Indiana Tax Conference: If You're Not At The Table, You're On The Menu

By Derek Thomas

On Tuesday, June 24th, Governor Pence will hold a closed-to-the-publicTax Competitiveness and Simplification Conference’ at the Indiana Government Center. According to Indiana Law Blog, the event leans heavily on “outside sources” and will feature academics, national think-tanks, local law firms, large CPA firms, state and local officials, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce and Indiana Manufacturers Association. 

Because work is the key to economic self‐sufficiency, policymakers should be commended for ensuring that Indiana is a business‐friendly environment. However, the last decade has disproportionately been defined legislatively by picking winners in Indiana’s economy through lopsided tax-cuts for high-income earners and profitable corporations. Yet, according to The Times of Northwest Indiana"Indiana came in dead last [in 2013] among surrounding states in total facilities or expansions per capita...and was second to last after only Minnesota in the 12 U.S. Census Bureau-designated Midwestern states". Moreover, in the past several years, Indiana has seen increases in poverty-wage jobs at a rate faster than all neighboring states and the national average. And over the last decadeHoosiers themselves have experienced some of the largest declines in household incomes, swelling of inequality, and increases in impoverished and low-income individuals in the nation. Reworking these low-road growth strategies of low-taxes and light-regulations into transformational strategies to improve the economic health of working families will be, perhaps, the greatest challenge for policymakers. Because working-families haven’t had a representative seat at the table, here are some suggestions we’ve submitted on their behalf - a toolbox of family-friendly tax-policies to raise the standard of living for all hard-working Hoosiers.

Ensure That Profitable Multi-National Corporations Are Paying Something Resembling The Legal Rate   When large companies are able to dodge almost all state income taxes on their U.S. profits, the inevitable impact is a tax shift away from big corporations and onto everyone else, including small businesses and middle-income families. Creating a level playing field between large businesses and “mom and pop” businesses should be a priority for state policymakers—but that is best done by repealing harmful tax giveaways, not through reducing corporate income tax rates. 

Provide Relief To Those With The Largest Burdens – To reflect the realities of struggling working-poor families, and to help more Hoosiers close the gap between stagnant wages and the cost of the most basic needs. The most recent 3% reduction in the states personal income tax was regressive in its distribution. More than half (55%) of the 3% cut will flow to the best-off 20% of Indiana residents, while the bottom 60% will see 23% of the cuts, and the poorest 20% will receive just 2% of the cut. Currently, Indiana ranks as the 9th most regressive tax system in the nation (with the 7th highest taxes on the poor). Combining all of the state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes, the average overall effective tax rates for Hoosiers, by income group are: 12.3 percent for the bottom 20 percent; 10.8 percent for the middle 20 percent; 5.4 percent for the top one percent. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, if the 3% cut had been in effect in 2012: the poorest 20% of Hoosiers would see an average tax cut of just $6 per year; the middle 20% of Hoosiers would receive a tax cut of $33 annually and; the top 1% of taxpayers would see cuts averaging over $694 per year.

Increase Indiana’s Tax Threshold And Personal Exemptions — Currently Indiana is one of 15 states that taxes below the Federal Poverty Guidelines ($22,350 for a family of four in 2011). By enacting a $25,000 no‐tax floor, for example, families making below that amount owe no income taxes, but once income surpasses that level the tax is owed on all taxable income from one dollar up. When the Indiana income tax was enacted in 1963, the basic personal exemption was set at $1,000 per family member — where it remains today. Since then, inflation has eroded the value of $1,000 substantially.

Increase The State’s Earned Income Tax Credit From 9% To 25% Of The Federal EITC —The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a federal tax credit for low‐ to moderate‐ income working individuals and families, to which the state EITC is indexed. The credit reduces the tax burden placed on workers by offsetting payroll and income taxes. The credit is also refundable –meaning that if the credit exceeds the amount of taxes owed, the difference is given back to the worker. Given the current status of working families, a stronger EITC may be more important to working families than ever before, particularly when low‐income workers are taxed in a regressive system.

Eliminate the Marriage Tax Penalty (Recouple The State EITC With The Federal EITC Formula) – During the 2011 Session the budget bill HB 1001 decoupled Indiana’s State EITC eligibility guidelines from the federal guidelines originally expanded under the recovery act. As a result, those claiming Indiana’s EITC no longer benefit from the larger EITC payment to families with three or more children. Also, they no longer benefit from the reduction of the “marriage penalty,” which started the income phase out at a higher income level for married couples. Marriage penalties are not only regressive, but encourage cohabitation over marriage for low-income individuals.

