Posted tagged ‘Heather Gibney’

Focusing better on new Iowans

July 3, 2014

Oftentimes the topic of immigration reform stirs up heavy debates and preconceived notions about what it means to be an immigrant in the United States. Reality about immigrants, their occupations and contributions to the economy can be misunderstood.

But here in Iowa, we know immigrants are important to our state and our economy. There are 120,000 documented and undocumented immigrants contributing both as workers and as employers. Most immigrants came to find jobs so it shouldn’t be surprising that most are of prime working age, and are working.

Look around your community and you will see them working in grocery stores and delis as butchers and meat cutters, teaching in high schools and colleges, cleaning homes and businesses, and working as computer programmers. Some are small business owners, filling gaps for particular goods and services in Main Street-type businesses.

10371388_10154327977850154_8158749370873517078_nOne big misunderstanding is about the state and local taxes that immigrants pay, regardless of their legal status, on the income they earn, the goods they purchase and the homes where their families live.

It is also estimated that 50-70 percent of undocumented workers — those who do not have legal authorization to work or live in the United States, have federal and state income and payroll taxes withheld from their paychecks.

Our new Iowa Policy Project report estimates that undocumented immigrants annually pay $64 million in Iowa state and local taxes, increasing revenue available for public programs and services, including many services they are unable to access themselves.

Immigration reform enabling work authorization and a path to citizenship for current undocumented residents would bring benefits not only to immigrants but all Iowans. Legal work status would open up better job opportunities and make it more worthwhile to invest in worker education and training. Immigrants would be less susceptible to wage theft and other exploitation by employers.

Legal status would increase earnings for workers and revenues for the state. It would mean that young adults brought here as children (DREAMers) could attend college and get better jobs and it would give immigrant business owners access to more options to start or expand a business.

While the future of immigration reform is uncertain, we can be certain that immigrants contribute to the state’s workforce, economy, tax revenues and communities.

IPP-gibney5464Posted by Heather Gibney, IPP Research Associate

Watching Iowa jobs: Don’t miss the deficit

June 20, 2014

Iowa’s up-again, down-again job picture is looking up again, at least for now. The May numbers from the state show an increase of 6,200 jobs. Coming on the heels of a 3,700 increase in April, this marks the first two-month gain since the end of last year, and the increase is the largest since last October.

One-month results, however, do not tell the whole story of what’s happening in the state economy and the job market. Over the past year, Iowa has averaged a gain of about 2,100 jobs per month, which is a modest pace. At this rate it would take about three years for Iowa to completely recover from recession losses.

In fact, even though Iowa has more jobs than it did when the recession started, the state shows a jobs deficit:

Basic RGBSource: Economic Policy Institute

Given that the population of Iowa has grown since the start of the recession, it makes sense that more jobs need to be added to the economy each year in order to keep up with the growing number of people. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 23,800 jobs have been added so far but 71,600 were needed by now to keep up with this growth. This means that there aren’t enough jobs for everyone who wants or needs one — a deficit of 47,800, as shown in the graph above.

For more about the latest Iowa job numbers, see our new Iowa JobWatch report. IPP has given its view of the monthly numbers since 2003 — there are always plenty of new angles for a “Job Watcher.”

IPP-gibney5464   Posted by Heather Gibney, Research Associate

Why the tuition freeze matters

May 2, 2014

A bright spot in the just completed session of the Iowa Legislature is that lawmakers for the second year in a row have assured a tuition freeze at Iowa’s Regents universities.

The 4 percent increase in state funding for FY2015 is an important investment. It means current students will be able to keep a little more money in their pockets, and prospective students will have greater access to higher education at the University of Iowa, Iowa State University or the University of Northern Iowa.

For now, the state has stalled its trend toward sharp tuition increases — a trend similar to what’s happened at public colleges and universities across the country. A new report from the Center on Policy and Budget Priorities found that from FY2008-FY14 state funding per student at Iowa’s Regent universities decreased by 23.8 percent, leading to a 12.2 percent change in average tuition after adjusting for inflation — $854 more a year per student.

It’s a simple equation: When state funding goes down, tuition goes up and/or resources to help students are reduced. Iowa Fiscal Partnership research has shown these trends in our state, as noted in the graph below covering tuition vs. state support of Regents institutions from 2001-13.

tuitionvsstateaid

These trends shift the cost of education from the state to the students and their families. The result is that students take on more debt or have fewer choices among institutions, if they choose to attend at all. At low incomes, some students may simply choose not to enroll even though education might be what they want, and necessary to their career goals.

Excessive student loan debt has broad economic implications. It is associated with lower rates of homeownership among young adults, it can create enough stress to decrease the probability of graduation and reduce the chance that graduates with majors in science, technology, engineering and mathematics will go on to graduate school.

The economic importance of higher education will continue to grow, as getting a college degree is increasingly a prerequisite to enter the middle class. And beyond those who receive the degree, everyone in the community benefits when more residents have college degrees. An area with a highly educated workforce attracts better employers who pay better wages and this can boost an area’s economic success.

Strong state revenues offer a time to reinvest in higher education, and to return funding of services to pre-recession levels.

IPP-gibney5464  Posted by Heather Gibney, Research Associate

Minimum wage — why Iowa is behind

March 3, 2014

When we start talking about raising the minimum wage in Iowa the most important point is that we’ve been at $7.25 since Jan. 1, 2008, more than a year before the federal minimum rose. And every year that goes by without an increase affects Iowa families who are struggling to keep their heads above water. Families that count on minimum wage income for a major share of their household budget have seen their costs rise dramatically over the past six years.

In both Iowa and in Congress, there are proposals to raise the minimum wage to $10.10. In both Iowa and in Congress, many issues are raised to cloud what is really a pretty straightforward issue.

As we have shown in our most recent Cost of Living in Iowa report, the current minimum wage doesn’t even come close to paying the bills. A single parent with two children working a full-time job would need to make $28.11 per hour just to be able to pay for a basic, no-frills monthly budget; $56,212 annually before taxes and credits. Two-parent families with two children would each need to make $16.93 an hour or a combined total of $67,724 a year before taxes and credits. A single parent with two children working full time making $7.25 per hour is making $4,700 below what the federal government deems poverty for a family of this size and nearly four times less than what is needed for a family supporting hourly wage.

Basic RGBThirteen states have already seen an increase this year and now 21 states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal. As these states have shown, there is no reason to wait for Congress because it’s not guaranteed that they are going to act in the near future.

One of the myths we hear is that increasing the minimum wage would lead to serious job losses — but the weight of the evidence shows that the net employment effect is minimal and that any slight loss of jobs is compensated by the increase in income for those low-wage families. Low-wage workers who see a wage increase are more likely to spend that additional income immediately, which puts more demand on goods and services and more money in the hands of small-businesses owners who may need to hire more people to keep up with that demand.

A prominent study last year by the Center for Economic and Policy Research explains why this employment effect is so small. Employers can adapt to wage increases through various channels. Employers might reduce the number of hours worked, for example, but the higher pay can raise the standard of living for affected employees. Higher pay can make it easier to find and keep employees; less employee turnover reduces training costs. There could be reductions in non-wage benefits, improvements in efficiency, higher demand from increased consumer spending, and employers may start upgrading the skill level of their workforce rather than cutting the level of their staffing. Employers might pass on some added costs as higher prices to consumers, but this increase is estimated to be very small.

On one point there can be no dispute: A higher minimum wage will substantially lift the earnings of low-wage workers and families will be better off. Now at six years, how long will the minimum wage be held down for families facing higher and higher costs?

  IPP-gibney5464Posted by, Heather Gibney, Research Associate 

Hyperbole Alert: The drumbeat to cut corporate taxes in Iowa

July 24, 2013
Mike Owen

Mike Owen

TWELVE PERCENT!

The figure practically screams at you, even when it’s not in all caps, when the conversation comes to corporate tax rates in Iowa.

Here’s the thing: It’s not a real number. Not really.

That is what is known as Iowa’s “top marginal rate” on corporate income tax. And it’s not a real number because it simply does not — cannot — reflect what a business pays on all its profits. Yet that is the implication when people (especially politicians) or corporations complain about it.

A top Iowa columnist, Todd Dorman of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, this week discussed the political battles over Iowa’s latest gigantic subsidies to Egyptian fertilizer company Orascom. In his piece he expressed a note of concern about the hyperbole in those battles. Then, he turned the discussion to Governor Branstad’s desire for cuts in corporate income taxes.

It is in that discussion where the hyperbole typically has been the strongest in Iowa. We are often told — as Dorman noted — that Iowa’s top corporate income tax rate is the nation’s highest. Note the emphasis added on “top.” More on that in a moment. Dorman also noted, accurately, that Iowa “has four brackets and a tangle of special interest credits.”

Because of the latter, any serious concern for our corporate friends should evaporate. Because they’re really being taken care of quite nicely, thank you, by their friends in the General Assembly and the Governor’s Office.

Now, about that “top rate.” It applies only to Iowa-taxable corporate profits above $250,000. Iowa doesn’t tax any profits from sales outside the state, so the rate doesn’t apply at all there, which for many businesses is a significant share of profits. For all taxable profits below $250,000, rates are lower — 6 percent on the first $25,000, 8 percent on the next $75,000 and 10 percent on the next $150,000.

Before these rates kick in, the business gets to deduct half its federal income tax from taxable income, and may have other deductions or ways to shelter income from state tax.

Then, after the rates are computed and the taxes determined, the tax credits enter the picture — and state revenues exit. The state just expanded the potential for those credits by $50 million, raising the cap on a select group of credits. In the case of the Research Activities Credit, these credits not only erase all tax liability, but offer state checks for the remaining amount of the credit. Through that program in 2012, Iowa paid out almost $33 million to 130 firms that paid no income tax, because those companies had more credits than tax liability.

And you can bet the corporate execs and their accountants fully understand all these nooks and crannies in our tax code. But if you want to give them a free million or so, they’ll take it. They are smart folks, and they have proven themselves to be more skilled negotiators than Iowa’s economic development moguls.

Want to talk reform? Then recognize the real problems — that we receive less in corporate tax than we used to, and that a lot of corporate tax is not collected because of the swiss-cheese nature of our tax code. That gives us all something to talk about.

Just be ready for the hyperbole from those who don’t want to change that part of our system.

Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director


For more information about Iowa business taxes, see these Iowa Fiscal Partnership reports:
— “Reducing Iowa Commercial Property Taxes,” by Heather Milway and Peter Fisher, April 24, 2013.
— “Amid Plans to Relax Limits, Business Tax Credits Grow,” by Heather Gibney, April 16, 2013.
— “Corporate Taxes and State Economic Growth,” by Peter Fisher, revised April 2013.
— “A $40 Million Budget Hole: Persistent and Growing,” IFP backgrounder, February 25, 2013.
— “Tax Credit Reform Glass Half-Full? Maybe Some Moisture,” IFP backgrounder, revised March 23, 2010.
— “Single Factor to Consider,” IFP backgrounder, April 2, 2008.

Wind Power in Iowa: Lower Rates, Good Jobs

March 18, 2013

Opponents of expanding renewable energy often claim that new, safe and clean electricity is all very nice but it just costs too much. Let’s look at the data. The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy keeps statistics on retail electric rates by state and for the nation as a whole. The graph below[i] compares the average retail rates (residential, commercial, industrial) in Iowa to the U.S. as a whole starting in 1998 when Iowa began to produce significant amounts of wind electricity. While there are many reasons why a particular state’s electric rates are high or low it is certainly fair to say that our rank as the leader in per-capita wind electricity production (24.5 percent of all electricity in 2011)[ii] has not caused our rates to shoot up dramatically. Even though Iowa produces seven times as much wind power as the U.S. average, its rates continue to be about 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour below the national average.

Basic RGB

Any discussion of prices for electricity must be qualified since the amount of wind electricity produced is not the same as the amount consumed in the state. States around Iowa have requirements that a percentage of electricity sold be from renewable energy. Iowa also has such a requirement and ours was the first in the nation, a fact the governor tends to emphasize, and the requirement was met long ago. Some wind electricity is certainly exported. Thus, while data on wind electricity consumption would be helpful, information is unavailable on what portion of electricity from each fuel source serves retail load and what is sold on the wholesale market. It should also be pointed out that selling at the wholesale level has some benefit to Iowa ratepayers.

 


[i] Energy Information Administration. October 1, 2012. Average Price by State Provider. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/

[ii]  American Wind Energy Association. “American wind power now generates over 10 percent of electricity in nine states.” Accessed March 15, 2013.  http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pressreleases/wind-generation-2012.cfm

Posted by David Osterberg & Heather Gibney

Stagnant objections to minimum wage increases

March 7, 2013
Heather Gibney, Research Associate

Heather Gibney

Dialogue about increasing the minimum wage is finally emerging in 2013. President Obama proposed an increase in the minimum wage to $9.00 per hour in his State of the Union address, and Senator Tom Harkin and Representative George Miller have introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 — which would raise the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10. The Harkin-Miller bill would raise the wage in three steps of 95 cents before indexing it to keep up with the rising cost of living.

Iowa’s minimum wage now matches the federal. Raising it to $10.10 per hour would put nearly $6,000 more dollars in the pockets of Iowa families, and for the first time since the late 1970s a single parent with two children would be above the federal poverty level — a wage gap that we should have seen diminishing over time, but have not.

poverty vs min wage

Recognizing that the federal minimum wage is too low, 19 other states, including the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal and 10 states annually increase their minimum to keep up with the rising cost of living. Unfortunately, attempts to raise the federal minimum wage and set automatic adjustments to keep pace with the rising cost of living have been hindered by bad economics. Beliefs that increasing the minimum wage will lead to job loss, that the majority of those benefiting would be teenagers and that it would decrease output for certain industries is the consensus among opponents, however unfounded. A recent report from the Center on Economic Policy and Research (CEPR) looked at the most influential research done on the minimum wage in the last 20 years and continuously found insignificant or no discernible effects feared — and promoted — by opponents of raises in the minimum wage.

While the passage of any of these proposals remains uncertain, Iowans working for the minimum wage will have to get by with their creativity; possibly working two jobs, relying on cash assistance and tax credits, going without those amenities that make life a little more enjoyable and hoping that one day they might join the middle class.

Posted by Heather Gibney, Research Associate

Why the minimum wage matters

February 13, 2013
Heather Gibney, Research Associate

Heather Gibney

It doesn’t take long after someone proposes an increase in the minimum wage — as President Obama did in his State of the Union message — to hear the same, tired arguments against it.

Rather than repeat them, and the bad economics behind them, it’s important to put the minimum wage in the context of the cost of making ends meet. It doesn’t come close — which means two things: (1) the wage itself needs to keep pace with increases in typical household costs, and (2) to fill gaps between the wage and the cost of basic needs, and to encourage people to work, we can through public policy offer work supports, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, as well as assistance with the costs of food, health care and child care.

The Cost of Living in Iowa analysis by the Iowa Policy Project last year provides a look at just how far short a $7.25 hourly wage would fall for a single parent even working two full-time jobs. It would not come close to paying the bills without work-support programs. Note these estimates in the accompanying table (Table 3 from that May 2012 report) of a basic-needs, no-frills household budget for a single-parent family of two or three.

120531-COL-Table3

The national minimum wage of $7.25 has not been increased in almost four years — and in Iowa it’s already been over five years, as the state’s $7.25 minimum took effect in January 2008. Prices are higher than they were then, and employers cannot be counted upon to raise pay for minimum-wage workers without the stick of wage-and-hour laws. That is why there’s a minimum.

Posted by Heather Gibney, Research Associate

EITC boost would help families who need it — and economy

January 17, 2013
Heather Gibney, Research Associate

Heather Gibney

If you imagine a packed Kinnick Stadium on game day you have an idea of how many Iowans were kept out of poverty from 2009 to 2011 thanks to two refundable tax credits.

A new state-by-state analysis from the Brookings Institution finds that the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC) kept 71,123 Iowans out of poverty, over half of them children.

The Governor’s Condition of the State speech Tuesday missed an opportunity to discuss the value of Iowa’s own Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to Iowa families and prospects for an expansion — something he has twice vetoed on grounds that he wanted more comprehensive tax reforms.

The Brookings analysis uses a new way of looking at poverty: the Supplemental Poverty Measure, an updated approach to the calculation of whether an Americans household is in poverty. So it’s a valuable look that we haven’t seen for state-level figures.

The EITC is designed to encourage work when low-income jobs don’t provide enough for a family to make ends meet. So, as a family earns more income, they become eligible for a larger credit; as their income approaches self-sufficiency the EITC gradually phases out.[1]

At the state level, Iowa families who are eligible for the federal EITC also qualify for the state EITC, which is set at 7 percent of the federal credit. Proposals in the past would take that higher, to 10 percent or even 20 percent. It can be an important break for lower-income working families because Iowa already taxes the income of many who don’t earn enough to pay federal income tax. Currently, a married couple with two incomes and two children who qualifies for the federal EITC doesn’t have to start paying federal income taxes until their incomes reach $45,400. That same family would have to pay Iowa income taxes when their incomes reached $22,600.[2]

The EITC is the the nation’s largest and most successful anti-poverty program, largely because it encourages and rewards working families. With Iowa’s 85th General Assembly under way, discussions about raising Iowa’s EITC above 7 percent may once again emerge after lawmakers failed to reach an agreement last year.

An EITC increase would raise the threshold at which Iowa families start to owe income taxes — putting more money into the pockets of those who need it the most and encouraging them to spend that money in their local communities.

Posted by Heather Gibney, Research Associate


Good signs on jobs horizon?

October 5, 2012
Heather Gibney, Research Associate

Heather Gibney

The national unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent in September — down from 8.1 percent from August. Nonfarm jobs nationally rose by 114,000 with gains in areas like health care, transportation and warehousing.[1]

Iowa’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate has been averaging two to three percentage points lower than the national average pretty much all through the Great Recession and recovery. It is good to see this gap beginning to close.

However, in August, the Iowa unemployment rate increased to 5.5 percent, worse than July, but better than a year ago when the rate was at 6.0 percent.  Iowa Workforce Development[2] cites seasonal job losses, effects of drought conditions, a global economic slowdown, and the national uncertainty surrounding taxes and expenditure cuts as factors that are restraining job growth.

We’ll get Iowa’s unemployment data for September later this month. Now that the national unemployment rate is breaking through the 8 percent mark we would hope to see Iowa’s rate fall below 5 percent in the near future.

[1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[2] http://www.iowaworkforce.org/news/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=81

Posted by Heather Gibney, Research Associate


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,611 other followers

%d bloggers like this: