Rather than undertake a thoughtful, deliberative analysis on how to reduce Maine’s income tax rate, Gov. LePage and Republicans in the Legislature are pushing through a proposal that would instead cut it in half, the consequences be damned.

While a lower income tax rate certainly could help spur business and job growth, choking off the revenue the current rate produces — as much as $600 million per year — could put state government into perpetual crisis management mode. The $600 million estimate does not include federal funds that come to Maine through state matches, which will be dropped if the money is not available, making for a more dramatic reduction.

LD 849 would divert a portion of excess revenues toward a stepped process that cuts the income tax rate, eventually reaching a flat 4 percent for all filers. The top rate is currently 8.5 percent, but the governor’s budget brings the top rate down to 7.95 percent beginning next year. Currently, any unanticipated revenue would be diverted to a rainy day fund and other budget lines through a mechanism known as the cascade. It also is used to pay off unanticipated obligations, like debts to hospitals or filling holes in the Department of Health and Human Services budget.

Republican proponents say the income tax cut is paid for; Democrats counter that it is covered only in the first year of each downward step. Rep. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, likens such an approach to buying a new car after winning $100 on a scratch lottery ticket: the first month’s bill might be covered, but the remaining payments loom large.

By ratcheting a reduction in the income tax rate, the plan forces cuts in other state activities that have been underfunded in recent years due to the recession. For example, school districts have repeatedly noted that the state has not met its goal of funding K-12 education at 55 percent of total costs. If there is more revenue, it could be applied toward that goal.

Opponents of LD 849 correctly note that when a deep tax cut forces the state to back off on funding various activities, the local property tax generally picks up the slack. Education, road work, poverty assistance programs and dozens of other activities will see less funding by the state. Even if locals agree that some government-funded programs should be scaled back, at least some of the burden will fall to the property tax bill.

The 4 percent income tax rate will benefit everyone who files in Maine, but it will benefit some more than others. Democrats opposing the bill say 75 percent of the tax cuts will be enjoyed by just 20 percent of the population. This raises questions of equity, always germaine in tax reform discussions.

As the economy recovers, tax revenue will indeed rebound. With state government expenditures at what are presumably low points, given the ravages of the recession, it makes sense to try to institute some fiscal discipline now, rather than risk expansion of programs through weak-willed legislators.

But this forced diet is not the way to shrink government. In fact, it is suspiciously like the various taxpayer bill of rights proposals that Mainers repeatedly have shot down at the polls. Such mindless, rigid autopilots are not worthy of our representative government. Nor is the party-line vote that has propelled LD 849 forward.

Cutting the income tax rate in half is a bold move that may prove to be a brilliant solution to many of our economic problems. Bold moves, though, can go terribly wrong if not carefully vetted and discussed.

Join the Conversation

57 Comments

  1. Will the Bangor Daily News Editorial Board provide ANY evidence to support this claim:

    While a lower income tax rate certainly could help spur business and job growth.

    Please. Please post your data in the comments.

    1. if lower taxes spur business and  job growth– what happened with the bush tax cuts—something republicans choose to ignore

      1. New Hampshire’s unemployment rate is about 5.8% Maine’s is close to 7% Maine’s average income is 40K New Hampshire’s is 60k.  Maine has a tax for everything. New Hampshire operates without an income or sales tax.  New Hampshire’s children score higher on SAT’s New Hampshire maintains better roads, and New Hampshire’s rate of drug addiction is half that of Maine. 

        I love it here in Maine, but I’m ready to try something new in the tax/business venue.

        1. Keep in mind that NH funds a great portion of their expenses through property taxes.  I have two siblings living in NH, one pays 3X the property tax I do (recreation region), the other pays more than 4X (city), both have smaller homes with roughly the same market value as mine.  FYI, my property tax bill is approximately $2600.  Be careful what you wish for.  NH’s tax system works well for some, not so well for others.

    2. Gerald believes that additional expenses – such as higher taxes – that take money away from a business and thus their payroll and capital improvements have no effect on that business’s viability and ability to expand and inovate. He believes that when the economy is good, raise taxes. When the economy is failing, raise them even more.

    3. Maryland implemented a “millionaire’s” tax in 2008.  Their studies found that 1/6 of those making over $1 million never filed a return after the increase indicating most of the 1/6 left the state .  The reverse seems to be true.

    4. The trickle up theory…….duuuuhhhhh

      I can’t tell if you’re being serious with the challenge you propose, or if you’re just stirring the pot…

  2. “This raises questions of equity, always germaine in tax reform discussions.”

    More evidence that copy editing is no longer valued as much as it once was. Psst: “germane,” not “germaine.”

  3. Some interesting approximates: The top 20% of Mainer earners earn as little as $80,000 per year. That top 20% of Mainers pay about 70% of the total income tax revenue. The bottom 50% of Maine taxpayers pay about 8% of income tax revenue. Can someone please explain to me why on earth it is an issue of tax equity that the top 20% of earners should receive about 75% of the tax cut? Who else is going to receive the bulk of a tax cut but the people who pay the bulk of the taxes?

    1. The assumption is that top-tier earners are not having trouble putting food on the table, keeping up with medical bills, clothing their children or paying their college tuition, filling their oil tanks and keeping old vehicles running. Sure, they should get some of the benefits of tax cuts, but why not tilt it more to benefit middle-income folks, for whom such help is more meaningful in their day-to-day lives?

      1. Any cuts to the top income tax rate give the most benefits to those who pay the most taxes. Republicans did recently, however, remove 70,000+ lower income tax payers from the Maine income tax. Why did your paper not opine on that?

      2. I hear what you are saying, but if you look at the numbers, low income people just don’t pay much in taxes. LePage’s plan already eliminates the tax liability for those on the bottom of the income scale. That leaves people making about $30,000 to $80,000 who you suggest should be the focus of tax cuts. The problem there is that they just don’t pay all that much in taxes. You could cut their taxes to zero and give the top 20% no tax cut–but does it seem fair that a person making $30,000+ per year should pay no income tax at all?
        I just think using the “fact” that 75% of the tax cuts will go to the top 20% of earners is a misleading statement that shows only part of the full picture.

        1. “The Maine statistics complement a report released last month by the Congressional Budget Office showing that real, after-tax income grew by 275 percent from 1979 to 2007 for the top 1 percent of the population with the highest income. By comparison, the six out of 10 residents in the middle of the scale saw real income rise by under 40 percent during the period.” – Portland Press Herald: http://www.pressherald.com/news/maine-has-6838-in-top-1-percent-earning-_810805_2011-11-16.html

          In 1979 oregonstate.edu says the real minimum wage in 2010 dollars was about $8.70 and in 2010 it was about $7.25. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

          Live it up while you can Thurston Howells

          1.  What do you suppose the statistics would say if you added in the last few years. Seems like as soon as these stats come out they become irrelevant.

          2. http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2012/01/24/politics/jobs-budget-among-maine-governors-speech-topics/ – Gov. LePage says  70,000 ham and eggers didn’t have to pay income taxes since he took office.

            http://blog.mecep.org/2012/02/maine-leads-the-nation-in-job-losses/ – Maine lost more jobs per capita than any other US state in 2011

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-05/-hell-raising-lepage-of-maine-vows-to-cut-government-like-chris-christie.html – Candidate LePage proposes giving poor people bus tickets to Massachusetts (4th paragraph)

            “Single parents without children under 6 are required to participate 30 hours per week. – ” Maine TANF ASPIRE program according to Maine Equal Justice Partners: http://www.mejp.org/aspire-tanf.htm#minimum_wage –

            I don’t know how relevant you may find these stats, Cheesecake, but how much would 70,000 bus tickets to Massachusetts cost the state?

  4. Hey look, Susan Young and the BDN are doing the dirty work for the Dems once again.  Glad you know how to copy/paste from the Dem press releases.

        1. Yes, thank goodness Ms. Young (creator of ClickBack) is now the Managing Editor, Harry, since compete.com says the Bangor Daily News had 458,186 unique vistors to its Web site in February and the Portland Press Herald had 1,213.

          http://siteanalytics.compete.com/bangordailynews.com/

          http://siteanalytics.compete.com/portlandpressherald.com/

          Zelda Fitzgerald couldn’t attend her husband Scott’s funeral ’cause she was being treated for schizophrenia in a hospital in NC, but after she read “The Last Tycoon”she began her novel, “Caesar’s Things”.

  5. Here is what we will have: poorer roads and bridges, poorer schools, weaker, more expensive colleges, a clogged court system,  over-stretched law enforcement, poorer, more limited health care, and the abandonment of a safety net for the most disadvantaged citizens.  We’ll become North Mississippi or West Albania.

    1. Geez…everything you listed sounds like what we had through all of Baldacci’s two terms.  That worked out so well we should keep doing it, eh?

        1. I saw more paving last year than I’ve seen in the last several years. And we didn’t have a ginormous bond to do it. In fact there was no bond.  Amazing what happens when you get your priorities straight.

          1. No. They did 295 and maybe some of 95 with Obamabucks but I don’t think they did any State roads in Somerset, Kennebec, Piscataquis with that money

    1. top 1% pay 40% of the income taxes  top 10% pay 67% of all fed income taxes.  How can you suggest that they are not paying their fair share when 1/2 the eligible voting population pays no fed income tax.

      1. Cite the 1/2, because it’s around 40-some percent of people who are old enough to earn income (not vote) pay no taxes, and at least 2/3 of them are seniors on fixed incomes and kids working part-time jobs

        1. Actually the figure he uses is a canard.  97% of people in this United States pay at least 20% of their income in some form of tax.  Sales tax, Gas tax, Property tax, Excise tax, and a plethora of hidden taxes are not indexed by income, hence the term “regressive.”  If you make $20,000 a year, and pay $4,000 in taxes, your tax rate is 20% no matter how you feed it to the government. Interestingly, the lower a person’s income, the more of it he spends. While a wealthy or even upper middle-class person can “shelter” a percentage of income from the tax man, Retirement plans, college savings trusts, municipal bonds, and off shore accounts are a few examples. 

          One could argue that some people who work for low wage pay the highest percentage in taxes and fees. 

  6. What a shame – 25% of Maine children currently live in poverty and we are talking tax cuts? Where are our priorities? I would advocate a rise in tax rates for everyone, 12% at the top reducing to 5% based on the lower tax brackets (yes, I am saying raise everyone’s’ taxes across the board). We have the means to take our future – our children – out of poverty but instead we as a state seem to be heading in the opposite direction; what a sad (and sickening) state of affairs when we disregard our most precious resource.

    1. Oh please.  With one of the highest tax/income ratios in the USA 25% of Maine’s children live in poverty. (I’m taking your word for this Kids first says 18% of Maine’s children live in poverty 2010 the last year for which there are figures) http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=43

      Do you really believe that if Mainers were taxed at 50% of their income children in poverty would fare better? Maybe there would be more families forced into poverty?

      Only 10% of New Hampshire’s children live in poverty (I’m using Kids Count’s figures) and that State has neither an income NOR sales tax.

      Your screen name says it all. Some of us (usually the ones paying their bills) disagree.

      1. I put my money where my mouth is – I currently am in the top 10% income in the state – yes I can afford pay more and so can you. The 25% poverty figure came out yesterday here in the BDN, that’s where I got the figure. And also – have you seen the property tax rates in New Hampshire? It makes up for the lack of state income tax and sales tax – they still pay in almost as much as a Mainer does as a result- just ask any property owner in that state.

        We can all afford higher taxes so get real.

        1. I am not anywhere near the top 10% of wage earners in Maine. To state that I can afford to give up more of my income makes you appear to be out of touch with the other 90%. 

          I do pay taxes, income tax, sales tax, property tax, gasoline tax, and many more. I understand the need for taxes. They are the price we pay for our society. My complaint, and the main complaint of many others I’m sure, is when that hard earned money is used for social experimentation, rewarding political supporters, or buying the favor of voting groups. 

          Since our “leaders” seem to be incapable of curbing their spending addiction, the only solution many of us see is to cut off the funds. It is the same thing you do when a spoiled child runs amok with your credit card. Suddenly having limited funds tends to focus the mind.    

          1. Sorry James, I was with you 100 precent until you started talking about spoiled children running around over spending your credit card.

            No child spoiled or otherwise  runs amok with my credit card. Children need to use cash.  Earn it, and use it. 

          2. If you’re giving your child a credit card, you certainly can afford to pay more in taxes…. Parents in poverty don’t let their children use their credit cards….. You’re not being honest, or you can most definitely pay a little more in taxes to help the needy and handicapped…. 

        2. I own property in New Hampshire, and the taxes there (Lancaster) are not any worse than my Maine shore front.  Sure I could pay more taxes, and If I saw that these taxes were doing some good, maybe I’d even enjoy paying more, BUT the point of my post (above) is that children are a low priority.  I’ve spent most of my adult life attempting to change that, but to not much avail.

          No matter which party is in office, or what the tax-rate is, children are still poor, hungry, and neglected….many of them… I prefer spending my own money where I see local need. 

        3. You put your money where your mouth is?  You’re currently paying 12% state income tax?  Do tell!

      2. I checked the total amount of revenue, state and local, in New Hampshire and Maine.  It was around $7.9 billion in Maine in 2009 and about $7.2 billion in New Hampshire.  New Hampshire may not have sales or income taxes but they tax something.  The Tax Foundation says that New Hampshire leads the nation by far in relying on property taxes.  New Hampshire gets 61.3% of revenue from property taxes.  Vermont is next at 42.1%.  Property in New Hampshire must be cheap with all those people getting out because of the property tax burden.

    2. Higher rates don’t mean more revenue.   A 12% rate would most likely shrink the tax base.  Certainly would make my decision easier when I retire in the next couple of years.

  7. [T]he plan forces cuts in other state activities that have been
    underfunded in recent years due to the recession. For example, school
    districts have repeatedly noted that the state has not met its goal of
    funding K-12 education at 55 percent of total costs. If there is more
    revenue, it could be applied toward that goal.

    More likely, any excess revenue would be used to justify new shiny programs that would also end up being underfunded.

  8. States that remove this tax have really high property tax. More slight of hand politics. But if you keep the property tax sort of level and remove this tax and educate on spending he may have a good idea. Lesson one, quit spending other peoples money foolishly.

  9. This is not a good idea. Many, many people will be hurt by this, just so a few can escape paying their share of taxes. When everyone is taken care of with a decent standard of living, everyone will prosper as the economy will prosper.

  10. Maine’s poorer, rural areas that benefit most from progressive taxes and government expenditures, keep sending legislators to Augusta who vote to cut progressive taxes and government expenditures.

    Maine’s richer areas that pay the most in progressive taxes that fund rural area government benefits such as education, law enforcement, assistance for the poor, keep sending legislators to Augusta who support progressive taxes and programs that help the poorer rural communities.

    Sooner or later downstate liberals may figure out that Maine’s rural voters don’t really want Northern Maine Community College, Washington County Community College, University of Maine at Fort Kent, Presque Isle, Machias, state aid to primary and secondary schools, courts, state police protection, etc…

    Then what?

    1. In other words, those ignorant hicks just don’t know what is good for themselves in rural Maine? Thank the Lord they have those rich progressive down in Portland.
      I’d like to see numbers that support your hypothesis. I would think that larger cities benefit just as much, if not more, than the rural areas from tax revenue. Those wealthy areas have schools, courts, need for more police protection, more roads to maintain, more infrastructure to support. They get more reimbursement from state revenues for general assistance.
      I think people do vote in their best interests. Even in rural Maine.

