AUSTIN, Texas – Mientras los legisladores de Texas batallan para balancear sus libros contables recortando recursos a la educación pública, salud, servicios humanitarios y otros programas populares, un estudio publicado este miércoles afirma que hay una manera más sencilla –y mucho menos dolorosa– de revertir el déficit y tener superávit.

El documento sugiere darle la vuelta a las estructuras de cobro de impuestos en el estado, para que los más ricos paguen las tasas que pagan los más pobres, y vice versa. Eso haría desaparecer inmediatamente el déficit presupuestal de $72 billones, según la autora del reporte, Karen Kraut, analista de la organización Unidos por una Economía Justa (United for a Fair Economy), quien además afirma que Texas tiene la quinta estructura fiscal más retrógrada de todo el país.

"El 20 por ciento más alto de los causantes paga 4.4 por ciento de su ingreso en impuestos locales y estatales, mientras que los causantes de ingresos más bajos pagan 12.2 por ciento de su ingreso en impuestos locales y estatales."

Al invertir esas tasas, dice Kraut, se captarían $72 billones en las arcas del Estado. Haría falta un impuesto estatal al ingreso, cuya aceptación política reconoce que sería difícil conseguir.

El reporte asegura que no sólo Texas se beneficiaría de la recaudación progresista. Invertir las estructuras de cobro de impuestos repercutiría en ingresos nuevos por $490 billones para los estados de todo el país, de acuerdo a Kraut.

"Todos y cada uno de los estados de la nación tienen un sistema tributario regresivo, que grava a las familias más pobres en mayor proporción que a las familias más adineradas."

Agrega que la población adinerada no debiera temer a la recaudación progresista, porque con una mayor justicia tributaria llegaría una estabilidad general y un crecimiento mayores.

"Cuando la gente de ingresos bajos y medios tiene más dinero para gastar, compran cosas y la economía revive, y quienes tienen sus propios negocios y quienes invierten en la bolsa de valores ganan con estas actividades que incentivan la economía."

Kraut dice que la cultura política de hoy ha provocado la percepción equivocada de que los ricos pagan una proporción justa de impuestos, si no es que más. Eso se debe, en su opinión, a que los debates sobre al respecto tienden a centrarse sólo en el impuesto federal sobre ingresos.

"Prácticamente todos los otros impuestos, especialmente los de nivel estatal y local, golpean al ciudadano de ingresos medios y bajos mucho más fuerte que a los ricos."

Kraut manifiesta que ha habido una redistribución de la riqueza en las tres décadas pasadas porque hay más sistemas progresistas de recaudación fiscal. Es por eso que los ingresos más elevados se dispararon, mientras otros se estancaron.

El estudio puede ser consultado en faireconomy.org> a partir de media mañana del miércoles 25 de mayo.


get more stories like this via email

A new report analyzes Pennsylvania's existing voucher programs, that divert public funds to private schools.

This comes on the heels of Gov. Josh Shapiro's plan to create a new voucher program for K-12 students.

Diana Polson - senior policy analyst with the Keystone Research Center - said last year's Commonwealth Court decision ruled that Pennsylvania's system of funding public education is unconstitutional, therefore the state doesn't have a dollar to waste on expanding existing private-school voucher programs or creating a new one.

"The basic-education funding commission estimated the state must pay $5.1 billion over the next seven years to make sure our public schools are funded equitably and adequately," said Polson. "Meanwhile, our report finds that existing private-school voucher programs are siphoning millions from taxpayers with little to show for it."

Supporters argue that vouchers let children leave under-performing public schools and get a better education at private schools.

Polson said Pennsylvania's voucher programs have no "meaningful educational or financial accountability," so they really have no way of knowing if these programs operate as intended or are beneficial to low-income or moderate-income students.

Polson said the report reveals that the programs have grown, and just this year they will cost the state nearly $500 million.

However, these voucher programs exclude students in rural areas, because there are few if any participating private schools in these regions.

Local public schools remain the primary option for most rural families.

"We also found that private schools receiving these funds are allowed to - and do - routinely discriminate against students for reasons including disabilities, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and more," said Polson. "These programs are also exclusive. They subsidize the state's most elite and expensive private schools as well as affluent families."

Polson said the report reveals that the Independent Fiscal Office estimated that the average EITC program scholarship was $2,314, while the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit was slightly less at around $2,000.

The cost of attending one of the top 25 private schools in Pennsylvania is around $41,000 per year. This means these schools are still out of reach for many low- and moderate-income families.

As Nebraska's 2024 legislative session draws to a close, family caregivers and their supporters are closely watching the progress of Legislative Bill 937, the Caregiver Tax Credit Act.

The bill provides eligible family caregivers up to $2,000 in tax credits for out-of-pocket expenses or up to $3,000 if the family member receiving care has dementia or is a veteran.

Jina Ragland, state director of advocacy and outreach for AARP Nebraska, said family caregivers are filling health care gaps in the state, especially with 15 Nebraska counties currently lacking a nursing home or assisted-living facility. Ragland argued the state's family caregivers need and deserve financial support.

"We really feel they're the backbone of the U.S. care system," Ragland emphasized. "Especially here in Nebraska because they're helping parents, they're helping loved ones live independently in their homes."

Family caregivers in the U.S. spend an average of $7,000 per year in out-of-pocket expenses. Employed caregivers sometimes lose wages when they have to take time off for caregiving responsibilities. Others retire early, losing both wages and retirement income.

The bill includes an income limit of $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for married couples. Sen. Eliot Bostar, D-Lincoln, introduced the bill on behalf of AARP Nebraska. The legislature is expected to debate the measure for the second time this week.

Joyce Beck of Grand Island knows firsthand the emotional and financial strain of being a caregiver and losing a loved one. She retired early to care for her husband, who suffered from multiple sclerosis and cancer. In addition to significant out-of-pocket expenses, her Social Security and pension payments are both lower because she retired early.

Beck said she knows some Nebraskans face bigger financial struggles as a result of their caregiving.

"If there's any financial support that we can give, that would be so beneficial," Beck contended. "Some people don't have the option of a retirement account or a pension plan, so $2,000 would be huge for them. "

Ragland stressed family caregivers are helping Nebraska taxpayers as well. When their caregiving delays or prevents expensive-nursing home placement, it contributes to lowering the state's Medicaid costs.

"An important concept for people to understand is the value of those people who are just doing what they think is right," Ragland asserted. "The time and the money and the energy that they're providing as family caregivers to offset, again, the gaps in the care services that we have in our communities."

Six states currently offer a caregiver tax credit, and there is a bipartisan bill in the U.S. Congress to enact one at the federal level.

As California faces a $38 billion budget deficit, state lawmakers have identified $17 billion in potential cuts before the Legislature begins crunching the numbers later this week.

Initial plans include shifting some funds away from job training programs but the idea is getting some pushback. Advocates of the programs said at a time when skilled worker shortages plague essential sectors, investments in job training are needed.

Lisa Countryman-Quiroz, CEO of San Francisco-based Jewish Vocational Service, a nonprofit job training agency helping to match jobseekers with employers, said current economic conditions call for investment in programs like theirs.

"This is absolutely critical given the cost of living, given rising economic inequality in the state of California, the people who really want to be able to provide for their families, people who want to be able to advance in their careers," Countryman-Quiroz outlined. "We are helping people get there."

Democrats, who hold a supermajority, agreed last week to reduce the state's projected shortfall through spending cuts, delays, deferrals and cost-shifting. The budget debate could start as soon as Thursday.

Countryman-Quiroz said while job training can have high costs, workforce investments often pay for themselves by closing opportunity gaps in employment and creating economic revenue. She cited one program, known as the High Road Training Partnership.

"We see a really positive return on investment," Countryman-Quiroz pointed out. "Every dollar that JVS specifically has received in HRTP funds has resulted in $2 in wages for the jobseekers that we work with."

Jordan Hernandez, a graduate of the High Road Training Partnership, said he has successfully accessed both education and job opportunities.

"This program has given me a lot of confidence, especially with school things," Hernandez noted. "I never thought I'd be in school, so once I got into this program, I was very nervous, but they were very welcoming. They treated me with respect, and they understood where I was coming from."


get more stories like this via email