Good start on Iowa unemployment insurance in health emergency

Actions by the state are welcome news. The four-week break in the legislative session is a good opportunity to look for other ways to strengthen the system to protect working families.

With widespread layoffs anticipated or already occurring in key sectors of the state’s economy, it is welcome news that the state has relaxed eligibility standards for receiving unemployment insurance benefits. In our IPP blogs of March 14 and March 15 we identified key changes that states could make fully in accord with U.S. Department of Labor guidance for increasing program flexibility to deal with the pandemic.

On Monday, Governor Kim Reynolds announced key changes by Iowa Workforce Development to the state’s UI system that align with these recommendations:

•    Work search requirements are waived for individuals filing an unemployment insurance claim as a result of COVID-19.

•    Individuals who have to leave their job because they are ill, because they are self-isolating due to exposure to COVID-19 or because they are caring for an ill family member, or because the business has shut down due to COVID-19 will be eligible for UI as long as they meet other standard requirements — having worked for six of the last 18 months and earned at least $2,500 during that period. Workers are expected to utilize sick days, paid leave, or telecommuting options if they are available.

•    Employers will not be charged for any employee receiving COVID-19 related unemployment benefits; i.e, their future insurance rates will not be raised.

Employees wanting to find more information on these provisions or to determine if their particular situation qualifies can find some answers on the Iowa Workforce Development website here.

The U.S. Department of Labor also reminded states that two other forms of flexibility may be helpful in the current situation: waiving the one-week waiting period before receiving benefits and establishing a Short Time Compensation (STC) program. Fortunately, Iowa does not have a waiting period, and already has an STC program called Voluntary Shared Work. The latter program allows the employer to reduce work hours for several employees instead of laying off a smaller number, with the employees then eligible for partial UI benefits to replace most of the wages lost due to reduced hours.

Voluntary Shared Work can be an important tool for employers and employees alike, allowing the business to keep trained workers and allowing more workers to retain their employment connection. In order to utilize the shared work provisions, an employer must apply. Employers who have not yet instituted work sharing should be encouraged to do so; they can find more information from Iowa Workforce Development here.

These actions by Iowa Workforce Development are welcome news. Federal emergency legislation just passed may provide additional flexibility to states.

The four-week break in the state legislative session is a good opportunity to look for other ways to strengthen the state system to protect working families who are affected in the current emergency. That will help the Iowa economy to come out stronger on the other side of the crisis.

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

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

Tax plan harms most seniors

For seniors especially, new tax-cut promises are hollow — just like, if the Governor gets her way, the promises that came with the 2010 constitutional amendment.

iowacapitol-rotundaSeniors in particular should be wary of Governor Reynolds’ tax-shift plan because, like most Iowans they would, in general, see little or no benefit and could even be worse off.

The list of those harmed by this plan is significant already.

  • Poor and moderate-income Iowans will lose income and services.
  • Environmental and outdoor recreation advocates who sought a sales-tax increase to fund their priorities will get far less than they expected because the Governor proposes to change the rules.
  • Education, law enforcement and other services will suffer with net losses in general fund revenues that the governor is demanding.

Add seniors to the list. It is clear seniors are among the losers in this legislation unless they are (1) rich or (2) not concerned about the public services that will be lost.

Iowans at low and moderate incomes already can count on paying a greater share of their income in state and local tax under the plan. That’s because it trades a sales tax increase, which disproportionately affects those at lower incomes, for cuts in the income tax and property tax, which helps wealthier filers.

To get her way at the expense of low-income Iowans no matter their age, the Governor wants to change the law that set up the constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2010. The amendment directed the next three-eighths-cent sales tax to a Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund. That law, set up to implement the fund, said trust fund moneys would “supplement and not replace” appropriations for the purposes named for the fund.

That is important on two counts. Besides throwing aside the expectation of all of the designated sales tax increase providing new money for those purposes, her plan shortchanges the specified purposes, cutting trails, REAP, and much of the funding for the Department of Natural Resources.

Beyond the formula change that should concern anyone who voted for the amendment in 2010, seniors in particular should be wary because the Governor is embracing the voters’ consent to a tax increase only if she can cut other taxes by a greater amount. Her proposed income tax cuts are guaranteed to hinder Iowa’s long-term commitments to other services, from education funding for grandchildren’s schools, to corrections to safety-net supports — and make the overall tax system less fair to the poor and middle-income Iowans and especially seniors.

A bad deal for seniors

The Governor’s plan would raise the sales tax by a full penny, not just three-eighths of a cent for the trust fund, and use the majority of the increased revenue to cut income taxes. That would be a bad deal for most seniors.

The Iowa Department of Revenue has estimated that an additional penny sales tax would cost the average lower income household in Iowa without children about $40 on average (with a range of $30 to $50). That includes all households making less than $30,000. Those in the $30,000 to $50,000 gross income range would pay $68 to $90 more.  Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy indicate that 40 percent of Iowa households earn under $50,000.[1]

But estimates from the Iowa Department of Revenue show that the income tax cuts would not provide any measurable benefit for the lowest-income 40 percent of seniors — an average tax savings of just one dollar, for those with taxable income under $10,000. Because of favorable tax treatment for seniors, many currently pay no income tax and thus would get no benefit.

Those earning $50,000 to $75,000 total income represent the middle 20 percent of Iowa households. They would pay $100 to $120 more a year in sales tax under the Reynolds plan, but save only about $33 in income taxes. At least 60 percent of seniors, in other words, pay more under this proposal — and they are paying more largely to finance bigger tax cuts for the wealthiest Iowans.

Seniors count on many public services that are funded by state and local government. So while seniors largely will not benefit on the revenue side, they will also lose on the expenditure side, in lost services. These services cannot avoid cuts if the Governor gets her way. Under her proposal, there will be about $175 million less revenue in the general fund each year, which means less funding for education, health care, and other services.

A key reason most seniors do not benefit

It also is helpful to remember that many seniors have several built-in exceptions to income tax. These exceptions make new income-tax cuts meaningless or minimal to them, unless they are quite well off already:

  • All Social Security benefits already are exempt from state tax in Iowa.
  • The first $6,000 in pension benefits per person ($12,000 per married couple) is exempt from tax.
  • Those age 65 or older receive an additional $20 personal credit.
  • While non-elderly taxpayers are exempt from tax on the first $9,000 of income, for those age 65 or older, the exemption rises to $24,000. For married couples, the threshold is $13,500 for the non-elderly, but $32,000 for seniors.

In short, under current Iowa tax law, seniors get very substantial income tax breaks.

For seniors especially, new tax-cut promises are hollow — just like, if the Governor gets her way, the promises that came with the 2010 campaign for a constitutional amendment for a sales tax increase to fund water quality and recreation.

 

[1]   Those with taxable income under $10,000 account for 41 percent of senior tax filers for Tax Year 2022, according to Table 5 in the Iowa Department of Revenue memo to Jeff Robinson on the impact of SSB3116 on seniors, Feb. 14, 2020. Those with $10,000 to $20,000 taxable income account for another 17 percent of senior taxpayers.

2010-PFw5464Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.

 

osterberg_david_095115David Osterberg is IPP’s environmental researcher and co-founded the organization in 2001.

Cutting revenues, holding back schools

As the Senate goes low on school funding, the governor promotes a tax plan that would make improvements even more difficult.

It is worth noting that as the Iowa Senate passed an exceedingly meager 2.1 percent growth in per-pupil spending for Iowa’s K-12 public schools, Governor Reynolds’ tax bill offers a net reduction in revenue.

But even the governor has proposed more for FY2021 — 2.5 percent — than the Senate approved Monday. As shown below, the governor’s plan keeps Iowa on a long-term downward trendline (in red) for school funding growth. The Senate plan goes lower.

200115-SSA-shaded-roadmap6

 

The governor’s tax shift proposal trades a sales-tax increase for income-tax cuts: a bad deal both for tax fairness and adequate revenues. In doing so, she has chosen to pit education advocates against environmental advocates — who would see much less in funding for water quality and trails than voters directed in 2010 in a constitutional amendment. And, she would make our overall tax system tilted even more heavily to the wealthy than it is now.

Basic RGB

Poor and inequitable funding of public schools and other critical public services are directly related to an inequitable tax system that relieves those most able to pay — the wealthiest — of that responsibility.
The governor is demanding that the package of tax changes actually cause a net loss of revenue. This is not only a severe twisting of voters’ intent in 2010 in approving use of the next sales tax increase to raise funding for environmental and recreational enhancements, but a mathematical guarantee that other services will be held down or even cut.
If we are going to adequately fund programs to improve environmental quality and educational achievement, it starts with protecting all of those programs and promoting equity and fairness in how the revenues are raised.
M
Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project.
mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

Anti-taxers don’t get ‘competitiveness’

Iowa is a low-tax state for business, and has been for some time. Two leading business consulting firms have demonstrated this.

slide_taxfoundation-cropHere we go again. Whenever Iowa legislators or lobbyists want to cut taxes for business, or for high-income individuals, they trot out the same myth about competitiveness.

The reality is pretty simple: Iowa is a low-tax state for business, and has been for some time. Late last year, the Council on State Taxation released its latest report on how much businesses pay in state and local taxes, prepared by the accounting firm Ernst and Young. Iowa was 18th lowest — only 17 states had a lower overall tax rate on business.[1] (See graph.) Another accounting firm, Anderson Economic Group, ranks Iowa’s business taxes even lower, at 14th — only 13 states have lower taxes.[2]

But why use real data when you can just cite some anti-tax, anti-government think tank that has cobbled together a “competitiveness index” that makes Iowa look bad?

So it is again in 2020. The governor cited the need to be competitive in her condition of the state address, and the Senate president repeated the theme. To support the claim, Senator Charles Schneider pointed to a bogus study by the Tax Foundation that ranked Iowa 42nd among the states in “business tax climate.” Only eight states were worse.

The Tax Foundation, it turns out, mashes together 124 components of state tax systems to produce an overall “index number” to rank the states. Their index is meaningless; it gives weight to components that cannot plausibly affect tax competitiveness, while ignoring features that have a large impact on business taxes.[3]

The last problem is particularly salient for Iowa. Iowa offers single-factor apportionment, which can drastically reduce a corporation’s Iowa tax if they export much of their production. And Iowa is one of the few states that allow corporations to deduct part of their federal income taxes on their state return. Both of these factors are completely ignored by the Tax Foundation. Instead, they focus on things like the number of tax brackets. Meanwhile, the sales taxation of food is a good thing, in their book; Iowa’s failure to tax food somehow makes us less competitive. This is nonsense.

Iowa is a slow growing state, but more tax cuts for those at the top will not help. They will further erode the state’s ability to invest in our roads and bridges, in our children and our workforce, the building blocks of a strong economy. Education, from early childhood through college, not only produces the skilled workforce businesses need, but makes it easier to attract workers from elsewhere, knowing their children will get a good education.

[1] Business taxes as a percent of GSP. Ernst & Young LLP, Total state and local business taxes, October 2019. Table 4, page 12. https://www.cost.org/globalassets/cost/state-tax-resources-pdf-pages/cost-studies-articles-reports/1909-3269660_50-state-tax-2019-final.pdf

[2] Business taxes as a share of business pre-tax operating surplus. Anderson Economic Group LLC, June 2018. 2018 State Business Tax Burden Rankings, Exhibit I, page 17. https://www.andersoneconomicgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/AEGBusinessTaxBurdenStudy_2018_FINAL.pdf

[3] For a more detailed critique of the Tax Foundation’s ranking, and others, see “Grading the States: Business Climate Rankings and the Real Path to Prosperity.” http://www.gradingstates.org/

2010-PFw5464Peter Fisher, research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City, is professor emeritus in the University of Iowa School of Urban and Regional Planning. His widely cited Grading the States analysis is at gradingstates.org. pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

Transparent realities of bad law

To be transparent, lawmakers and the governor would admit they are enshrining minority rule, punishing public workers again, and penalizing economic growth and recovery.

curtains-tighterIn the closing nights of the 2019 session, while most Iowans slept, the Iowa Legislature enacted substantial changes to the way city and county governments fund public services.

There was no chance for public input, or for analysis by legislative staff. With no apparent sense of irony, the bill’s supporters argued the purpose was to increase transparency for voters.

On Thursday, Governor Reynolds signed the bill out of the public eye, issuing only a one-sentence statement repeating the same claims and ignoring the real impacts.

In this one bill, the Legislature managed to enshrine minority rule, punish public-sector workers (yet again), penalize economic growth, and hamstring cities and counties recovering from a natural disaster.

The bill will limit the growth of property taxes levied by cities and counties to 2 percent each year. Local elected officials will need a two-thirds vote to do more, if they find that their constituents’ needs demand it. So much for majority rule and local democracy.

The bill threatens city services and the local public workers who provide them. Employee benefits, such as health insurance and contributions to pension funds, until now could be financed by a special tax rate, in recognition that the rising cost of health insurance and fixed pension contributions are outside city or county control. These costs have been increasing more than 2 percent annually, often much more. But now they go under that arbitrary 2 percent cap.

There was much attention — deservedly so — to how various versions of the bill would affect IPERS pension benefits. This ultimately served to distract many from much broader impacts.

When pension contributions and health insurance premiums increase more than 2 percent, the city or county may have to reduce services, cut benefits, or lay off workers to keep overall tax growth under the cap. The bill pits taxpayers against the people who plow their streets, protect their homes, build roads, or maintain parks and libraries.

When services are cut, public employees can be portrayed as the scapegoats, which will be convenient to the forces that have threatened public employee pensions. Turning Iowa’s secure pension programs over to less-secure, privately run for-profit administrators remains a goal for those forces.

The new bill also penalizes local governments for pursuing growth. A last-minute change in the legislation puts revenue from new construction under the 2 percent cap.

As a result, cities and counties experiencing significant growth may be forced to cut rates year after year and will find themselves without the revenue to support the growth if they can’t muster the supermajority. For example, a city growing at 4 percent per year would face a revenue penalty of 17 percent within five years.

Another last-minute change left in place existing levy limits, which would have been abolished under both earlier bills. So now cities and counties face two limits, one on rates and another on revenue growth.

The combination could be devastating in some circumstances. Consider a flood, or a recession causing a loss of property value. The rate cap forces revenues to decline for any city or county at or near the rate limit, which includes the vast majority of localities.

Then, as the recession ends or the city rebuilds, the revenue cap could now undermine recovery. The reduced revenue becomes the new starting point, potentially leaving a city or county unable to restore revenues even to the previous level because of the 2 percent limit on revenue increases. And this just at a time when extraordinary measures are needed to help the recovery.

One has to wonder if more transparency in the process might have helped legislators find a better outcome — or at least helped their constituents to argue for one.

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

Editor’s Note: This post updates and expands upon a previous post about this legislation, prior to the governor’s signing of the bill.

Questions — before the answer comes

Whether it’s your job to sign or veto the property tax limitation bill hatched in back rooms of the Iowa Statehouse, or simply to evaluate it as a citizen watching the process (and ultimately paying the price for it), you should be able to answer these questions.

As Governor Kim Reynolds mulls SF634, the property tax limitation bill, there are many questions anyone would have to consider — questions that did not get an adequate hearing before the rush to passage of a backroom-built bill in the waning hours of the 2019 Iowa legislative session.

1)   Why an arbitrary 2 percent limit on new tax revenues? No matter what increasing costs an individual community may face to provide public services, the bill limits growth in revenues to 2 percent.

2)   Why penalize growth? No matter how much property valuation grows in good times, the revenue limits would restrict the public services needed to service a growing community.

3)   Why penalize recovery from disaster? Reduced property value under tax levy limits will reduce revenue for critical public services in recovery.

4)   Why take local tax decisions out of the hands of locally elected officials? It’s never easy for local officials to raise taxes — taxes they also pay — but the bill substitutes the arbitrary will of state legislators for the judgment of board and council members the voters choose to make local decisions.

5)   Why hinder jobs, encouraging local cuts in public service jobs by putting special levies for employee benefits such as pensions under the new, artificial and arbitrary general revenue cap?

6)   Why encourage a reduction of health benefits for local public service employees by putting those costs under an arbitrary revenue cap?

7)   Why should a “no” vote count twice as much as a “yes” vote? That is the effect of the two-thirds super majority required to go above legislative mandated 2 percent revenue growth. Local officials would have to reach that threshold in many cases with actually more than two-thirds approval: four “yes” votes on a five-member board or council, five if there are seven members — and that is the case even if revenues exceeding 2 percent growth would mean a decrease in tax rates!

8)   Why reward backroom deals in the name of transparency? There was no opportunity for a public debate on this deal hatched in the waning hours of the legislative session. There was no transparency in the process.

Mike Owen is executive director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City.

mikeowen@iowapolicyproject.org

 

Be sure to see this Iowa Fiscal Partnership backgrounder by Peter Fisher of the Iowa Policy Project for more information about the actual property tax trends in the state — trends ignored by proponents of the legislation who offered a false narrative about this issue.

Also see this blog by Peter Fisher.

IPERS defenses are ‘care tactics’

Concerns about IPERS changes stem directly from leaders’ comments, proposed legislation and a longtime goal of ideologues on the right who have become more strident.

IPERS, the Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System, has come under attack in recent years for no substantive reason — only ideology and politics. Understandably, IPERS members, who number well over 10 percent of the population of Iowa, are concerned.

So, some folks are engaged in what might be called “care tactics,” to make sure the stakes on that issue are well-understood. People who care want good information, and are asking for it.

These efforts and concerns are being dismissed by those who claim there is no threat to IPERS. Political scare tactics indeed are part of the 2018 campaign on several issues — primarily taxes, as illustrated by the hair-on-fire ads on television that do more to distort than inform.

But it’s hard to make that case about pension concerns, which stem directly from leaders’ comments, proposed legislation and a longtime goal of ideologues on the right who have become more strident.

Those now dismissive of pension concerns point to recent campaign-season comments by Governor Kim Reynolds. Yet not so long ago Reynolds herself raised the prospect of some change in IPERS’ actual pension structure to a “defined contribution” or 401k-style structure for new employees.[1] Her predecessor, Terry Branstad, had made similar comments.[2] Legislation was proposed in 2017 in the Senate.[3] All of this remains fresh in the minds of those who are worried, as do efforts by others to undermine IPERS.

IPERS critics have promoted that riskier “defined contribution” structure, needlessly scaring Iowa taxpayers about Iowa’s secure IPERS system. The Des Moines Register has run such scare pieces, by Don Racheter of the Public Interest Institute[4] and by Gretchen Tegeler of the Taxpayers Association of Central Iowa.[5]

Neither the media nor IPERS critics have been able to explain how a separate system based on a 401k style structure — “defined contribution” — could be introduced for new employees without undermining existing and promised IPERS benefits for current members.

Contributions plus Interest investments equal Benefits plus Expenses in administration of the system— this is what is required for full funding of IPERS. If you reduce that first item, contributions, by setting new employees apart in a different plan, clearly that matters. It’s math.

In fact, it affects more than those new employees. Reducing contributions by diverting those from new employees reasonably means lower benefits — for current members!

The media and all policy makers should be asking more about this. It’s not enough to accept a “nothing to see here” argument from someone who in the recent past declared herself open to a change — especially when activists have pushed for it, and legislation has been proposed. The dismissal — not exposing it — is the “scare tactic.”

Let’s stay away from the “scare tactics,” and focus on the “care tactics.”

 

[1] Ed Tibbetts, Quad-City Times, “Reynolds says state looking at IPERS task force,” Jan. 26, 2017. https://qctimes.com/news/local/government-and-politics/reynolds-says-state-looking-at-ipers-task-force/article_bf76d410-c70b-5300-951c-ad1cb6bced3f.html

[2] William Petroski, The Des Moines Register, “IPERS cuts key target; unfunded pension liabilities up $1.3 billion,” March 24, 2017. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/24/ipers-cuts-key-target-unfunded-pension-liabilities-up-13-billion/99600866/

[3] O. Kay Henderson, RadioIowa, “Democrats accuse GOP of plotting that IPERS be dismantled,” December 11, 2017. https://www.radioiowa.com/2017/12/11/democrats-accuse-gop-of-plotting-that-ipers-be-dismantled/

[4] Don Racheter, Public Interest Intitute “Replace IPERS with defined-contribution plan,” The Des Moines Register, May 27, 2016. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/abetteriowa/2016/05/17/replace-ipers-defined-contribution-plan/84492576/

[5] Gretchen Tegeler, Taxpayers Association of Central Iowa, “Don’t minimize Iowa’s public pension debt,” The Des Moines Register, January 16,2018, https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2018/01/16/iowas-public-pension-debt-eclipses-other-public-debt/1035979001/; also “Public retirement systems are not ideal for young, mobile employees,” The Des Moines Register, December 8, 2016, https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2016/12/08/public-retirement-systems-not-ideal-young-mobile-employees/95148216/

 

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