Posts Tagged ‘taxes’

Do temporary cuts in public education spending affect outcomes?

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

As Oregonians mull their ballots for Measures 66 and 67, proponents remind them of the Doonesbury year.  The year was 2003 and Oregonians overwhelmingly rejected an increase in income taxes to fund what legislators call “vital services,” namely K–12 education. That year and the next, many Oregon schools cut spending. The result was a temporary increase in class sizes in some schools.  The Doonesbury comic strip picked up on the theme and ran a week-long series highlighting Oregon’s situation.

Tax proponents were insulted, fearing that Oregon had become a “laughing stock.”  Other’s were more sanguine.  One school obtained a signed copy of one of the strips and auctioned it at a school fund raiser.  When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

Fast forward to today and the fear of Doonesbury returns.  One economist/blogger opines:

When your taxes and public services are among the lowest in the country, the benefits from improving poor public services—especially education—are likely to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.

Missing from the discussion is the most important question of all: Do temporary cuts in public education spending affect outcomes?

Information from the U.S. Department of Education says no.  As the figure above shows, Oregon graduation rates were no different from U.S. graduation rates—even during the Doonesbury years.

That makes sense.  Education outcomes are developed over years. Temporary spending cuts have the same impact as having a bad teacher for a year or two.  It’s painful at the time, but has no noticeable long-run impact.

Unintended consequences: Measure 66 may tax your retirement savings

Monday, January 11th, 2010

The business press and investment advisers have declared this year to be the Year of the Roth IRA.

Roth IRA: “One of the best deals in retirement planning”

With a Roth IRA, virtually all income growth and withdrawals are tax-free.  Because retirees don’t pay taxes on their withdrawals, the Roth IRA has been called one of the best deals in retirement planning.

With the turn of the New Year, the income limits that have prevented many individuals from converting a traditional IRA or employer-sponsored retirement plan to a Roth have been eliminated.   The loosening of the rules is particularly well-timed for a period when workers are losing their jobs and are no longer employed with the company that holds their retirement account.

There is a catch, though.  If you convert your traditional IRA or employer-sponsored retirement plan to a Roth IRA, you must pay taxes on the converted money as if it was earned income.

Even so, the Federal government has made this part less painful in 2010. You can report the amount you convert in 2010 on your tax return for that year. Or, you can spread the amount converted equally across your 2011 and 2012 tax returns, paying any resulting tax in those years. For example, if you convert $50,000 next year and choose not to declare the conversion on your 2010 return, you must declare $25,000 on your tax return for 2011 and $25,000 on you return for 2012. The two-year option is a one-time offer for 2010 conversions.

Many Roth IRA conversions may be subject to Measure 66’s higher rates

While most of the attention on Measure 66 has been directed at the impacts on entrepreneurs and investors, the increased taxes will also affect the thousands of middle class households that are considering a Roth IRA conversion.  Oregon’s Measure 66 will make such conversions especially painful because some or all of the money that investors have saved over the years may be subject to Measure 66’s highest tax rates.

Measure 66 imposes two new tax brackets affecting 2010 income:

  • A new marginal tax rate of 10.8 percent would be levied for taxable income between $250,000 and $500,000 for joint filers and $125,000 and $250,000 for single filers.
  • A new 11 percent marginal tax bracket would be created for taxable income above $500,000 for joint filers and $250,000 for single filers.

More than 40 percent of all families in the U.S. participate in some type of employment-based retirement plan.  These plans include defined benefit (pension) plans and defined contribution plans such as a 401(k) or 403(b).  In addition, approximately 1 in 3 families has an IRA or Keogh account.

Among those with either a defined contribution plan or an IRA/Keogh account, the average account balance is $148,440.  For those age 55 and older, the average account balance is more than $250,000.  More than 1 in 10 families have account balances in excess of $500,000.

A family converting $300,000 in retirement funds would have to come up with another $900 in Oregon taxes if subject to Measure 66.  A family converting a $600,000 retirement account would have to find another $6,500 in cash to pay additional Measure 66 taxes.

As an unintended consequence, Measure 66 may deny many Oregonians the chance to participate in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get into what has been called one of the best deals in retirement planning.

The Wall Street Journal provides a summary of the provisions of the Roth IRA conversion program.  The Employee Benefit Research Institute provides statistics on retirement plans and balances in the plans.

Oregon is in recession, but the state budget is booming

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Oregon Legislatively Approved Budgets - Economics International Corp.

Oregon’s legislators are quick to complain that they had to find $2 billion in state budget cuts in the last legislative session. These  complaints are a bit disingenuous when, in fact, as the figure above shows, the legislatively approved budget has increased by $7.6 billion since the last budget.

Whenever one writes about state budgets, the more wonkish among us will argue that “total” state spending is the wrong number to look at. They argue that much of the funding and spending sits in dedicated accounts and that the Legislature has no discretion over much of the state’s spending.

This is what is known as the “colors of money” argument: Every dollar has a color—blue dollars can only be spent on roads, red dollars can only be spent on health services, green dollars are in the general fund, and so on. It is said that the colors cannot be mixed and the rules cannot be changed. But they can and the Legislature can change them.

Oregon Legislatively Approved DHS Budget - Economics International Corp.

An example of this this “colors of money” fallacy is the massive expansion of Oregon’s state-provided and state-subsidized health insurance. The expansion was championed by the Governor and approved by the Legislature. The expansion was entirely within discretion of Oregon’s elected officials.

Over the next four years, the program will impose $1.2 billion in new and increased taxes on hospitals and health insurance—taxes that will be passed down to taxpayer/consumers. Oregon hopes that the Federal government will match Oregon’s increased spending so that new and expanded programs would spend at least $2.8 billion over the next four years. [This is what is known as the "Coupon Fallacy," which is a topic for a future post.]

The Legislature, however, has painted all this money with its own color. In this way, politicians can complain about spending fewer green dollars while spending more red dollars and increasing total state spending.

Pew Center on the States: Will Oregon Follow California to “Failed State” Status?

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

The Pew Center on the States examined nine states, in addition to California, that are particularly affected by the recession (pdf). Pew notes that all of California’s neighbors—Arizona, Nevada and Oregon—were severely hit by the bursting housing bubble, landing them on Pew’s list of states facing fiscal difficulties similar to California’s. Pew blames Oregon’s problems on the state’s lack of sales tax, its Kicker law, and its relatively undiversified economy.

The following provides an economist’s view of selected portions of the Pew report.  While most of the study is more reportage than analysis, some of the facts and analysis would have benefited from a more rigorous review.

[The recession has] prompted lawmakers to respond with $2 billion in spending cuts, aggressive use of federal stimulus dollars and more than $1 billion in new taxes, including $733 million in proposed income tax hikes that will be challenged at the polls in January 2010.

oregon_approved_budget_2009-11Oregon’s Legislative Fiscal Office reports (pdf) that the state budget has increased by 9.3 percent (enlarge figure).  The Legislature increased spending by $4.8 billion.

Between the second quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009, Oregon’s unemployment rate more than doubled, outpacing California’s job loss increases and surging faster than that of any other state. … To understand Oregon’s soaring unemployment rate and its corresponding decline in tax revenue, look no further than the goods the state produces—many of which are going unsold. Oregon’s once-mighty wood products industry, whose workforce has been shrinking due to automation and technology advances, is projected to lose a jarring 21 percent of its jobs in 2009. Driving the collapse is the nation’s housing bust: When new homes are not being built, timber sales slump.

Oregon almost always has some of the highest unemployment in the U.S., whether or not the country is in boom or recession. While the decline in the timber industry and the housing bust may explain Oregon’s chronic high employment, eventually a time comes to ask whether the state’s policies are contributing to the unemployment.

Some policy makers, including the governor, believe that one sector of Oregon’s economy, clean energy, offers hope. Oregon had a bigger share of its jobs in clean energy than any other state as of 2007, according to a Pew report. Kulongoski has worked hard to build a green legacy—insisting on generous tax credits for renewable-energy firms even as other Democrats sought to reduce them, for example, and publicly test-driving electric cars in an effort to lure their manufacturers to Oregon. … But some experts question whether the sector can lead Oregon out of its economic doldrums. “There are worries that we’re getting in a little late, especially with all the investment that China is doing,” said Jessica Nelson, an economist with the Oregon Employment Division.

It is becoming more and more clear that the “generous tax credit” could more accurately be described as a money grab bordering on scandalous.

Confronted with a staggering loss of jobs and tax revenue that accompanied the state’s economic nosedive, Oregon Democrats seized upon the supermajorities they won in last year’s legislative elections. On February 5, less than a month after the session began and about two weeks before President Obama signed the federal stimulus package into law, Kulongoski signed Oregon’s own, state-level stimulus initiative, a $175 million borrowing plan that promised to create jobs while making improvements to the state’s roads and schools. At the same time, lawmakers made about $2 billion in cuts ….

Again, these “cuts” were actually an increase of $4.8 billion.

But the more than $1 billion in tax increases that Democrats pushed through to balance the budget and pay for major new initiatives in transportation and health care have proven most controversial. To help fund a massive road-improvement plan they said would create thousands of jobs, lawmakers raised the gas tax from 24 to 30 cents per gallon and hiked the cost of vehicle registration from $54 to $86. To expand health care for to up to 115,000 uninsured children, they created a new 1 percent tax on health insurance premiums and raised hospital taxes.  … The vast majority of new tax revenue, $733 million, came in the form of new personal and corporate income tax rates that have drawn national attention and will go before the voters in a crucial special election in 2010.

As noted on this blog, over the next four years, increased taxes on hospitals and health insurance will be as large as the increased personal and corporate income taxes.  All of these new taxes amount to $2.6 billion in new taxes.

Oregon’s minimum wage is another line of demarcation. The $8.40 hourly rate is the second- highest in the nation, and while liberals see it as helpful to the poor, fiscal conservatives claim that it hurts businesses and even some low-wage workers who might not get jobs because of it.

Actually, this has nothing to do with “liberals” and “conservatives.”  Empirical research demonstrates that Oregon’s minimum wage is associated with an unemployment among young workers that is 5 to 10 percentage points higher than it would be if the state’s minimum wage was the same as the federal minimum wage.

The state-level stimulus has provided its own controversy, similar to the national debate over the federal stimulus. The Oregon Legislative Fiscal Office credits the program with having “created or retained a total of 3,236 jobs” in its first three months.201 But an Associated Press investigation questioned the way the state counted those jobs and found that each job lasted a total of 35 hours, or less than a week of full-time employment.

Oregon is quickly reaching the point where employment impacts published by state agencies cannot be trusted [1, 2, 3].

PERS: Oregon’s 800-pound gorilla that the Pew report missed

It is well known that Oregon’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) has been a major driver of Oregon’s high state and local government spending.  It is a system of generous promises that shifts to taxpayers nearly all of the risks of investing in asset markets.  The PERS crisis earlier this decade pushed the state to the edge of insolvency.  There is still a risk of another crisis in the future.

At the end of 2007, Pew published a report that said Oregon had THE BEST funded pension system in the U.S. (pdf). Even though the PERS Board knew of the flaws in Pew’s study, it promoted the report as proof of the system’s soundness (pdf).

Pew seemed unaware that the state and many local governments issued pension obligation bonds to plug the huge deficits in their accounts.  This practice shifted money out of the pension system and onto the books of the individual government entities.  It did not solve the problem, it simply made a pension problem into a bond problem.  Pew missed this crucial fact of Oregon’s pension system, which means that Pew’s conclusions are meaningless.  The PERS Board should have known this and flagged it for Pew.  Instead, the PERS Board trumpeted the flawed findings.

California—and Oregon’s—fiscal problems are spending problems not revenue problems

The Pew report focuses almost exclusively on states’ challenges to find new or additional revenues.  Much of the fiscal problem facing states are spending problems: Misdirected tax credits, ambitious programs, and skyrocketing public employee expenditures.

The Pew report does not describe how much is spent on Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credits.  The Pew report only briefly mentions the massive expansion of state-run and state-subsidized health care in the state.  These new programs will cost as much or more than the amount returned to taxpayers with the last Kicker payment.

Oregon officials get caught fudging the costs of energy tax credits

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

bucketofmoneyThe Oregonian reports that Oregon state officials deliberately underestimated the cost the governor’s tax credit scheme to attract  “green” companies and to encourage “green” projects.  The Business Energy Tax Credits (BETC) are huge give-aways: Enterprises that don’t pay taxes (like nonprofits and government entities) can sell the credits to tax-paying companies to reduce their tax bills. The only way to get the legislature to extend the credits was to fudge the estimated costs of the program.

However, the state officials made a big batch of fudge: The tax credit program program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told it would cost.

None of this is news.  Throughout the year, this blog has been reporting on BETC’s budget busting and number fudging.

BETC: Do Oregon’s energy tax credits help or hurt the economy?

Monday, February 23rd, 2009

Just a Picture of a Bike RackTomorrow morning, Oregon’s House Revenue Committee will be taking public input on a bill to limit the state’s business energy tax credits.

Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credit program (BETC) gives a tax credit to businesses, nonprofits, and other organizations to spend money on projects intended to reduce energy consumption. If a business has no tax obligation, it can sell its credits to another business to help reduce the buyer’s tax obligation. As a result, businesses, governments, and nonprofits have an incentive to label standard business practices as energy conservation projects. For example, an employer that puts in bike racks or subsidizes its employees’ bus passes can qualify for the credit.

A recent study by ECONorthwest (PDF) released by the Oregon Department of Energy concluded that BETC’s tax credits produced more economic output and employment than spending on other state funded programs, such as K-12 education. While the BETC program may be associated with increased employment, the jobs associated with 2007-08 tax credit projects have wages that are approximately 11 percent lower than if the money were spent on other state funded programs.

Everyone lines up for a trough full of money

As reported earlier, the State of Oregon projects that the BETC program will cost the state $144 million in tax revenues in 2009-11 fiscal years (approximately $72 million a year), and climb to more than $80 million a year after that.

The ECONorthwest study, however, shows that these projections may be too low. In the first 10 months of 2008, more than $156 million in tax credits were given away, or more than twice the state’s projections for the upcoming two years.

It’s not all good news: Some tax credits hurt employment

The final draft of the ECONorthwest study would give the impression that all BETC projects boost economic activity.  However, an earlier draft of the report obtained by a public records request found that some categories of projects reduced economic output and employment. The earlier draft showed:

  • Commercial renewables projects such as wind and solar projects were associated with 29 fewer jobs and $420,000 less in wage income than if the tax credit money were spent on other state funded programs.
  • Industrial conservation projects—ranging from bus passes to energy efficiency equipment—produced 6 fewer jobs and $1.8 million less in wages than if the tax credit money were spent on other state funded programs.  The annual incomes of jobs associated with industrial conservation projects were approximately 6 percent less than if the tax credit money were spent on other state funded programs.

How to make the bad news go away

To help support the Oregon Department of Energy’s contention that the BETC program produces economic benefits to the state, the author of the ECONorthwest study offered to bury his more bothersome findings by combining them with programs that had net benefits.  In an email obtained by a public records request, the study’s author writes to the Department of Energy:

“Here is the draft economic impact report for the 2007-08 BETC/RETC programs. Note that in the commercial and industrial sections, sometimes the impacts are slightly negative. Let us know if you want us to combine categories and not show this additional detail separating commercial and industrial (when commercial and industrial are combined, the net impacts are positive).”

In the end, the final draft did combine the categories, and no negative economic impacts are reported. Instead, the final draft only hints at the possibility:

In some cases, certain sectors in the economy might show a negative net impact as employment or economic output decreases relative to the Base Case.

Some trivia

Note that the firm that wrote the study also employs the Revenue Committee vice-chairman as a policy analyst and the author of the report is, in effect, one of the committee vice-chairman’s bosses.

A solution: Broad based tax breaks

As noted earlier, targeted tax breaks such as BETC are ineffective as a tool of economic growth. Spending and investing will occur only if households and firms face low, but stable, tax rates.  Rather than a targeted tax break in which approval is based on the whims of the Oregon Department of Energy, the BETC should be replaced with broad based permanent reductions in state personal and business income tax rates.

Obama’s economist Christina Romer: Changing economics to please the boss

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

j04344031An earlier post noted that Obama’s chief economist, Christina Romer, co-authored an analysis of the President-elect’s stimulus proposal.

The analysis was little more that applying some “rules of thumb” to come up with a conclusion that increasing government spending created more jobs (even in the long run) than cutting taxes.  Romer & Bernstein’s rules of thumb ended up guessing that over four years tax cuts equal to 1 percent of GDP would reduce output by one-tenth of one percent.

Just two months ago, Romer co-authored a statistical study (PDF) that came up with a different answer: Tax cuts equal to 1 percent of GDP would increase output by 3 percent over three years. The author’s note, “The effect is highly statistically significant.”

Let’s summarize:

  • November 2008 — “Statistically significant” — 1% tax cut associated with 3% GDP increase.
  • January 2009 — “Rules of thumb” — 1% tax cut associated with 0.01% GDP decrease.

To be fair, one economist suggests a reason for Romer’s different conclusions is that one must distinguish between tax cuts that are meant to turn a recession into a recovery and tax cuts that are not in response to a recession.

Citation:

Romer, Christina D. and David Romer, “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks,” working paper, University of California, Berkeley, November 2008. (PDF)

Obama’s economists: Government spending is better that cutting taxes, maybe

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

pages_from_45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te-3President-elect Barack Obama made public Saturday an analysis (PDF) by his economic advisers, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein. The analysis estimates that a $775 billion plan of tax cuts and new spending would create 3.5 million jobs over the next two years.

In the executive summary Romer & Bernstein state plainly their conclusion that government spending creates more jobs than tax cuts.

Tax cuts, especially temporary ones, and fiscal relief to the states are likely to create fewer jobs than direct increases in government purchases.

But, in Appendix 1, Romer & Bernstein admit that they have no idea what impact tax cuts would have on jobs.

For tax-based investment incentives, we used the rule of thumb that the output effects correspond to one-fourth of the effects of an increase in government spending with the same immediate revenue effects. This implies a fairly small effect from a given short-term revenue cost of the incentives. But, because much of the lost revenue is recovered in the long run, it implies a fairly substantial short-run impact for a given long-run revenue loss. We confess to considerable uncertainty about our choice of multipliers for this element of the package .

Romer & Bernstein base most of their conclusions on some rules of thumb (the term is used five times in the report). Bernstein is a social worker rather than an economist, so he can be excused for not being up to speed on economic impact models. Romer, on the other hand has published several papers on tax policy and macroeconomics. One would think she would have applied some rigorous economic modeling to analyze a three-quarter of a trillion dollar package.