Cost of ‘doing business’ in Connecticut is high; Business taxes are not

4 Comments

While awareness has grown about the concept of tax fairness for individuals, little is understood when it comes to the reality of business taxes.

In Washington, as in Harford, much of the political debate has been revolving around the concept of whether all wage earners should be asked to pay their “fair share” in taxes.  After maintaining the Bush Era tax cuts, President Obama has finally taken on a new and refreshing approach toward demanding that the wealthiest Americans pay a bit more in order to balance the budget and preserve vital services.

As readers of this blog know, here in Connecticut, the wealthiest among us pay about 5% of their income in state and local taxes while middle-income families pay 10% and the poor about 12% of their income go in state and local taxes.

Although Connecticut adopted record tax increases this past Legislative Session the fundamental lack of fairness in Connecticut’s tax structure was maintained.

At the same time there is an almost universal consensus that business taxes are high and that those high business taxes are hurting Connecticut’s economy.

While the “cost of doing business” in Connecticut is high, business taxes is NOT one of the primary reasons.  According to the reputable Council on State Taxation, a national, non-partisan research group, Connecticut’s business taxes account for 3.3% of private sector economic activity (also known as private sector gross state product, GSP). That compares to the national average – in which 5.0% of private sector economic activity go toward state and local taxes.

Energy, healthcare, transportation and labor costs are all proportionately higher in Connecticut.  Public and private sector leaders could do a lot more for Connecticut’s economy by looking to reduce or subsidize those cost drivers.

Perhaps even more importantly, the relatively low overall rate of business taxation hides a far more serious issue and that is that Connecticut’s business tax structure is a full of loopholes, tax credits and special exemptions that reward some business sectors while burdening others.

This problem is particularly clear when looking at Connecticut’s corporate tax credit program.  The much touted UConn Center for Economic Analysis reported that of the 24 state corporate tax credits, 14 “led to net job losses, including one of Connecticut’s largest tax credits, the fixed capital investment credit.”

Back in 2005, the General Assembly’s Program Review and Investigation Committee even found that 16 of the tax credits programs “appear of little benefit to the state’s economy, and should be eliminated.”

Even Connecticut’s own Department of Economic and Community Development has reported that there are big problems with some of the state’s tax credit programs.

However, every time changes are even mentioned the call goes out that state government is trying to  raise business taxes and efforts update and reform Connecticut’s tax credit program a thrown aside.

The Digital Media and Film Tax Credit is one that has gotten some attention but even then the changes were relatively small or made after Connecticut’s taxpayers paid out tens of millions of dollars in return for little or no benefit.

Case in point:  Linda McMahon’s WWE received millions in public funds to subsidize its website development and television programming without having to increase their spending in any way.  One year, when taxpayers dropped over $120 million in film tax credits, McMahon’s company received multi-million dollar tax credits for four of its ongoing operations.

Oh, and one last point.  One of the major problems is that, in general, the state does not report who benefits from tax credit programs so it is impossible for the policy makers, the media or the public to even determine whether they are being fleeced.

A bill was introduced this past Legislative that would have required greater transparency when it comes to Connecticut’s tax credit programs.  After heaving lobbying by the Malloy Administration the bill was pulled from consideration.  Their argument?  It would hurt business.

In summary, it’s great to see discussions are ongoing about the need to bring fairness to our income tax structure at the federal and state level.

A similar discussion is needed when it comes to our business tax system as well.

Politicians say they want to help middle-income families and small businesses.  If they are serious they should be doing more to reform and bring fairness to our tax structure – in Washington and here at home in Connecticut.

Be Sociable, Share!

  • CT Dad

    JP:

    True dat.

    Unfortunately, “CT Taxes Are High And Drive Out Jobs And The Wealthy!” is a matter of pure faith, not fact or logic or data or reality, for its most vocal adherents. You can throw studies, evidence, statistics, proof and truths at them until your arm falls off… They won’t budge an inch. They will try to bury you with random anecdotes, CATO/Heritage/Yankee faux-research, CAPS SHOUTING, and byzantine tangential arguments that average at least twice as long as your original post… Until you begin to fear for own sanity.

    Good luck, my fiend!

    • Sharewhut

      CTDad,
      trusting this was a typo : )
      “Good luck, my fiend!”
      Though around here, ya never know! : p

  • Sharewhut

    I for one would like to see some transparency brought into the equation. As a state employee, you can go find my job title, work location, and salary with little or no effort thanks to sunshine.org and “Outrageous” (a quasi-spammer on a few other boards). (A note that many other states list position, location, and salary protecting privacy of individual while showing where the money is going). If a company, by virtue of tax breaks, is in essence getting state money, why not some ‘sunshine’ there?
    Oh yeah, their the ones funding ‘sunshine’ et al.
    Agree with it or not, at least the First Five Jive was open about what state was giving.

  • Richard

    It’s among the regulatory boondoggles. One of the problems is Federal: I liked the idea of Economic Enterprise Zones for inner cities which morphed into a myriad of patchwork state and federal economic zone programs that leave the state looking like a checkerboard.

    Foolish. But the Federal money is there often goosed by 20% to 50% matching state funds. In many cases credits arise out of Federal subsidy programs that started with matching funds or better. Then, as with heating oil, the Fed costs shift to the states.

    You can guess where I stand on the Feds on any of this type of legislation today. Nyet. No Mas. Give the money to the states for block grants. Better yet–don’t tax the money to begin with. We have to unwind.

    Then we get into the other source of Federal abuse: introducing and then financing these tax credit programs via short-term Federal deficits and then once states get hooked, cutting the programs as part of deficit reduction. States like CT are better at accepting matching funds than cutting the program once they are no longer funded.

    That system does not work. The states that avoided these matching federal/state programs like the plague are looking sharper than once wealthy CT.

    The problem with all these business tax credit programs is they assume government can pick the right winners better than the free market. It doesn’t work. In the end CT would be better serviced by low business taxes across the board and low regulations.

    CTs economic disadvantage is well known: Wages, Property Tax, Heating,, and far too much special interest legislation posing as various safety, environment and non-discriminatory human rights.

    Texas won’t’ admit their immigrant population, legal and illegal, keeps wages low with hungry workers. Land is cheap: Brownfield issues are minimal. Energy costs are less and worker benefits aren’t as generous. The cost of living, primarily housing, is cheaper.

    The shift to Business Income taxes is also a problem. There are experts like the Sam Zells who structure deals to avoid income taxes. There’s enough written on the European VAT model–why it’s a regressive tax but why it was necessary: business will avoid taxation if it is income based. A portion of business tax has to come from their economic activity regardless of whether they are profitable or not.

    My point: sure CT can simplify its tax code and regulatory codes and should. I’m less convinced the answer lies in Business Income taxes dues to many federal considerations including hiding the money in overseas subsidiaries which is the new shell game. If those taxes are less than the US then it pays to be taxed overseas and leave the money in off shore accounts to invest ton countries with a better business environment than the US. The practice is rabid and with China growth.

    I agree it will take a sustained recession for things to change and get simple again. This spot is already overlong—I won’t get into the CT court systems and the awards that a liberal population and liberal judges contrive to scare away businesses. There are financial awards in CT that simply are unavailable anywhere else in the Western world.

    More funding for CT Innovations and programs where the state can take a partial stock ownership in promising start ups. Easy access to small business credit. Easy permitting and formation paperwork.
    its going to be the norm. More expatriated dollars we cna’t get back.