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

Posts tagged Iowa Fiscal Partnership

No taxes, big checks

Iowa has choices: Keep giving millions to companies that don’t pay Iowa state income tax — OR add 1 percent in school aid.

Basic RGB

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MONDAY, FEB. 15, 2016

Big companies erase taxes — take millions in state checks

Research Credit annual report shows big companies keep gaining

IOWA CITY, Iowa (Feb. 15, 2016) — A lucrative tax subsidy is providing as much in checks to companies that don’t pay income tax as the state could use to pay for 1 percent in state aid to schools.

A new annual report from the Department of Revenue outlines the use of the Research Activities Credit (RAC), which in 2015 provided $42.1 million — about the cost of an additional percentage point in school aid — to companies that paid no state income tax. Most of that went to very large companies.

The state report, released Monday, shows that in 2015:

  • Claims by 248 companies totaled $50.1 million for the RAC and the related supplemental RAC for which some claimants are eligible.
  • Of those, 186 (75 percent) are companies that not only owed no state corporate income tax after applying the credit, but received state checks in return.
  • Eighty-four percent of the tax credits were paid as checks to the companies.
  • Very large claimants — companies with over $500,000 in RAC claims — had at least 85 percent of those checks ($35.8 million) while paying no income tax.
  • Rockwell Collins, Dupont, Deere & Co., John Deere Construction and Monsanto were the largest corporate claimants, as they have been for the past six years. Together, those five companies have claimed nearly $218 million from the RAC program from 2010-15. (See table below.)

“This spending outside the budget process is distorting the choices now on the table as state lawmakers consider what is available for schools, clean water, human services and public safety,” said Mike Owen, executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.

“Is it a better use of taxpayers’ money to send millions in checks to profitable companies to do research they would do anyway, or to make sure schools can hire enough teachers next fall? That is the question that should be raised by this automatic spending on business tax breaks. To ignore it is a fiscal scandal.”

Overall, the credit program cost $57.1 million in calendar year 2015, with $50.1 million of that in claims by corporations and the rest by individuals. The credit is refundable, which means that if a company has more tax credits available than it owes in taxes, the state makes a payment for the difference. These so-called “refunds” — not of taxes owed but of credits in excess of taxes owed — accounted for 84 percent of all of the corporate research credits in 2015, according to the new report from the Department of Revenue.

The report is available on the Department of Revenue website at https://tax.iowa.gov/sites/files/idr/RAC Annual Report 2015.pdf

The Iowa Fiscal Partnership (IFP), a joint initiative of the Iowa Policy Project and another nonpartisan organization, the Child & Family Policy Center in Des Moines, has reported on the RAC for many years.

Owen noted that Iowans have access to more information about this credit than they did years ago because of the annual report, which was ordered by the Legislature in 2009.

All of the state annual reports on the RAC are available on the Iowa Department of Revenue website at https://tax.iowa.gov/report/Reports?combine=Research%20Activities.

Those reports show that the number of corporate claimants has grown from 160 in 2010, the first full year covered by the annual reports, to 248 in both 2014 and 2015. The number of claimants receiving the credit as checks, rather than to only erase tax liability, rose from 133 in 2010 to 181 in 2014 and 186 in 2015.

160215-RAC-claimsvchecks-sm 

Basic RGBAn IFP report last month showed that Department of Revenue forecasts indicate business tax breaks will grow by 13 percent from this budget year to the next, even though the debate over school aid focuses on numbers between 2 percent and 4 percent.

According to the Iowa Association of School Boards, each percentage point increase in Supplemental State Aid (SSA), costs about $41 million to $43 million.

“There is at least a legitimate question, one that lawmakers are refusing to consider, of why large, profitable corporations do not have to defend these millions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies, when teachers and children’s advocates are going hat in hand to the Capitol for enough to keep up with basic costs,” Owen said.

A special tax credit review panel recommended in 2010 that the state curtail some spending on business tax credits. Among its proposals were to scale back “refunds” of the research credit, and to impose a five-year sunset on all tax credits to assure that the Legislature would have to vote to continue them.

Basic RGB

For more information about the Research Activities Credit and other Iowa tax credit issues, see the Iowa Fiscal Partnership website at www.iowafiscal.org.

#     #     #     #     #

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.

Building blocks of inequity

Posted February 10th, 2016 to Blog

Iowa’s school funding process is broken.

Consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic RGB

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

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

 

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

State aid up 13 percent — for business breaks

Posted January 28th, 2016 to Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic RGB

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

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

160108-IFP-Budget-Fig2FB

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 


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