Saturday, March 24, 2007

Tax proposals -- the more progressive, the better

[Cross-posted at djwinfo]

Half of public policy is spending. The other half is taxing.

Progressives tend to spend most of our time on the spending side defining what we want to buy -- doctors, teachers and bus drivers with operating dollars and hospitals, schools and buses with capital dollars.

Right-wingers tend to spend most of their time on the taxing side defining that they don't want their sponsors (high income people or corporations) to be taxed at all.

So, right-wingers tend to get their way. Government taxes on wealth and high incomes continue to fall. (Taxes on work and low-incomes, unfortunately, aren't attacked by right-wingers, so they tend to rise). And we progressives often don't get to buy the things that would be good for the nation because....there isn't any money.

The best group in the country working on arming progressives with analysis to advocate for taxes on high incomes is the Center for Tax Justice. They helped start a blog called Talking Taxes here and their website is here. If you're not a member, join up.

Anyway, in Illinois, we're lucky. We're in the midst of a glorious debate over tax fairness and Governor Blagojevich deserves a ton of credit for launching it. He's got a bold proposal to fund health insurance and education boosts through a gross receipts tax and a business payroll tax. The rhetorical center of his campaign is that business isn't paying enough. And they're almost certainly not -- especially the biggest ones with the most money. We have the lowest state income tax in the nation (3% for individuals, 4.8% for corporations), and people or companies with high profits or income can figure out how to shelter a lot of their income so they don't pay even that small levy. The rest of us, meanwhile, pony up with very high sales taxes and relatively high property taxes. That means taxes our regressive -- we hit low and moderate income hard and go light on high incomes. Not smart, especially since our middle class is getting flattened by other government policies: corporate trade agreements that export jobs, anti-union labor laws, tolerance of millions of undocumented workers without an amnesty and underinvestment in education so that education gets both more expensive and of lower quality.

So the great progressive debate happening this month is, in shorthand, 750 versus GRT. HB 750, championed by Senator James Meeks and cooked up primarily by the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, is a straight-forward progressive reform that taxes high incomes more and low incomes less. (By the way, props go out to blogging Representative John Fritchey for representing a higher-income district but publicly recognizing that it's good for the entire state to get away from our poverty-perpetuating regressive tax system and championing HB 750. 750 got out of a Senate committee last year (after adding in some higher education money), and got a House committee hearing last week.

The Gross Receipts Tax is part of the Governor's submitted budget and has raised the ire of just about every business group in the state. (Opposition from the business community often, but not always, signals that the bill is good for most people of the state). However, most legislators aren't biting. As one legislator told me this week: "they're pushing the Kool-Aid hard. But I'm not sipping." The GRT is essentially a sales tax, and that hits lower incomes harder than higher incomes. That's regressive.

The Governor would like to buy some progressive things with the money -- just-about universal health insurance. That's good. But is that enough for Democrats to overcome the regressive aspects of the GRT? Based on the reaction so far, it doesn't look like it.

But again, the Governor has moved the debate in a great direction launching a campaign for tax fairness and an agressive call for change against the champions of the status quo. That alone earns him credit in my book. Now the General Assembly might find a better way of matching his soaring rhetoric.

14 comments:

Anonymous,  7:25 PM  

Dan,

You come across as ill-informed on economics, as well as Illinois politics.

The Governor is showing his true colors. While the Democrats have complete control of state government, this dog and pony show tells the public that they have only one thing on their mind--raise taxes, any way, some how.

If the voters are given a choice between tax raisers and tax cutters (or at least someone who will hold the line on taxes), the tax raisers lose. Just ask Walter Mondale and Dawn Clark Netsch.

JBP 7:37 PM  

"Opposition from the business community...signals that the bill is good for most people of the state"

Does anyone out there besides Dan and the Governor actually think that hassling business is a good way to manage a state? Don't most of the people in a State work for business?

What happens to the profits of a business if it does not go to taxes? Don't you think it might go to wages, dividends and other productive forms of investment, rather than paying a stipend to Gov Blago's cronies and buying more votes?

JBP

Anonymous,  9:34 PM  

Where do profits of the big businesses go?

Mostly out of state. And out of the country.

The biggest aspect of the GRT, I believe, is that it gets those national companies that are selling to the people of Illinois to actually pay their fair share for using the resources of Illinois to make money.

We aren't talking only about Illinois-based businesses here. That's what the chamber and others want you to swallow. But the reality is that, right now, all those fortune 100 companies that make billions off of the people of Illinois are paying little or no taxes in Illinois because they have tricks to get out of paying their apportionment.

At the very least, the GRT keeps taxes in Illinois, and spread out the burden so that your tax is based on how much businesses you do in the state.

Now, you can disagree with the principle of that, but that's what it is.

HB/SB 750, on the other hand, does nothing about those businesses that are getting away with paying no taxes. It just almost doubles the taxes on those businesses that are already paying their share.

That's the problem. We need something to fix the tax system, not double the burden on the small group that currently pays. GRT is the best proposal .... so far.

If you have another one - I am all ears. But don't hide behind the ludicrous, ignorant and dishonest claim that "businesses don't pay taxes, people do." When businesses hide their profits in tax havens and through loopholes, nobody pays taxes.

We have much more analysis on both the GRT (and how to structure it so that you mitigate the negative effects), and the HB/SB 750 on our site:

www.wonkish.com

Check it out.

Anonymous,  11:59 PM  

Johnr, I did take the time to check out your site. I was unimpressed. The logic behind much of your reasoning is erroneous and faulty.

I think your most grevious error here is to assume that the Governor wants to make taxes "fair". This is demonstrably not the case, as all of his proposals have as their goal the increase of revenue. The governor will not settle on a revenue neutral "fair" plan; all of his proposals have as their goal to take in more revenue to please the Governor's political constituencies.

Second, there is a fundamental difference in the way the political class looks at taxation and the way non-political participants look at taxation. To the political non-participant, taxation is an ownership transfer of wealth under threat of intimidation, incarceration, or termination. To the political class, taxation and the accompanying revenues are their God-given right, and the taxpayer should be thankful to be able to keep anything. There's not a lot of common ground.

That's why all this fairness talk is considered bunk by the average Joe who doesn't work for government. All he knows is that the Governor want *more* money. He doesn't buy the "fair" claim, for good reason.

BTW, get used to the argument that you consider "ludicrous, ignorant and dishonest". You sound like Jack Roeser playing fast and loose with the "dishonest" claim, which means you really can't refute the argument.

Even your own website says that a GRT is "cost of doing business" which, as you know, is passed along to the consumer.

If you were in business, you might understand this, but I'm afraid that we're dealing with a bunch of people who draw a government paycheck.

Anonymous,  6:10 AM  

The outrageously high pay packages that many of these CEO's and other corporate officers receive are what will allow Governor Blagojevich to get what he wants. Much like the head of Commonwealth Edison who sympathetically wails to the electric customers whose electric bills have skyrocketed, "I feel your pain", nobody is going to shed a tear for businesses in Illinois.
Most feel Blagojevich should not levy a tax on companies based solely on revenue but rather on their profit. But, that is where it ends. Taxpayers are tired of corporations and their executives getting "a free ride" at the expense of Illinois taxpayers. I am not a Democrat or fan of Rod Blagojevich but this was a master political stroke on his part. He comes across to the little guy (voter) as sticking up for them for a change.

Bill Baar 8:02 AM  

...deserves a ton of credit for launching it.

Topinka launched it with budget plan in the campaign.

The Gov said nothing to Illinois voters about this tax in the election.

JBP 8:48 AM  

So when businesses "hide" there profits, where does it go? Obviously it becomes more wages, dividends, and investment somewhere albeit, not necessarily in Illinois.

Even businesses that pay no income tax in Illinois certainly pass through taxes in employee income and payroll taxes, as well as Illinois Property Taxes.

How is it that when the Federal Government lowers the tax rates, total receipts go up, but Illinois must raise rates to get more income?

JBP

Dan Johnson 10:15 AM  

In order:

cain: Lots of tax-raisers get re-elected after raising Illinois taxes. Every House member who voted for the tax swap last time it passed the House. Jim Thompson. Jim Edgar. In fact, can you name me one high-profile elected official -- or every one legislator -- who lost a bid for re-election primarily because he or she voted to raise state taxes? When the Republican establishment paper (the Tribune) is calling for a tax increase for education, I think the ground has shifted.

JBP: I run a business. We need more of them. But for making public policy, generally the business community pushes initiatives that cut their taxes, enrich the wealthiest and thus leave public investments that enrich everyone like mass transit or affordable college or accessible healthcare without any money. Plus, most common-sense regulations that stop a few businesses from picking on consumers are opposed by the business lobby in Springfield. There ought to be, by the way, a progressive business association that can speak with a more balanced voice on behalf of business in the Capitol. When you say "buying more votes", I read that as "buying affordable college" or "buying mass transit and highways" -- and I like it when that happens.

johnr: Nice new blog. I'll link to it. But why be anonymous? Also, what about Quinn's take that (essentially) a corporate income tax would work if we simply eliminating most deductions and credits? And, while we're at it, get rid of the single-sales factor that dramatically limited the base of the corporate income tax? What do you wonks think about that?

Bill Baar: Did JPT launch this debate in her campaign? If so, I missed it.

JB: It makes no sense that if the government cuts tax rates that it generates new revenue. If that were true, then the way to balance the Illinois budget would be to cut the sales, income and property tax rates! And if that were true, then every legislator would love to do it. I'd love it. It would be magic. How come no one in their right mind proposes cutting state taxes to balance the state budget?

Anonymous,  10:34 AM  

If you want to reduce taxes, you need to reduce corruption and spending. If they spend it you pay for it. The whole assessment thing is crazy too.

Dan, I hope you have some post or apology or at least explanation of your association with HDO now that the Al Sanchez/Erin DelValle indictment came out. You seem like an intelligent guy, progressive and knowledgable about public policy--but this indictment and now public information goes beyond allegation and rumor and innuendo. Your employer Senator Sandoval (who has a good voting record) employed Al Sanchez and was associated with him. The indictments people have been talking about have finally happened.

Sanchez and Co. create hire taxes through the excessive patronage, nepotism, fraud etc.

Dan--You are right on the swap for both increased education funding (with hopefully corresponding reform) and property tax reduction.

Bill Baar 3:16 PM  

Did JPT launch this debate in her campaign? If so, I missed it.

She was far more up front than Blagojevich with plan. Blagojevich didn't say a word about the biggest tax in the Illinois's History. Topinka was talking about need for revenues and went against a lot of the GOP suggesting more gambling.

She's a lot more of a profile in courage then our Gov.

And some progressive he turns out to be. He offers a punishingly regressive tax on the poorest in the State to give a benefit to the middle class as cheaper health insurance.

Anonymous,  4:11 PM  

Dan -

Not trying to be anonymous. My name is John, nice to meet you.

Me and a couple of my old wonky friends back from school thought it would be a good site to start up.

And yes, Cain, I work for a small business, not the Government.

We pay our 4.8% on our profit, and end up paying about $7,800 per year.

Our taxes might end up going up (to around $8,500 per year), but we will also be able to get health insurance at what seems to be a more reasonable rate than the $10,000 per year we currently have to budget for.

So, our business stands to get a net benefit.

We might actually cut our prices if we can save considerably on our health insurance costs.

But, enough about me and my "ludicrous" ideas. I should just be narrow-minded and think only in terms of all taxes all the time.

So, I have a little bias in the favor of small business, but I try to be fair in the analysis on the site. We all do.

If you want to be a contributor, we are looking for all kinds of view points to really tackle the issues.

Just let me know.

wonkish.com

Anonymous,  4:16 PM  

Oh, and with regards to Quinn's idea? I am all for it if it would actually work.

But that would essentially put the problem off for at least a couple more years. It is kind of like "punting".

And even then, it would be less of a revenue-generating plan. Healthcare and education reform probably wouldn't be able to happen in any significant way.

I think that any true effort to close loopholes would have to involve a massive decoupling from the federal corporate tax. And even then - it is still up to the company to construct its own characterization of its "profit".

Just a couple thoughts.

JBP 7:23 PM  

"It makes no sense that if the government cuts tax rates that it generates new revenue"
Even though it is observed time and again on the Federal Level

"Then every legislator would love to do it"
Then why not give it a whirl?

How come no one in their right mind proposes cutting state taxes to balance the state budget?
Because the state legislature is full of the most unimaginative folks in the entire State. The folks occasionally in Springfiel are obsessed with State solutions to real and imagined problems and have no connection to the actual economics of running a State.


JBP

Anonymous,  1:03 PM  

Gross revenue taxes (GRT) have been a disaster for the economy of the states that have, or have had one. Recognizing this, Indiana got rid of its gross revenue tax in 2003. Ohio has recently altered its gross revenue tax dramatically. Michigan repealed the implementation of its proposed GRT as the list of businesses leaving the state grew large enough.

The fact of the matter is the GRT drive successful businesses away from the states that have them. Mr. Blagojevich is naïve if he thinks businesses will stick around for a GRT. Someone should tell Mr. Blagojevich that Boeing moved its corporate headquarters out of Washington state, in large part as a protest against, and to avoid the state’s gross revenue tax. Recently, Microsoft moved its incredibly lucrative licensing division out of Washington to Reno for the same reason. How well is the GRT working in Washington state?

Let’s look at an example in Illinois. Since Governor Blagojevich slapped the Illinois casinos with the largest tax rate in the country the theory of basic economics has once again proven itself. Adjusted gross receipts by some casinos have fallen as much as 25% since the spring of 2003. Many of the Illinois’ casino-goers have simply sought greener pastures in Illinois’ next door neighbor, Indiana. Gamblers are now heading to Indiana’s casino boats where their dollars go a lot farther and casinos can provide better incentives.

Businesses that operate on slim profit margins like the service industries and small business owners will be forced out of existence. Further, they will be expected to pay BOTH the GRT and personal income taxes (an extra bonus!!!!).

And let’s not forget the heavy collection and non-compliance costs. I am sure it will be run efficiently under Mr. Blagojevich’s administration, just like all the other state agencies. How many $70,000 a year chauffeurs are included in Governor Blagojevich’s new budget?

Finally, there are so many underfunded entitlement programs in Illinois it seems breathtakingly irresponsible for the Governor to propose yet another, specifically, Illinois Covered. This proposal is especially brazen given the fact that the current Medicaid system is underfunded by 2 Billion!! (per Dan Hynes, comptroller, State of Illinois, Chicago)

I have no doubt the Governor is aware of the potential negative impact of the GRT on the economy of this state, but the lure of money, power and the possible reign over a larger state government is too compelling. Hopefully, the legislators of Illinois will have enough common sense to prevent the GRT from being implemented.

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP