New Jersey

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…

One of the most contentious issues in the current federal tax debate is over what to do with the deduction for state and local taxes paid (the SALT deduction). Since the deduction’s benefits vary by state, the House proposal to drastically scale it back has led to an outcry among lawmakers from states such as New York, New Jersey, and California whose constituents would be impacted most dramatically by the change. In an attempt to address those concerns, House leadership agreed to partially retain the deduction for real estate property taxes paid (up to $10,000 per year) while still repealing…

This week a "historic" but highly problematic budget agreement was finally reached in Connecticut, Michigan lawmakers banned localities from taxing any food or beverages, and Nebraska and North Dakota both got unpleasant news about future revenues. Also see our "what we're reading" section for news on 11 states that have run up long-term fiscal deficits since 2002 and the impacts of flooding on local tax bases.

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.

As our report on the Trump-GOP tax framework explained, in nine states plus the District of Columbia, more than a fifth of households would pay higher taxes under the framework.

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.

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 New Jersey equally. The richest one percent of New Jersey residents would receive 82.4 percent of the tax cuts within the state under the framework in 2018. These households are projected to have an income of at least $1,105,200 next year. The framework would provide them an average tax cut of $73,950 in 2018, which would increase their income by an average of 2.3 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.

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.

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 New Jersey population (1.2 percent) earns more than $1 million annually. But this elite group would receive 57.2 percent of the tax cuts that go to New Jersey residents under the tax proposals from the Trump administration. A much larger group, 37.4 percent of the state, earns less than $45,000, but would receive just 3.7 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.