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

Posts tagged Organization

Why, again, would it make sense to cut SNAP?

Posted September 17th, 2013 to Blog
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives will be considering severe cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. Already, SNAP benefits are scheduled to be cut in November because Recovery Act improvements will expire. Any discussion among Iowans about even more SNAP cuts should not miss this context:

Food security remains a serious challenge. In Iowa, the latest report from USDA suggests this has risen by almost one-third in the last decade, from 9.1 percent in 2000-02 to 12.6 percent in 2010-12. (three-year averages) The increase is even greater proportionally for families in more severe situations. See this information from the Iowa Fiscal Partnership.

SNAP use certainly has risen in the last several years — just as it was supposed to in tough times. We have not fully recovered from the Great Recession, but things are getting better and SNAP use will level off and decline as we recover. CBO predicts SNAP spending nationally to fall to 1995 levels by 2019. See this report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

SNAP is only a supplemental benefit, but a critical one even at only about $1.25 per meal per person in Iowa. We show the share of Iowans who benefit from SNAP, by county and by congressional district, in maps on our Facebook page  (compiled from Iowa Department of Human Services reports and U.S. Census data). By the numbers, here is the share of the population in each Iowa congressional district receiving food assistance in July:

1st District — 12.3 percent; about 94,000 people.
2nd District — 15.8 percent; about 121,000 people.
3rd District — 14.7 percent, about 115,000 people.
4th District — 12 percent, about 91,000 people.
Here’s the county-by-county look (note, the golder and greener a county, the greater percentage of the population receives food assistance):
CI-MapTemplate

The House bill would end categorical eligibility, which permits states to provide access to SNAP benefits for families just above the SNAP earnings limit of 130 percent of poverty. Iowa in 2008 used this option to expand gross income eligibility to 160 percent of poverty. An Iowa Fiscal Partnership policy brief last November noted this is particularly important for low-income working families with children, particularly when child care takes such a big bite out of their budgets.

SNAP is a work support. Contrary to the claims of detractors, SNAP is one of those benefits that enable people to take jobs they otherwise would not be able to accept. When we have an economy that is producing jobs that pay below what is needed to get by, these work support programs are critical. We have illustrated the issues there with our Cost of Living in Iowa research, where we have demonstrated that even at median wage, many Iowa families would not get by were it not for work support programs.
Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director

Hyperbole Alert: The drumbeat to cut corporate taxes in Iowa

Posted July 24th, 2013 to Blog
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

TWELVE PERCENT!

The figure practically screams at you, even when it’s not in all caps, when the conversation comes to corporate tax rates in Iowa.

Here’s the thing: It’s not a real number. Not really.

That is what is known as Iowa’s “top marginal rate” on corporate income tax. And it’s not a real number because it simply does not — cannot — reflect what a business pays on all its profits. Yet that is the implication when people (especially politicians) or corporations complain about it.

A top Iowa columnist, Todd Dorman of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, this week discussed the political battles over Iowa’s latest gigantic subsidies to Egyptian fertilizer company Orascom. In his piece he expressed a note of concern about the hyperbole in those battles. Then, he turned the discussion to Governor Branstad’s desire for cuts in corporate income taxes.

It is in that discussion where the hyperbole typically has been the strongest in Iowa. We are often told — as Dorman noted — that Iowa’s top corporate income tax rate is the nation’s highest. Note the emphasis added on “top.” More on that in a moment. Dorman also noted, accurately, that Iowa “has four brackets and a tangle of special interest credits.”

Because of the latter, any serious concern for our corporate friends should evaporate. Because they’re really being taken care of quite nicely, thank you, by their friends in the General Assembly and the Governor’s Office.

Now, about that “top rate.” It applies only to Iowa-taxable corporate profits above $250,000. Iowa doesn’t tax any profits from sales outside the state, so the rate doesn’t apply at all there, which for many businesses is a significant share of profits. For all taxable profits below $250,000, rates are lower — 6 percent on the first $25,000, 8 percent on the next $75,000 and 10 percent on the next $150,000.

Before these rates kick in, the business gets to deduct half its federal income tax from taxable income, and may have other deductions or ways to shelter income from state tax.

Then, after the rates are computed and the taxes determined, the tax credits enter the picture — and state revenues exit. The state just expanded the potential for those credits by $50 million, raising the cap on a select group of credits. In the case of the Research Activities Credit, these credits not only erase all tax liability, but offer state checks for the remaining amount of the credit. Through that program in 2012, Iowa paid out almost $33 million to 130 firms that paid no income tax, because those companies had more credits than tax liability.

And you can bet the corporate execs and their accountants fully understand all these nooks and crannies in our tax code. But if you want to give them a free million or so, they’ll take it. They are smart folks, and they have proven themselves to be more skilled negotiators than Iowa’s economic development moguls.

Want to talk reform? Then recognize the real problems — that we receive less in corporate tax than we used to, and that a lot of corporate tax is not collected because of the swiss-cheese nature of our tax code. That gives us all something to talk about.

Just be ready for the hyperbole from those who don’t want to change that part of our system.

Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director


For more information about Iowa business taxes, see these Iowa Fiscal Partnership reports:
— “Reducing Iowa Commercial Property Taxes,” by Heather Milway and Peter Fisher, April 24, 2013.
— “Amid Plans to Relax Limits, Business Tax Credits Grow,” by Heather Gibney, April 16, 2013.
— “Corporate Taxes and State Economic Growth,” by Peter Fisher, revised April 2013.
— “A $40 Million Budget Hole: Persistent and Growing,” IFP backgrounder, February 25, 2013.
— “Tax Credit Reform Glass Half-Full? Maybe Some Moisture,” IFP backgrounder, revised March 23, 2010.
— “Single Factor to Consider,” IFP backgrounder, April 2, 2008.


We promise: We won’t cook burgers

Posted July 18th, 2013 to Blog
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

So, McDonald’s and VISA have teamed up to tell low-wage workers how to make ends meet.

We have a proposal for McDonald’s and VISA: Leave economic and policy analysis to us, and we won’t compete with you on burgers and debt.

The McDonald’s/VISA plan is ironic on two fronts.

First, McDonald’s is an example of a low-wage employer — the folks who have profited mightily while their employees have not. In fact, the McDonald’s/VISA plan expects the worker to have two jobs, to make ends meet on an unrealistically low budget and have money left over — “spending money,” the plan happily calls it. That “spending money” would have to cover all food, among other things.

As Iowa Policy Project research has shown, the cost-of-living assumptions by McDonald’s are too low. A bare-bones budget for a single person in Iowa with no kids is just over $20,100 (2011 figures), requiring a job that pays about $24,000 before taxes. It assumes absolutely nothing for eating out (even at McDonald’s), let alone saving for school or retirement.

Second, McDonald’s/VISA doesn’t assume any cost of consumer credit for debt incurred, other than a car payment. VISA depends upon low- and middle-income folks taking on debt and seeing it pile up. Sometimes it’s consumer debt, but debt also can come from health-care out-of-pocket costs when your budget is on the edge. This is a very real cost for low- and middle-income families, and it can be made even worse with predatory lending practices that are dealt with feebly by state and federal lawmakers.

McDonald’s/VISA’s tortured compilation of expenses, it should be noted, comes fairly close to the one-person, total basic-needs budget we computed for 2011 — but a single person without kids would not come close to making that total budget by following the McDonald’s/VISA plan. Add child-related expenses, and — whoa! — there’s a fire in the kitchen!

McDonald’s and VISA also include some handy money-saving tips in their brochure to help low-wage workers get by, like riding your bike to work. How about these tips for saving money: Don’t eat out, and tear up your VISA card.

Click here to see how our researchers — Peter Fisher, Lily French and Noga O’Connor — came up with our numbers. Setting money aside for savings? Not possible. Health insurance at $20 a month? Actual insurance and out-of-pocket costs are far greater. The idea of having “spending money” left over? Laughable at best.

From “The Cost of Living in Iowa,” on IPP website

From “The Cost of Living in Iowa,” on IPP website

But none of this is funny. It illustrates that in the real world, choices for working people in Iowa are often about how to make ends meet when income falls short. And that is the situation for about three-fourths of single-parent families and about 23 percent of all families in our state.

Instead of assuring better ways to boost income, including a higher minimum wage, much of the public policy discussion is focused on cutting back supports such as food and energy assistance, not to mention Social Security, and holding down child-care assistance. We don’t seem to recognize the need for a living wage, however that may be computed. In the end, are we even willing to support a low-wage economy?

Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director


Why SNAP matters: Wages aren’t always enough

Posted July 11th, 2013 to Blog
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

It’s really quite amazing what kind of arguments people will use to beat up poor people.

Such an example is in the comments section of a story in today’s Des Moines Register about the debate over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, commonly known as Food Stamps.

One writer, in playing to SNAP opponents, is pushing the idea that two full-time jobs at minimum wage lift a family above poverty according to the current administration. In that case, the writer implies, food assistance isn’t needed.

Let’s take a look at the actual numbers and what they mean. It’s not heavy lifting.

Actually the federal poverty guidelines as established have been consistent — and consistently faulty — through several administrations. They are seriously outdated and underestimate what is necessary to make ends meet.

The official poverty level for a family of four in 2013 is $23,550. Does anyone seriously believe a family of four can make it on that kind of income? Rent, food, clothing, utilities — the basics of just getting by — cost more than that in real life.

The Iowa Policy Project has looked at this issue and is constantly updating a more reliable estimate of what it costs to get by — our report, “The Cost of Living in Iowa,” is available on our website with county-by-county numbers that reflect this cost for varying family sizes.

You can quickly see how two minimum-wage jobs don’t get the job done.

A bare-bones family budget for a four-person family in the Des Moines area is — conservatively — $37,886 for one working parent. (Table below). That assumes $3,157 per month for clothing, household expenses, food, health care, rent and utilities, and transportation. If a second parent works you add more transportation costs, plus child care, which becomes the second-largest expense.

Next, figure in taxes — yes, they pay taxes, and a lot as a share of their income — and you get what it takes for a family just to get by. So, this absolutely no-frills budget, with no savings for school or a home or retirement, not even burgers at McDonald’s, rings up at $39,122 before taxes for one working parent, $58,520 for two.

120523-app-04-dm-w

And that means jobs that pay $14.63 an hour for each working parent, or $19.56 if one works.

Yet, at the $7.25 minimum wage, two jobs would pay $30,160. So much for the argument that two minimum-wage jobs per family solve poverty.

This helps to show why the meager Food Stamp benefit of about $1.25 per person per meal is such an important support for Iowa’s low-income working families. But while we’re at it, we could start talking about a higher minimum wage. Another day, perhaps.

Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director


Asleep at the Switch in Iowa

Posted July 9th, 2013 to Blog
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

Expedia, Orbitz and Priceline have caught us sleeping in Iowa.

Closing a loophole that lets those big online travel companies collect taxes on only part of sales taxes due on hotel room bookings is just one of four measures Iowa could take to lessen the drain of funds from state coffers before they are even collected.

