Thursday, March 29, 2007

Where is the Evidence?

There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth since Governor Blagojevich proposed a gross receipts tax to pay for education and health care. To hear the business community tell it, the tax will turn Illinois into an economic wasteland as business flees the state.

Is there any evidence to support these predictions? Is this just Chicken Little scurrying around trying to persuade all who will listen that the sky is falling? Or is it, as Kristen McQueary suggests in her Daily Southtown column, the noise of those who see their lucrative tax breaks and loopholes disappearing?
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/mcqueary/318183,291MCQ1.article

There is no evidence that supports the predictions of economic doom.

Three states, Washington, Hawaii and Delaware, have had gross receipts taxes for some years. Over the past 20 years, the economies of two of those states, Washington and Delaware, have out performed the national economy.

The Tax Foundation, that friend of business, ranks the business tax climate of all three states in the top half of all the states, with Delaware 9th, Washington 11th, and Hawaii 24th.

Ohio, Texas and Kentucky all adopted gross receipts taxes in the last two years. Nevada fell one legislative vote short in 2003. This year Governor Blagojevich and Governor Granholm in Michigan have both proposed gross receipts taxes for their states.

What’s going on here? Why does a gross receipts tax make sense to so many different people in so many different states? Is it just that all the politicians have completely lost their senses as the Illinois Chamber of Commerce and other groups would have us believe? Or is there some basic economic reason why a gross receipts tax at the state level is something reasonable to consider in today’s economy?

The answer to the last question is, “Yes”.

Over the last 40 years the economy has changed fundamentally. Our taxes have not; they are still tied to the old economy. The corporate income tax, full of loopholes, can no longer be enforced by states. Businesses representing the old economy are increasingly paying more than their share.

As the Texas Comptroller said 20 years ago, “There are whole industries today – enormously important and profitable industries – that weren’t even dreamed of twenty-five years ago. The new economy has been described by many names: service, information, space age, diversified. But our tax structure remains tied to the past, to hard products and assets attached to the ground.”

Robert Tannenwald, Assistant Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston, notes that since 1980 the ratio of state corporate income tax collections to corporate income has declined almost 50 percent and state tax departments are “increasingly outgunned” in collecting the corporate income tax. Globalization, as well as tax breaks, plays a part. Richard Pomp, a corporate tax law professor at the University of Connecticut, predicts the tax at the state level has little future.

The issues of avoidance and fairness have been the motives in every state for adopting the gross receipts tax.

The Texas Tax Reform Commission, appointed by a Republican governor and made up mostly of business executives, perhaps said it best in recommending a gross receipts tax for that state, “The tax system must provide a level playing field that is essential for healthy, free market competition. … Those who benefit from Texas’ resources and services must pay their share. … The tax system must reflect the realities of a rapidly evolving economy. Texas must be the most competitive state in the nation when it comes to building or moving a business here, risking capital, and winning in a global economy. … Designing a broad and stable tax base that encourages job creation and investment was the Commission’s goal.”

Adoption of the gross receipts tax has not been accompanied by economic disaster.

A study by Ernst and Young done for the Ohio Business Roundtable projected that the 2005 tax changes will create 78,500 new jobs and inject an additional $6.3 billion in new capital investment into Ohio’s economy.

The Ohio Business Roundtable commenting on the gross receipts tax a year after its adoption, said, “Unlike the old business taxes, this new tax does not penalize job creation and investment, and also encourages participation in the global marketplace.”

The Texas Association of Manufacturers endorsed the gross receipts tax, saying it “goes far in maintaining the kind of business climate that made Texas a national stand-out.” The Texas Economic Development Council called it a “fair business tax that closes loopholes and provides improvements to the funding for education.”

There is no evidence the sky will fall.

17 comments:

JBP 3:01 PM  

"There are whole industries today – enormously important and profitable industries – that weren’t even dreamed of twenty-five years ago" makes me think that one may conjure up business success specifically by avoiding the stifling taxes in place 20 years ago.

So now that we see some service businesses having some success, our Governor's solution? Tax them too, so that they are in pain like manufacturing.

What do we do after Governor Blago drives out profit from the service industry? Tax the churches and charities?

JBP

Anonymous,  3:35 PM  

Good points. It's refreshing to read a view point that isn't laced with the kind of rhetoric that all sides are wielding right now.

I too thought that Kristen McQ's column hit the spot on all these corporate honchos making their huge salaries. This is where the conversation needs to start.

JBP 3:50 PM  

How would a gross receipt tax lower Corporate CEO paychecks? (I will answer, not at all, it just sends more taxpayer money to Springfield to buy votes)

Isn't the reason Boeing is HQ in Chicago because Washington has a gross receipts tax, and we do not? Didn't Microsoft move their corporate licensing business to Nevada to avoid this tax in Washington?

Has anyone noticed that there are only 2 State Troopers on the entire Illinois Tollway System at any given time, and 25 State Troopers on Blago's personal security detail. What makes anyone think that Blago will provide better healthcare or education if we give him more money? Has he established a track record of providing good services in Illinois?

JBP

Anonymous,  3:55 PM  

I'm no economics wizard, but I do have a fair amount of common sense. And that tells me you cannot tax businesses and expect them to just absorb the losses unless it hurts their profits more to raise prices. And how often do you think that makes sense?

We heard all these same arguments about how raising the minimum wage would not hurt businesses and would only help the poor workers earning minimum wage. But you should drive through all the small towns in downstate Illinois and see the hundreds of empty Hardees and Burger King buildings. I wonder where those workers have gone? And I wonder how many other businesses had to close shop? Open your eyes people!

Jeff Trigg 4:57 PM  

Job growth in Illinois is lagging behind our neighbors and the nation. Where is the evidence a gross receipts tax will improve job growth or at least be neutral?

The poverty level in Illinois is increasing, where is the evidence a gross receipts tax will help reduce poverty?

Education quality is declining where is the evidence all this extra money will improve education quality?

The state can't pay it's current health care bills on time now helping to drive up costs, what evidence is there that will not continue to happen?

What evidence is there that the Governor's cost projections for his new spending programs are anywhere near accurate and not underestimated like almost all new spending programs are, meaning it will only be a matter of years before those costs rise out of control forcing yet even more tax hikes or new lotteries or expanded gambling or every other gimmick they promises to fix education funding once and for all?

Where is the evidence that this government won't continue to throw around $100,000 and $200,000 pensions that taxpayers can't afford?

Plenty of missing evidence to go around. Something missing here is that Douglas Kane is being paid by taxpayers to promote the biggest state tax increase in at least the last decade and biggest in Illinois history.

88,000 people have moved out of Cook County this decade, more Illinoisans live in poverty every year, average household incomes are stagnant, job growth is lagging, and electricity prices just skyrocketed, where is the evidence the new gross receipts and payroll taxes will do anything to improve any of that? Tell us how this will grow the pie instead of just eat a bigger piece of it.

Anonymous,  7:26 PM  

What you (supposedly an economist) and the governor won't address is the fact that gross receipts taxes are REGRESSIVE. You can spin it however you want to say "businesses are paying," but the truth is that this will disproportionately hit lower-income residents of Illinois. It's a fact, and why Citizens for Tax Justice (yes, CTJ) has spoken out against it, despite Blago's claim that he is looking out for working people. When the Illinois Chamber and CTJ are both against a tax plan, that's typically a sign that it's a bad idea, and will have little support.

Anonymous,  7:27 PM  

This is laughable. Doug Kane is a paid shill, working for the tax-hungry Illinois Governor's office. No economist without skin in this battle would ever recommend such a backward and outmoded type of tax as a gross receipts tax. Why anyone takes Kane seriously is beyond me. Who cares if a GRT wrecks the Illinois economy? Kane still gets his big-bucks consulting fees, and it'll be a decade before the economic decline becomes obvious -- by which time he'll be retired to a Florida beach.

Asking people to prove a negative that gross receipts taxes will do no harm is highly misleading. The real question is, why a flawed and unfair tax like a gross receipts tax when there are many other GOOD taxes that won't wreck the economy?

And the answer, of course, is that Kane has been paid as a shill to sell a gross receipts tax to the ignorant voters of Illinois who have never taken an economics course, and don't understand what's so bad about gross receipts taxes compared to property or sales taxes. Kane's rediculous challenge to "prove" a GRT will hurt Illinois is is dishonest, and as an economist he should be ashamed of pitching such snake oil to the uninformed public.

Anonymous,  8:13 PM  

In the other states, what is their property tax structure? With no property tax relief, it seems the GRT will tax businesses right out of the state.

steve schnorf 9:22 PM  

Doug,

you know it's no fun to predict small disasters ("3 business will close, employing 7 people").

It's the product of what has happened to governments and politics in Illinois (and around the country) since you left office. Certainly the end of the 3-member House districts and cumulative voting have contributed to it here, but it's everywhere. Wedge issues, 24/7/365 campaigns, officials being unable or unwilling to separate governing from campaigns...you should be glad to not be part of it; witness the attacks on you for your non-hysterical, thoughtful piece (with which I generally disagree).

Dan L 10:05 PM  

I think the example goes bad when you're trying to compare the economies of Washington, Hawaii and Delaware to the economy of Illinois.

Bill Baar 6:58 AM  

It's a grossly regressive tax to provide relief to the middle class who chose not to buy health insurance. Hard to dress it up as anything else.

Yellow Dog Democrat 4:00 PM  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm betting that all three states have a much lower GRT rate tan the one proposed by the Governor?

Also, if I'm not mistaken, Delaware has no corporate income tax (the reason credit card companies congregate there), and Rod has proposed a GRT in addition to the corporate income tax.

Sounds like you're comparing apples to oranges, Doug.

Rich Miller 4:22 PM  

Doug, while I very much appreciate your post, I would say that it is somewhat misleading.

Ohio's GRT is 0.25 percent, far lower than the governor's proposed dual rates of 0.5 and 1.8 percent. Also, YDD is correct.

Anonymous,  5:56 PM  

would one of you experts explain what tax isn't "regressive?" Is it just a catchword to throw all of us into some kind of tizzy?

Bill Baar 11:32 AM  

Regressive means the tax burden falls heaviest on the poorest.

The Democrat's GRT taxes consumption instead of income.

The poorest consume 100% of their wealth and income.

The wealthy few can't begin to consume all their wealth or income even with the most conspicuous of consumption.

There is nothing liberal or progressive about a consumption tax. This tax will whollop the poor and hardly be noticed by the wealthy.

The income transfer will go to mostly middle class types who've opted out of purchasing health insurance, and a big chunk of that transfer leaking out to the health care system.

Everyone in the health-care-government chain will take a cut before anyone else gets a benefit.

Anonymous,  11:51 AM  

It's not a catchword, it is central to discussions of taxation policy and has a specific meaning.

The Federal Income tax is not 'regressive'. It is 'progressive'. Meaning, it more greatly taxes the rich than it does the poor. When people talk about tax brackets, that's what they mean. The lowest bracket gets hit at 15% or so, AND THE PERCENTAGE GETS _PROGRESSIVELY_ HIGHER up to the highest bracket, at 36-39% or so.

Social Security, OTOH, is a regressive tax. It's a flat percentage of income, with a cap
that means you only get taxed on the first $90K you make.
And, it should be noted that 7.65% of $20K/yr is missed more than 7.65% of $85K.

The GRT is seen as regressive because it can be argued that businesses pay 'no' taxes to begin with; they are simply an expense on the balance sheet that must be offset with increased revenue. They increase revenue either by cutting labor costs or raising prices. Fewer jobs and higher prices on goods hits the poor harder than the rich. (Regressive!)

Anonymous,  12:04 PM  

I gave bad numbers on the income tax rates.

They are currently:
10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%.

If you make $100K, this puts you in the 33% tax bracket; but as a percentage of your income, your tax is about 23.7%.
If you make <$7K, your tax is 10%.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP