Archive for category Taxes
This post originally appeared on Watchdog Wire Colorado (“Gov. Hickenlooper Channels His Inner Pelosi“).
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) famously said about Obamacare that, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” That seems to be the line that Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) is taking with respect to PERA spending by the state’s school districts, and Amendment 66.
In a recent post that has garnered attention from both the Colorado Springs Gazette and the Denver Post, we discussed the governor’s approach to PERA spending by the districts, which is to increase transparency in order to drive public opinion:
Gov. Hickenlooper: Well, if you want to fix that, if that’s what’s happening, then we can’t legislate that. There’s a certain amount of money that goes into the districts, and that is the way our education system is structured. If you want to fix that, put it up on our website, how much of that money the district is spending on PERA. And I guarantee you the parents will go nuts.
In response to another question at that same October 8 event, Hickenlooper touted the transparency website as part of the “Grand Bargain” of Amendment 66, that the entrenched interests and monopoly power of the districts and the teachers unions would likely not have accepted the transparency without the additional money from Amendment 66′s tax increase:
And the other question of whether you could just do this – let’s assume the website was for free, to get that into the bill, the school districts, and the school administrators, would have fought it like crazy, because it’s going to make their life hell.
The only reason they were willing to let it be in this bill was because we had a tax increase.
It’s why they call it, “The Grand Bargain.” We’ve got all this stuff that no other state – I mean – doesn’t it sound like a great idea to have that transparency? And yet why is it that not a single other state has that kind of a website. (Emphasis Added.)
In short, he’s arguing that the only way to get the transparency is to vote for the tax increase first.
However, the legislature has in the past mandated transparency, and with no objection from the districts. In 2010, the legislature approved HB10-1036, the Public School Financial Transparency Act, virtually without objection. Among other things, it’s the reason that school districts have to post Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Quarterly Financial Statements online, along with check registers and credit and debit card purchase statements within 60 days of incurring the expense.
The bill passed without dissent through both Education Committees, and registered only one “No” vote on the floor of the House. It appears as though nobody testified against it in committee. Our own Ben DeGrow did testify in favor of it before the House Education Committee.
If the governor is now arguing that such an extension of the transparency requirements would meet with stiff resistance from the school boards and teachers unions, he’s essentially arguing that there’s not enough support within the majority Democratic caucus in the legislature to get such a bill passed, and admitting perhaps more than he would like about union influence within that caucus.
In order to garner support for the tax increase from reluctant parties, Gov. Hickenlooper has pledged to put SB10-191′s tenure reform on the ballot in the form of a Constitutional amendment, should the expected legal challenges succeed. If the tax increase amounts to the price to be paid for bringing his own caucus along on transparency, it calls into question his ability to fulfill that pledge once the tax increase has already passed.
Rather than aid poorer school districts, Amendment 66 will, in the long run, likely end up hurting them, making budgeting harder for those districts, and lives more difficult for both the students and teachers who live and work there.
The state is complaining that it’s chronically short of cash for education, both as a result of decreased tax revenues since the recession, and the state’s budget restrictions. In response, they have proposed a two-tiered income tax system, the first in over a quarter of a century in Colorado.
Currently, Colorado has a flat, 4.63% income tax rate from the first dollar of income. The proposed system would raise that to 5% for income under $75,000 and to 5.9% for income over $75,000. Colorado has roughly 1.8 million filers in the first bracket, and just under 600,000 filers in the proposed upper bracket. Proponents claim this would raise roughly $1 billion a year in new revenue, which they also claim would go largely to the poorer and neediest school districts.
How could a $1 billion tax increase make things worse for these districts? Because the income tax, unlike the property tax, is pro-cyclical. When the economy is doing well, incomes are highers, and receipts from the income tax rise. The income tax varies much more with the business cycle than the property tax does because incomes vary much more than property values do.
This conclusion is borne out by a 2010 Tax Foundation study comparing variations in various sources of state and local income nationwide. Corporate income tax was the most volatile, with personal income tax next. A more recent analysis, also by the Tax Foundation, confirmed this result, and found that over the last 20 years, the least volatile source of state and local revenue has been the property tax, the primary source of income for school districts.
This has particular resonance for Colorado. In 2008-2009, Colorado ranked 36th in year-over-year percentage change in state tax revenues; increasing the state’s dependence on personal income taxes will likely make them more volatile, and adding a progressive component will make them more volatile still.
Under Amendment 66, the state will backfill much of the difference for poorer districts. This means that those poorer districts will find themselves more dependent on a more volatile source of income: personal income taxes. When times are good, this will help them. But when the next recession inevitably hits, it’s those poorer districts, the ones that Amendment 66 claims to help the most, who will in fact, suffer the most.
Late this afternoon, a lawsuit was filed challenging the validity of many of the signatures gathered by the supporters of Colorado Initiative 22, now Amendment 66, which seeks to raise state income tax and create a two-tiered tax system for the state.
The lawsuit was filed in Denver District Court by a bipartisan pair of former state legislators, Norma Anderson (R) and Bob Hagedorn (D), and has not yet been scheduled for hearing. According to the press release by Coloradans for Real Education Reform, its primary charge is that the IDs of many of the petition-gatherers were not properly validated by notaries.
If upheld, this challenge could invalidate as many as 39,000 of the nearly 90,000 signatures ruled valid by the Secretary of State’s office. (Initiative supporters had turned in just over 165,000 signatures, of which just under 76,000 were rejected as invalid.) The Initiative needs a little over 86,000 signatures to qualify, so this section alone would invalidate far more than enough to keep the measure off the ballot.
Colorado had long had what was regarded as one of the nation’s least restrictive ballot access requirements for both statewide initiatives and proposed constitutional amendments. A 2009 law, HB09-1326, passed with strong bipartisan majorities in both houses of the legislature, tightened up those requirements in a number of ways. It contained restrictions on signature-gatherers, including those that are being challenged in this section of the lawsuit.
Part of the 2009 law requires that circulators sign an affidavit on the petition sections they submit, stating that all of the signatures on that section were gathered in their presence, and that to the best of their knowledge, the signers’ information is correct.
The revised section, Colorado Revised Statutes 1-40-111, reads that:
(C) The circulator presents a form of identification, as such term is defined in section 1-1-104 (19.5). A notary public shall specify the form of identification presented to him or her on a blank line, which shall be part of the affidavit form.
(II) An affidavit that is notarized in violation of any provision of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b) shall be invalid
The plaintiffs argue that in many cases, the circulator himself wrote down the form of ID that was presented, rather than the notary, as is required by law. This would seem to defeat the purpose of having the notary verify the identification.
The 2009 law also inserted language stating that, “that he or she understands that failing to make himself or herself available to be deposed and to provide testimony in the event of a protest shall invalidate the petition section if it is challenged on the grounds of circulator fraud.” This would seem to mean that signatures gathered by any circulator whose affidavit is being challenged, and who won’t or can’t testify for this case would be thrown out, as well.
While a 2010 lawsuit (Johnson v. Beuscher) did challenge the validity of some signatures under the new law, this particular section was not used in that suit.
It would also seem that the filing of the suit by members of each party, neither of whom has a reputation for anti-tax activism, would lend it credibility. Part of the reason for the late date of the suit is the late date of the filing deadline; signatures were submitted in August, and the Secretary of State only issued his ruling on the petition on September 4.
Another month, another report showing the country’s pension problem to be worse than we thought, Colorado’s pension problem to be among the nation’s worst. This time, it’s a report from the non-partisan State Budget Solutions, “Promises Made, Promises Broken – The Betrayal of Pensioners and Taxpayers.”
In three significant measures, Colorado ranks in the bottom third of the nation’s public pensions: Its funded ratio is the 11th-lowest in the country, at 32.8%; the per capita unfunded liability is 15th-worst, at $16,158 per head; and as a percentage of the state’s GDP, Colorado is 16th-highest, at just over 31%. These dire rankings corroborate a recent Moody’s study that had Colorado’s unfunded pension liability in the bottom 10 as a percentage of state government revenues, another measure of the state’s ability to cover these debts.
They calculate the actual unfunded liability at just under $84 billion, nearly four times what PERA admits to, and $27 billion more than is estimated in an upcoming Independence Institute report. It should be noted, however, that the authors include five plans managed by the state’s Fire and Police Pension Association, much smaller plans which are not part of PERA.
The report takes issue with most public pensions’ investment return expectations, which usually vary between 7% and 9%, and the aggressive discounting oliabilities that most plans engage in. Instead of the optimistic – some would say wildly optimistic – return assumptions, the report’s authors use 3.225%, the 15-year Treasury rate. They also use that number to discount plans’ liabilities, arguing correctly that the discount rate should reflect a plan’s risk to its investors, not its returns on its investments. They argue that since these plans approach being risk-free investments, they should be discounted as such.
Personally, I think both the return assumption and the discount rate are too low. Even if 8% is unrealistic, and I’m not sure that it is, funds tend to have their money in diversified portfolios which will average returns higher than Treasuries. In addition, the plans are covered by state obligations, not federal ones. Investors have long recognized that state obligations carry more risk than do federal “risk-free” obligations, a fact reflected in the higher interest rates carried by state debt.
That said, the study makes two useful contributions to the debate. By making the return and discount assumptions it has, the report effectively sets an upper bound on the problem; surely no lower interest or discount rates could reasonably be chosen.
More concretely, by showing us to occupy the same neighborhood as such well-known pension basket cases as New Jersey and California, the report shows the foolishness of the approach of Amendment 66 – raising taxes, while appropriating all of the increased short-term revenue to ongoing operations.
We’ve pointed out some of the abuses of Certificates of Participation by the Denver and Jefferson County School Districts. However, there are times when COPs are good. One good use of COPs is as a cash management tool. Municipal bonds are usually non-taxable, which means their yields are lower than Treasuries of an equal term, especially in longer-terms, say, 10 years and over. Since a municipality doesn’t pay income tax, it can lend at the higher Treasury rate, while borrowing at the lower municipal rate, assuming that its credit rating is good. (I don’t care if Illinois has 30 years of gold stashed away, I’m not lending them a dollar for a hamburger to tide them over until next Tuesday.) The municipality can make a little reliable money on the arbitrage.
In essence, this is a tax-shift. The Treasury isn’t collecting income taxes that bond holders would normally pay, so that tax money is, in effect, shifted to the municipality. It’s the reason that Treasury yields are higher in the first place.
Over the last couple of years, though, this hasn’t really been possible. Municipal rates have stayed pretty steady, while long-term Treasuries have dropped precipitously as a result of all the various Quantitative Easings by the Fed. This has deprived municipalities of a source of cash. So while the stimulus was essentially a massive shift of debt from the states and municipalities to the Federal government, the feds are taking it back, inch by inch, by taking away this tax shift that had been available to the lower levels of government.
I don’t think it’s coincidence that one of the tax loopholes being mentioned for closure is the municipal bond interest. The feds would like to make this tax shift permanent by pushing up municipal yields above Treasuries. Most of the focus has been on the fact that this would make borrowing more difficult and expensive for municipalities. But it would also close off this tax shift as well. Both these facts will have the effect of making states and municipalities more dependent on federal funds.
I’ve been posting recently on the proposed mill levy and debt increase for Jefferson County called 3A/3B. Denver Public Schools has similar measures on the ballot, also called 3A/3B. My post the other day about the accumulating debt burden on Denver School District voters was interpreted by some to be about the JeffCo measure.
That’s ok! The identical naming makes it easy. If you’re in Denver or Jefferson County, vote against 3A/3B!
schools teachers unions come back for more, they always want you to forget how much they’ve taken in the past. This year, Denver Public School are proposing both a tax hike, and a debt issue. We’ll look at the tax hike another day. What many people don’t realize is that DPS has been borrowing like they had the Fed at the other end of the line (which they sort of did). Over the last 10 years, the bonded debt per capita has almost doubled, and the proposed $466 million increase would, I estimate, raise it almost another $700 per person.
That alone doesn’t tell us much, though, about our ability to pay this debt. The debt is funded through a mill levy on personal property, and is therefore limited based on the total assessed property value in the district.
