Alaska lawmakers are facing an unprecedented fiscal crisis. The state is more dependent than any other on oil tax and royalty revenues but declines in oil prices and production levels have sapped much of the vitality of these revenue sources. One way of diversifying the state’s revenue stream and narrowing the yawning gap between state revenues and expenses would be to reinstitute a statewide personal income tax. Alaska previously levied such a tax until 1980. This report contains ITEP’s analysis of the distributional impact and revenue potential of a variety of flat-rate income tax options for Alaska, based on draft legislation provided by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.
Publications
-
report February 24, 2021 Comparing Flat-Rate Income Tax Options for Alaska
-
report April 24, 2017 Comparing the Distributional Impact of Revenue Options in Alaska
Alaska is facing a significant budget gap because of a sharp decline in the oil tax and royalty revenue that has traditionally been relied upon to fund government. This report examines five approaches for replacing some of the oil revenue that is no longer available: enacting a broad personal income tax, state sales tax, payroll tax, investment income tax, or cutting the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). Any of the options examined in this report could make a meaningful contribution toward closing Alaska’s budget gap. To allow for comparisons across options, this report examines policy changes designed to generate $500 million annually. This amount would be insufficient to close Alaska’s $3 billion budget gap, but any of these options could be modified to raise additional revenue, or could be incorporated into a larger package of changes designed to close the gap.
-
report April 4, 2017 Testimony before the Alaska House Labor & Commerce Committee On House Bill 36
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the changes House Bill 36 would make to Alaska’s tax treatment of pass-through income. The taxation of pass-through business entities has been a focal point of state and federal tax reform debates for over a quarter century, with a dual focus on minimizing the role of tax laws in determining the choice of business entity and on ensuring that the income of all business entities is subject to at least a minimal tax. My testimony makes two main points:
1. Alaska is one of a small number of states that do not currently impose either an entity-level tax or a personal income tax on the income generated by pass-through businesses. 2. But Alaska fully taxes the income of traditional C corporations, creating a clear incentive for businesses to structure as pass-throughs to avoid income tax.
In the absence of a statewide personal income tax, imposing an entity-level tax on the net income of pass-through businesses, as HB36 would do, is a straightforward approach to leveling the playing field between different types of business entities, while ensuring these businesses help to fund public investments. -
report March 28, 2017 Assessing the Distributional Consequences of Alaska’s House Bill 115 (Version L)
This report contains ITEP’s analysis of the distributional and revenue consequences of the revised version of House Bill 115 (Version L) as proposed on March 23, 2017. This proposal would reduce Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) payout and implement a personal income tax based on a modified version of Federal Adjusted Gross Income, with rates ranging from 0 to 7 percent. The analysis was produced using ITEP’s Microsimulation Tax Model.
-
report January 25, 2017 Alaska’s Motor Fuel Tax: A National and Historical Outlier
Alaska Gov. Bill Walker recently proposed tripling his state’s motor fuel tax rates.[1] While a variety of fuel types would be affected by this proposal, three-fourths (or $60 million) of the revenue raised each year would come from higher taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel–sometimes referred to as highway fuels–purchased by Alaska motorists.
Absent any national or historical context, tripling Alaska’s gasoline and diesel fuel tax rates may sound like a radical policy change. But an adjustment of this size is necessary because Alaska lawmakers have not updated the state’s basic highway fuel tax rate since May 1970–almost 47 years ago.[2] Because of this inaction, Alaska’s highway fuel tax has become an outlier when compared to other states’ tax rates, or when compared to Alaska’s own history.
This brief discusses four ways in which Alaska’s highway fuel tax is an outlier:
-
report July 12, 2016 Income Tax Offers Alaska a Brighter Fiscal Future
Read this report in PDF. This month, Alaska legislators regroup in yet another special session where they will consider legislation to address a yawning budget gap created by declining oil… -
report April 13, 2016 Distributional Analyses of Revenue Options for Alaska
Alaskans are faced with a stark fiscal reality. Following the discovery of oil in the 1960s and 1970s, state lawmakers repealed their personal income tax and began funding government primarily through oil tax and royalty revenues. For decades, oil revenues filled roughly 90 percent of the state’s general fund.
-
report March 6, 2012 Alaska Senate State Affairs Committee Regarding SB 29, The Alaska Tax Break Transparency Act
My testimony today deals with Senate Bill 29, which would take an important first step toward achieving these goals by requiring regular scrutiny of Alaska “tax expenditures”—that is, the various… -
report October 5, 2002 Distributional Impact of Alaska Tax Options (PowerPoint)
Download the Powerpoint