More Evidence That State Income Taxes Have Little Impact on Interstate Migration

August 26, 2014 at 1:00 pm

The New York Times’ Upshot blog has published a fascinating set of graphs of Census Bureau data on interstate migration patterns since 1900, bolstering our argument that state income taxes don’t have a significant impact on people’s decisions about where to live.

We plotted the same Census data, which shows which states do the best job of retaining their native-born populations, on the chart below, also noting which states have (or don’t have) a state income tax.  Our chart shows that taxes have little to do with the extent to which native-born people leave their states of origin.

If Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore’s claim (which other tax-cut advocates often repeat) that “taxes are indisputably a major factor in determining where . . . families locate” were true, states without income taxes would see below-average shares of their native-born populations leaving at some point in their lifetime, while states with relatively high income taxes would see the opposite.  But the graph shows no such pattern:

  • Three of the nine no-income-tax states perform very poorly in holding on to native-born residents.  Wyoming, Alaska, and South Dakota have three of the nation’s four highest shares of native-born residents who left the state.
  • Four other no-income-tax states are closer to the middle of the pack.  Nevada is almost exactly in the middle of the state rankings, while New Hampshire and Tennessee fall almost equally below and above Nevada; Washington falls within that interval as well.  New Hampshire does no better in retaining its native born than its high-tax neighbor, Vermont.  Tennessee’s neighbor, North Carolina, has had the highest income tax rates among southern states for the past 20 years but outperformed nearly all of them in retaining its native born, tying for second nationally.
  • Only two of the nine no-income-tax states are top performers in retaining their native born.  Threeof the five states that retain the largest shares of their natives — California, Georgia, and North Carolina — have income taxes, and California and North Carolina in particular have had higher income taxes than their neighbors.  Texas and Florida are the only no-income-tax states that rank highly for retention.  

IRS Commissioner Confirms House-Passed Cuts to IRS Budget Could Be “Catastrophic”

August 25, 2014 at 3:48 pm

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said, according to Tax Notes, that the effects of House-passed IRS budget cuts would be “very serious if not catastrophic” to the agency’s ability to collect revenue and provide taxpayer services, adding: “I no longer want people to think that if we get less money it doesn’t make any difference.  It makes a big difference on taxpayers, on tax preparers, on tax compliance, on tax enforcement.”

As we have written, the House bill would cut IRS funding by $1.5 billion in 2015, including a $1.2 billion reduction in the agency’s enforcement budget, relative to 2014 funding.  The enforcement budget is crucial to the IRS’ ability to collect revenue and pursue tax cheats.  As Commissioner Koskinen affirms, reducing the IRS enforcement budget actually increases the deficit because it prevents the agency from thwarting tax fraud, evasion, and other illegal behavior, thus reducing federal revenue:

Congress is starving our revenue-generating operation. If voluntary compliance with the tax code drops by 1 percent, it costs the U.S. government $30 billion per year.  The IRS annual budget is only $11 billion per year.

And the House cuts would come on top of years of IRS budget cuts that have already weakened enforcement and harmed taxpayer services.  Funding for the IRS fell by 14 percent (after accounting for inflation) between 2010 and 2014 (see chart).  These cuts forced the agency to reduce its workforce by over 10,000 employees and have led directly to a significant decline in the quality of taxpayer services.

For example, millions of taxpayers depend on IRS assistance over the telephone, yet in 2013, a typical caller to the IRS waited on hold for about 18 minutes for an IRS representative, and about 40 percent of calls were never answered.  This is a sharp decline from 2010, when the IRS answered three-quarters of calls and had an average wait time of just under 11 minutes.

Commissioner Koskinen was frank about the impact of continued cuts:

You cannot continue to reduce our resources and ask us to do more things.  The blind belief in Congress that they can continue to cut funding and we will just become more efficient is not the case.  We are becoming more efficient but there is a limit.  Eventually the effects will show up.  We are no longer going to pretend that cutting funding makes no difference.

Policymakers must give the IRS the resources it needs to fulfill its tax-collecting mission and provide the services taxpayers depend on.  The first step is for the Senate and the President to reject the reckless House cuts.

In Case You Missed It…

August 22, 2014 at 1:08 pm

This week on Off the Charts, we focused on health care and the safety net.

  • On health care, Jesse Cross-Call highlighted lessons that states wanting to expand Medicaid through waivers can learn from three states that already have.
  • On the safety net, LaDonna Pavetti marked Temporary Assistance for Needy Families’ (TANF) 18-year anniversary, noting that the program’s role as a safety net has declined sharply over time.

We released papers on SNAP’s medical expense deduction and lessons learned from states that have expanded Medicaid through waivers.  We also updated our TANF chart book and our paper on understanding the Social Security trust funds.

CBPP’s Chart of the Week:

A variety of news outlets featured CBPP’s work and experts recently. Here are some highlights:

Paul Ryan Recycles Weak Talking Point On Welfare Reform
Huffington Post
August 20, 2014

The Five Biggest Lies About Obamacare
The Daily Beast
August 17, 2014

Don’t miss any of our posts, papers, or charts — follow us on Twitter and Instagram.

States Seeking to Expand Medicaid Through Waivers Can Learn From Arkansas, Iowa, and Michigan

August 22, 2014 at 11:05 am

The federal government is considering proposals from Pennsylvania and Indiana to adopt health reform’s Medicaid expansion through a demonstration project, or waiver, and New Hampshire will soon submit its own.  The experience of the three states — Arkansas, Iowa, and Michigan — that have expanded through a waiver suggests that while the federal government will work with states to craft reasonable expansion plans, there are limits to the programmatic flexibility it will grant, as we explain in a new paper.

Waivers provide states with additional flexibility in how they operate their Medicaid programs, but they cannot be used to impose onerous requirements that make it difficult for eligible individuals to gain and maintain Medicaid coverage.  This principle has informed how the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has responded to waiver proposals so far.

Among the takeaways:

  • States may not disenroll people with incomes below the poverty line for non-payment of premiums.  While Iowa has received approval to charge beneficiaries with incomes between 50 and 100 percent of the poverty line modest premiums starting in 2015, the state will waive premiums for individuals who complete health risk and wellness assessments or attest to financial hardships.  Importantly, the state cannot disenroll individuals from coverage if they do not pay their premiums.
  • States may not require individuals to pay cost-sharing charges above what is allowed under Medicaid rules.  Medicaid cost-sharing rules provide states with significant flexibility while providing significant protections for beneficiaries that are intended to minimize barriers to necessary health care services.  The rules include special protections barring cost-sharing for children and pregnant women and for certain services such as family planning, emergency services, and maternity care.  People with incomes above the poverty line may be charged higher amounts, and providers cannot deny services to people with incomes below the poverty line who cannot afford to pay.  States must apply these protections to the newly eligible adults regardless of whether states expand Medicaid through a waiver.
  • States may not overly restrict certain benefits.  States have significant flexibility regarding benefits for newly eligible adults and can largely align their benefits with the benefits that private market plans provide.  Still, HHS has provided very limited waivers of Medicaid benefits.  And in Arkansas and Iowa, which are enrolling some or most of their expansion populations in private plans offered in the health insurance marketplaces, HHS has required that states augment marketplace benefits to ensure beneficiaries have access to the same benefits than if they were enrolled in regular Medicaid.
  • States can’t condition Medicaid eligibility on employment or participation in work search activities.  In December 2013, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett proposed a Medicaid expansion waiver that would require anyone working fewer than 20 hours a week to register with the state’s unemployment compensation program and engage in 12 work search activities per month to remain eligible for Medicaid coverage.  Those judged not to be in compliance would have their health coverage revoked.  Gov. Corbett subsequently submitted a revised proposal to HHS that would charge beneficiaries differential premiums based on whether they are working or engaged in work search activities.  In response to Pennsylvania’s proposal, HHS has indicated that it is unlikely to approve waivers that condition either Medicaid eligibility or premium amounts on compliance with work search or other work-related activities.

Click here to read the full paper.

TANF at 18: A Weakened Role and Not a Model for Safety Net Reform

August 22, 2014 at 10:08 am

Eighteen years ago today, President Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 — commonly known as “welfare reform.”  A key component was its creation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to replace Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

Since then, TANF has played a shrinking role as a safety net for poor families (see chart), serving a small share of poor families and lifting many fewer families out of “deep poverty” (with incomes below half the poverty line) than AFDC did, as we explain and illustrate in our revised chart book.

A close look at TANF’s track record makes it clear that the program needs retooling to ensure that a strong safety net and sufficient employment assistance is available when people need them most.

Yet some policymakers claim that welfare reform was such an extraordinary success that we should use it as a model for reforming other safety net programs.  But the facts don’t make that case.  For example, in TANF’s 18-year history, never-married mothers with a high school education or less made substantial gains in employment in only the first four years — largely due to the roaring economy of the late 1990s — and those gains have almost entirely eroded in the subsequent 14.  It is wishful thinking to assume that we could see the same employment gains we saw in TANF’s early years in today’s sluggish labor market.

The safety net (other than TANF) plays an extremely important role in reducing poverty and deep poverty in this country — a role that should be maintained.  The evidence from TANF suggests that applying TANF-like reforms to other safety net programs would likely cause more families to join the ranks of the deeply poor and cause some who are already deeply poor to become even poorer.

TANF reform is long overdue.  We should fix its problems before embarking on reforms that will repeat its failures.

Click here for the full chart book.