Alaska

This report concludes that lack of consistent sales tax collection is contributing to an unlevel playing field for local businesses “because millions of shoppers are able to pay less tax if they choose to buy from out-of-state companies over the Internet rather than at local stores.” It recommends that states explore reforms to bring their sales tax policies into the digital age.

A new ITEP analysis reveals that in seven states (Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania), the nation’s largest e-retailer, Amazon.com, is either not collecting local-level sales taxes or is charging a lower tax rate than local retailers. In other states, such as Colorado and Illinois, Amazon is collecting local tax because it has an in-state presence, but localities cannot collect taxes from other e-retailers based outside the state.

Online retailer Amazon.com made headlines last year when it began collecting every state-level sales tax on its direct sales. Savvy observers quickly noted that this change did not affect the company’s large and growing “marketplace” business, where it conducts sales in partnership with third-parties and rarely collects tax. But far fewer have noticed that even on its direct sales, Amazon is still not collecting some local-level taxes.

The onset of spring this week proved to be fertile ground for state fiscal policy debates. A teacher strike came to an end in West Virginia as another seems ready to begin in Oklahoma. Budgets were finalized in Florida, West Virginia, and Wyoming, are set to awaken from hibernation in Missouri and Virginia, and are being hotly debated in several other states. Meanwhile Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, and Minnesota continued to grapple with implications of the federal tax-cut bill.  And our What We're Reading section includes coverage of how states are attempting to further public priorities by taxing carbon, online gambling,…

Many states struggle with a need for revenue, yet their lawmakers show little will to raise taxes to fund public services. Revenue shortfalls can prove to be a moving target. Some states with expected shortfalls are now seeing rosier forecasts. But as estimates come in above or below projections, states continue to grapple with how and whether to raise the revenue necessary to adequately fund key programs. Here are a few trends that are leading to less than cushy state coffers this year.

This week was very active for state tax debates. Georgia, Idaho, and Oregon passed bills reacting to the federal tax cut, as Maryland and other states made headway on their own responses. Florida lawmakers sent a harmful "supermajority" constitutional amendment to voters. New Jersey now has two progressive revenue raising proposals on the table (and a need for both). Louisiana ended one special session with talks of yet another. And online sales taxes continued to make news nationally and in Kansas, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania.

This Valentine's week finds California, Georgia, Missouri, New York, Oregon, and other states flirting with the idea of coupling to various components of the federal tax-cut bill. Meanwhile, lawmakers seeking revenue solutions to budget shortfalls in Alaska, Oklahoma, and Wyoming saw their advances spurned, and anti-tax advocates in many states have been getting mixed responses to their tax-cut proposals. And be sure to check out our "what we're reading" section to see how states are getting no love in recent federal budget developments.

State legislative sessions are in full swing this week as states grapple with revenue shortfalls and the ramifications of the federal tax cut bill. Lawmakers in Alaska and Louisiana, for example, are debating how to handle their revenue shortfalls, and a tax cut proposal in Idaho has been received tepidly. And be sure to peruse our "What We're Reading" section for helpful perspectives on how states are affected by the federal tax cut bill.

The big news this week in state tax law is that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take on the issue of online sales, nexus, and sales tax collection. States have increasingly lost out on sales tax revenues as more transactions have shifted online from brick-and-mortar stores and the laws determining who is required to collect and remit sales taxes haven't kept up. This is potentially good news for states—25 of which National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) reports started the new year with budgetary deficits. In other news, grappling with the local impact of federal tax reform…

These have been dark days for those who care about tax justice and public investments, but with the Winter Solstice this week and many states diving into their legislative sessions in January, longer days (and long work days) are soon to come! Governors and legislators are already proposing or hinting at their 2018 tax and budget plans in Alaska, California, Iowa, Maryland, and Washington. And transportation investments are getting strong support in Missouri, Oregon, and Virginia.

The final tax bill that Republicans in Congress are poised to approve would provide most of its benefits to high-income households and foreign investors while raising taxes on many low- and middle-income Americans. The bill would go into effect in 2018 but the provisions directly affecting families and individuals would all expire after 2025, with […]

The final Trump-GOP tax law provides most of its benefits to high-income households and foreign investors while raising taxes on many low- and middle-income Americans. The bill goes into effect in 2018 but the provisions directly affecting families and individuals all expire after 2025, with the exception of one provision that would raise their taxes. To get an idea of how the bill will affect Americans at different income levels in different years, this analysis focuses on the bill’s impacts in 2019 and 2027.

The House passed its “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” November 16th and the Senate passed its version December 2nd. Both bills would raise taxes on many low- and middle-income families in every state and provide the wealthiest Americans and foreign investors substantial tax cuts, while adding more than $1.4 trillion to the deficit over ten years. The graph below shows that both bills are skewed to the richest 1 percent of Alaska residents.

The House passed its “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” November 16th and the Senate passed its version December 2nd. Both bills would raise taxes on many low- and middle-income families in every state and provide the wealthiest Americans and foreign investors substantial tax cuts, while adding more than $1.4 trillion to the deficit over ten years. National and 50-State data available to download.

The State Rundown is back from Thanksgiving break with a heaping helping of leftover state tax news, but beware, some of it may be rotten.

The tax bill reported out of the Senate Finance Committee on Nov. 16 would raise taxes on at least 29 percent of Americans and cause the populations of 19 states to pay more in federal taxes in 2027 than they do today.

The Senate tax bill released last week would raise taxes on some families while bestowing immense benefits on wealthy Americans and foreign investors. In Alaska, 43 percent of the federal tax cuts would go to the richest 5 percent of residents, and 4 percent of households would face a tax increase, once the bill is fully implemented.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was introduced on Nov. 2 in the House of Representatives, would raise taxes on some Americans and cut taxes on others while also providing significant savings to foreign investors.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was introduced on November 2 in the House of Representatives, includes some provisions that raise taxes and some that cut taxes, so the net effect for any particular family’s federal tax bill depends on their situation. Some of the provisions that benefit the middle class — like lower tax rates, an increased standard deduction, and a $300 tax credit for each adult in a household — are designed to expire or become less generous over time. Some of the provisions that benefit the wealthy, such as the reduction and eventual repeal of the estate…

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.

This week in state tax news saw Alaska begin yet another special session, Louisiana lawmakers holding meetings to begin preparing for the state’s looming (self-imposed) fiscal cliff, and Alabama policymakers beginning a study of school finance (in)adequacy and (in)equity. Meanwhile, state revenue performance is poor well into 2017 in many states, though Montana, Nevada, and Oregon are all enjoying modest but welcome revenue bumps from legalized marijuana.