Topic Category: Tax and Budget

Tax Credit Delays Continue to Hurt New Jersey Families

Posted on by Brandon McKoy

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a proven policy that helps workers who are not being paid enough to better afford their daily needs. In New Jersey, the over half million families that benefit from the federal credit are also able to get a state credit, receiving an important boost during tax time to the tune of $811 a year on average. Even that modest amount is crucial to help struggling working families in our  high-cost state; and New Jersey should be commended for being a national leader for its state EITC contribution.

The Christie administration’s recent efforts to clamp down on “fraud” in the program, however, are leaving more and more people in limbo, preventing them from receiving their tax refund in a timely manner – refunds that many families rely heavily upon to take care of bills, repairs, and basic needs. And these delays couldn’t come at a worse time, as the Garden State continues to battle with stubbornly high poverty rates that endanger the health and prosperity of everyone,.

Since the state began its “enhanced screening” process in 2011, the tax refunds of hundreds of thousands of low-income working families have been significantly delayed or denied. In fact, this policy has caused the average number of taxpayers with pending or denied EITC claims to nearly double, rising to an average of 85,690 a year (2011-2016) from 44,232 (2009-2010) – and it’s caused the total average annual amount of EITC dollars pending or denied to increase by 147 percent, to about $65 million a year (2011-2016) from about $26 million a year (2009-2010).

In the meantime, real New Jerseyans are suffering as they go without vital refunds that they rely upon to afford important needs. The rate of true poverty – 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $48,700 for a family of four in 2016 – in New Jersey has remained stubbornly high for the past several years, measuring higher than 23 percent since 2010 and hitting 23.7 percent in 2016. As the state’s economy has slowly recovered from the Great Recession, too many working-class New Jerseyans are being left behind. Launching a punitive – and misguided – policy that prevents these families from receiving important tax refunds in the middle of a poverty crisis is severely harmful.

State officials have justified this change by citing the error rate of the EITC – the IRS estimates between 22 and 26 percent of EITC filings contain errors – but there are better, less draconian ways to deal with this issue.

The IRS itself refers to this problem as an “improper payment rate” rather than “fraud,” because most filing errors are unintentional, not malicious. Enacting error-reduction proposals approved by the federal Treasury Department – such as simplifying the rules around who can apply and working with commercial providers to reduce errors in the returns they submit – would do more to reduce the numbers of false claims than targeting taxpayers. In short, the state should take every step possible to mitigate the error rate without putting low-income residents in limbo.

Over the course of the past several years, the Garden State has experienced worsening economic inequality, stubbornly high poverty, stagnant household income and frustratingly slow job growth when compared to our neighbors and the nation. To withhold over $90 million in total from the state’s most vulnerable families at such a time is seriously damaging. New Jerseyans deserve a government that can efficiently process tax returns so they can receive their refunds in a timely manner and address pressing economic issues in their lives. The state needs to determine and implement a plan that will end this situation before more vulnerable New Jerseyans are harmed even further.

House Budget Threatens Billions in Cuts for New Jerseyans to Set Up Damaging Tax Plan

Posted on by Jon Whiten

The 2018 budget resolution that the U.S. House of Representatives passed today would slash billions of dollars from programs that help Garden State families afford necessities and get ahead, according to a report by the Washington, DC-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. These damaging cuts pave the way for massive tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy on the backs of working Americans. A budget resolution that would have similar, harmful effects on New Jerseyans is currently working its way through the Senate.

Both the House and Senate budgets set up a fast-track, partisan process for passing massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. The GOP tax plan, released last week by congressional Republicans and the White House, would overwhelmingly benefit the top 1 percent in New Jersey, who would receive 82 percent of the tax cuts, a new analysis released by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) shows. New Jersey’s wealthiest 1 percent would receive an average $74,000 tax break each year while about 1 in 4 Garden State taxpayers would pay an average of $2,400 more in a year in federal taxes.

Not only would these tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit the very wealthy, they could also pile trillions onto deficits and likely force further cuts to health coverage and critical programs like education, and job training – and put more pressure on Social Security.

The bright side is that 10 of New Jersey’s 12 Congressional representatives, including a majority of its Republicans, voted no on the resolution (Reps. Frelinghuysen and MacArthur were the lone ‘yes’ votes from the Garden State).

Despite claims to the contrary, Congressional Republicans’ budget and tax plans would make life harder for working people across New Jersey. Instead of setting the stage for tax cuts that help those who need it the least and tax hikes that would harm so many in New Jersey, Congressmen Frelinghuysen and MacArthur should work to advance policies that invest in working families and boost the economy, while ensuring that tax cuts are paid for by closing tax loopholes or other responsible tax changes – not by running up the deficit and raising taxes on one in four New Jerseyans.

Despite congressional Republicans’ claims, their tax plan would do little to spur economic growth and at the same time would worsen the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook.

Kansans learned this lesson after Gov. Sam Brownback enacted a similarly drastic tax and budget plan in 2012. Following the cuts, Kansas lagged behind its neighbors in economic growth and job creation. The tax breaks created a budget shortfall of $900 million that sent the state’s finances into a tailspin and encouraged dangerous cuts to schools, road repair, and other key services that help working people and foster economic growth.

GOP-Trump Tax Plan Hits Many New Jerseyans Hard, Rewards State’s Millionaires

Posted on by NJPP Staff

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Oct. 4, 2017

Contact: Jon Whiten, whiten@njpp.org, 917-655-3313 or Jenice R. Robinson, jenice@itep.org, 202.299.1066 x 29

Under the “tax reform framework” released by the Trump administration and Congressional Republican leaders on September 27, New Jersey’s wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers would receive an average $74,000 tax break each year while about 1 in 4 Garden State taxpayers would pay an average of $2,400 more in a year in federal taxes.

That makes New Jersey one of the hardest hit states in the nation, according to a new 50-state analysis of the tax plan released today by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. In fact, the Garden State has the 2nd highest share of taxpayers who would see a tax hike under the Trump-GOP plan of the 50 states, at 26.4 percent. Nationally 16.7 percent of taxpayers would see a tax increase. (Maryland has the highest share, at 30.5 percent, while North Dakota has the lowest share, at 4.2 percent.)

While GOP leaders have pitched the plan as a tax cut for the middle class, the analysis shows that this is not true for New Jersey or the nation as a whole. While most New Jerseyans would, in fact, receive a modest tax cut, on average that cut would amount to less than one percent of their income. The wealthiest 1 percent of the state’s residents, by contrast, would reap a financial windfall, receiving 82 percent of the total tax cuts going to New Jersey while the bottom 40 percent of New Jerseyans would receive just 8 percent of the tax cut, and the middle 20 percent just 9 percent.

“Make no mistake: this proposal is not tax ‘reform’ – not by a long shot. It’s merely a package of huge tax cuts for those who are already doing well in this rigged economy: the very wealthy and large corporations,” said New Jersey Policy Perspective Senior Policy Analyst Sheila Reynertson. “And when this windfall for the top 1 percent is paired with the deep cuts to critical economic security programs like food assistance in the GOP budget, this merely makes today’s runaway inequality even worse.”

A greater share of New Jerseyans face a tax hike under the Trump-GOP plan than just about anywhere else because the plan would eliminate the state and local tax deduction, which disproportionately benefits high-service, high-tax states like New Jersey. Thanks in large part to the loss of this deduction, on the surface this tax plan hits the Garden State’s middle- to upper-middle-income families with significant tax increases. But it’s clear that the state’s low-income working families could also lose big, particularly when one considers the potential cuts to essential public services and safety net programs that are being taken up as companion measures.

“No matter how the GOP messages this plan, it is nothing more than an upward redistribution of wealth,” said Alan Essig, Executive Director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. “Not only does the plan boost the incomes of the wealthy with surgical precision, it also gives a pittance to most working people and it taxes some in the middle and upper-middle class more, essentially creating an even greater economic divide between the rich and everyone else.”

To Attract Amazon, New Jersey Needs Public Investments

Posted on by Gordon MacInnes

 

New Jersey would be an excellent choice for Amazon’s new headquarters. After all, we have bustling cities like Jersey City, Newark, New Brunswick and now Camden – plus strong road, rail, port, technology and airport infrastructure; a highly educated labor force; excellent public schools and a great quality of life. These are the key factors that can attract Amazon to the Garden State – not further expanding New Jersey’s overly generous corporate subsidies, as Gov. Christie suggests.

So-called ‘incentives’ are a stated factor in Amazon’s decision-making, but they are just one of many. If state economic-development officials focus narrowly on tax breaks, they will merely be repeating – and making worse – the mistakes New Jersey’s political leaders have been making over and over since the Recession hit. For New Jersey’s economy to truly be competitive and strong, the state needs to get back to basics: investing in the assets that give us an edge.

Whether that’s ensuring NJ Transit is reliable and affordable, strengthening the state’s public colleges and universities, or fostering smart, dense growth in walkable downtowns with more affordable places to live, these are the policy solutions New Jersey must highlight in an attempt to woo Amazon. Merely blowing the lid off already out-of-control corporate tax break policies won’t work – and is dangerous to New Jersey’s future to boot.

How To Help Families with High Cost of Child Care

Posted on by Holly Low

This op-ed appeared in the September 13, 2017 edition of NJ Spotlight.

When I heard that Ivanka Trump was pushing proposals to make child care more affordable, I was hopeful. A first daughter who knows what it’s like to juggle work and parenthood!

But when it comes to crafting policy, the devil’s in the details. And so far the details of President Trump’s child care plan suggest it will mostly benefit high-earning, dual-income households like Ivanka’s. While the administration is reportedly revising its proposal, and Ivanka Trump and Sen. Marco Rubio are pushing for a much-needed increase to the Child Tax Credit, we don’t know what the Trump team will ultimately get behind.

We do know, however, that under the initial proposal the most well-off Americans would enjoy nearly all the benefits – in fact, an estimated 70 percent would go to families earning $100,000 or more.

Instead of widening income inequality, lawmakers should target assistance to the low-income and middle-class families that need it most. They can start by improving existing systems that help working parents: the Child Care and Development Fund, the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, and the Child Tax Credit.

New Jersey families who earn up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $40,000 a year for a family of three, can receive direct subsidies for child care through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). In New Jersey, this program assists 32,000 families every month so parents can work or go to school. (See childcarenj.com for more information.)

However, federal funding for the CCDF is at its lowest level since 2002. In New Jersey the subsidy falls below the prevailing market rate in every county, which can force families to choose providers based on price, not quality. A great start would be for the federal government to adequately fund this program – it’s the most direct way to help working families access quality care every month.

In addition to expanding direct subsidies, lawmakers should improve the tax credits that help cover child care costs. The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit helps working families pay expenses for the care of children, adult dependents or an incapacitated spouse. In 2015, over 223,000 New Jersey tax filers received this credit. The amount depends on income; it can provide up to $2,100 and the average American family gets a $550 credit. This would reach more low-income families if it were made fully refundable. In addition, Congress should raise the low ceiling for expenses, which doesn’t reflect the true cost of care, and index these limits to keep up with rising costs of living.

New Jersey policymakers should also join the 24 other states that already piggyback on this federal credit and provide some relief for this legitimate working expense. The best way to target this to the neediest families is to make the credit the most generous for the lowest earners, decrease the value as income goes up, and cap it at a reasonable income ceiling.

Many poor and low-income parents can’t afford to pay for care (they’re more likely to rely on help from family and friends), and don’t have access to subsidies or free programs. One of the best things we can do for these families is boost their economic security with an increased Child Tax Credit. This credit currently provides up to $1,000 per child under the age of 17, and is fully or partially refundable if the credit exceeds the taxes owed. Almost 70 percent of families with children already receive it, so the Child Tax Credit would likely reach more of these parents, and it would support families who have a stay-at-home caregiver.

These are just some of the policies that can address the lack of access to quality, affordable child care in our country. In addition, we need expanded federal and state investments in high-quality preschool, which produces long-lasting positive impacts on children, supports working families, and has large economic benefits.

In the meantime, I hope Ivanka Trump will stay focused on the families who need assistance the most – it’s not just the moral thing to do, it makes economic sense too. When we help low-income families get ahead, and make it affordable for those middle-class mothers who want to work to do so, we support our workforce and grow our economy. It’s time for our country to treat child care as the fundamental economic building block that it is.

NJPP Charts a Course for Reforming State Income Tax

Posted on by NJPP Staff

By increasing income tax rates on New Jersey’s wealthiest households, the state could raise over $1 billion a year to help build strong communities and invest in working families across the state, according to a report released today by New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). The report finds that New Jersey’s personal income tax has not kept up with the times, depriving New Jersey of resources needed to build widely shared prosperity.

Specifically, the NJPP report proposes adding four brackets to the state’s income tax and increasing rates on the state’s wealthiest 5 percent of households. The proposal is modeled on successful reforms put in place by California in 2012.

“Like California six years ago, New Jersey faces tremendous financial challenges. Our budget is stretched beyond capacity, we have chronically underfunded services that are critical to families in need, and we’ve failed to make the kinds of sound public investments in infrastructure and education that can ensure our economy is strong going into the third decade of the 21st century and beyond,” said Sheila Reynertson, NJPP senior policy analyst and author of the report. “This proposal alone will not solve the state’s fiscal crisis, but it is a substantial yet sensible step in the right direction.”

NJPP’s proposal would also combat growing inequality in New Jersey, where too few families prosper while too many families struggle to get by every day.

Today, the most well-off New Jerseyans hold a greater share of the state’s income than they have in nearly a century, thanks to decades of unequal economic growth, creating an off-balance economy in which many middle- and lower-income New Jerseyans face barriers to economic opportunity. In fact, New Jersey’s top 5 percent of households now have average incomes that are 15.6 times larger than the bottom 20 percent of households, ranking 7th in the country for income inequality. Recent state tax policy changes have exacerbated this trend, making it harder for New Jersey to foster the kind of investments that expand the middle class and help narrow that gap.

“Those at the very top, who have greatly prospered in the past decade, have a responsibility to pay their fair share and ensure our state and our society has a strong foundation for the future,” added Reynertson.

The report is the third of a series of NJPP reports digging into the details of state tax reforms that can help end New Jersey’s fiscal crisis while promoting shared prosperity and furthering economic justice in the Garden State, and it comes as the major-party candidates for governor continue to have a spirited public debate over taxes.

Earlier reports in the series:

Reforming New Jersey’s Income Tax Would Help Build Shared Prosperity

Posted on by Sheila Reynertson

To read a PDF version of this report, click here.

For over 40 years, New Jersey has used a state income tax to build strong communities and invest in working families across the state. While this has helped the Garden State become a better place to live and work, over the years powerful interests have prevented the tax code from keeping up with the times, depriving New Jersey of resources needed to build widely shared prosperity.

Today, the most well-off New Jerseyans hold a greater share of the state’s income than they have in nearly a century, thanks to decades of unequal economic growth, creating an off-balance economy in which many middle- and lower-income New Jerseyans face barriers to economic opportunity. In fact, New Jersey’s top 5 percent of households now have average incomes that are 15.6 times larger than the bottom 20 percent of households, ranking 7th in the country for income inequality.[1] Recent tax policy changes have exacerbated this trend, making it harder for New Jersey to foster the kind of investments that expand the middle class and narrow that gap.

By reforming New Jersey’s income tax code, we can help build the kind of state we want to see, where families across the income spectrum have a better chance to thrive.

Adding four brackets to the state’s income tax and increasing rates on the state’s wealthiest households would raise more than $1 billion in new revenue each year for education, aid to cities and towns and property tax relief for struggling households.

Doing so would raise income taxes on just the top 5 percent of the state’s households, who – after federal deductions – would collectively pay $674 million a year more in income tax.[2]

This would create new brackets at $250,000, $750,000, $1 million and $2.5 million, and very slightly increase the tax rate at the existing $500,000 bracket. The tax increase would be paid almost exclusively by New Jersey’s ultra-wealthy, with the top 1 percent – households with average annual incomes of $3 million – paying 85 percent.

These reforms would also make New Jersey’s tax system more equitable, but it would not undo the tax code’s upside-down nature, in which low-income and middle-class New Jerseyans pay greater shares of their incomes to state and local taxes than wealthy residents. With these changes, this inequity would be slightly evened out. The share paid by the top 1 percent would rise to 7.7 percent from 7.1 percent, but that would still be lower than any other group of New Jersey families.[3]

New Jersey’s Income Tax: A History 

In 1976, New Jersey took a major step toward equal opportunity by creating a state income tax and directing the new resources toward schools, cities and towns and direct property tax relief. It was meant to be a temporary fix, but the state quickly saw the benefits of making it a permanent part of New Jersey’s tax code. What started out as a relatively flat – and therefore regressive – tax of just 2 percent on income up to $20,000 and 2.5 percent on income over $20,000 has evolved over time to a robust, progressive tax with multiple brackets and fluctuating rates.

New Jersey employs marginal tax rates, which apply different tax rates to different levels of income. As income rises, it is taxed at incrementally higher rates as opposed to a flat rate which taxes at the same rate across all income levels. In other words, a New Jerseyan with $505,000 in earnings pays the top rate of 8.97 percent on only $5,000 of her earnings, not on the entire $505,000.

There are five key historical markers in the evolution of New Jersey’s income tax:

  • In 1991, the top rate was doubled to 7 percent on income over $150,000 from 3.5 percent on income over $50,000, making the tax fairer and based more on the ability to pay while raising substantial new resources.
  • Just a few years later, in 1994, the top rate was – like all rates – slashed by 10 percent, to 6.37 percent on income over $150,000.
  • In 2004, a new top rate of 8.97 percent on income over $500,000 was introduced, marking the first significant foray into taxing those at the very top of the income scale most heavily.
  • In 2009, a temporary surcharge increased the top rate to 8.97 percent on income above $400,000, 10.25 percent above $500,000 and 10.75 percent above $1 million, raising about $560 million at a time when New Jersey was experiencing an enormous budget shortfall due to the Great Recession.
  • The legislature allowed the surcharge to sunset the following year and subsequent efforts to reinstate it or to increase the progressivity of the tax have been vetoed, allowing New Jersey millionaires to enjoy over $4.2 billion in cumulative tax breaks since 2010.

Today, for single tax filers, New Jersey’s income tax ranges from 1.4 percent on income up to $20,000 to 8.97 percent on income over $500,000. For couples filing jointly, the tax is slightly more graduated, with lower rates in the mid-range brackets.

All revenue raised from New Jersey’s income tax is constitutionally dedicated to fund property tax relief, which includes school aid, teacher pensions, municipal and county aid and direct relief initiatives like rebates. Despite this influx of dedicated funds, which currently tops over $14.4 billion in annual income representing 40.5 percent of total state revenue, both indirect and direct relief programs have been chronically underfunded, cut or delayed for decades. The school aid formula has been underfunded by a $1 billion almost every year since it was enacted. And the property tax relief programs for households have been an easy target for reduced payments by the Christie administration. These cuts and delays have hurt those families that depend on property tax relief the most: qualified veterans, seniors and disabled homeowners.

While the income tax is largely based on one’s ability to pay, New Jersey’s tax code as a whole is skewed toward the wealthy, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The bottom 20 percent of New Jersey taxpayers pay an average of 10.7 percent of their income in taxes while the top 1 percent pay just 7.1 percent of their income in taxes each year.[4] And that gap is widening. Back in 2009 the bottom 20 percent was paying 10.7 percent of their income in taxes and the top 1 percent was paying 7.4 percent of their income.[5]

Lessons from Other States: Fairer Income Taxes Work

Since 2010, New Jersey’s top income tax rate has remained at 8.97 percent as repeated attempts to increase the rate were vetoed by the governor. While tax reform efforts have stagnated, though, other states have moved forward in creating more equitable income tax structures.

Today, New Jersey’s top income tax rate is no longer at the very top of the states; in fact, it is the 6th highest in the nation behind states like Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon and Maine – many of which also levy higher rates on lower incomes than New Jersey. And in three of the top ten states – Oregon, Iowa and New York – residents can end up paying higher total income tax rates, because cities and towns can levy their own income taxes in addition to state income taxes. These local income taxes are often levied precisely because they are located in places where the highest earners tend to cluster. For example, New York City’s wealthiest households pay state income tax of 8.82 percent plus an additional city income tax of 3.876 percent resulting in a total rate of 12.696 percent.

Meanwhile, New Jersey continues to rank as one of the wealthiest states in the nation – it has the third-highest ratio of millionaire households to total households,[6] the third-highest per-capita personal income[7] and the fifth highest median household income.[8]

Other states like California, for example, have changed course to rebalance their income tax code by asking top earners to pay more. In 2012, California voters decided to raise taxes on all residents, but mostly on the very wealthiest Californians, to help reinvest in public education.

Before California’s new tax plan took effect in 2013, the state’s income tax code was already quite progressive, meaning tax rates rose with income. California’s pre-2012 top income tax rate of 10.3 percent was applied to taxable income over $1 million.

The plan approved by voters expanded the 10.3 percent rate to income between $250,000 and $300,000 and created three new tax brackets: 11.3 percent for income between $300,000 and $500,000, 12.3 percent for income between $500,000 and $1 million and 13.3 percent for income over $1 million.

Those changes raised over $8 billion in additional revenue a year, which was invested in public schools and colleges and helped California erase $27 billion in debt. Meanwhile the state has enjoyed some of the strongest economic growth in the country with new jobs, credit rating upgrades and an explosion of well-off taxpayers. In fact, California’s share of very wealthy households (those with more than $1 million in income a year) has grown by 50 percent between 2011 and 2014.[9] Last year, voters decisively extended the income tax changes

California’s success has provided a roadmap for other state to follow.

Last year, voters in Maine chose to raise taxes on its higher earners by approving a new top marginal tax bracket, and for a similar initiative: to help fund K-12 education. Starting this year, income over $200,000 will be taxed at 10.15 percent – the second-highest income tax rate in the country. The new tax bracket is expected to initially generate over $150 million a year.

And Massachusetts is considering a constitutional amendment to add a second income tax bracket on the state’s highest earners. Voters will decide in 2018 whether to increase the current flat tax of 5.2 percent by four points on annual income over $1 million. Dubbed the “Fair Share Amendment,” the measure would raise between $1.6 billion and $2.2 billion each year to be spent on education, infrastructure and public transit.

Relocation Decisions by High Earners and Business Owners Are Influenced by Other Factors Besides Taxes  

Claims that millionaires and small business owners spooked by higher income taxes will flee the state are commonplace, but that doesn’t make them accurate. These anecdotal stories are unsupported by real-world statistics. In fact, the majority of rigorous studies on the subject have found a negligible correlation between state taxes and interstate moves.[10]

When income taxes were first raised on New Jersey’s highest earners back in 2004, one study found a slight uptick in the number of millionaires who left New Jersey. Their exit cost the state about $16 million between 2004 and 2007, but the state gained about $1 billion from those who remained.[11] In other words, the revenue loss was less than 2 percent of the revenue gained. What’s more, the number of New Jersey tax filers with income over $500,000 rose by 82 percent between 2003 and 2007, nearly doubling from 28,178 (representing 1.1 percent of all filers) to 51,187 (1.3 percent of all filers).[12]

And that trend has continued after a sharp dip during the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009. Since hitting a recessionary low point in 2009, the number of New Jersey tax filers with income over $500,000 has rebounded by 44 percent, growing from 38,496 (or 1.3 percent of all tax filers) to 55,322 in 2014 (2 percent of all filers), even as New Jersey’s overall economic recovery has remained weak.

Another way to measure wealth in New Jersey is to estimate the net worth of households.

A private wealth management firm has tracked this data for all 50 states back to 2006, and the pattern for New Jersey is consistent with the growth in high-income taxpayers.

From 2006 to 2016, the estimated number of millionaires in New Jersey – defined as those with $1 million or more in “investable assets” – has increased by more than 35,000 (or 17 percent), while the share of millionaires has risen by 14 percent. According to the latest data, New Jersey is home to 242,957 millionaires. At 7.4 percent, the state has the third largest share of millionaires in the country behind only Maryland and Connecticut.[13]

Another point of contention among business lobbyists has been the potential impact of increased tax rates on small businesses. But the fact is, most small businesses don’t make nearly enough money to fall into upper income brackets. Nationwide, only 13 percent of small businesses have $50,000 or more in taxable income in a given year. It is not too different in New Jersey.

Most Garden State businesses that file using personal income taxes (79 percent) don’t make nearly enough money to fall into upper income brackets above the $250,000 threshold.[14] Just 9 percent have taxable income over $500,000 and even fewer – 3 percent – have taxable income over $1 million.

In fact, more of these Garden State small businesses are found in the middle, and on the lower end, of the income scale than at the top, with 38 percent reporting taxable income under $75,000 and 26 percent under $50,000. These are the taxpayers and small business owners that policymakers ought to be trying to help, since they pay greater shares of their income to taxes than their wealthier peers, thanks to the state’s upside-down tax code.

Endnotes 

[1] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, How State Tax Policies Can Stop Increasing Inequality and Start Reducing It, December 2016.

[2] Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy analysis of income tax proposal, 2017.

[3] Ibid 2

[4] Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy, Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States: 5th Edition, 2015.

[5] Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy, Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States: 3rd Edition, 2009.

[6] Shares of millionaire households taken from Phoenix Marketing International, Millionaires By State Ranking, 2010-2016.

[7] US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, State Personal Income 2016, March 2017.

[8] Highest median household income states taken from U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2015.

[9] State of California, Franchise Tax Board, Revenue Estimates: PIT and Corporation Tax, 2011-2014.

[10] The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, State Taxes Have a Negligible Impact on Americans’ Interstate Moves, May 2014.

[11] National Tax Journal, Millionaire Migration and State Taxation of Top Incomes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment, 2011.

[12] NJPP analysis of New Jersey Consolidated Annual Financial Reports.

[13] NJPP analysis of a number of reports produced by Phoenix Marketing International.

[14] NJPP analysis of New Jersey Treasury Department, New Jersey Statistics of Income, 2014 Income Tax Returns.

Ending DACA Would Harm All New Jerseyans

Posted on by Erika J Nava

This op-ed appeared in the August 31, 2017 edition of the Star-Ledger.

Ending the common-sense 2012 immigration initiative that has allowed more than 20,000 young New Jerseyans realize the promise of the American Dream and contribute to the state’s economy would waste the potential of these young striving immigrants – and cause serious harm to the Garden State’s economy. In fact, New Jersey would be one of the hardest hit states – with the fifth largest economic loss – if this successful program is ended.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program allows some undocumented young residents who were brought to the United States as minors to stay in the country and work legally. Since its inception, it has given 800,000 young people across the nation a better shot at success. And its recipients have capitalized on the opportunity, getting better jobs, earning higher wages, increasing their participation in the consumer economy and paying taxes.

But now DACA is under attack and President Trump has only until September 5 to either end the program or fight a lawsuit from 10 state attorneys general; rumors are swirling that he may end the program at any moment. Doing so would disproportionately harm communities across immigrant-rich New Jersey and would be a huge step backward for the country.

To many undocumented youth who were brought to the U.S. as young children, DACA was the first real opportunity to pursue the American Dream and show their potential in ways that had been denied to them solely because of their legal status. DACA permitted many of them to obtain a driver’s license, secure a job that matched their skillset, purchase their first car, travel abroad, attend college and – most importantly – feel less fear that they’d be separated from their families and communities via deportation.

By stifling these young immigrants’ opportunities, ending DACA would also harm New Jersey’s economy.

When more people are able to work legally in higher paying jobs that match their skills, they are less vulnerable to wage theft, workplace exploitation, and less likely to suffer from discrimination due to their legal status. All of these factors help the economy of our state and the nation, as they are translated into higher tax revenue and more economic productivity.

With 22,000 DACA recipients, only eight states have a higher number than New Jersey. Of these young New Jerseyans, 87 percent are working. They contribute $66 million in state and local taxes each year, the seventh highest level of all states. Ending DACA would cause an immediate 32 percent reduction in those tax payments.

But the potential harm to New Jersey’s economy is much broader than the reduction in tax collections. In fact, if DACA is repealed, the Garden State would lose an estimated $1.6 billion each year in state Gross Domestic Product – the fifth largest dollar loss of all states.

Ending DACA would also create economic uncertainty for many families. Many of the young DREAMers – armed with the slightest bit of economic security – have been able to take out loans to buy a car or a home, to pay for college or to open a small business. If the program ends, many of these young immigrants will either lose their job altogether, or be forced back into the shadowy low-wage underground, seriously limiting their ability to keep up with loan repayments and starting a cycle of economic distress.

New Jersey’s Congressional Republicans – who played an outsized role in ensuring that the Trump administration failed to strip health care from millions – must step up again and put the best interests of the state and country ahead of political party. Sitting on the sidelines and watching as the lives of enterprising immigrant youth are turned upside down is not OK. Our state’s moderate voices must join their GOP colleagues from both blue and red states who are voicing their support for DACA and urging President Trump to keep the program intact.

Despite the myths and xenophobic falsehoods spread by some, we know that once young immigrants are given the chance to participate in America’s economy and society, they capitalize on the opportunity. And we all benefit. Lawmakers should be focused on providing these – and other – striving immigrants a real shot at the American Dream, not on stealing their economic futures and dimming ours.

NJPP’s Brandon McKoy on Higher Ed Funding Cuts

Posted on by Brandon McKoy

 

New Jersey Policy Perspective policy analyst Brandon McKoy joined NJTV News’ Michael Aron last week to explain how New Jersey’s investment in public higher education has faded after the Great Recession.

The news segment coincided with a new 50-state report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which found that the funding decline nationwide has contributed to higher tuition and reduced quality as colleges have had to balance budgets by reducing faculty, limiting course offerings and in some cases, closing campuses.

McKoy told NJTV that the study found New Jersey certainly wasn’t alone in cutting back on higher education, and that the Garden State has in fact started to increase funding again – although very, very slightly.

“I think this is one of those news stories that is good just because we’ve stopped cutting, but it’s not where we need to be,” he said.

New Jersey’s Investment in Higher Ed Still Falling Short

Posted on by Brandon McKoy

It has been nearly a decade since the Great Recession hit, yet New Jersey’s spending on higher education remains well below pre-recession levels. While the Garden State likes to tout the fact that we have a high-quality education system that produces some of the best and strongest students and workers nationwide, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the average New Jerseyan to afford the cost of education.

From 2008 to 2017, New Jersey’s investment in higher education fell by $2,113 – or 21.3 percent – per student after adjusting for inflation, according to a new report by the D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. While we are not alone – 44 states spent less per student in 2017 than in 2008 – the cuts here have been deeper than average. 

As the state has pulled back on its investment in higher education, tuition has increased. Since 2008, the average tuition among New Jersey’s public, four-year colleges has increased $2,015 – or 17.5 percent – making it more difficult for low- and middle-income New Jerseyans to afford a college education. High tuition rates lead to more students graduating with dangerously high levels of debt, limiting their ability to move out on their own and start independent lives. In 2004, 57 percent of graduates from public, four-year institutions in New Jersey held debt, and the average amount of debt was $14,539. Ten years later in 2014, 69 percent of students held debt and the average amount was $28,345.

After years of decline, New Jersey finally reversed the trend in 2017 by spending $23 more on higher education per student than the previous year. This bump of 0.29 percent isn’t a significant increase whatsoever, but is better than the alternative of continuing to divest from this important area.

Recent reports from NJPP have shown the severity of this problem. When looking at the average of combined in-state tuition and fees among four-year public institutions, the state ranks 4th highest nationally. And New Jersey is number one nationwide for the share of millennials – 47 percent – who live in their parents’ home.

Ensuring that pursuing higher education and securing a college degree isn’t a guaranteed sentence to economic hardship is one of the most important things New Jersey lawmakers need to address. We all know that our state’s economic future is tied to our high-quality public colleges and universities. But those colleges and universities must be more affordable for striving students and their families – and lawmakers need to be doing more to make college more affordable and more accessible.

«« Previous Posts∞Older Posts »»