So to consider how affordable and wise additional debt is, we should look at the ratio of Debt/Assessed Value – in effect, how mortgaged is your property for this debt?
But unless someone annually rolls their property tax into their mortgage, though, they have to pay it out of current income or savings. Which means that it’s also important to consider the debt as a percentage of total personal income. The charts below show how those ratios have risen over the last ten years, with the dashed line estimating how the additional $466 million would increase these ratios:
Both ratios have risen, and would rise dramatically on passage of 3B. Note, though, that the burden on income is rising faster as a percentage basis (vs itself) than the burden on assessed value. The property tax is a regressive tax. While it’s nominally paid by the property owner, they really pass it on their renters, so the burden rests on the entire city. This chart shows that while the debt burden for the school district has been rising as a function of assessed value, it’s been rising even faster in terms of people’s ability to pay.
The DPS and the CEA will always argue that they need the marginal increase. What they won’t tell you is how these marginal increases add up over time.
Note on data sources: The Denver Public Schools, like all Colorado Public School districts, is required to file a Comprehensive Annual Finance Report. It gives the Net Debt for the school district, and also calculates the per capita, and the other ratios. But it only had that data through 2008. While the BEA calculates total personal income at the county level, its latest data was for 2010. The BLS publishes a total wages number at the county level, though, and had numbers through 2011. The ratio of the DPS’s reported total personal income for the county to the BEA number was 1.24, with a standard deviation of 0.02, so I decided to use the BEA numbers multiplied by 1.24 for 2002-2011. With current reports showing wages in Denver declining slightly, and employment static, I plugged in the 2011 number for 2012.
For the 2012 Assessed Valuation, I used the 2011 Assessed Valuation plus 10%, which is about what the Case-Schiller is showing for the Denver area.
For population, I used the official Census estimates for Denver, and then added 16,000 to the 2011 estimate for 2012. These differ somewhat from the population numbers used by DPS.
For the total debt, I simply added the $466 million requested to the latest 2011 Net Debt reported by DPS.
The following is a Guest Commentary published this morning in the Denver Post. For the uninitiated, since 1992, Colorado has had a law on the books called TABOR, or the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights.” The bane of tax-raising legislators statewide, it limits revenue growth to inflation + population, year over year. In the case of cities, this means that a city may only be entitled to keep a portion of the mill levy on a property’s assessed value, returning the rest to taxpayers. TABOR includes a provision known as “De-Brucing,” after TABOR author Douglas Bruce, whereby the residents of a district may opt out of those limitations, and allow the city to keep the full mill levy on the entire assessed value of a piece of property. To date, Denver has not done so, and this year, Mayor Michael Hancock is proposing that the City Council approve a referendum for Denver citizens to do just that.
At the invitation of the Independence Institute, I wrote the following piece, opposing the proposed tax measure:
UPDATE: The Post edited the piece somewhat for space. An earlier version of this post just used what they printed. I’m replacing it here with the slightly longer version that was submitted to them.
Denver’s a big city, a major element of Colorado’s economy, and of the Rocky Mountain West. And its governance is not for the faint of heart. But the Hancock Administration is not asking the hard questions, Instead the administration is seeking the easy way out of a budget deficit through a proposed permanent property tax increase for the November ballot.
Instead of proposing bold changes to Denver’s fiscal structure, Mayor Hancock has opted to tinker around the edges of city finances, and stick Denver homeowners with the bill for his lack of vision.
Denver is just beginning to recover some of its housing value. Yet, only a month ago, the Denver Post reported that “another wave of foreclosures appears to be looming.” A sudden increase in property taxes strikes at the heart of households’ precarious financial stability, even as government take a bigger bite of homeowners’ slowly increasing equity. Renters would also be affected, as property owners pass along the increased expense.
The mayor’s proposal assumes that rising home values necessarily mean rising incomes. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports Denver’s weekly income fell nearly 5% in 2011, 305th out of 323 major counties surveyed. The mayor’s mill levy override scheme would mean an immediate property tax increase of 20% for households who are still finding it difficult to make ends meet.
Denver’s unemployment rate remains stubbornly high, at 8.7%. The Mayor’s Structural Financial Task Force cites a failure to create jobs as one reason for lower revenues. That’s hardly a reason to penalize the employed and unemployed alike.
Another of the mayor’s proposals, eliminating the business personal property tax for new purchases, is a smart and welcome revenue enhancing move, but merely shifting the tax burden from struggling business owners to struggling families – often the same people – will leave us no better off.
When the government proposes a tax increase, it’s claiming that the least important thing it can do with that money is more important than the most important thing you can do with it.
Many households’ finances are just beginning to stabilize after years of uncertain employment. People have savings to rebuild, retirements to plan for, and children to feed, clothe, and put through school. Maybe even take the odd vacation they’ve been putting off for years.
The government has a moral obligation to exhaust all reasonable efforts at cost savings before asking taxpayers for more. But the mayor hasn’t just “gone small” on savings, he’s also “gone vague.” With the exception of specific personnel moves, the overwhelming proportion of savings includes studies and promises to find cost savings, rather than actual cost savings.
The mayor’s proposals to increase retail sales and identify unused parcels of land assume that private developers are incapable of doing this themselves. At a recent hearing on the redevelopment of the old Health Care District near 9th Ave. & Colorado Blvd., the developers identified that parcel as one of the most desirable retail spaces in Colorado.
The mayor’s rejection of specific fees for libraries and trash collection may avoid taxpayer ire, but it’s hard to escape the feeling that the decision had more to do with avoiding the accountability imposed by earmarked revenues.
Genuinely bold proposals would include privatizing or outsourcing such city services as vehicle fleet maintenance, building and road maintenance, and park maintenance and rec centers.
Big city Democrat mayors have championed similar moves across the country, including Rahm Emanual in Chicago, Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles and Alvin Brown in Jacksonville. Newark Mayor Cory Booker has been at the helm of an astonishing and ongoing turnaround of that troubled city. Facing a fiscal crisis during his first term, Mayor Hickenlooper made ends meet without resorting to tax increases. One reason he became governor was his understanding that Colorado has “no appetite” for tax increases.
In California, where cities like Stockton and San Bernardino have declared bankruptcy due in part to crushing public pension obligations, voters in San Diego and San Jose voted overwhelmingly to significantly reform public employee pension and health plans.
Earlier this year Newark’s Mayor Booker was the featured speaker at the Colorado Democrats’ Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner. While he spoke largely about his personal story, he no doubt talked city business with Mayor Hancock privately during his visit.
Unfortunately for the citizens of Denver, Mayor Hancock’s proposed permanent property tax increase for the November ballot shows that he wasn’t listening.
Denver voters should recognize this proposal for the lost opportunity that it is, and instruct their leaders to try again.
On this (imaginary) episode of Pawn Stars:
Customer outside of store: My name’s Michael, and I’m here at the Pawn Shop to sell my Olympic bronze medal. I’m hoping to get enough to pay the back taxes on the 15 gold medals that I won, and maybe have a little left over to have some fun at the tables before I go home.
Rick (to camera, in warehouse): I’m really excited to see this come in here. Olympic medals don’t just walk into the store all the time. I mean, this is a piece of history, and Olympic memorabilia is highly collectible. But I don’t care how good it’ll look sitting in my store, it has to be for the right price.
Rick (back at counter, to Michael): The US is one of the only countries to assess a prize tax on its athletes who win Olympic medals. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is supposedly introducing a bill that’ll change that, but right now, winners have to pay about $9000 per medal. Although there’s no truth to the rumor that the tax was instituted because it was a windfall, since, “they didn’t really win” the medals.
Chumlee: Yeah, isn’t that the real reason that the ’72 US basketball team didn’t pick up their silver medals? They’re all amateurs, and they couldn’t afford the taxes.
Rick: Shut up, Chum.
Just as physicists long ago realized that light is neither a particle nor a wave, the Democrats have now, evidently, discovered a form of revenue that is neither a penalty nor a tax:
Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter:
HHS Secretary Sebelius: