WMTA Shares these commentaries, without taking a position unless otherwise noted, to bring information to our readers
To view the archives of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii's commentary click here. Weekly Commentary For the Week of September 3, 2017 Rail: I Dunno About TAT By Tom Yamachika, President We are getting closer to the special session that our Legislature has scheduled to continue its discussion about funding Honolulu rail. During this past session, the House and Senate were unable to agree on a common version of a bill to continue rail funding. The two chambers disagreed about whether to use our Transient Accommodations Tax (“TAT”). The TAT is a statewide tax. A large portion of it is shuttled off to special funds, $93 million a year is shared with the counties, and the remainder goes to the state general fund. One frequently voiced comment about using the TAT is that “Neighbor Islands should not pay for rail in Honolulu.” This was the headline of Maui Council Chair Mike White’s analysis, recently published in The Maui News, which said: For fiscal year 2018, in what has now become a common occurrence, the Legislature raided the counties’ TAT share by reducing it from $103 million to $93 million. The counties’ share was reduced at a time when TAT revenues are at an all-time high, with anticipated revenues nearing or exceeding $533 million in the coming year. By the end of this fiscal year, the state will have harvested $96 million more in TAT since FY 2016, or a 42 percent increase. The state has increasingly taken more TAT revenues to help balance its own budget at the detriment of counties. Now the Legislature wants to raise the tax to fund rail? Neighbor Islands receive no benefit from the Honolulu rail, and a TAT increase has major implications on the economy. . . . Members of the [Maui] County Council also agree that increasing the TAT is not the solution, and passed a resolution this past week urging the Legislature to extend Oahu’s GET surcharge instead. The hope is that legislators will have a change of heart and avoid pulling the Neighbor Islands into the rail project and draining resources the counties need for their own projects. Chair White seems to be arguing that the counties have a right to TAT money. Really? The TAT, when it was enacted in 1986, was primarily meant to fund the Hawaii Convention Center, which happens to be on Oahu. (The tax at that time was 5% and it was billed as a temporary tax that would go away once the convention center got built. Now it’s a 9.25% tax, and it’s permanent. I have ranted about that before.) The Hawaii Constitution explicitly says that the legislature shall have the power to apportion state revenues among the several political subdivisions. State lawmakers have a right to send state revenue from a state tax wherever they see fit. State taxes fund all kinds of projects on all islands. Guess how the Maui Memorial Hospital was built and maintained, for example? Or Honoapi’ilani Highway? If the 80% of Hawaii’s population on Oahu decided that they didn’t want “their” state taxes to fund any projects on any other islands, Maui County would be very different today. Also, Maui County has its own taxing power. If revenue is needed to run county government, the county can tinker with real property tax, fuel tax, vehicle weight tax, vehicle registration charges, user fees, and other revenue sources. (Honolulu has that power too, and it will probably have to use it to operate and maintain the train…unless it can persuade state legislators to use state money or state taxing authority to make Honolulu’s job easier.) If Maui County doesn’t want to because their politicians fear political backlash from their electorate, Oahu and the State shouldn’t be blamed for that. The Tax Foundation of Hawaii is not endorsing any particular tax to be tapped for rail. We just want to make sure that any decision made is not based on misinformation.
WMTA Shares these commentaries, without taking a position unless otherwise noted, to bring information to our readers To view the archives of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii's commentary click here. Weekly Commentary For the Week of August 6, 2017 The Grand Skim of Things, Part 1 By Tom Yamachika, President In this space, we have often spoken of funding government with “special funds.” Special funds are pots of money dedicated to a specified purpose. Money in the fund can be spent for the specified purpose without going through the general appropriation process at the Legislature. Agencies love them because they can spend money without interference by meddlesome lawmakers. Supporters of the programs and services that the fund is spent on like them too, because the fund is dedicated to their program or service. Or so they think. But there is some “skimming” going on. A Hawaii law dating back to 1955, which now can be found at HRS section 36-27, says that 5% of any special fund’s income will be paid to the state general fund to pay “central service expenses,” which we assume are shared services costs such as payroll, accounting, compliance reporting, and other administrative costs. HRS sections 36-28, 36-28.5, and 36-29 apply a similar skim to the highway, airport, and harbor funds respectively, except that the 5% applies to the fund’s income net of payments for principal and interest on bonds. The same 1955 law contained another provision, now found at HRS section 36-30, which says that each special fund “shall be responsible for its pro rata share of the administrative expenses incurred by the department responsible for the operations supported by the special fund concerned.” This law does not provide for a flat percentage, but instead requires the state department in charge of the special fund to figure out the proper administrative costs. Reports to the Legislature by the Department of Budget and Finance show the amounts assessed in recent years: Fiscal Year Ending 6/30/ Central Services Expense Assessments Departmental Expense Assessments 2016 $ 44,216,395.76 $ 3,137,519.32 2015 46,154,994.98 3,733,194.31 2014 45,108,045.50 3,497,915.92 2013 39,093,748.69 3,206,727.79 2012 39,468,690.86 2,981,309.31 2011 40,516,153.25 3,789,295.21 2010 32,804,292.00 2,951,017.00 2009 31,703,168.00 3,336,976.00 2008 37,486,514.00 2,693,986.14 2007 30,473,089.00 2,169,355.00 Source: Department of Budget and Finance, Budget, Program Planning and Management Division website In 1994, the State Auditor, Marion Higa at the time, issued Report 94-17 on these assessments. She concluded that it was appropriate for special funds to pay their fair share of administrative costs. But she observed that a flat 5% seemed to be an arbitrary percentage and wondered whether it was a reasonable amount, observing that other states that charged central services expenses were charging quite a bit less in percentage terms. To determine whether the 5% flat amount is fair, we need to know what costs this charge was meant to cover. The State Auditor recommended that the Department of Budget and Finance put out some rules, which the statute authorizes explicitly, to add clarity and consistency. It’s 23 years later and we’re still waiting for those rules. In upcoming weeks, we will examine other issues relating to the Central Services Skim, as I call it, including the sheer number of funds that are exempt from it and how continued proliferation of the exemptions may get us in sky high trouble with the federal government, and the one department in state government that flatly refuses to pay a penny of the Central Services Skim. WMTA Shares these commentaries, without taking a position unless otherwise noted, to bring information to our readers To view the archives of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii's commentary click here. Weekly Commentary For the Week of July 30, 2017 No Hanahana, Kaukau Anyway By Tom Yamachika, President Growing up in these islands, I always heard the part-Hawaiian proverb that describes a very simple work ethic: “No hanahana, no kaukau.” Meaning: if you don’t work, you don’t eat. Recently, some very notable people including Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook have been championing the idea of “universal basic income,” which basically is a payment from the government to individuals simply for being alive. Our Legislature latched onto that idea, passing House Concurrent Resolution 89. That resolution says that universal basic income “is analogous to providing social security to every citizen at a level sufficient to cover their basic needs.” It “would allow individuals seeking job retraining or working part-time to maintain a basic standard of living,” and “would also allow more people to share part time work between the fewer number of jobs that may be available, while lifting burdens on businesses, and providing a more secure and substantial safety net for all people, ending extreme financial poverty, and providing for a more financially sustainable and equitable future for all citizens in spite of coming economic disruption.” It asks two of our government agencies to get together a working group to study the issue and come up with a report, including proposed legislation. In other words: No hanahana, kaukau anyway. My advice is to keep two things in mind. One: How do we pay for it? If we are talking about $10,000 per resident per year, for example, with a million people in our state we are looking at a price tag of $10 billion. That amount would fund Honolulu rail in one year rather than the 30 years or so that taxpayers are now on the hook for. And we would need to pay that every year. For those who think the answer is to soak the rich, we just signed into law a bill that gives us the second-highest maximum income tax rate in the country. Are we seriously thinking of going to that well again? Two: If you build it, they will come. Whatever becomes of Hawaii v. Trump and the other court cases challenging immigration policy, U.S. nationals have a constitutional right to travel between states. If we dole out copious amounts of cash to each resident, we will magically find more and more new residents. We also will find that it is not legal to exclude them from the distribution. Alaska has a Permanent Fund built up with taxes on oil extraction, and tried distributing it to residents based on how long they’ve lived in Alaska. Its system got shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now Alaska makes Permanent Fund payments to everyone who has lived there a year. How did most of us non-Hawaiians get to Hawaii in the first place? Folks in other countries saw the United States as the land flowing with milk and honey, and were willing to come here and work hard in the plantations and elsewhere. These immigrants were ancestors to most of us. Some of us may be immigrants ourselves. And now we are talking about making a land where you don’t even need to work to make money. Go back to Point One again, because we are going to have cost overruns. Rep. Chris Lee, credited as being the “brains” behind HCR 89, is quoted as saying: “Pursuing hard work enough to make a decent living no longer applies in an economy in which automation and innovation have taken that away from so many people.” Hawai`i statewide annual average employment for the calendar year 2015 was 637,813, a 14.5% increase over the 557,041 in 2001, according to DLIR statistics. That doesn’t look like our labor force is tanking because of the automation and innovation that have taken place over the last 15 years. That flawed premise is no justification for adding universal basic income to the social programs and tax credits we already have (including a few we just extended with the income tax hike bill just signed into law). |
If you wish to further discuss blog posts, please contat our office directly or contact us via Contact page.
Categories
All
|