Top Things to Know About a State EITC for California

As policymakers grapple with how to ensure economic security for the 5.6 million Californians living in poverty, one option needs to be part of the discussion: a state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). A state EITC could give millions of Californians a much-needed economic boost by building on the successful federal EITC, a tax credit that has been instrumental in lifting families out of poverty and helping them make ends meet.

How would a state EITC work in California? And what should policymakers consider when designing one? Last week, we released a report answering these questions. Here are some of the most important things to know about a state EITC:

• To be effective, a state EITC must be refundable. While Californians pay a variety of state and local taxes — and low-income households on average pay a larger share of their income on taxes than do higher-income households — many low-income households do not pay income tax because of its graduated structure. If a tax credit is refundable, then a taxpayer receives the credit even if they do not owe any income tax. This is key if policymakers want a state EITC to reach those who would most benefit from it. A refundable state EITC would reach about one in five California families, while a nonrefundable state EITC would reach less than 0.5 percent of California families.
• A state EITC is typically set as a percentage of the federal credit. Generally, a state EITC is directly based off the federal EITC and will simply “add on” to what the federal credit provides. (For additional detail on how the federal EITC works, see this useful summary.) This means that the main features of a state EITC — who is eligible for a credit and how the size of the credit varies for different types of households — are already established. If California were to pursue this path, one of the most important decisions is at what percentage of the federal EITC to set the California credit. The higher this percentage, the larger the credit to families. For example, a refundable, 15 percent state credit would provide, on average, a $321 tax credit to families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution, while a 30 percent credit would provide an average tax credit worth $638 to these families.
• A state EITC structured as a simple add-on to the federal credit would primarily benefit families with children. Under this model, a larger share of families with children than without children would receive a credit, and the credit would be, on average, substantially larger for families with children. For example, if California had a refundable state EITC that was 15 percent of the federal credit, a little more than one-third of families with at least one child (36 percent) would receive a credit, compared to just 7 percent of households without children (see table). Moreover, the average credit for families with at least one child would be $481, compared to just $61 for childless adults.

As our report outlines, there are plenty of reasons to pass a state EITC. Not only would it give more than 3 million households additional economic support, it would also help rebalance California’s tax system, which currently asks the lowest-income households to pay the largest share of their income in taxes. Further, a state EITC would help strengthen California’s safety net. It’s a smart approach to the crisis of poverty in California. In the coming weeks, additional posts on this blog will look in depth at different aspects of a state EITC.

— Luke Reidenbach

Many Californians Struggle to Make Ends Meet Despite a Growing Economy

The economic recovery has continued to largely bypass low- and middle-income Californians, according to new Census data released last month. These latest Census figures show that California households in the bottom three-fifths of the income distribution saw their incomes essentially stagnate last year, even though the economy had been expanding for four straight years in California and nationally. The absence of any significant income gains is especially bad news given that these households suffered steep declines in their incomes in each of the prior five years.

California households in the bottom fifth, whose incomes fall below about $23,600, fared the worst in recent years. Their average inflation-adjusted income dropped by about 19 percent between 2007 and 2012, then flat-lined in 2013. This means that the lowest-income state residents have yet to gain back any of the nearly $3,000 they lost, on average, due to the weak job market during and in the aftermath of the Great Recession. While sobering, this trend is not entirely surprising given that hourly wages stagnated or declined for low-earning workers throughout the recovery.

High-income Californians also saw their incomes fall in recent years, but unlike state residents at the low end of the distribution, they regained in the last year much of what they had lost in prior years. The average inflation-adjusted income for households in the top fifth dropped by about 8 percent ($18,200) between 2007 and 2012, but then rose by about 4 percent ($9,500) in 2013. This means that in a single year the highest-income households — whose incomes averaged $224,000 — regained more than half of the income they lost, on average. The top 5 percent of California households — whose incomes averaged $399,000 — fared even better: Last year alone, they regained nearly two-thirds of the income they lost during the prior five years.

 

The Uneven Economic Recovery Is Exacerbating Inequality in California

As the benefits of recent years’ economic growth largely accrue to Californians at the top of the distribution, income gaps are widening, exacerbating already high levels of inequality in the state. Last year, the average household in the top 5 percent had an income of $399,000 — 31 times the income of the average household in the bottom fifth ($12,700). Just six years earlier, at the height of the housing boom, the average household in the top 5 percent earned 26 times as much as the average household in the bottom fifth. This widening divide means that nearly one-quarter of total household income now goes to the wealthiest 5 percent of Californians, while less than 3 percent goes to the bottom fifth. And as striking as these figures are, they actually understate the extent of inequality in California. This is because they exclude one of the most significant sources of income for the wealthy — capital gains — and also because the Census does not report income changes for most millionaires.

Rising Inequality Isn’t Just Bad for Low- and Middle-Income Families, It’s Bad for the Economy

Should we be concerned that our nation’s economic rebound isn’t translating into income gains for a broad swath of the population? Certainly if you’re among the majority of families who have yet to see their incomes rise after years of decline, you have good reason to be concerned. As one recent New York Times analysis put it: “You can’t eat G.D.P. You can’t live in a rising stock market. You can’t give your kids a better life because your company’s C.E.O. was able to give himself a big raise.” In other words, without broadly shared income growth, an expanding economy can do little to help most families be economically secure or move up the economic ladder.

But there’s another reason we should be worried about uneven income gains. Recent reports, including one by Standard and Poor’s (S&P) Financial Services, have suggested that income inequality could be holding back our nation’s economic growth. One explanation could be that when many people’s incomes don’t keep up with their expenses, they often spend less. And when large numbers of people spend less, businesses produce less. The end result: an economy that grows more slowly than it otherwise would if fewer families were struggling to pay their bills.

Policymakers Can Reduce Inequality in California

But now for some good news: Inequality is not inevitable. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz recently wrote, “widening and deepening inequality is not driven by immutable economic laws, but by laws we have written ourselves.” That means policymakers have the tools to reduce our growing income divide and mitigate the hardship it inflicts on low- and middle-income families. One way state policymakers could do this is by making investments to ensure that all children have sufficient opportunities to move up the economic ladder. Increasing access to high-quality education, from preschool through college, for example, would set low-income children on a path toward greater economic security in the future. State policymakers could also take steps to make California’s income tax system more progressive. Creating a state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), for instance, would not only help workers with low to moderate earnings better support their families, but it also would reduce after-tax income gaps. To learn more about how California could reduce inequality by establishing a state EITC, watch for our forthcoming publication on the topic.

— Alissa Anderson

New Data Highlight the Nation’s Uneven Recovery

A new analysis from the University of California, Berkeley’s Emmanuel Saez shows that income inequality at the national level has grown during the economic recovery, with only the wealthiest seeing significant income gains. The data can be downloaded as a Microsoft Excel file here. Here are some highlights:

• Income gains were uneven. Between 2009 and 2012, the last full year for which data are available, the average inflation-adjusted family income grew by 6.0 percent. However, incomes grew by 31.4 percent for the top 1 percent of families and only 0.4 percent for the bottom 99 percent.
• These uneven gains come after severe drops during the Great Recession. According to Saez, the average inflation-adjusted income per family declined by 17.4 percent between 2007 and 2009, the largest two-year drop since the Great Depression. The top 1 percent saw even greater losses of income, with a decline of 36.3 percent.
• For high-income earners, the impact of the Great Recession was temporary. Even though the top 1 percent of families saw far more severe drops in average income during the recession than did other families, this was only temporary. As Saez writes, “Overall, these results suggest that the Great Recession has only depressed top income shares temporarily and will not undo any of the dramatic increase in top income shares that has taken place since the 1970s. Indeed, the top decile income share in 2012 is equal to 50.4%, the highest ever since 1917 when the series start.”

These new data show a trend we highlighted last week in our annual Labor Day report: Large groups of workers are not yet seeing a recovery. Here in California, wages remain depressed relative to their pre-recession levels for all but high-wage earners, and wage inequality continues to rise even as the labor market has grown for more than three years.

— Luke Reidenbach

The CBP Examines the 2013-14 Budget

Yesterday Governor Jerry Brown signed the 2013-14 budget bill and related legislation. The CBP has released its initial analysis of the 2013-14 budget, examining key provisions and their implications. Check back to California Budget Bites and the CBP’s website in the coming days and weeks for additional analysis and commentary on the 2013-14 budget agreement.

— Steven Bliss

New CBP Report Looks at State Corrections Spending After Realignment

In 2011, state policymakers transferred responsibility and funding for public safety and other services from the state to the counties. A major part of this “realignment” was that counties assumed responsibility for certain “low-level” offenders and parolees, all of whom previously would have served state prison sentences and been supervised by state parole agents upon release.

Yesterday, the CBP released a new report that examines state spending on corrections and assesses how it has changed since realignment. A Mixed Picture: State Corrections Spending After the 2011 Realignment shows that:

• While state corrections spending is below the pre-realignment level — with annual General Fund savings projected to be $1.3 billion in 2013-14 — these savings are largely offset by county corrections spending that is funded with dedicated special fund revenues provided through the state budget.

• Per capita costs for California’s prison and parole populations have continued to rise in recent years and are much higher than in the mid-1990s, even after adjusting for inflation.

• More than half (56.5 percent) of the state corrections budget goes toward prison security and operations, while nearly one-quarter (23.7 percent) of corrections dollars pay for adult inmate health care.

A Mixed Picture also includes a status report on the federal court order to reduce California’s state prison population.

— Steven Bliss