Publication Search Results

New data from the Census Bureau appear to lend support to Arizona’s reputation as a “low tax state,” ranking it 35th nationally in taxes collected as a share of personal income.1 But focusing on the state’s overall tax revenues has led many observers to overlook the fact that different taxpayers experience Arizona’s tax system very differently. In particular, the poorest 20 percent of Arizona residents pay significantly more of their income (12.9 percent) in state and local taxes than any other group in the state.2 For low-income families, Arizona is far from being a low tax state. In fact, only four states tax their poorest residents more heavily than Arizona.

Colorado has become infamous for its Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, a constitutional amendment restricting growth in revenue collections to an arbitrary “population-plus-inflation” formula. Although TABOR has had significant negative effects on Colorado’s finances, similar proposals have surfaced in at least 30 states over the past decade. None of these proposals were approved, and in five states they were placed directly on a state-wide ballot where they were rejected by voters. Even in Colorado itself, citizens voted to suspend TABOR for five years in an effort to allow the s

State and local tax codes include a huge array of special tax breaks designed to accomplish almost every goal imaginable: from encouraging homeownership and scientific research, to building radioactive fallout shelters and caring for “exceptional” trees. Despite being embedded in the tax code, these programs are typically enacted with tax policy issues like fairness, efficiency, and sustainability only as secondary considerations. Accordingly, these programs have long been called “tax expenditures.” They are essentially government spending programs that happen to be housed in the tax code for ease of administration, political expedience, or both.

Tax incentives are intended to spur economic growth that would not have otherwise occurred. More specifically, these narrowly targeted tax breaks are usually offered in an attempt to convince businesses to relocate, hire, and/or invest within a state’s borders.

Sales taxes are an important revenue source, comprising close to half of all state revenues in 2012. But sales taxes are also inherently regressive because the lower a family’s income, the more of its income the family must spend on things subject to the tax.

In the public debates over federal immigration reform, much has been made of the argument that undocumented immigrants would be a drain on federal, state and local government resources if granted legal status under reform. But it is also true that the 11.2 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States are already taxpayers, and that their local, state and federal tax contributions would increase under reform.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Matt Gardner. I am the Executive Director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a Washington-DC-based nonprofit research group. ITEP’s research focuses on federal and state tax policy with an emphasis on sustainability and fairness in the tax laws.

American consumers are keenly aware of the price of gasoline, but uninformed about what drives that price. When asked about the federal gas tax, for example, six in ten Americans said the tax rate goes up every year. In reality, the federal gas tax hasn’t budged from its 18.4 cent rate in almost twenty years, and roughly half the states haven’t seen their gas tax rates change in a decade or more.

Indiana Governor Mike Pence and the state’s legislative leaders recently announced a budget agreement that, among other things, phases the state’s flat personal income tax rate down from 3.4 percent to 3.23 percent by 2017.

The Indiana Senate Appropriations Committee recently approved a budget cutting the state’s personal income tax rate from 3.4 percent to 3.3 percent beginning in 2015. Although this proposal costs less than one-third the amount of Governor Pence’s preferred cut (which would take the rate down to 3.06 percent), it would still reduce state revenues by roughly $150 million each year.