Too far for a tax-cutter

Home to roost: An advocate for lower taxes in the state Senate, Larry McKibben as a Regent sees an “attack” on higher education funding that will drive tuition increases.

Editor’s Note: This piece ran in the Wednesday, June 13, 2018, Cedar Rapids Gazette as a guest opinion from IPP’s David Osterberg.

The attack on higher education funding by the governor and legislative leadership has gone too far for at least one longtime tax-cutter.

Former state Sen. Larry McKibben, a member of the Iowa Board of Regents, expressed his concern about state support of universities. The regents voted Thursday to raise university tuition rates at Iowa, Iowa State and Northern Iowa universities, following $40 million in state funding cuts.

McKibben was forthright in blaming the legislative session for an increase in tuition at the three state universities and the loss of professors to better positions after years of low salary increases. From The Gazette’s story on the regents’ meeting:

“We have lost great folks, and now we are going to have to raise tuition,” McKibben said, noting that will persist “as long as we continue what I believe is, in my time on the board, the worst state government attack on our three public universities that I can ever remember.”

In fairness, the groundwork has been laid for this latest attack over many years. An Iowa Fiscal Partnership report in 2012 showed how spending on the UI, ISU and UNI dropped from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2012.

An Iowa Policy Project analysis by Brandon Borkovec showed that adjusting for inflation, state funding for Iowa public universities has declined since fiscal year 2001 by 40 percent at UI, 42 percent at ISU, and 28 percent at UNI.

As a percentage of university budgets, the state share dropped by almost half from fiscal years 2001 to 2016.

Some of this happened on McKibben’s watch as one of the Legislature’s most powerful lawmakers on tax policy — one who often looked for ways to cut taxes, as he did in 2003 with a proposed flat tax that would have cost more than $500 million.

He did not intervene to rein in the Research Activities Credit, which sends more than $40 million a year to profitable corporations that pay no income taxes to the state.

He turned the other way as corporations raided Iowa’s treasury through tax loopholes at a cost of $60 million to $100 million a year.

As Regent McKibben, his new concern is understandable and his advocacy for college students laudable. He wants Iowa voters to pay attention and ask what candidates will do about severe underfunding that he says will assure more tuition increases. From the story in The Gazette: “I look forward to hearing the candidates say that,” McKibben said. “What are you going to do about higher education and our three great universities?” And what are you going to do to bring them back to level?”

These same trends were happening when McKibben was a legislator. Now, it seems, the governor and state legislative leaders have gone too far, even for him.

David Osterberg is founder and former executive director of Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City. Comments: dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

Housing threat to 65,000 Iowans

New proposals would destabilize secure housing for thousands of Iowans, with tremendous impacts on child development including social and emotional well-being, and physical health.

Over 36,000 low-income households in the state of Iowa depend on rental assistance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)[1] Rental programs are crucially important for the financial security of Iowans who are able to receive benefits. However, 3 of 4 households qualifying for rental assistance are unable to access them due to funding constraints.[2] A proposal from the Trump Administration and a House bill proposed by Rep Dennis Ross seek to further stifle this shrinking program.

Iowans projected to be affected by housing proposals
By congressional district (Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)


In Iowa, the average income of households using rental assistance is just over $12,000. Ninety-seven percent of Iowans using rental assistance fit the category of very low income, meaning they earn 50 percent of the local median income or less. Housing affordability is an issue in both rural and urban areas — 18,700 of Iowa households using rental assistance are in non-metropolitan areas.[3]

The HUD proposal seeks to increase the percentage of a household’s income that they must contribute to rent from 30 to 35 percent. That 17 percent increase is on average a $55 monthly rent increase for families.[4] The changes proposed by the Trump Administration would impact 65,400 Iowans, including 24,600 children. The plan also stands to triple minimum rents for households with a non-elderly or disabled member[5] and eliminate deductions used by the elderly and disabled, and by working families for childcare expenses.

The Ross bill also would eliminate income deductions for eligibility and increase rents for Iowa’s elderly and disabled rental assistance recipients.[6] The bill would impact over 24,400 Iowa households receiving rental assistance; with a 41 percent monthly rent increase for recipients.