A new paper by Michael Leachman and Michael Mazerov at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes the four options for states. Iowa is one of only 12 states that has failed to take any of those steps. Besides correcting the problem with revenue lost from hotel bookings, CBPP recommends:

  • Broadening the tax base to include more services. While Iowa has a fairly broad base subject to sales tax, there are many exceptions to the state’s sales tax that have been successfully achieved by the business lobby. In general terms, CBPP notes that household spending has been shifting from goods to services for decades, yet most states haven’t updated their sales taxes to reflect this fact, costing states tens of billions of dollars each year.
  • Enacting an “Amazon law” to require large online retailers to collect sales taxes. Purchases made through large online retailers such as Amazon or Overstock are subject to sales tax, but retailers aren’t required to collect them in Iowa and 33 other states, at a cost of over $20 billion a year. This puts Main Street businesses in Iowa at a price disadvantage vs. those multistate operations selling the same book, boots, chain saw or prom dress that caught an Iowa consumer’s eye.
  • Extending the sales tax to Internet downloads. As with the Amazon loophole, the sale of computer software, music, movies, and various other goods delivered on the Internet are not taxed in 23 states including Iowa — even though those states tax the same items when sold in physical stores. Lost revenue: roughly $300 million a year.

The CBPP paper is a good look at an issue Iowa lawmakers have been reluctant to address.

This is one more way research has exposed that Iowa is permitting businesses to take advantage of its residents, by pushing the costs of public services onto other taxpayers, or damming the state’s revenue stream to block funds from flowing to the state. The Iowa Fiscal Partnership already has shown how big multistate corporations avoid corporate income taxes because Iowa refuses to close corporate tax loopholes the way several neighboring states do, and how big companies benefit from the kind of property-tax breaks passed this year. The new piece by CBPP shows sales taxes also are an area where big business makes big money at Iowa taxpayers’ expense.

All of these areas remain good targets for better, more accountable tax policy in Iowa.

Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director


Job Creationism

Posted June 12th, 2013 to Blog
Peter Fisher

Peter Fisher

In the beginning, there was a CEO. And he said, “Let there be jobs.” Because he wanted to be a Job Creator, since he had heard that Job Creators get all kinds of public praise and respect, not to mention some significant perks, like being able to flash the Job Creator ID card whenever anyone threatens to raise your taxes. Others touted the ability of the Job Creator card to transfix governors and state legislators, who would then intone “We will grant you any incentives you ask for, oh wonderful Job Creator.” And amazingly, spending public money indiscriminately on Job Creators helps those public officials get re-elected. A win-win situation, at least if you leave ordinary working citizens out of the equation.

And his board of directors said, “Hey wait a minute; how about a new product first, and consumers who are willing and able to buy it.” So the CEO bought up an innovative start-up company, and conducted market studies. And it turned out that indeed there was a market for this product, and sales to be had, and profits to be made.

But the CEO discovered that his board of directors and his shareholders really wanted him to focus on that last point: profits. It turned out that maximizing profits required minimizing costs, which actually meant hiring as few people as possible. Workers, it seemed, could be a pain; they wanted to be paid, and to get benefits like health insurance, and work in safe and reasonable conditions, and maybe join a union. So the CEO set about creating as few jobs as he could, at the lowest wages that would get the skills he needed, with as little job security as he could get away with. He hired consultants to tell him how to keep them from joining unions. And he dreamed of a company that had no employees whatsoever.

As consumers spent more, the company produced more, and hired more workers. (Hmmm; seems like consumers are creating jobs. We can’t call everyone a Job Creator, though; sorry folks.) But then there was a recession, and consumers stopped buying and the CEO had to lay off half his work force. And when the economy recovered he found he could make more profits without hiring them all back, by mechanizing some operations and outsourcing others to low-paid workers overseas.

The CEO fretted for a moment. Would they repossess his Job Creator card, because he was actually destroying jobs? Well, not to worry. It turns out that you can destroy jobs right and left and that has no effect on your status. In fact, you can ship 1,000 jobs overseas and then get praised for opening a new U.S. branch that employs 50. Not just praised, but rewarded, with tax exemptions and credits and such. Things that really help that profit maximizing thing that your board is so worried about.  In fact, it seemed that the more Job Creators laid off workers, the more desperate people became for jobs, and the more lavishly they showered benefits on the Job Creators. How could you lose with a deal like this?

When he read the fine print on the back of the card the CEO understood how membership actually worked: Anyone in a position to hire (and fire) was a Job Creator. Your actual record didn’t matter. Nor did anyone seem to worry about the actual source of job gains being traced to innovation, and research, and public support of universities, and public investments in transportation and other infrastructure, and broadly shared income that allowed consumers to buy the products and services that workers were producing.

So the CEO quit worrying, and sipped his martinis on the beaches of various tax havens in the Caribbean, contemplating how well deserved was his status as a Job Creator, and how nice it was to be worshipped for who you were instead of what you did.

Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director


Who benefits? No doubts — the ‘1 Percent’

Posted June 4th, 2013 to Blog
Peter Fisher

Peter Fisher

For whose benefit is this country run? The events of the past 10 years should have erased any doubts about the answer to that question. Let’s recap for a minute just what happened.

First, federal regulators sat idly by while banks and investment funds, with help from their friends the bond rating agencies, put billions into high-risk mortgages that should never have been made, and mortgage brokers raked in closing fees. Millions of families became heavily in debt, and housing prices shot up at unsustainable rates. When all this collapsed, it drove the economy into the deepest recession since the 1930s. Millions lost their jobs and their homes, as banks chose to foreclose rather than work out a way for homeowners to remain in their homes.

There was a little seeming good news: Interest rates were at an all-time low. People could refinance at incredibly low rates. But wait: The banks reacted to the criticisms of their previous loose lending practices by drastically tightening credit rules. Ordinary people who were making house payments with mortgages at 5 or 6 or 7 percent were denied refinancing because their credit was bad — because of the recession and loss of jobs. So the banks were saying, in effect: Yes, we see that you are making your payments at 6 percent but we don’t think you could make the lower payments at 3.5 percent. Banks kept their very profitable mortgages, earning twice what they could get on new mortgages, and prolonging the recession as consumers were unable to free up money for other purchases.

So finally, after five years of economic hardship for much of the population, housing prices have hit bottom and started back up again. Great news. People who have a job again may also be able to buy a house again, and at still very favorable prices and interest rates. But wait: We can’t have the formerly unemployed, forced out of their homes, becoming homeowners again and getting all the benefit from future rising prices and cheap credit. No, that’s clearly a job for the rich.

Families who struggled and suffered during the recession saw their credit ratings sink, and with the tight credit rules, they are shut out of the mortgage market (and in some cases the job market as well). And who steps in? Wall Street firms and wealthy house-flippers. One firm alone, the Blackstone Group, has purchased 26,000 homes in nine states.[i] In a few years they can re-sell to ordinary working folks at higher prices (with mortgages at higher interest rates). The rich, it turns out, are the ones in a position to buy at the bottom and reap the capital gains that will follow (taxed, of course, at a much lower rate than wages).

It should hardly come as a surprise that the net effect of the housing bubble, the financial collapse and prolonged recession, and the beginnings of recovery, was to bring about a substantial redistribution of wealth. For much of the population, what little wealth they had was concentrated in home equity, which was wiped out by the collapse of the housing market; wealth continued to decline for the bottom 93 percent of the population during the first two years of “recovery.”[ii] But for the richest 7 percent, wealth increased 28 percent, from 2009 to 2011.

Income inequality is rising again as well, as profits have surged since the recovery began while wages have stagnated. The top 1 percent got 121 percent of all the gains in income from 2009 to 2011.[iii] If you are in the 1 percent, things have worked out just swimmingly; causing an economic collapse can be very profitable if you are in the right position.

If you are part of the 1 percent, you are also free to spend as much of that new wealth as you want re-electing public officials who will blame Food Stamp recipients, unions, and public school teachers for our economic troubles, while slashing any program that benefits the poorer half of the population in the name of cutting the national debt. Those elected officials can also be counted on to weaken those pesky new financial regulations, modest to start with, and making sure your tax rate doesn’t go back up to anywhere near what it was in the 1990s. Of course, curbing spending while unemployment is still above 7 percent prolongs the jobs recession and the hardships of working families, but who cares? Keep those wages down, profits up, and stock prices hitting historic highs. Meanwhile, having helped destroy several millions jobs during the recession, and having found numerous ways to restore production levels since then without hiring back your former employees, you will now find that you can claim an exemption from tax increases and qualify for all kinds of state and local incentives on the grounds that you are a “job creator.”

Is this a great country or what?

Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director


Will outrage translate into policy?

Posted May 22nd, 2013 to Blog
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

Oh, the outrage.

Apple Inc., is (gasp!) working the federal tax code to its advantage, exploiting loopholes in the code to legally avoid paying taxes. OK, but we’ve heard it all before.

Many are expressing outrage — not an unreasonable reaction. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan is leading hearings in Washington about the issue, noting, “Our purpose with these hearings is to shine a light on practices that have allowed U.S.-based multinational corporations to amass an estimated $1.9 trillion in profits in offshore tax havens, shielded from U.S. taxes.” He went on:

A recent study found that 30 of the largest U.S. multinationals, with more than $160 billion in profits, paid nothing in federal income taxes over a recent three year period. Zero. These corporations use multiple offshore loopholes that give them significant control over how much U.S. income they will report and how much tax, if any, they will pay.

Senator Levin is indeed shining a light on a serious issue, but you can already see the excuses coming.

As a New York Times story notes:

While Apple’s strategy is unusual in its scope and effectiveness, it underscores how riddled with loopholes the American corporate tax code has become, critics say. At the same time, it shows how difficult it will be for Washington to overhaul the tax system.

In Iowa alone, as we showed many years ago, this also happens with some big, multistate companies, which use gimmicks to get out of paying state corporate income tax. Instead of shifting profits to phantom companies in Ireland to avoid U.S. tax, these companies shift Iowa profits to shell companies in Delaware, where they go untaxed by either Delaware or Iowa. And it could be fixed, but Iowa lawmakers simply have chosen not to. Not acting, after all, is the easiest course.

Tell lawmakers privately about what’s happening and if it’s new to them, they express outrage. Wait a few weeks, and for many the outrage is gone. Frequently, the view changes to either (1) it’s something we need to accept so companies won’t move away, or (2) the issue is just too big to address.

Of course both arguments are what big business lobbyists want everyone to believe. And both are wrong.

The business lobby has obscured the fact that there would be no reason under Iowa tax law for these companies to move away if the state were to pass legislation to plug loopholes — and lawmakers certainly can do so, with a device called “combined reporting.” Read about it here.

The long and short of it: Iowa does not have to sit by while big companies drain the state’s coffers and push the bill to other taxpayers, both smaller business competitors and working families. And neither does the United States.

Posted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director


Some bad ideas never die

Posted April 24th, 2013 to Blog
Peter Fisher

Peter Fisher

The Iowa House today proved that bipartisanship is no guarantor of good policy. On a vote of 87-9, the House approved HF 641, which would authorize a new and wasteful incentive program that would divert money from the state general fund to support hotel and retail projects in cities. So we will be taking money that should be supporting state investments in education, health, the environment, public safety, and other services, and using it to subsidize hotel developers and retail strip malls. All in the name of “economic development.”

Cities already have more than enough ability to divert taxes to development projects through property tax TIFs and abatements. There is no need for additional diversions of revenue from other jurisdictions.

The House bill would authorize any city or county to establish “Reinvestment Districts.” From the date of establishment onward for the next 25 years, 4 cents of the 6-cent statewide sales tax, and all 5 cents of the state hotel-motel tax, from all “new” sales or room rentals would be diverted from the state general fund to the city for use in the district. What uses? Pretty much anything; any building, public or private, could qualify for a subsidy, and there is no limit on how much of the cost of a project can be subsidized.

“New sales” are sales from a business that first got a state sales-tax permit (or hotel-motel tax permit) after the date the district was established. Given the high rate of turnover among retail businesses, it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which most of the sales taxes in a district are diverted from the state general fund even though there has been little additional economic activity, or even decline. All that is needed is that old businesses are replaced by new ones, even if that means replacing an Applebees with a pawn shop.

Why will a city ever again be content to finance commercial redevelopment on their own, or with property tax TIFs alone? Why will a developer ever again finance a project entirely from private sources – try to remember, if you can, when that was the norm – when he or she can just ask the city to get the money from the state?

More importantly, what will become of market standards? While every legislator who voted for the bill surely believes in free markets and private enterprise, this measure undermines markets. There was a time, before the incentive wars got out of hand, when a project had to stand on its own – there had to be a sufficient market to support it, and banks had to be convinced that revenues would be sufficient to repay the loans. No more. Now local government officials are determined to force development to happen when it can’t stand on its own, creating oversupply that hurts existing businesses. Or the private sector happily rakes in all the new incentive cash to do something it would have done anyway. Those are really the only two alternatives for a local market activity: either market conditions support it and it can be financed privately, or the market can’t support it, and the city uses taxpayer money to force overbuilding.

We can hope that this bill gets careful scrutiny before it goes any further.

Posted by Peter Fisher, Research Director


Iowa’s decline in job-based health insurance

Posted April 11th, 2013 to Blog

The Cedar Rapids Gazette today offered an interesting look at the question of where Iowans get their insurance. It’s less and less something that comes through employment. And when the costs of insurance keep rising, that makes it tougher on the household budget — or results in people not having insurance.

This is a trend we’ve been watching and reporting on at the Iowa Policy Project for many years, as have several good research organizations such as the Economic Policy Institute.

The Affordable Care Act offers at least a partial remedy. As health insurance exchanges are developed, affordable insurance should be more readily available. Tax credits for employers providing insurance will provide a targeted incentive to offer employees a better option than what employees might find on the individual insurance market.

Colin Gordon

Colin Gordon

Our State of Working Iowa report for 2012 offers another good look at this issue. As author Colin Gordon observes, wage stagnation, erosion of good jobs and recession have combined to batter workers, at the same time non-wage forms of compensation, health and pension benefits, also have declined. This has eroded both job quality and family financial security, and increased the need for public insurance. In Chapter 3, “The Bigger Picture,” Gordon writes that Iowa is one of 15 states, including five in the Midwest, to lose more than 10 percent of job-based coverage in a decade. He continues:

These losses reflect two overlapping trends. The first of these is costs. Health spending has slowed in recent years, but still runs well ahead of general inflation. Both premium costs … and the employee’s share of premiums have risen sharply — especially for family coverage — while wages have stagnated.

In 1999, a full-time median-wage worker in Iowa needed to work for about 10 weeks in order to pay an annual family premium; by 2011, this had swollen to nearly 25 weeks. Steep cost increases have pressed employers to drop or cut back coverage, or employees to decline it when offered. High costs may also encourage more employees to elect single coverage — counting on spousal coverage from another source and kids’ coverage through public programs. The second factor here is the shift in sectoral employment outlined above: Job losses are heaviest in sectors that have historically offered group health coverage; and job gains (or projected job gains) are strongest in sectors that don’t offer coverage.

This graph looks at the rate of employer-sponsored coverage, by industry sector, from 2002 to 2012.

job-based coverage comparison, Iowa 2002-2012

An interactive version of that graph in the online report allows the reader to toggle between those two years; the colored balloons sink on the graph in moving from 2002 to 2012, as if they all are losing air — the result of declining rates of coverage.

Good public policy could help to fill them again.

2010-mo-blogthumbPosted by Mike Owen, Assistant Director