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

Posts tagged Organization

Senate bill: Short of rhetoric

Posted November 28th, 2017 to Blog

GUEST BLOG
Despite Child Tax Credit change, Senate Tax Bill Doesn’t Live Up to Rhetoric in Supporting Families with Children

One of the few provisions in the proposed Senate tax bill that has bipartisan support is increasing the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which has been designed to better reflect the costs of raising children. It has been cited as a major benefit to working and middle-class families with children.

Like other provisions, however, this change is done in ways that provide almost no help to working low- and moderate-income families, while providing huge breaks for very wealthy ones. For middle-income families, the gains from a higher child tax credit are mostly offset by losses in personal exemptions, and some middle-class families would actually pay more under the proposals than under current law.

The Senate and House versions both provide information needed to calculate the taxes different tax filers would pay on their 2018 income (the year the changes go into effect) and to then compare these with the taxes they would pay under current law.

In the Senate version, the partially refundable portion of the CTC is unchanged, except that it would be indexed for inflation going forward, increasing to $1,100 in 2018. The nonrefundable credit is increased by $1,000 per child, making a maximum credit per child of $2,000 (the House version provides only an additional $600 credit, in addition to also indexing the partially refundable portion to $1,100). Both bills extend eligibility for higher income families (from a current phaseout beginning for married joint filers at $110,000 of adjusted gross income to $500,000 in the Senate version and an even higher level in the House version).

Performing the comparison of what tax filers in 2018 would experience from the CTC increase, a single mother with two children working full time and making a little above the minimum wage, $16,000 per year, gets no benefit under the House version and only $75 under the Senate version, compared with current tax law. A married couple with two children making $29,600 only receives the additional $100 per child of the refundable credit under the Senate and House versions. That the CTC provisions largely leave behind low and moderate-income families is particularly unfortunate, as these are the families that live paycheck to paycheck and could most benefit from additional support in raising their children.

Meanwhile, a married couple with two children making $300,000 per year gets the full benefit of the tax credits, $4,000 for the two children under the Senate version. This is on top of a tax cut from other changes in the tax code of at least $8,639 (which would be more if the family has extensive itemized deductions or tax-exempt income). Overall, this family is at least $12,639 better off after doing its taxes, compared with current law, $4,000 due to its new eligibility for the CTC.

For simplicity, these examples assume that all income is earned income and that the filers all take the standard deduction. If, because of buying a home, paying state and local taxes or a combination of the two, middle-income taxpayers now itemize their deductions, the increase in the standard deduction may not help at all and the loss of personal exemptions may mean they pay more taxes.

A married couple starting out with a young child and $60,000 of income, for instance, who now claims $24,000 as an itemized deduction ($18,000 in mortgage interest and property taxes, $4,000 in state and local taxes, and $2,000 in charitable contributions or other deductions) would owe $359 more in federal taxes under the Senate version. Although the family would benefit from the increase in the CTC, that would be more than offset by other changes, such as the loss of personal exemptions.

The chart below shows the specific impacts on these families of the changes in the child tax credit itself but also the changes of the overall tax changes to their individual income tax:

Tax proposals should be examined both in terms of individual provisions and in terms of their overall impact. On the former, under the Senate version the benefits of raising the Child Tax Credit are highly skewed toward the highest income tax-filers. This needs to change, by making the CTC refundable and not extending it so dramatically to the highest income families.

On the latter, the overall structure of the tax provisions largely negate the positive impact expansions of the CTC have for many middle-income families, while bestowing even more benefits on high income ones. Tinkering with the CTC without major changes in other provisions in the tax proposal cannot correct these flaws.

Rather than adding CTC provisions to a bill with other fundamental flaws, Congress should start with how it can make the CTC better reflect the cost of raising families. There exist different bipartisan proposals that would do this, but the proposal before Congress goes in the opposite direction.

Charles Bruner of Ames, a former member of the Iowa House and Senate, is director emeritus of the Child and Family Policy Center in Des Moines. CFPC, he worked with the Iowa Policy Project to form the Iowa Fiscal Partnership. Find his commentary on current issues at childequity.org. Contact him here.

The Case of the Missing Middle-Class Tax Cut

Posted November 22nd, 2017 to Blog

If Sherlock Holmes were a United States Senator, he’d be on it: “The Case of the Missing Middle-Class Tax Cut.”

We’ve all heard about the suspicious tax cut. It’s been in all the papers, all the social media posts, anywhere the spin merchants can find a way to promote the idea that the proposed massive and permanent tax-cut giveaway to millionaires, billionaires and corporations is somehow a “middle-class tax cut.”

Puh-leeze.

No reliable information can justify the billing. Middle-class and lower-income taxpayers ultimately will — on average — pay more as a result of this legislation if it becomes law.

In Iowa, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) has shown that despite some minor benefits upon enactment, the bill when fully phased in will actually result in a tax increase, on average, for the bottom 60 percent of Iowa taxpayers. Higher up the income scale, tax cuts will remain. (In the graph below, average tax changes for the bottom three quintiles of Iowa taxpayers are shown as increases, above the line.)

Someone in Iowa making $1.5 million in 2027 would get about a $4,800 benefit under the ITEP analysis — not a lot to people at that income, maybe a good payment on luxury box rent at the ballgame.

But that break for the top 1 percent would total about $68 million — a hit to services on which the money could be spent on behalf of all.

Millions of Americans — an estimated 13 million — would lose health insurance under this bill, a large share of those not giving up insurance voluntarily, but because they could no longer afford it.

Billion-dollar estates that already have $11 million exempt from tax under current law would see a doubling of that exemption, as if the first $11 million free and clear is not enough while the millions of working families struggle to get by, some at a $7.25 minimum wage that has not been raised in over eight years (in Iowa, 10 years).

A Child Tax Credit designed to help working families with the costs of raising children would be extended to families earning $500,000 a year — as if those families need the extra help, when families making $30,000 get little from the deal. By the way, that is one of the changes billed as a middle-income break, and even it would expire in 2025.

There is no expiration, meanwhile, on the estate-tax break or on new giveaways to corporations.

If you’re looking for a real middle-class tax cut in this legislation, you’d better put Sherlock Holmes on the job. Even then, anything you find has an expiration date, plus tax increases. And the millionaires’ cuts that remain will clamp down on resources for the essential things that government does to protect and assure opportunity for us all, and our nation’s future.

You cannot afford to do both — provide critical services and also cut resources to pay for them.

It’s elementary.

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

Red ink, inequity and pain

Posted November 14th, 2017 to Blog

UPDATED NOV. 20*

redink-capitol

To dive into an ocean of red ink for a tax cut that will do little to boost the economy is one thing. To pretend it benefits middle-class families is, at the least, cynical.

It is impossible to view either the Senate or House tax bills moving in Washington as anything but a boost to the wealthy.

Responsible analysis by respected research organizations makes this apparent. The wealthy don’t just do the best in this legislation — they are the clear focus of it.

New data released by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy offer several key illustrations of how the Senate Republican proposal approved last week by the Finance Committee, which includes Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, will affect Iowans:

  • The middle 20 percent of families, people making between $59,300 and $87,080 (average $72,400) receive only 12 percent of the overall tax cut in 2019. Meanwhile, the top 20 percent receive more than half — 62 percent.
  • In 2019, the top 1 percent has a larger overall tax cut than the bottom 60 percent, $483.1 million (average $32,200) to $407.9 million (average $450).
  • In 2027, as the small benefits at the middle phase out and structural changes at the top are made permanent, the bottom three-fifths of Iowa taxpayers will see $58.7 million in tax increases averaging $60, while the top 1 percent will keep an average $4,770 tax cut at a cost to the treasury of $67.7 million.

Those who are promoting this bill should at least have the honesty to call it what it is: a new handout to the wealthy — one that everyone will pay for, to the tune of $1.5 trillion over 10 years, and an almost certain loss of critical services that benefit all.

