Iowa Fiscal Partnership / Iowa Fiscal Partnership
SHARE:
Policy Points from Iowa Fiscal Partners

Posts tagged Iowa Fiscal Partnership

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.

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

Food for the fact-checkers

Posted October 12th, 2018 to Blog

At the Iowa Policy Project, we are nonpartisan and we do not support or endorse candidates for office. Rather, we hope those who do, and the candidates and parties themselves, will conduct their discussions on a foundation of fact.

When they do not, we just might throw a penalty flag. Our work is public policy research and analysis, to help people see what is fact and what is not, and to introduce context where it is missing. This is not always easy with complex issues, and there are gray areas. Where bad information is being spread, that interferes with the mission of our work, so we will do what we can to keep that record straight.

Very early in Wednesday’s debate between Governor Kim Reynolds and businessman Fred Hubbell, the Governor made at least two clearly unsupportable claims about taxes. These are issues we cover constantly.

First, the 2018 tax overhaul not only was costly, but overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply unsupportable, using data provided by the Iowa Department of Revenue in May before the bill passed. Those supporting the bill knew this would be the impact, and those writing it drew it that way.

According to the department, the legislation will mean either no change, or an actual tax increase, to nearly a quarter of resident taxpayers — 23.3 percent — in tax year 2019. For those who receive cuts, the average cut for millionaires was projected to be $20,021; for someone between $60,000 and $70,000 adjusted gross income, the cut was projected to be a tiny sliver of the benefit compared to millionaires — $232.

This flatly negates the Governor’s comment that, “In 2019, virtually every single Iowan will see their taxes go down.” This is clearly inaccurate. Further, as the law is phased in, the continuing impact will be that some will lose, some will not. Unquestionably it will affect public services as hundreds of millions in revenues are cut — which means Iowans who depend upon those services, and that is most Iowans, will lose even more.

Second, the Governor in pushing for new corporate tax cuts chose to play to the myths about business taxes promoted by the business lobby to drive down Iowa’s already low business taxes.

Business consultants have exposed the hollow core of this claim, most recently the Anderson Economic Group, which in June ranked Iowa 15th lowest in state and local business taxes (all of which are governed by state policy). Iowa business taxes consistently have been shown to be competitive.

For more information about both the tax legislation and Iowa taxes on business see these resources:

What real Iowa tax reform would look like, Iowa Policy Project “Roadmap for Opportunity” series, August 2018.

Iowa tax overhaul: Sorting facts, key points from spin, Iowa Fiscal Partnership, May 2018

Myth-Buster: Competitiveness no problem for Iowa taxes, Iowa Fiscal Partnership, March 2018
The problem with tax-cutting as economic policy, Peter Fisher, Iowa Policy Project, GradingStates.org
Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

A Roadmap for Opportunity: It’s Time to Put Iowa on the Right Path

Posted October 9th, 2018 to Blog

181009-roadmap-logoIowa can unlock the potential of each individual and allow all workers to share in the fruits of their labor by making public investments in the foundations of a strong economy. Well-resourced schools, access to higher education, decent wages and protections, economic supports, clean water and renewable energy, and a cleaned-up tax system, all can pave the way to opportunities and broadly shared prosperity that Iowans want.

Unfortunately, policy choices have put us on a road that prioritizes corporate profits over worker wages and corporate tax cuts over the public investments that allow for a strong, sustainable economy. We are at a crossroads and our policy choices today and in the near future can either pave the path to economic opportunity in every corner of our state, or create roadblocks to prosperity for everyday Iowans.

Our people-first roadmap offers the way forward. It lays out the evidence-based, responsible solutions to our state’s most pressing issues, pinpointing several stops along the way that would mark progress for our state, such as:

pinCreating the workforce of our future and ensuring our children reach their potential. Iowa can and should ensure K-12 schools receive the funding they need for every child to succeed, no matter where they live. We also must restore our commitment to higher education with more state support, lower tuition, and aid to reduce student debt.

pinBoosting economic security and supports for working Iowans. Giving Iowans’ lowest wage workers a long overdue raise, ensuring workers get paid what they’re legally owed, shoring up our system of compensation for workers who get hurt on the job, and restoring worker rights to collective bargaining can ensure that all Iowa workers are getting a fair deal. Iowans also need a boost in child care assistance, which can make or break the ability of a family to work.

pinRestoring a public commitment to the health and well-being of every Iowan, particularly seniors and people living with disabilities. Reversing the privatization of Medicaid and pursuing cost savings through innovation and efficiency rather than reduced services and worker wages are critical steps to ensuring access to health care for all Iowans — now and in the future.

pinEnsuring clean water and renewable energy for a healthy, sustainable Iowa. We can and must balance the state’s need for clean and abundant water with our agricultural economy by reducing water pollution. Likewise, Iowa should restore its legacy of leadership in renewable and efficient energy in order to create a cleaner, greener state for future generations.

pinCleaning up and restoring balance to the tax code. Right now, Iowa asks the lowest income Iowans to pay a higher share of their income in state and local taxes than those with the highest incomes. We can fix this by cleaning up corporate tax loopholes that squander precious public dollars that could otherwise be invested in shared opportunity for Iowans.

Iowa is at a critical juncture. We can take the high road that leads to progress and shared prosperity, or go down a dead end. The policies in this roadmap provide a clear route to a stronger Iowa. For more detail on each stop on the roadmap, please click here.

Too far for a tax-cutter

Posted June 13th, 2018 to Blog

Editor’s Note: This piece ran in the Wednesday, June 13, 2018, Cedar Rapids Gazette as a guest opinion from IPP’s David Osterberg.

The attack on higher education funding by the governor and legislative leadership has gone too far for at least one longtime tax-cutter.

Former state Sen. Larry McKibben, a member of the Iowa Board of Regents, expressed his concern about state support of universities. The regents voted Thursday to raise university tuition rates at Iowa, Iowa State and Northern Iowa universities, following $40 million in state funding cuts.

McKibben was forthright in blaming the legislative session for an increase in tuition at the three state universities and the loss of professors to better positions after years of low salary increases. From The Gazette’s story on the regents’ meeting:

“We have lost great folks, and now we are going to have to raise tuition,” McKibben said, noting that will persist “as long as we continue what I believe is, in my time on the board, the worst state government attack on our three public universities that I can ever remember.”

In fairness, the groundwork has been laid for this latest attack over many years. An Iowa Fiscal Partnership report in 2012 showed how spending on the UI, ISU and UNI dropped from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2012.

An Iowa Policy Project analysis by Brandon Borkovec showed that adjusting for inflation, state funding for Iowa public universities has declined since fiscal year 2001 by 40 percent at UI, 42 percent at ISU, and 28 percent at UNI.

As a percentage of university budgets, the state share dropped by almost half from fiscal years 2001 to 2016.

Some of this happened on McKibben’s watch as one of the Legislature’s most powerful lawmakers on tax policy — one who often looked for ways to cut taxes, as he did in 2003 with a proposed flat tax that would have cost more than $500 million.

He did not intervene to rein in the Research Activities Credit, which sends more than $40 million a year to profitable corporations that pay no income taxes to the state.

He turned the other way as corporations raided Iowa’s treasury through tax loopholes at a cost of $60 million to $100 million a year.

As Regent McKibben, his new concern is understandable and his advocacy for college students laudable. He wants Iowa voters to pay attention and ask what candidates will do about severe underfunding that he says will assure more tuition increases. From the story in The Gazette: “I look forward to hearing the candidates say that,” McKibben said. “What are you going to do about higher education and our three great universities?” And what are you going to do to bring them back to level?”

These same trends were happening when McKibben was a legislator. Now, it seems, the governor and state legislative leaders have gone too far, even for him.

David Osterberg is founder and former executive director of Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City. Comments: dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

15 yards, loss of revenue

Posted May 31st, 2018 to Blog

It’s time to throw the penalty flag on Governor Kim Reynolds. Her remarks about the tax cuts she signed into law Wednesday for the wealthy fail any test of accuracy. Iowans need to know the facts.

It would be different if she had acknowledged, and made a case for:

•  massive tax cuts for the wealthiest.
•  cutting revenues, assuring continued suppression of education and opportunity, public health and safety and investments in the future of Iowa.
•  continued massive corporate tax giveaways, as business tax credits have doubled in five years.

But those were not her messages — and those messages will not be repeated here. The Governor is (1) deceiving Iowans about some policies she has adopted, and (2) ignoring likely damage to the economy from these tax cuts.

She even put off some forward strides she had suggested but abandoned during the recent legislative session. The concept of “reform” is gone, as the bill does nothing to simplify taxes for at least four years, and leaves in place a system that already was heavily skewed to benefit the wealthy.

Here are a few critical realities:

  The income tax savings to a middle class family next year are only $3 to $4 a week (according to the Department of Revenue) — while the sales tax increase will offset such savings for many.
  Millionaires, on the other hand, will see on average an $18,773 cut for the year.
  Larger tax cuts scheduled to take place in five years might not happen because they are triggered by a revenue target that will be very difficult to meet. (But count on tax-cut proponents to campaign on them.)
  Instead of adjusting taxes in a way that cuts would be paid for, this legislation will actually take $300 to $400 million a year out of the budget. Those dollars could have gone to adequately fund education or public safety or mental health care.
  The bill makes $40 million in corporate income tax cuts.
•  The bill provides an unneeded tax break for wealthy earners of “pass-through” income from business.

Meanwhile, the bill fails to reform business tax credits, which have doubled in five years, to $400 million. And it also fails to raise the standard deduction or eliminate federal deductibility, both of which the Governor had proposed but compromised away.

As reviews and promotions of the tax bill proceed, keep these points in mind. And watch for more information, because the analysis will continue on a bill developed in secret, for signing at an invitation-only ceremony.

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

Tax bill: Know five points

Posted May 3rd, 2018 to Blog

Here are five things you need to know about the final version of the tax bill now scheduled for a vote in the Iowa Legislature this Saturday: (1) It is not income tax reform, (2) It is not a middle-class tax cut, (3) It is more skewed to the richest Iowans than previous bills, (4) It is very expensive and will force cuts in education, public safety and other services, and (5) It is more likely to hurt the Iowa economy than to help it.

As we have pointed out previously, real income tax reform would rein in expensive business tax credits that have little effectiveness, eliminate federal deductibility, increase recognition of the costs of raising a family, and raise the Iowa standard deduction — which would both simplify taxes for thousands of Iowans, and target tax cuts at lower and middle-income taxpayers. The tax bill does none of these things for the next four years.

Earlier versions of the House bill would have increased the standard deduction and eliminated federal deductibility, but those provisions were jettisoned in favor of $40 million in corporate tax cuts and more tax preferences for high-income business owners. The bill does little to reform business tax credits, which have doubled in five years. It adds a new and expensive loophole — a deduction for pass-through income from certain businesses.

For the next four tax years the bulk of the tax savings go to the most well off. In 2021, almost half of the tax cuts will go to the richest 2.5 percent of Iowa taxpayers, those making $250,000 or more. Their taxes are reduced by 18 percent, over twice the cut for those in the middle. For those making over a million dollars, the tax cut will average $24,636.

Meanwhile, those in the middle will see income tax cuts of $100 to $300 over the next four years, much of which will be taken back in increased sales taxes of $35 to $60.

All of this comes at a high cost to the state — over $400 million a year by 2021. With over half the budget going to education, this means the underfunding of our public schools and the rising tuition and debt for our community college and university students will continue.

The bill’s only “trigger” does nothing to guarantee fiscal sustainability, its purported purpose. The $400 million hit to the general fund will happen no matter how slow the Iowa economy, and state revenues, grow. We could hit a recession in the next two years, and those tax cuts will remain in place.

The only trigger governs an additional round of tax cuts for 2023. If the revenue target is met (and it would require growth rates of over 5 percent per year) then the annual cost of the bill jumps to $643 million. Only then would federal deductibility end, and the higher federal standard deduction come into play.

If the bill’s backers are counting on growth to come to the rescue, they are willfully ignoring all evidence to the contrary. The last major income tax cuts in Iowa, in 1997-98, not only failed to stimulate growth, but likely contributed to the subsequent slowing of the state’s economy. The tax cuts in Kansas led to slower growth.

Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

Tax cuts: Already tried, failed

Posted April 23rd, 2018 to Blog

Former Iowa Department of Revenue official Michael Lipsman discusses tax issues at a public forum last week at the State Capitol as former Senator Charles Bruner, left, and Senators Joe Bolkcom, Janet Petersen and Amanda Ragan listen. The institutional memory of experts such as Lipsman has been lost as legislators have rushed into plans to overhaul Iowa’s tax system, with most discussions taking place outside public view and earshot.

♦♦♦♦♦♦

Twenty-one years ago the Iowa Legislature enacted an across-the-board 10 percent cut in state income tax rates. That tax cut not only failed to spur economic growth, but bears a share of the blame for the under-performance of the Iowa economy in the years following. And it led to recurring revenue shortfalls and budget cuts.

Some in the Iowa Senate aim to repeat the experiment, this time with an 8 percent cut. There is no reason to expect a different result.

A 2004 report by Michael Lipsman, then head of the Tax Research and Program Analysis Section of the Iowa Department of Revenue, explains why the tax cuts of 1997 and 1998 had a negative effect on the economy.[1] That legislation cut all income tax rates by 10 percent, expanded the exemption for capital gains income, increased the pension exclusion, and exempted lineal ascendants and descendants from the state inheritance tax.[2]

The tax cuts were expected to reduce state revenue by $318 million in 2019. But Lipsman estimates that the effect of all these tax provisions was a reduction in revenue exceeding $600 million a year by 2002. Why the larger number? Because not only did the state take a smaller share of Iowans’ income in taxes, but income grew more slowly than it would have without the tax cuts.

This runs counter to the ideology of supply-side economics, which predicts that tax cuts will always spur growth. But Lipsman’s point is that it depends on the nature of those cuts — how much goes to non-residents, how much to high-income residents, where savings are likely to be invested, and where goods are produced.

The Iowa tax rate cuts, the pension exclusion, and the capital gains preference all concentrated their benefits on higher income taxpayers, and over a third of the inheritance tax benefit went to non-residents. The 3 percent of Iowa taxpayers with over $100,000 income got 24 percent of the benefit from the rate cuts, and these are the taxpayers most likely to invest their tax cut rather than spend it locally. It is likely that much of the tax savings was invested outside the state. Furthermore, most of the high-value consumer goods purchased by upper-income Iowans are produced outside the state.

At the same time, the tax cuts reduced state and local revenue, and public-sector employment dropped as a result. State and local government payrolls in Iowa decreased 16 percent from 1997 to 2002, over twice the rate of decline for the country as a whole. And state and local governments spend primarily within the state of Iowa, helping to boost the state economy. Cuts in public sector spending hurt the state economy directly (reduced purchases from local suppliers) and indirectly (reduced local purchases by public sector workers).

The upshot is that the tax cuts appear to have slowed growth, taking money out of the economy that ultimately ended up invested elsewhere, or went directly to non-residents, or was spent on goods produced elsewhere, instead of supporting Iowa businesses. In the five years leading up to the tax cuts, the Iowa economy grew at a rate nearly identical to the national economy: 28 percent. In the five years following the cuts, Iowa’s growth fell to 22 percent, compared to the national rate of 27 percent.

The massive tax cutting experiment in Kansas produced similar results — the Kansas economy slowed rather than accelerated. The experiment was a failure, and was ended by the Legislature.

The latest House tax bill would shower three-fifths of its benefits on taxpayers with income over $100,000, much more skewed to the top than the 1997 legislation. The Senate bill is likely to be skewed as well; it includes a pass-through income loophole that would cost $100 million, four-fifths of that going to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers.

Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is not the definition of rational policy making.

[1] Michael A. Lipsman. The Economic Effects of 1997 and 1998 Iowa Tax Law Changes. Tax Research and Program Analysis Section, Iowa Department of Revenue, July 2004.

[2] These are the major provisions, accounting for 90 percent of the cost. The bills also increased the personal credits and the tuition and textbook credit.

Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

SNAP changes: Ignoring what works

Posted April 19th, 2018 to Blog

EITC and child care more effective than drug tests and work requirements

Work requirements for public assistance seem to be all the rage — at both the national and state levels — when other policies would do more to encourage and support work.

President Trump signed an executive order April 10 enhancing enforcement of federal public assistance work requirement laws, evaluation of program effectiveness, and consolidation or elimination of “ineffective” programs.[1] The Trump administration also is considering drug tests for SNAP (Food Stamp) recipients.[2]

Similar legislation in Iowa (Senate File 2370) intended to expand regulations on and further monitor recipients of public assistance in Iowa, but appears to have stalled as the 2018 session nears an end. This included implementing work requirements, drug testing, quarterly reviews of eligibility, and a one-year residency requirement.[3]

The Farm Bill draft[4] released April 12 would reduce or eliminate SNAP benefits for 1 million households, or 2 million recipients, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Work requirements would force able-bodied adults without dependents to prove every month that they work or participate in a training program 20 hours per week. Severe sanctions for noncompliance would cut off benefits for one year the first time — three years the second.[5]

Recent research found recipients under work requirements for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) continued to live below the federal poverty level, and that small increases in employment diminished over time and did not result in stable employment in most cases.[6] In the long term, programs that provide training, skill building, and educational opportunities to recipients are shown to be more successful than only implementing work requirements.[7]

Evidence shows that people in SNAP households who can work do work. More than 80 percent work during the year before or after receiving benefits.[8]

Drug testing public assistance recipients has proven to be costly and frivolous. States that have implemented drug testing found that applicants have lower drug usage rates than the general population. The state of Missouri spent $336,297 in 2015 to test 293 of 31,336 TANF applicants and found only 38 positive results.[9]

Eleven percent of Iowans received public assistance in February of 2018.[10] Already, able-bodied adult without dependents have work requirements to receive SNAP in the state of Iowa.[11]

By contrast, the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Care Assistance (CCA) are policies that are effective in encouraging work. In addition, Iowa could make changes in work support programs, such as CCA,[12] to reduce what are known as “cliff effects” — when families with a pay raise or a new job are faced with a net loss because a reduction in benefits exceeds the new income.

Policies that support working families, not drug testing and work requirements, would do more to encourage work, raise family incomes, and boost local economies.

 

[1] The White House, “Executive Order Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility.” April 2018. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-reducing-poverty-america-promoting-opportunity-economic-mobility/

[2] Associated Press, “Drug testing plan considered for some food stamp recipients.” April 2018. https://www.apnews.com/6f5adff5efeb4f9a9075f76bf9cf5572

[3] IA Legis, “Senate File 2370” February 2018. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=87&ba=SF2370

[4] House Agriculture Committee “H.R. 2: the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018.” April 2018. 115th Congress. https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/agriculture_and_nutrition_act_of_2018.pdf

[5] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Chairman Conaway’s Farm Bill Would Increase Food Insecurity and Hardship.” April 2018. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/chairman-conaways-farm-bill-would-increase-food-insecurity-and-hardship#_ftn1

[6] Urban Institute, “Work Requirements in Social Safety Net Programs.” December 2017. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/95566/work-requirements-in-social-safety-net-programs.pdf

[7] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Work Requirements Don’t Cut Poverty, Evidence Shows.” June 2016. https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/work-requirements-dont-cut-poverty-evidence-shows

[8] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Making SNAP Work Requirements Harsher Will Not Improve Outcomes for Low-Income People.” March 2018. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/making-snap-work-requirements-harsher-will-not-improve-outcomes-for-low

[9] Center on Law and Social Policy, “Drug Testing SNAP Applicants is Ineffective and Perpetuates Stereotypes.” July 2017. https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2017/08/Drug-testing-SNAP-Applicants-is-Ineffective-Perpetuates-Stereotypes.pdf

[10] Iowa Department of Human Services, “Food Assistance Report Series F-1.” March 2018. http://publications.iowa.gov/27299/1/FA-F1-2016%202018-03.pdf

[11] Iowa Department of Human Services, “ABAWD Letter.” September 2017. https://dhs.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/470-3967.pdf

[12] Peter S. Fisher and Lily French, Iowa Policy Project: Reducing Cliff Effects in Iowa Child Care Assistance, March 2014. https://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2014docs/140313-CCA-cliffs.pdf

 

2018-NV-6w_3497(1)Natalie Veldhouse is a research associate at the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.

nveldhouse@iowapolicyproject.org

Big costs, few real breaks

Posted April 17th, 2018 to Blog

The latest tax bill to emerge from the Iowa House would take $90 million from the state budget, robbing the ability of the state to adequately fund education, mental health, and public safety. And yet Iowans will see so little in return that most will not even be able to tell they got a tax cut.

By the time the House bill’s provisions  are fully phased in (fiscal year 2021), the income tax cuts and sales tax modernization measures will result in about $90 million a year less revenue flowing to the state’s general fund than was projected before the federal tax bill was passed.[1] After years of revenue shortfalls and budget cuts, the House bill would guarantee that those problems will continue.

Iowa is one of only three states where you can deduct your federal income tax before computing your income subject to Iowa tax. As a result, the federal tax cut bill will reduce that deduction and increase your Iowa taxable income and your Iowa income tax. But that effect is tiny. If the state were to do nothing at all, taxpayers would still keep 94 to 98 percent of the federal tax cut (see table below).

House plan offers little break for individuals, at great cost to services
Combined effects of Iowa House tax plan and federal tax changes

ia_finalhousebill_results-2.jpg

Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Washington, D.C.

The House bill goes beyond what would have been needed to restore the small tax increases due to federal deductibility. It makes a number of changes in the income tax, including an increase in the state standard deduction. Overall, it reduces income taxes for those in the middle three-fifths of Iowa taxpayers by about $100 to $155 a year. The bill also modernizes the state sales tax, and those measures would bring in about $73 million a year from Iowa residents, and cost the middle income taxpayer $37 to $60 a year.

The net effect of all of this is an average tax cut of just $29 to $53 a year for those in the middle three-fifths of Iowa taxpayers, and smaller amounts for others. In other words, despite all the hoopla, the average taxpayer is going to hardly notice the effects of this bill — another three or four dollars a month.

Let’s just walk that through for a household with income of $53,000, which would put them right in the middle of all Iowa households. They can expect to pay $860 less in federal taxes, with federal deductibility taking back just $26 of that in state income taxes — they get to keep 97 percent. Then they get a $122 income tax cut and a $47 sales tax increase from the House tax bill. Net effect: $860 less in federal taxes, $49 less in state taxes.

While the tax savings are insignificant — three or four dollars a month — the House bill will take all that back and much more for many Iowa families. Tuition at public universities and community colleges will continue to rise because public funding will not be able to keep up with costs. School districts will be forced to enact more cuts as state funding fails to keep pace with inflation. Mental health initiatives will remain underfunded.

[1] Iowa Department of Revenue memo to Jeff Robinson, April 17, 2018. This is the net revenue loss compared to projected revenues before the federal tax bill was passed. The revenue loss compared to Iowa tax revenue including the windfall gain from federal deductibility ($178 million) would be $269 million in FY2021.

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