Posted tagged ‘Iowa Policy Project’

ALEC Gets it Backwards in Rich States, Poor States

November 30, 2015

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).


*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

November 16, 2015


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


About those jobs …

October 22, 2015

To read the headlines, you might not know we actually lost jobs the last two months. In fact, we’ve lost jobs in three of the last six months.

Basic RGB

Our monthly Iowa JobWatch report offers context you don’t get from official news releases.

Overall, we continue to have stubbornly and staggeringly slow job growth in Iowa. We are only about halfway to the ambitious job goal set by Governor Branstad when he sought Terrace Hill in 2010 — 200,000 jobs in five years. Through 56 of those 60 months, Iowa’s economy has added only 97,400 jobs.

That we don’t have a chance of reaching his goal is not surprising, as the long-term trend of 2,000 or fewer jobs added per month, which has held through his term, is far too slow a pace for the job growth that the Governor promised.

This has been going on for many years, and we have not fully recovered from a recession that ended six years ago. We have a 37,800-job deficit from the number of jobs we need — accounting for population growth — to be where we were at the start of the recession in 2007. (See graph below)

Basic RGB

For the state to be trumpeting a sixth-lowest unemployment rate really misses the job picture in Iowa — which is neither one of sweetness and light nor of gloom and doom, but one that demands a little more critical thinking about the challenges that face us.

How do we encourage more, and better, jobs in Iowa with sensible public policies that do not squander our state revenues on subsidies for companies to do what they would do anyway?

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director, Iowa Policy Project

Iowa Cannot Afford Another Wasteful Business Tax Break

October 13, 2015

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.

Careful with the comments, Council Members

September 16, 2015

As the Solon City Council decides whether to back out of a Johnson County minimum wage increase, good information is available for comparison to recent comments by council members.

Peter Fisher of the Iowa Policy Project took a look recently at what a larger increase — to $15 — would do in Johnson and Linn counties. That report is here.

Separately, we have an Iowa Policy Project fact sheet available here on how Iowans statewide would be affected by an increase to $10.10, which is the level recently established by Johnson County supervisors to be phased in by 2017.

Findings of that research contradicts many comments by council members in Solon. For example, the minimum wage clearly is not, as one suggests, “for kids to go out and have some pocket money, that sort of stuff.”

In fact, the wage has been held so low for so long that it has become is part of a larger low-wage climate in our state, so that parents account for 1 in 5 of those who would be helped by a $10.10 minimum statewide. And almost half — 46 percent — of total family income in homes with a worker making less than $10.10 an hour comes from that job.

One council member ignores a lot of people in Iowa, very likely many of his own neighbors, when he suggests this is all about part-time work. More than 4 in 10 — 43 percent — of the workers who would benefit from an increase to $10.10 in Iowa are working full time.

Finally, an observation by a third council member is particularly noteworthy — that local restaurants are having trouble finding help. Wonder why that would be? Something about low pay, perhaps? How many more would be willing to work if pay were increased? How many more would be patronizing local businesses because they could afford to do so?

It is certainly up to the good people of Solon and their leaders to decide whether to go along with the new Johnson County ordinance, and by doing so to put pressure on the state to raise the state minimum. The latter, by the way, is what some council members are quoted that what they want to see: a statewide increase. Yet with no local pressure, is that really the message they send to state lawmakers who are holding Iowa’s minimum below that of 29 other states?

Whichever way they decide, however, they should be making the decision with good information, not discredited myths.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project

Why $15? Good reasons to consider it

August 12, 2015

There can be little question that Iowa’s minimum wage — like that of the nation — is too low.

At $7.25, it doesn’t come close to a living wage, yet the data show conclusively that in a significant share of households, income from a minimum-wage job is critical to the ability of a family to make ends meet. Plus, in Iowa it has stood at $7.25 since January 2008. An increase is long overdue.

Proposals for how much it should rise, however, are all over the map — literally. Not only do 29 states have wages at various levels higher than the federal minimum, but so do a growing number of cities. Even in Johnson County in Iowa, county officials are thinking of moving to $10.10 over the next 17 months.

In our new report, “The Case for a County Minimum Wage,” we look at the impacts on households of a $15 minimum wage in Johnson County and in Linn County. We find a benefit to over 43,000 workers.

Why $15? First, recognize that it is a conservative number. Had the wage been indexed to the growth in productivity since the late 1960s, it would be over $18 now. The graph below shows how the minimum wage, average wage, and productivity have changed from 1968 through 2014. The stark gap between both the minimum and average wages and the pace of productivity illustrates how income inequality has grown so rapidly — gains are not being shared with average or low-wage workers.


Basic RGBAnother reason to look at $15 is that it would be a significant step toward the wage needed for a basic-needs budget in many Iowa families. Our Cost of Living in Iowa analysis shows a married couple in Johnson or Linn County with one wage earner and one or two children needs a job paying $19 to $27 an hour just to pay for the basic costs of rent, utilities, food, child care, transportation, and health care. With two earners, each parent needs between $13 and $18 an hour. For a single parent, the budget math becomes more daunting, as child care costs must be paid out of a single paycheck. Now an hourly wage of $20 to $31 is needed.

Beyond the philosophical arguments about minimum wages, and speculation about whether a local minimum wage law will pass a court test in Iowa, these basic economic realities offer the context necessary to consider a minimum wage increase and to determine a meaningful level — whether adopted by a city, county, state or the U.S. Congress.

2010-PFw5464  Posted by Peter S. Fisher, Research Director of the Iowa Policy Project

On big issues, Iowa leaders emerging locally

July 23, 2015

If state leaders won’t lead, local leaders in Iowa are showing they will take up the job.

On three big issues in the last several months, we have seen this:

I don’t know about you, but I’m beginning to see a trend.

Public policy matters in Iowans’ lives, in critical ways. We elect people who can take care of it in a way that works for all Iowans, but not enough who will. In the absence of state-level leadership, it’s inevitable, perhaps, that local officials who also are hired to work for their constituents will find a way to help them.

Owen-2013-57Posted by Mike Owen, Executive Director of the Iowa Policy Project


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,565 other followers

%d bloggers like this: