NEW:
Education reform redux
Read the latest
Read the latest
March 19, 2013
Good morning Madam Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Jack Hoffman. I’m senior analyst for Public Assets Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank in Montpelier.
First, I’d like to applaud the Legislature and this committee for recognizing the need for Vermont to make smart investments again. Policies of austerity, which Vermont has been following for the last six years, can’t move the state forward. We have the resources to make smart investments in people, programs, and infrastructure that ensure the well-being of all Vermonters, and it’s encouraging that this committee is looking for the revenue needed to make those investments.
That said, there are a couple of items on the Committee’s potential revenue list we would urge you to make because it’s simply good policy.
Those two changes would generate about $15 million, according to your projections.
As general rule, we lean toward tax policies based on people’s ability to pay, mostly income taxes. There are certain benefits to the sales tax. For one thing, it’s exportable, which is an advantage to a state like Vermont that attracts a lot of tourists. We don’t have an opinion about any of the specific sales tax changes you’re considering. However, if you do increase or expand the sales tax, we would urge you to look at increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit. One purpose of the EITC was to offset the effect of regressive taxes on lower income working families—such Social Security at the federal level or the sales tax, property tax, and fuel taxes at the state level.
With the personal income tax, however, we believe you could make changes to the treatment of itemized deductions, such as the ones we presented to the committee last month based on an analysis done for us by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. A cap on mortgage deductions, which would fit in this category, is on your list of revenue options. I might also suggest eliminating the deduction for state income taxes from state income taxes.
Vermont currently limits the deduction to $5,000. But eliminating it entirely would have a small effect on taxpayers, and it would raise $16 million, according to the ITEP analysis. To give you a couple of quick examples:
We think it makes sense to eliminate the deduction of state income taxes. Many states don’t allow a state income tax deduction for state income taxes. And this could help fund some of the important investments the Legislature is considering and that Vermonters need if we’re going to provide everyone the opportunity to succeed.
We welcome and publish non-partisan contributions from all points of view provided they are of a reasonable length, pertain to the issues of Public Assets Institute, and abide by the common rules of online etiquette (i.e., avoid inappropriate language and “SCREAMING” (writing in all caps), and demonstrate respect for others).
Jack, Great testimony! This is the sort of thinking that is rational, fair and economically sensible. If we think about it, why do we penalize earned income and privilege derivative, unearned income? For those on the right, there is a tough question here: Do you want to promote a work ethic or not? Taxing work is hardly an incentive. As always Jack, keep it up!