Debt Limit Deal: Almost 100% of the burden will be borne—via spending cuts—by the poor and the middle-class.

[The_Dude 1,142]

This is a much better source for that kind of data - http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/dc/theredandtheblack

20 years of data, not just 1.

I see the largest state is also one of the reddest ones. We should stop federally funding the state of Alaska. Let's be honest, after the oil is gone, they won't matter anymore anyways.

[^_^ 5,021]

I see the largest state is also one of the reddest ones. We should stop federally funding the state of Alaska. Let's be honest, after the oil is gone, they won't matter anymore anyways.

9th from the bottom, not that bad.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is a much better source for that kind of data - http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/dc/theredandtheblack

20 years of data, not just 1.

Cool chart. Something shifted significantly in the 2006-2009 space bringing FL from a net payor of $37BN from 1990-2005 (per the tax foundation report) to a net payee of $300BN from 1990-2009. That would suggest that FL received net transfers of $337BN for 2006-2009 or more than $80BN annually in that timeframe while it otherwise routinely sent more funding than it received. Wonder if that has something to do with the reduced income and corporate taxes due to the recession and the stimulus package or whether the calculations are based on different numbers altogether.

BTW, while I quoted the ratio of the last year reported (2005), I did look at the 25 year (1981-2005) picture where FL was a net donor and KS was a net receiver as well. FL averaged 0.98 over that timeframe while KS averaged 1.07.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[웃 910]

Some states have enacted tax cuts, forcing even deeper cuts to services. For the first time since the recession caused state revenues to plummet, lawmakers in some states have enacted large tax cuts – mostly cuts to taxes paid by corporations and other businesses – in a misguided attempt to spur economic activity. Twelve states that faced FY12 budget shortfalls have enacted major tax cuts that would reduce revenues in the coming fiscal year.[10] (As described later in this paper, each of these states also enacted major spending cuts.) Some of these states, as well as several others such as California, Maryland, and New York also allowed major tax measures to expire or phase out, losing significant revenue and causing further cuts in spending.

• Arizona enacted a tax package that reduces the corporate income tax rate to 4.9 percent from 6.98 percent and reduces commercial property taxes by 10 percent. The package was signed into law on February 17 and will cost the state $38 million in fiscal year 2012, or 4 percent of the state's 2012 budget shortfall. By fiscal year 2018, the cost of the tax cuts will balloon to $538 million, half of which will result from the corporate tax rate cut.

• Florida's budget increases the amount of business income exempt from the corporate income tax to $25,000 from $5,000, resulting in the exemption of 15,000 businesses from the tax, at a cost to the state of $12 million in fiscal year 2012 and $29 million each year thereafter. The budget also imposes a cap on property tax collection by the state's five water management districts, costing local districts $210 million.

• Georgia's budget enacts nearly $100 million in tax cuts, including $46 million to allow top income earners unlimited itemized deductions on their income taxes.

• Maine's budget eliminates in 2012 the state's alternative minimum income tax on individuals, lowers in 2013 the state's top income tax rate on income above about $50,000 to 7.95 percent from 8.5 percent, and doubles from $1 million to $2 million the income exempted from the state's estate tax. To partially offset the costs of these tax cuts, the budget reduces by 20 percent targeted property tax assistance for middle and low-income homeowners and renters. These cuts will cost the state $130 million in the coming two-year budget cycle and $400 million in the following two-year cycle.

• Michigan eliminated the state's current major business tax and replaced it with a flat 6 percent corporate income tax, exempting all but subchapter C corporations from paying a business income tax, at a cost of more than $1 billion in 2012 alone. To offset the revenue lost from reduced business taxes, the state will maintain and then phase down a temporary increase in the personal income tax, reduce the state's Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families by 70 percent, and tax some pension income. The change also eliminates most business tax credits. The net result of these changes will be a revenue loss of $535 million for fiscal year 2012.

• Missouri eliminated its corporate franchise tax, which will cost the state $25 million in 2012 and $87million or about one-quarter of corporate tax receipts, when fully phased in.

• New Jersey's budget includes a variety of tax cuts to begin in 2012. Among the tax cuts are a 25 percent reduction in the corporate minimum tax paid by the state's subchapter S corporations; an increase in the amount of research a corporation can write off; consolidation and carry forward of certain business-related losses; and a modification of the corporate business tax formula used to determine the portion of a corporation's income that is taxable in New Jersey. The cost of these tax cuts increases to $271 million in three years from an initial loss of $107 million in the first year.

• North Carolina let expire a temporary 1-cent sales tax increase, an income tax surcharge on higher income families and individuals, and an income tax surcharge on corporations, at a cost of $1.3 billion. The budget also enacts a two-year provision allowing business owners to exempt the first $50,000 in "pass-through" income from state income tax, so long as the business owner is actively engaged in running the business. For individual business owners with at least $50,000 in eligible business income, the value of the exemption would range from $3,000 to $3,875. The exemption will apply to the 2012 and 2013 calendar years and cost $132 million in the 2012 fiscal year and more than $300 million when in full effect.

• Ohio is eliminating its estate tax in 2013. The tax affected the wealthiest 7 percent of estates, and brought in approximately $286 million last year, 80 percent of which went straight to local governments to fund basic services like police, fire protection, and snow removal.

• In Wisconsin, lawmakers enacted over $90 million in new tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. For example, corporations will be allowed to claim as a tax deduction a greater share of the losses they have incurred in past years and will tax less of their capital gains income. Together with other tax cuts enacted earlier this year, the total revenue loss to the state is about $200 million over the next two year budget cycle, requiring further budget cuts. Lawmakers filled $56 million of the budget shortfall by scaling back the state's Earned Income Tax Credit for 152,000 low-income working families, at an average cost of $518 for families with 3 or more children and $154 for families with 2 children, annually.

• Five states have balanced deep spending cuts with significant revenue-raising measures. These measures include extending expiring tax surcharges, repealing tax credits or deductions, broadening the base of some taxes, and raising rates. For example:
  • Connecticut's budget increased income tax rates for many filers, expanded the sales tax base to include more services, increased the sales tax rate, and instituted a rule that would make it harder for corporations to avoid income taxes, among other revenue measures.

  [*]

  • Hawaii raised over $600 million in new tax revenue over the biennium by limiting general excise tax exemptions for businesses and by eliminating the standard deduction and capping itemized deductions for higher income filers, among other actions.

  [*]

  • Nevada's budget extended $620 million in tax measures that were scheduled to expire this year.

  [*]By contrast, 12 states with shortfalls enacted large tax cuts; the loss of revenue in 2012 from these tax cuts deepened the spending cuts these states imposed to balance their budgets. In a number of cases, the primary beneficiaries of the tax cuts or expiring tax measures were large corporations and/or high-income individuals. For example:

  • Michigan eliminated the state's major business tax and replaced it with a flat 6 percent corporate income tax, at a cost of more than $1 billion in 2012 alone. To partially offset the revenue lost, the state will maintain and then phase down a temporary increase in the personal income tax, reduce the state's Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families by 70 percent, and tax some pension income. The net result of these tax changes is a revenue loss of $535 million for fiscal year 2012.

  [*]

  • North Carolina enacted a set of tax breaks for businesses that will cost $132 million in fiscal year 2012 and more than $300 million when in full effect.

  [*]

  • In Wisconsin, lawmakers enacted over $90 million in new tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Together with other tax cuts enacted earlier this year, the total revenue loss to the state is about $200 million over the next two year budget cycle, requiring further budget cuts. Lawmakers filled $56 million of the budget shortfall by scaling back the state's Earned Income Tax Credit for 152,000 low-income working families.

  [*]

  • In addition to the 12 states enacting new tax cuts, a number of states – including some of those mentioned above and other states, such as California and Maryland – are allowing temporary tax increases to expire, thereby giving individuals and corporations reductions in their tax liability at a time when families and communities are facing large budget cuts.

A few states have raised new revenues. Since the recession began, more than 30 states have enacted revenue measures — in some cases significant ones — to replace some of the revenue lost due to the recession. (All of those have also cut services, often sharply.) For next year, of the 47 states that have enacted budgets, five states include major new revenue measures as well as spending cuts.[9] Their revenue proposals include:

• Connecticut's enacted budget raises $2.6 billion in new tax revenue over the biennium by increasing the number of income tax brackets and other income tax changes, expanding the sales tax to cover more services and increasing the sales tax rate, and imposing a higher surcharge on corporations, among other increases.

• Hawaii raised over $600 million in new tax revenue over the biennium by limiting general excise tax exemptions for businesses and by eliminating the standard deduction and capping itemized deductions for higher income filers, among other actions.

• Maryland's budget raised $85 million from an increase in the alcohol tax, and $64 million in increased motor vehicle fees.

• Nevada's budget extended $620 million in tax measures that were scheduled to expire this year, including keeping the sales tax rate at 6.85 percent until July 2013. Previously the sales tax rate had been scheduled to drop to 6.5 percent this year. The budget also extended a payroll tax on businesses until 2013 and kept a business license fee, scheduled to drop to $100 this year, at $200 until July 2013.

• Prior to enacting the budget, Illinois lawmakers raised the state's personal income tax to 5 percent from 3 percent and corporate income tax to 7 percent from 4.8 percent in order to help address the state's budget shortfalls in 2011 and 2012. These measures are estimated to raise about $7 billion a year.

http://www.cbpp.org/...fa=view&id=3550

Edited August 2, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[slim 1,533]

Cool chart. Something shifted significantly in the 2006-2009 space bringing FL from a net payor of $37BN from 1990-2005 (per the tax foundation report) to a net payee of $300BN from 1990-2009. That would suggest that FL received net transfers of $337BN for 2006-2009 or more than $80BN annually in that timeframe while it otherwise routinely sent more funding than it received. Wonder if that has something to do with the reduced income and corporate taxes due to the recession and the stimulus package or whether the calculations are based on different numbers altogether.

Maybe it's based on the fact there was a large migration of non-paying retirees who don't do anything more than soak up social security and medicare. They don't work or pay a lot of taxes.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Maybe it's based on the fact there was a large migration of non-paying retirees who don't do anything more than soak up social security and medicare. They don't work or pay a lot of taxes.

That migration actually decreased starting in 2005/2006. In the balance, retirees actually bring tons of money with them and even when they do not work, they still derive income on which they pay taxes. Many of them probably pay more income taxes than a lot of working folk down here.

[slim 1,533]

That migration actually decreased starting in 2005/2006. In the balance, retirees actually bring tons of money with them and even when they do not work, they still derive income on which they pay taxes. Many of them probably pay more income taxes than a lot of working folk down here.

I bet they do. But, don't most tax dollars come as a result of businesses employing people and making and selling things to other people?

And for every "rich" pensioner that pays taxes on their "income" they're still soaking up money in medicare. I'm willing to bet my whole paycheck the money collected doesn't equal the money paid out.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I see the largest state is also one of the reddest ones. We should stop federally funding the state of Alaska. Let's be honest, after the oil is gone, they won't matter anymore anyways.

I agree. The majority of that Fed money is via BIA for the natives up here who get free everything. Iv'e been saying we should cut them off for years now.

Another large portion of those FED dollars go to military spending seeing how Alaska has a major pipeline to feed the US not to mention we are the nearest US location to Russia. So ya, cut that spending up here.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I agree. The majority of that Fed money is via BIA for the natives up here who get free everything. Iv'e been saying we should cut them off for years now.

Another large portion of those FED dollars go to military spending seeing how Alaska has a major pipeline to feed the US not to mention we are the nearest US location to Russia. So ya, cut that spending up here.

Are you really invoking the Sarah Palin defense of Alaska? I can see Russia from my house, so we are important? Seriously? You can't blame all that ails your government welfare state on the natives, despite your best attempts. I suppose the natives also are to blame for Alaska having the highest per capita meth rates, and highest rates of children born with mental defects?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Are you really invoking the Sarah Palin defense of Alaska? I can see Russia from my house, so we are important? Seriously? You can't blame all that ails your government welfare state on the natives, despite your best attempts. I suppose the natives also are to blame for Alaska having the highest per capita meth rates, and highest rates of children born with mental defects?

I can see geography isn't a priority in the California educational system. Try looking at a map to see just how close Russia is to us. Russian fighters and bombers cross into our air space on a regular basis to see how long it takes us to react. Add the fact that the next big oil find has been in the Arctic...well you have google...try it out for once.

As far as the BIA goes in regards to fed funding of the natives up here...google it. Just try and not break anything up there if and when you actually look for the facts.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I can see geography isn't a priority in the California educational system. Try looking at a map to see just how close Russia is to us. Russian fighters and bombers cross into our air space on a regular basis to see how long it takes us to react. Add the fact that the next big oil find has been in the Arctic...well you have google...try it out for once.

As far as the BIA goes in regards to fed funding of the natives up here...google it. Just try and not break anything up there if and when you actually look for the facts.

So you have at least managed to make my point for me Kip. Whether that was intentional or not, I don't know. Alaska's only importance is what is in the ground, not what is on it. Nice try justifying your irrelevance though Kip.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

So you have at least managed to make my point for me Kip. Whether that was intentional or not, I don't know. Alaska's only importance is what is in the ground, not what is on it. Nice try justifying your irrelevance though Kip.

What do you think keeps this country running..air ? It's oil and natural gas...and Alaska has a lot of it. Now you take the fact that Russia is the nearest military threat to the US and add em up. Russia wants that oil as bad as we do, and whoever has the most and biggest guns up here wins.

Oil is why the US is in Iraq, and natural gas and other raw materials is why the US is in Afghanistan and it's oil that has the US bombing the ####### out of Libya. It's pretty much a no brainer.

[The_Dude 1,142]

What do you think keeps this country running..air ? It's oil and natural gas...and Alaska has a lot of it. Now you take the fact that Russia is the nearest military threat to the US and add em up. Russia wants that oil as bad as we do, and whoever has the most and biggest guns up here wins.

Oil is why the US is in Iraq, and natural gas and other raw materials is why the US is in Afghanistan and it's oil that has the US bombing the ####### out of Libya. It's pretty much a no brainer.

I think you've oversimplified it quite a bit, but I'm not going to get into a discussion regarding wars of hegemony with you, it's pointless. Fact is, Alaska has some value, it's inhabitants do not. They take more money than they pay in taxes, hence it's status as a welfare state for over 20 years.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I think you've oversimplified it quite a bit, but I'm not going to get into a discussion regarding wars of hegemony with you, it's pointless. Fact is, Alaska has some value, it's inhabitants do not. They take more money than they pay in taxes, hence it's status as a welfare state for over 20 years.

And for the unpteenth time I agree with you on the Fed dollars going up here. Cut off the Fed dollars via BIA and low and behold... Alaska isn't getting near as much fed tax dollars going to it. I say cut em off now, but it's the Libs who for some twisted reason want to spend billions of US tax dollars on the natives up here. Go figure eh.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I say cut em off now, but it's the Libs who for some twisted reason want to spend billions of US tax dollars on the natives up here. Go figure eh.

Maybe it's because they don't want them back on a subsistence diet of whale and seal meat.