Next month, Arizona voters will decide whether to create a new fifth income tax bracketA tax bracket is the range of incomes taxed at given rates, which typically differ depending on filing status. In a progressive individual or corporate income tax system, rates rise as income increases. There are seven federal individual income tax brackets; the federal corporate income tax system is flat. that would raise the top rate from 4.5 percent to 8 percent. Proposition 208 would create an additional 3.5 percent taxA tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general government services, goods, and activities. on income above $250,000 ($500,000 for joint filers) to generate additional revenue for education. The tax would be levied beginning in tax year 2021, with revenues distributed to localities according to the weighted student count.
Almost doubling the state’s top income tax rate is a huge shift that reverts decades of reforms which lowered the top marginal rate from a high of 7 percent. Currently, Arizona’s top bracket of 4.5 percent is competitive among its neighboring states and ranks as the fifth lowest in the nation. A top rate of 8 percent would move Arizona to the eighth highest of the 50 states and make it an outlier in its region. Next-door Nevada has no income tax, and New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah all have top rates of under 5 percent.
The only neighbor Arizona would still beat would be California—and narrowing that margin would undermine Arizona’s status as a destination for those fleeing California’s high taxes. The state’s long efforts to promote regional competitiveness have paid dividends: the income tax produces 185 percent more revenue in 2019 than it did in 1992 (inflationInflation is when the general price of goods and services increases across the economy, reducing the purchasing power of a currency and the value of certain assets. The same paycheck covers less goods, services, and bills. It is sometimes referred to as a “hidden tax,” as it leaves taxpayers less well-off due to higher costs and “bracket creep,” while increasing the government’s spending power. -adjusted) despite—or perhaps partly because of—substantial rate reductions. The state has seen a population boom, benefiting from outmigration from high-tax California, and inflation-adjusted collections have grown at nearly twice the rate of population increases.
Arizona is also a popular destination for so-called “snowbirds” due to its mild winters and low taxes. With an income tax change, the climate may still beckon some, but the tax climate won’t. And the dramatic increase in the tax rate on pass-through businesses, which pay through the individual income taxAn individual income tax (or personal income tax) is levied on the wages, salaries, investments, or other forms of income an individual or household earns. The U.S. imposes a progressive income tax where rates increase with income. The Federal Income Tax was established in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Though barely 100 years old, individual income taxes are the largest source of tax revenue in the U.S. , would represent a serious hit to the state’s competitiveness.
The property taxA property tax is primarily levied on immovable property like land and buildings, as well as on tangible personal property that is movable, like vehicles and equipment. Property taxes are the single largest source of state and local revenue in the U.S. and help fund schools, roads, police, and other services. is the mainstay of school finance in most states, including Arizona. This system has both advantages and disadvantages. Property taxes align with the benefit principle of taxation, meaning that the amount owed scales reasonably well with the government benefits received. (Note, of course, that while renters do not remit property taxes directly, they bear much of the economic burden of property taxes imposed on their landlords.) Better school systems increase the value of property, whether or not the current owner has school-age children, so a tax on the value of one’s home is, in this sense, a very equitable way to fund schools—in addition to the fact that choices about the size and location of one’s home are driven at least in part by having kids.
The property tax also tends to be quite stable compared to other forms of taxation, which is extremely valuable in school finance. Other taxes, particularly graduated-rate income taxes, tend to be considerably more volatile, declining sharply during economic downturns. Given the importance of education and the need for consistent funding, this too argues in favor of the property tax as a major source of school funding.
The disadvantage of property taxes for school finance has very little to do with the tax itself and primarily relates to its local character: by predominantly funding schools with local taxes (whatever taxes they may be), governments create inequities across school systems, with wealthier areas able to raise and spend more per pupil. State governments almost invariably have some formula by which they distribute additional aid to compensate for these disparities, though these formulas are often critiqued. At one point, it was common to have statewide property taxes, and that remains a viable mode of school finance (or at least supplemental school aid), though not one that many states have seriously explored in recent years.
Income taxes cause more economic distortion than property taxes. They tax both current consumption and savings (for future consumption), which reduces both investment and labor (and the return on labor).
Unlike the rest of the state’s income tax, moreover, the new bracket would not be indexed to inflation, which would result in what is called “bracket creepBracket creep occurs when inflation pushes taxpayers into higher income tax brackets or reduces the value of credits, deductions, and exemptions. Bracket creep results in an increase in income taxes without an increase in real income. Many tax provisions—both at the federal and state level—are adjusted for inflation. ,” where income tax burdens increase even without an increase in real income. A person whose salary increases track with inflation could have the same amount of purchasing power year over year, while the change in the nominal dollar amount of earnings could push more of their income into the higher bracket. Because of this, the new Arizona bracket would capture progressively lower incomes as the value of the dollar decreases.
In times of economic upheaval, income taxes tend to see greater volatility than other taxes, and that is particularly true of those targeted at high earners, who often generate much of their income from investments, which are subject to steep losses during periods of economic contraction. These taxpayers also tend to be the most mobile, and that may be particularly true if their choice of Arizona was partly driven by tax considerations in the first place. A high top marginal rate would prove an inconsistent source of revenue for education.
A dramatic tax increase, particularly one that would hit small businesses, could interfere with the economic recovery. Arizona has been fortunate in economic growth and resulting taxation. Since its tax revenues bottomed out in 2010 at the trough of the Great RecessionA recession is a significant and sustained decline in the economy. Typically, a recession lasts longer than six months, but recovery from a recession can take a few years. , they have increased 45 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, including a 9.5 percent increase between FY 2018 and FY 2019 alone, representing a revenue increase nearly twice the size that Proposition 208 is intended to deliver. While COVID-19 is dragging down revenues now, the state would not be served by eliminating a key component of its economic success.
Significantly raising the income tax through Proposition 208 will only serve to make Arizona less competitive, especially at a time when individuals and small businesses are already struggling. If Arizona is looking for a long-term way to increase education funding, it would do well to avoid overburdening struggling taxpayers and look toward more broad-based, stable sources of revenue.
Stay informed on the tax policies impacting you.
Subscribe to get insights from our trusted experts delivered straight to your inbox.Subscribe