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

Posts tagged Iowa Fiscal Partnership

Here a tax break, there a tax break, everywhere a tax break

Iowa’s revenue shortfall largely self-inflicted — education, other priorities suffer

Basic RGB

By Peter Fisher

Iowa legislators facing projections of scant revenue growth for next fiscal year will have a difficult time adequately funding education and other priorities, but their dilemma is largely self-inflicted. A penchant for tax cuts over the past 20 years has left the state with a long-term revenue shortfall.

As lawmakers anticipate meager revenue growth for a budget exceeding $7 billion, they face built-in and anticipated spending increases for existing programs, projected to total $269.5 million.[i] Furthermore, these increases assume no boost in per pupil state school aid because the 2015 Legislature failed to set that figure for FY2017 as required by law. The governor has proposed 2.45 percent growth in school aid, which would add another $100 million to the budget. Clearly that cannot be funded without large cuts elsewhere in the budget — or addressing the elephant in the room: rampant spending on business subsidies. 

Business tax credits create part of the problem

Why is revenue growth a problem in a state that has done better than most in recovering from the Great Recession? The answers can be found in the growth in business tax breaks. Business tax credits already on the books drained $178 million from the state treasury in fiscal year 2015, then grew by $94 million to $272 million in FY16, and are expected to remain at about that level next year. The six largest credits (or groups of credits) account for 84 percent of the total (Table 1).

160107-budget-T1

160107-IFP-budgetF1

Spending on business tax credits has grown 263 percent since 2007. Caps on individual credits and groups of credits have done little to slow growth. The cost of credits has far outstripped growth in general fund spending overall.

New tax breaks have worsened the problem

Recent measures have added greatly to the problem. The massive commercial and industrial property tax bill passed in 2013 is responsible for a $268 million cut in funds that otherwise would have been available to adequately fund education, natural resource programs, and other priorities in the current fiscal year, FY16. Next year that figure is expected to grow to $304 million.[ii] The property tax breaks are larger than the sum of all business tax credits.

160108-IFP-Budget-Fig2

To make matters worse, the administration has enacted a rule, without legislative approval, that greatly expands a sales tax exemption for manufacturing. That will cost the general fund another $35 million next year, while depriving schools and local governments of another $13 million.[iii]

Altogether business tax breaks will drain $611 million in revenue from the state general fund next fiscal year. At a time when the state is struggling to fund education at all levels, those business tax breaks take on added importance. And they tell us something about the state’s priorities.

Iowa business taxes are already quite competitive

Iowa did not need these tax breaks, and certainly does not need to add to the damage to state services by enacting more. Iowa has been right in the middle of the pack in how it taxes business for a long time. The most recent study of state and local taxes on business as a percent of state GDP by Ernst and Young and the Council on State Taxation shows that Iowa taxes business at 4.5 percent of GDP, just below the national average.[iv]  A study by Anderson Economic Group in 2015 found Iowa’s effective tax rate on businesses to be 8.7 percent of profits, which placed it 32nd among the states, and again below the national average.[v]

State and local taxes have little effect on business location decisions

State and local taxes are less than 2 percent of total costs for the average corporation.  As a result, even large cuts in state taxes are unlikely to have an effect on the investment and location decisions of businesses, which are driven by more significant factors such as labor, transportation, and energy costs, and access to markets and suppliers.

Tax breaks erode support for public investments in our future

The proliferation of tax incentives and business tax cuts over the past two decades has resulted in several hundred million dollars each year cut from the state budget. This has undermined the state’s ability to support quality education, from preschool through public colleges and universities, which in the long run will have serious consequences for state economic growth and prosperity.

Fixing Iowa’s problem with unsustainable revenues

Long-term sustainability for Iowa revenues should begin with a recognition that business tax breaks have grown to unsustainable proportions. At the very least, the Legislature should reject any proposals for new tax breaks. Any bill to couple with the recently enacted federal tax changes should exclude coupling with the new depreciation rules. There is no justification for piling on additional business tax breaks at a time when basic state services cannot be adequately funded, breaks that will continue to erode revenues on into the future.

In the 10 years from FY2005 to FY2015 state tax revenue actually declined as a share of the Iowa economy. State taxes represented 5.8 percent of state personal income in 2005, 5.6 percent in 2015.[vi] If taxes had grown along with the economy over this period we would have had an additional $279 million in revenue in FY2015. A real long-term solution to sustain Iowa’s critical public services, including education, will require that the state rejuvenate state tax revenues by reducing or eliminating unnecessary and ineffective tax breaks and seeking new sources of revenue. To do otherwise is to shortchange our future.




[i] Figures are based on Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Services Division. Summary of FY2017 Budget and Department Requests. December 2015, pp. 12-13, with some adjustments for the Revenue Estimating Council report of December 10, 2015 which was released after the LSA report.

[ii] Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Services Division. Summary of FY2017 Budget and Department Requests. December 2015, pp. 17 and 55. Includes the effect of SF 295 on state school aid as originally estimated.

[iii] Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Services Division. Summary of FY2017 Budget and Department Requests. December 2015, p. 59.

[iv] Ernst and Young and the Council on State Taxation, Total state and local business taxes: State-by-state estimates for fiscal year 2014. http://www.cost.org/Page.aspx?id=69654

[v] Anderson Economic Group, 2015 State Business Tax Burden Rankingshttp://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/Portals/0/AEG%20Tax%20Burden%20Study_2015.pdf

[vi] Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Services Division, Issue Review January 6, 2015.

 

 

 

2010-PFw5464Peter S. Fisher is research director of the Iowa Policy Project, which together with the Child & Family Policy Center formed the Iowa Fiscal Partnership, a nonpartisan initiative focused on helping Iowans to understand the impacts of budget choices and other public policy issues on Iowa families and services. IFP reports are at www.iowafiscal.org.

 

Big ‘Oops’ for tax-cutters in school vetoes

Posted July 15th, 2015 to Blog

Governor Branstad’s vetoes of “one-time” funding pose “ongoing” and “recurring” problems for a major and ill-advised proposal by his allies to restructure personal income taxes in Iowa.

And they should.

During the last session, while lawmakers and the Governor were telling schools the state could not afford more than a 1.25 percent increase in per-pupil school aid, a group in the House was pushing a plan to let individuals choose a “flat” income tax rate option. In other words, figure your taxes under the current rate structure, then compare it to the flat rate, and choose which one costs you less.

It benefits primarily the wealthy, and it costs big money. There is no upside.

We have seen such a proposal in the past, and we are virtually guaranteed to see it again in some form in 2016. Not only does it compound fairness issues in Iowa’s tax structure, but it loses hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, year after year, that Iowa legislators and the Governor have been telling us we cannot afford to lose.

Its supporters cannot avoid that contradiction, given their obsession this year about not letting a surplus — and a sustained one at that — be used for “ongoing” or “recurring” expenses on grounds they were not “sustainable.” Those are the grounds for the Governor’s vetoes of one-time funds for local schools, community colleges and state universities.

For good analysis of the 2015 alternative flat-tax proposal, which was not presented on the House floor as some of these messaging contradictions quickly became clear, see this Iowa Fiscal Partnership backgrounder by Peter Fisher. As Fisher noted, the projected revenue loss was projected at nearly half a billion dollars — $482 million — for the new fiscal year and around $400 million for each of the next three.

In short, the flat-tax idea is not “sustainable.” No need to discuss in the 2016 session.

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

Ongoing mistake in ‘one-time’ rhetoric

Posted July 8th, 2015 to Blog

The Governor appears to be missing his own point.

Vetoing one-time funding for one-time uses — as Governor Branstad did last week — goes against what the Governor himself has been saying. And Iowa students will suffer for it.

Set aside for a moment that it can be quite sensible to use one-time funds for ongoing expenses. It depends on the circumstances. Set aside the fact that Iowa revenues and projections are strong and that state money seems to be available on an ongoing basis for corporate subsidies if not for restoring repeated shortfalls in education funding.

In the case at hand, the Governor vetoed one-time funds — for public schools, community colleges and the three regents universities — that ironically would have been spent in line with his own stated concern. The $55.7 million in one-time funds for local schools and area education agencies would have supplemented regular funding, set at 1.25 percent growth per pupil, all part of a package negotiated by the split-control Legislature.

Here’s the oft-stated concern about one-time funds, in a nutshell: You don’t spend one-time money on things that commit you to the same or greater spending in the future, because you don’t know whether the funds will be there later on.

The compromise on school funding negotiated and passed by legislators (part of HF666) reflected that concern:

  • For K-12 schools, the legislation specifies that funds “are intended to supplement, not supplant, existing school district funding for instructional expenditures.” It goes on to define “instructional expenditures” in such a way that assures the funds are for one-time uses that carry no additional commitment beyond the FY2016 budget year.

So, you can add to one-time expenses that you would have had to leave out, for purposes such as textbooks, library books, other instructional materials, transportation costs or educational initiatives to increase academic achievement. You can’t plan on having the same funds available in the following budget year.

  • For community colleges and the regents, each section of the bill included this stipulation: “Moneys appropriated in this section shall be used for purposes of nonrecurring expenses and not for operational purposes or ongoing expenses. For purposes of this section, ‘operational purposes’ means salary, support, administrative expenses, or other personnel-related costs.”

In his veto message, the Governor stated, “Funding ongoing expenses with one-time money is unsustainable.” In neither case did the Legislature propose doing so.

The larger problem with one-time funding is that such a cautious approach was unnecessary, because funds are available for more ongoing spending on education than what either the Governor or the House leadership permitted. The latest estimates are for 6 percent revenue growth in the coming year.

With or without the one-time funds that would have helped school districts, the legislative compromise ensures the continued erosion of the basic building block for school budgets, the per-pupil cost.

150602-AG-history
Supplemental State Aid (formerly termed “allowable growth) defines the percentage growth in the cost per pupil used to determine local school district budgets, which are based on enrollment. For FY2016, the Legislature and Governor have set the growth figure at 1.25 percent. Though state law requires this figure to be set about 16 months before the start of the fiscal year, the issue was not resolved until last week, when the Governor signed the legislation, and the fiscal year had already begun. The Senate passed 4 percent growth for FY2017 and the House 2 percent, but no compromise emerged and that remains unsettled. The education funding vetoed last week by the Governor affects separate one-time spending that would not have affected future budgets.

For the last six budget years, per-pupil budget growth has been above 2 percent only once. Once it was zero, and schools for the coming year are at 1.25 percent. This does not come close to meeting the costs of education at the same level year after year.

Ultimately, that is the test of what is, or is not, sustainable.

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

 

See the Iowa Fiscal Partnership statement from July 2

Veto words ‘ring hollow’

‘Governor Branstad’s words ring hollow in his decisions to cut education funding and to prevent greater access to child care assistance.’

IOWA CITY, Iowa (July 2, 2015) — The Iowa Fiscal Partnership released this statement from Mike Owen, executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project, about actions taken late today by Governor Branstad on school funding and legislation that would have expanded eligibility for child care assistance:

 
Governor Branstad’s words ring hollow in his decisions to cut education funding and to prevent greater access to child care assistance.
 
First, the Governor is whacking $55.7 million in one-time funding for local schools and area education agencies from a budget compromise reached over many months by legislators. To defend this and other vetoes, the Governor speaks of concern about across-the-board cuts, when there is no threat of that possibility. These one-time funds for education were designated for one-time uses — in deference to the Governor’s previously stated concerns. The veto leaves schools with only 1.25 percent growth in the cost per pupil for the new fiscal year, well below schools’ actual costs — a legislative decision that will drive up property taxes for many districts. Neither the Governor nor the Legislature can claim accurately that they have provided sufficient funds for Iowa’s public schools, and the conclusion to this question comes 16 months past the legal deadline.
 
Second, low- and moderate-income Iowans face severe “cliff effects” — a sharp loss of resources — when their income rises enough to end their eligibility for child care assistance. A vetoed provision of SF505 would have lessened this effect for an estimated 200 families and nearly 600 children each month. These families, whose incomes are just below 150 percent of the federal poverty level (about $36,400 for a family of four), would have become eligible for child care assistance. This would have been a small but significant first step toward reducing the cliff effect. The Governor talks about increased incomes, but his veto means families will not be able to accept or seek small pay increases if it means they could no longer afford child care. The Governor’s claim that an improvement would “perpetuate” the cliff effect is to totally misunderstand the impact of this important benefit for low-income working families. Child care costs are not going down, and incomes are not rising fast enough for families to recover.
 
These issues are only two pieces of the package of decisions announced at the end of the day by the Governor’s Office. There will be more for Iowans to consider as the Governor’s decisions are reviewed more fully.

 

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership is a joint public policy analysis initiative of two nonpartisan, nonprofit Iowa-based organizations, the Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City, and the Child & Family Policy Center in Des Moines. For more on the issues raised in this statement, see the IFP website at www.iowafiscal.org.

More for Millionaires, Part II

Posted April 20th, 2015 to Budget, Equity and Fairness, Income Taxes, Taxes

Flat-Tax Option Grants Most of Benefit to Minority of Iowa Taxpayers — Plus Out-of-State Millionaires

PDF (2 pages)

Department of Revenue estimate — tax plan choices
Department of Revenue estimate — tax plan benefit differences

By Peter S. Fisher

The optional flat tax bill recently introduced in the Iowa House would give $26.5 million in tax cuts to people living outside the state, including almost 5,000 non-resident millionaires. The remaining $346.6 million in tax cuts for Tax Year 2015 would go to Iowa residents, but nearly two-thirds of that would go to the 1-in-8 taxpayers making $100,000 or more.

The bill does not cut income taxes for everyone. It provides an optional way of calculating tax, so that taxpayers would need to compute their taxes two different ways to determine which was better. The flat option is more likely to be advantageous for those over $100,000 per year. The Department of Revenue estimates about 54 percent of those taxpayers would choose the flat tax.

For the vast majority of taxpayers making less than $100,000, however, at most 35 percent would benefit from the flat tax option. Because the flat option does not allow any tax credits, lower income households using the Earned Income Tax Credit or other refundable credits would be unlikely to benefit from the flat tax, and certainly would not if they now receive a refund because of a credit.

Table 1 shows the number and percent of Iowa resident taxpayers choosing the flat option vs. the current system. For example, 61.5 percent of taxpayers earning $40,000 to $100,000 per year stick with the current system because the flat option would cost more; they would get no benefit. The remaining 38.5 percent of taxpayers in that income bracket would choose the flat tax and receive on average a $549 cut.

Table 1. Iowa Residents: Minority Benefit from Flat Tax Option

150417-T1

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Tables 2A, 2B, 5A and 5B, for residents vs. non-residents, for tax year 2015, provided by the Iowa Department of Revenue upon request, March 31 and April 2, 2015.

While 858,000 Iowa resident taxpayers making under $200,000 a year (and representing 61 percent of all Iowa resident taxpayers) would see no tax reduction under this bill, a handful of Iowa millionaires would choose the flat option and gain an average of $26,798 each.

150418-TaxCutHF604

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

150418-Graph2-flattax

 

    

 

 

 

Keeping Ahead of the Kansans

Posted April 9th, 2015 to Blog

As state legislators consider drastic cuts in Iowa’s income tax, they would do well to consider the experience of our neighbor Kansas, which enacted a huge income tax cut in 2012, and cut taxes again in 2013. These cuts have dramatically reduced state funding for schools, health care, and other services.

It is instructive to consider as well the experience in Wisconsin, where a large personal income tax cut took effect at the start of 2013, with similar results: subsequent job growth of 3.4 percent, farther below the norm than Kansas’ 3.5 percent from the implementation of its tax cuts.

None of this should come as a surprise. Most major academic research studies have concluded that individual income tax cuts do not boost state economic growth; in fact, states that cut income taxes the most in the 1990s or in the early 2000s had slower growth in jobs and income than other states.

Businesses need an educated workforce, and drastic cuts to education are likely to make it difficult to attract new workers, who care about their children’s schools at least as much as they care about taxes.

2010-PFw5464Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director, Iowa Policy Project

See Fisher’s Iowa Fiscal Partnership Policy Snapshot on this issue.

 

Basic RGB


Keeping Ahead of the Kansans

Posted April 9th, 2015 to Blog

As state legislators consider drastic cuts in Iowa’s income tax, they would do well to consider the experience of our neighbor Kansas, which enacted a huge income tax cut in 2012, and cut taxes again in 2013. These cuts have dramatically reduced state funding for schools, health care, and other services.

It is instructive to consider as well the experience in Wisconsin, where a large personal income tax cut took effect at the start of 2013, with similar results: subsequent job growth of 3.4 percent, farther below the norm than Kansas’ 3.5 percent from the implementation of its tax cuts.

None of this should come as a surprise. Most major academic research studies have concluded that individual income tax cuts do not boost state economic growth; in fact, states that cut income taxes the most in the 1990s or in the early 2000s had slower growth in jobs and income than other states.

Businesses need an educated workforce, and drastic cuts to education are likely to make it difficult to attract new workers, who care about their children’s schools at least as much as they care about taxes.

2010-PFw5464Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director, Iowa Policy Project

See Fisher’s Iowa Fiscal Partnership Policy Snapshot on this issue.

 


More Millions for Millionaires

IFP POLICY BRIEF /

Flat-Tax Option Showers Benefits at High Incomes — Services Face New Cuts

2-page PDF

 

By Peter S. Fisher

Tax legislation pending in the Iowa House would shower most benefits on higher income Iowans, while reducing revenues by over half a billion dollars.

Already for the coming fiscal year, $277 million — two-thirds of the increased revenue to the general fund — is going to be funneled to commercial and industrial property tax relief. This will leave the state short of funds to adequately finance education and other services, before the new legislation would strip the general fund of another $482 million.

House File 604 would give taxpayers a choice each year: File income taxes using current law, or a new flat rate option. Under the flat rate option, the tax is 5 percent of all “base income,” where that is defined more broadly than current taxable income (no deduction for federal taxes), but allows the deduction of all federal interest, all retirement income, and a larger standard deduction.

Higher income Iowans would benefit most — Iowa tax filers with adjusted gross income of $40,000 or less (representing over half of all taxpayers) get just 6 percent of the $373 million in tax cuts for tax year 2015 under this bill, for an average of just $30 savings per tax filer (see Table 1).[i] Nearly two-thirds of the $373 million goes to those with income of $100,000 or more, representing just 1 in 6 taxpayers. Of that group, Iowa’s millionaires — representing just four-tenths of 1 percent of taxpayers — get 10 percent of the total benefit, or $5,463 each.

Table 1. Tax Savings from HF604 Flow Mostly to High Income Iowans

Basic RGB

Source: Letter from the Iowa Department of Revenue to Jeff Robinson, Legislative Services Agency, March 26, 2015. Note: This table omits $11.5 million in tax benefits for 2,542 composite returns with unknown AGI. This amount is part of the $373 million total tax reduction.

Basic RGB

Iowa’s millionaires get 183 times the average benefit of those under $40,000 in income (Figure 1). Those with $1 million or more income get on average a 15 percent tax cut; other taxpayers average 11 percent.

None of this should be surprising given provisions in the bill. Key points:

  • The flat tax option cuts the top rate — which applies to income over $69,225 — by 44 percent.
  • The tax rate on taxable incomes below $13,851, now between 0.36 percent and 4.5 percent, would actually be higher under the flat tax.
  • While the flat tax option does eliminate the deductions for federal taxes, itemized deductions, and Iowa capital gains (features of the current tax that benefit primarily higher income taxpayers), it also eliminates all taxes on pension income.

Since current law already exempts all of Social Security benefits and the first $6,000 per person of pension income, eliminating the rest of the tax on pensions primarily benefits higher income seniors. The flat tax option also eliminates all tax credits, some of which (such as the Child and Dependent Care Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit) are worth more to lower income taxpayers.

Moving to a flat tax does nothing for tax simplification. Claims to the contrary are entirely disingenuous. The bill does not substitute a simpler tax for the current calculation; it offers taxpayers the option of filing under the current system or the alternative flat tax. Thus taxpayers will have to figure their tax both ways to determine which one works to their advantage. This additional complication also increases the cost of tax administration by an estimated $796,000.[ii]

The bill will almost certainly cost the state’s general fund more than the estimates provided in the Department of Revenue tables. As the DOR points out, giving taxpayers an option provides an opportunity for taxpayers to game the system by filing under the current law one year and the flat option the next. For example, a taxpayer could have extra federal tax withheld during 2015 and then file Iowa income tax for 2015 under current law, deducting all those extra federal taxes and reducing Iowa tax. In April 2016 the taxpayer receives a large federal refund because of overpaying for 2015. But the taxpayer files Iowa tax for 2016 using the flat rate option and so does not have to add the refund to Iowa taxable income as would be required under current law. The entire amount of the federal refund, deliberately inflated by the taxpayer, thus represents Iowa income that should be taxable but escapes Iowa income tax entirely. The DOR had no way of knowing the extent of such gaming and so could not include its effects in its revenue estimates.

In sum, the flat tax bill is a very expensive effort to sharply cut taxes, mostly for upper income Iowans, and especially for millionaires. It would put a large hole in state finances for years to come, undermining the state’s ability to maintain a quality education system.


[i] The $373 million is the amount for tax year 2015 — that is, the reduction in taxes owed for income received during calendar 2015 on tax returns filed by April 2016. The Department of Revenue has translated tax year losses into fiscal year losses. The reduction for FY2015 is estimated at $482 million, then settles down to around $400 million for each of the next three fiscal years.

[ii] Letter from the Iowa Department of Revenue to Jeff Robinson, Legislative Services Agency, March 26, 2015.

Note: This Policy Brief, originally circulated March 25, 2015, was revised March 26 with new estimates from the Department of Revenue, which previously had estimated a larger benefit than shown here to filers with adjusted gross income greater than $1 million.

2010-PFw5464Peter S. Fisher is research director of the Iowa Policy Project, which together with the Child & Family Policy Center formed the Iowa Fiscal Partnership, a nonpartisan initiative focused on helping Iowans to understand the impacts of budget choices and other public policy issues on Iowa families and services. IFP reports are at www.iowafiscal.org.

Iowa’s Problem of Priorities

IFP BACKGROUNDER / 
Costly Business Property Tax Cut Excessive — Hurts Family, Kids’ Services 

2-page PDF 

Tax cuts have consequences. In the case of the massive commercial property tax cut enacted two years ago, those consequences have become all too real.

Iowa’s economy continues to rebound and state revenues are projected to rise nearly 5 percent next year, yet we find ourselves struggling to finance our most important basic services, like education. Why? Because we are giving away most of the increased revenue to commercial property owners, with no public benefit to show for it.

The commercial property tax cut will result in an estimated $277 million hit to the state budget next fiscal year, more than double this year’s cost as provisions phase in.[1] This means that the property tax cuts will consume 68 percent of the estimated $408 million in increased state revenue.[2] The small amount remaining is far too little to cover even the normal increases in the cost of providing public services due to inflation.

While the legislation has been sold as a general property tax cut, only 11 percent of the property tax reductions will flow to residential and agricultural property owners next year.[3] The rest goes to owners of commercial property, apartment buildings, industrial facilities, railroads and utilities.

The legislation has two major provisions. A Business Property Tax Credit is entirely state funded and is of more benefit to owners of small properties, since the maximum value of the credit represents a larger share of their taxes. The most costly provision reduces the assessed value of commercial and industrial property to 90 percent of actual value, with the state reimbursing localities for the resulting revenue lost.[4] This provision lavishes the majority of its benefits on large property owners.

About $5 million will flow next year to the 11 largest big-box retailers, none of them Iowa companies.[5] While this is real money flowing out of the Iowa treasury, a few hundred thousand a year to the likes of Wal-Mart or Target is of little import to them, and will have no effect on their decisions to build in Iowa, which are driven by the size of the consumer market here. There was never a case for commercial tax reductions; overall business tax levels in Iowa for a long time have been below the national average — a point you rarely hear, and never from the business lobby.[6]

What exactly are the consequences?

The cost of running schools will keep rising faster than state aid, resulting in layoffs, increased class sizes, program reductions, and more years of outdated textbooks.

The Governor’s budget proposes sizable cuts to state health care programs and requires state agencies to finance salary increases by reducing staff, thus reducing state services.

Once again we will not expand the state’s preschool program for 4-year-olds, a measure that has been shown to be an effective economic development tool yet fails to help many low-wage workers needing full-time preschool.

Our child care assistance program, with one of the lowest income cutoffs in the country, will keep penalizing families for earning more. Bi-partisan support for funding to improve water quality and expand access to mental health care will likely be for naught.

We have a problem of priorities. We keep underfunding services for average Iowa families — education, health, work supports, natural resources — in order to finance massive tax reductions to businesses that don’t need it. And we spend in excess of $350 million each year on business tax credits that continue on autopilot, with no sunset, despite the state’s own analyses that fail to find evidence of appreciable benefit to the state from some of the largest of these subsidies.[7] 

It is time to admit that the tax cuts enacted in 2013 were excessive, and are causing long term damage to the state. At the very least, the $50 million increase in the business property tax credit portion of those tax cuts scheduled for next year should be delayed or eliminated.

But that is not enough. There should be a moratorium on any further tax cuts or tax credits. All business tax credits should be subject to effective caps and sunsets to force a serious evaluation.

Without such measures, we will continue down the road of tax-cutting our way to mediocrity and shortchanging our children’s future. 

                      

2010-PFw5464A shorter version of this piece appeared as a guest opinion by Peter Fisher, Research Director of the Iowa Policy Project, in The Des Moines Register on March 6, 2015. This version has been updated to reflect March estimates by Iowa’s Revenue Estimating Conference. (See endnote 2)

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership is a joint public policy analysis initiative of two nonpartisan, nonprofit Iowa-based organizations, the Iowa Policy Project and the Child & Family Policy Center. Reports are at www.iowafiscal.org.




[1] The Legislative Service Agency projects that general fund appropriations resulting from the property tax legislation will total $277.1 million for FY2016: $162 million to replace local revenue lost because the bill reduced commercial and industrial assessments to 90 percent of actual value, $14.9 million in state foundation aid to schools triggered by the reduction in assessed value, and $100 million for the business property tax credit. LSA, Fiscal Services Division, Summary of FY 2016 Budget andDepartment Requests, December 8, 2014, page 53. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LADR/435197.pdf

[2] The $408 million represents the increase in state’s net receipts plus transfers, according to the Revenue Estimating Conference, March 19, 2015. The increased revenue was estimated at $338 million in December. However, the larger increase comes about not because the March revenue estimates for FY2016 are higher (they are actually a little lower) but because the revenue estimate for the current fiscal year dropped $90 million. Thus while the increase looks bigger it is a result of a worse fiscal situation for the state. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/BL/656455.pdf

[3] Legislative Services Agency, Fiscal Note on SF 295, May 22, 2013. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/FiscalNotes/85_1464SVv2_FN.pdf

[4] The state promised to reimburse these losses fully only through FY 2017; after that, local governments will be on the hook for an increasing portion of the lost revenue. In addition, the state is not reimbursing localities for any of the revenue lost from a third provision that reduces the assessed value of residential rental property.

[5]Estimate based on January 2012 taxable values and the statewide average property tax rate on commercial property of 3.77 percent for FY2015.  The 11, in order by 2012 valuation statewide and with the location of the corporate headquarters, are Wal-Mart (AR), Target (MN), Menard’s (WI), Lowe’s (NC), Walgreen’s (IL), Kohl’s (WI), Younkers (PA), Home Depot (GA), K-Mart (IL), Best Buy (MN), and Sears (IL). The 11 had $1.33 billion in taxable valuation, so that the reduction to 90 percent for January 2014 values amounts to $133 million, assuming valuations before the reduction remained about the same.

[6] Iowa: Where Business Taxes are Low. Iowa Fiscal Partnership, March 5, 2014.  http://www.iowafiscal.org/iowa-where-business-taxes-are-low/

[7] Iowa Department of Revenue, Contingent Liabilities Report, December 2014 https://tax.iowa.gov/sites/files/idr/Contingent%20Liabilities%20Report%201214.pdf. For evaluations of tax credits by the Iowa Department of Revenue see https://tax.iowa.gov/report/Evaluations?combine=Study; also of note is the State of Iowa Tax Credit Review Report, prepared by the Governor’s Tax Credit Review Committee, January, 2010. http://www.dom.state.ia.us/tax_credit_review/files/TaxCreditStudyReviewReportFINAL1_8_2010.pdf

Start with ‘zero’ on credits

Posted March 11th, 2015 to Blog

It was​ fascinating Tuesday to see Iowa lawmakers talking about zero-based budgeting — starting every budget from scratch — when they have refused to do the same with tax credits.

Spending on tax credits — including millions to companies that don’t pay any state income tax — just keeps going on and on.

And on.

And on.

Companies basically get to appropriate state money to themselves. Quite a deal if you can get it.

If the state were to sunset business tax credits, as recommended in 2010 by a special governor-appointed Tax Credit Review Panel, lawmakers could review each one and decide which are actually producing a public benefit, whether any of them are money well spent. If so, they could renew the credit. If not, we could put our resources where they make more sense for all Iowans.

Maybe a part-time legislature could start with a zero base on tax credits before we talk about it for an entire state budget.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, executive director of the Iowa Policy Project