Category Archives: State & Local Finance

The Grapevine Project

Source: Illinois State University, 2008

The Grapevine project entails an annual compilation of data on state tax support for higher education, including general fund appropriations for universities, colleges, community colleges, and state higher education agencies. Each year we ask states for tax appropriations data for the new fiscal year, and we also ask for revisions (if any) to data reported one year ago, two years ago, five years ago, and ten years ago. Updated state reports are entered on the Grapevine web site as they are received from May through December of the calendar year. After entering all 50 state reports on our web site, we construct the following tables:

• state rankings on one, two, five and ten-year percentage changes;
• annual average five-year percent changes in state tax appropriations;
• one- and two-year percent changes in state tax appropriations by region;
• state tax appropriations per capita and per $1,000 of personal income;
• state tax appropriations for community colleges; and
• state and local (aggregated) tax appropriations per capita and per $1,000 in personal income.

Calculating ROI: States Using A New Tool To Predict Costs And Benefits Of Medicaid Program Changes

Source: Anna C. Spencer, State Health Notes, Volume 29 Issue 520, July 21, 2008

A new tool is available to help states get the loudest bang for their Medicaid bucks. The Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS), in partnership with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, has developed the Return on Investment Forecasting Calculator. The online tool can help Medicaid agencies and other stakeholders understand the fiscal implications of proposed quality improvement initiatives, such as chronic disease management and health promotion programs.

The ROI Calculator works like this: States supply data on the target population and expected participation costs, baseline costs, health costs and cost trends, length of start-up period and time-frame for analysis (up to three years), intervention costs, and expected changes in utilization of health services resulting from the intervention (for example, decreased use of outpatient care, lab services or pharmaceuticals).

Proposed “business activity tax nexus” legislation would seriously undermine state taxation of corporate profits and harm the economy

Source: Michael Mazerov, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 24, 2008

From the summary:
A bill under consideration in both houses of Congress would take away from the states authority they currently have to tax a fair share of the profits of many corporations that are based out-of-state but do business within their borders. The Senate version of the “Business Activity Tax Simplification Act” (“BATSA”), S. 1726, was re-introduced in the 110th Congress by Senators Charles Schumer and Mike Crapo on June 28, 2007. The House version, H.R. 5267, was re-introduced on February 7, 2008 by Representatives Bob Goodlatte and Rick Boucher. H.R. 5267 will be the subject of a hearing in the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, June 24, 2008.

BATSA defines many activities commonly conducted by corporations within a state as being no longer sufficient to obligate the corporation to pay several different kinds of taxes to the state (or to its local governments). Moreover, these “safe harbors” from taxation are defined in a highly ambiguous, arbitrary and inconsistent manner. These new restrictions on state and local taxing authority would have far-reaching, adverse impacts on the revenue-generating capacity and fairness of state and local tax systems. The most significantly affected taxes would be the corporate income taxes levied by 44 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City. If enacted, BATSA would have the following effects:

• The legislation would cause state and local governments collectively to lose substantial tax payments from out-of-state corporations that would be freed from their current obligations to pay taxes on their profits and gross sales to particular jurisdictions. A significant share of currently-taxable corporate profits would go untaxed by any state, leading to a net revenue loss for the states as a whole. According to a Congressional Budget Office estimate done in 2006 on a substantially similar version of the bill, state revenue losses would grow to $3 billion annually within five years of enactment.
• BATSA would block particular states from taxing particular corporations on income earned in those states. Even if those corporations’ profits might ultimately be taxed by their home states, BATSA still would unfairly deprive other states and localities of their right to tax the profits of specific out-of-state corporations that benefit from services these jurisdictions provide.
• BATSA would stimulate a wave of new corporate tax sheltering activity aimed at cutting state and local business taxes.
• The legislation would mire state and local governments and corporations alike in a morass of litigation over whether particular businesses are or are not protected from taxation under the numerous vaguely-defined provisions of BATSA.
• BATSA would reward major multistate corporations that have the resources to engage in aggressive tax-avoidance behavior with much lower tax burdens than their small, locally-oriented competitors.
See also:

The Road Less Taken: Creating Fairer Taxes, As Well As Better Highways

Source: Michael J. Cassidy and Sara Okos, Commonwealth Institute, May 2008

Governor Kaine and the General Assembly have a major crisis on their hands: they have a comprehensive plan to fix the Commonwealth’s transportation woes, but no money to pay for it. Funding schemes under consideration offer a variety of options including a range of tax increases. But another problem looms if the proposals currently being circulated are adopted: Virginia will have unintentionally hurt its low- to moderate-income wage earners more than higher income workers.
See also:
Press release

Virginia: Taxes Won’t Get Larger, But the Potholes Will
Source: Citizens for Tax Justice, July 18, 2008

GSA authorized to help state and local governments purchase equipment

Source: American City and County Local Government Update, Vol. 8 No. 29, July 7, 2008

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) has been authorized to help state and local governments purchase homeland security equipment, such as alarm systems, facility management systems, and law enforcement and fire fighting equipment. Under the Local Preparedness Acquisitions Act, signed by President Bush on June 25, the GSA may now allow state, local and tribal governments to participate in its cooperative purchasing program to buy the equipment at discounted rates.

Report explores funding for state retiree health care benefits

Source: American City and County Local Government Update, Vol. 8 No. 29, July 7, 2008

A new report from the Washington-based Center for State and Local Government Excellence explores some of the ways states are moving from a pay-as-you-go approach to funding future retiree health care benefits to one that addresses unfunded liabilities and rising health care costs. The center prepared the report, “Balancing Dollars and Health Sense: A Framework for Decision Making on Funding State Retiree Health Care Benefits,” in response to a request from the Michigan House of Representatives for research on retiree healthcare funding options in light of the state’s $22.7 billion in unfunded retiree health care obligations.

State and Local Government Pension Plans: Current Structure and Funded Status

Source: Barbara D. Bovbjerg, Government Accountability Office, GAO Report GAO-08-983T, July 10, 2008

From the abstract:
Millions of state and local government employees are promised pension benefits when they retire. Although these benefits are not subject, for the most part, to federal laws governing private sector benefits, there is a federal interest in ensuring that all American have a secure retirement, as reflected in the special tax treatment provided for private and public pension funds. Recently, new accounting standards have called for the reporting of liabilities for future retiree health benefits. It is unclear what actions state and local governments may take once the extent of these liabilities become clear but such anticipated fiscal and economic challenges have raised questions about the unfunded liabilities for state and local retiree benefits, including pension benefits. GAO was asked to report on (1) the current structure of state and local government pension plans and how pension benefits are protected and managed, and (2) the current funded status of state and local government pension plans. GAO spoke to a wide range of public experts and officials from various federal and nongovernmental entities, made several site visits and gathered detailed information about state benefits, and analyzed self-reported data on the funded status of state and local pension plans from the Public Fund Survey and Public Pension Coordinating Council. …….. . Many experts consider a funded ratio (actuarial value of assets divided by actuarial accrued liabilities) of about 80 percent or better to be sound for government pensions. We found that 58 percent of 65 large pension plans were funded to that level in 2006, a decrease since 2000 when about 90 percent of plans were so funded.
See also: