Taxation of Business by US State and Local Governments

1987 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
S D Gold
Keyword(s):  
Tax Competition ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Tax Rates ◽  
Corporation Tax ◽  
Business Taxes ◽  
Us Economy ◽  
The Us ◽  
State And Local ◽  
State Taxes ◽  
Business Share

The US federal system is undergoing significant change in numerous respects, one of which is the tax treatment of business. Taxes with an initial impact on business have traditionally provided a large amount of revenue to state and local governments, and they still do. But the business share of state and local taxes has decreased significantly compared with what it was several decades ago. Moreover, since interstate tax competition has intensified, the business share of taxes may continue to decline. The intensification of interstate tax competition is related to the increased priority of economic development as a goal of state policy. The severe unemployment of the early 1980s is probably the single most important factor in heightened concern about job creation. The increased openness of the US economy—implying especially acute problems for state economies dependent on heavy industry and farming—has also contributed. The decrease in federal corporation tax rates has made state taxes loom larger, and corporations have become more sophisticated about playing states against each other. In this paper, recent trends in business taxation are described and analyzed. The concern is not with evaluating these trends or suggesting how future policies might be changed. The paper may, however, contribute to the formulation of future policies by bringing together in one place a brief discussion of the disparate trends that have been affecting how state and local governments tax business.

scholarly journals Integrated Data Systems in the US: a National Survey of State and Local Governments and their University Partners

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adelia Jenkins ◽  
Dennis Culhane
Keyword(s):  
Learning Community ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Data Matrix ◽  
Data Systems ◽  
The Us ◽  
State And Local ◽  
K 12

Background Actionable Intelligence for Social Policy (AISP) is an initiative of the University of Pennsylvania that focuses on the development, use, and innovation of integrated data systems (IDS). We convene a network of IDS across the United States and provide technical assistance to support developing sites as they build the technical and human capacity to integrate and use administrative data across agencies. Main AimIn late 2018 and early 2019, AISP conducted a national survey of integrated data efforts to better understand the landscape and how it’s changed since the last national scan was completed in 2013. The survey also served to document who is leading data sharing efforts, what data they are linking, and how linked data are currently being used. This information was used to create a centralized data matrix and contact list in order to support cross-site learning and facilitate future projects and analyses. Methods/ApproachThe survey was disseminated to AISP Network Sites, Learning Community sites, and others by AISP staff and partner organizations, including the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership Network and Arnold Policy Labs initiative. Survey responses were analyzed by AISP in spring 2019. ResultsThe survey yielded 39 responses from state and local governments and their research partners. The most common uses of integrated data among those surveyed are informing policy, program evaluation, and research. Integrated case management and resource allocation are also increasingly informed by integrated data. The most commonly integrated data sources are early childhood, child welfare, and K-12 education. Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, and UI Wage Records have also been integrated by over 50% of sites surveyed. The most common lingering challenges reported by sites related to sustainability. ConclusionSurvey results document the purposes and sources of data currently integrated by jurisdictions across the US and have major implications for the field both nationally and internationally.

Do State Sales Taxes Crowd Out Local Option Sales Taxes?

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory S. Burge ◽  
Cynthia L. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Sales Tax ◽  
Tax Rates ◽  
Tax Base ◽  
Tax Rate ◽  
Sales Taxes ◽  
Fiscal Externalities ◽  
Crowd Out ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Fiscal Spillovers

Abstract Currently, sales taxes are imposed at both the state and local levels in 37 US states. In these environments, vertical tax competition occurs as governments share a common sales tax base, and local jurisdictions have autonomy over sales tax rates. As cash-strapped states look to sales taxes for additional revenues, local governments may worry about potentially adverse revenue impacts, as consumers react to combined tax rate increases. This study examines state-municipal and county-municipal fiscal spillovers using an empirical approach that accounts for endogenous tax policy leadership and voter tax fatigue. Employing comprehensive longitudinal data from Oklahoma, we find that state tax hikes significantly crowd out future rate increases for the large group of jurisdictions that are designated as followers. Leader jurisdictions are not found to display crowd-out tendencies, a result that is consistent with recent work suggesting that leaders may be less influenced by vertical fiscal externalities than other jurisdictions.

Local Governments

2021 ◽  
pp. 303-328
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Rural Areas ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Home Rule ◽  
Municipal Governments ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
The Us ◽  
One Step ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
State And Local

The US Constitution never mentions “city,” “county,” or “township,” not even “local” or “municipal” governments. It concerns itself only with sovereign entities. Because local governments “cannot claim to be sovereigns” and because whatever power a local government has tends to flow from its state, that sounds like the end of the matter. But local governments still exercise sovereign powers, including law enforcement, eminent domain, education, taxing, zoning, and other indispensable “attributes of sovereignty.” Even if the US Constitution does not mention cities by name and even if cities cannot claim sovereign status, the federal charter still has ample consequences for municipal governments. This chapter takes vertical separation of powers one step further, to federalism within federalism. It explains the division of powers between state and local governments and chronicles disputes that have arisen between them. If, in modern America, like-minded people increasingly gravitate to similar states, the same is true within states, whether in cities, suburbs, or rural areas. Home rule and other local allocations of power sometimes allow people in these communities to express their distinct political preferences and live under them, too.

Entrepreneurs' Technical Assistance Program (ETAP)

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
F.J. Fraikor ◽  
S.K. Purcell ◽  
R.J. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Assistance Program ◽  
Rocky Flats ◽  
Start Up ◽  
The Us ◽  
Technical Assistance Program ◽  
State And Local

In June 1993, the US Department of Energy announced the decision to shut down production of nuclear weapon components at its Rocky Flats plant located near Denver, Colorado, and begin a long-term clean-up of the facility. Faced with very severe economic impacts from downsizing the facility (approximately 8,000 employees at its peak), federal, state, and local governments formed a Community Reuse Organization to develop and implement strategies to mitigate the effects of displaced workers and lost income. This paper describes an innovative partnership concept, specifically aimed at providing technology-based start-up companies with world-class university expertise that they otherwise could not afford.

4. What state and local governments do

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-60
Author(s):  
Mark J. Rozell ◽  
Clyde Wilcox
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
National Government ◽  
Federal System ◽  
State Supreme Courts ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
State And Local

Even as most Americans fix their gaze on the actions of the federal government, states and localities are the cornerstones of the US federal system. “What state and local governments do” explains that states are free to design their own governments so long as their structure does not violate the US Constitution. All states have designed their governments to somewhat resemble the national government, with an elected governor, elected legislatures, and state supreme courts. However, each of these structures can operate in different ways, with different powers from state to state. The governments of the Native American reservations and those of the five permanently inhabited US territories are also discussed.

Post-Chernobyl Nuclear Reactions in the USA

1988 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
J H Johnson ◽  
D J Zeigler
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Nuclear Reactions ◽  
Nuclear Industry ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The Impact

This paper contains an assessment of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster on US civilian and military nuclear programs. Specific attention is devoted to the major policy changes sought by federal nuclear regulatory agencies, the US Congress, state and local governments hosting nuclear installations, and the nuclear industry in the twelve-month period following the April 1986 accident in the Soviet Ukraine.

scholarly journals Tax Competition and Tax Harmonization With Evasion

2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Néstor Gandelman ◽  
Rubén Hernández-Murillo
Keyword(s):  
Tax Competition ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Risk Averse ◽  
Tax Rates ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
Community Benefits ◽  
Tax Harmonization ◽  
Competition Environment

Abstract We examine a two-jurisdiction tax competition environment where local governments can only imperfectly monitor where agents pay taxes and risk-averse individuals may choose to cross borders to pay lower taxes in a neighboring location. In a game between local authorities, we find that, when communities differ in size, in equilibrium the smaller community sets lower taxes and attracts agents from the larger jurisdiction. With identical communities, tax rates must be equal. Finally, we examine the incentives of jurisdictions to harmonize tax rates and find that, whenever the smaller community benefits from tax harmonization, the larger jurisdiction will benefit also.

scholarly journals A Tale of Two Bases: Progressive Taxation of Capital and Labor Income

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-391
Author(s):  
Rachel Moore ◽  
Brandon Pecoraro
Keyword(s):  
Labor Income ◽  
Tax Rates ◽  
Capital Income ◽  
Heterogeneous Agent ◽  
Us Economy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Marginal Tax Rates ◽  
Saving Decisions ◽  
Jobs Act ◽  
Modeling Feature

Macroeconomic models routinely abstract simultaneously from two features of the US federal tax code: the joint taxation of ordinary capital and labor income and the special taxation of preferential capital income. In this article, we argue that this abstraction omits a “portfolio-effect” mechanism where endogenous changes to the ordinary-preferential composition of households’ capital income influence individuals’ optimal labor and saving decisions through its impact on their effective marginal tax rates. We demonstrate the quantitative importance of this tax detail by simulating provisions from the recently enacted “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” using a heterogeneous-agent overlapping generations framework calibrated to the US economy. Our findings imply that accounting for the detailed taxation of labor and capital income should be considered an important modeling feature for tax policy analysis.

scholarly journals Reviving Leviathan: Fiscal Federalism and the Growth of Government

2003 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 695-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Rodden
Keyword(s):  
Government Spending ◽  
Tax Competition ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Fiscal Federalism ◽  
Fiscal Decentralization ◽  
Public Expenditures ◽  
Intergovernmental Transfers ◽  
Tax Base ◽  
Local Taxation ◽  
State And Local

AbstractThis article revisits the influential “Leviathan” hypothesis, which posits that tax competition limits the growth of government spending in decentralized countries. I use panel data to examine the effect of fiscal decentralization over time within countries, attempting to distinguish between decentralization that is funded by intergovernmental transfers and local taxation. First, I explore the logic whereby decentralization should restrict government spending if state and local governments have wide-ranging authority to set the tax base and rate, especially on mobile assets. In countries where this is most clearly the case, decentralization is associated with smaller government. Second, consistent with theoretical arguments drawn from welfare economics and positive political economy, I show that governments grow faster as they fund a greater portion of public expenditures through intergovernmental transfers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document