What Tax Reform Would Mean for the States

By :: February 7th, 2012

What would fundamental changes in the federal tax code mean for state and local governments? Would it limit their ability to raise or borrow money? Would it make their revenue systems more or less progressive or even work more smoothly?

Last Friday, I participated in a joint Tax Policy Center and UCLA Law School conference sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation  on what federal reform would mean to governments beyond the Beltway.  And the short answer is: A lot.

Some change might be good, while other reforms might be quite disruptive. The bottom line seems to be that Congress could go a long way towards fixing the federal system without destroying state revenue codes—but only if reform is done carefully.

Take, for example, the federal deduction for state and local taxes, which reduces federal revenues by more than $70 billion annually. Policymakers have been talking about repealing it at least since the Reagan Administration.

Since most low- and moderate-income taxpayers don’t itemize, the deduction does them no good at all. Even many middle- and upper-middle class households who do itemize lose the benefit of the deduction if they fall into the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax.

Still, the system encourages states to rely on deductible levies such as income and sales taxes. The good news is that state income taxes can be progressive (though many are not). The bad news is income and sales tax revenues are sensitive to changes in the economy and their decline is one reason states are in deep fiscal trouble today.    

What would happen if Congress got rid of the deduction?  To start, while upper-income households would owe more, it wouldn’t matter to the 70 percent of households that don’t benefit now. According to UCLA law vice-dean Kirk Stark and my TPC colleague Kim Rueben, while taxpayers in all states benefit from the deduction, the effects of repeal would be concentrated in a few, high-income, high tax states such as New York and California. Other alternatives, such as turning the deduction into a credit, could benefit lower-income households by reducing their federal tax.

Another item on many tax reform lists is the mortgage interest deduction. Completely eliminating the deduction would drive down home values, at least in the short-run, and hammer state and local property tax revenues. But more modest reforms, such as turning the deduction into a credit, would have relatively modest effects on state and local revenues overall, according to Andrew Hanson of Georgia State University and David Albouy of the University of Michigan.

What about a very broad federal reform, such as creating a national consumption tax? That could turn state tax systems upside down, but the two structures may still be able to live well together. Canada has a national Value-Added Tax, while its provinces operate their own sales levies or piggyback off of the federal tax.  

Could the U.S. pull this off? Michael Smart of the University of Toronto felt such a transformation is doable, though not easy. But Stanford University’s Charles McClure, a veteran of Washington’s tax reform battles, was far less confident.  

Canada, Charlie noted, was a “best case.” The Canadians replaced a bad tax with a good one and did not have to worry about raising new revenues, yet political opposition to reform was still strong. By contrast, it would be much tougher in the U.S., which suffers from a more toxic political environment, probably would be adding a consumption tax to an income tax, and would likely have to use reform to raise revenue.

While there was lots of healthy debate in LA last week, the participants did agree on one thing: When Congress does get around to federal tax reform, it better not forget what these changes will mean to the states.

4Comments

  1. Michael Bindner  ::  7:39 am on February 8th, 2012:

    A subtraction VAT with credits for health care and children, which the states could join in on, would upend state systems, especially if you design it to shift programs from governmental funding and performance to non-governmental performers – like Catholic hospitals instead of minimum security prisons for non-violent drug users, parochial schools retooled as charter schools and employer sponsored nursing home care and long term care insurance rather than Medicaid for seniors. If employers made these allocations according to employee prefernces (like they do the United Way), then state government would be upended – but in a good way.

  2. AMTbuff  ::  10:05 am on February 8th, 2012:

    Even many middle- and upper-middle class households who do itemize lose the benefit of the deduction if they fall into the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax.

    Arguably the AMT changes in 1986, notably its lack of indexing, were intended to effect a slow-motion repeal of the deduction for state and local taxes. That has definitely been the result.

    The bad news is income and sales tax revenues are sensitive to changes in the economy and their decline is one reason states are in deep fiscal trouble today.

    Relying primarily on income tax revenues from the rich leads to boom and bust in state budgets. Yet the federal government continues to move in that fiscally unsound direction. Pandering for votes outweighs fiscal responsibility.

    the effects of repeal would be concentrated in a few, high-income, high tax states such as New York and California

    Since those Democrat strongholds vote for higher spending, it’s only fair that they put their money where their votes are. I’m sure they will be happy to pay more. Not.

    What about a very broad federal reform, such as creating a national consumption tax?

    Save the VAT for imposition after the US government loses its ability to borrow, forcing the annual budget to balance. We will need the VAT very badly then. It’s best not to play that ace we have up our sleeve until the darkest days of fiscal crisis when survival of our form of government is on the line.

  3. clarks  ::  9:01 pm on April 26th, 2012:

    Since their humble beginning back in 1825 Clarks shoes has built upon their reputation for quality by continuously revolutionizing the comfort footwear industry.From their inception,the Clarks brand has been synonymous with comfort,quality and style.Utilizing a wide range of high quality leathers and a surprisingly fresh approach to shoe design,Clarks continues to offer a broad range of fashionable shoe styles for both clarks mens shoes and clarks women shoes.Whether your looking for a casual leather flip flop,a unique slide,or comfortable casual dress shoe Clarks is sure to have the right style for you.

    As always,Clarks uk shoes continues to use only the finest leather,suede and nubuck in each and every shoe.Recently,the introduction of the unstructured series has offered consumers a number of innovative and exciting styles that utilize the Clarks Sandals exclusive Air Circulation System™.The ACS system controls the interior climate of the shoe by allowing warm air to dissipate while cool air is pulled in.Additionally,Clarks sale Unstructured shoes are thoughtfully designed to be softly cushioned and have an exceptionally lightweight flexible construction that allows you to move about more freely and naturally.

    By purchasing a pair of Clarks originals shoes you will be joining a tradition of quality,comfort and style that has stood the test of time.

  4. Tam Garthwaite  ::  11:07 am on June 27th, 2013:

    Hi there, nice site however there is a problem whereby on occassion I am redirected to the base page whenever I view other pages within this page.