      1. I too would like to see figures that could prove or disprove my conclusion here.  It would be an interesting study.
         
        However, I think we can agree that these facts are true without getting at the actual numbers:
         
        Maine’s less rural first congressional district is more liberal and supportive of progressive taxes than Maine’s second congressional district.
         
        Average incomes in Maine’s first congressional district are higher (and therefore pay higher progressive tax rates) than those in Maine’s second congressional district.
         
        Unemployment is consistently lower in Maine’s first congressional district (5.5% in Portland) than in Maine’s second congressional district (Aroostook Cty 9.5%).
         
        Poverty is less prevalent in Maine’s first congressional district (Cumberland Cty 10.5%) than in the second (Aroostook Cty 15.4%).
         
        In general liberal southern Maine pays more and receives less, while conservative rural Maine pays less and receives more. 
         
        Both are voting against their self interests.

        1. 1st point: I can agree.
          2nd point: Probably so.
          3rd point and 4th point: you are not comparing  apples here. For instance, 10.5% of Cumberland County means that about 29,500 individuals live in poverty; 15.4 % of Aroostook County amounts to about 11,000 people. So, based on the number of people in poverty, I would expect that Cumberland County receives much more in poverty relief than Aroostook County does. What also figures into this is the extent of government programs accessed by residents of each respective county. Many in rural Maine live in “poverty” but are still self-sufficient and do not rely on government aid.
          So I can’t agree with your generalization that southern Maine pays more and receives less while conservative, rural Maine pays less and receives more. It may be so. But I’d like to see the numbers.

      2. Nope, Jason is correct.  Same thing happens on a national level.  States like California and New York pay much more in federal taxes than they get back (about 70 cents on the dollar, depending on the state), while states like Mississippi and Alabama get about 1.30 back from the federal government for every tax dollar they send to D.C, yet those are the states who send anti-government crusaders to Washington.  It’s not that rural people “don’t know what’s best for them” it’s that they can’t afford what’s best for them without denser, wealthier areas revenue support.  Here are some numbers….
        http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

        1. Interesting  numbers…but I think there is more going on than just pay  in and get back based on political affiliation. For instance, New Mexico is a blue state, but has consistently received the number one ranking for getting the most federal dollars for every dollar in taxes they pay. What could it be about NM besides its political makeup and its relative poverty that could justify so much consistent federal spending?
          My guess centers on the Los Alamos region.

          1. I did not say anything about red v blue, mainly its urban vs rural.  The political point is only about hypocracy.  New Mexico is a rural state with a long federal border to protect.  It has nothing to do with aliens or secret military bases (as far as I know….)

  11. My wife made 39,000 dollars last year, claimed 1 on her taxes and she still has to pay additional money to the state for taxes. I believe it’s pretty clear that our state and national goverment, along with ALL politicians, have a serious problem with accepting that their spending to much. The following comment just highlights how out of touch they are. “Rep. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, likens such an approach to buying a new car after winning $100 on a scratch lottery ticket: the first month’s bill might be covered, but the remaining payments loom large”. Sounds like Rep. Berry is describing how both parties plan for spending our hard earned money.

  12. What the republicans are doing is trying to get a few points with the people. The goverment cried they needed money and to cut money going to town schools ect. Now they want to put everyone in deeper with cutting the tax. Little bit of history. The excise tax years ago was surpose to be temp, but time will have it, someone lied to the people. The same is going to go for the income tax. You cant pull a rabbit out of a hat in the real world.

  13. “Nor is the party-line vote that has propelled LD 849 forward”I don’t really remember BDN pointing out party line votes quite so much if at all when it was the Democrat party vote pushing things through.

  14. LeBUFFOON thoughtful?  Ya, good luck with that.  All they understand are mindless numbheaded autopilot nonsense formulas designed to gut revenues to carry out their Master Grover Norquist’s orders.  Republicans don’t ever think for themselves.  They take oathes from Norquist and their corporate masters who own them like puppets and do whatever they say.  Well, things will change come November when we chuck out the TeaNuts in a big way.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *