Tax cut defense

March 27, 2023

SSB 1207 and HSB 232 would place on the statewide ballot a constitutional amendment that, if approved, would essentially lock in draconian income tax cuts long after their proponents have left office. The bill betrays fundamental democratic principles by making one “no” vote worth two “yes” votes. It would prevent majorities from funding popular services by giving a fringe minority veto power.

February 2022

Our state’s tax system — like those of most other states — favors white Iowans over Iowans of color, especially Black Iowans. That’s because the tax code advantages those at the top of the income distribution, who are disproportionately white, as it disadvantages those at the bottom, who are disproportionately families of color. Current tax proposals would exacerbate disadvantages facing families of color. 

by Peter Fischer | January 18, 2022

Iowa’s tax system is upside down: Those with the lowest income pay a higher percentage of their income in state and local taxes than those at the top. Along comes the governor with a “flat tax” proposal that she has defined as “fair.” In fact, it would make things worse with a tax system that is heavily weighted in favor of those who have the highest incomes. It would make the Iowa system even less flat, more skewed in favor of the rich.

January 7, 2022

Within months of passing tax cuts that when fully phased in will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, lawmakers are proposing a new round of income tax cuts, up to the full elimination of the state income tax. Eliminating or significantly cutting the state income tax is irresponsible. Here's why.

Already in 2022, Iowa legislators and Governor Kim Reynolds have set Iowa on a path that assures severe cuts in education and other critical public services supported by state revenues while increasing disparities in our tax code in favor of the wealthiest Iowans. Now, a new proposal effectively would lock those changes in place with a constitutional amendment that would require a supermajority — not just a majority vote — in both houses to pass tax increases.

Senate Study Bill 3064 would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to pass any bill that increases rates on the individual income tax, corporate income tax, and the sales and use tax. But tax cuts, like the massive tax cuts this year that will strip nearly $1.9 billion in General Fund revenues in Fiscal Year 2028, would continue to need only a simple majority for passage.

Perspective

Iowans defeated a similar referendum in 1999, by a vote of 52% to 48%. Ironically, only a 34% minority would be enough in one house of the Legislature to block any increase in taxes that a simple majority of legislators — all elected with a simple majority or even a plurality of voting constituents — believe are necessary to maintain services that their constituents demand and expect. In fact, legislators could not have passed the tax cuts they did this year with such a two-thirds supermajority requirement.

The proposal enshrines minority rule on tax and budget policy, enabling that minority to act against the wishes of the voters they represent. It is a betrayal of fundamental democratic principles on which representative government is founded.  A “no” vote would be worth two “yes” votes.

Conclusion

After keeping most Iowans in the dark while developing 2022 tax cuts that will devastate public services, legislators would block a majority from correcting course. Kansas enacted similar income tax cuts that turned out to be such a disaster that they were largely reversed three years later. This proposal would prevent a future legislature from correcting what will turn out to be Iowa’s mistake.

Legislators elected 30 years after passage could be bound to the views of legislators since defeated, retired, or even deceased. Even if this bill could get two-thirds approval — which it cannot, and does not need — it is a terrible idea. The amendment does not trust Iowa voters or the people they elect.