While away in Brazil, Fred Thompson, helps keep the blog relevant by commenting on local issues. Thanks Fred!
In a recent editorial entitled “Oregon dawdles while other states take action
on taxes,” the editorial
board of the Oregonian called for bold tax reform, concluding that we must find
a way to balance “the progressivity Oregonians demand with the need for
a broad revenue base.” To be honest, my gut instinct is to reject this advice. There
is one point that almost all economists who study public finance agree on:
other things equal, the most important efficiency attribute a tax system can
have is predictability – up to point, whatever is, is right. Don't change
things unless the change is clearly for the better.
In this instance, however, I have more to go on than gut
instinct. A couple of former students and I did a ranking of
state and local tax systems on the bases of fairness, adequacy, and
efficiency. We were surprised to find that OR ranked #2 overall out of
fifty-one. In other words, our tax system may not be perfect, but it’s not bad.
Consequently, to the question, what would the ideal tax system for Oregon look
like, I answer: a lot like the one we have now.
Our result was surprising because theory tells us that
balanced tax systems have a lot of advantages and Oregon’s tax system is more
unbalanced than most. Unbalanced tax systems are supposed to be bad because
they increase revenue volatility and because they necessitate high marginal tax
rates, which impose substantial deadweight losses on an economy. It turns out,
however, that the
volatility reducing portfolio effects of relying on multiple tax types are
small. Portfolio effects result from the fact that various revenue sources
are uncorrelated. But all major tax bases – income, consumption, wealth, real
property values – turn out to be highly correlated, >.85. In practice, the
tax designs actually found in the US reduce these correlations to between .60
and .70, but at the expense of reduced progressivity – equally progressive tax
systems would be equally volatile. Besides, the real fiscal problem is spending
volatility, not revenue volatility. As for deadweight losses, tax rates at
the state and local level are simply too low to cause big inefficiencies.
The implications of these facts are that the costs of balancing Oregon’s tax
system would be outweighed by the federal tax penalty involved, not to mention the
reduced progressivity and increased administrative costs that sales and
transactions taxes impose.
To say our tax system is pretty good doesn’t mean that it is
perfect. The main issues that I think need addressing have to do with the
property tax, the personal income tax, and upgrading the state’s Department of
Revenue.
The property tax is potentially a really good tax; it is
also unpopular with voters, especially those who own their homes free and clear
and who take the standard deduction on federal income taxes. We can and should
make paying property taxes a lot easier and more convenient for those folks.
That is something every jurisdiction that relies on the property tax ought to
do. I find it astonishing that they fail to do so. Property tax problems
specific to Oregon include assessment distortions and multi-jurisdiction
compression. Property tax assessments and obligations ought to track market
valuations more closely. A reasonable move in that direction would be
reassessment at title transfer. Given our land use planning policies,
increasing tax rates on land and reducing them on improvements might make a lot
of sense. (I think that ALL land ought to be assessed and charged property
taxes and discriminatory rates eliminated wherever possible, but this is
probably too radical to contemplate.) Compression is a harder nut to crack. (A
return to a levy-based as opposed to a rate based property tax system would do
the trick, but this is also probably too radical to contemplate).
Oregon should impose a smaller personal income-tax burden on
families with low incomes. My preference would be to reduce state personal
income-tax rates on the first two brackets to zero. But reducing collections
from the poor could be accomplished a lot of different ways, including
increasing the state’s EITC. Actually, thousands of low-income individuals fail
to file tax returns. In many of those cases more has been withheld from their
pay than they owe. Moving to a taxpayer-passive administrative system for
personal and corporate income taxes could fix this problem and also increase
collections significantly, but that would necessitate a significant upgrade of
Oregon’s Department of Revenue.
From a state and local perspective, escaping a
jurisdiction’s tax net does not necessarily involve physical movement. It can
be accomplished by “a mere stroke of a pen,” or a mouse click. This is
especially true of corporations, which are legal fictions or constructs. But it
is nearly as true for anyone with enough wealth to make tax arbitrage
worthwhile. Relatively high marginal tax rates, which we have, call for more
and better tax administration. We have too long ignored that fact in Oregon. As
a consequence we allow excessive non-reporting and under-reporting of income
and do a half-backed job of collecting taxes owed. This is basically an
information management problem and it is a critical one.
The Department of Revenue needs to re-engineer its core
administrative processes for all tax types. Modern information technology could
reduce both the fixed and variable costs of gathering, entering, storing,
organizing and searching data on the tax base, deductions, exemptions, credits
and liabilities, and payments, which is fundamentally what the DOR does, but,
right now, compared to what is needed or even some other states, let alone what
is possible, not very well.
2 comments:
Could you elaborate on "spending volatility"? Also I'm surprised you didn't mention a more robust rainy day fund among possible improvements.
Of course, you are correct. A few years back, the Legislative Task Force on Revenue Restructuring came up with a perfectly reasonable solution to revenue volatility, which relied on changes in the way OR forecasts revenue (longer time horizon) and a beefed up rainy day fund. I supported their conclusions then and I support them now. Cash reserves (rainy-day funds) are needed to smooth spending. But spending (tax cuts and rebates as well as outlays) must be matched to anticipated cash inflows. Further, the more volatile one's revenue/income flow, the more attractive it is to use debt along with savings to smooth spending. This is one of those cases where a couple of differential equations really helps to make sense of reality.
Post a Comment