California Dreaming: An Irresponsible Tax Increase
July 6, 2012
Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a new California budget which introduced $15.7 billion in new taxes in order to meet expected expenditures for 2012-2013. The budget signed by Governor Brown counts on voters to choose in November to raise the California sales tax to 7.5 percent for 4 years, while raising income taxes on those making above $250,000 for 7 years. The income tax increase is retroactive, and would apply to all income earned after January 1, 2012.
The new revenues from the tax increases are estimated to total $8.5 billion, with $2.9 billion being spent on new funding for schools. The remaining $5.6 billion is meant to be used in the state’s general fund to help pay off the deficit. Roughly $8.1 billion of budget cuts, along with $2.5 billion in other measures, are meant to close California’s remaining budget deficit.
Though by law the state must balance their budget, there are several problems with doing so in this fashion.
First, as we have pointed out in previous posts, retroactive income tax hikes distort economic planning and disrupt income tax withholding schedules, meaning that taxpayers who are affected by the tax increase will write hefty checks next April when they file.
Second, while Governor Brown’s budget claims to strike a balance between tax hikes and spending reduction on paper, California has a poor record of accomplishing these goals in practice. California’s spending has increased from $98.9 billion in 2002-2003 to a projected $142.4 billion in 2012- 2013. Despite the façade of belt tightening in California, the budget signed by governor Brown increases year to year spending by 7 percent, reinforcing the states long established failure to achieve this balance. California already maintains the second highest top income tax rate in the country, and ranks 48th out of 50 states in our 2012 State Business Tax Climate Index. If they enact this income tax increase, they will surpass Hawaii as the highest top income tax bracket in the nation at 12.3 percent.
New income tax rates for singles under the proposed change (increases in bold):
Note: Included in this tax bracket is California's 1 percent "Mental Health Services Tax Rate" for taxable income above $1,000,000. Some sources do not include this when reporting California's bracket.
California’s income tax collection in recent years has been significantly more volatile than its economy. Economic trends largely caused by globalization, coupled with changes in corporate pay structure over the past 30 years, have made both the top income earners and their incomes increasingly volatile and dependent on both the stock market and the broader economy. In years where both the economy and the stock market grow, this allows states like California to obtain a significant amount of tax revenue from these high income earners. But the same trends also make California’s state finances highly susceptible to large deficits when there is a drop in the stock market or the economy enters a period of anemic growth. California, which gets 43.5 percent of its state tax revenue from the highly progressive state income tax, has seen its state budget’s fortunes become increasingly dependent upon earners with incomes greater than $200,000. In 2009, earnings above this level accounted for 54.5 percent of all income tax revenue. Broadening the tax base and decreasing dependence on the income tax would help to alleviate volatility associated with a progressive income tax.
Finally, Governor Brown may be playing a political game by linking tax increases to funding for education. The Governor is using a significant portion of the tax increases not to curb the budget deficit, but to increase education spending an additional $2.9 billion. If the tax increases are not approved by the voters in November, there will be $5.4 billion in trigger cuts to these popular programs, a political charade known as the Washington Monument Ploy.
Jerry Brown, nicknamed “Governor Moonbeam” in another life for his outside the box thinking, should use his creativity to help reform the California tax code. Californians would be better served by a bold attempt to re-structure the California tax code in order to make revenue more predictable and stable than by this political maneuver which only further endangers California’s fiscal future.
More on California here.
Follow Scott Drenkard on Twitter @ScottDrenkard.
Was this page helpful to you?
The Tax Foundation works hard to provide insightful tax policy analysis. Our work depends on support from members of the public like you. Would you consider contributing to our work?Contribute to the Tax Foundation
Let us know how we can better serve you!
We work hard to make our analysis as useful as possible. Would you consider telling us more about how we can do better?Give Us Feedback