Tag Archives: Joe Henchman

New Tax Foundation Study on Unemployment Insurance across the States

On Monday, the Tax Foundation released a new study by Joe Henchman on Unemployment Insurance policies in the 50 states. The study highlights that while the federal-state program is supposed to be counter-cyclical, in reality states do not use periods of high growth to prepare their unemployment trust funds for recessions. At the beginning of 2008, most states were prepared to pay less than one year’s worth of high unemployment benefits, leading to quick insolvency for many states’ funds in recession.

In order to provide benefits, states have had to borrow from the federal government. Henchman explains:

Beginning on September 30, 2011, states must pay approximately $1.3 billion in interest on those outstanding balances; in many cases, businesses and employees in those states will also face increases in federal unemployment insurance tax rates as a result of those federal loan balances. These new interest obligations and tax increases, if they ultimately occur, come at a time when private sector hiring is already at a low level and states are under significant fiscal pressure. These unemployment insurance fiscal policies may exacerbate negative job growth and tax trends, instead of operating countercyclically as the program was intended.

The study also provides analysis of the different taxes and benefits across the states. The compilation of the variation of tax rates, duration of benefits, funding gaps, and other policy factors makes this paper an excellent jumping off point to look at state level reforms based on states that have performed relatively well in this program compared to the neighbors.

In a more ambitious policy proposal, Henchman recommends Individual Unemployment Benefit Accounts as an option for reform. These accounts, which Chile adopted in 2002, provide a measure of income stability during periods of unemployment. Unlike state-administered UI programs, though, private accounts do not carry the perverse incentives that may dissuade people from finding work while they are receiving these benefits because money which goes unused during unemployment can be accessed upon retirement. In 2010 Eileen Norcross and I did a brief analysis of the incentives that the current UI program provides and came to the same general policy recommendation.

 

Assorted Links

Jeff Dircksen at the National Taxpayers Union writes about a new ranking of state governments:

There’s a new ranking that looks at how well states are run, or in some cases not so well run.  According to its web site, “24/7 Wall St. has completed one of the most comprehensive studies of state financial management ever performed by the mainstream media. It is based on evaluation principles used in the award-winning Best Run States In America ratings published by the Financial World Magazine during the 1990s. These studies were used by state governments to evaluate the efficiency of their own operations. The new 24/7 Wall St. study is meant to help businesses and individuals examine state operation with an unbiased eye.”

Take a look and see how your state does.  Spoiler alert:  Wyoming is the best and Kentucky is the worst.

On an unrelated note, Joe Henchman at the Tax Foundation cautions against the use of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ state budget gap data (note: I used this data in my paper on budget gaps—in part because it was timely and because it is so commonly cited). Joe writes:

The number is probably accurate from their methodology, but is ultimately meaningless. Here’s why:

  • A state “budget deficit” is the revenue projected (usually by the Governor’s office) minus hoped-for spending according to some formula, in the initial budget plan. For instance, say a state raised and spent $10 billion this year, but wants to spend $20 billion next year, projecting $11 billion in revenues. Ultimately they settle on spending $11 billion. That state has “closed a $9 billion budget deficit” even though revenues and spending are up from the previous year.
  • The exact method of estimating next year’s spending varies by state, with some starting with last year’s budget while others throw in additional wish list programs. Adding up all the states’ numbers is adding apples and oranges.
  • States must balance their budgets so there really is no cumulative state budget deficit in the end, at least on paper.
  • It’s routine for states to want to spend more than they actually can, at least at first, and having a deficit in the initial plan happens even in flush times. Thus, CBPP’s numbers overestimate the scope of actual state budget deficits.
  • CBPP also presents the deficits as a percent of each state’s general fund. While the general fund is usually the largest and most important part of a state’s budget, in many states it can represent less than half of the total budget. This number thus exaggerates the seriousness of a budget deficit.
  • A budget deficit could exist because of overly ambitious spending plans that are whittled down to reality, overly optimistic revenue projections, fiscal irresponsibility, or structural imbalance. CBPP’s tale of the recession causing everything and federal aid being the only salvation doesn’t fit the facts. For instance, California’s deficit this year includes unpaid bills kicked over from last year, so it’s the same money being double-counted. This irresponsibility is glossed over in CBPP’s report.

Tax Cuts, or Hikes, Are a Sideshow

Washington State is considering implementing a personal income tax. Much like the federal debate over extending or expiring the Bush tax cuts, this debate is a sideshow to the real issue. In our recent Capitol Hill Campus course, Dr. Bruce Yandle laid out these two charts which point to the real problem in state and federal budgets; spending.

First, this chart tracks the top marginal tax rates versus federal revenue as a percent of GDP.

The government’s take of the economy has remained relatively constant since 1960, despite wild fluctuations in how we “soak the rich”. Washington’s proposed tax would only affect those house-holds making more than $200,000, so one should expect this pattern, or lack thereof, to hold for Washington’s gross state product.

The second part of the story is this; as government spending increases, there is a measurable decline in the economy.

With only one outlier in fifty-four years of data, this strong correlation indicates that spending cuts pay for themselves with a growing economy. In turn, that should produce more overall revenue with reasonable tax rates. If you live beyond your means, the problem isn’t your income, it’s your spending habit. Sometimes it’s better to take a small slice of the pie, but make the pie itself bigger.

Tax Foundation attorney Joe Henchman put the incentive mechanics this way:

Yes, such taxes will generally raise revenue in the short term without a sudden exodus of wealthy people fleeing to the state next door… . But over the medium term, the taxes will negatively impact location decisions. People expanding old businesses or creating new ones will incorporate the higher cost of doing business into their decision-making, and steer clear of the state.

States and the federal government need to break this destructive cycle.

Budgeting Tactics for States

Tax Foundation state projects director Joe Henchman writes in today’s Daily Caller about five ideas to help states facing budget shortfalls (that is to say, virtually every state) get back in black:

  • Prioritize appropriations. When the majority-Democratic Arkansas Legislature votes to appropriate money, the money isn’t immediately spent. Instead, each appropriation goes to a legislative committee that ranks them in order of priority. Items are funded only to the extent money is available, forcing debate about how best to allocate limited resources while permitting a wish list if revenue exceeds expectations.
  • Review tax incentive programs. Although many states recognize they have burdensome tax systems, they use targeted incentives for particular industries rather than reducing burdens for everyone. Besides dumping a higher tax burden on everyone else, the jobs created are dependent on the handouts and often vanish when the incentives end. Tax incentive programs also often escape oversight and cost-benefit analysis. Iowa recently recommended elimination of several ineffective tax incentives after a review. Other states should do the same.
  • Broaden sales taxes and use the revenue to lower tax rates. A good sales tax applies to all final goods once and only once. Exempting clothing and groceries may seem like a good idea, but doing so causes year-to-year revenue instability and drives up the rate on everything else. Gross receipts taxes and taxes on business inputs cause distortions that harm economic growth. Adopting a sales tax base of all final products and services would enable both lower rates and more predictable revenue.
  • Reduce reliance on taxes on high-income earners and corporate profits. When deciding in which state to live or locate their business, one of the factors that top earners must weigh is the marginal tax rate they will face in each state. While high statutory tax rates on high incomes may bring a revenue increase in the short term, they can harm long-term economic growth as providers of jobs and capital choose to locate in lower-tax states. With these volatile revenue sources at a minimum, it may be perfect timing to minimize them.
  • Establish rainy day funds and spending restraints. To ride out recessions, states need to build a rainy day fund of 12 to 18 percent of their annual spending. Setting aside 2 to 3 percent of each year’s budget in good times can accomplish that, but those structures need to be in place now or else states will be in this mess again.

Joe discussed state tax policies on C-SPAN earlier this month.