Iowa Fiscal Partnership / Budget and Tax
SHARE:
Policy Points from Iowa Fiscal Partners

Posts tagged Budget and Tax

State policies should focus on homegrown jobs

Posted March 15th, 2016 to Blog

2-3-16sfp-f1A recent report by Michael Mazerov and Michael Leachman finds that the vast majority of new jobs in a state are homegrown: They are created by start-ups and by firms already in the state who are expanding. Only 13 percent of new jobs come from new branch plants of out-of-state companies, or  actual plant relocations to a state. They argue that public policies need rethinking as a result:

“State economic development policies that ignore these fundamental realities about job creation are bound to fail. A good example is the deep income tax cuts many states have enacted or are proposing. Such tax cuts are largely irrelevant to owners of young, fast-growing firms because they generally have little taxable income. And, tax cuts take money away from schools, universities, and other public investments essential to producing the talented workforce that entrepreneurs require. Many policymakers also continue to focus their efforts heavily on tax breaks aimed at luring companies from other states — even though startups and young, fast-growing firms already in the state are much more important sources of job creation.”

Michael Mazerov and Michael Leachman. State Job Creation Strategies Often Off Base. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 3, 2016. http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-job-creation-strategies-often-off-base#_ftn23

2010-PFw5464Posted by Peter Fisher, IPP Research Director

 

Editor’s Note: This also ran on IPP’s “Grading the States” website — gradingstates.org

To fund water solutions, why not the obvious? Tax pollutants

Posted March 7th, 2016 to Blog
Note: A version of this piece ran as a guest opinion in the Sunday, March 6, 2016, Cedar Rapids Gazette.

———

One answer to the issue of funding water-quality solutions is right in front of us: Tax the pollutants.

The pollutants are Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P). This is well established by the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy (NRS) that Governor Terry Branstad and the farm industry support. The NRS blames N and P for the pollution that harms Iowa waters and causes the hypoxic or dead zone at the bottom of the Mississippi River.

More than 90 percent of N and two-thirds of the P come from non-point sources, almost all agriculture, according to Iowa State University.

And there is a lot of it. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s latest Census of Agriculture, for 2012, shows about $2.6 billion was spent on “commercial fertilizer, lime and soil conditioners” in that year in Iowa.

Yet, while debate proceeds on how to deal with the pollution caused by those chemicals, it is worth noting that normal Iowa sales tax does not apply to the N or P used in agriculture.

I stopped by my local hardware store to ask if I, a non-farmer, would pay tax on the standard Scotts 10-10-10 garden fertilizer they sell. I would. But farmers do not pay sales tax for theirs. (There is a small fee on chemicals, including N and P for groundwater protection programs, but no general sales tax.)

Since the debate about how to pay for cleaning our waters is in full swing it is time to propose the obvious. Since N and P are the culprits, let’s tax them at the same rate as, say, pickup trucks.

Farmers pay a 5 percent tax on the pickups they use on the farm and off, to pay for their impact on the roads we all use. Since their fertilizer is used on the farm but also flows into the rivers and streams and lakes we all use, costing us all, a similar tax on fertilizer makes sense.

A 5 percent tax on the $2.6 billion in annual farm fertilizer sales in Iowa would bring in roughly $129 million a year, close to the numbers being thrown about to address water quality in the state. It is roughly comparable to what would come from three-eighths of a cent on the general sales tax for the Natural Resource and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund that Iowa taxpayers approved — but which legislators have refused to fund. Over the next 30 years the fertilizer fee would bring in something close to what the Governor wants to take from a tax designed for school infrastructure.

Why not the obvious solution? Tax the chemicals that pollute Iowa waters.

IPP-osterberg-75Posted by David Osterberg

David Osterberg co-founded the Iowa Policy Project in 2001 and was director of the organization for 12 years. He continues to lead IPP research on environmental and energy policy for IPP and is a professor in the Department of Occupational and Environmental Health at the University of Iowa. He served six terms as a member of the Iowa House of Representatives, and served as chair of the House Agriculture Committee. Contact: dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org.


Unspoken budget choices for Iowa

Posted March 2nd, 2016 to Blog

DSCN5662-detail240200There’s a reason we can’t have the things we need. We keep giving money away, often without a good understanding of why we’re doing it.

A good example is the so-called “coupling” legislation now moving through the Iowa Legislature. It would do some sensible things, but others — not so much, and not for the reasons being promoted. Read more about it in this Iowa Fiscal Partnership policy brief.

Most of the cost of the coupling bill is for a business tax break. The Farm Bureau recently quoted one of its local leaders, Washington County Farm Bureau vice president Tye Rinner, that this provision is “really important to us right now.”

“We’re all in limbo right now waiting to see what’s going to happen and that’s keeping us from making the investments in equipment, buildings and other capital purchases, which would also create jobs in our rural communities,” Rinner was quoted.

Unfortunately, that message has little to do with the legislation under consideration. What is missed is that the bill at the Statehouse would make changes for only one tax year — and it’s one already past. The changes are retroactive to tax year 2015.

So if farmers or other business people wanted to make a capital investment that would benefit from the kind of tax provisions being proposed, they would not get the break. They’d be too late.

On the other hand, the bill would reward decisions already made. It’s not an incentive to do something they would not have done anyway — and it’s very costly. It’s about $98 million that was not in the budget for the current year, and would hit the ending balance.

In perspective, this must be seen as a budget choice, put up against other ways to use that $98 million, which would go against the resources on hand for the new fiscal year. You might have noted the difference between the House and Senate on a school aid number is 2 percent in supplemental state aid, whether to set per-pupil cost growth at 2 percent or 4 percent. The difference is about $85 million, according to the Iowa Association of School Boards.

So as you can see, we can subsidize business people to do something they already did without a subsidy, or for less money we can have a 4 percent increase in school aid. The House speaker says we can afford the first choice, but not the second. Both positions cannot be so.

2010-PFw5464Posted by Peter S. Fisher, Research Director for the Iowa Policy Project.
Contact: pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

$8.9 million revenue boost with immigration reform

Posted February 24th, 2016 to Blog

A new report projects a 24 percent increase in state and local tax revenues from undocumented immigrants in Iowa if they were granted permanent legal residence.

The 50-state study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy examines current tax contributions by undocumented immigrants and projects how state revenues would rise either with the Obama Administration’s executive actions, or with passage of comprehensive reform that has stalled in Congress.

Find the report, Undocumented Immigrants’ State and Local Tax Contributions, here. It offers a sensible approach on how to quantify tax contributions by these immigrants — whose tax contributions often go unrecognized in political talking points. But undocumented immigrants pay sales and property taxes just like anyone else, and many have income taxes deducted from their paychecks.

As stated by ITEP’s state tax policy director, Meg Wiehe, “Regardless of the politically contentious nature of immigration reform, the data show undocumented immigrants greatly contribute to our nation’s economy, not just in labor but also with tax dollars.”

The report estimates current state and local taxes by undocumented immigrants in Iowa are $37.38 million, but would rise to $46.29 million — an increase of $8.91 million — with comprehensive immigration reform.

Full implementation of the 2012 and 2014 executive actions would create a smaller impact in Iowa, estimated to be a $3.61 million increase from the $17.18 million paid now by those affected.

According to ITEP, the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States collectively paid $11.64 billion in state and local taxes. ITEP finds their combined nationwide state and local tax contributions would increase by $805 million under full implementation of the administration’s 2012 and 2014 executive actions and by $2.1 billion under comprehensive immigration reform.

 

Owen-2013-57
Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project
Contact: mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

A good deal if you can get it

Posted February 19th, 2016 to Blog

But research credit refund checks are poor fiscal stewardship

The millions Iowa gives to companies that do not pay state income tax is about the same amount of 1 percent in state school aid.

That’s one takeaway from the latest annual report from the state on Iowa’s Research Activities Credit (RAC). That tax credit is used far less to ease taxes than to shovel subsidies to big corporations outside the budget process, whether they pay taxes or not.

The report shows that in 2015, 248 companies had $50.1 in claims from this tax credit. Because the credit is refundable, companies get the full benefit no matter how much they owe (or don’t owe) in taxes. And the report shows that of those claims, 75 percent, or $42.1 million, were paid as checks to 186 companies that paid no corporate income tax to the state.

As we note in a summary by the Iowa Fiscal Partnership, each percentage-point increase in Supplemental State Aid for schools costs about $41 million to $43 million (Iowa Association of School Boards estimate).

160216-RAC-chksVclmsVsupp2b-line

What’s more, the largest claimants — 20 corporations receiving over $500,000 from this credit — took the lion’s share of the benefit with $43.9 million overall (about 88 percent).

Many millions are spent this way every year, outside the budget process. These companies don’t have to compete for what are supposedly scarce public dollars needed for critical public services such as education, health care, environmental protection and public safety. The latter types of spending must compete in the budget process.

The Research Activities Credit is only an entitlement. And except for the occasional lawmaker willing to stand up to restore some accountability, there is silence from the General Assembly.

This is perfectly legal. In fiscal policy terms, however, it’s a scandal, because it is legal. Lawmakers refuse to even consider whether to take this spending off autopilot.

When they claim the state is too strapped for money to provide more for school aid or human services, lawmakers should admit they let corporations take what they want first.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project
Contact: mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org
For more information about the Research Activities Credit, visit www.iowafiscal.org

Building blocks of inequity

Posted February 10th, 2016 to Blog

Iowa’s school funding process is broken.

Consider:

  • The Legislature repeatedly violates the law by failing to set state aid in time for districts to adequately plan their budgets.
  • The levels of funding lawmakers set — averaging less than 2 percent growth over the last six years — are routinely below the growth in costs that schools face.

As if those two things are not bad enough, inequities grandfathered into the school funding formula have not been corrected. While the four-decades-old formula was designed to reduce inequities between districts of higher and lower property values by augmenting property tax revenues with state aid, a gap persists.

Long and short: There is a $175 range in the “cost per pupil” that school districts must use as the building block of their annual budgets. While the minimum cost for this year is set at $6,446 per student, six districts are as high as $6,621.

The inequities have been known for some time. When combined with chronic underfunding, these inequities are magnified. In one case, Davenport school officials are defying state limits on use of their own resources to make sure their students have the same opportunity as students in other districts.

For example, as school budgets are based on enrollment, a district with 1,000 students and operating at the minimum — the state cost per pupil — is losing out on $175,000 per year in comparison with a district at the maximum. In a district the size of Davenport, that’s about $2.8 million a year.

What many Iowans might not realize is that their own school district may be in a similar situation to that of Davenport.

Few districts (only six) are at the maximum per pupil cost; most districts (84 percent) are $100 or more below the maximum per pupil cost. Nearly half of all districts (164 of 336) are at the minimum.*

Basic RGB

The more you look at this, you can see it is not a Davenport issue, but an Iowa issue, and a failure of public policy.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project

 

*Iowa Department of Management, www.dom.state.ia.us/local/schools/files/FY16/DistrictCostPerPupilAmountsAllFY2016.xls

Remembering Dave Hurd

Posted February 8th, 2016 to Blog

Dave Hurd supported many Iowa organizations. He had an essential role in our creation of the Iowa Policy Project. In 2001 Joyce Foundation offered our new policy organization a large grant but my grant officer said she wanted to see diverse in-state support. Dave wrote a letter on our behalf to several of his friends who he thought would endorse the work we were beginning at IPP. The amount raised from him and others who responded to that letter gave us the match we needed.

Dave continued to donate to IPP as did many of those who responded to that first fundraising letter. He liked especially our work on water quality but supported our reports documenting the needs of low-income Iowans and our data on fair taxes. He believed that people and the environment deserved protection. In all his charitable work he sought to make this state better. We will miss this great man.

IPP-osterberg-75Posted by David Osterberg, co-founder of the Iowa Policy Project

State aid up 13 percent — for business breaks

Posted January 28th, 2016 to Blog

What do you expect would be the outcry if Iowa’s public schools asked for 13 percent growth in state aid?

Yet few bat an eye when this happens with business tax breaks, as we can expect for FY2017.*

The early scorecard gives business tax breaks the big edge, a 13 percent increase, vs. between 2 and 4 percent for schools.

The Senate approved 4 percent for FY2017 (covering next school year), but the Iowa House on Monday approved 2 percent — even though schools have averaged less than 2 percent for six years, from FY2011-16.

In fact, the Iowa Association of School Boards this year did not even ask for a specific growth number, but rather, that it be set in a timely manner (it’s almost a year late already), and “at a rate that adequately supports local districts’ efforts to plan, create and sustain world-class schools.”

That hasn’t happened for some time. Over the last six budgets, per-pupil growth has been held to 2 percent or below in all but one year. Depending on enrollment trends, some districts even see less.

Basic RGB

Business tax breaks do not face the same budget constraints — ironic, since the cost of those breaks limits what lawmakers permit themselves to spend on services that their constituents demand, not the least of which is education. Other areas — environmental quality, child care, health care and public safety — also are constrained.

A much greater percentage increase in business tax breaks is set in place, as shown below. The total increase of $71 million from this budget year to the one lawmakers are working on now actually may be understated. The $35 million for a new sales-tax exemption for manufacturers is considered a conservative estimate. Even at $71 million overall, however, it represents a 13 percent increase.

160108-IFP-Budget-Fig2FB

Spending on business tax breaks is rarely burdened by the public scrutiny and debate that comes with spending on schools and water programs, which must be approved annually.

Most business tax breaks, once passed, are never touched again unless they are expanded. And as shown by the sales-tax break for manufacturers scheduled to begin this summer, a break may never receive legislative approval but still become law. The Governor is implementing this one on his own, with a split legislature unable to stop him.

Budget choices? Instead of that $35 million in FY2017 for the new sales-tax break, the Legislature could provide about 1 percent growth in per-pupil school funding. We can expect to find another 1 percent in what we’ll spend in checks to companies that do not pay any state income tax, but have more research tax credits than they owe in taxes.

Perhaps one day we will treat all spending the same, whether the spending comes before or after revenues reach the state treasury. Then the wealthy corporations can compete directly for their tax breaks against education for the skilled people they want to work for them.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project
Mike Owen is a member of the school board in the West Branch Community School District, first elected in 2006.
* For more about Iowa tax breaks for business, see Peter Fisher’s report for the Iowa Fiscal Partnership, “Here a tax break, there a tax break, everywhere a tax break.” http://www.iowafiscal.org/here-a-tax-break-there-a-tax-break-everywhere-a-tax-break/

Reading, ’Rithmetic & Politics

Posted January 18th, 2016 to Blog

First, Governor Branstad challenged the bounds of basic math — miscounting jobs — and now it’s language arts.

The Governor reportedly got a little testy last week at a Des Moines Register editorial board meeting. Among his complaints: references to a “diversion” of revenue from a state sales tax for school infrastructure to support water-quality improvements. From the Register:

Branstad, in particular, took issue with the idea that his proposal diverts money away from schools.

“I can’t see how you can possibly call it a diversion when schools are going to get at least $10 million more guaranteed every year, plus a 20-year extension,” he said. “They’re sharing a small portion of the growth.”

Well, here’s how you call it a diversion:

diversion
[dih-vur-zhuh n, -shuh n, dahy-]
noun
1. the act of diverting or turning aside, as from a course or purpose: a diversion of industry into the war effort.
dictionary.com

Under the Governor’s plan, there is a “diverting or turning aside” a share of sales-tax revenues from their currently authorized “course or purpose,” school infrastructure, from FY2017 beginning July 1 this year, to FY2029. This is illustrated by Governor’s own handout on the plan. See the one-page document his office provided the media on Jan. 5.  The graph at the bottom of that page (reproduced below), shows the diversion shaded in blue, beginning with the black vertical line and running to the red dotted line.

160105-water-school-graph
Of course it’s a diversion. In fact, the diversion continues if the tax — which would not exist before or after FY2029 without voters’ intent for its use in funding school infrastructure — is extended to FY2049.

May future debate focus on whether the Governor’s proposed diversion is a good idea, not the fact that he has proposed it.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project

 

 


Mark Smith ‘passionate and tireless’ leader

Posted December 5th, 2015 to Blog
Mark Smith at the dedication of the IPP conference room in his honor, May 2009.

Mark Smith at the dedication of the IPP conference room in his honor, May 2009.

IOWA CITY, Iowa (Dec. 5, 2015) — The Iowa Policy Project today issued the following statement from Jennifer Sherer, president of the organization’s board of directors, about the passing of Mark Smith, who co-founded IPP in 2001 with David Osterberg. Mark Smith was 71.

“It is with deep sadness that we mark the passing of Iowa Policy Project co-founder Mark Smith.
“Mark will be remembered for his passionate and tireless leadership on behalf of workers, families, the poor, and all who struggle to reverse inequity or discrimination. As a labor and civic leader, he devoted his life to strengthening the voices of Iowans seeking fairness and equal opportunity in their workplaces, communities, and at the state Capitol.
“Mark started his career as an educator and maintained a lifelong commitment to the power of organized people and good ideas to transform the world. He leaves behind a remarkable legacy of building durable institutions — including the Iowa Policy Project — that continue to make a difference in the lives of Iowans.
“All of us at the Iowa Policy Project mourn our loss — and Iowa’s loss — of Mark Smith.”
The Iowa Policy Project is a nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy research and analysis organization based in Iowa City. Reports are at www.iowapolicyproject.org.