No ‘I’ in sports bets

But is prohibiting bets on individuals enough to assure integrity in college games?

An admitted political compromise would legalize sports betting in Iowa while keeping bets on Iowa student athletes illegal — but only on their individual performance.[1]

Promoters of the plan are betting that this small nod to sports integrity might gain a few votes. However, the compromise in the Legislature shines a light on the integrity issue and to larger weaknesses, which are many.

If legal sports betting were not a threat to sports integrity, no such compromise to the betting bill, HF748, would be needed. The compromise concedes a threat remains to competition outside Iowa that gamblers might influence. Plus, legislative deals made now could be quickly reversed next year once that new betting door is open. I mean, what are the odds?

These are among many points — including fiscal and economic issues — being missed in the rushed drive in 2019 to expand gambling in Iowa with legalized sports betting.

Governing Magazine looked at the revenue states might expect. The magazine cited a Moody’s Investors Service report that noted “sports betting in Nevada accounted for just 2 percent of statewide gambling revenue.”[2] In the first six months of legalized sports betting in New Jersey a mere $3 million in tax revenue was raised from in-casino betting, in a state much larger than Iowa and with a higher tax rate on betting (8.5 percent).[3]

This is not economic development. Sports betting in Iowa is for Iowa residents only; we would not attract any out-of-state spending. And much of the money wagered on sports would come from spending on other forms of entertainment at local businesses, where more of the profits stay in the state.

Casinos want sports betting to entice new customers, who might become regulars at the slot machines and gaming tables.

So for a meager increase in revenue, the state would open up greater opportunities to contaminate sports integrity and create new problems of gambling addiction, along with the attendant family problems and breakups, embezzlement, and job loss.

Already, most families have no savings, or very little. Around half of U.S. families have no or negative net wealth.[4] More than 60 percent don’t have even $1,000 put aside for emergencies let alone for retirement.[5] Having more gambling opportunities keeps people from getting ahead.

Many of these problems are only a matter of time. Any bets on how soon we will see them?

2010-PFw5464Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project in Iowa City. pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

 

[1] The Gazette, Cedar Rapids, March 19, 2019, “Compromise advances sports betting bill in Iowa House,” https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/compromise-advances-sports-betting-bill-in-iowa-house-limits-in-play-prop-wagers-on-iowa-collegiate-sports-20190319, and March 22, 2019, “Betting on college pivotal to gambling debate,” https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/business/iowa-sports-betting-college-sports-20190322.

[2] Liz Farmer. How the Sports Betting Ruling Will Impact State Budgets The Supreme Court outlawed a federal ban on sports betting on Monday, and some states are poised to capitalize. Governing May 14, 2018. https://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-how-legalizing-sports-betting-will-impact-state-budgets.html

[3] The Tax Policy Center, “TPC’s Sports Gambling Tip Sheet.”  https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/tpcs-sports-gambling-tip-sheet.

[4] The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, Vol. 1, May 2016, Issue 2, Wealth Inequality in the United States Since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data, Pg. 554. http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2016QJE.pdf.

[5] Bankrate’s Financial Security Index, 2018, https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/financial-security-0118/.

Charging all taxpayers private tuition

Vouchers are about mandates, forcing everybody to pay for the few, and diverting resources from public schools.

Iowa taxpayers are on the hook for over $65 million in subsidies each year to private schools in Iowa.[1] Nearly all of these schools are religious schools. While only 6 percent of the students in elementary schools in Iowa are in private schools, all taxpayers help pay for their education (and religious training) through the state taxes they pay. And in nearly three-fourths of Iowa public school districts there is no private school option.

Proposals once again making their way through the Iowa Legislature would expand the subsidies to these private schools, and to the parents who choose to send their children there, through the creation of education savings grants. These proposals would end up costing over $100 million per year, and potentially up to $200 million, money that could instead be used to strengthen education in the public schools serving 94 percent of Iowa’s children.[2]

There are 330 public school districts in Iowa. In 242 of those districts there is no private school offering classes in any grade, Kindergarten through 12th. Private schools are concentrated in Iowa’s metropolitan areas. Nearly half of the total private school enrollment in the state is in just 12 school districts, all located in one of Iowa’s nine metropolitan areas.

The map below shows just how scarce private schools are in rural Iowa. While all 21 of the Iowa counties that are part of a metropolitan area (lighter blue in map) have at least one private school, only 38 of the 78 non-metro counties have a private school option. And in 12 of these counties the options are quite limited: a single school with total enrollment ranging from just 20 to 98. (For an interactive version of the map, click on the image.)

[1] http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2018docs/181105-IFP-pvtschools-bgd.pdf

[2] http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2018docs/181105-roadmap-vouchers.pdf

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

pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

Eye on the ball: Wages and the cost of living

Public policy debates now and on into 2019 should keep this fact in focus: Working families in Iowa must earn substantially above the official poverty threshold just to get by.

 

 

 

Our 6th edition of The Cost of Living in Iowa finds that roughly 100,000 Iowa working households are unable to make basic needs.[1] Put another way, about 17 percent — or 1 in 6 — households cannot get by on their income alone. It is a critical number that should inform countless public policy discussions for the remainder of 2018 and on into the next legislative session.

Part One of this report details how much working families must earn in order to meet their basic needs, while Part Two estimates the number and proportion of Iowa working households able to earn enough. This latest edition adds new analysis by race, Hispanic origin, and gender.

These pieces provide the foundation for Part Three, which is forthcoming and will connect the dots further illustrate the importance of public work support programs for many Iowans, who despite their work efforts, are not able to pay for the most basic living expenses.

We construct basic needs budgets that represent what it takes to survive rather than thrive in the state of Iowa. These budgets include allowances for rent, utilities, food prepared at home, child care, health care, transportation, clothing and other household necessities. The basic budget does not include savings, loan payments, education expenses, any entertainment or vacation, social or recreational travel, or meals outside the home.

In Part One, we find statewide that a single parent with two children needs to earn a wage of $23.91 per hour in order to meet basic needs. A two-parent household with one child and one parent working need an hourly wage of $13.29, compared to $16.30 for the same family type with two workers. Differences in cost from one county to another can be dramatic. The total annual basic needs budget for a family with two working parents and two children was $10,600 higher in the highest cost county compared to the lowest cost county. No family type is able to meet basic needs on Iowa’s $7.25 minimum wage.

Part Two uses census data to estimate the number of Iowa working households that are able to meet the basic needs without public assistance. In 2018 we find that 17 percent of households or 227,000 Iowans live below this threshold.[2] Broken down further, fully 62 percent of single-parent working households are unable to meet basic needs. For this family type, there is an average gap of $20,000 between after-tax income and basic needs expenses. A larger share of African American (30 percent), Hispanic (28 percent), and female-headed (19 percent) households are unable to meet basic needs in Iowa.

The cost of living in Iowa continues to rise. Working families and individuals in Iowa must earn substantially above the official poverty threshold — in some cases nearly three times the poverty level — to achieve a very basic standard of living in Iowa without the help of public supports. Part Three of The Cost of Living in Iowa 2018 will show the role of work support programs in bridging this gap.

[1] The Cost of Living in Iowa, 2018 Edition, Part 1: Basic Family Budgets. Peter S. Fisher & Natalie Veldhouse, July 2018, the Iowa Policy Project. 

[2] The Cost of Living in Iowa, 2018 Edition, Part 2: Many Iowa Households Struggle to Meet Basic Needs. Peter S. Fisher & Natalie Veldhouse, July 2018, the Iowa Policy Project. 

Posted by Natalie Veldhouse, research associate for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. She and IPP Research Director Peter Fisher are the authors of the latest edition of The Cost of Living in Iowa. nveldhouse@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

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

Big costs, few real breaks

Despite all the hoopla, the average taxpayer would hardly notice the effects of this bill — another $3 or $4 a month.

The latest tax bill to emerge from the Iowa House would take $90 million from the state budget, robbing the ability of the state to adequately fund education, mental health, and public safety. And yet Iowans will see so little in return that most will not even be able to tell they got a tax cut.

By the time the House bill’s provisions  are fully phased in (fiscal year 2021), the income tax cuts and sales tax modernization measures will result in about $90 million a year less revenue flowing to the state’s general fund than was projected before the federal tax bill was passed.[1] After years of revenue shortfalls and budget cuts, the House bill would guarantee that those problems will continue.

Iowa is one of only three states where you can deduct your federal income tax before computing your income subject to Iowa tax. As a result, the federal tax cut bill will reduce that deduction and increase your Iowa taxable income and your Iowa income tax. But that effect is tiny. If the state were to do nothing at all, taxpayers would still keep 94 to 98 percent of the federal tax cut (see table below).

House plan offers little break for individuals, at great cost to services
Combined effects of Iowa House tax plan and federal tax changes

ia_finalhousebill_results-2.jpg

Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Washington, D.C.

The House bill goes beyond what would have been needed to restore the small tax increases due to federal deductibility. It makes a number of changes in the income tax, including an increase in the state standard deduction. Overall, it reduces income taxes for those in the middle three-fifths of Iowa taxpayers by about $100 to $155 a year. The bill also modernizes the state sales tax, and those measures would bring in about $73 million a year from Iowa residents, and cost the middle income taxpayer $37 to $60 a year.

The net effect of all of this is an average tax cut of just $29 to $53 a year for those in the middle three-fifths of Iowa taxpayers, and smaller amounts for others. In other words, despite all the hoopla, the average taxpayer is going to hardly notice the effects of this bill — another three or four dollars a month.

Let’s just walk that through for a household with income of $53,000, which would put them right in the middle of all Iowa households. They can expect to pay $860 less in federal taxes, with federal deductibility taking back just $26 of that in state income taxes — they get to keep 97 percent. Then they get a $122 income tax cut and a $47 sales tax increase from the House tax bill. Net effect: $860 less in federal taxes, $49 less in state taxes.

While the tax savings are insignificant — three or four dollars a month — the House bill will take all that back and much more for many Iowa families. Tuition at public universities and community colleges will continue to rise because public funding will not be able to keep up with costs. School districts will be forced to enact more cuts as state funding fails to keep pace with inflation. Mental health initiatives will remain underfunded.

[1] Iowa Department of Revenue memo to Jeff Robinson, April 17, 2018. This is the net revenue loss compared to projected revenues before the federal tax bill was passed. The revenue loss compared to Iowa tax revenue including the windfall gain from federal deductibility ($178 million) would be $269 million in FY2021.

2010-PFw5464Peter Fisher is research director of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project. pfisher@iowapolicyproject.org

Reality on Iowa teacher pay

Serious analysis shows Iowa doesn’t rank as high on teacher pay as the Governor and some media are reporting.

The experience of Wisconsin school districts in the years following Governor Walker’s gutting of collective bargaining for public workers does not bode well for Iowa. School districts are reportedly having difficulty finding teachers. Teachers have been leaving the state, not just for higher pay but because they want to work where their efforts are appreciated and they are respected.[1] Some left for Iowa, and are now wondering where they should go next, as Iowa repeats the folly of Wisconsin.

If we are to keep the best college grads in the state, and attract them here from elsewhere, a good starting salary is part of the picture, even though the prospect of raises down the road seems much dimmer with the end of serious collective bargaining here. So how does Iowa stand in terms of starting salary?

The average starting salary in Iowa for the 2016-17 school year was $35,776. That was good enough to rank Iowa near the middle of the pack — 32nd when compared with other states and the District of Columbia. But some have argued that Iowa has a low cost of living compared to other states, so we don’t need to pay as much. Fortunately, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) produces a cost of living index for each state. They recommend using that index to make wage comparisons across states, to reflect differences in purchasing power.

The BEA index for Iowa was 90.3 in 2015, the most recent year available. That means it costs Iowans 9.7 percent less than the national average to live. The starting salary of $35,776 would then be equivalent to $39,608 in a state with an average cost of living. Comparing all states in terms of the starting salary properly adjusted for cost of living differences, Iowa ranks 21st.[2]

What about the overall average salary? Unfortunately, the Governor has been citing a bad statistic. A recent NPR report focused on how states ranked on teacher pay when you take into account the cost of living in each state. But they did it wrong. Instead of using the standard cost of living index produced by the BEA, NPR asked a company called EdBuild to do the analysis, and EdBuild used a proprietary index — the Cost of Living Index produced by the Center for Community and Economic Research (C2ER) — that is not reliable and produces sometimes dramatically different cost of living indexes. For example, their index for 2013 (according to EdBuild) had Iowa with an above-average cost of living[2], while for 2015 it was 11 percent below the national average.

What happens if we use the correct adjustment for the cost of living? Iowa’s average teacher salary ranks 15th in the nation[3], not eighth as EdBuild calculated and as NPR reported. NPR is looking into the issue; we await their correction.

[1] David Madland and Alex Rowell. “Attacks on Public-Sector Unions Harm States: How Act 10 Has Affected Education in Wisconsin.” November 15, 2017. Center for American Progress.
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/economy/reports/2017/11/15/169146/attacks-public-sector-unions-harm-states-act-10-affected-education-wisconsin/

[2] IPP calculations using the National Education Association starting salary data for 2016-17 and the BEA Regional Price Parities for 2015.
[3] Average starting pay of $33,226 was adjusted downward to $33,120, meaning that the cost of living in Iowa was lower than average. http://viz.edbuild.org/maps/2016/cola/states/#salary
[4] IPP calculations using the average salary data for 2015-16 cited in the NPR report and the BEA Regional Price Parities for 2015.

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