Last Tuesday, voters in several states approved modest tax hikes. Increasingly, states are using ballot measures to determine whether to support new taxes. Some of these referenda are binding, others just advisory. But in 2013, voters in several states seem to be hungering for more revenue—though sometimes from unusual sources and decidedly not by raising income taxes—at least in one state.
Here is a rundown of the results:
RECOMMENDED: 14 Republicans who might run in 2016
- Colorado: Voters approved a 25 percent state-wide tax on marijuana, on top of some additional county dope taxes. But they soundly rejected adding a new top rate to their income tax. While some of the new state marijuana tax revenue is designated for school construction, the public education system missed out on $1 billion in new aid when voters rejected the income tax hike.
- New York: Let the games begin. New York State voters expanded gaming to allow seven new casinos including three in New York City after seven years. Until now, legal betting has been restricted to “racinos” (horse racing tracks with slot machines and video gaming), charitable gambling such as bingo, and state approved lotteries. The recession stopped the growth nationally in state gaming revenue, but several states have expanded their gaming venues to try and keep some of this money at home. ( Continue… )
Stories about the Affordable Care Act often tell readers that they’ll have to pay a $95 penalty if they don’t get adequate health insurance coverage. But, like a lot of other things I read about the health law, that’s not quite correct. The penalty (which the Supreme Court said is actually a tax) could be less or, more likely, a lot more. It’s a complicated story.
The basic penalty is $95 in 2014—if you’re unmarried with no dependents and your income is less than $19,500. If your income is higher, you’ll owe more: 1 percent of the amount by which your income exceeds the sum of a single person’s personal exemption and standard deduction in the federal income tax. That’s $10,000 in 2013. But be warned: Income equals adjusted gross income (AGI—that number on the last line on page 1 of your tax return) plus any tax-exempt interest and excluded income earned abroad. If you make $30,000, your penalty will be $200.
Still with me? Good, because it is about to get more confusing. ( Continue… )
Thanks to the campaign watchdog organization Center for Responsive Politics and National Public Radio, we’ve learned more about the tactics of some political organizations that enjoy tax-exempt status. The Center has unpacked the dealings of tax-exempt groups that exist merely to funnel political money from anonymous donors to 3rd party non-profits that in turn buy millions of dollars in political advertising.
According to the Center, political non-profits spent more than $300 million on federal elections in the 2012 campaign cycle, three times what they spent in 2008. Increasingly, according to the report, money is being funneled through tax-exempt campaign money laundries.
Many of these groups are 501(c)(4)’s (named after the tax code section under which they are organized). To receive that status, they must serve the social welfare—a purpose subject to a very fuzzy IRS definition. But once they do, they can take advantage of a critical provision of the law: They are not required to disclose the names of their donors when they report to the IRS. This anonymity is key to their business model. ( Continue… )
As House and Senate budget negotiators sit down (eight months late), the inevitable issue of new revenues has already raised its head. Predictably, Democrats insist that any fiscal deal include new taxes. Equally predictably, Republicans demand that it must not.
But behind the scenes, Washington’s wink-and-nod crowd thinks it has a solution: Raise new tax revenue—at least on paper—without actually increasing taxes. In fact, some of the gimmicks on the table create even darker Halloween magic. They purport to raise revenues by cutting taxes. Here are just a few examples:
Timing Changes: Timing gimmicks are possible because the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation—Congress’ official legislative scorekeepers—normally track revenues only within a 5- or 10-year budget window. As a result, Congress writes laws that boost revenues within those periods, regardless of the long-term consequences.
RECOMMENDED: Can you manage your money? A personal finance quiz.
Who benefits the most from the tax subsidy for municipal bonds? The easy answer is: Rich people who buy most of the tax-free paper.
That’s true, according to a new analysis by my colleagues at the Tax Policy Center, but the story isn’t quite that simple. If you look more closely, it turns out that others may benefit as well, including investors in taxable debt. And if you dig even deeper, the answer may depend on what state and local governments do with the subsidy from those tax-free bonds.
The paper’s authors, Harvey Galper, Joe Rosenberg, Kim Rueben, and Eric Toder, started with the usual question—who benefits most when you look at after-tax rates of return from tax-exempts?
At first blush, high-income investors benefit more from that exemption than those in lower brackets (top-bracket taxpayers can save 39.6 cents on the dollar while those in the 25 percent bracket may only be able to save 25 cents). ( Continue… )
In the aftermath of the recent government shutdown and the painful negotiations that brought the country perilously close to defaulting on government debt, policy experts are searching for a way to avoid a replay of this crisis.
After all, the recent congressional agreement only delays the next potential shutdown till January 15 and lifts the debt ceiling only until February 7.
While many Republican officials were willing to breach the debt limit, most economists and policymakers agreed that deliberately defaulting on the government debt would be an historic mistake, with long-lasting negative consequences. Even cutting other spending while paying bondholders would have carried significant downside risks. ( Continue… )
Yesterday, Washington Post columnist Bob Samuelson urged lawmakers to “just eliminate…the whole notion of entitlements.” His provocative argument: The very word “entitlement” makes people believe these programs are somehow untouchable. They are, for instance, effectively exempt from the sequester’s cuts even though they represent two-thirds of all government spending.
Bob is on to something but he misses a key piece of the story—tax subsidies, or what we might call tax entitlements.
He focuses only on the familiar spending entitlements—Medicare, Social Security, college loans, farm subsidies, and the like that account for about $2 trillion of the federal budget in fiscal 2014. ( Continue… )
The conventional wisdom is that next January, Congress and President Obama will be in exactly the same place they’ve been for most of the past three weeks—deep in government shutdown mode. The argument: The recent fiscal battles that ended with Wednesday night’s short-term deal to reopen the government and reauthorize Treasury borrowing buys time but does nothing to change Washington’s toxic culture.
It is hard to disagree, but there is another possible outcome. No, it isn’t the grand bargain. That’s off the table at least until 2015 and perhaps longer. But Congress and Obama could reach a mini-bargain that would at least take the edge off the current ugliness.
It would be simple and the first steps could be taken in a week or two (although they won’t be). The deal would look come in three parts.
RECOMMENDED: Five bipartisan fixes for US debt crisis
To start, remember that yesterday’s agreement called for House and Senate negotiators to sit down and finish the 2014 budget process that came to a grinding halt last March. So lawmakers have a ready-made venue for a deal. But what could a realistic agreement look like? Here is one possibility: ( Continue… )
Like Seinfeld, the classic 1990s TV comedy, Congress is increasingly about…nothing.
If the agreement reached by Senate leaders yesterday sticks (and given recent history, even that is uncertain) Congress has just shuttered much of the federal government for more than two weeks and risked a market-shattering federal default in order to convene a meeting of budget negotiators.
According to published reports, that is pretty much the sum total of what lawmakers agreed to today. They will reopen the government until Jan. 15 and give the Treasury renewed authority to borrow money until Feb. 7. This will give Congress and President Obama another three months of artificial fiscal crisis, generate more breathless headlines, and almost certainly drive Washington’s standing with the public even closer to rock bottom.
As a result of this frantic last-minute deal, it is a virtual certainty that we will be in exactly the same place in mid-January as we are today, only colder.
Between now and then, we will return to the status quo ante. The GOP’s Quixotic and self-destructive efforts to demolish the Affordable Care Act have come to naught. The law is not defunded. The individual mandate is not delayed. Even the tax on medical device makers remains.
The GOP did win one concession: The government must do its utmost to prevent low-income people from lying about their income in order to get health insurance. Otherwise, the 2010 health law goes on unchanged.
Meanwhile, Democrats will have three months to relitigate the across-the-board spending cuts known as the sequester. They conceded at the very beginning of the most recent contretemps that they’d accept ongoing government funding at current sequester levels for the duration of any new spending bill.
Given how matters turned out, they probably regret that quick capitulation. But fear not, they’ll have the opportunity to fight another day. It is in fact why Democrats, not Republicans, ended up insisting on a short-term spending bill as part of today’s agreement.
The next turn of the budget screw is scheduled for Jan. 15 when lower 2014 spending levels are due to bite under the next round of the sequester. Today’s deal opens the door for a new fight over those numbers.
Democrats will demand the next round of cuts be trimmed for domestic spending programs. Some Republicans will ask the same for military spending. Others will fight to maintain the cuts.
The hard-earned fiscal deal hammered out today calls for all this to get worked out—or not—in a budget conference.
Keep in mind the budget conferences used to be a routine part of Congress’ fiscal process. This conference should have begun last March—seven months ago– after the House and Senate passed their own versions of the 2014 fiscal blueprint.
But the panel never met. For months, Senate Democrats insisted on talks but House Republicans refused to even appoint negotiators. Then, just before the Oct 1 government shutdown, Republicans demanded a budget conference but Senate Democrats refused.
Now, the budget deal says…They should meet.
Lawmakers would instruct the negotiators to produce a 10-year tax and spending blueprint by Dec. 13. But they won’t require such a deal, and certainly won’t set any enforceable parameters for any agreement. Yesterday’s plan simply says they should meet and report something.
All this uncertainty and bitterness. All this lost credibility. All to schedule a meeting.
The latest edition of the Tax Policy Center’s State and Local Finance Initiative’s State Economic Monitorfinds that revenue growth is accelerating in most states but many jurisdictions faced strong economic headwinds going into the recent partial government shutdown and potential default. In several states, a decline in public sector jobs was boosting unemployment even before the partial shutdown.
The State Economic Monitor shows state-by-state economic and finance trends and our new page on the website includes interactive maps and charts.
Between August 2012 and August 2013, the public sector shed 94,000 jobs, mostly federal positions. Forty-six states lost federal government jobs. Total government jobs (including state and local positions) increased in 18 states but every state except West Virginia remains below its peak level of government employment, seasonally adjusted.
The trends in unemployment rates vary widely. Thirty-six states have lower unemployment rates than a year ago while twelve states have higher rates. ( Continue… )