Saturday, March 31, 2007

Must-read two-page brief on Governor's tax plan by progressive D.C. experts. They don't like it.

The best tax analysts in the nation work for the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (www.itepnet.org). They have released a must-read two-page brief here:

The headlines:

Gross Receipts Taxes:
A Counterproductive Approach to Addressing Tax Regressivity

Illinois' Tax System: Truly "One of the Most Regressive"

Gross Receipts Taxes: Disadvantages Generally Outweigh Advantages

More Productive Approaches to Achieving Tax Fairness Are Available

----

The brief argues that dropping the corporate income tax, as Governor Blagojevich proposes, is a horrible idea, since it is the most progressive aspect of our tax system. It's the only tax that has the highest income earners paying more. Our sales and excise taxes hammer low-income people, which perpetuates poverty. In fact, here's how state and local taxes add up currently for taxpayers, based on their income.

13% of income paid by poorest 20%
11% of income paid by second 20%
10% of income paid by middle 20%
9% of income paid by 60-80% of income
6% of income paid by richest 1% income earners

Yikes.

See the graph on the policy brief. It's sobering.

We perpetuate poverty by taxing low income people far more than high income people -- as a percentage of income.

That's got to change.

Thank goodness Governor Blagojevich has made tax fairness the center of the debate. If we just used an actual flat tax, as Dick Armey and Phil Gramm and Steve Forbes and all the other Wall Street Journal Republicans have been pushing for, so that at the end of the year, everyone paid the same flat percentage of their income in state and local taxes, we'd have to dramatically cut taxes on lower-income people (income less than $45,000) and triple the state income tax to 9% or so on incomes above $100,000 or so. That would probably get us to the place where everyone pays about 10% of their income for state and local government.

Finally, the policy brief argues that we need to strengthen the corporate income tax by "repealing failed incentives like single-sales factor apportionment or by limiting overly generous net operating loss carry-forwards or carry-backs." And to lessen the burden on low- and moderate-income taxpayers, the brief suggests "instituting a graduated income tax structure or exempting groceries from the sales tax."

8 comments:

Bill Baar 1:53 PM  

Illinois has to deal with the corruption surrounding how we spend; not talk about taxes. That's what's really regressive about Illinois.

JBP 7:38 PM  

Dan,

Tell me again how taxing rich people more makes poor people richer?

I am 100% in favor of lower taxes for poorer people. I am also 100% in favor of lowering taxes for richer people.

Do you think poor people would like to be richer so the formerly poor can enjoy paying more taxes to guarantee bad schools and the Illinois Healthcare Facilities Planning Board makes their kickback quota?

JBP

Anonymous,  9:32 AM  

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'" --Adam Smith

Anonymous,  1:39 PM  

From the ITEP summary:

"To be sure, a gross receipts tax may enjoy some advantages over other types of taxes. For
instance, it could expand the base of economic activity subject to taxation, potentially
covering some out-of-state businesses and some in-state sectors that Illinois’ corporate
income tax does not now reach. In addition, given its broader economic base, a GRT may
yield a comparatively stable stream of revenue. However, policymakers can realize the
advantages commonly associated with a GRT without abandoning the existing corporate
income tax. That is, a GRT could serve as an alternative minimum tax – or “backstop” – within
Illinois’ corporate income tax, with businesses paying the higher of their GRT or corporate
income tax liabilities."

As we have written previously, there are ways to offset or mitigate the potential negative outcomes of the GRT, in order to be able to enjoy the previously listed positive outcomes. Our analysis was posted here (prior to the details of the plan being unveiled):

http://wonkish.com/?p=10

Anonymous,  3:30 PM  

JBP: "Taxing rich people more" can help us temper our standard practice of over-taxing the poor at an astronomical rate.

It's firstly a matter of taking less from those who have too little to take, to begin with -- but from whom we already and unfairly take too much.

And, secondly, it's a matter of striking a balance in tax policy in order to maintain an important series of publicly supported services and programs that we all enjoy. If we chop taxes for everyone, then service levels must decrease. If services go to hell, the overall health of the state follows suit.

Extreme Wisdom 7:20 AM  

Cap'n,

Surely, maintaining "an important series of publicly supported services and programs" is necessary.

Tell me where fat pensions, hiring/overstaffing relatives, loading up on more government entities, and then loading those entities up with an expenisive, unproductive staff helps us "maintain important series of publicly supported services and programs."

It doesn't.

You can fund a child's education, or you can fund an overfed bureaucracy. You can't do both.

Try this thought experiment. Hold in one hand a tiny piece of paper that represents your useless vote for a cadre of even more useless school board members (most of which are shills for teachers unions)

Hold in your other hand a scholarship for $7500, that can be used at any school of your choice.

Which is more empowering? Which is more expensive? This simple experiment gives the lie to all "progressives" who whine about education opportunities for the poor.

True progressives would be for funding children. False progressives want to feed the beast that has failed nearly everywhere.

Anonymous,  11:55 PM  

Dan, I did not realize you were a Steve Forbes flat taxer.

What about the corruption tax from groups like HDO and individuals like Al Sanchez?

For all the critics of Dan Johnson Weinberger--HDO may be bad but
1. That is not him
2. He is clearly smart (even if sometimes wrong)
3. He thinks about policy
4. Is an environmentalist
and
5. Has the guts to have a blog
(and the time which I don't understand with all the girlfriends that Rich Miller claims he has)

I don't know about a flat tax--but certainly a simpler tax code

Darian Miller 12:10 AM  

The proposed GRT was proposed in part to help out education. Everyone wants decent education system, but here's a tip:

The appropriations per pupil enrolled was $3,389 in '85 and is now $9,841 and this is adjusted for TODAY'S DOLLARS. We have had a 300% increase and yet we are still talking another huge increase.... Why? Has the quality of our schools increased 300% since 1985? Highly doubtful....so, where did this gigantic increase go? And why do they need more? How about re-appropriating what they already have?


Per the State Board of Education Budget :
http://www.isbe.state.il.us/pdf/ISBE_2006_Annual_Report.pdf

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP