of tax hiking Democrat governors. Since taking office, he has signed into law $27 billion in higher taxes. According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index, Illinois ranks 31st in the nation in terms of business friendly states. Making the 2011 income tax increase permanent would only serve to drive more jobs and taxpayers from the state.
Democrat Speaker Mike Madigan is pushing his House colleagues to make the “temporary” 2011 tax hike permanent next week. This would keep the individual income tax rate at 5%, even though Illinois’s tax burden is already one of the highest in the country. By law, the income tax rate in Illinois is set to drop to 3.75% next year and to 3.25% in 2019.
Democrat State Rep. Patrick Verschoore signed ATR’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, promising not to raise taxes on his constituents. Now Rep. Verschoore is in the position of being a key vote on whether to make the tax increase permanent. ATR urges Rep. Verschoore and his colleagues in the Illinois legislature to show courage and bring Illinois citizens much-needed tax relief and vote no on making the 2011 tax increase permanent. You can contact Rep. Verschoore’s office here.
Photo credit: Chris Eaves
ATR Releases List of 2014 Pledge Signers Ahead of Arkansas Primary
With the Arkansas primary election taking place Tuesday, Americans for Tax Reform has released an updated list of incumbents and challengers for state legislative and state-wide office who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. These candidates have made a written commitment to their constituents to oppose any and all efforts to increase taxes. ATR strongly encourages taxpayers to consider those who have made this commitment when they vote on Tuesday, May 20. The list of incumbents and challengers who have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and will be on the ballot Tuesday is as follows:
- Mark Martin (Secretary of State)
- Bruce Holland (S-9)
- Missy Thomas Irvin (S-10)
- Jason Rapert (S-35)
- David Sanders (S-15)
- Gary Stubblefield (S-6)
- Randy Alexander (H-88)
- Mark Biviano (H-46)
- Charlie Collins (H-84)
- Justin T. Harris (H-81)
- Mike Holcomb (H-10)
- Lane Jean (H-2)
- Allen Kerr (H-32)
- David Meeks (H-70)
- Josh Miller (H-66)
- Reginald K. Murdock (H-48)
- John Burris (S-17)
- Scott Flippo (S-17)
- Blake Johnson (S-20)
- Terry Rice (S-9)
- Bob Ballinger (H-97)
- Mary Bentley (H-73)
- Donnie Copeland (H-38)
- Les Eaves (H-46)
- Buddy Fisher (H-14)
- Michelle Gray (H-62)
- Patricia Mays (H-10)
- Lucas Roebuck (H-87)
- Shannon Taylor (H-72)
- Dave Wallace (H-54)
- Mike Whitmore (H-90)
- Dane Zimmerman (H-95)