|
 On May 20, Democrats in the Illinois House Revenue & Finance
Committee approved Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s prized progressive tax constitutional
amendment. While the Senate had previously passed a new income tax structure –
already different from the governor’s original proposal – the House Committee
also passed the amendment without putting in income tax rates.
Pritzker and other proponents of replacing Illinois’ flat income tax with a
progressive tax have claimed the switch would allow the state to fund its
skyrocketing pension obligations, pay off its bill backlog, spend more on
education and social services, enable property tax relief and more.
But progressive tax proponents need to face that without pension reform,
Illinois’ crushing public employee retirement debt will consume every new dollar
generated with a progressive tax – and will require further tax hikes to fully
pay off pension debt, as Pritzker has advocated. Illinois could lose up to
95,000 jobs and the economy could suffer up to $18 billion in economic impact
were it to try to use a progressive tax to pay off the state’s unfunded pension
liability within 40 years, a new Illinois Policy Institute study shows.
Current progressive tax proposals
While Pritzker has been campaigning for months on his own proposal, the rates
and brackets passed out of the Senate are different from the governor’s.
Pritzker’s proposal levied a 7.95% flat rate on the highest income bracket while
the plan passed out of the Senate features a 7.99% flat rate on the highest
income bracket. That top bracket also now kicks in at a lower level for single
filers: $750,000 instead of $1 million.
The state’s corporate income tax rate would also be bumped up to 7.99% from 7%.
Pritzker’s plan hiked the corporate income tax to 7.95%.
Of all
the things Pritzker and other proponents have promised the progressive income
tax would do, the most significant is addressing the state’s pension crisis.
Currently, Illinois’ five state-run pension systems officially report $137
billion in unfunded liabilities, though Moody’s Investors Service has estimated
the number stands at $232 billion. Despite the state spending more on pensions
each year, these unfunded liabilities continue to grow.
Although many independent groups as well as mayors and municipal leaders have
called for reforms to Illinois’ unsustainable pension system, Pritzker has thus
far rejected those ideas. Instead, he’s called for a graduated income tax and
other tax hikes to cover the rising debt.
While Illinois taxpayers might expect the graduated income tax to pay for public
services such as education, the reality is the state’s sky-high pension debt
ensures any future revenue increase mostly will go to pensions.
Credit ratings agencies have noted the promise of a progressive income tax that
pays for pensions, but have also pointed out that “[a] positive outcome for the
state’s credit standing would require that the new system yield substantial net
new revenue, without material damage to the economy, and that the new revenue be
largely allocated to addressing the state’s retirement benefit liabilities on a
recurring basis. A negative outcome – characterized by growing economic
challenges and scant progress addressing pension funding needs – is also
possible.
Thus, according to credit rating agencies, a progressive income tax would only
improve Illinois’ worst-in-the-nation credit rating if it resulted in a huge
influx of revenue that goes almost exclusively to pensions. It must do so
without harming the state’s economy. This would be a nearly impossible feat.
Can the Senate’s plan pay for pensions?
The Illinois Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability estimated
the state’s unfunded liability at $136.8 billion at the end of fiscal year 2019.
Similar to Haasl, Mattoon and Walstrum’s (2018) study presented at a pensions
forum at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, the Illinois Policy Institute’s
analysis assumes that all additional progressive tax revenue – revenue above
what the current flat income tax would have brought in – would go directly to
pay for pension debt.
This exercise assumes the state will be able to accurately predict the normal
cost of servicing state pensions. They have historically failed to do so,
leading to further growth in unfunded liabilities.
If annual income tax revenue growth caused by secular income growth matches the
state’s recent experience, the progressive income tax rates passed by the Senate
will fail to pay off the state’s pension debt – ever.
In order for the Senate’s current plan to fully pay for pensions, the annual
increase in tax revenue caused by increases in the tax base would have to remain
at 5.35% annual growth – nearly 400% higher than the most recent 5-year compound
annual growth rate of 1.35%. For the Senate plan to work, the tax base would
need to grow at the 5.35% rate for a 54-year period.
In a
scenario where secular income growth causes income tax revenues to grow at 3.35%
annually – 250% faster than the recent 1.35% rate – it would take the state 151
years to pay down the unfunded pension liability. Obviously, these benefits will
have to be paid out before then, and avoiding further credit downgrades would
require even more resources being diverted to pension debt..
[to top of second column] |
The Haasl, Mattoon and Walstrum study referenced
above suggested the state could pay for these costs on a 40-year
timeline with a statewide property tax – an even more unpopular
proposal. Using the same 40-year timeline, and maintaining the same
income brackets as the Senate’s proposal, income tax rates would
have to be much higher to pay down the state’s unfunded pension
liability. Even using the most generous assumption
regarding natural growth in Illinois’ income tax revenue, income tax
rates would have to be raised on everyone – from 8% to 22% higher
than the rates in the Senate’s proposal – in order to pay down the
unfunded pension liability within the next 40 years (see appendix).
Again, this assumes every dime of additional revenue goes to
pensions and would require much higher tax rates than currently
proposed.
The lower the growth in revenues is, the higher income tax rates
will have to be in order to pay down the pension debt. Therefore,
under the lowest growth assumption, tax rates are the highest and
bring in the most additional revenue in the first year, though the
faster growth assumptions eventually generate more revenue.
Effects on the economy
Moody’s second, and perhaps most important requirement, for a
progressive tax that pays for pensions while avoiding a credit
downgrade is that the new tax doesn’t inflict material damage on the
economy. Unfortunately, the tax increase necessary to eliminate the
state’s pension debt would crush Illinois’ already weak economy.
When the Chicago Fed economists suggested a statewide property tax
in May of 2018 to pay down pension debt, they claimed it would be
the most fair, efficient and transparent option.
While property taxes may be one of the most “efficient” forms of
taxation, this proposal illustrated the wide gap between Main Street
and academia. At the time of the proposal, home prices in Illinois
had yet to recover from their pre-recession peak and Illinois homes
stayed on the market twice as long as the national average and came
with some of the highest effective property tax rates in the nation
– particularly in minority communities.
Yet as painful as a statewide property tax would be, a progressive
income tax would be even more devastating to the economy.
Income tax increases have a negative effect on investment in human
and physical capital (research and development, purchases of new
machinery, or other equipment) that would otherwise improve labor
productivity. This results in less income generation and lower
living standards for everyone, and demonstrates why marginal tax
rates should not increase with earning ability. (Diamond and
Mirrlees, 1971; Gruber and Saez, 2002).
Following a long tradition in the economics literature, the Illinois
Policy Institute estimated the potential effects of a progressive
tax to pay for pensions through the lens of the neoclassical growth
model – the most widely taught model of capital accumulation and
long-run growth (see appendix).
The Institute’s research shows a progressive income tax plan with
new revenue solely dedicated to paying down the unfunded pension
liability could cost the state up to 95,000 full-time jobs. Even
under the best-case scenario, the tax would still cost 56,000
full-time jobs. The same goes for other effects of
the tax hike on the economy. The tax hike could cost the state $14
billion-$18 billion worth of economic activity, with the lowest cost
estimate derived from the smallest tax increase under the most
generous growth assumption. A better path forward
The large income tax collection necessary to pay for Illinois’ state
pension debt would not satisfy Moody’s criteria of avoiding harm to
the state’s economy. It would be even more economically disastrous
than a statewide property tax.
The current proposal by the Illinois Senate would not produce enough
revenue to pay off the state’s unfunded liabilities, even if all
additional revenue were dedicated to pension debt.
Furthermore, while a significant income tax hike on everyone could
potentially pay down the current pension debt within a reasonable
time horizon, it would require higher tax rates than the current
proposals, at a huge cost to the state’s economic future. Plus, that
would require assuming that the state’s estimations of the debts are
accurate; third-party estimates put the unfunded liability at nearly
double what the state reports. An income tax hike big enough to
truly satisfy the debt would wreak havoc on the state’s already
fragile economy, resulting in further deterioration of the state’s
credit rating.
Instead of doubling down on tax hikes, Pritzker and state lawmakers
should look at structurally reforming Illinois’ pension system
through an amendment to the state constitution’s pension clause. The
Illinois Policy Institute shows how necessary, commonsense reforms
can be achieved in “Budget Solutions 2020: A 5-year plan to balance
Illinois’ budget, pay off debt and cut taxes.”
An amendment that protects pensioners’ already-earned benefits and
allows for slower growth in future benefit accruals would help the
state address its debt while protecting public employees’
retirements. It would also protect taxpayers, and any hope for the
state’s economy.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article |
