Michigan

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.

Ballot initiatives relating to taxes made news around the country this week, with Oregon voters to consider reversing new health care taxes, Washingtonians to vote on improving education funding, and Nebraskans to potentially vote on a state tax credit for school property taxes. Meanwhile, multiple states are finalizing their proposals to lure Amazon to build a new headquarters in their state, often through the use of massive tax subsidies. And in our "What We're Reading" section we have sobering news from Moody's Investors Service on states' struggles to fund their infrastructure and save for the next recession.

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 “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 Michigan equally. The richest one percent of Michigan residents would receive 62.5 percent of the tax cuts within the state under the framework in 2018. These households are projected to have an income of at least $502,500 next year. The framework would provide them an average tax cut of $76,560 in 2018, which would increase their income by an average of 4.7 percent.

Sales taxes are one of the most important revenue sources for state and local governments; however, they are also among the most unfair taxes, falling more heavily on low- and middle-income households. Therefore, it is important that policymakers nationwide find ways to make sales taxes more equitable while preserving this important source of funding for public services. This policy brief discusses two approaches to a less regressive sales tax: broad-based exemptions and targeted sales tax credits.

A tiny fraction of the Michigan population (0.2 percent) earns more than $1 million annually. But this elite group would receive 38.6 percent of the tax cuts that go to Michigan residents under the tax proposals from the Trump administration. A much larger group, 43.3 percent of the state, earns less than $45,000, but would receive just 4.2 percent of the tax cuts.

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.

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.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration released some broadly outlined proposals to overhaul the federal tax code. Households in Michigan would not benefit equally from these proposals. The richest one percent of the state’s taxpayers are projected to make an average income of $1,621,600 in 2018. They would receive 53.2 percent of the tax cuts that go to Michigan’s residents and would enjoy an average cut of $120,010 in 2018 alone.

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.

Sales taxes are an important revenue source, composing close to half of all state tax revenues. But sales taxes are also inherently regressive because the lower a family’s income, the more the family must spend on goods and services subject to the tax. Lawmakers in many states have enacted “sales tax holidays” (at least 16 states will hold them in 2017), to provide a temporary break on paying the tax on purchases of clothing, school supplies, and other items. While these holidays may seem to lessen the regressive impacts of the sales tax, their benefits are minimal. This policy brief…

The flawed design of federal and state gasoline taxes has made it exceedingly difficult to raise adequate funds to maintain the nation’s transportation infrastructure. Thirty states and the federal government levy fixed-rate gas taxes where the tax rate does not change even when the cost of infrastructure materials rises or when drivers transition toward more fuel-efficient vehicles and pay less in gas tax. The federal government’s 18.4 cent gas tax, for example, has not increased in over twenty-three years. Likewise, nineteen states have waited a decade or more since last raising their own gas tax rates.

This week lawmakers in California and Nevada resolved significant tax debates, while budget and tax wrangling continued in West Virginia, and structural revenue shortfalls were revealed in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Airbnb increased the number of states in which it collects state-level taxes to 21. We also share interesting reads on state fiscal uncertainty, the tax experiences of Alaska and Wyoming, the future of taxing robots, and more!

This week saw a springtime mix of state tax debates in all stages of life. In West Virginia and Louisiana, debates over income tax reductions and comprehensive tax reform are full of vigor. Other debates that bloomed earlier are now settled, such as Florida‘s now-complete budget debate and the more florid debates over gas taxes […]

This post was updated July 12, 2017 to reflect recent gas tax increases in Oregon and West Virginia. As expected, 2017 has brought a flurry of action relating to state gasoline taxes. As of this writing, eight states (California, Indiana, Montana, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia) have enacted gas tax increases this year, bringing the total number of states that have raised or reformed their gas taxes to 26 since 2013.

The trend is clear: states are experiencing a rapid decline in state corporate income tax revenue. Despite rebounding and even booming bottom lines for many corporations, this downward trend has become increasingly apparent in recent years. Since our last analysis of these data, in 2014, the state effective corporate tax rate paid by profitable Fortune 500 corporations has declined, dropping from 3.1 percent to 2.9 percent of their U.S. profits. A number of factors are driving this decline, including: a race to the bottom by states providing significant “incentives” for specific companies to relocate or stay put; blatant manipulation of…

Public debates over federal immigration reform, specifically around undocumented immigrants, often suffer from insufficient and inaccurate information about the tax contributions of undocumented immigrants, particularly at the state level. The truth is that undocumented immigrants living in the United States paybillions of dollars each year in state and local taxes. Further, these tax contributions would increase significantly if all undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States were granted a pathway to citizenship as part of comprehensive immigration reform. Or put in the reverse, if undocumented immigrants are deported in high numbers, state and local revenues could take a substantial…

This week saw a nearly successful attempt to right the fiscal ship in Kansas; regressive tax proposals introduced in WestVirginia, Georgia, and Missouri; ongoing gas tax fights in Indiana, South Carolina, and Tennessee; and further tax and budget wrangling in Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and beyond. — Meg Wiehe, ITEP State Policy Director, @megwiehe Both […]

In the summer of 2016, House Republicans released a blueprint for tax reform that is likely to be used as the starting point for major tax legislation in 2017.[1] One of the most radical provisions is a proposal to shift the corporate tax code from a residence-based to a destination-based system through applying a border adjustment on exports and imports. This proposal has major flaws that would make it a challenge to implement. Further, it is inherently regressive, rife with loopholes and would violate international agreements.