* Note: The original post from Nov. 14 has been updated with figures from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analysis of the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee.

2017-owen5464Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

 

Another reason to support IPERS

Posted November 2nd, 2017 to Blog

An estimated 103 beneficiaries of the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS) were recent victims of identity theft — about 0.09 of 1 percent of all retirees receiving IPERS benefits. The system reacted quickly and transparently to support its retirees.

IPERS is cautioning all beneficiaries to make sure their October payments were made properly, and has issued new payments to those affected by this theft, in which criminals used personal information to redirect payments for a group of retirees.

All of this leaves a burning question for 2018: How bad might this have been without the IPERS system looking out for these retirees?

Put another way, what if all 115,000 of IPERS retiree beneficiaries and 350,000 IPERS members overall had been forced to private retirement plans, instead of the traditional pensions they have, as some lawmakers and hard-right activists would do with the future of IPERS?

By early news coverage, IPERS appears to have reacted very quickly to handle this security breach. IPERS had the backs of its beneficiaries, funds recovered and benefits on track to those counting on them, according to these early accounts.

It is unfortunate that this is not the emphasis of such stories. It should be. Identity attacks and threats are commonplace, and how the retiree’s account is protected is a critical issue.

Could you count on the manager of your private retirement account, such as a 401k, to respond so quickly, and with such accountability? Maybe. 

The new story about this identity theft assault on IPERS beneficiaries is one more reason — along with the positive performance of IPERS investments and retirement security offered by the program — to be putting the brakes on any attempt to rush through major changes to IPERS.

Privatization advocates make ideological arguments. In practical terms proposed changes would allow private outfits to profit unnecessarily from comparatively unaccountable management of public workers’ retirement investments, causing extra costs to employees and perhaps to the state.

So-called “reforms” have never been about making retirements more secure for those whom we as taxpayers employ to provide essential public services. This security, not private profit, is fundamental to the purpose and commitment of IPERS.

Mike Owen, executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Tax Foundation’s Waste of Time Index

Biz-tax rankings unworthy of attention

The Tax Foundation today released its 2018 State Business Tax Climate Index (SBTCI). All the same problems with this unreliable measure remain:

  1. The State Business Tax Climate Index purports to measure a state’s “tax competitiveness” but the index turns out to bear very little relationship to what businesses actually pay in taxes in one state vs. another. Read more.
  2. Scoring well on the SBTCI does not mean a state will experience more growth; the Tax Foundation provides no evidence that its index actually predicts growth and research has generally found that it does not. Read more.
  3. The index is a combination of over 100 components of state tax systems, giving substantial emphasis to some components that cannot plausibly affect tax competitiveness, while ignoring features that have a large impact on business taxes (single-factor apportionment and deduction of federal corporate income taxes). Read more.

The methodology is unchanged from the 2017 edition, with only slight changes in the weights applied to the five sub-indexes and a couple of tweaks to specific taxes that affect a handful of states.

Peter Fisher, research director of the Iowa Policy Project.

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

See IPP’s Grading the States website for more insightful analysis of business tax rankings — www.gradingstates.org


About those 10 reasons, Senator …

Posted September 22nd, 2017 to Blog

Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has made the point himself: The Cassidy-Graham bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has many deficiencies.

“I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill should not be considered,” he told Iowa reporters.

So, let’s look at some of the reasons, on the merits, why people might have concerns about Cassidy-Graham.

  1. People with pre-existing conditions would lose access to health care. Protection of these people assured now under the ACA would be left to state decisions, with states already cash-strapped.
  2. Many who became eligible for coverage through the Medicaid expansion of the ACA would lose it. In Iowa, about 150,000 people gained coverage by this expansion.
  3. It would change Medicaid expansion to a block-grant program that provides states no flexibility to deal with recessions or prescription drug price increases.
  4. Medicaid for seniors, people with disabilities, and families with children would be capped on a per-person basis. Anything higher would be left to the states to provide. There is neither any assurance states would want to do that, or even be financially able to do so.
  5. Iowa would be marched to a $1.8 billion cliff in 2027 under this bill, with federal support dropping sharply. For context, that is the equivalent of about one-fourth of the current state budget.
  6. Millions would lose insurance coverage. While we’re still waiting for the estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, past repeal proposals show this. And, since this bill offers nothing beyond 2027 for the Medicaid expansion, via block grant or otherwise, the prospect of 32 million people losing coverage (as demonstrated in estimates in previous ACA repeal legislation) is very real.

In Iowa? The graph below shows how Iowa’s uninsured population has dropped with the advent of the ACA, or Obamacare. Census data show uninsurance in Iowa dropped by nearly half in just three years, by about 116,000 — from 8.1 percent uninsured in 2013 to 4.3 percent in 2016.

So, this is a good start on why Iowans might be concerned about Cassidy-Graham — a last-ditch effort to rush into law radical changes in the way millions nationally and over 100,000 in Iowa gained access to health care in just three years.

We invite Senator Grassley to add to the list and get us to the full 10 reasons he suggested that might cause concerns about this bill.

Or better yet, maybe together in a deliberative process that involves everyone, we can come up with a list of 10 things that any health care policy should address.

Surely the list would include insuring more people, assuring more with practical access to health care when they need it, improving public health and reducing costs. We invite Senator Grassley to that discussion.

Mike Owen, Executive Director of the  Iowa Policy Project
mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Protect Iowa taxpayers from bad spin

Posted August 30th, 2017 to Blog

“Protecting Iowa’s taxpayers,” reads the headline on the newspaper column, but the column contradicts that.

On the pages of major state newspapers this week, Iowans for Tax Relief (ITR) is offering its predictable and tired promotion of tax and spending limitations that are neither necessary nor fair.

Instead of protecting taxpayers who live in Iowa and do business here, these gimmicky limitations promote an ideological agenda that fails to offer prosperity — ask Kansas — and is a poor solution to imagined problems invented by its authors.

The limits advocated by ITR never are necessary or fair, but this is especially so where we see K-12 school spending held below needs, where higher-education spending is cut and tuitions raised, and where worldwide corporate giants are taking bites out of Iowa millions of dollars at a time — over $200 million in the case of Apple last week.

By all means, let’s protect taxpayers from thumb-on-the-scale rules that give a minority viewpoint a decided and sometimes insurmountable advantage over the majority. The big money put behind these ideas make elections less meaningful, and erode Iowans’ ability to govern themselves.

The real path to prosperity for Iowa is a high-road path that rests upon sensible investments in education and public infrastructure that accommodates commerce and sets a level playing field for business and individuals. It means promoting better pay to keep and attract workers who want to raise their families here, and sustaining critical services.

Time and time again, we and others have shown irrefutably that Iowa is a low-tax and low-wage state. We already are “competitive” to the small degree that taxes play a role in business location decisions; even conservative analysts such as Anderson Economic Group and Ernst & Young put Iowa in the middle of the pack on business taxes.

Suffice it to say, you are being peddled a load of garbage by the far right and the privileged, who take what they can from our public structures and policies, and attempt to deny others not only public services, but also a say in the funding of programs that promote opportunity and prosperity for all.

The same suppression mindset prevailed in the Iowa Legislature in 2017 as a majority bullied public workers and decimated workers’ rights. Now they are taking on tax policy in 2018, plus the possibility of new assaults on retirement security and renewed neglect of our natural assets of air and water.

Shake your head at the headlines, throw a shoe through the TV if you must, but only by engaging these issues at every step of the political process will we turn Iowa back from our low-road course.

This is the battle of the 21st century. We are living it. May we survive it.

Mike Owen, executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Scaling back even a voluntary effort on clean water

Posted August 1st, 2017 to Blog

Since 1998 the Iowa Department of Natural Resources has led a volunteer program known as IOWATER to monitor local water quality around the state. Recent state budget cuts have forced the DNR to transfer administration of the program to a patchwork of willing nonprofits and local government agencies.

As reported by Iowa Public Radio, DNR will provide initial training and resources, but local government and nonprofit entities will be responsible for continued funding and administration of any volunteer water quality monitoring efforts.

The outsourcing of IOWATER to local entities is just another example of the Iowa Legislature depending on voluntary action to deal with the statewide water-quality crisis. The state’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy (NRS), which was introduced in 2013, also relies heavily on voluntary conservation measures to address the environmental and health effects of nutrient pollution from both point and nonpoint sources. However, the NRS falls woefully short of reaching its funding targets and desired outcomes.

Our state has failed to appropriately and adequately address the largest source of water quality degradation — agricultural practices that continue pumping nitrogen and phosphorous into our watersheds. More than 90 percent of nitrogen and two-thirds of the phosphorus come from nonpoint sources, almost all agriculture, according to Iowa State University.

As we reported at the Iowa Policy Project in late 2016, “Iowa’s efforts in response to the NRS have had minimal, if any, positive impact on the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico — or for the most part on Iowa’s lakes, streams, rivers and drinking water supplies. At best, the state of Iowa has managed to not increase levels of nutrients in streams. There remains a widespread lack of understanding and acceptance of the connection between producers’ business practices and the nutrient concentrations in waters of Iowa and the nation.”

Further highlighting the lack of a clear mandate to clean up our waters is the last legislative session, when the Legislature continued to demand little or nothing of industrial agriculture in cleaning up the mess it has left in our waters. Lawmakers tried to dismantle the Des Moines Water Works board, limited neighbors’ right to complain in court about pollution from animal facilities, and eliminated scientific research at the Leopold Center. They passed little in new water quality funding, and what funding there was merely diverted resources from other priorities, such as education and public safety. (See our end-of-session statement).

We need to start treating clean water as the valuable public commodity that it is. Water feeds our crops, our pets, our livestock, our sports fish, our children, and our employers and employees. “Water is Life” became a popular mantra for a reason: There is no life without clean water. Clean water requires compulsory and measurable conservation mandates that are enforced and well-funded. The time for voluntary action is over.

Posted by Sarah Garvin, Research Associate for the Iowa Policy Project

sgarvin@iowapolicyproject.org


Why Governor Reynolds is wrong

Posted July 21st, 2017 to Blog

As it has become clear that Iowa state leaders need to be more engaged publicly on the national health care debate, it was surprising to see Governor Kim Reynolds’ take on it.

“I’m focused on the things I can control.”

Well, if that is the standard for where the Governor should speak up, lock the office door and throw away the key. That’s not the way government works — or is supposed to work — in our American and Iowa tradition.

The Governor in our system has an important and powerful role, but rarely a controlling one.

What the Governor is not acknowledging, though she surely knows to be the case, is that her position is perhaps the best pulpit in the state of Iowa for speaking up on behalf of Iowans, to our elected representatives in the House and Senate in Washington, and to the President of the United States.

If she cannot speak for the people of Iowa, who will do so?

What is clear from the debate thus far in Washington is that more than 200,000 Iowans will lose health insurance if the current Affordable Care Act is repealed without a meaningful replacement.

In fact, the latest estimate from the Urban Institute finds 229,000 fewer Iowans would be insured in 2022 than if the ACA were kept in place — but the state would spend $29 million more as federal spending dropped by 28 percent.

The Governor’s comments to reporters repeated inaccurate talking points about ACA, avoiding both the state’s own role in undermining the individual insurance marketplace, and the principal way Iowans would lose insurance: the loss of the Medicaid expansion. That one piece of the ACA covers 150,000 Iowans now and is projected to grow to 177,000 in two years, but goes away under the Senate and House plans.

So, whether Governor Reynolds likes it or not, what is now a federal issue will become a state issue.

Right now, the things she has more direct influence upon are state budget choices, many of which already are difficult.

Imagine how much more difficult those choices become with 200,000 more people uninsured. What will the state do to make up for it? What budget control — or families’ control over their health care options — would be lost? Some members of the Legislature already are calling for a state-run program to step into the void.

If Governor Reynolds is uncomfortable with any of these possibilities she could call her friends Senator Grassley and Senator Ernst, or gather the microphones and cameras and raise awareness about the stakes for all Iowans.

Again, there are members of the Legislature weighing in on that score as well. Perhaps they recognize that persuasion, and pushing for a critical mass of support behind an idea, is where “control” emerges.

 

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

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

 


Health exchanges: Why not fix?

Posted July 12th, 2017 to Blog

What would be your response if someone said to you: “The transmission in my car needs an overhaul. This just proves vehicular transportation doesn’t work, so I am going to get rid of my car and my pickup, even though the truck is still running fine.” You would probably think they were crazy. Why not just fix the car’s transmission?

Yet this is the logic being put forward by Senator Grassley and many others as they seek to repeal Obamacare. Yes, we have a problem with the insurance exchange in Iowa, where we now have just one insurance company offering policies. But instead of pursuing solutions to that problem, our representatives are using it as an excuse to repeal Obamacare, including the Medicaid expansion, which has nothing at all to do with the insurance exchange and in fact is still in good running order.

The lack of insurers in the Iowa exchange is largely a self-inflicted problem. Insurers have left the market in part because the state of Iowa did so little to encourage people to sign up, and to provide assistance in navigating the exchanges. Iowa was also extremely generous in allowing people to continue with existing poor-quality insurance.

The problem was worsened by President Trump’s efforts to sabotage the exchanges during the final weeks of the annual sign-up in January by banning all advertising and encouraging people to think Obamacare was going to end. As a result, the number enrolling in the exchanges, which had been on a pace to exceed that of the previous year, ending up falling short.[1] Too few younger and healthier people enrolled, leaving the insurance companies with older and sicker people.

There are solutions to this problem. Both the Iowa Insurance Commissioner and Iowa Democrats have proposed measures to solve the exchange problem at the state level. But the House and the Senate bills repealing and replacing Obamacare, instead of shoring up the exchanges, repeal the individual mandate. Analyses of their replacement provisions predict that they would worsen the problem instead of solving it, leaving the exchanges with even fewer healthy individuals.[2]

Now about the pickup truck. The Senate’s Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) would likely result in 232,000 Iowans losing health insurance coverage over the next five years.[3] Three-fourths of them would become uninsured because of the loss of Medicaid, the rest because of cuts in premium assistance for policies purchased on the exchange.

Iowa expanded Medicaid eligibility (with 90 percent federal funding under Obamacare) to include low-income non-elderly adults, most of whom are working in low-wage jobs with little or nothing in benefits. The BCRA would effectively end the Medicaid expansion for about 177,000 Iowans.[4] This will hit rural Iowa the hardest, and it will undermine the finances of rural hospitals.

The Medicaid expansion has nothing to do with the health insurance exchanges. Our representatives should stop using a fixable problem with the exchanges as an excuse for passing a broad bill that ends health insurance for tens of thousands of Iowans.

[1] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Sabotage Watch: Tracking Efforts to Undermine the ACA. http://www.cbpp.org/sabotage-watch-tracking-efforts-to-undermine-the-aca

[2] Jacob Leibenluft and Aviva Aron-Dine. Senate Health Bill Can’t Be Fixed; Reported Changes Would Not Affect Bill’s Core Features. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 10, 2017. http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/senate-health-bill-cant-be-fixed

[3] Linda Blumberg et al. State-by-State Coverage and Government Spending Implications of the Better Care Reconciliation Act. http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2017/rwjf438332

[4] Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute. The Impact of Per Capita Caps on Federal and State Medicaid Spending. March 2017.

Peter Fisher, Research Director, Iowa Policy Project & Iowa Fiscal Partnership

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org