California

Lawmakers who support reducing or eliminating state personal income taxes typically claim that doing so will spur economic growth. Often, this claim is accompanied by the assertion that states without income taxes are booming, and that their success could be replicated by any state that abandons its income tax. To help evaluate these arguments, this study compares the economic performance of the nine states without broad-based personal income taxes to their mirror opposites—the nine states levying the highest top marginal personal income tax rates throughout the last decade.

A comprehensive tax study is underway in Arkansas this week as other states hone in on more specific issues. Soda taxes hit setbacks in Illinois and Michigan, business tax subsidies faced scrutiny in Iowa and Missouri, and gas tax update efforts are underway in Mississippi and North Dakota.

The ITEP report concludes that many of the most affected people would be middle-income and upper-middle income taxpayers. For example, in Maryland, about one-third of those making from $48,700 to $73,700 would face a tax hike, while 41 percent of those between $73,700 and $126,500, would face an increase, the study says. And almost 65 […]

This week, Kansas's school funding was again ruled unconstitutionally low and unfair, while Montana lawmakers indicated they'd rather let historic wildfires burn a hole through their budget than raise revenues to meet their funding needs. Meanwhile, a struggling agricultural sector continues to cause problems for Iowa and Nebraska, but legalized recreational marijuana is bringing good economic news to both California and Nevada.

A 50-state analysis of the GOP tax framework reveals the top 1 percent of taxpayers would receive a substantial tax cut while middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers in many states would pay more, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy said today. The GOP continues to tout its tax plan as “beneficial to the middle class.” […]

The “tax reform framework” released by the Trump administration and Congressional Republican leaders on September 27 would affect states differently, but every state would see its richest residents grow richer if it is enacted. In all but a handful of states, at least half of the tax cuts would flow to the richest one percent of residents if the framework took effect.

The “tax reform framework” released by the Trump administration and congressional Republican leaders on September 27 would not benefit everyone in California equally. The richest one percent of California residents would receive 81.7 percent of the tax cuts within the state under the framework in 2018. These households are projected to have an income of at least $864,900 next year. The framework would provide them an average tax cut of $90,160 in 2018, which would increase their income by an average of 3.3 percent.

This week, Wisconsin's leaders finalized the state budget at last, while those in Oklahoma began a special session to close their state's revenue shortfall. Soda tax fights made news in Illinois and Pennsylvania. And New Jersey offered Amazon $5 billion in tax subsidies.

Last week, Wisconsin leaders finally came to agreement on a state budget, while their peers in Connecticut appear to be close behind them. Iowa lawmakers avoided a special session with a short-term fix and will have to return to their structural deficit issues next session, as will those in Louisiana who will face a $1 billion shortfall. Meanwhile, District of Columbia leaders have already resumed meeting and discussing tax and budget issues there.

The U.S. Census Bureau released its annual data on income, poverty and health insurance coverage this week. For the second consecutive year, the national poverty rate declined and the well-being of America’s most economically vulnerable has generally improved. In 2016, the year of the latest available data, 40.6 million (or nearly 1 in 8) Americans were living in poverty.

Astonishingly, tax policies in virtually every state make it harder for those living in poverty to make ends meet. When all the taxes imposed by state and local governments are taken into account, every state imposes higher effective tax rates on poor families than on the richest taxpayers.

This week, Pennsylvania lawmakers risk defaulting on payments due to their extremely overdue budget and Illinois legislators will borrow billions to start paying their backlog of unpaid bills. Governing delves into why there were more such budget impasses this year than in any year in recent memory. And Oklahoma got closure from its Supreme Court on whether closing special tax exemptions counts as "raising taxes" (it doesn't).

Low- and middle-income working parents spend a significant portion of their income on child care. As the number of parents working outside of the home continues to rise, child care expenses have become an unavoidable and increasingly unaffordable expense. This policy brief examines state tax policy tools that can be used to make child care more affordable: a dependent care tax credit modeled after the federal program and a deduction for child care expenses.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a policy designed to bolster the earnings of low-wage workers and offset some of the taxes they pay, providing the opportunity for struggling families to step up and out of poverty toward meaningful economic security. The federal EITC has kept millions of Americans out of poverty since its enactment in the mid-1970s. Over the past several decades, the effectiveness of the EITC has been magnified as many states have enacted and later expanded their own credits.

It's been a quiet week for tax policy in most states, though lawmakers are still making noise in Pennsylvania, where a budget agreement is still needed, and in Wisconsin, where legislators are searching for the will to raise revenue for the state's ailing transportation infrastructure. In our "What We're Reading" section you'll find interesting reading on the fiscal fallout of Hurricane Harvey, as well as an in-depth series on how states' disaster response needs are likely to continue to increase.

Tax and budget debates are progressing at different paces in different parts of the country this week. In Connecticut and Wisconsin, lawmakers hope to finally settle their budget and tax differences soon. In South Dakota, a court case that could finally enable states to enforce their sales taxes on online retailers inches slowly closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A tiny fraction of the U.S. population (one-half of one percent) earns more than $1 million annually. But in 2018 this elite group would receive 48.8 percent of the tax cuts proposed by the Trump administration. A much larger group, 44.6 percent of Americans, earn less than $45,000, but would receive just 4.4 percent of the tax cuts.

A tiny fraction of the California population (0.6 percent) earns more than $1 million annually. But this elite group would receive 53.9 percent of the tax cuts that go to California residents under the tax proposals from the Trump administration. A much larger group, 38.3 percent of the state, earns less than $45,000, but would receive just 3.8 percent of the tax cuts.

While only a few states still remain mired in overtime budget debates, there is plenty of budget and tax news from around the country this week. Efforts are underway to repeal gas tax increases in California and challenge a local income tax in Seattle, Washington. And New Jersey legislators' law to modernize its tax code to tax Airbnb rentals has been vetoed for now.

Unless the administration takes a radically different direction on tax reform from what it has already proposed, its tax plan would be a monumental giveaway to the top 1 percent. The wealthiest one percent of households would receive 61 percent of all the Trump tax breaks, and would receive an average of $145,400 in 2018 alone.

2017 marked a sea change in state tax policy and a stark departure from the current federal tax debate as dubious supply-side economic theories began to lose their grip on statehouses. Compared to the predominant trend in recent years of emphasizing top-heavy income tax cuts and shifting to more regressive consumption taxes in the hopes […]

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a policy designed to bolster the earnings of low-wage workers and offset some of the taxes they pay, providing the opportunity for struggling families to step up and out of poverty toward meaningful economic security. The federal EITC has kept millions of Americans out of poverty since its enactment in the mid-1970s. Over the past several decades, the effectiveness of the EITC has been magnified as many states have enacted and later expanded their own credits.

The broadly outlined tax proposals released by the Trump administration would not benefit all taxpayers equally and they would not benefit all states equally either. Several states would receive a share of the total resulting tax cuts that is less than their share of the U.S. population. Of the dozen states receiving the least by this measure, seven are in the South. The others are New Mexico, Oregon, Maine, Idaho and Hawaii.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration released some broadly outlined proposals to overhaul the federal tax code. Households in California would not benefit equally from these proposals. The richest one percent of the state’s taxpayers are projected to make an average income of $2,746,600 in 2018. They would receive 64.7 percent of the tax cuts that go to California’s residents and would enjoy an average cut of $149,710 in 2018 alone.