“Who Are the Wealthy?” – February 9, 2004

Liberals, whether in the legislature or in the media, begin their thoughts with the assumption that the money you earn belongs to someone else.  It is this belief that drives them to support tax increases and harbor a certain disdain for those who are financially prosperous.   A San Fransisco Chronicle article last week by Robert Salladay began with the premise that President Bush’s inheritance tax cut is costing California $1 billion per year.  The article explained that Assemblymembers Chan and Dutra have introduced a bill to increase the tax rate for individuals who make more than $130,000.   The problem for Ms. Chan and Mr. Dutra and others who support their effort, is that when California raises taxes on what the liberals define as “wealthy,” the state actually collects less money.  Back in 1991, Governor Wilson bought into the liberal logic for a moment and raised taxes on the upper-income brackets.  The following two years, revenues declined by $1 billion each.  Currently, the top one percent of taxpayers in California contribute 40 percent of the state income tax, and the top 10 percent pay a combined total of 70 percent.  Of the 13.5 million total state income tax returns filed last year, 348,000 reported more than $200,000 in income.  Do you consider $200,000 to be wealthy?  $130,000?  Should people in those income brackets bear an even greater disproportionate burden of state taxes because Assemblymembers Chan, Dutra and others like to spend more than they have?

“Taxes Are a Laughing Matter” – February 17, 2004

Remember when driving schools started hiring comedians to make the experience less painful and more memorable?  That same edutainment philosophy has now touched the tax world.   Steve Sims, an enrolled agent with the IRS who has more than 20 years experience with state taxes, offers seminars designed to teach small businesspeople and home-based businesspeople about deductions, handling audits and settling with the IRS. He offers advice about whether a venture should be a partnership, sole proprietorship or corporation and whether you need the assistance of a tax professional, all while making you laugh.  Steve has a seminar coming up on March 1st in the Sacramento area.  For more information, call Steve at 1-800-656-6872 or email him at Statetaxman@aol.com.

“Problem Solving at Your Service” – February 17, 2004

Good humor makes us laugh because it is so true to life.  Hence, when someone says, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” people chuckle.  However, my staff proved that to be false this week as two constituents can attest.  The first positive feedback came after one of my field representatives made a presentation about the services available to taxpayers, including BoE advice letters, the Taxpayer Rights Advocate’s Office and publications about how to keep accurate business records.  An audience member afterward said, “I didn’t know the Board of Equalization was here to help us—I thought they were just here to take our money.”  Another member of my staff received a grateful phone call from a taxpayer whose mother-in-law’s bank account and home had been levied by the FTB.  The mother-in-law was in a nursing home and the caller and her husband were on an extended vacation, trying to handle the stressful situation by phone.  Turns out the 1982 taxes due were for her husband and his previous wife—not the woman who was now being dinged.  My staff spent hours on the phone with the FTB’s Taxpayer Advocate's office to have the levies and liens removed, delete Social Security number from the FTB account, and begin informal settlement talks.  Neither of these situations is unusual—my staff and I provide this kind of assistance to taxpayers dozens of times a week.  However, the gratitude expressed this week was special and worthy of sharing.

“Ranking Legislators on Taxes” – April 12, 2004

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association recently released its ranking of legislators based on how they voted on bills that would raise taxes and fees.  The Association points out the importance of voters’ knowing how their legislators vote on pocketbook issues because of the propensity of legislators to hide beneath the anonymity of the dome.  Last year, legislators introduced bills that would have raised taxes by $65 billion. 

The Association found 65 tax bills and scored legislators negatively for each vote for bills that “would increase taxes, make it easier to increase taxes, threaten Proposition 13, or further tighten the bureaucrats' lock on the budget. Their grades went up when they voted for legislation that benefited taxpayers like creating a mechanism for closing down unneeded bureaucracies and increasing the homeowners’ exemption.”    Forty-four percent of legislators received grades of “F” and 13 percent received  “D”s, meaning that 57 percent of the State Legislature voted against taxpayer interests most of the time.  Thirty-four percent of lawmakers received “A” grades, and only eight percent earned "B"s or "C"s.  To see your legislators’ grades, go to http://www.hjta.org/reportcard2003.htm

“New Tax Proposed – Part 1” – April 19, 2004

Even as the Governor works to make government more efficient there are far too many legislators who are working to raise taxes.  With the costs of doing business in California at an all time high, State Senator Nell Soto thinks you should pay another new tax.  Soto’s Senate Bill 1537 seeks to raise the sales tax by one-quarter percent for two years, with the resulting revenue dedicated to firefighting and fire prevention measures.  Next year’s fire season is predicted to have greater potential for conflagration than 2003 and Soto argues that her tax is, therefore, necessary.  However, she served on the Blue Ribbon Commission that studied the wildfires and should know that the best sorts of prevention for such fires do not require great expenditures of money but, rather, attention to precautionary details by individual property owners.  That said, if Soto seriously wants firefighters to have more money to do battle, she should consider her position on state budget proposals that continue to take money from the local governments that fund fire departments and pay firefighters’ salaries.

“Low Income Taxpayers Pay Less” – April 19, 2004

This being a presidential election year the media is full of assertions about the impact of President Bush’s tax cuts.  According to a report recently released by the Treasury Department about 2001 tax revenues, the wealthiest five percent of Americans paid 53.3 percent of the total.  Taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent income bracket saw their tax rate fall by 16 percent from the Bush tax cuts, while the top taxpayers saw a 12 percent cut in their rate.  Moreover, Talon News reports that the nation's top 1% of taxpayers will see the percentage of tax bill increase from 30.5 percent of the total revenue collected to 32.2 percent with the Bush tax cuts in place.  In short, they may pay less, but the top earners will bear a greater burden of all the taxes collected.  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were consistent in their thinking, they would have to say that tax cuts for the rich are in order since now they are clearly paying more than their "fair share."

“AMT Shock” – April 19, 2004

As many Californians learned last week when filing their personal income taxes, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is beginning to hit more lower- and middle-income people.  Speaking of the above-mentioned law of unintended consequences, the AMT was originally designed in 1970 to capture those high-income taxpayers who did not pay income taxes in the late 1960s.  However, by disallowing many deductions and penalizing people who pay high state income and property taxes, the AMT is actually now hitting a different target.   Kudos to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Kathleen Pender who wrote, “In 2001, I got the IRS to disclose that in 1998, Californians filed 11.3 percent of all tax returns. But they accounted for 19.3 percent of AMT returns and paid 22.7 percent of the nation's alternative minimum tax. Texans filed 7 percent of tax returns, but sent in 3.5 percent of AMT returns and paid 3.5 percent of total AMT.   The IRS refused to provide additional or more recent data.”  More data needs to be forthcoming and federal policymakers need to rethink the AMT.

“New Tax Proposed – Part 2” – April 26, 2004

In another attempt to add more revenue to state coffers by using a popular excuse, A.B. 118 (Frommer, D-Glendale) seeks to impose a 2.29% tax on rental cars. Theoretically the money generated would have to be spent on transportation projects near airports and tourist destinations, but voters would be wise to be skeptical.   The proponents of this measure believe that they can pass it because Californians recognize that transportation is a high priority and worthy of more tax revenue.  The problem is that California voters have already had their say on this.  They approved Prop. 42 in March of 2002 to ensure that the sales tax on gasoline be dedicated to transportation projects.  The legislature, however, has failed to keep the Prop. 42 promise.  This budget year they are spending only $289 million for the Transportation Improvement Fund; the balance of $856 million is being transferred to the state’s general fund to pay for other programs.  What will keep them from stealing this tax money, too?  The legislature knows that transportation improvements are a priority for Californians, but legislators should also be expected to live up to commitments the voters already made, not invent new taxes to cover their own compulsion for out-of-control spending.

“New Tax Proposed – Part 3” – May 3, 2004

A recent Los Angeles Times poll found that 60% of Californians believe raising taxes is a reasonable solution to our state’s financial problems.  However, when you look at what people want to tax, you see that what they really want is for other people to pay higher taxes, not themselves.  There is not a clamor to raise the sales tax, which everyone pays.  However, the Times poll found 70% of people would support raising taxes on alcohol or tobacco.  Those folks then might actually support A.B. 1416 by Assemblyman Vargas (D-Chula Vista).  This bill seeks a $1.50 increase to a pack of cigarettes to pay for various health programs.  If you are a regular reader of Leonard Letter, then you have read about the dramatic increase in cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting we have seen recently.  You know that for every increase in tobacco tax, there is a bigger incentive to avoid paying them altogether.  The criminal element is catering to that desire and supplying more and more counterfeit tobacco products for Californians. 

So the smokers end up with much higher taxes or illegal cheaper cigarettes (many with inferior production and less safety and testing than legitimate cigarettes), the shopkeepers make less sales and collect less tax, the state government and law enforcement fall farther behind in their attempts to identify and stop the criminals, and the state budget is no closer to being balanced than it was before.  Californians may respond to polls by pushing the tax burden onto others, but ultimately, any tax increase affects us all as our economy and quality of life suffer and as those burdened with the tax hikes seek to avoid paying.  It is common sense, but the legislature needs to stop spending money it does not have.

“New Tax Proposed – Part 4” – May 10, 2004

Assemblyman John Laird (D-Monterey) and Senator Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont) have dreamed up yet another fee for you, the average consumer, to pay.  In A.B. 1699 and S.B. 1180, they want the state to charge a fee for every fluorescent lamp you purchase.  Their reason is that fluorescent lamps contain mercury, a toxic substance that should not be in landfills.  The proposed fee, amount undetermined, is to supposed to better process such waste as well as to facilitate recycling and to educate consumers, but they have no real plan on how to accomplish this.  I find it difficult to keep up with what is politically correct with liberals.  I was just forced by the City of Sacramento to replace incandescent lights in my kitchen with fluorescent bulbs, but now these two legislators want to make those f-bulbs more expensive.  My opposition to their proposals comes from knowing how similar programs established by the government work, or, more accurately, fail to work.  Their proposed retail fee will be used to create a new government bureaucracy and have only marginal benefits to the environment. 

“Kudos on Commentary” – June 1, 2004

Commendation to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin for an outstanding editorial (http://www.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0,1413,203~23127~2178123,00.html) about why taxing the internet is silly.  The Bulletin, comparing its tale to Aesop’s golden-egg-laying goose, writes, “Once upon a time, the golden state of California had it all: a thriving economy, bountiful natural resources and rich intellectual capital… Then, one day, some of the lords of California had a foolish idea: ‘We will squeeze the Internet business and get all the gold now so that we can continue to spend the state’s dollar recklessly for our own benefit and the benefit of our friends.  But the squeeze on the Internet business was too hard, and it snapped the industry’s neck, chased it away to other states and nations, as it did the film industry before that.  Afterward, there was not more gold for California from that particular source, and it was bad.”    The Bulletin concludes, rightfully so, that an internet tax is “unenforceable, arguably unconstitutional and good for nothing more than turning most taxpaying Californians into criminals.”

“Summer Study Assignment” – June 14, 2004

Summer is upon us and you thought studying was over for a few months. Wrong!  You have 20 weeks to study up on 14 ballot measures before the exam on election day, November 2^nd.   You may not know anything about them now, but my guess is that you will be tired of hearing about some of them even before the World Series starts.

The 13 measures come in the form of three legislative bills, nine initiatives and one referendum.  Three are bond measures: high speed rail, $9.95 billion; children's hospitals, $750 million; and stem cell research, $3 billion. Two ask for tax increases: one seeks higher income taxes to pay for mental health services, and the other institutes a new “telephone tax” to fund emergency and medical services.  The referendum seeks to overturn the health care mandate on small businesses that was passed last year by the Legislature.  There are two measures about Indian gaming and one that would effectively undermine California’s Three Strikes law.

As of this writing, there were still 28 measures circulating for enough signatures to make it to the ballot and another four being reviewed by the Attorney General’s office. Plus, the legislature could still add more to the ballot before they finish for the summer.  To begin your study so you are ready for election day, visit http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm

“Tax Attacks Begin” – January 3, 2007

The celebration of New Year brings with it much that is familiar: the Rose Parade, resolutions to lose weight, the legislature’s attempts to raise your taxes.  Senator Escutia is again attempting to raise taxes on non-residential property, and Assemblywoman Chang is again seeking to add 10- and 11- percent brackets to state income taxes.  Escutia also has a bill to limit tax credits.  Assemblyman Ruskin has a proposal to increase corporate taxes by taxing their overseas’ income.  They are piling onto the Legislative Analyst’s recommendations last month to increase fees and the gas tax, as well as institute parcel taxes.  The Democrats are poised to do battle with Governor Schwarzenegger who has maintained his opposition to tax increases.  The taxers simply do not understand that the state’s economy cannot tolerate more takings.

“Tax Leadership” – January 3, 2007

While the plethora of new tax proposals is dismaying there is some good news from the legislature’s tax committees.  The new Chairman of the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee is Johan Klehs, and the new Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee is Carole Migden.  Both are veterans of the Board of Equalization.  I say this is more good news than bad because on one hand they will continue to defend the worthy idea of an elected tax board to bring justice to taxpayers. However, if the taxing agency tries to push any questionable ideas, they both will have the wisdom that experience brings to demand the BOE fully justify itself.  I, for one, like it.

“Federal Tax Reform” – February 14, 2005
The momentum is growing for changes in the federal government's tax laws and Californians have a big stake in the outcome.  Controller Steve Westly has already weighed in with a condemnation of the idea of eliminating the income tax deduction for state and local taxes.  Since California is a high tax state (which you already know), such a change would theoretically raise federal taxes on Californians.  But Westly has ignored the larger issues.  First why should the federal government ever give incentives like this for states to impose high taxes on their people?  Second, if this reform is coupled with a lowering of the overall tax rate and an elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), then this would be a great gain for California's taxpayers.

Former senator and finance director Steve Peace has pointed out in great detail how the Federal AMT tax is a gun aimed at California.  We have more taxpayers who now pay this tax and the number is growing so rapidly that Peace predicts that almost every middle income Californian will be paying the AMT soon.  Even if you do not pay the AMT, Peace also explains that you or your tax preparer are required to take the time to fill out the forms proving that you do not owe this tax, thus driving up the cost of tax preparation.

I recommend that Controller Westly read up on the AMT from Senator Peace's work, which he can find at: http://www.catoday.com/default.htm

We should be joining together to find ways to kill the AMT tax in Washington before it swallows us whole in California.

“Merit in MIC” – February 22, 2005

You have read much about the controversial Manufacturers Investment Tax Credit in this newsletter. The idea is sound: let manufacturers have a tax break on equipment they purchase so that they are willing to move to or stay in California.  Too many other states offer manufacturers much better tax situations than California, which means the jobs go elsewhere. However, the previous version of the MIC had manufacturers pay the sales tax on items and then apply for a refund of that amount.  The Board was criticized for granting these refunds even though that is what the law required of us.  Senators Abel Maldonado (R-) and Elaine Alquist (D-) have come together to sponsor a new, more straightforward version of MIC. Their measure will simply reimburse the sales tax paid for qualified equipment.  I commend their willingness to step into the fray and recognize that something must be done to encourage job creators to be in California. Combined with workers’ comp reform, a renewed improved MIC will help them do so.

“What’s in a Tax Credit” – February 28, 2005
In the debate over the Manufacturers Investment Tax Credit many criticize the concept of giving sales tax rebates to companies that stay in California.  The media has portrayed these rebates as taxpayer subsidy of corporate profit.  What you do not read about in the media are the other state tax credits that companies can use in California. Like the MIC, these credits represent a fraction of the total amount spent by the company on that particular purpose so that the state’s money is leveraged.  I counted nearly 20 such tax credits. For example, we give a 20% credit for money investment into a community development financial institution; 50% of the costs incurred for transporting agricultural products donated to nonprofit charitable organizations; 30% of employer contributions to child care plans or construction of a child care facility; 50% of costs to rehabilitation farmworker housing; 10% of the cost of property and a percentage of wages related to building the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; incentives to do business in a military base recovery area; credit for building low-income housing; a percentage of research activities conducted in the state; 55% of the fair market value of donations under the Natural Heritage Preservation program; and a percentage of the cost of purchasing and installing a solar or wind energy system that produced electricity.  Most of these credits encourage companies to do things they otherwise would not do (e.g., invest in enterprise zones, child care, or farmworker housing) and other credits that help the company's bottom line by encouraging them to stay in CA (e.g., the research credit).

“Terrorism and Taxes” – March 21, 2005
In last week’s issue, I mentioned that the sale of legal cigarettes is falling in California. The problem is that we are seeing an explosion in illegal cigarettes from those trying to avoid our high tobacco tax.  Although we cannot keep up with the black market in cigarettes, legislators with an environmental agenda are proposing a new law to push the price even higher despite the warnings of federal law enforcement officials that the proceeds from this black market benefit terrorists.  The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the U.S. General Accounting Office say that illegal tobacco sales may surpass drug sales as a prime source of funds for terrorists in the United States.

Democrat Assemblymembers Fran Pavley and Paul Koretz are backing the bill to tack on a fee to cigarette sales that will fund litter clean-up.  Their reaction to the concerns of law enforcement?  Koretz says, “I don’t think there’s a lack of illegal opportunities for terrorists and others that want to engage in that kind of activity to make their money.  One way or another they will find a way to engage in illegal activities and to raise money for what they are trying to do.”  Pavley explains, “This is a legitimate fee. I don’t think a minor fee on cigarettes is unreasonable.”  Senator Chesbro adds, “We’re not going to stop addressing public health and the environment in California because of terrorists.”

So, first these legislators call our federal law enforcement and anti-terror experts liars.  Then they argue that even if the anti-terror experts are correct, their concerns should be dismissed in favor of environmental concerns.  I could not disagree more strongly with their bill and their rhetoric. We need to reign in the black market for many reasons, the foremost of which is disabling terrorists.  That these legislators are not willing to see and support that goal is disturbing.

“Taxpayer-Friendly Tax Bills” – March 28, 2005

If you are a regular Leonard Letter reader then you are familiar with the changes I believe would help improve the administration of California’s tax laws, increasing efficiency and fairness.  Several of my ideas have been introduced as legislation this session.  Here are the bill numbers, authors and summaries of my proposals.  I ask for your support of these measures; please contact your legislators and encourage their ‘aye’ votes to help fix what is broken about California’s tax system.

SCA 9 (Ducheny), and ACA 14 (DeVore): Combines the Franchise Tax Board and the Employment Development Department with the Board of Equalization to form a new, comprehensive state Tax Commission under a Board of elected officials.

SB 633 (Dutton): If you are accused of a crime in court, the burden of proof of your guilt is with the government.  If you are a taxpayer accused of wrongdoing, the burden is on you to prove your innocence.  In 1998, the federal government passed a reform that shifted the burden of proof from taxpayers to the IRS for factual issues when dealing with cooperating taxpayers. This measure would bring that same change to California.

SB 234  (Runner): If you are thinking of appealing an income tax case before the BoE, the FTB will allow the public to see your entire tax return, including your personal information.  I find this outrageous.  This bill would limit the kind of taxpayer information that can be released to the public to only those issues in question that are appealed to the Board by the taxpayer.

AB 1692 (Horton): I am co-sponsoring this proposal with Board Member Claude Parrish.  The bill would allow for the reimbursement of 2% of the taxes remitted for retailers, under certain conditions, for the retailer’s costs incurred for complying with the law.

I also support AB 1615 (Klehs) and SB 216 (Dutton) – both bills would consolidate the FTB, EDD and Department of Insurance, into the BoE.

“Tax Reform Reactions” – April 4, 2005

My article two weeks ago about the renewed debate surrounding a potential national consumption (e.g., sales) tax has generated several comments and concerns from Leonard Letter readers.  There is agreement that the worst option would be a Value Added Tax akin to those used in Europe.  The VATs there have grown from their initial level into vary high rates of taxation that require tax collecting and reporting at each level of a product’s journey to market, making them very onerous. 

An alternative to a national consumption tax is a flat income tax. One reader said the current U.S. tax code collects about 12% of personal adjusted gross income. He suggests a new twist by having a 12.5% flat income tax paid by the employer without the employer even reporting the employees’ names to the government.  I also heard from proponents of a national consumption tax who believe that their proposal protects privacy as well.  You can learn more about the national consumption tax at http://fairtax.org/.  I welcome additional comments on the various proposals to reform our national tax system.

“Tax Freedom Day” – April 11, 2005

Today has been declared national Tax Freedom Day by the Tax Foundation, which annually calculates the calendar date on which Americans have earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the year.  While it is right to be annoyed that you must work into the second quarter just to pay all your local, state and federal taxes, there is at least a small piece of good news this year. April 11^th is the earliest Tax Freedom Day in 37 years.  Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge said, “Despite the dramatically lower tax burden in 2004, Americans will still spend more on taxes than they spend on food, clothing and medical care combined.” Americans work 36 days to pay income taxes (28 for federal and 8 for state and local), 28 days to pay social insurance taxes, 16 days for sales and excise taxes, 11 days for property taxes and 9 days for business taxes.  California’s Tax Freedom Day is actually a bit later than the national day-- April 13^th -- since our cost of living and salaries are higher and taxpayers therefore end up paying more in progressive income tax. Alaskans, on the other hand, celebrated their Tax Freedom Day earlier than anyone else in the nation, on March 26^th.

“Will the Last Taxpayer Pick Up the Tab, Please?” – May 2, 2005
Another brilliant article in last week's Wall Street Journal, "Who Pays What" demonstrates an astonishing fact.  Even after the Bush tax cuts, our federal tax system has become much more hyper-progressive than it was 25 years ago.  According to a joint study by representatives from IRS and Ernst and Young, over the period from 1979-1999, the richest 0.1% of all taxpayers saw their overall tax share double to 11.05% from 5.06%, including Social Security payroll taxes.  The top 20% of all earners saw their share of the tax burden rise from 58.28% to 68.17% -- 67.47% at 2003 rates.  Meanwhile, the bottom 20% of earners paid only a tiny share in 1979.  They now pay half of what they did back then, because of the Reagan and Bush cuts!  In 1979, the bottom 20% of earners paid 1.22% of the total taxes, including payroll taxes.  In 1999, they paid only .63% -- .65% in 2003 rates.  I agree with the WSJ, as we talk about Social Security reform, our tax system is not fair across all income groups.

“Tax Tips for Nonprofits” – May 2, 2005

None of us want to pay our own money for a back tax bill with penalties and interest, but we would be upset if some of our hard-earned money that we had donated to a worthy nonprofit or religious organization had to go to the BoE because that organization did not follow tax laws.  I have found far too many nonprofit executive directors and board members who say, “But my nonprofit is tax-exempt.”  In some cases they are correct, but in many cases that tax exemption does not apply to many common taxes, including the sales and use tax. For example, if your charity holds a silent auction, or sells tee-shirts, or hosts certain kinds of fundraising dinners, it owes sales tax.  Some churches run afoul of the property tax exemption rules by using the property inappropriately. 

I want to help nonprofit groups and faith-based organizations understand and obey tax laws.  To that end, I am sponsoring several seminars to help charities understand tax laws and what their obligations are.  I will be hosting the events in Ventura on May 5, Folsom on May 12, Santa Clarita on June 2, and Bakersfield on June 16.  For more information on these events or to register, see http://www.boe.ca.gov/sutax/nonprofitsched.htm. If you are not able to attend but would like the BoE publications on this subject, send me an email at bill.leonard@boe.ca.gov.

“Good Developments for Taxpayers” – May 16, 2005

I am happy to report that the constitutional amendment I am sponsoring to consolidate California's tax departments into one body under an elected board cleared the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee last Monday on a 4-2 vote.  My thanks to the author of ACA 14, Assemblyman Devore, for his hard work, and for the helpfulness of committee chair (and former BoE member) Assemblyman Klehs.  This long overdue reform will bring clarity and better accountability to our tax system.  I am gaining confidence that the legislature will vote it onto the ballot for the people's approval.

Unfortunately, because ACA 14 was taken up later in the committee’s agenda, I spent a lot of time sitting in the committee room where I was treated to a strong taste of left wing ideology from the authors of other bills.  The most stunning example was Assemblyman De La Torre’s AB 1644, which would have suspended all of the states tax credit programs including: 1) the sales and use tax exemption for farm equipment and machinery purchased by farmers, 2) the personal and corporate income tax credits for research activities in California, and 3) the S Corporation deductions, among other things.  This bill would have catastrophic consequences for the people of California and the state's tax base. 

The Democrat-dominated Rev and Tax Committee sent the bill to the suspense file, where I hope it stays.  As that happened, I was struck by De La Torre’s closing comments.  He said that as the chair of Budget Subcommittee #1, he has come to see how the state budget currently being considered is “hammering people” and that if the committee members believe, as he does, that the state budget is “a moral document,” then they need to consider taking away tax incentives from California businesses.

Mr. De La Torre’s analysis is incredibly flawed.  Has he learned nothing from the epic battle of ideas against Communism? Has he not been touched by the entire world embracing free markets that are demonstrably improving the lives of millions?  Does he truly believe that the only good ideas flow from the government? Does he think that if businesses do better that people are worse off? 

“Dues or Taxes” – June 13, 2005

I do not like paying more for something unless I have a choice in the matter.  That is why I so strongly support the voters’ right to have sole ability to raise taxes or fees.  Two votes were just taken that point out the differences between two labor unions on this issue.

The California Teachers Association leadership just proposed a political dues increase to fund their fight against the reforms of Governor Schwarzenegger.  The increase is $60 a year for each of their 335,000 members.  It is mandatory on the teachers if they want to continue teaching unless the individual files a complicated waiver.  The CTA executive committee is the body voting on this, and teachers are not being asked for their opinion.  This is wrong.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association leadership just proposed a political dues increase to fund their fight against the reforms of Governor Schwarzenegger.  The increase is $33 a year for each of their officers.  It is mandatory on the officers if they want to continue to work in California's prisons unless the individual files a complicated waiver.  The entire membership of 33,000 members is voting on this proposal.  All members are being asked for their opinions.  This is a much better approach than the CTA is taking.

“Setting It Straight” – June 13, 2005

Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik leveled some criticism last week (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-golden6jun06,1,3603558,print.column?c)at Sacramento Bee columnist Daniel Weintraub and anti-tax activists for our condemnation of the Democrats’ proposed tax hikes.  Recall that Weintraub recounted research (which I had requested from the Legislative Analysts Office) showing that the Wilson tax hikes did not bring in the new revenue that had been projected.  Hiltzik said the “analysis doesn't go far enough…Neither Weintraub nor Cal-Tax mentions the other major state tax hike of postwar vintage — the Reagan hike of 1967…. Their amnesia about Reagan's increase is unsurprising: It destroys their argument about Wilson's. Tax revenue during the Reagan era rose at a record pace of more than 15% a year, pushing California's annual receipts from $627 million to $11.4 billion. The resulting unexpected surplus stoked the citizen discontent about taxes that drove Proposition 13 to victory in 1978.”

With just a little more analysis and a lot less bias, Hiltzik would have uncovered the real truth about the Reagan tax hike. Governor Reagan did impose 10 and 11% tax brackets, but they are not comparable to Wilson’s.  According to California tax historian Dave Doerr, the differences were substantial. First, the 10% rate was imposed in 1967 and the 11% did not come into being until 1971.  Second, those brackets were not the most important part of the Reagan tax package and probably not responsible for the cited new revenue.  The new money that was realized from the 1967 changes did not come from the high income group, but from the across-the-board changes.  In 1971 Reagan instituted withholding and the new revenue can be attributable to that.  Third, when the 10-11% brackets were dropped by legislative consensus in 1987 it was done in exchange for better treatment of capital gains.  When Reagan instituted those brackets, capital gains were capped at 50% whereas the rate under Wilson was 100%.  The 1967 and 1971 bracket hikes may or may not have increased revenue, but we cannot assume, as Hiltzik does, that they are responsible for the increase in revenue because they were on a lower tax base than the Wilson hikes.  As tax burden grows, as it had under Wilson, taxpayers change their behavior accordingly.  That is the lesson for Democrats who want to raise the rates again, in an era when our overall tax burden is already crippling many.

“Watching Squirrels” - June 27, 2005

A few weeks ago I fell down some stairs and injured my leg. (My family has awarded me the permanent klutz trophy.)  I had to have surgery to repair the damage and now I am confined to a recliner while my leg heals.  My recliner is located near a picture window that overlooks my backyard and that gives me a clear view of the squirrels that inhabit my yard.  They neither reap nor sow, yet God provides them with food enough for them to be fat and happy.

However, I have been trying to raise some apricots.  I trimmed the tree, watered and weeded around it.  My granddaughter Katie and I have been checking the crop each day to see if the fruit was ripe.  The squirrels kept similar watch: each day they visited my apricot tree, picked the unripened fruit and threw it on the ground.  One warm day, my wife told Katie that the next day the fruit would be ready to be picked and eaten.  We were very excited about the prospect of harvesting fruit our labor had helped to bring forth and equally disappointed the next morning when we discovered that the squirrels had picked the tree clean of the ripe fruit.  There was no fruit for those of us who had cared for the tree.

In this way, the squirrels make me think of those who would raise taxes on others, taking what they neither sowed nor reaped.  Just as I was denied my apricots, taxpayers are denied the use of their money for their business, their family, or their own enjoyment.  Just as I am reconsidering whether I will invest my labor in another fruit tree, taxpayers faced with higher tax rates reconsider whether they will continue to produce if their fruit is stolen from them.  Now, I do not know what party these squirrels belong to, but I am happy that they at least they can only get to my garden and not into my house.

“BoE Reform Bill Advances” – July 5, 2005

I am happy to report that the bill I am sponsoring, SB 234 (Runner), keeps getting better-- an exception to the general rule that real reform ideas usually get watered down by the legislative process.  The bill provides for greater protection of personal information on income tax returns when appealed to the BoE.  The bill’s second objective is to improve the Board’s openness.  Senator Runner agreed to submit my amendments that will allow for greater disclosure of the Board’s decision making process by making board materials, including hearing summaries and briefs of tax appeals, disclosable public documents.  Personal taxpayer information, like Social Security numbers, phone numbers, and personal residence addresses will be redacted before release.  These are the documents the elected members consult when making decisions.  There have been times when the public or the press has reached erroneous conclusions about the facts in cases because current law limits the available information and restricts me from defending my vote. In fact, even the dollar amounts at issue are often not disclosable under current law.  I want the public to see why I vote the way I do and I want the freedom to explain my votes.  As amended, SB 234 accomplishes this goal.  As such, it passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee last week unanimously and is heading for Assembly Appropriations Committee where it is again recommended for consent.   I am hopeful this bill will go to the Governor and become law.  California is very fortunate to have an elected tax board.  Greater openness to public scrutiny will strengthen the public’s confidence in the BoE and increase the likelihood of its long-term preservation.

“A Tax I Might Like” – August 1, 2005

I read last week that Tennessee has recently enacted a tax on unauthorized substances, following the lead of North Carolina.  I tried to get a similar tax going in California by suggesting tax stamps for marijuana, but my measure failed.  So far Tennessee has taken in more than $600,000 in collections and $15 million in assessments.  The law requires that anyone possessing illegal drugs must purchase numbered stamps to affix to the packages containing the drugs.  If illegal drugs without the stamps are found, the possessor is given a tax bill and if he does not pay it, then tax agents may seize and auction off anything of value the person owns. The author of law says he was trying to get criminals to pay for the cost of law enforcement and jail time instead of the law-abiding citizens.  Information used when someone buys the stamps cannot be used in criminal drug prosecutions, but buying the stamps does not provide any immunity either.  In Tennessee, 75% of the tax goes to the law enforcement agency involved and the balance to the state’s general fund. Given the revenue Tennessee is realizing, perhaps California legislators, who seem prone to tax lots of good things, should reconsider taxing bad things and raising money for, say, the emergency rooms that end up treating those who ruin their health or the lives of others through illicit drug use.

“Tax Cut” – August 29, 2005

I like tax cuts.  That being said, not all tax cuts are created equal.  The plan by the Governor and Assembly Speaker to offer refundable tax credits to Hollywood film companies is not one of the better ways to cut taxes.   First, nobody likes the idea of a taxpayer getting credit for more taxes than were actually paid.  This bill allows that and is rightly being criticized for it.  Second, the companies involved have been trooping to Canada for the last several years.  They are not going for the climate but for the tax subsidies they get from the Canadian government.  Now we are in a bidding war for this business.  Third, every business in California is important. Rather than singling out one industry for tax credits, we should be cutting the corporate tax rate across the board to encourage everyone to do business here.

That said, if I were still a legislator I would vote for some version of this bill because the majority Democrats have been so bad about reducing tax rates that I would not get the opportunity to have a vote on tax cuts for everyone.  If I cannot get it for everyone, I will take it one industry at a time.  One can hope that in learning about the business economics of Hollywood that perhaps some of the anti-tax cut crowd will learn just how expensive it is to do business in California.

“Global Taxation Going Down” – September 6, 2005

According to Forbes Magazine, tax cutting has gone global.  Apparently it started when American consultants convinced the free Baltic countries to establish lower and flatter marginal tax rates, which, contrary to liberal slogans, actually raise more tax revenue through easier compliance and economic expansion.  The success of these economies is spreading the policy.  According to Forbes’ 2005 Misery & Reform Index, more countries are decreasing marginal rates than hiking them.  The most attractive (i.e., low) tax rates are --in order of best --United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong, and the USA.  The worst were France, China, and Italy.

“International Taxes” – November 7, 2005

It does not escape Americans that immigrants from Mexico, either legal or illegal, simply want a better life in the United States.  A recent poll found that 47 percent of the adult population in Mexico would like to migrate to the U.S.   In the September/October California Political Review, Bill Mundell sheds more light on this from a tax perspective.  One likely cause is that Mexico punishes its poorest workers with confiscatory tax rates.  According to Mundell, who cites the August 2005 Journal of Polyeconomics, Mexico’s top tax rate of 33 percent kicks in at about $20,000 per year.  Our top rate of 39 percent does not kick in until an income level of $264,000.  Mexican workers who only earn about $4,000 a year pay 10 percent income taxes; those earning around $7,000 pay a whopping 25 percent.  This is on top of state and local taxes, plus a federal VAT tax of 15%!   Closing the border may be one solution, but perhaps we should be insisting that Mexican legislators learn about the transformative power of lower and flatter taxes.

Another note – I was pleased to read, according to the World Bank, that as of August 2005, new business registrations in Iraq have topped 30,000; this figure does not include the number of start-ups that ignore the registration rules.  It would be an economic milestone of the highest order if the economy of the new Iraq passes Mexico.

“Taco Trash Tax” – January 30, 2006

According to new reports, the Oakland City Council is considering a proposal to tax fast food restaurants and convenience stores that are located near schools to help defray the cost of picking up the litter left by the young people who frequent the establishments.  Oakland would be the first city in the nation to enact such a law.  Councilmembers argue that the tax is necessary because the businesses make profits off the students’ patronage.  The Oakland fee would range from $230 to $3,815 per year, depending on the size of the business, and be targeted at those businesses near high schools and junior high schools. The city would use the estimated $237,000 a year from the tax to hire crews to clean up the litter. Councilman Larry Reid, who represents East Oakland, was quoted in the newspaper as saying, “You can't control the customers who have no sense of cleanliness. They just throw their trash in the streets. Someone needs to be held accountable.”  Here’s a novel idea: hold the litterers accountable.  If we know that the students are doing the littering and we know where and what time of day it happens, issue citations.  I suspect that after the student litterers have to pick up trash during community service time and pay fines of their own, they will develop a sense of cleanliness.

“Partisan Games and Bad Laws” – February 6, 2006

For the past few years, both parties in Sacramento have been wrangling over how to deal with each other’s hot button issues. Each side tries to position itself to blame the other as soft on crime or for higher taxes.  What all of these machinations made me think of was a significant historical event that occurred last week: the ratification of the 16^th amendment to the U.S. constitution that established the federal income tax.

Income and other direct taxes had been rejected by the Constitution’s authors, but an income tax was instituted during the Civil War.  That tax was abandoned in 1872, but when Democrats took power in 1892, they instituted another income tax. Two Supreme Court cases in 1895 determined that the latest version of the income tax was unconstitutional. Historian W. Cleon Skousen explains that in the following decade, “There was great social unrest and the idea of a tax to ‘soak the rich’ began to take root among liberals in both major parties. Several times the Democrats introduced bills to provide a tax on higher incomes but each time the conservative branch of the Republican party killed it in the Senate.  The Democrats used this as evidence that the Republicans were the ‘party of the rich’...”

Texas Democrat Senator Joseph Bailey introduced an income tax bill with the intention of embarrassing Republicans by putting them on record as opposing it.  His trick backfired when the liberal wing of the Republican party supported his bill.  President William Howard Taft and conservative Republican leaders scrambled for a strategy in light of the split within the GOP.  They, too, devised a tricky tactic: come out in support of an income tax, but only in the form of an amendment to the Constitution and only if the Democrats supported reducing unpopular tariffs, which drove up the price of goods.  Thus, the income tax amendment got out of Congress and was sent to the states. State legislatures were pressed to approve it to lower the pesky tariffs, which affected most people whereas the proposed income tax was only going to a small percentage of the wealthiest Americans.  Of course, those wealthiest Americans anticipated the burden that would be theirs alone and lobbied for the creation of tax-exemption charitable foundations, where they put their wealth (e.g., Andrew Carnegie).

Thus, the income tax was foisted upon us a result of the parties seeking to embarrass each other, the use of catchy slogans to sway the public, and the public’s belief that new taxes were acceptable as long as they were applied to other people.  Those dynamics are still in play today and they can lead to laws that do not accomplish their intended goals, effect people they were not intended to, and make both parties look foolish.

“Make More Money!” – March 13, 2006

Last week Italy’s Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, was asked by a television reporter  what his government could do to help Italians making only 1,500 euros (about $1,793) a month.  His response was:  “The answer of Berlusconi the businessman is, try to earn more.”  Berlusconi then related how he earned the money he used to build his media business by working at the local market and gathering paper in the streets, rolling it into balls and reselling it to people who would use it to light their stoves. 

A smart, hard working businessman like Berlusconi is fortunate he is not a California resident.  More and more California politicians believe the solution to any problem is to tax the “wealthy.”  That is the proposal for funding “universal preschool” and Phil Angelides, the state treasurer who is running for the Democrat nomination for Governor, mentioned this week that he wants to tax the rich to pay for more high school counselors to encourage students to go to college and for lower tuitions at state colleges and universities.  Voters have already approved a surtax on our state’s highest income earners to fund services to the mentally ill.  Before we hop on board more soak-the-rich schemes, consider a few facts:

• California already charges high-income taxpayers more than any other state in the nation.
• Less than 10% of the personal income tax returns filed in California account for nearly 75% of PIT revenues.
• The last time we hiked rates on the highest incomes, it was estimated that $1.2 billion could be raised.  In reality, only half of that came in.  It seems that people do make rational decisions based on tax laws and rates.  Ask any of the well-compensated professional athletes who have chosen to establish their residences in Florida or Nevada.

“Left and Right Agree” – April 24, 2006

It is a rare occurrence that I find myself largely in agreement with Jean Ross of the California Budget Project because I perceive her advocating higher taxes and more spending.  However, I came across a briefing paper of hers about California taxation that documents something I have been pointing out for some time.  That is, it is California's high and regressive sales tax that makes it so California’s poor have the highest percentage of their income going to taxation than any other income group.  Our highly progressive income tax does not even close the gap between the wealthiest and poorest because the rich can more easily shelter their tax liability or move.  Jean and I part ways when it comes to what policy change should arise from this information.  I say her data show that lower and flatter taxes are both fairer along with being better for economic growth.  Jean’s good research can be found here: 

http://www.cbp.org/2006/0604_pp_whopaystaxes.pdf

“Taxing Realities” – May 8, 2006

Last week the legislature debated a bill to end the state’s ReadyReturn program, which fills out personal income tax returns for you.  The state figures out how much you owe, fills in the forms and you can simply sign then and send them in.  I have opined before about the dangers of such a system, but Joe Bankman, the Stanford law professor who helped design the program, is a big fan. The LA Times wrote about his frustrations with getting the program extended because of capitol politics and lobbying.  Beyond the realities of how a bill becomes a law, Professor Bankman ignores the underlying problem that government tax returns are too complex.  They should be simplified.  But instead of making them simpler, he wants the government to fill out the complex forms for taxpayers and then seems shocked that many people do not trust the government to do that.  As long as tax laws are not simplified, the government should expand its assistance programs for taxpayers.  But for a tax system that has been called voluntary, ReadyReturn is a big step to mandatory with a serious loss of civil rights as part of it.

“Bush’s Tax Cuts are Progressive in Reality” – May 15, 2006

It is granite-embossed wisdom that the President’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 benefited primarily wealthy Americans.   I have never thought much of this charge because any across-the-board tax cut will benefit those who pay the most taxes.  So I was struck when I came across a just released May 2006 study by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee that shows how hyper-progressive the income tax system is even after the tax cuts.   According to the latest data available, the top 1 percent pay more than a third of all federal income taxes – 34%.   Even more striking thing is that the top 50 percent of earners pay almost all of the federal income tax – 96 percent!   Considering that the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay only 3.5 percent of our federal income tax after the tax cuts, it is rather ironic that the conventional wisdom is the President has only served the rich.   See for yourself: http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/rr109-36.pdf

“State Should Offer Deduction to All Commuters” – May 22, 2006

Since the state is hauling in gargantuan revenues from high gas prices, let me offer a tax cut that would be enormously popular and would be a very small way for the state to acknowledge its role in gouging commuters with the sales tax on gasoline.  It is very simple: California should allow commuting costs to be a tax-deductible expense.  We want people to work and we subsidize them if they use transit to get there; why not give a tax break to all commuters?
 
The law that disallows straight commuting expenses is based on Internal Revenue Code section 162 (Trade or Business Expenses), and Regulation 1.162-2(e), which specifically disallows commuting expenses (but then allows commuting between business locations when the employee has more than one business location).
 
Since California follows the Internal Revenue Code on this issue, the California legislature should modify California law.  The legislature could allow all commuting expenses (like the way “business travel” is now deductible), or create a new category of “deductible commuting.”  Many formulas could be used, such as locations where there is no public transit, or establish an upper and/or lower mileage limit. 

“Think Oil Companies Are Greedy?” - 5/22/06

Andrew Chamberlain of the Tax Foundation has written extensively on gas taxes.  He has calculated the extent to which federal, state and local government have profited more from gasoline sales than our domestic oil industry.  There have only been two years between 1977 and 2004 (the latest data available) when this has not been true.  During the period, according to Chamberlain, the oil industry's total domestic profits were $643 billion, adjusted for inflation.  If you are outraged by this number, consider that governments collected $1.34 trillion in gas taxes after adjusting for inflation over the same period -- more than double what the oil companies made!  Chamberlain has a nice graph for illustration:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1492.html

“The Cost of Taxing Consumption Only” – May 22, 2006

Libertarian and conservative economists have long complained that it is wrong-headed and even immoral to tax income.   The argument is that it makes little sense to tax capital that could be better deployed by individual spending, savings and investment.  This is how the economy grows in the most efficient and productive way.  Thus, by this theory, the way to maximize tax revenue while having the least deleterious effect on the economy is to stop taxing income and only tax purchases, or, consumption. 
 
The cost of eliminating the state's personal and corporate income taxes in a revenue-neutral manner is not cheap.  By my math, for the last seven years, it would have taken an SUT rate of 18.2% to have brought in enough revenue to compensate for no income tax.  It is possible that the rate could be less, given a dynamic assessment of revenue yield from a better performing economy. 
 
Under a consumption-only tax system, those with modest incomes would pay more for consumer staple items, but those who buy expensive things would pay far more.  While 18.2% is a high number, whether or not one pays more or less tax would largely be a matter of choice because most consumer items are not necessities, consumers can choose to buy them or not.  One cannot choose whether or not to pay income tax.  Remember also, there would be positive effects on the economy from a more efficient way of treating capital.  While this is a very difficult political decision, if it were ever be done, it would be likely to spur income growth and make consumer goods more affordable.

“A Modest Proposal for Reforming Taxes” – May 22, 2006

In the April 24 issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru argues for a way of reforming taxes rather than cutting them across the board.  His thinking is that conservatives are not going to get what they really want, either a flat tax or a national sales tax, so the best alternative is an idea that can bring Democrats and Republicans together.  He thinks the way to do this is to give more to families in a way that does not reduce revenues overall.  Seems to me he is on to something. 

The centerpiece of the plan would be a huge expansion of the child tax credit, from $1,000 to $5,000 per child.  The second feature would be to replace the standard deduction with a tax credit worth $1,500 for adult individuals and $3,000 for couples. All itemized deductions, other than the mortgage interest deduction and charitable deduction, would be scrapped.  No more AMT for individuals. Capital gains would be taxed as income, but half the long term gain would be excluded.  Dividends would be taxed only once, either as individual income or at the corporate level.  The six individual income tax rates would be replaced with two: a 15 percent rate and a 30 percent rate.  The brackets would be set so as to end the marriage penalty and to raise as much money as the current tax code to make the whole plan revenue-neutral.

This would be real reform.  It would be a simpler system, while helping families and economic growth.  Some fiscal conservatives would not like the expansion of the child credit because they argue that it reduces revenue while not helping economic growth.  But I agree with Ponnuru’s argument that it is short-sighted to look at children as if they were consumer goods.  The cost of raising kids represents an investment in human capital.  

“California Losing Political Clout” – June 5, 2006

Steve Forbes wrote a terrific column a couple months ago looking at why certain states like Vermont and Iowa are losing population given that these states have the things that Americans like – great public education, low crime, less traffic and nice rural scenery.  This runs counter to the trend that allows people to live anywhere because of technology.  These states should be thriving.  Forbes notes that both of these states have heavy tax burdens.  In Iowa, the top income tax rate is about 9%, in Vermont 9.5%.   But the shocker in Forbes piece is the news that for the first time in its 155 year history, California is projected not to gain, and perhaps even to lose, a congressional seat as a result of the 2010 census.  Why? Well, California is a high tax, high regulation state, especially compared to Arizona (projected to gain two Congressional seats) and Texas (projected to pick up three). 

Forbes is dead-on.  Taxes matter, not only on the federal level, but particularly on the state and local levels.

Check out the census projection chart here:  http://www.polidata.org/census/st005nca.pdf

“Picking Winners and Losers” – July 10, 2006

If you paid any attention to the Democrat primary you noticed one key difference between Steve Westly and Phil Angelides was their position on taxes.  Angelides talked about the need to raise a variety of taxes whereas Westly talked about the need to resist tax increases so our economy can thrive.  It was not surprising that Angelides backs tax hikes; he always has. What I was surprised by was the more recent announcement by Angelides that he supports a tax break for Hollywood.  I find that hypocritical.  Angelides should be ashamed for taxing mom-and-pop stores out of business while advocating tax breaks to entertainment moguls.  I, on the other hand, support tax breaks for everyone—from the corner dollar store to Hollywood producers. 

The difference is our belief about the purpose of the tax system. I see it as a necessary evil.  Angelides and his ilk see it as a way to pick winners and losers.  They see it as a way to reward friends (Hollywood liberals) and punish enemies (small businesses, families, entrepreneurs, manufacturers, etc.)   I do not want the film, television and commercial industries to leave California.  I support the idea of tax break for them because it means more jobs will stay here instead of going to other states and countries.  However, I want to take it several steps further: I want to reduce regulation that constrains every industry, not just the glamorous ones, and I want to reduce taxes for everyone, not just political allies.

“Want More Record Revenue? Keep Cutting Taxes” – July 24, 2006

Tom Nugent has a terrific analysis of the federal revenue picture over at National Review Online:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NTlhN2ZiOGQwYWJjMTBiNzUyM2IyNWQyMTcwNTQ0MGU =
 
Nugent sees the record levels of revenue as a sign that we are still over taxed.  But not for exactly the reason you might think.   Nugent argues that further tax cuts will generate even more revenue, and I think history shows him to be correct.
 
To set up the argument, he quotes the latest Wall Street Journal report on federal revenues:  “In the first nine months of fiscal 2006, tax revenues have climbed by $206 billion, or nearly 13%. As the Congressional Budget Office recently noted, ‘That increase represents the second-highest rate of growth for that nine-month period in the past 25 years’ - exceeded only by the year before. For all of fiscal 2005, revenues rose by $274 billion, or 15%.”  Higher receipts from personal income tax are largely responsible, and corporate receipts are nearly triple what they were in 2003.
 
Nugent is a student of Laffer's much misunderstood theory.  Laffer is often associated with lower taxes and nothing else.  What Laffer says is very simple:  There exists an optimal level of taxation that is neither too low nor too high.   In other words, if taxes are too high they are counter-productive in that they punish the economy to an extent that tax revenues are depressed.  On the other hand, Laffer says if taxes are too low, they can be raised without hurting the economy and depressing revenues.   
 
When tax cuts yield sky-high revenues as they have since the cuts of 2003, it is a sign tax rates are still prohibitive and need to be lowered still.  We will know when the right tax level is reached when continued tax cuts no longer yield revenues higher than expected from a modestly growing economy like ours.  

“Our Most Recent Tax Increase Failed to Deliver” – August 7, 2006

In November 2004, California voters approved Proposition 63, which increased income taxes by 1% on people with incomes higher than $1 million per year.  At 10.3%, California's income tax rate is the highest in the nation.  The revenues from this tax increase were permanently dedicated to local mental health programs.  Of course, the initiative made no provision to “back-fill” the tax revenues lost when the wealthiest taxpayers left the state to avoid this highest-in-the-nation tax.
 
When this misguided tax increase was on the ballot, taxpayer advocates argued that there would be little benefit from this new tax because local governments would cut existing funding for the mentally ill, so they would get nothing more than they did before (and maybe even less) despite a permanent tax increase.  The proponents of the initiative denied that allegation, claiming the poorly-worded “maintenance of effort” language in the initiative would prevent that from happening.  Well, the early results are in and, as usual, the proponents of high taxes were wrong.
 
California counties have already begun cutting the funds for local mental health programs. The headline about it said “despite” the new revenues from Proposition 63,

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/07/31/BAGI1K8DTI1.DTL

but I think it should be rephrased:  it is “because” of those new revenues.  Just as predicted, millionaires are leaving our state to avoid high taxes and they are taking jobs, businesses, and the rest of their tax money with them when they go.  Meanwhile, the unfortunate people who rely on county mental health services will have fewer resources available than before the tax increase was adopted.  When will we ever learn?

“One More Tax Cheat” – August 21, 2006

I just read that former gubernatorial candidate Nick Jesson has pled guilty to state tax evasion, after previously pleading guilty to federal tax evasion.  Apparently, he was cooperative and he paid restitution, so he will be allowed to serve his three-year state sentence concurrently with his federal sentence.
 
Jesson’s campaign for governor was remarkable because so many reasonable people were quick to believe him when he claimed to have found a way to avoid paying income taxes and employee payroll taxes.  In a debate with fellow Republican candidates Bill Simon and Bill Jones, Jesson ridiculed his opponents for their more traditional views on taxation, while making the outlandish claim that California has a “$400 billion budget surplus” (based on his own misreading of the Controller’s annual report showing the value of state assets).  Nick Jesson’s tax-free siren song attracted trusting supporters to his campaign from all over the state, eager to believe that he had found a new way to alleviate their tax burden.  He attracted almost 20,000 votes in a high-profile, seven-candidate Republican primary election.  His billboards and campaign signs sprang up everywhere, often so close my Board of Equalization campaign signs that people thought we must be running on a ticket of some sort.

In the end, Jesson's story provides yet another lesson for tax evaders everywhere: you will get caught and when you do, it will cost you a great deal more than it would have cost to comply with the tax laws in the first place.  Our tax burden is certainly too high and our tax laws are too complex and unfair, but changing the system requires political action rather than dishonest accounting and tax fraud.  Jesson and other snake oil salesmen leave behind a trail of broken lives, ruined businesses, and lost fortunes wherever they convince innocent-but-gullible people to participate in their tax schemes.  What is worse, these anti-tax charlatans give all taxpayer advocates a bad name and undermine the broad-based effort to reduce our tax burden.

“Your Money=Angelides' Expenditure” – September 5, 200

You may have noticed that gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides keeps suggesting new tax hikes for us to pay. The most recent was an auto services tax so that, for example, when you get your oil changed, you not only pay sales tax on the new filter, but also on the labor.  So much for his argument that he only wants to tax the rich.  For those of us who do not want to pay higher taxes, you may wonder where Angelides and the budget liberals in the legislature get the idea that you have so much extra money to share with the government. 
 
Budget liberals have a unique way of viewing the world best explained by budget reports.  Budget reports consist of what the rest of us have in our family budgets: revenue and expenses.  But added is one thing normal people do not track: tax expenditures.  This is a category that exists on paper that says “here is how much money the government would have collected had it not been for this particular exclusion, exemption, credit, incentive or subsidy.”  That includes those evil exemptions advocated by the two largest and particularly scurrilous special interest groups in the state: home owners and food eaters. 
 
A new requirement imposed by the liberals in the legislature is that the Department of Finance report to the legislature each year on each of these so-called tax expenditures in excess of $5 million.  Liberals begin with the assumption that all resources belong to the government, so tax expenditures are just loopholes that allow people to keep resources that government ought to have.  They need this new report to identify exactly how many “government” resources are slipping through these loopholes, so that they can find ways to further restrict them and keep more for government. I offer this very simplified tax expenditure report that gets to the heart of the liberals' intent:
 
Californians' Payments to IRS             $ 221 billion

 

Total State & Local Revenues             $ 192 billion

Total taxes to government                   $ 313 billion

 

Californians' Total Annual Income    $  1.4 trillion

That means that government is already getting 22% of all income in California, on average, but legislators are still worried that 22% is not enough!

“Tax Cuts Delivering Record Revenues” – September 25, 2006

 This is one of those stories where everybody agrees with the facts but they still want to debate the cause.  I was stunned when I read a Dow Jones story that on September 15 the Federal Government reported the highest one-day revenue total ever.  The $85.8 billion that came in on that quarterly deadline surpassed last year’s record set on the same day of $71 billion by 20%.  I also learned from WSJ economist Stephen Moore that 2005 and 2006 federal revenues have increased more than $520 billion – the largest revenue increase over a two-year period in American history. 

Now that we have dispensed with the facts, onto the debate:  Democrats (I hate to say ‘never’) will probably never concede that lowering taxes can bring in more revenue even though this phenomenon was clearly evident from the Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts and even more so now.  So entrenched is this thinking that even the supposedly non-partisan Congressional Budget Office refuses to acknowledge that tax cuts have a positive effect on the economy. The data should shame all of them.  Stephen Moore, writing in the current American Spectator notes that in 2003 critics said the Bush tax cuts would blow a $2 trillion hole in the federal deficit over the following ten years.  Just three years after -- in 2006 -- the deficit will be below $300 billion and it’s dropping like a rock, despite the war in Iraq and the Republicans’ spending spree.

Since the tax cuts of 2003, corporate tax receipts are up by 40%.  But this is not even the best part.  The biggest gains have come from capital gains and dividend tax payments, perhaps the most controversial component of the 2003 cuts.  Moore cites Congressional Budget Office data that these tax revenues are up 70% since 2003, even though the tax rate was slashed down to 15%.  The CBO predicted in 2004 that by January 2006 capital gains revenues would be $197 billion.  Boy, do they have eggs on their faces now.  The actual number will be closer to $290 billion.

The opponents of the tax cuts are stuck in a Keynesian Age.  They would prefer government stimulate the economy by taking more money in taxes and pumping this to the states through programs, and having it filter down from there.  This totally contradicts basic economics and ignores the velocity of money.  What a supply-side tax cut does is unlock capital so it can be re-spent.  This reduces the punishment on those who want to sell assets and then spend or re-invest in something else.  Anybody who argues that this does not have a marvelous, stimulative effect is not looking at the data -- like the New York Times.  The Times reported that revenues are exploding, but they call it a “mystery” – yeah, right.  To the architects of the Bush plan, there is no mystery why American households have $6 trillion more wealth than they did in May 2003.  Families that make under $40,000 a year have seen their tax liabilities go down $1,000 a year, and their portfolios and houses have not fared badly either. 

Moore adds that former Treasury Secretary John Snow told him that Bush wanted the dividend and capital gains tax eliminated completely.  Bush settled for a cut to 15%, but just imagine the boom we would have had the President gotten his way completely.

Vindication is sweet indeed.

“Misery and More” – November 27, 2006

Forbes magazine has published its annual Misery Index, a sum of several types of taxes (corporate income, personal income, wealth, employer social security, employee social security, and VAT/Sales) in countries all over the world.  As Forbes writes, “It is our best proxy for evaluating whether policy attracts or repels capital and talent.”  The nation with the worse misery rating was France (166.8), although it has lowered its rates since last year’s index. Sixteen countries on the index lowered their misery score in the last year while eight increased it.

China came in second at 160. The first American ranking was for New York with a rating of 115.7.  The lowest misery index countries were Hong Kong at 43.5 and the United Arab Emirates at 18. 

Perhaps the biggest lesson of this is drawn from a recent article in Le Figaro: marginal tax rates in France were 50% in 2003. They will drop to 40% next year and, voila, the French economy is growing again.  The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henniger noted last Friday that even the World Bank is heralding two global reforms: 1) “easing regulations on new business, and 2) “reducing tax rates and the administrative hassle of paying taxes.”  Henniger also reminds us that it has been 25 years since President Reagan lowered the U.S. top marginal personal income tax rate from 70% to 28%.  Clinton pushed that back up to nearly 40%; Bush has taken is back to 35%.  Before the newly-empowered Democrats seek to push it back up again, they would do well to consider the low flat-tax rates of the Eastern Europe nations: Slovakia 19%, Romania 16%, Ukraine 13%. 

“Act Now to Avoid Tax Hikes” – December 4, 2006

The Bush tax cuts that have so stimulated the nation's economy will expire in 2010.  It takes an affirmative action by the Congress and the President to make these tax cuts permanent.  What do you think the odds are that the new Democratic majority will vote to extend the tax cuts when they can obtain their desired tax increases by simply doing nothing?

I am disappointed to read that the post-election Republican Congress will take no action on tax cuts.  This is very wrong.

The rhetoric from the Democrats on this front is mixed.  Last week the Wall Street Journal quoted Robert Rubin, Treasury Secretary under President Clinton and a key advisor to Senator Hillary Clinton saying, “You cannot solve the nation’s fiscal problems without increased revenues.”   He went on to say, “I think if you were to increase taxes right now, you would have probably zero negative effect on the economy.”  The Journal points out that Rubin said in 2002 that the Bush tax cuts would do little to stimulate the economy, which has since grown a robust 4% each year until the recent housing market slump.

Two weeks ago Representative Charles Rangel (D- NY), who is now the incoming Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, said on NPR that tax increases are on the table.  Reportedly, Pelosi reacted by denying any increases were being considered. 

The Journal article gives ample evidence why we should at least stay the course.   Federal revenues in fiscal 2006 were 18.4% of GDP, higher than the 18.2% post-1965 average.  As I’ve reported here, the first month of fiscal 2007, revenues were up 12% from the year before.  Yes, the Republicans have been on a wild spending spree, but the stimulus from the tax cuts has more than made up for it (so far, at least).  The fiscal 2006 deficit was 1.9% of GDP, which the Journal reminds us, “is lower than all but eight years since 1975.” 

The Republicans are giving up on their strongest message by not taking the appropriate action now.

“Huge Tax Hike on Beer Drinkers” – December 18, 2006
State law is full of gray areas and ambiguities. One old one is now the real culprit in this week's headlines. When the Legislature wrote the first alcohol laws after Prohibition was repealed in 1933, California defined what a beer is and what wine is. The definition was simple - anything added to beer or wine renders it something else. Sometime thereafter beer and wine producers started adding things such as preservatives, flavor enhancers and other things. So narrowly reading the law there is NO such product as either beer or wine sold in California today. Now common sense and alcohol regulators know that is not true and so for years have ignored this narrow interpretation.

Last week a bare majority of the Board of Equalization voted for the narrow interpretation of the law, and have begun the process to tax all alcohols with any additives as distilled spirits. This will increase the taxes charged on beers, wines, flavored malt beverages, and flavored beers to the level on hard liquor. The objective offered was to reduce teenage drinking, which I support. However, there was little testimony that by increasing the tax on beers that teenagers would lose access to alcohol.

The dated California law defines beer as having no additives whatsoever. No beer that I know of – except perhaps some home brews – meets this definition. Alcopop-type beer products with some fruit flavors typically have alcohol content between 3.8 and 5 percent. Beers out of a bar tap can exceed 10 percent alcohol. The proponents are seeking to raise the tax on flavored beers from 20 cents a gallon to $3.30 a gallon, the rate for distilled spirits. The proponents say they are focused on these flavored beers but chemically and by alcohol content they are indistinguishable from all other beers and wine. Every product will potentially suffer this monster tax hike.

We need the Legislature to step in and provide the policy guidance that addresses teenage drinking and also “clean up” the code so that modern beer and wine is appropriately categorized in the law.

“The IRS’s Latest Bah Humbug” – December 18, 2006

Five firefighters died while fighting the Esperanza Fire in inland Southern California earlier this fall.  Their tragic deaths in the line of duty inspired generosity from people who knew that the surviving families (one of which has five young children) would need financial support in the years ahead.  More than one million dollars has been raised to help these families and the Central County United Way in Riverside County has been collecting and plans to administer the funds.  Now the IRS is playing Scrooge to the heartfelt generosity of the donors.  The IRS has told the United Way that charitable organizations cannot collect money for small, specific group like these families because federal law requires that money so raised must go to individuals or families who are part of a “large and indefinite” class and that the money benefit the broader community, too.  They ignore the fact that the donors do not know these families and to the donors the money is going to a class of families in need because their breadwinner was killed in the line of duty while protecting the public.

This is not just an issue about these five families. It is a larger and serious problem that also effect state taxation.  My church is facing a similar struggle with federal tax law.  As a congregation, we have given away college scholarships to worthy young people in the church.  However, the IRS is now cracking down on such programs because of alleged abuse by some (not at my church).  Apparently, some parents have been making tax deductible donations to particular charities or churches and then having that organization make a scholarship grant to their children.  It is sad that a few bad apples are going to ruin a genuine attempt by others to be helpful to those in need.  The tax agencies ought to be able to tell the difference.

“State Revenue Cannot Keep Up with Spending” – January 2, 2007

Last week's story about Taxpayer X, the Californian who settled with the state with a payment of $200 million in income taxes, shows just how volatile the state tax is.  Just one taxpayer under California's hyperprogressive tax system can pay enough to meet the state’s revenue estimates.  If not for this one person we would have fallen below our estimates.  In truth, we did fall below our estimates because this payment is a one-time payment and will not be repeated in future years.  California's spending binges are overly dependent on a few wealthy individuals gaining financial windfalls and then paying taxes on them.  We are fast running out of Californians who can do this.  While we may have made our estimates in revenue for this period, my prediction still stands that the state is about to hit a revenue wall.  Spending cuts are the only answer. 

“Hidden Taxes” – January 8, 2007

The new buzz words in political debate are “hidden taxes.”  In almost every case, this does not refer to secret payments to the government.  The more accurate definition of the phrase would be “cost shifting.”  Because lots of people use health care services without paying for those services, hospitals and doctors are forced to charge the rest of us more to cover their expenses.  But cost shifting goes on everywhere.  We all pay more for products to cover the extra costs businesses have due to shoplifting or other expenses.

So, if it is true that this hidden tax is a bad thing, then what is the solution?  Apparently the solution is a not-so-hidden-tax.  Instead of paying extra to health care to providers, I will pay more in taxes and then the government will give some subsidy to these providers to pay for the people who do not pay.  That might work if the next step is for health care providers and insurers to lower my costs since I am no longer paying a hidden tax.  Care to bet on the odds of premiums and out-of-pocket costs going down?

“Ne