Many people are beginning to wrap their minds around the House Republicans’ proposed destination-based cash-flow tax and what it means for tax reform. Most people are still looking into the tax’s impacts on trade and how...
- The Tax Policy Blog
- CBPP Urges Keeping Tax Dollars Away From the Feds
CBPP Urges Keeping Tax Dollars Away From the Feds
On June 12, North Dakota voters will decide whether to abolish property taxes in their state. Measure 2 would, depending on the perspective, be an $800 million blow to essential government services or merely the latest of a long string of sensible taxpayer restraints on property taxation in the footsteps of California's Proposition 13, Massachusetts's Proposition 2-1/2, and recent property tax caps in Indiana, New Jersey, and New York. At minimum, if it passes, it will be another example of the ability of each our fifty states to try different policy ideas and see what works and what does not.
Not surprisingly, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) attacked Measure 2 this week, arguing that it would undermine dedicated funding for local services, make the state dependent on oil revenues, and eliminate a tax that no one else has eliminated. One strange argument jumped out at me though:
Measure 2 Would Send North Dakota's Money Out of State
Measure 2 would send a substantial amount of North Dakota's money out of the state, rather than keeping it in-state to improve the state's quality of life or economy. This makes little sense. North Dakota is at a key moment in its history; to take full advantage of the quality-of-life gains oil has made possible, the state should maximize the share of North Dakota's money that stays in North Dakota.
Under Measure 2, North Dakotans would pay more to the federal government than they otherwise would. Since taxpayers who itemize can deduct property taxes on their federal income tax returns, banning such taxes would increase the tax payments North Dakotans send to the federal government. Most of this money would go to support federal programs throughout the country, rather than funding local needs as the property tax does.
If Measure 2 had been in place last year, North Dakotans would have paid the federal government about $31 million more in federal income taxes for 2011. Taxpayers who itemize would see their federal income taxes increase by about 18 cents for every $1 in property tax reductions they receive under Measure 2 . . . .
By rejecting Measure 2, North Dakotans can choose how to use oil revenues and other revenues to strengthen the state's economy in ways that reserve the benefits for the state's residents to the maximum degree.
In other words, CBPP urges North Dakotans to reject Measure 2 because they'll be better off keeping their own money in the state rather than sending it to Washington, D.C. Although the facts they cite are tenuous—the tax cuts North Dakotans will receive under Measure 2 greatly exceed any extra federal taxes—it's hard for me to argue with their reasoning. Glad to see CBPP finally recognizes that tax dollars are better off in people's pockets rather than with Uncle Sam!
Get Email Updates from the Tax Foundation
Join the Tax Foundation's fight for sound tax policy Go
About the Tax Policy Blog
The Tax Policy Blog is the official blog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Our economists welcome your feedback. If you would like to send an e-mail to the author of a blog post, please click on that person's name to locate his or her e-mail address or visit our staff page here.
Recent Blog Posts
Related State Articles
- Lunch Links: Raising Gas Taxes A 'Non-Issue' for Incumbents in Iowa Legislative Races; High-Income Earner Taxes on Ballot in California and Maine; Corporate Tax Breaks for Housing, Development Projects Cost NYC $3 Billion
- Competing Visions for Tobacco Taxes in Colorado and North Dakota
- Top State Tax Ballot Initiatives to Watch in 2016
- 1 of 11
- next ›