Our Views: A new glitch in revenue

When one takes the handy deduction of federal income taxes off of one’s state tax return, it makes a difference in the check that one writes to the Louisiana Department of Revenue.

And that’s going to be a bigger difference early next year, as it is almost inevitable that federal taxes go up to avoid a “fiscal cliff” that is a focus of concern in Washington.

But Louisiana’s little cliff will follow, as the state’s future tax revenue declines as federal taxes paid increases — and thus that deduction from taxable income on state forms increases.

Chief economist Greg Albrecht, of the Legislative Fiscal Office, and Jim Richardson, an LSU professor and member of the state’s Revenue Estimating Conference, briefed the Press Club of Baton Rouge on the little cliff.

Albrecht said that his back-of-the-envelope calculation is that — if the tax and budget cuts proposed by President Barack Obama become law — the impact on the state would be around $120 million. That’s not certain to happen, but facing deadlines for even more severe tax increases, Congress is likely to do something.

The little cliff starts affecting state revenue in spring 2014 — and that’s in addition to the chronic shortfalls and rounds of midyear budget cuts required by the chaotic mess that the state budget has fallen into under Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Worse, the little cliff cuts into income tax, one of the state’s more stable sources of revenue. Swings in sales taxes, which make up about a quarter of state tax income, and unpredictable rises or declines in corporate tax collections have made Louisiana a case study in how not to organize public finance.

The landmark 2002 tax reform known as the Stelly Plan was intended to address some of those stability issues in state finance, but Jindal and lawmakers in 2008 foolishly threw away its benefits by cutting state income taxes during an all-too-brief period of high state revenue after the storms of 2005 and 2008.

Other tax cuts and a profligate series of corporate tax breaks have only made the state’s budget situation worse.

Things have been a mess since, and the little cliff will only make it worse.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (8)


1) Comment by DMJ - 12/20/2012

rgeraldwallace, you still stirring up stupidity, claiming that only non-taxpayers voted for Obama? Grow up. And give it a rest. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing; it shouldn't wasted on nonsense.

2) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 12/20/2012

Well, this isn't a glitch any more than the windfall we received after 2000 was a glitch. This is a long-known event. And it has not a darned thing to do with President Obama, being that this ill-named "fiscal cliff" is simply a sunset that was created at the same time the tax cuts were enacted. All President Obama and Congress can do, and probably will do, is decrease the effects on Louisiana of this well-known so-called "glitch" by decreasing the effects of the well-known so-called "fiscal cliff." And I for one cannot believe so many smart folks such as the guys named in this opinion piece are (IMO) playing like we didn't know this. Sadly, I can believe that commenters such as Mr. Wallace below will inevitably turn it into an anti-Obama rant opportunity.

3) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 12/20/2012

tradewinns that's a very good point. Yes, everyone called it a windfall that Louisiana would be receiving, and some considered it an unfair tax increase on individual taxpayers. However, I feel confident that neither the revenue estimating conference members nor this administration were unaware that the federal tax decrease had a ten-year sunset. One administration is no more guilty or innocent than the othe, nor is the legislature. It probably didn't fit the definition of nonrecurring funds.

4) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 12/20/2012

Nobody is worried about taxes that they don't pay; that's why they re-elected Obama, i.e. the gravy train will never stop running.

5) Comment by DMJ - 12/20/2012

Perhaps we should uncouple the rate we pay to our state from the rate we pay to our federal government. Seems like it would make it easier to make a budget, no?

6) Comment by tradewinns - 12/20/2012

when the federal taxes were reduced did the La. government (before jindall) realize that the tax increase La. received in it's taxes should have been "saved" for when the federal tax reduction stopped? i'm sure they didn't. they spent it of course. how was jindal responsible for their lack of fiscal conservatism? every coin has two sides, even if it is a double headed coin. i'm for a balanced budget amendment. then is a program is worth having, the taxpayer pays for it right now. once the tax burden exceeds the taxpayers ability to pay, things will roll. either the programs will be stopped or the politicians' head will roll. makes hiding things more difficult.

7) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 12/20/2012

"... it is almost inevitable that federal taxes go up to avoid a 'fiscal cliff' that is a focus of concern in Washington." With all due respect, I suspect that this writer doesn't understand the fiscal cliff. Neither do most people, it seems. Federal taxes going up IS the fiscal cliff. Federal taxes are not going up to avoid a fiscal cliff. If we do nothing but go over the cliff, the result is great for the federal budget and deficit and eventually the debt ceiling. But it will cost the citizens increases in taxes and decreases in services. That is the fiscal cliff. That piece of sentence would be more accurate if it said, "... it is certain that federal taxes will go up if we do NOT act to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff."

8) Comment by agagent - 12/20/2012

In a real recovery personal income goes up, not down, and state income tax revenues go up. Obama policies have staggered the economy, and has not created a recovery as we have been told. It appears that we will see this scenario continue for another 4 years. Louisiana's biggest budget problems are a huge decline in federal revenue and a huge deficit in Medicaid expenses. The federal government is already spending too much . . . An amount equal to 25% of our GDP. Historically the economy can sustain federal spending at about 18% of GDP. Liberals want to tax the rich, in their view of fairness, even though more federal taxes will hamper the economy and hurt state revenue.