Eliminating the Income Tax and Creating a New Consumption Tax: Bad Law and Worse Policy

/in , , , , , , /by

Mischief is well on its way to becoming law in West Virginia. The Republican-controlled Senate Select Committee on Tax Reform is about to propose to the full Senate the passage of SB 335, which would phase out the state income tax and transform the current 6% sales tax into a broader 8% consumption tax. The conceptual basis for the proposed law is that the state provides the marketplace in which sales can take place so that vendors and purchasers who engage in transactions should be required to pay for the privilege of using that marketplace. If that silliness weren’t enough, the Bill’s legislative findings provide the following gem of a non sequitur. “The Legislature further finds that, in the free market system, the best judge of a purchaser’s ability to pay, for the purchase of the goods and services, is the purchaser, and, thus a broad-based consumption tax is firmly based on that principle of sound and fair taxation.” There is nothing sound or fair about this revolutionary change in West Virginia’s tax structure and it should be stopped in its tracks.

The fiscal soundness of SB 335 will be addressed in the next post on this site, upcoming promptly. But it is on the question of fairness where SB 335 fails us badly. Consider the point in the legislative findings that the purchaser is in the best position to know whether he has the ability to pay for a purchase. That may be true in the abstract, but completely misses the point when it comes to a consumption tax. There are many of our fellow citizens who are poor and spend only on the necessities of life – food, clothing, shelter, and the like. For them these purchases are not optional. They are not in a position to ponder whether “ability to pay” might lead them to decline such a purchase. For consumption by low-income citizens there is no magical marketplace of free choice like that existing in the dream world of some legislators.

Contrast this with the choices available to the financially comfortable. The purchaser of school clothes for kids in a well-to-do family has many options and certainly could choose to purchase less expensive clothing. But really, the ability to pay for a purchase is not the question for these consumers. It is their willingness to pay for the purchase plus the tax. And suppose the well-to-do purchaser decides not to make a purchase because of the tax. That would only hurt state tax revenues and thereby the operation of state government. The ideological foolishness of a consumption tax is quite apparent from this. The logical effect of making every business transaction 2% more expensive will be to make those transactions smaller in amount, less frequent, or avoided altogether. One can imagine many purchases being made across the border in states with a lower consumption tax.

One thing is certain – enacting SB 335 will shift a greater tax burden onto West Virginia’s poor and working class and away from wealthier taxpayers. Low income taxpayers, including seniors dependent on social security, are not currently subject to high income tax rates and do not pay much in total income taxes. Higher income taxpayers pay considerably more income tax. Contrast a consumption tax, which doesn’t concern itself with how wealthy you are, only how much you spend and on what things. As mentioned, SB 335 proposes to raise the state consumption tax from 6% to 8%. If it passes, the total tax paid by the low income taxpayer will rise slightly because of the additional 2% tax on his purchases, while the wealthy taxpayer will get a nice overall tax reduction. This is because the additional 2% sales tax paid by the wealthy taxpayer on her purchases is far less than the income tax she would avoid.

Sen. Robert Karnes (R-Upshur, 11), the same legislator who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Tax Reform, has sponsored two bills that are apparently intended to blunt criticism of the fairness of SB 335. One, SB 377, calls for a payment of up to $200 to be made by the state to low income senior citizens who file a yearly claim to receive it. The actual amount of the payment would be based on a declining percentage of the taxpayer’s income above the federal poverty level. SB 378 would create a similar payment, called an “earned income credit,” for low income workers. This is a misnomer because there would be no West Virginia income tax against which to credit it.

The inadequacy of these two sops is obvious. First they do nothing for the low-income unemployed who have no earned income to report. This omission is consistent with the view of many conservatives that if you are poor and unemployed it must be your fault. Second, these “credits” bear no relationship to the amount of additional consumption tax low-income individuals will be forced to pay. For example, a person earning $20,000 who is forced to spend it all to survive will pay an additional consumption tax of 2% on all purchases — a total of $400 in additional tax. Neither of the proposed “credits” could ever be more than $200. Finally, they require the taxpayer to file an additional tax document and wait for approval of the once per year payment. This does nothing to help him make ends meet on a day to day basis.

Even if such a major change to our tax system could solve our budget problems (more on that later), how can it be called fair when it benefits the rich and further burdens the low income residents of the state?

Republican Senators Propose Replacing West Virginia’s Income Tax with A Higher New Sales Tax

/in , , , , /by

Only nine states in the nation have no state income tax. However, there is considerable support in the West Virginia Senate to phase out our income tax completely by 2021 and replace lost revenue by raising the state’s sales tax to 8% from 6% and eliminating many sales tax exemptions. The effort in the Senate is being led by Sen. Robert Karnes (R-Upshur, 11) sponsor of SB 335. If the Bill in its present form is enacted, West Virginians would soon begin paying sales taxes on new items such as groceries, internet streaming services, haircuts, professional services, and more. The Bill is co-sponsored by eighteen other Republican Senators, including Panhandle Senators Craig Blair (R-Berkeley, 15) and Charles Trump (R-Morgan, 15).

Karnes told the Huntington Herald-Dispatch that West Virginia currently collects $1.9 billion from the income tax, which is 45% of the state’s $4.5 billion general revenue fund. The state collects approximately $1.2 billion from the sales tax. If all sales tax exemptions were eliminated, Karnes said the state would receive an additional $2 billion in revenue. Of course, there is no way all sales tax exemptions would be ended, particularly for things like medical services, day care services, and the like. The whole situation is fluid but the Senate Select Tax Reform Committee, of which Karnes is Chair, wants to move quickly. It rejected a motion to await the preparation of a “fiscal note” designed to predict the fiscal impact of the Bill.

Without a fiscal note, adopting a major change to the state’s tax structure seems reckless. Governor Justice has said that it would be “phenomenally risky” to make major changes to the state’s tax laws during a budget crisis. In fairness, the Select Committee will probably not take final action until there is a fiscal note. But there seems little point to working on a major change to the tax structure that may end up being a non-starter because it won’t raise more revenue. West Virginia is facing a $500 million budget deficit this fiscal year and perhaps a larger deficit next fiscal year. What we want is our Legislature to get busy working on a fair tax system that generates enough revenue to close the budget gap and promotes economic growth that will form the basis for stable future revenues.

There is reason to doubt that eliminating the state’s income tax will actually promote economic growth. The West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy reports that for the period 2005 to 2015 the nine states with the highest income tax had 5.6% GDP growth while the nine states with no income tax grew GDP only 3.2%. Perhaps there is no causal relationship here, but it makes one wonder and should cause the Republican sponsors of SB 335 some concern.

On the question of fairness, one thing is certain – enacting SB 335 will shift a greater tax burden onto West Virginia’s poor and working class and away from wealthier taxpayers. Low income taxpayers, including seniors dependent on social security, are not currently subject to high income tax rates and do not pay much in total income taxes. Higher income taxpayers pay considerably more income tax. This is the nature of a progressive tax. Contrast a sales tax, which taxes consumption. The sales tax doesn’t concern itself with how wealthy you are, only how much you spend and on what things.

Consider two hypothetical taxpayers. A taxpayer making $30,000 spends every dollar of his income supporting his family with shelter, food, clothing and other necessities. A taxpayer making $250,000 supports her family with relative ease and also consumes luxury goods, but still saves 20% of her income. Unless there are exemptions in the sales tax structure for necessities, under SB 335 our low-earning taxpayer will pay an additional 2% sales tax on 100% of his income, while the wealthier taxpayer will pay an additional 2% on only 80% of hers. In most cases, the total tax paid by the low income taxpayer will rise slightly, while the total tax paid by the wealthy taxpayer will drop considerably. This is because the additional 2% sales tax paid by the wealthy taxpayer on consumption is far less that the income tax she saves.

Sen. Patricia Rucker (R-Jefferson, 16) removed her name as a sponsor of SB 335. Perhaps she had second thoughts about the wisdom of the Bill. So should the rest of the Republican members of the Select Committee.

Corporate Tax Cuts to Stimulate Job Creation: They Never Work

/in , , /by

We should be open to any legislation or tax policy that stimulates job creation. But we should also be on guard against legislation or policy that merely sounds good, without subjecting it to a rigorous evaluation of its costs and benefits. Among the West Virginia Legislature’s new Republican majority, it is fashionable to call for corporate tax cuts as a way to unleash job creation. Unfortunately, this thinking is more the product of ideology than of solid analysis. The idea of corporate tax cuts to stimulate job growth has one main problem – it never works.

New Senate President Mitch Carmichael (R-Jackson, 04) recently formed a Select Tax Reform Committee in the Senate, saying

We must examine every method to improve the West Virginia economy, and that certainly will include         comprehensive tax reform. Our focus is to create private sector jobs and opportunities for our citizens… Other states have achieved significant growth as a result of fundamentally overhauling their tax code. Why wouldn’t the West Virginia Senate pursue tax strategies that have a proven record of success in other states?

West Virginia is now facing a $400 million budget deficit. If the tax reform Sen. Carmichael describes will raise revenue now, he and his colleagues can be political heroes. On the other hand, if he intends to cut taxes – losing present revenue – in exchange for uncertain future job growth, he is on a fool’s errand.

West Virginia has relentlessly cut corporate taxes in the past decade. In the period 2007 to 2014, the Legislature reduced the business franchise tax from .7% to zero and reduced the corporate net income tax rate from 9% to 6.5%. Yet West Virginia is still a laggard in job creation and there are many of our fellow citizens unable to find work. It is regrettable that our leaders do not demand a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of these earlier tax cuts before embarking on new ones. But West Virginia is not alone in this.

Our neighbor Ohio has shot itself in the foot over the last decade by cutting corporate taxes almost to zero in the hopes of stimulating job growth with no real success. Between 2005 and 2010, Ohio sharply reduced income tax rates and eliminated Ohio’s corporate income tax. While the country as a whole has gained jobs since then, Ohio has lost jobs. More recently, Ohio passed a tax-cut package that included income tax reductions and business-owner tax breaks. Yet Ohio job growth continues to lag the country as a whole.

Then there is the Kansas experience.  Led by Republican Governor Brownback in 2013, the Kansas Legislature passed a series of tax cuts on owners of “passthrough” businesses that opened up a $420 million budget deficit.  The Topeka Capital Journal later reported the rueful comments of one Republican legislator, who said that the evidence didn’t exist that the tax cuts led to meaningful growth and probably never would.

Why don’t corporate tax cuts work to stimulate job growth? There are several reasons.

  • tax cuts are like handing corporations a big check with no requirement that they spend the money on creating more jobs;
  • often the tax cuts go directly to a corporation’s bottom line to be distributed to out-of-state shareholders and other owners;
  • if the tax cuts are actually spent by corporations they can easily be spent in other states, or in ways that do not create jobs, such as part of bloated CEO pay;
  • corporate income taxes are such a small part of the cost of doing business in a particular state that cutting taxes will not be an inducement to locate new business in West Virginia versus other states; and
  • corporate tax cuts increase the likelihood of budget deficits that will result in spending cuts on public services that corporations value in locating new business, such as police, fire protection, good schools and recreation.

Of course, we expect our Legislature to adopt a workable budget, filling the deficit hole while generating enough to sustain and expand the important work that only government can do. None of us should criticize the Legislature for action and innovation. But corporate tax cuts are not the answer if we simply hope they will stimulate job creation.

If tax reduction is so important, why not link it to job creation in some accountable way? Why couldn’t we offer a tax credit to small business that would be eliminated for that business the next year if it has not created a certain number of new jobs? This scheme is familiar to state and county development authorities because it is sometimes used in the arrangements with corporations that receive tax inducements to open a new factory. And it would be similar to the “pay for performance” that corporations love. But in this case if corporations don’t perform by creating new jobs, they don’t get paid with state tax revenues.