[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers
Daily Email Summary


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally

MBA Member

Blue CA Ad Network
Join Our eMail List
Email:

Photobucket

Regressive Tax Burdens - Brought To You By The California Legislature

by: David Dayen

Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 14:52:36 PM PST


With the unemployment rate soaring to double digits and less revenue flowing to the state, it was clear that some taxes would have to be raised in the last budget.  To the extent I have criticized those taxes, it's because they are flat or regressive, increasing burdens on those with the least ability to pay.  Via California Budget Bites, it turns out that it's even worse than I thought:

One of the last-minute changes to the budget agreement substituted a 0.25 percentage point increase in each of the state's basic income tax rates in place of a 5.0 percent income tax surtax. The enacted change would increase each of the tax rates for two or four years, depending on whether the spending cap that will appear on the May special election ballot is approved by the voters. For example, the 4 percent tax rate would be 4.25 percent under the new law and the 9.3 percent rate would go to 9.55 percent. As discussed in yesterday's blog post, the increase would be cut in half - to 0.125 percentage points - if the Treasurer and Director of Finance certify that the state will receive at least $10.0 billion in "flexible" funds from the federal economic recovery bill. In contrast, the proposal under consideration until the final night of budget negotiations would have required all personal income taxpayers to add an amount equal to 5.0 percent of their tax liability for the two- or four-year period.

Because of this seemingly minor change, lower-income households will experience a much larger tax increase than under the previously considered proposal. The tax liability of a married couple with a taxable income of $40,000 will rise by 12.9 percent under the enacted policy, as opposed to 5.0 percent under the proposal previously under consideration. In contrast, the tax liability of a married couple with a taxable income of $150,000 will rise by 4.0 percent under the final agreement, instead of 5.0 percent under the original surcharge proposal. High-income earners will experience the most significant change - their tax liability will only rise by 2.9 percent under the enacted policy.

It is somewhat likely that the stimulus trigger will be reached - we will know around April 1 when the Governor's Finance Director and Treasurer Lockyer make the decision.  Still, this is an outrageous undermining of the public trust.  We are essentially reacting to a yawning budget gap with taxes that mostly hit the middle class and below.  That's true of the penny increase in the sales tax (which will now reach close to 10% in LA County) and it's true of this income tax increase.  This is the conservative veto in action, folks.  And it's not going to change until it's eliminated.

David Dayen :: Regressive Tax Burdens - Brought To You By The California Legislature
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Not really a fair statement (0.00 / 0)
The idea that California's personal income tax is in any way regressive is false.  The new rates all rise equally, so, by definition, California's new income tax rates are still progressive.  

Yes, I will grant that (as a percent of prior income tax liability) a 0.25% increase on a 2% marginal income tax payer is a greater increase than a 0.25% increase on a 9.3% marginal income payer.  This, however, is not the definition of progressive vs. regressive taxation.  A tax is only regressive if it taxes a larger proportion of earnings at lower income levels.  From Wikipedia:

"A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases."

The new tax itself is techcnially not regressive.  It is perfectly proportional to income at $0.0025 extra for each dollar earned.  This is a definition of a proportional (not regressive) income tax.  To be regressive the new tax would have to take more money from lower-earning individuals for each marginal dollar of income.

The additional 1% on the sales tax.  Sure, that's regressive.  But the 0.25% increase to income tax, that's not regressive.


Technical vs. practical (0.00 / 0)
You can look up all the Wikipedia entries you want, the truth is that a tax that would have actually been fair in terms of adding a surtax indexed for income, is now a tax that affects the middle class and below more, as a percentage of their income, than the wealthy.  If you look at rate it's flat, if you look at dollars as a percentage of income, well, the impact is clear.

[ Parent ]
Practically speaking (0.00 / 0)
You can dismiss all the Wikipedia entries you want, but income taxes are inherently "a percentage of their income".

Since the increase is flat across all brackets, it does NOT affect lower/middle classes more than upper incomes, as a percentage of income: It affects everyone by 0.25%.  


[ Parent ]
Actually it is a fair statement (0.00 / 0)
When the income tax rates are made less progressive, then they are made more regressive.  You need to look at the change to the status quo, which is to raise rates the same across the board by a set amount (.25%) - and since we already have a progressive tax rate instead, this hits those with the lowest rates the most.  So on the technical point you make, it's fair to characterize this has a regressive effect on our income tax structure.

But the bigger picture is that there was a plan to put more of the burden on higher earners on the income tax change, and now that's been shifted to lower and middle earners.

What could have added to the progressive taxation we have in the state ended up making it less so.

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here


[ Parent ]
time to hit Reset... (0.00 / 0)
right now we need more than noodling around the edges...we need to throw out the legislature, the Governor, and the constitution of California and start over...heck split the state even...none of this is working for anyone, and this state has gone from being the Golden State to a turd circling down the drain.

--
www.gregdewar.com


i wouldn't be surprised (0.00 / 0)
to eventually see the state split as a way for one half of the state to get out from under the CA constitution and 2/3 rule. doubly so if we don't manage to call a constitutional convention.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

[ Parent ]
The Sales Tax is the problem (0.00 / 0)
The personal income tax needs to be replaced with a flat tax at 2.6 of all income. This would spread the distribution while creating a real economic stimulis in real revenue for the state and new purchasing power for consumers!

Cut the Sales Tax on retailers who offer health insurance to their employees or eliminate it all together if they assume all health related costs! This stimulates employee purchasing power while giving consumers new choices to shop and save money!

If RALPH'S were to assume all health costs of their workforce, let them cut the Sales Tax in half and have those new sales cover those expenditures!

Create competition by offering economic incentives that put money in the pockets of real working families.


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads
Photobucket


Support Calitics:

Shop on Amazon.com

Advertisers

California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch
Powered by: SoapBlox