MN2020

Kindergarten Lessons in Transportation

Tue, 21 May 2013 19:00:47 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Despite what most of us were taught in kindergarten, the American "ownership society," to quote George W. Bush, hasn't been very good at sharing. One example: We own millions more cars than there are licensed drivers.

But maybe the All Mine Culture is evolving, especially when it comes to urban transportation. Modern bicycle sharing is spreading to every corner of the country, so fast that the U.S. fleet of 9,000 shared bikes is projected to quadruple in the next couple of years as dozens more cities get on board.

Minneapolis, already served by Zipcar and HOURCAR auto-sharing services, is launching a two-year pilot program to make up to 250 vehicles available for occasional use.

Other modes of shared mobility such as transit and intercity passenger rail keep rattling off ridership records.

Meanwhile, U.S. driving has been declining for nearly a decade. There are economic reasons for this -- Great Recession joblessness that reduced commuting and the $7,800 annual cost of owning and maintaining the average American private car -- but lifestyle changes of both younger and older Americans are playing a part, too.

Driving our own cars everywhere we go is still the dominant U.S. mode of mobility, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. But as shared transportation choices proliferate and become more convenient, everyone benefits. Early adopters get better health and lower costs, drivers face less traffic congestion and we all share cleaner air.

A Senior Year With No Cuts?

Tue, 21 May 2013 16:30:13 +0000

By Samuel Wilmes, Communications Associate

Long before I started college in Fall 2010, MnSCU schools like mine (Minnesota State University Mankato) had been cutting course offerings and raising tuition thanks to a decade of declining state higher education funding.

As the graph below shows from 1999-2011, successive state legislatures have trimmed an astounding 48% from Minnesota’s public colleges and universities, when adjusted for inflation and student population. This far exceeds the nationwide 23% average higher education cut.

Source MNSCU

A February MnSCU report highlights that before Minnesota began disinvesting in education, the state’s “higher education appropriation per student was 24% higher than the national average; now it is 17% below.” This has shifted the education funding burden to the middle-income and working-class students that typically attend state colleges. In 2002, the state covered 2/3rds of the average MnSCU student’s costs. The state now covers only about 1/3rd of the costs.

Since I’ve been in college, there have been even more cuts. As part of the deal that ended the 2011 state shutdown, which covered fiscal years 2012-2013, lawmakers cut $170 million from MnSCU. As a result, my tuition has steadily risen, from $2,815.60 for fall semester 2010 to $3,175.04 this coming semester.

Fortunately for students, this year’s legislative majorities will raise higher education funding back to adequate levels. However, after a decade of cuts, it’s not likely we’ll see a major difference on campus. Still, it’s a step in the right direction. Furthermore, changes in how the state generates revenue will help us sustain proper funding levels for the future.

It might be a generation before Minnesota sees the true impact a decade of cuts yields. I can tell you form a personal perspective, however, having higher tuition debt going into a still fragile job market will likely lead to economic setbacks for my peers and I. We’ll be holding off on buying houses. We’ll have to get another 10-20 thousand more miles out of our old cares. And most of us will hold off on big ticket consumer goods.

Regulating the Sands of Silica

Tue, 21 May 2013 13:30:38 +0000

By Christina Motilall, Fellow

Long before southeastern Minnesota’s rich Silica Sand deposits became an attractive energy industry resource, companies had been mining modest amounts of silica in the region for less controversial purposes, such as glass-making, abrasives, and golf course sand traps, according to the DNR.

Those wary of more mining advocated for a 1-mile buffer around streams and lakes to decrease the potential threat of pollution from the mines. Industry retorted that the buffer would effectively halt new mines, resulting in a compromise.

Sweeping statewide regulation is pretty much off the table. The process for creating a new silica sand mine in southeastern Minnesota goes a little something like this: Find a spot, do a study, get a permit, build a mine. The hydraulic study is intended to determine whether the mine will pollute and the DNR permit is to keep mines in check that are operating within one mile of trout streams in a specific part of southeast Minnesota.

While the standards could have been stronger, all in all, it is better than no regulation. The new silica sand mine regulations require at least four different environmental entities be involved in the process. The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) will be given $1 million over two years to create an interagency task force to “provide technical assistance regarding the mining, processing, and transporting of silica sand and develop the model standards and criteria.” The EQB will also review the standard process for approving a silica sand mine and determine whether new steps should be taken due to the increased mining interests.

The MPCA and the Department of Health (DOH) will evaluate air quality issues around silica sand mining. The MPCA will adopt rules to control particulate emissions and the DOH will develop air quality health-based values. The DNR is not only responsible for the permitting process but also for overseeing silica sand mine reclamation, should it happen. They are allotted $600,000 the first year for silica sand mining rulemaking.

However, actually following the interagency group’s recommendations is up to the local governments and municipalities. This is one of the elements that makes me nervous. Should one county (let’s say it is upstream from another) allows lax standards, it can affect the entire watershed. A statewide regulation could have set a consistent standard to avoid this problem.

As silica sand mines boom over the next few years, Minnesota needs strong oversight and local government cooperation to protect southeastern waterways. We can only hope the resources allocated to the studies and permitting process are used effectively and more will be provided if necessary. If not, we can expect to see big problems with southeastern Minnesota’s water and public health.

Minnesota Loses Jobs For Second Straight Month

Mon, 20 May 2013 19:00:41 +0000

By Alex Christensen, Policy Associate

For the first time since Feburary 2010, Minnesota’s economy lost jobs two months in a row. The North Star State shed 11,400 jobs in April after dropping 3,300 in March.

Data from Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development

The jobs reports for the last six months have inspired optimism. If that trend had continued, it would have relieved worries about the state’s economic growth. But with the significant losses in April, that relief may have to be put on hold.

Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (TTU) and Government were the hardest hit in April. With weakness in trucking and wholesale trade, TTU dropped 5,700 seasonally-adjusted jobs. The drop in this sector exemplifies the greatest weakness in the private sector in 2013: weak demand. Consumers cannot afford to buy more things, and businesses are not betting that they consumers will anytime soon.

Government jobs contracted by an additional 2,000. After finally returning to pre-recession employment levels at the end of 2012, the government sector, which includes all levels of government as well as public school employees, has fallen in each of the last four months. The contraction this spring has largely been driven by cold spring and federal sequestration. The later than usual spring has delayed the opening of municipal parks and golf courses, and the hiring has also been delayed.

April was not solely a gloomy month for the state economy, however. Unemployment fell one-tenth of a percent to 5.3%, the labor force participation rate ticked up to 70.9, and the number of unemployed Minnesotans fell below 160,000 for the first time since June 2008.

A main reason that it took a full five years for unemployment to drop below pre-recession levels is that only two of Minnesota's five largest sectors have grown since then. Jobs in Health Care and Professional and Business Services have increased by 43,000 and 15,000, respectively.

Data from Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development

On the other hand, three of the largest sectors in the state are still shrinking. There are 6,400 fewer government jobs in Minnesota than in 2008, or about 2% of the total, although employment in this sector has remained much more stable than other areas of the economy.

Manufacturing and Trade, Transportation, and Utilities have only barely begun to recover from their low points in early 2010. Both sectors are highly dependent on the health of consumer spending, since they include making, transporting, and selling products. Seeing these two large sectors struggling to increase employment again points to the mediocre nature of the recovery. As jobs and household wealth have stagnated, consumer spending has not grown fast enough to spur producers and distributors from adding many jobs.

The Minnesota labor market is improving, but slowly and not without set-backs. Five years later, the state has not recovered from the Great Recession.

Tax Cuts for Transportation?

Mon, 20 May 2013 16:00:33 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

Tea Party stalwart Rand Paul, son of Ron and a U.S. senator from Kentucky, has proposed a new way to pay for transportation projects. This is good news, of a sort: a government-shrinking, tax-averse conservative acknowledging that public infrastructure indeed should be supported by public funds.

What's not so encouraging is Paul's financing method—huge tax cuts for corporations. Say what? He'd slash the tax rate for repatriating overseas capital to the states from its current level, as high as 35 percent, all the way down to 5 percent. Presumably, he thinks we'd get a windfall of homesick money far exceeding the trickle now shedding one-third to repatriate. As if by supply-side magic, the rate goes down and collections skyrocket, covering existing revenue while producing new riches for roads and bridges.

Given the track record of similar right-wing cut-tax-and-then-spend schemes in the past, that happy outcome is anything but assured. What's more, for years, U.S. multinational corporations have been pleading for as little as a one-day repatriation tax holiday. Perhaps Paul's bill just puts a popular face on an extreme pro-capital fiscal policy.

As transportation policy, as well, his idea comes with at least two major drawbacks:

Deeply discounted repatriation might provide one-time revenue, but roads and bridges need never-ending funding. Even "one-time" construction of a new highway puts government on the hook for costly maintenance as far as the eye can see. Looking to deep corporate pockets for transportation money would put one more stake in the heart of what's left of the user-pays principle. With taxes on driving frozen nearly everywhere, roads and bridges nationwide now draw at least half their funding from non-user sources. In the long run, this isn't good for either our mobility or our prosperity.

In fact, nationwide transportation funding is looking more and more like our own Vikings stadium finance fiasco: We'll be sure to get the goodies we want, but heaven forfend that we pay for them out of the obvious pockets.

Improving Access, Easing Hunger

Mon, 20 May 2013 13:30:45 +0000

By Colleen O’Connor Toberman, Hindsight Community Fellow

Encouraging some people in poverty to access assistance programs like food support (formally the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) can be tough. This is especially true of senior citizens. While about 65 percent of eligible Minnesotans participate in SNAP, only 41 percent of eligible seniors do. The reasons for this disparity are plentiful: stigma, lack of awareness, the desire for independence, and the challenges of applying, to name a few.

One recent change will lower that last barrier. Minnesota recently introduced a streamlined application for seniors age 60+ that consists of only two pages. The standard SNAP application for most participants is eight pages long plus seven pages of instructions. (The standard application also screens for health care and cash assistance, which is convenient if you want to apply for multiple programs but cumbersome if you only need one.)

Once someone submits their SNAP application, they must go through an interview with a county benefits determiner. Minnesota offers a phone-interview option, meaning that homebound seniors can still easily apply. They can even designate another person (like a family member or care aide) to do their grocery shopping for them.

Minnesota’s eventual plan is to offer a shorter SNAP application for people of any age, which would be a terrific step towards ending hunger in Minnesota. Increasing SNAP investment is a smart move, especially considering that it’s paid for with federal dollars, not state. Studies show that every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates up to $9 in economic activity—and since benefits are spent at local grocers, local communities reap the rewards. Improving access to nutritious food also lowers health-care costs. Every time we make it easier for people to utilize the benefits for which they are eligible, we make a better Minnesota.

MN Goes Green and You Should Too!

Fri, 17 May 2013 17:15:51 +0000

By Christina Motilall, Fellow

I have a lot of favorite things that come with summer weather, and one of them is browsing a farmers market in sunglasses and sandals. The St. Paul Farmers' Market is great on a Saturday morning and tomorrow morning (May 18th) is going to be one of the best all year. This is because they (along with a lot of other really great partners) are sponsoring MN Goes Green from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. at the St. Paul Union Depot, just one block away from the market.

MN Goes Green is a FREE event to promote sustainability and green living in Minnesota. In one day you can see green fashion, bring in damanged items to flex your Fix-It muscles, hear informative speakers, and learn the best ways to source local groceries. I have been involved in the environmental movement for over 10 years and I can tell you, there is always something new to learn to improve your life and the health of the planet.

With so many environmental stressors facing our earth, it is important for Minnesotans to do our part to effectively use and conserve common pool resources. Our air, water, and land need to continue supporting future generations as they have supported us. This will only happen if we take sustainability by the reigns and make environmentally conscious decisions. So come on down to MN Goes Green tomorrow morning and take your steps to becoming a responsible enviro-citizen!

Another Sign Affording College is Not Getting Easier

Fri, 17 May 2013 15:30:10 +0000

By Alex Christensen, Policy Associate

It’s mid-May, meaning that college admissions decisions are out and most high school seniors have committed to their college. Now comes the worst part: finishing the last few weeks of high school!

That might seem like the worst part to the students themselves (I know it was for me), but a few more weeks of American History are a breeze compared to navigating the world of financial aid. With the price of college rising and wages stagnating, financing college is becoming more difficult.

There are subsidized loans, unsubsidized loans, and loans to cover the expected family contribution (which is more than many families can afford). There are Pell Grants, but those are covering less of students’ needs. As if that weren’t enough, The Atlantic reports that some colleges and universities are using financial aid dollars for relatively wealthy students while leaving students with financial need under piles of loans.

A handful of private colleges are restructuring their financial aid systems, however. While the New America Foundation report singles out small private colleges and public universities in the Ohio River Valley, private universities with large endowments have more flexibility.

I was lucky enough to study at Washington University in St. Louis (whose endowment is almost as large as the national economy of Cyprus), which is doing just that. Families that earn less than $60,000 per year are not expected to take out the loans included in the FAFSA financial package, which are replaced with grants funded by the university. Harvard University (with an endowment the size of Bosnia and Herzegovina) has taken its efforts even further. The Cambridge, Mass. college not only replaces loans for families making less than $60,000, but has a sliding pay scale based on income. Families making $120,000 are only expected to pay 10% of their income out-of-pockets and that percentage slides down, until incomes of $60,000 and less pay 0%. The key in the coming years is to translate the successes of these small, rich schools to the wider university system.

Experiments are going on in a few financial aid offices around the country, but the report is damning. The idea that elite institutions are tagging financial aid for already elite students undermines a basic tenant of education in the United States: that gifted students can reach the upper echelons of education as long as they put in the effort. As The Atlantic article says, the incentives are there for private colleges to continue these practices. The continued political pressure on the Pell Grant program only impedes the overcoming these issues.

Addressing financial aid distribution at elite universities might be putting the cart before the horse. Analysis from a few months ago shows that lower-income students, for the most part, never get to the point of receiving financial aid packages; they never apply to those schools in the first place.

Agreement on Fourth Tier Emerges

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:00:53 +0000

By Jeff Van Wychen, Fellow and Director of Tax Policy & Analysis

Yesterday morning’s Hindsight post regarding the ongoing tax and budget negotiations at the State Capitol speculated that the difference between the House’s offer of a 9.11% fourth tier income tax rate and the Senate’s offer of a 10.5% rate could be settled by agreeing to the 9.85% rate proposed in Governor Dayton’s budget. That turned out to be exactly what state policymakers decided to do.

Last Sunday, House and Senate leaders and Governor Dayton announced that they had agreed to limit the state income tax increase to the top two percent. However, left unsettled was the question of how much revenue would be raised from this income tax increase. At a press conference last night, that unsettled piece of the income tax increase was nailed down with the announcement of the 9.85 percent.

For taxable income above $250,000 for married joint filers, $200,000 for heads of households, and $150,000 for single filers—income that would fall in the new “fourth tier”—the tax rate would increase from 7.85 percent to 9.85 percent. This rate increase is projected to generate $1.1 billion in new revenue during the upcoming FY 2014-15 biennium.

The income tax surcharge contained in the House omnibus tax bill will not be part of the final tax deal. Governor Dayton and House and Senate leaders also stated at last night’s press conference that any new revenue above projected levels in the November 2013 and February 2014 state budget forecasts would be dedicated to paying back the K-12 school funding shift. If these revenue improvements are not sufficient to retire the entire K-12 shift, leadership said that they would pass legislation to pay back the remainder of the shift in 2014.

Also announced at last night’s press conference was an agreement to accept the House proposal to increase the state’s cigarette tax by $1.60 per pack, which would generate $371 million in FY 2014-15. However, another House proposal—an increase in the alcohol tax—is not included in the final tax deal.

The agreement announced at last night’s press conference will repeal some, but not all, of the corporate tax loopholes targeted in the House and Senate omnibus tax bills. However, the precise list of loopholes to be closed is not yet known, although a legislative source has indicated that the corporate tax haven loophole will not be among those repealed.

The House-Senate Tax Conference Committee will meet again tomorrow to work out unresolved tax issues, including property tax and sales tax items. Time is of the essence, since Monday is the last day of the session that the Legislature can pass bills.

However, with the income tax provisions agreed on today, a critical piece of the progressive agenda has been nailed down. Even with the increase in regressive cigarette taxes, Minnesota’s overall state and local tax system will become less regressive by virtue of the fourth tier income tax announced last night. Revenue from this tax increase will help to restore critical public investments to education, economic development, infrastructure, and property tax relief that have been allowed to languish for a decade.

The Invisible Bike Helmet

Thu, 16 May 2013 19:30:28 +0000

By Conrad deFiebre, Transportation Fellow

In the great debate among bicyclists -- helmet or not -- a couple of young Swedish women may have come up with a way to split the difference. Their invention, in limited commercial rollout but backed by $10 million in venture capital, mimics automobile airbag technology: out of sight until needed.

The Hövding invisible bike helmet is worn in a pouch around the neck until embedded sensors detect the start of a tumble. Then it deploys into a large, hoodlike cushion to protect the head from impact.

This could appeal to appearance-conscious riders but may not settle a deeper-seated argument over the best approach to bicycle safety. In much of bicycle-friendly Europe and by some U.S. cycling enthusiasts, helmets are disdained as falsely signaling that biking is inherently very risky. In this camp, as well, it's believed that helmets unfairly put the responsibility for safety on bicyclists rather than on drivers or public provision of separate lanes for two-wheelers.

On the other hand, many bicyclists consider helmets a common-sense response to actual dangers. This week's Ride of Silence, commemorating cyclists killed or injured in crashes, requires helmets, even though the ride won't exceed 12 m.p.h. And a young Minneapolis bike commuter I know says he could have died several times in spills but for his helmet.

At Minnesota 2020, we think helmets are the smart choice for anyone traveling by motorcycle or bicycle, just as seat belts make eminent sense for motorists and their passengers.

Taking on what they called an "impossible" challenge, Swedes Anna Haupt and Terese Alstin developed the 1½- pound battery-powered pop-up helmet as part of a master's degree thesis. Be sure to check the crash-test video on the link above. No word yet, though, on U.S. retail availability. In Scandinavia, Germany, Switzerland and Turkey, it lists at about $520, and about $75 for stylish extra airbag shells.

Differences Remain Between House and Senate Tax Negotiators

Thu, 16 May 2013 16:00:17 +0000

By Jeff Van Wychen, Fellow and Director of Tax Policy & Analysis

After a day of trading offers and counter-offers, members of the House and Senate tax conference committee met last night to discuss their outstanding differences. The third and most recent House offer and the subsequent Senate offer remain significantly apart.

House Tax Committee Chair Ann Lenczewski and lead tax negotiator for the House expressed concern over the magnitude of the differences in the fourth tier income tax rate between the House and Senate. Over the course of negotiations yesterday, the difference between the two bodies in terms of the fourth tier rate narrowed; however, the fourth tier rate in the last Senate offer is 10.5 percent (generating a projected $1,482 million in additional revenue in FY 2014-15), compared to 9.11 percent in the last House offer (generating a projected $707 million).

The fourth tier tax rate proposed by Governor Dayton in his revised budget is 9.85 percent. Based on the agreement reached by the Governor and House and Senate leadership last Sunday, the new fourth tier rate will apply to taxable income in excess of $250,000 for married joint filers, $200,000 for heads of households, and $150,000 for single filers; filers with taxable incomes above these levels comprise the top two percent of all Minnesota households by income and currently enjoy a significantly lower state and local effective tax rate than other Minnesota taxpayers.

House conferees noted that the House members were uncomfortable with the size of the fourth tier income tax rate proposed by the Senate and argued that a rate this high would not be necessary if the Senate would remove some of the additional “tax expenditures” from its budget. House negotiators specifically cited increased funding for the historic tax credit and angel investment credits as examples of new tax expenditures that could be removed from the Senate’s offer.

Senate conferees—lead by Tax Committee Chair Rod Skoe—argued that the higher income tax rate proposed by the Senate was necessary because—under last Sunday’s leadership agreement—the new rate would not kick-in until very high income levels and thus would not generate sufficient revenue at a lower rate. (In the Senate omnibus tax bill, the higher income tax rates would have applied to taxable income in excess of $140,960 for married joint filers—significantly lower than the $250,000 threshold agreed to last Friday.) Senate negotiators also defended the additional tax expenditures in their offer, arguing that they were useful economic development tools.

House conferees urged the Senate to consider the House’s proposed increase in alcohol taxes, proposed to be six cents per drink in the most recent House offer (down from seven cents in previous offers), which would generate $289 million in new revenue in FY 2014-15. In addition, the House negotiators asked the Senate to agree to the House proposed cigarette tax increase of $1.60 per pack, compared to the Senate’s proposed increase of $0.94 per pack.

Chair Lenczewski defended the increase in the alcohol tax on the grounds that it would help to pay for the societal costs associated with excessive alcohol consumption. She also argued that the House’s higher cigarette tax per pack would not only generate $371 million in new revenue ($72 million more than would be generated by the Senate’s offer of $0.94 per pack), but would reduce the incidence of smoking, especially among price sensitive teens.

Chair Skoe responded by noting that both cigarette taxes and alcohol taxes are highly regressive, falling most heavily on those Minnesotans with the least ability to pay. (This is confirmed by the 2013 Minnesota Tax Incidence Study; in fact, the cigarette tax is the most regressive of all state taxes.) Skoe also noted that the alcohol tax would affect nearly all Minnesotans, thereby deviating from the Governor’s goal of only increasing taxes on the top two percent.

Both the House and Senate negotiators are making reasonable points. While tax credits and other tax expenditures are promoted on the basis that they will create jobs and promote economic development, it is difficult to prove that the generate any more economic activity than would have occurred in their absence. On the other hand, if the final tax agreement relies too heavily on regressive excise taxes and not enough on progressive income taxes, it is possible that it will not make progress in reducing the regressivity of Minnesota’s tax system. Reduction in tax regressivity is a goal embraced by the House, Governor, and Senate.

A possible compromise would be to settle on the fourth tier income tax rate proposed by Governor Dayton—9.85 percent. This is approximately half way between the rates proposed in the most recent House and Senate offers and would generate a project $1,119 million in FY 2014-15. In addition, the new tax expenditures in the Senate proposal could be trimmed and the magnitude of the cigarette and alcohol tax increases in the Senate proposal could be reduced. This compromise could allow the negotiators to reach the $2.05 billion revenue target agreed to last Sunday, while at the same time reducing the regressivity of Minnesota’s tax system.

If the tax conference committee fails to reach an agreement soon, the final decisions could be “kicked upstairs” to the Governor, House Speaker Paul Thissen, and Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk. Today promises to be a busy day for the tax conferees.

Liberty and (Environmental) Justice for All

Thu, 16 May 2013 14:30:32 +0000

By Christina Motilall, Fellow

I remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance almost every day during my K-12 tenure. The part that always stuck with me was ‘…liberty and justice for all.” The part I always took for granted was ‘…the United States of America.” When you think of America you think of 50 states and DC. Yet scattered throughout the U.S. are dozens of sovereign Native American Nations. So where does state and federal power stop and tribal jurisdiction begin?

As my interest in the environment grew, I began researching how Minnesota and our many Tribal Nations interact on federal and state environmental policies. What I discovered was a tangled set of policies. Minnesota and 5 other states have been given civil and criminal jurisdiction over tribal lands (minus the Red Lake Nation in Minnesota) through Public Law 280. This transfer of federal power to state power means that state environmental policies are seen more as ways to prohibit certain actions rather than to regulate a way of life.

The remaining Federal environmental policies mandate certain protection and remediation efforts on tribal lands to protect the livelihood of Tribal Nations who choose to exercise their subsistence rights (such as fishing and gathering). Some Tribal nations have applied for the ‘Treatment-as-a-State” designation in Minnesota to allow them to enact federal policies on their own land instead of state implementation. Different Tribes have gained ‘Treatment-as-a-State’ status for different federal policies.

What makes all of this so interesting to me is that Tribal lands are supposed to be sovereign. So why does the federal government and the state of Minnesota have any say on environmental issues at all? From what I can tell, it is more a product of habit than actually following written law. With pipelines being run through Tribal lands, when the majority of people on that land don't want them, I think more can be done to protect Tribal lands. The tangled web of policies is not easy, but it is a start. To uphold 'Liberty and (Environmental) Justice for all' in the environmental realm, Tribal nations need their voices to be heard.

Senate Makes Counter-Offer to House

Wed, 15 May 2013 21:24:37 +0000

By Jeff Van Wychen, Fellow and Director of Tax Policy & Analysis

Senate tax conferees have responded to the House offer—summarized in a previous Hindsight post—with their own counter-offer. The two plans are in agreement on some issues and diverge on others.

The Senate is proposing a fourth tier income tax rate increase significantly larger than what is being proposed by the House. The Senate offer would raise nearly $1.6 billion in FY 2014-15 from the fourth tier income tax on the wealthiest two percent of Minnesotans, nearly three times more than would be generated in the last House offer and significantly more than would have been generated under the Senate’s omnibus tax bill. Both offers include the income tax surcharge, but it is not clear if the level of the surcharge is identical.

While the Senate offer proposes a large fourth tier income tax rate increase, it has a significantly smaller cigarette tax increase—94 cents per pack (generating $299 million in FY 2014-15) as opposed to $1.60 in the House offer (generating $370 million). The Senate offer does not extend the cigarette tax to “little cigars” or increase alcohol taxes, as the House offer does.

Both the House and Senate offers would exempt local governments and other entities from the sales tax. However, the list of what would and would not be exempted is not identical. Among the provisions in the Senate offer that is not in the House offer is the sales tax exemption for capital equipment purchases. Under current law, purchases of capital equipment is subject to the sales tax; this tax is later refunded. The Senate proposal would exempt capital equipment upfront, thereby reducing administrative hassles by eliminating the need for a refund. The upfront capital equipment exemption does have a significant one-time cost to the state of $140 million in FY 2014-15, but a significantly smaller cost in subsequent biennia.

Like the House offer, the Senate offer proposes extending the sales tax to warehousing and storage services. In addition, the Senate extends the sales tax to electronic and commercial repair and maintenance and to telecommunications equipment. Net of the sales tax base expansion and the new exemptions, the Senate offer would generate $48 million from the sales tax in the FY 2014-15 biennium and considerably more in the second biennium (FY 2016-17) as the cost to the state of the upfront capital equipment exemption declines after the initial biennia.

The Senate offer repeals some corporate tax loopholes, but not as many as the House offer does. Not included among the loopholes closed by the Senate are the foreign royalty subtraction and tax haven provisions. While the House offer would generate a projected $394 million in FY 2014-15 from corporate loophole closing, the Senate offer would generate only $108 million.

Click here for a link of items in the Senate’s tax offer. It is difficult to compare the items in this offer to the items in the House offer because of different ways in which the items are categorized and caution should be used when doing so. For example, the total FY 2014-15 projected revenue increase under the Senate offer is $2.05 billion, compared to $2.92 billion in the House offer. However, this difference is due to the fact that the House adds the one-time revenue from the income tax surcharge to its FY 2014-15 revenue total, while the Senate does not. Ignoring this difference in how items are tallied, both offers are generating a similar amount of new revenue in FY 2014-15, although the Senate appears to be generating somewhat more in the FY 2016-17 biennium.

The initial House and Senate offers are part of an ongoing negotiation that will extend for at least another day. Offers and counter-offers will be traded between House and Senate tax conferees until a final tax agreement is reached. The final agreement of the tax conference committee—referred to as the “tax conference committee report”—should be completed before the weekend.

House Makes Tax Offer to Senate

Wed, 15 May 2013 18:19:13 +0000

By Jeff Van Wychen, Fellow and Director of Tax Policy & Analysis

The agreement announced by Governor Dayton, Speaker Thissen, and Majority Leader Bakk on Sunday set the broad framework for the final tax bill, but many of the specifics have yet to be resolved. Part of the process of settling these specifics involves the trading of offers and counter-offers between House and Senate tax conference committee members, who are charged with working out the differences between their respective bodies. As part of this process, the House conferees presented an offer to the Senate this morning.

In this offer, the House proposes to set the new fourth tier income tax rate at 8.84 percent, which is greater than the 8.49 percent rate proposed in the House tax bill, but less than the 9.85 percent rate proposed by the Governor and the 9.3 percent rate in the Senate tax bill. (The Senate’s rate would apply to the existing third tier.) The income level at which the new fourth tier tax rate would kick in was part of the broader Sunday agreement and is based on the Governor’s proposal. (The various income tax rates and tier thresholds were discussed in a recent Minnesota 2020 article.) The fourth tier proposal in the House offer is projected to generate $555 million in FY 2014-15, approximately half of what would be generated by the Senate tax bill and the Governor’s proposal.

The temporary income tax surcharge—part of the House omnibus tax bill—is also included in the House offer. The surcharge would be in effect for two years at a rate yet to be determined, but sufficient to generate a projected $861 million in FY 2014-15, somewhat less than what would have been generated by the House omnibus tax bill. The House proposal fills in details of the general income tax surcharge agreement announced on Sunday. Revenue from the surcharge would be used to pay back the remaining K-12 education funding shift.

The House offer proposes to close several corporate tax loopholes, including the foreign royalty deduction (except for unitary business groups involved in research & development), foreign operating corporation provisions, and foreign tax haven provisions. The offer would also close loopholes pertaining to foreign partnership income, real estate investment trust dividends, and “nowhere income.” In regard to corporate income tax, the House offer would also increase corporate minimum fees, which have not been adjusted for inflation for several years. The total revenue projected to be generated by the corporate income tax provisions in the House offer—including items not listed here—is $394 million in FY 2014-15.

Also included in the House offer is a proposal to increase the cigarette tax by $1.60 per pack and to impose the cigarette tax on “little cigars.” The House offer also proposes to increase the alcohol tax to seven cents per drink. Most of the provisions in the House offer pertaining to cigarette and tobacco taxes are similar to what was in the House omnibus tax bill and are projected to raise a total of $871 million in FY 2014-15.

The sales tax provisions in the House offer are approximately revenue neutral, resulting in only a small reduction in total sales tax revenue. Here the House proposes to exempt counties and cities from the state sales tax and to begin imposing the sales tax on warehousing and storage services. Inclusion of these proposals in the House offer, which were part of the Senate tax bill but not the House bill, represents a concession on the part of the House to the Senate position.

The House offer did not include proposals regarding the unresolved property tax issues, such as the House proposal to expand the homeowners’ property tax refund (PTR) and to adjust the LGA appropriation for inflation in future years. Also not included in the House offer was the Senate’s proposal for school property tax relief and similar but different proposals from both the House and Senate regarding the renters’ PTR. For a complete list of all of the provision that were in the House’s tax offer—including provisions not described above—click here.

The House-Senate tax conferees are scheduled to meet this afternoon to discuss the House’s offer and possibly consider a counter-offer from the Senate. Stay tuned!

Reserve Bank Warns of Farm Land Bubble

Wed, 15 May 2013 16:00:52 +0000

By Lee Egerstrom, Economic Development Fellow

Another Minnesota real estate bubble is forming; this time on the country side, with prime farm land prices rising to record highs.

Two Kansas City Federal Reserve officials use regression models to show why everyone, especially in the Midwest, should be downright leery about these price spikes and the debt loads they carry. The Fed’s Main Street Economist highlights that while farm debt-to-asset ratios do not yet appear to be in the danger zone (20 percent or higher), data for 2012 and the winter land sales of 2013 are still unknown.

Farm booms in the 1910s and 1970s were succeeded by farm bankruptcies and widespread farm financial crises in the 1920s and 1980s. And just like nonfarm households, farm families leverage existing wealth (assets) in times of low income to support consumption and make existing debt payments.

If you’ve been paying attention the last six years, you’ve seen this play out in housing market problems and home values that are now, at long last, showing signs of recovery. If your memory stretches long enough, you will recall the farm financial collapse of the 1980s that followed similar bubbles and bursts, from which a large percentage of rural Minnesota communities never did significantly recover.

While we don’t know for sure the condition of today’s farm operations heading into another growing season, we have been properly warned. The fed officials point out USDA projections that show 2014 U.S. net farm income likely to fall 20 to 25 percent below 2013 levels and stabilize in that range in the coming decade.

Further, they cite projections that net returns for raising corn – the biggest driver of land prices – will likely fall from averaging $580 per acre the past two years to fall below $350 per acre by next year. At the same time, the Fed farm experts found farm debt outstanding at commercial banks rose 5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 and by 5.7 percent at Farm Credit System institutions. This compares with commercial bank and Farm Credit leverage increasing by less than 1 percent annually since 2008.

“History has shown that significant increases in farm leverage set the stage for deleveraging cycles and farm busts if land values fall,” they concluded.

“Whether this farm boom simple fades or busts depends on the wealth effect and how farmers finance agricultural investments.”