Tax and Budget

Volume V of the Fully Funding the EBF series keeps adjustments to CTBA’s model to align more closely with the Illinois State Board of Education’s methodology and reporting but based on the Enacted Fiscal Year 2023 General Fund Budget appropriations for the Evidence-Based Funding formula. This change is made to the overall Adequacy Gap funding level (changes from 100% to 90% to accommodate for Federal funding). This change in methodology is applied in the same manner as it was for the four scenarios found in the Fully Funding the EBF series Volume V.

The Earned Income Tax Credit, or “EITC,” rewards work and reduces poverty by targeting tax relief to low-income families with children. The EITC has become one of the more effective anti-poverty programs in the United States. The reason the federal EITC is so effective is because it is designed as a “refundable” tax credit. When a tax credit is “refundable,” the taxpayer who qualifies to receive it gets the full dollar value of the credit, even if that dollar value exceeds the income tax liability said taxpayer owes. The EITC effectively boosts the earnings of workers who qualify to receive it, thereby increasing their purchasing power and alleviating poverty. And because lower wage workers tend to spend, rather than save any increase in income they receive—including income enhancements from tax credits—that additional spending creates the concomitant benefit of stimulating private sector economic growth. Even more, since the EITC is refundable, a lower wage worker who qualifies to receive this credit gets the full dollar value they qualify for, even if that dollar value exceeds her or his income tax liability. This excess monetary benefit effectively makes tax policy more progressive, because it helps offset the impact of many of the taxes, like sales, property and excise, low- and lower-middle-income workers' pay in addition to the income tax. That in turn makes their overall tax burden less regressive and hence fairer.

The Child Tax Credit (“CTC”) initially provided qualified taxpayers with a $400 per child nonrefundable credit and was intended to provide tax relief to middle-income families. In 2001, the CTC was made refundable, on a limited basis, with a maximum refundable benefit of $600. Its refundability feature also makes the CTC effective at making tax policy fairer, because like the EITC, the CTC functions to offset taxes other than income taxes—like sales, excise and property taxes—which place a disproportionate burden on lower income earners. Illinois currently does not have a CTC at the state level. In addition to alleviating poverty and stimulating the economy, the refundability feature of the EITC also creates a very effective, as well as administratively facile way to make tax burden fairer.

Under HB 4920/SB 3774 as introduced by Representative Carol Ammons and Senator Omar Aquino (the “Tax Equity Initiative”), eligibility to claim the Illinois state EITC would be expanded to include individuals over the age of 65 without children, childless taxpayers between the ages of 18-24, and taxpayers using a tax identification number (“ITIN”). The Tax Equity Initiative also creates an eligible dependent tax credit that is similar to, but not the same as the federal CTC. For instance, while the definition of a child ‘dependent’ contained in the Tax Equity Initiative is based on IRS criteria for federal tax purposes, the benefit a new state-level CTC would create is not contingent on the number of dependents a family has. Instead, the new state-level child tax credit would be made available at a flat rate to each qualified household with at least one child. The Tax Equity Initiative also provides that at a minimum, an unpaid caregiver of children ages 17 and under who is eligible to claim benefits under the state’s expanded EITC and new dependent child credit, shall receive a combined benefit worth at least $600 in any year. Additionally, unpaid caregivers of children who currently have no income—and thereby are ineligible for the EITC—will receive a fully refundable $600 credit if they have at least one dependent child ages 17 and under.

Read this report for more information about the economic impact of the proposed Tax Equity Initiative in Illinois as proposed in the 102^nd General Assembly.

In response to the economic challenges created by the pandemic, elected officials in both parties have expressed the desire to pursue fiscal policy initiatives that will help spur private sector growth. Historically, two very different approaches have been taken to stimulate the economy by changing fiscal policy—one focuses mostly on growing private sector demand by increasing public sector spending, while the other focuses primarily on growing private sector supply by cutting taxes.

The fiscal policies taken to boost demand through enhanced spending generally involve increasing investments in core public services and infrastructure, as well as providing direct income supports to low- and middle-income families. These income supports include a number of initiatives, covering everything from enhanced unemployment compensation benefits, to targeting tax relief solely to low-and middle-income workers—precisely because those workers are likely to spend any such tax relief on purchasing consumer goods and services.

On the other hand, the use of tax cuts to boost the economy has typically involved providing either general tax relief to all individuals and corporations—which initially was referred to as “Supply-Side” economics—or targeting tax relief to primarily benefit corporations and wealthy individuals—which initially was referred to as “Trickle-Down” economics.  Interestingly, neither Supply-Side nor Trickle-Down is really an economic theory. Instead, both are concerned with how fiscal policy actions impact private sector behavior. Over time, the distinction between these two approaches has blurred, and they are now both generally referred to as “Supply-Side” economics.

Read CTBA’s most recent report to find out more about the impact of Supply-Side policies on the U.S. economy.

Contrary to what the governor proposed in the FY 2022 General Fund budget proposal, K-12 funding under the Evidence-Based Funding formula (EBF) resumed funding of the $300 million Minimum Funding Level in the FY 2022 Enacted General Fund Budget, as it had in FYs 2018,2019, and 2020. This is certainly better than being held level with the prior fiscal year, as was done in FY 2021.

Volume IV of the Fully Funding the EBF series makes some minor adjustments to CTBA’s model to align more closely with the Illinois State Board of Education’s methodology and reporting. This change is made to the overall Adequacy Gap funding level (changes from 100% to 90% to accommodate for Federal funding). This change in methodology is applied to the four scenarios found in the Fully Funding the EBF series Volume Three.

As of now, without accounting for any unpaid bills which remain at the close of FY 2021, General Fund revenues and net expenditures in FY 2022 are expected to balance.  And while initial projections were that some $8.3 billion in unpaid bills would carryforward from FY 2021 into FY 2022, those projections have been revised downward significantly, and currently stand at $6.3 billion.

This positive turn of events is primarily due to unexpected federal financial assistance the state is receiving to help cover expenses related to the pandemic. Initially, Illinois procured approximately $15 billion in funding under various federal initiatives that were enacted in 2020, headlined by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), as well as the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (“CRRSA”).

On March 11, 2021, the Biden Administration secured passage of the American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”), which, like the CARES Act, also provides fiscal relief designed to counter economic issues created by the pandemic. ARPA is considerable in size and provides a total of $1.9 trillion in federal aid for state and local governments to use to support the provision of various core public services such as healthcare, human services, and education, as well as to infrastructure.

No question all this federal support is welcome—but bear in mind it does constitute one-time revenue that will not be continued in the future. Which means that as long as the long-term, significant structural flaws in Illinois’ fiscal system are not redressed, the state is facing a potentially substantial fiscal cliff for its General Fund in FY 2025.

That said, given the significant federal aid flowing through ARPA, CTBA has compiled the following answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about that legislation and how it will impact Illinois.  

In the FY 2022 General Fund budget proposal the Governor announced in February, K-12 funding under the Evidence-Based Funding formula (EBF) is once again held level with FY 2020, in nominal, non-inflation adjusted dollars. While that is certainly better than being cut from FY 2020 levels in nominal dollars, it represents a step backward. That is because, after accounting for inflation, K-12 funding under the FY 2022 proposed General Fund budget is $434 million, or 4.9 percent less in real terms than it was in FY 2020.  

By not providing additional new funding for the EBF, the state is extending the time it would take to fully fund the EBF by two years – if the state continues to put in a minimum of $300 million yearly beginning in FY 2023. That two year extension would mean extending the timeline to more than four times longer than what is required by statute. 

This update is the third installment in the Fully Funding the EBF Series.

This past November, voters failed to ratify an amendment to the Illinois Constitution that would have permitted replacing the state’s flat rate income tax with a graduated structure. That in turn killed the “Fair Tax” legislation, which was designed to raise around $3.6 billion in new, annual revenue (during a normal economy), by imposing higher income tax rates on the wealthiest three percent in Illinois, while reducing the income taxes paid by the bottom 97 percent of the state’s earners. This failure was unfortunate because the Fair Tax would have helped address key structural flaws in the state’s tax policy that both drive its long-term General Fund deficits, and make Illinois one of the most regressive, and hence unfair, taxing states in the nation.

As things stand today, the state’s General Fund deficit is large and growing. Illinois is suffering from a long-term structural deficit in its General Fund that cannot be eliminated without re-amortizing the Pension Ramp as detailed previously, and either raising taxes, or significantly reducing spending on core services like education, public safety, and human services. The better public policy solution is to raise taxes, given that: (i) Illinois is already low spending on services when compared to the rest of the nation; (ii) Illinois has been cutting its real investment in core services for decades; (iii) underfunding core services is harming communities across the state; and (iv) flawed tax policy which resulted in poor revenue generation is the primary driver of the structural deficit in the General Fund to begin with.

There are two primary revenue sources that most states rely on to fund current services, the income tax and the sales tax. Illinois is no exception, with roughly 54 percent of its General Fund revenue in FY 2020—the last complete fiscal year before COVID-19—coming from state level income taxes (individual and corporate, collectively) and another 22 percent coming from sales taxes.

If the goal is to raise revenue to help address the structural deficit, while also making tax burden incidence fairer, the amount of any such income tax increase that low- and moderate-income families would have to pay should be offset with targeted tax relief. Please read more about CTBA’s solution to increasing the income tax in Illinois in tandem with the utilization of refundable income tax credits in the short report “Increasing the Income Tax Rate: One Method for Addressing Illinois’ Long-term Fiscal Problems”.

Part of the federal economic stimulus created under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, involved increasing the tax relief businesses could claim under the existing net operating loss and excess business loss tax breaks. Among other things, the Cares Act made these tax cuts retroactive, meaning businesses can claim losses and reduce their tax liability for years in which the pandemic had no impact on their profitability.

Because the Illinois income tax code is predicated on federal law, whenever Congress increases existing tax relief already received by businesses at the federal level, that tax relief automatically applies under Illinois law, resulting in a concomitant reduction in tax revenue for the state. According to State Representative Mike Zalewski, this change in federal law could result in Illinois losing anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion in tax revenue this year, unless Illinois “decouples” from the federal change, as requested by the Pritzker Administration.  The following Issue Brief provides CTBA’s reasoning for supporting decoupling from Federal CARES Act Tax Breaks.

In early August, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce issued a press release arguing against ratification of the proposed amendment to the Illinois Constitution that will permit the state to utilize a graduated rate structure for its income tax. According to the Illinois Chamber, such ratification, coupled with implementation of the specific graduated rate structure identified in P.A.101-0008, which is called the “Fair Tax” by proponents, would “somehow” shrink the Illinois economy, and disproportionately harm women and minorities. But the press release based these claims on largely unsubstantiated findings contained in an Executive Summary of the report, “Illinois’ Proposed Graduated Income Tax: Impacting Jobs and the Economy,” which the Illinois Chamber paid the Berkeley Research Group (BRG) to produce.

Unfortunately, the Executive Summary does not provide much in the way of support for the conclusions it reaches, nor does it regularly cite its sources, or even provide insight into the model BRG used to reach its conclusions which is particularly problematic in this instance, given that the main findings contained in the Executive Summary are contrary to prior research on migration, tax burden, and the economy.

CTBA decided to reached out to both the BRG and the Illinois Chamber to request a copy of the full report, however, neither the Illinois Chamber nor BRG was willing to make the full report available to either CTBA or the public. CTBA chose to respond to the BRG Executive Summary released by the Illinois Chamber anyway. To find out more about how, when compared to the body of research conducted by credible sources in the relevant areas, the Key Findings presented in the Executive Summary are revealed to be either inaccurate or misleading, please read CTBA’s new Issue Brief, “Analysis of Berkeley Research Group Graduated Rate Income Tax Impact Report.”

Do you still have questions about Illinois’ proposed amendment to the Illinois Constitution, often referred to as the “Fair Tax”? Over the past several months, the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability (“CTBA”) has been compiling some of the most frequently asked questions about the Fair Tax and has created this FAQ to help voters understand this ballot initiative.