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

Posts tagged Peter Fisher

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.

 

ALEC Gets it Backwards in Rich States, Poor States

Posted November 30th, 2015 to Blog

We hear a lot about business climates from people who are looking for ways to cut taxes. But they usually get it wrong. One example is the Rich States, Poor States analysis produced by the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, an organization frequently considered a “bill mill” for corporate-friendly legislation.

The centerpiece of Rich States, Poor States is the “Economic Outlook Ranking,” which ranks states on their conformance to ALEC’s preferred policies, with the best state ranked number one. But when we can compare states ranked the best by ALEC with states ranked the worst, it turns out that ALEC’s 20 “best” states have lower per capita income, lower median family income, and a lower median annual wage than the 20 “worst” states. ALEC’s “best” states also have higher poverty rates: 15.3 percent on average from 2007 through 2013, versus 13.7 percent in the “worst” states. The states favored by ALEC include the likes of Utah, South Dakota, and Idaho, whereas ALEC’s “worst” states include New York, California, and Vermont.

Basic RGB*Best and worst states according to the average Economic Outlook Ranking in Rich States, Poor States, 2007-2015. Income measures are an average over the period 2007 to 2014 (2013 for Median Income).

Looking at it another way, the 20 states that performed best on the four measures of income (the actual rich states) actually score much worse on ALEC’s ranking than the 20 states with the lowest income (the actual poor states).

151130-ALEC-poor-rich

*Average ALEC ranking of the 20 states that performed best on four measures of income — per capita income, median family income, median annual wage, and poverty rate — vs. average ALEC ranking of the 20 poorest states. An ALEC ranking of 1 is best. ALEC ranking is the average of the state’s rank in the first through eighth editions of the Economic Outlook Ranking; rich and poor states are defined on the basis of their average ranking on the four income variables from 2007 through 2013 or 2014.

While Rich States, Poor States purports to provide a recipe for economic growth and “policies that lead to prosperity,” it actually advocates measures to lower wages and reduce opportunity for most Americans. To attain the highest EOR would require a state to have no individual or corporate income tax, no estate or inheritance tax, no state minimum wage, severe tax and expenditure limits, limited public services, and weak labor unions. The evidence and arguments cited to support these policies range from deeply flawed to nonexistent.

We conclude that the actual purpose of Rich States, Poor States is to sell the ALEC-Laffer package of policies — fiscal austerity, taxing lower income people more than the wealthy and wage suppression — in the sheep’s clothing of economic growth. In actuality, the book provides a recipe for economic inequality and declining incomes for most citizens and for depriving state and local governments of the revenue needed to maintain public infrastructure and education systems that are the underpinnings of long- term economic growth.

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

Don’t compound Iowa tax inequity

060426-capitol-FB377

The first report by a self-proclaimed conservative think tank in Iowa is getting some attention today, and reviving dubious ideas about taxes.

First, we applaud the recognition from Engage Iowa that our state’s various tax rates are not as high as they appear at first blush, because of federal deductibility — which permits tax filers to reduce their state taxable income for federal taxes paid. Ending federal deductibility, which Engage Iowa proposes, is something Iowa should consider. That would allow lowering the top rate to around 7 percent and eliminate the perception problem the group is so concerned about.

Unfortunately, however, this is not a well-thought-out plan to improve fairness and simplicity in Iowa taxes, or to assure adequate revenues for schools and other critical services, which are the best way to promote economic growth.

It compounds the overall regressive nature of Iowa taxes — and does nothing to help low- to moderate-income working families. In fact, for many families it would destroy the most important recent advance — the Earned Income Tax Credit. Some 147,000 recipients making over $10,000 — 70 percent of all EITC recipients — would lose the EITC.

While raising low-income Iowans’ taxes, the plan would buy down income-tax rates for higher-income Iowans with a sales tax increase. This would compound existing inequities in Iowa’s state and local tax system, which taxes the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers at about 10 percent, and the highest earners only 6 percent. The big winners would be those with the highest incomes.

The report’s claims about taxes and migration fly in the face of much published academic research showing that in fact taxes have very little influence on interstate migration. The claims that the flat tax would result in substantial economic gains to the state are highly suspect.

Finally, the group’s argument rests on discredited assumptions about Iowa’s so-called “business climate” and ignores the fact that Iowa already is very — perhaps overly — friendly to business. The plan places a great deal of weight on the Tax Foundation rankings, which have been thoroughly debunked. The author could have consulted more credible rankings of business climate, such as the Anderson Economic Group (which places Iowa 20th best, with below-average business taxes) or Ernst and Young, which has Iowa 28th, with an effective rate equal to the national average.

In short, the plan focuses mostly on a perception about Iowa taxes, a perception that is inaccurate but is cultivated by anti-tax forces, rather than ways to improve the stability and sustainability of funding for the critical public services on which all Iowans depend.

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

 


Iowa Cannot Afford Another Wasteful Business Tax Break

Posted October 13th, 2015 to Blog

2010-PFw5464Statement by Peter Fisher, Research Director, The Iowa Policy Project, before the Administrative Rules Review Committee

October 13, 2015

The administration’s proposal to create new sales tax exemptions for Iowa businesses is unnecessary, expensive and counterproductive. The state can ill afford another tax break that will harm essential state services while producing little or no economic benefit.

Iowa business taxes are already quite competitive

  • 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 4.7 percent of GDP, exactly the same as the national average. Iowa ranks right in the middle of the pack.
  • A study by Anderson Economic Group in 2015 calculated state and local taxes on business as a percent of pre-tax profits and found Iowa’s effective tax rate to be 8.7 percent, which placed it 32nd among the states, below the national average.

State and local taxes have little effect on business location decisions

  • State and local taxes are less than two 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.

Enacting a subsidy through administrative rules guarantees complete absence of evaluation and accountability

  • While the sales tax break has been promoted as an economic development incentive, creating it by administrative rule eliminates even the minimal level of accountability established by the Legislature for the periodic review of tax credits. There will be no review, no evaluation of its effectiveness, not even an annual accounting of its cost.

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 pre-school through public colleges and universities, which in the long run will have serious consequences for state economic growth and prosperity.

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

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


Keeping Ahead of the Kansans

IFP POLICY SNAPSHOT /

Iowa’s Neighbors Show the Folly of Drastic Cuts to State Income Tax

•  Big income-tax cuts in Kansas have dramatically reduced funding for schools, health care and other services.

2-page PDF

By Peter S. Fisher

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.

These Kansas tax cuts were touted as a powerful economic development tool. Businesses and jobs would flock to Kansas, and growth would be so strong that, according to some, state tax revenues would actually increase.

Instead, the state of Kansas has been forced to cut school funding each year since enactment. At a time when the majority of states have increased education funding to make up for cuts during the recession, general state aid in Kansas has continued to fall, and per pupil funding is 15 percent below pre-recession levels[i], with school closings and increased class sizes the result. Two districts recently announced they will have to end the school year early for lack of funds.[ii] The state recently abandoned the school funding formula; aid is no longer tied to enrollment. Most of the state’s reserves have been used up just to keep services afloat, leaving the state with no cushion to soften the effects of the next recession. The state’s bond rating has been lowered.[iii]

As for the tax cut being “a shot of adrenaline” for the state’s economy, as the governor predicted, the anticipated job growth did not materialize. Instead, private sector jobs in Kansas have grown by 3.5 percent since the tax cuts took effect, well below the 5.0 percent growth nationally over the same period.[iv]

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 in Kansas.[v]

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.[vi] 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. Nor will income tax cuts help small businesses create jobs. Only a tiny fraction of those paying income taxes own a business, and of those most are not in a position to create more jobs, or can expand employment only if demand for their services increases, regardless of taxes.[vii] 



[i] Michael Leachman, “5 Pieces of Context for the New Kansas Budget.” Off the Charts Blog, Jan. 16, 2015. http://www.offthechartsblog.org/5-pieces-of-context-for-the-new-kansas-budget/
[ii] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/03/kansas-schools-funding_n_7001244.html
[iii] Reid Wilson, “Kansas bond rating downgraded after tax cuts.” The Washington Post, August 6, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/08/06/kansas-bond-rating-downgraded-after-tax-cuts/
[iv]Growth in total private employment, seasonally adjusted, from Dec. 2012 through January 2015, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics. The tax cut took effect in January, 2013.
[v] See note 4.
[vi] Michael Leachman, Michael Mazerov, Vincent Palacios, and Chris Mai. State Personal Income Tax Cuts: A Poor Strategy for Economic Growth. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March 21, 2013. http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-21-13sfp.pdf
[vii] Michael Mazerov. Cutting State Personal Income Taxes Won’t Help Small Businesses Create Jobs and May Harm State Economies. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 19, 2013. http://www.cbpp.org/files/2-19-13sfp.pdf

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.

 

Tags:
Comments: * Comments (3)