Rental assistance encourages work by freeing up household income for work-enabling basic needs such as food, transportation and child care. Secure housing has tremendous impacts on child development including social and emotional well-being, and physical health.[7] These two proposals threaten to destabilize housing for many working low-income households with children, as well as for the elderly and disabled all across the state of Iowa.

Natalie Veldhouse is a research associate for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. Contact: nveldhouse@iowapolicyproject.org

 

[1] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of 2016 HUD administrative microdata

[2] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Policy Basics: Federal Rental Assistance.” November 2017. https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/policy-basics-federal-rental-assistance

[3] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Assisted Housing: National and Local Dataset.” 2017. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/assthsg.html#2009-2017_query

[4] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Trump Plan Would Raise Rents on Working Families, Elderly, People with Disabilities.” April 2018. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/trump-plan-would-raise-rents-on-working-families-elderly-people-with-disabilities

[5] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Trump Plan to Raise Minimum Rents Would Put Nearly a Million Children at Risk of Homelessness.” April 2018. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/trump-plan-to-raise-minimum-rents-would-put-nearly-a-million-children-at-risk-of-homelessness-0

[6] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “House Bill Would Allow Sharp Rent Increases on Struggling Low-Income People.” May 2018. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-bill-would-allow-sharp-rent-increases-on-struggling-low-income-people

[7] Research and Practice, “US Housing Insecurity and the Health of Very Young Children.” August 2011. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300139

 

 

15 yards, loss of revenue

Governor Reynolds’ remarks about her tax cuts for the wealthy fail any test of accuracy.

It’s time to throw the penalty flag on Governor Kim Reynolds. Her remarks about the tax cuts she signed into law Wednesday for the wealthy fail any test of accuracy. Iowans need to know the facts.

It would be different if she had acknowledged, and made a case for:

•  massive tax cuts for the wealthiest.
•  cutting revenues, assuring continued suppression of education and opportunity, public health and safety and investments in the future of Iowa.
•  continued massive corporate tax giveaways, as business tax credits have doubled in five years.

But those were not her messages — and those messages will not be repeated here. The Governor is (1) deceiving Iowans about some policies she has adopted, and (2) ignoring likely damage to the economy from these tax cuts.

She even put off some forward strides she had suggested but abandoned during the recent legislative session. The concept of “reform” is gone, as the bill does nothing to simplify taxes for at least four years, and leaves in place a system that already was heavily skewed to benefit the wealthy.

Here are a few critical realities:

  The income tax savings to a middle class family next year are only $3 to $4 a week (according to the Department of Revenue) — while the sales tax increase will offset such savings for many.
  Millionaires, on the other hand, will see on average an $18,773 cut for the year.
  Larger tax cuts scheduled to take place in five years might not happen because they are triggered by a revenue target that will be very difficult to meet. (But count on tax-cut proponents to campaign on them.)
  Instead of adjusting taxes in a way that cuts would be paid for, this legislation will actually take $300 to $400 million a year out of the budget. Those dollars could have gone to adequately fund education or public safety or mental health care.
  The bill makes $40 million in corporate income tax cuts.
•  The bill provides an unneeded tax break for wealthy earners of “pass-through” income from business.

Meanwhile, the bill fails to reform business tax credits, which have doubled in five years, to $400 million. And it also fails to raise the standard deduction or eliminate federal deductibility, both of which the Governor had proposed but compromised away.

As reviews and promotions of the tax bill proceed, keep these points in mind. And watch for more information, because the analysis will continue on a bill developed in secret, for signing at an invitation-only ceremony.

Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. Contact: mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Tax bill: Know five points

The new tax plan abandons real tax reform for costly changes slanted heavily to the rich. It is more likely to hurt the Iowa economy than to help it.

Here are five things you need to know about the final version of the tax bill now scheduled for a vote in the Iowa Legislature this Saturday: (1) It is not income tax reform, (2) It is not a middle-class tax cut, (3) It is more skewed to the richest Iowans than previous bills, (4) It is very expensive and will force cuts in education, public safety and other services, and (5) It is more likely to hurt the Iowa economy than to help it.

As we have pointed out previously, real income tax reform would rein in expensive business tax credits that have little effectiveness, eliminate federal deductibility, increase recognition of the costs of raising a family, and raise the Iowa standard deduction — which would both simplify taxes for thousands of Iowans, and target tax cuts at lower and middle-income taxpayers. The tax bill does none of these things for the next four years.

Earlier versions of the House bill would have increased the standard deduction and eliminated federal deductibility, but those provisions were jettisoned in favor of $40 million in corporate tax cuts and more tax preferences for high-income business owners. The bill does little to reform business tax credits, which have doubled in five years. It adds a new and expensive loophole — a deduction for pass-through income from certain businesses.

For the next four tax years the bulk of the tax savings go to the most well off. In 2021, almost half of the tax cuts will go to the richest 2.5 percent of Iowa taxpayers, those making $250,000 or more. Their taxes are reduced by 18 percent, over twice the cut for those in the middle. For those making over a million dollars, the tax cut will average $24,636.

Meanwhile, those in the middle will see income tax cuts of $100 to $300 over the next four years, much of which will be taken back in increased sales taxes of $35 to $60.

All of this comes at a high cost to the state — over $400 million a year by 2021. With over half the budget going to education, this means the underfunding of our public schools and the rising tuition and debt for our community college and university students will continue.

The bill’s only “trigger” does nothing to guarantee fiscal sustainability, its purported purpose. The $400 million hit to the general fund will happen no matter how slow the Iowa economy, and state revenues, grow. We could hit a recession in the next two years, and those tax cuts will remain in place.

The only trigger governs an additional round of tax cuts for 2023. If the revenue target is met (and it would require growth rates of over 5 percent per year) then the annual cost of the bill jumps to $643 million. Only then would federal deductibility end, and the higher federal standard deduction come into play.

If the bill’s backers are counting on growth to come to the rescue, they are willfully ignoring all evidence to the contrary. The last major income tax cuts in Iowa, in 1997-98, not only failed to stimulate growth, but likely contributed to the subsequent slowing of the state’s economy. The tax cuts in Kansas led to slower growth.

Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

House tax bill backs wealthy

It’s the Middle-Class Mirage: The current proposal in the Iowa House backs the wealthiest, not Iowans in the middle.

Editor’s Note: As tax negotiations continue in Des Moines, the ultimate House plan has yet to emerge. This post is based on the latest House bill available.

The “middle class tax cut” proposed by the Iowa House is a mirage. For the vast majority of Iowans, much or most of the small reduction in income taxes is taken back by the increase in sales tax — the other part of the House bill.

Compared to what middle-income Iowans paid in state income taxes when they filed this month for 2017 — and what they would have paid in the future if federal taxes had not been cut — the income tax cut in House File 2489 amounts to about $100 on average. Those with income between $20,000 and $100,000 represent over half of Iowa taxpayers. But they will face higher sales tax payments averaging about $47 a year. The net savings will amount to about $4 a month — but that’s on average. For some, there will not be a savings at all.

Table 1. Top 1 percent would take over one-third of tax benefit
House Bill: Income Tax Reduction Compared to Pre-Federal Baseline*
Iowa residents, tax year 2023

Book1

*Reduction in taxes compared to projected tax payments in 2023 under Iowa law but without the effect of the Federal tax cut legislation.
Source: IFP analysis of Iowa Department of Revenue estimates

For those at the top — the 0.7 percent of Iowa resident tax filers with income over $500,000 — the story is different. The average tax cut is $6,852, offset by on average $224, or less, in sales taxes and leaving them with at least $6,600 in net savings.

And that small group of well-off taxpayers gets 36.4 percent of the total income tax cut.

While the top 1 percent gets a tax cut averaging 11 percent, the other 99 percent get an average cut of 4 percent. If sales taxes were taken into account, the results would be even more skewed.

Table 2. Effects of Sales Tax Provisions of the House Bill — Iowa residents

Book1b

Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, April 2018

2010-PFw5464

Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

 

Tax cuts: Already tried, failed

Iowa’s coming tax-cut experiment has been tried before and failed. Research showed the tax cuts appear to have slowed growth, taking money out of the economy.

Former Iowa Department of Revenue official Michael Lipsman discusses tax issues at a public forum last week at the State Capitol as former Senator Charles Bruner, left, and Senators Joe Bolkcom, Janet Petersen and Amanda Ragan listen. The institutional memory of experts such as Lipsman has been lost as legislators have rushed into plans to overhaul Iowa’s tax system, with most discussions taking place outside public view and earshot.

♦♦♦♦♦♦

Twenty-one years ago the Iowa Legislature enacted an across-the-board 10 percent cut in state income tax rates. That tax cut not only failed to spur economic growth, but bears a share of the blame for the under-performance of the Iowa economy in the years following. And it led to recurring revenue shortfalls and budget cuts.

Some in the Iowa Senate aim to repeat the experiment, this time with an 8 percent cut. There is no reason to expect a different result.

A 2004 report by Michael Lipsman, then head of the Tax Research and Program Analysis Section of the Iowa Department of Revenue, explains why the tax cuts of 1997 and 1998 had a negative effect on the economy.[1] That legislation cut all income tax rates by 10 percent, expanded the exemption for capital gains income, increased the pension exclusion, and exempted lineal ascendants and descendants from the state inheritance tax.[2]

The tax cuts were expected to reduce state revenue by $318 million in 2019. But Lipsman estimates that the effect of all these tax provisions was a reduction in revenue exceeding $600 million a year by 2002. Why the larger number? Because not only did the state take a smaller share of Iowans’ income in taxes, but income grew more slowly than it would have without the tax cuts.

This runs counter to the ideology of supply-side economics, which predicts that tax cuts will always spur growth. But Lipsman’s point is that it depends on the nature of those cuts — how much goes to non-residents, how much to high-income residents, where savings are likely to be invested, and where goods are produced.

The Iowa tax rate cuts, the pension exclusion, and the capital gains preference all concentrated their benefits on higher income taxpayers, and over a third of the inheritance tax benefit went to non-residents. The 3 percent of Iowa taxpayers with over $100,000 income got 24 percent of the benefit from the rate cuts, and these are the taxpayers most likely to invest their tax cut rather than spend it locally. It is likely that much of the tax savings was invested outside the state. Furthermore, most of the high-value consumer goods purchased by upper-income Iowans are produced outside the state.

At the same time, the tax cuts reduced state and local revenue, and public-sector employment dropped as a result. State and local government payrolls in Iowa decreased 16 percent from 1997 to 2002, over twice the rate of decline for the country as a whole. And state and local governments spend primarily within the state of Iowa, helping to boost the state economy. Cuts in public sector spending hurt the state economy directly (reduced purchases from local suppliers) and indirectly (reduced local purchases by public sector workers).

The upshot is that the tax cuts appear to have slowed growth, taking money out of the economy that ultimately ended up invested elsewhere, or went directly to non-residents, or was spent on goods produced elsewhere, instead of supporting Iowa businesses. In the five years leading up to the tax cuts, the Iowa economy grew at a rate nearly identical to the national economy: 28 percent. In the five years following the cuts, Iowa’s growth fell to 22 percent, compared to the national rate of 27 percent.

The massive tax cutting experiment in Kansas produced similar results — the Kansas economy slowed rather than accelerated. The experiment was a failure, and was ended by the Legislature.

The latest House tax bill would shower three-fifths of its benefits on taxpayers with income over $100,000, much more skewed to the top than the 1997 legislation. The Senate bill is likely to be skewed as well; it includes a pass-through income loophole that would cost $100 million, four-fifths of that going to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers.

Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is not the definition of rational policy making.

[1] Michael A. Lipsman. The Economic Effects of 1997 and 1998 Iowa Tax Law Changes. Tax Research and Program Analysis Section, Iowa Department of Revenue, July 2004.

[2] These are the major provisions, accounting for 90 percent of the cost. The bills also increased the personal credits and the tuition and textbook credit.

Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

SNAP changes: Ignoring what works

EITC and child care more effective than drug tests and work requirements

Work requirements for public assistance seem to be all the rage — at both the national and state levels — when other policies would do more to encourage and support work.

President Trump signed an executive order April 10 enhancing enforcement of federal public assistance work requirement laws, evaluation of program effectiveness, and consolidation or elimination of “ineffective” programs.[1] The Trump administration also is considering drug tests for SNAP (Food Stamp) recipients.[2]

Similar legislation in Iowa (Senate File 2370) intended to expand regulations on and further monitor recipients of public assistance in Iowa, but appears to have stalled as the 2018 session nears an end. This included implementing work requirements, drug testing, quarterly reviews of eligibility, and a one-year residency requirement.[3]

The Farm Bill draft[4] released April 12 would reduce or eliminate SNAP benefits for 1 million households, or 2 million recipients, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Work requirements would force able-bodied adults without dependents to prove every month that they work or participate in a training program 20 hours per week. Severe sanctions for noncompliance would cut off benefits for one year the first time — three years the second.[5]

Recent research found recipients under work requirements for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) continued to live below the federal poverty level, and that small increases in employment diminished over time and did not result in stable employment in most cases.[6] In the long term, programs that provide training, skill building, and educational opportunities to recipients are shown to be more successful than only implementing work requirements.[7]

Evidence shows that people in SNAP households who can work do work. More than 80 percent work during the year before or after receiving benefits.[8]

Drug testing public assistance recipients has proven to be costly and frivolous. States that have implemented drug testing found that applicants have lower drug usage rates than the general population. The state of Missouri spent $336,297 in 2015 to test 293 of 31,336 TANF applicants and found only 38 positive results.[9]

Eleven percent of Iowans received public assistance in February of 2018.[10] Already, able-bodied adult without dependents have work requirements to receive SNAP in the state of Iowa.[11]

By contrast, the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Care Assistance (CCA) are policies that are effective in encouraging work. In addition, Iowa could make changes in work support programs, such as CCA,[12] to reduce what are known as “cliff effects” — when families with a pay raise or a new job are faced with a net loss because a reduction in benefits exceeds the new income.

Policies that support working families, not drug testing and work requirements, would do more to encourage work, raise family incomes, and boost local economies.

 

[1] The White House, “Executive Order Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility.” April 2018. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-reducing-poverty-america-promoting-opportunity-economic-mobility/

[2] Associated Press, “Drug testing plan considered for some food stamp recipients.” April 2018. https://www.apnews.com/6f5adff5efeb4f9a9075f76bf9cf5572

[3] IA Legis, “Senate File 2370” February 2018. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=87&ba=SF2370

[4] House Agriculture Committee “H.R. 2: the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018.” April 2018. 115th Congress. https://agriculture.house.gov/uploadedfiles/agriculture_and_nutrition_act_of_2018.pdf

[5] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Chairman Conaway’s Farm Bill Would Increase Food Insecurity and Hardship.” April 2018. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/chairman-conaways-farm-bill-would-increase-food-insecurity-and-hardship#_ftn1

[6] Urban Institute, “Work Requirements in Social Safety Net Programs.” December 2017. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/95566/work-requirements-in-social-safety-net-programs.pdf

[7] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Work Requirements Don’t Cut Poverty, Evidence Shows.” June 2016. https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/work-requirements-dont-cut-poverty-evidence-shows

[8] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Making SNAP Work Requirements Harsher Will Not Improve Outcomes for Low-Income People.” March 2018. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/making-snap-work-requirements-harsher-will-not-improve-outcomes-for-low

[9] Center on Law and Social Policy, “Drug Testing SNAP Applicants is Ineffective and Perpetuates Stereotypes.” July 2017. https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/publications/2017/08/Drug-testing-SNAP-Applicants-is-Ineffective-Perpetuates-Stereotypes.pdf

[10] Iowa Department of Human Services, “Food Assistance Report Series F-1.” March 2018. http://publications.iowa.gov/27299/1/FA-F1-2016%202018-03.pdf

[11] Iowa Department of Human Services, “ABAWD Letter.” September 2017. https://dhs.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/470-3967.pdf

[12] Peter S. Fisher and Lily French, Iowa Policy Project: Reducing Cliff Effects in Iowa Child Care Assistance, March 2014. https://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2014docs/140313-CCA-cliffs.pdf

 

2018-NV-6w_3497(1)Natalie Veldhouse is a research associate at the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.

nveldhouse@iowapolicyproject.org