SHARE:
Policy Points from Iowa Fiscal Partners

Posts tagged Economic Opportunity

Dumbing down definition of poverty

Posted June 11th, 2019 to Blog

If you wanted to reduce the number of people defined as being in poverty, without reducing poverty itself, what might you do? You could always mess with the numbers.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a solid report out today showing how a Trump administration proposal would do just that. Authors Arloc Sherman and Paul van de Water examine the administration’s proposed alternative to the way cost-of-living adjustments are made to the official poverty guidelines.

The first problem, of course, is that the official poverty guidelines have almost nothing to do with the cost of living. They are an outdated formula — they are a half-century old while, not surprisingly, families’ spending needs have changed. We have shown this regularly at the Iowa Policy Project with our Cost of Living in Iowa research.

Here is what our report, by Peter Fisher and Natalie Veldhouse, noted last year:

Cost of Living Threshold Is More Accurate than Federal Poverty Guideline

Federal poverty guidelines are the basis for determining eligibility for public programs designed to support struggling workers. However, the federal guidelines do not take into account regional differences in basic living expenses and were developed using outdated spending patterns more than 50 years ago. The calculations that compose the federal poverty guidelines assume food is the largest expense, as it was in the 1960s, and that it consumes one-third of a family’s income. Today, however, the average family spends less than one-sixth of its budget on food. Omitted entirely from the guideline, child care is a far greater expense for families today…. Transportation and housing also consume a much larger portion of a family’s income than they did 50 years ago.

Considering the vast changes in consumer spending since the poverty guidelines were developed, it is no wonder that this yardstick underestimates what Iowans must earn to cover their basic needs. Figure 1 above shows that a family supporting income — the before-tax earnings needed to provide after-tax income equal to the basic-needs budget — is much higher than the official poverty guidelines. In fact, family supporting income even with public or employer provided health insurance ranges from 1.1 to 3.0 times the federal poverty guideline for the 10 family types discussed in this report. Most families actually require more than twice the income identified as the poverty level in order to meet what most would consider basic household needs. Even with public health insurance, the family supporting income exceeds twice the poverty level in all cases except the two-parent family with one worker.

Because the guidelines do matter in the computation of eligibility for work-support programs, it is essential that they are not eroded further to disadvantage low-income families. As the CBPP authors note, not only is the poverty line itself too low to reflect basic needs, but the annual cost-of-living adjustment, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), also is flawed:

Prices have been rising faster than the CPI-U does for the broad categories of goods and services that dominate poorer households’ spending. The poorest fifth of households devote twice as large a share of spending to rent as the typical household, for example, and the cost of rent rose 31 percent from 2008 to 2018, compared to 17 percent for the overall CPI-U. In addition, recent studies find that low-income households may face more rapidly rising prices than high-income households even for the same types of goods, possibly because low-income households have fewer choices about where and how to shop.

The Trump plan would make that worse, substituting another cost-adjustment measure that slows the pace of upward adjustments in the poverty guidelines. The plan would magically declare that some people below the current poverty line are no longer poor.

Messing with the numbers is never an answer to identifying the challenges one might address with better public policy. Seriously analyzing the relevant ones is essential.

Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City. mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Mother’s Day topic: Fostering opportunity

Posted May 11th, 2019 to Blog

Mother’s Day is always a good time to focus on public policies that can make mothers’ important jobs easier.

Too often, policy makers look the other way as wages and work supports erode. Costs rise, debt mounts, children grow, and bills pile up. The challenges become daunting.

One proposal on the table would give mothers in low- and moderate-income families a break. The Working Families Tax Relief Act would help 23 million mothers across the country — and 211,000 in Iowa, 158,000 of them working — to look forward.

The proposal would strengthen both the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC) — again, a benefit to millions nationally, kids in low- and middle-income families, according to estimates by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). These benefits would be shared broadly across racial groups.

In Iowa alone, the plan would benefit 472,000 Iowa children, according to CBPP.

The proposal strikes a stark contrast to the 2017 tax law that targeted benefits heavily toward wealthy households and corporations — not working families. The principal so-called “middle class” tax cut in that bill was a very meager increase in the CTC, from $1 to $75, to 87,000 children in low-income working families in Iowa.

As CBPP’s Chuck Marr notes in this blog post, a single mother of two who makes $20,000 as a home health aide, for example, would see a boost in her CTC by $2,210 and her EITC by about $1,460 — a total gain of about $3,670.

Working parents at lower levels of income need to be able to afford basic necessities, home and car repairs or other costs of transportation and education or training to get better jobs. The EITC and CTC are critical supports that make work pay for families in low-income situations.

Mother’s Day is a good time to honor those values that we all share. So, go to brunch if you want, but don’t avoid this discussion at the table.

Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City.

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Perspective for the common good on Tax Day

Posted April 15th, 2019 to Blog
It is so tempting, as we are seeing on social media over the last several days, to talk about filing your taxes and the fact that you (1) paid more or (2) paid less.
Is that really what matters? Let’s take a step back and look at the big picture — the common good. There are three main points to remember:
1) First, what are taxes for? Schools. Roads. National defense. Health care. Fairness and protection in the workplace. Clean air. Clean water. Recreational opportunities. Libraries. There are more examples you may put out front. But in any case, none of those services funded now by taxpayers will be provided without taxes. They will not be provided by the private sector, at least on any scale that provides access to all Americans.
Go ahead. Chart a road to opportunity for all that does not include taxes. You cannot do it. It is integral to the mission, which is why tax reform is an essential stop we identify on our Roadmap for Opportunity. Unfortunately, Iowans have not received tax reform, but a doubling down on bad tax policy trends of the last 20 or 30 years.
2) Our Iowa tax code is inequitable. The rich pay less as a share of their income than people who live paycheck to paycheck. It was already a long-term trend in Iowa (and in many states) and it was worsened by the 2018 tax overhaul. Our state and local tax system is upside down.
3) Cleaning up and restoring balance to our tax code would better assure public money is going to public purposes, rather than subsidizing tax breaks and loopholes for those most politically well-connected. As we have shown: •     Tax credits for business already cost more than $300 million a year. •     Tax loopholes for multistate and multinational corporations already cost between $60 million and $100 million. On Tax Day — and every day — we must ask whether those choices are the best use of public money, when we know education, public safety and environmental quality are being compromised by short-sighted budget decisions in Des Moines. Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

No ‘I’ in sports bets

Posted April 10th, 2019 to Blog

An admitted political compromise would legalize sports betting in Iowa while keeping bets on Iowa student athletes illegal — but only on their individual performance.[1]

Promoters of the plan are betting that this small nod to sports integrity might gain a few votes. However, the compromise in the Legislature shines a light on the integrity issue and to larger weaknesses, which are many.

If legal sports betting were not a threat to sports integrity, no such compromise to the betting bill, HF748, would be needed. The compromise concedes a threat remains to competition outside Iowa that gamblers might influence. Plus, legislative deals made now could be quickly reversed next year once that new betting door is open. I mean, what are the odds?

These are among many points — including fiscal and economic issues — being missed in the rushed drive in 2019 to expand gambling in Iowa with legalized sports betting.

Governing Magazine looked at the revenue states might expect. The magazine cited a Moody’s Investors Service report that noted “sports betting in Nevada accounted for just 2 percent of statewide gambling revenue.”[2] In the first six months of legalized sports betting in New Jersey a mere $3 million in tax revenue was raised from in-casino betting, in a state much larger than Iowa and with a higher tax rate on betting (8.5 percent).[3]

This is not economic development. Sports betting in Iowa is for Iowa residents only; we would not attract any out-of-state spending. And much of the money wagered on sports would come from spending on other forms of entertainment at local businesses, where more of the profits stay in the state.

Casinos want sports betting to entice new customers, who might become regulars at the slot machines and gaming tables.

So for a meager increase in revenue, the state would open up greater opportunities to contaminate sports integrity and create new problems of gambling addiction, along with the attendant family problems and breakups, embezzlement, and job loss.

Already, most families have no savings, or very little. Around half of U.S. families have no or negative net wealth.[4] More than 60 percent don’t have even $1,000 put aside for emergencies let alone for retirement.[5] Having more gambling opportunities keeps people from getting ahead.

Many of these problems are only a matter of time. Any bets on how soon we will see them?

2010-PFw5464Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City. pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

 

[1] The Gazette, Cedar Rapids, March 19, 2019, “Compromise advances sports betting bill in Iowa House,” https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/compromise-advances-sports-betting-bill-in-iowa-house-limits-in-play-prop-wagers-on-iowa-collegiate-sports-20190319, and March 22, 2019, “Betting on college pivotal to gambling debate,” https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/iowa-sports-betting-college-sports-20190322.

[2] Liz Farmer. How the Sports Betting Ruling Will Impact State Budgets The Supreme Court outlawed a federal ban on sports betting on Monday, and some states are poised to capitalize. Governing May 14, 2018. https://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-how-legalizing-sports-betting-will-impact-state-budgets.html

[3] The Tax Policy Center, “TPC’s Sports Gambling Tip Sheet.”  https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/tpcs-sports-gambling-tip-sheet.

[4] The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, Vol. 1, May 2016, Issue 2, Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data, Pg. 554. http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2016QJE.pdf.

[5] Bankrate’s Financial Security Index, 2018, https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/financial-security-0118/.

Charging all taxpayers private tuition

Posted February 28th, 2019 to Blog

Iowa taxpayers are on the hook for over $65 million in subsidies each year to private schools in Iowa.[1] Nearly all of these schools are religious schools. While only 6 percent of the students in elementary schools in Iowa are in private schools, all taxpayers help pay for their education (and religious training) through the state taxes they pay. And in nearly three-fourths of Iowa public school districts there is no private school option.

Proposals once again making their way through the Iowa Legislature would expand the subsidies to these private schools, and to the parents who choose to send their children there, through the creation of education savings grants. These proposals would end up costing over $100 million per year, and potentially up to $200 million, money that could instead be used to strengthen education in the public schools serving 94 percent of Iowa’s children.[2]

There are 330 public school districts in Iowa. In 242 of those districts there is no private school offering classes in any grade, Kindergarten through 12th. Private schools are concentrated in Iowa’s metropolitan areas. Nearly half of the total private school enrollment in the state is in just 12 school districts, all located in one of Iowa’s nine metropolitan areas.

The map below shows just how scarce private schools are in rural Iowa. While all 21 of the Iowa counties that are part of a metropolitan area (lighter blue in map) have at least one private school, only 38 of the 78 non-metro counties have a private school option. And in 12 of these counties the options are quite limited: a single school with total enrollment ranging from just 20 to 98. (For an interactive version of the map, click on the image.)

[1] http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2018docs/181105-IFP-pvtschools-bgd.pdf

[2] http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2018docs/181105-roadmap-vouchers.pdf

Peter S. Fisher is research director of the Iowa Policy Project.

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

For starters, issues to watch in 2019

Posted January 14th, 2019 to Blog

With the 2019 session of the Iowa Legislature officially underway, the Iowa Policy Project is a dependable source for quality information and analysis on Iowa’s most pressing policy challenges. IPP’s Roadmap for Opportunity project will highlight and clarify many of these challenges as they emerge. Among issues to watch:

Public funds for private schools

Vouchers or “education savings grants” stand to take more money away from public schools and add to the $66 million Iowa taxpayers pay every year to support private education. Funding for Iowa’s public schools has failed to keep up with rising costs. Underfunded schools impact student development and workforce potential. Read more in our Roadmap piece, “Strengthening public education, no new subsidies to private schools” and the accompanying backgrounder, “Taxpayer support of private education in Iowa.”

Unemployment compensation

Unemployment insurance is an important program that supports workers experiencing temporary unemployment and acts as a macroeconomic stabilizer during economic downturn.[1] Because states are granted flexibility in shaping the program, there lies potential to undermine it, as other states have recently. More to come on this issue.

Attacks on public pensions

Maintaining a strong public pension system in Iowa ensures that we are able to attract and retain quality state employees who teach our children and protect our communities. It is important that Iowa wards off attempts to restructure the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS) in ways that erode retirement security. For more, read our Roadmap piece, “IPERS works to boost retirees, economy.”

Further tax cuts

During the 2018 session, legislators passed a package of tax changes that largely benefit wealthy Iowans, with 2.5 percent of Iowa earners taking nearly half of tax cuts. The current administration has signaled support for further cuts that would endanger services that promote thriving communities such as education and healthcare. Read more on “What real Iowa tax reform would look like.”

Protecting Iowans’ health

Iowa’s privatized Medicaid system continues to cut off patient care and miss payments to providers. With little hope of returning the program to state control anytime soon, we must ensure that cost savings are achieved by increasing innovation and efficiency, not by undercutting health care providers or denying services to the sick and disabled. We should also stay away from Medicaid work requirements, which lead to disenrollment and additional barriers for elderly and disabled Iowans without meaningfully improving employment.[2] For more, read out Roadmap piece, “Restoring success of Iowa Medicaid.”

As noted above, this is not an exhaustive list — only a start. Stay up to date on our analysis through Facebook, Twitter, and our email newsletter.

[1] Chad Stone and William Chen, “Introduction to Unemployment Insurance.” July 2014. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/12-19-02ui.pdf

[2] Center for Law and Social Policy, “Medicaid Works: No Work Requirement Necessary.” December 2018. https://www.clasp.org/publications/report/brief/medicaid-works-no-work-requirement-necessary

Natalie Veldhouse is a research associate for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. nveldhouse@iowapolicyproject.org

Tuition rising: Do students approve?

Posted November 16th, 2018 to Blog
As I spoke to a University of Iowa finance class this week, I wondered: Did they vote?
I showed these students data on a variety of issues, closing with the reversal from state support to tuition as the largest share of funding Iowa universities, an issue affecting most if not all of the class. Here is what it looks like for the University of Iowa:
unnamed-1
We have more about this in our new “Roadmap for Opportunity” series. See this two-pager.
Today, The Gazette of Cedar Rapids landed on my doorstep with a page 1 story about the Board of Regents’ plans to raise tuition 3 percent to 5 percent a year for the next five years at the UI and Iowa State University. The size of the increase will depend on new funding. An increase of at least 3 percent a year results from years of cutting.
My talk to the finance class came six days after Iowa voters retained Statehouse leadership that has forced the regents to tell families to plan on tuition increases for the next five years. The regents’ plan implicitly shows they expect more of the same from the Legislature and Governor.
I told the students that I hoped they had voted, and that they would pay attention to the impacts of public policy choices on their lives. Maybe they did, and maybe they are OK with the policy choices made, and coming.
They will be living with these impacts — student loan debt among them — long after many of us are gone. If they want something different, they will have to speak up, and they will have to do so in large numbers.
M
Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.
mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Restoring equity in tax policy — Plug tax loopholes

Posted November 15th, 2018 to Blog

Through the years in Iowa, very few lawmakers have had the courage to take on an utter abomination in our corporate tax system: tax loopholes.

It is one thing to expressly pass a tax preference — a credit, exemption or deduction — with a specific purpose, clearly defined for all taxpayers to see and reviewed for its effectiveness. (Iowa does not provide such accountability with many such preferences, but that is for another post.)

It is quite another thing, however, to see weaknesses in your tax code exposed and exploited by large companies, and to leave those holes open for routine abuse. Welcome to Iowa.

A new report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities discusses this issue as part of overarching tax policy that states can use to advance racial equity and sustain services responsibly. From the report:

States can nullify a variety of tax avoidance strategies employed by large multistate corporations by adopting a reform known as “combined reporting,” which treats a parent company and its subsidiaries as one entity for state income tax purposes, thereby minimizing companies’ ability to shift income earned in a state to other states that are tax havens (like Delaware and Nevada).

The figure below shows Iowa is out of step with the majority of states on this issue. All but one of our neighboring states has a corporate income tax, and all but one of those states has combined reporting to stop companies from avoiding taxes that were originally intended by the tax code to be collected.

The Iowa Policy Project and Iowa Fiscal Partnership have been encouraging Iowans to look at this issue for many years. We made it part of our 2018 Tax Policy Kit — explaining here how Iowa could save itself tens of millions of dollars that are squandered to companies that effectively set their own tax policy. The Iowa Taxpayers Association consistently defends this break that not only burdens our state, but tilts the playing field to big, multistate corporations and against Iowa-based, Iowa-focused businesses.

Two governors, Tom Vilsack and Chet Culver, at times proposed adoption of combined reporting, but the issue — while getting some attention at the committee level — has not reached a floor vote in the House or Senate.

Iowa’s tax code needs to be fair to all residents. It needs to generate revenue to sustain services that are important to all residents, from education to water quality to law enforcement to health care. To allow corporations to set their own rules by exploiting weaknesses in the tax code defies these oft-stated Iowa values of fairness and accountability.

Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project.

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Tax reality: No pumpkin spice added

Posted November 1st, 2018 to Blog

You find it everywhere these days: pumpkin spice this, pumpkin spice that … tax cuts this, tax cuts that. It’s so easy to overdo it — with pumpkin spice or with tax-cut rhetoric.

Keep it simple. The tax cuts are for the wealthy, and come at great cost of services while making the tax system less fair.

Just ask the Iowa Department of Revenue, which produced the following analysis in May, just before state legislators rammed their backroom tax package for the rich through both houses of the Legislature and to the Governor’s desk. Yes, she signed it.

And here are the numbers behind those sections of the pumpkin above:

Put another way, almost 40 percent of resident taxpayers will get about 3 percent of the benefit of the tax cut in tax year 2021; over four-fifths of taxpayers will together see only about 26 percent of the benefit. On the other hand, the top 2.5 percent — families making over $250,000 — will receive 46 percent of the benefit.

This was a tax cut for the richest Iowans, who did not need a cut, and the bill overall will cost almost a half billion dollars in 2021.[1]

These effects have been apparent for months,[2] despite claims that are obvious distortions, according to the Department of Revenue analysis.

That analysis shows the average tax change in tax year 2021 for people making between $50,000 and $60,000 — this covers the latest median-income level of $58,570 — would be a $156 cut, or less than $3 a week. Don’t spend it all in one place. Meanwhile, the cut for millionaires would, on average, be $24,636.

By the way, the “fact checkers” who let loose-speaking pols off the hook for their exaggerations about tax cuts are often missing a critical point: Many Iowans, including some middle- and moderate-income working families, actually will see tax increases, or no change at all, if the new law is not changed.

Of course, most won’t see these effects right away, despite the promises. How convenient.

M

Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City. mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org.

 

[1] Iowa Department of Revenue analysis for Legislative Services Agency, May 2, 2018

[2] Charles Bruner and Peter Fisher, Iowa Fiscal Partnership, “Tax plan facts vs. spin,” May 5, 2018, http://www.iowafiscal.org/tax-plan-facts-vs-spin/

See also: “A Roadmap for Opportunity: What real tax reform would look like,” Iowa Policy Project, http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2018docs/180906-roadmap-taxes.pdf

IPERS defenses are ‘care tactics’

Posted October 30th, 2018 to Blog

IPERS, the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, has come under attack in recent years for no substantive reason — only ideology and politics. Understandably, IPERS members, who number well over 10 percent of the population of Iowa, are concerned.

So, some folks are engaged in what might be called “care tactics,” to make sure the stakes on that issue are well-understood. People who care want good information, and are asking for it.

These efforts and concerns are being dismissed by those who claim there is no threat to IPERS. Political scare tactics indeed are part of the 2018 campaign on several issues — primarily taxes, as illustrated by the hair-on-fire ads on television that do more to distort than inform.

But it’s hard to make that case about pension concerns, which stem directly from leaders’ comments, proposed legislation and a longtime goal of ideologues on the right who have become more strident.

Those now dismissive of pension concerns point to recent campaign-season comments by Governor Kim Reynolds. Yet not so long ago Reynolds herself raised the prospect of some change in IPERS’ actual pension structure to a “defined contribution” or 401k-style structure for new employees.[1] Her predecessor, Terry Branstad, had made similar comments.[2] Legislation was proposed in 2017 in the Senate.[3] All of this remains fresh in the minds of those who are worried, as do efforts by others to undermine IPERS.

IPERS critics have promoted that riskier “defined contribution” structure, needlessly scaring Iowa taxpayers about Iowa’s secure IPERS system. The Des Moines Register has run such scare pieces, by Don Racheter of the Public Interest Institute[4] and by Gretchen Tegeler of the Taxpayers Association of Central Iowa.[5]

Neither the media nor IPERS critics have been able to explain how a separate system based on a 401k style structure — “defined contribution” — could be introduced for new employees without undermining existing and promised IPERS benefits for current members.

Contributions plus Interest investments equal Benefits plus Expenses in administration of the system— this is what is required for full funding of IPERS. If you reduce that first item, contributions, by setting new employees apart in a different plan, clearly that matters. It’s math.

In fact, it affects more than those new employees. Reducing contributions by diverting those from new employees reasonably means lower benefits — for current members!

The media and all policy makers should be asking more about this. It’s not enough to accept a “nothing to see here” argument from someone who in the recent past declared herself open to a change — especially when activists have pushed for it, and legislation has been proposed. The dismissal — not exposing it — is the “scare tactic.”

Let’s stay away from the “scare tactics,” and focus on the “care tactics.”

 

[1] Ed Tibbetts, Quad-City Times, “Reynolds says state looking at IPERS task force,” Jan. 26, 2017. https://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/reynolds-says-state-looking-at-ipers-task-force/article_bf76d410-c70b-5300-951c-ad1cb6bced3f.html

[2] William Petroski, The Des Moines Register, “IPERS cuts key target; unfunded pension liabilities up $1.3 billion,” March 24, 2017. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/24/ipers-cuts-key-target-unfunded-pension-liabilities-up-13-billion/99600866/

[3] O. Kay Henderson, RadioIowa, “Democrats accuse GOP of plotting that IPERS be dismantled,” December 11, 2017. https://www.radioiowa.com/2017/12/11/democrats-accuse-gop-of-plotting-that-ipers-be-dismantled/

[4] Don Racheter, Public Interest Intitute “Replace IPERS with defined-contribution plan,” The Des Moines Register, May 27, 2016. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/abetteriowa/2016/05/17/replace-ipers-defined-contribution-plan/84492576/

[5] Gretchen Tegeler, Taxpayers Association of Central Iowa, “Don’t minimize Iowa’s public pension debt,” The Des Moines Register, January 16,2018, https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2018/01/16/iowas-public-pension-debt-eclipses-other-public-debt/1035979001/; also “Public retirement systems are not ideal for young, mobile employees,” The Des Moines Register, December 8, 2016, https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2016/12/08/public-retirement-systems-not-ideal-young-mobile-employees/95148216/

 

Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org