BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 43 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 27, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Jimmy Gomez, Chair AB 43 (Mark Stone) - As Amended May 20, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Revenue and Taxation |Vote:|6 - 3 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill creates a state earned income tax credit (EITC), under the personal income tax law, in modified conformity with the federal credit, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016, and before January 1, 2021, and provides that, in those years in which an appropriation is made by the Legislature, the credit will be refundable. The bill establishes the following credit amounts: 1)35% of the federal EITC amount for taxpayers who have at least one qualifying child less than 5 years of age; AB 43 Page 2 2)60% of the federal EITC amount for taxpayers without a qualifying child; and 3)15% of the federal EITC amount for taxpayers who have a child 5 years of age or older. The bill specifies that amounts refunded under the credit are not included in income subject to tax, and notwithstanding any other state law, amounts refunded will be treated the same as federal EITC amounts for purposes of determining public benefits eligibility. FISCAL EFFECT: 1)Potentially significant GF costs to Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to administer the changes to forms and systems. 2)Estimated GF revenue decreases of $380 million, $1.9 billion, and $2.0 billion in FY 2015-16, FY 2016-17, and FY 2017-18, respectively, assuming appropriation is made by the Legislature to provide a refundable credit. Estimated GF revenue decreases of $38 million, $190 million, and $200 million for those fiscal years, respectively, if no appropriation is made to provide a refundable credit. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. According to the author, the EITC addresses stagnant income for working Californians in the post-recession economic recovery while simultaneously providing stimulus in the most economically distressed communities. The EITC is a refundable AB 43 Page 3 tax credit targeted at low-income working households, designed to reduce poverty and reward work. The author asserts the federal EITC is an effective anti-poverty tool, and without it, child poverty would be as much as 25% higher. According to the California Budget Project, the federal EITC results in improved health and education outcomes for children that translate into higher incomes in adulthood. 2)EITC Basics. The EITC is a tax credit for low-income individuals and families designed to augment incomes and provide an incentive for people to work more and earn higher wages. When the credit exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a cash refund to claimants, eliminating all tax and increasing realized income. As a taxpayer's income increases, the EITC increases up to a maximum benefit level, and then phases out. The amount of federal credit depends on the number of children in the taxpayer's household, with significantly more credit available for taxpayers with one or more children. By providing a tax credit based on earned income, the EITC encourages people to enter the workforce and rewards additional work by providing a larger credit as worker's wages increase. For example, a single taxpayer with two children earning $7,500 in 2014 is eligible for a $3,000 federal credit. However, if that taxpayer earned twice that amount, the credit increases to $5,460. Proponents believe the federal EITC has raised labor force participation rates among single mothers by at least 7%, and accounted for as much as 75% of all employment gains for single mothers with one child between 1991 and 2000. In addition to income and labor force participation gains, supporters claim the federal EITC has been associated with better academic performance among low-income children, higher completion rates among high school and college students, and AB 43 Page 4 significant offset income for inherently regressive state and local taxes such as sales and use tax. 3)Individual Help, Collective Stimulus. Supporters argue the federal EITC helped elevate 1.3 million people above the federal poverty line in California from 2010 to 2012, and note 25 other states have established their own EITC to augment the impact of the federal program. According to a 2010 analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, the most effective stimulus programs are those that encourage additional consumption and demand for goods. Programs that target lower income households with fewer assets tend to have an immediate, significant impact on consumer spending. Supporters believe each dollar distributed to EITC claimants generates between $1.50-2.00 in additional, local economic activity through increased purchasing power. 4)Governor's Proposal. The Governor's May Revise included another version of a state EITC. The Governor's proposal would also be refundable, but targets the state's lowest income taxpayers, available only to individuals earning less than $6,580 and households with children earning less than $13,870. The Governor's proposal effectively increases the incentive for very low income taxpayers and unemployed persons to enter the workforce, but quickly phases out the benefit as those taxpayers' income increases and they become eligible for a greater federal EITC. The proposal also excludes self-employment income in order to minimize potential fraud (see comment 6 below). The Legislative Analyst's Office believes the annual costs for the Governor's EITC proposal are approximately $400 million. 5)Knowing Is Half The Battle. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, only 71% of EITC eligible tax filers in AB 43 Page 5 California even claim the credit, often because they are unaware they are eligible. This failure results in the annual loss of hundreds of millions of federal dollars that would directly help low-income families and provide additional economic stimulus. AB 43 makes no investment, and the Governor's plan makes a very modest investment (about $600,000) in education and outreach to improve EITC claims. The committee may wish to consider whether additional investments in education ought to be pursued as a cost-effective manner to increase EITC claims and capture additional federal subsidies. 6)EITC Rate Comparison. The chart below highlights the maximum credit available for various individual taxpayers in each of the 2014 federal EITC, this bill's EITC, and the Governor's EITC. For joint filers, the maximum credit amounts do not change, but are available over a broader range, though far less than double, the individual income amounts. Note that the state proposals augment, and do not replace, the federal EITC, and that the EITC proposed in AB 43 is not incompatible with the Governor's proposal, but could be adopted alongside it as each proposal targets different recipients. ---------------------------------------------------------------- |HOUSEHOLD SIZE |Maximum Credit Amount | | | | | | | | |Maximum income at which maximum credit | | |available | | | | | | | | |Endpoint of credit phase-out | | | | | | | AB 43 Page 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- |--------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------| | | |AB 43 |GOV'S BUDGET | | | | | | | | | | | | |FEDERAL | | | | | | | | | | | | | |--------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------| |No dependents |496 |298 |214 | | | | | | | | | | | | |8,110 |8,110 |3,290 | | | | | | | | | | | | |14,590 |14,590 |6,580 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |--------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------| |1 dependent | 5 yrs |3,305 | 3,305 |1,157 | 496 |1,428 | 1,428 | |or older* | | | | | | | | | | |17,830 |17,830 |4,940 | | | | | | | | | | | | |38,511 |38,511 |9,880 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |--------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------| |2 dependents | 5 |5,460 | 5,460 |1,911 | 819 |2,358 | 2,358 | |yrs or older* | | | | | | | | | | |17,830 |17,830 |6,935 | AB 43 Page 7 | | | | | | | | | | | |43,756 |43,756 |13,870 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |--------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------| |3+ dependents | 5 |6,143 | 6,143 |2,150 | 921 |2,653 | 2,653 | |yrs or older* | | | | | | | | | | |17,830 |17,830 |6,935 | | | | | | | | | | | | |46,997 |46,997 |13,870 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |* Distinction for children 5 years of age or older is a feature | |of AB 43 only. | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7)High Rate of Fraud. As is often true with refundable credits, the EITC is susceptible to a high rate of fraudulent claims. According to a 2014 report by the US Treasury's Inspector General for Tax Administration, the IRS estimates that 24% of federal EITC payments during the 2013-14 fiscal year, AB 43 Page 8 amounting to $14.5 billion, were in error. Often these funds are not recoverable as the recipient does not typically have the resources to repay erroneous claims and penalties. Many fraudulent EITC claims involve identity theft. As a result, both the IRS and FTB could potentially limit this fraud through more robust and secure filing processes. Another common source of fraudulent EITC claims is from self-employed taxpayers whose income cannot easily be verified or audited. The Governor's EITC proposal, discussed above, excludes self-employment income in order to minimize this problem. Analysis Prepared by:Joel Tashjian / APPR. / (916) 319-2081