Expand the Sales Tax Base to Services — A less regressive way to increase state sales tax revenues in a more equitable manner would be to expand the sales tax base to include services, since low‐income taxpayers pay more in sales taxes than those of higher incomes, who tend to purchase more services. For example, if an individual purchases cleaning supplies to clean their home, they pay sales tax. However, if the same individual hires a cleaning service, they do not pay any sales tax.

Outreach to Employers on the Work Opportunity Tax Credit to Increase Employment Opportunities for Populations Who Face Significant Employment Barriers — The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) is a Federal tax credit for private sector businesses for hiring individuals from nine target groups who have consistently faced significant barriers to employment.

Smooth Out “Cliffs” in Childcare — At the same time that low-income Hoosiers are burdened by paying the highest effective tax rates, they also pay some of the highest effective marginal tax rates - "the percentage of an additional dollar of earnings that is unavailable to a worker because it is paid in taxes or offset by reductions in benefits from government programs". . This occurs when a small increase in income leads to a large loss of public resources – also known as the “cliff effect” phenomenon. At a wage of $8 per hour, a single mother with one preschool age child and one school age child, with the support of federal and state tax credits, SNAP, public health insurance, and a child care subsidy is self-sufficient. The first significant loss in net resources occurs when the participant loses SNAP benefits between the wages of $11.50 and $12.00 per hour—a total annual net resource loss of $2651—nearly 11 percent of annual income. Most dramatically though is the “cliff” that occurs as child care subsidies are lost between the wages of $15.00 and $15.50 per hour—a total net resource loss of $8,454—a painful 25 percent loss in annual resources as a result of a $0.50 raise. The unintended consequence of this design either leads to a disincentive towards economic mobility, or leads to a situation in which the parent or guardian is working harder, but is financially worse off – effectively trapping families into poverty. By smoothing out the “benefit cliff”, policymakers could begin restore a system that rewards hard work.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Can't Buy Me Love

By Derek Thomas

In a recent column printed by the Indianapolis Star, the Indiana Family Institute (not to be confused with the Indiana Institute for Working Families – that’s us) asserts that the U.S Government alone is the culprit for the “collapse” of the American family. To correct for this decline, they offer a simple solution; government-subsidized marriage. It’s at least thought provoking.

According to the authors, here’s what happens: a baby is born out of wedlock; the mother and father then calculate (by managing to navigate a complicated and punitively-designed web of benefits) that the mother will collect $25,000 annually in benefits if she remains single; and thus, without the financial incentive to marry, the couple co-conspires to cohabitate.

Citing studies that show an increase in the number of couples who cohabitate before marrying, they propose “cohabitation reform”. This means if the couple agrees to put a ring on it, the government can correct their scheme (which assumes a couple’s decision to marry is primarily one of income) by tapering out the so-called handsome package of benefits.

In fact, the financial incentive isn’t as great as the authors surmise and is certainly not widespread enough to be the sole cause of societal shifts in marriage patterns. Only a meager 3% of the nearly 1,000,000 Hoosiers in poverty receive TANF benefits, and of that 3%, only 11% of those are also receiving housing assistance. All told, it would be a stretch to say that even 1% of Hoosiers in poverty are collecting the full-range of benefits equal to $25,000. 

There are also potential unintended consequences of this proposal. The research on cohabitants shows that 40% of these couples split 5 years after the birth of their first child. Most likely, this isn’t the result of Uncle Sam not being there to coax them. Using the government to push any marriage at the expense of good marriages for families who aren’t yet ready may make it that much more difficult to leave an otherwise abusive relationship.

Across the nation, well-meaning attempts on both sides of the political aisle have supported marriage counseling to “build relationship skills” for low-income families, but have failed to produce results. Instead, the best foundation for a healthy marriage is economic stability; without the strong foundation that economic well-being provides, even the most dedicated partners would struggle to keep their marriage together. Indeed, according to the same research, 90% of young adults believe they should be financially independent or finished with their education before marriage.

To the credit of the authors, tapering out benefits is a good idea – for proven programs.  In fact, the cliff effect is the exact opposite of tapering - resulting in a disincentive to work, and to two-parent families. This phenomenon occurs when a $0.50 increase in hourly wages leads to the complete termination of the benefit and a dramatic net loss of resources – the loss of childcare alone can result in a 25% net annual loss of income. During our statewide outreach, we've heard from couples considering marriage, who willingly set themselves in this poverty trap in order to set a good example for their children.  Simple reforms to income-eligibility thresholds in the childcare development fund can restore the most basic incentive for hard work – a raise that results in an increase in net resources – without punishing marriage. This proposal does not pick winners and losers, but instead provides all families with a smooth landing into economic self‐sufficiency.

It’s not misplaced to say that pooling incomes reduces the burden of household expenses, but the same is true when you move in with your mother or a roommate. Just because people with education beyond high school that hold stable, good paying jobs are more likely to get married, that doesn't mean a wedding will lead to stable employment and a strong family.

Everyone agrees, we really should make families a priority, but we should be doing that regardless of how many parents are in the home. Let the record also show that according to Center for Economic and Policy Research, "there are more married parents with incomes below the poverty line than there are never-married ones, and more food-insecure adults live in households with children headed by married couples than in ones headed by just a man or woman." Ultimately, investing in and prioritizing a toolbox of family friendly policies (such as paid sick leave, childcare and early education) can go a long way towards strengthening all families by leading to better education, which leads to more stable families, which leads to reduced poverty.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Poverty Jobs on the Rise in Indiana

By Derek Thomas

We reported last year that as of 2011, Indiana had a higher percent of jobs in occupations with poverty-level wages than all neighboring states, the Midwestern average and the U.S. average, and that job growth was largely concentrated in low-wage work. New analysis shows that among neighboring states, Kentucky took the 2012 title back by a slim margin. However, Indiana still holds the dubious distinction of having the largest percent growth in occupations with poverty-level wages over the past three years – nearly 12% from 2010 - 2012 (Figure A). Additionally, the percent of jobs in occupations with median annual pay less than twice the poverty threshold is up from 71% to 72.1% - of neighboring states, only Kentucky has more (slightly).

FIGURE A: Percent Of Jobs In Occupations With Median Annual Pay Below 
Poverty Threshold for Family Of Four
Source: Working Poor Families Project - PRB analysis of Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2012

Furthermore, a new report from the National Employment Law Project (NELP) finds that: “Service-providing industries...have led private sector job growth during the recovery.These industries, which pay relatively low wages, accounted for 39 percent of the private sector employment increase over the past four years."

While the data from the chart above is from 2012, and the NELP report takes a deeper dive into sub-sectors that this blog doesn't, a quick look at data on industry growth reflects similar trends in Indiana (Figure B). In the past year, the 'Leisure and Hospitality' sector has accounted for 21% of job growth in Indiana, (22% since the recession began and 10% since the recovery began). This industry includes 'Food Preparation and Serving Workers, Including Fast Food', and as of May 2013, Indiana had the 5th highest concentration of jobs and location quotients in this occupation in the U.S. Contrary to minimum wage opponents, and from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the majority of these fast food workers are adults (of whom 85% have a high-school degree or more) and more than a quarter are raising children.

FIGURE B: Job Growth, By Industry in Indiana
Source: Economic Policy Institute Analysis of Current Establishment Survey March 2014 & STATS Indiana, using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Indiana Department of Workforce Development data 

Worse, not only are low-wage jobs on the rise, but in real dollars, the 20th percentile wages (right around the poverty level wage) have declined, and more so than all neighboring states and the U.S. average (Figure C).

            FIGURE C: 20th Percentile Wages by State by Year - In 2013 Dollars

Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey data ** Using CPI-U-RS 

Following a decade of low-road growth strategies, there's good reason to be "skeptical of arguments about the job-killing impact of taxing and regulating." To raise the standard of living for hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers, Indiana lawmakers should give sincere consideration to policies that can meaningfully increase economic security and create opportunity through greater access to childcare and early-ed, job-traininghealthcare (update - Governor Pence proposes HIP 2.0 alternative) and an increased minimum wage.

Monday, May 19, 2014

Our Mothers Deserve Better

By Derek Thomas

For Mother's Day, let's start honoring Hoosier moms (and their children) by supporting public policies that not only provide them with the tools necessary for economic mobility, but also reflect our appreciation for their role in promoting strong families. The 21st century has exponentially increased demands on working mothers, yet lawmakers are moving like snails to keep up. So, from the perspective of a public policy institute (that's us), here are some gifts we'd like to give our moms: the ability to balance work, family, and professional responsibilities; time to care for a newborn child; equal pay for equal work; living wages; and healthcare coverage. 

Public Polices For Mothers

Smooth Out the Cliff Effect: A recent report by the Institute looked at the Cliff Effect phenomenon. This occurs when even a $0.50 increase in hourly wages leads to the complete termination of a benefit, and a dramatic net loss of resources. The most devastating cliff is the loss of childcare subsidies - where a $0.50 increase in hourly wages leads to a loss of up to $8,500. This creates a disincentive towards economic mobility; a parent or guardian turns down the raise due to the prohibitive cost of childcare, or does accept the hard‐earned increase but is now financially worse off. By reforming income thresholds in the childcare development fund, policymakers can restore the most basic incentive for hard work - a raise that results in an increase in net resources - and provide Hoosier families with a smooth landing into economic self‐sufficiency. 

Here's a video on our You Tube page highlighting the impact that the Cliff Effect has on "Sarah" - a single mother with two children, and here's a link to much more information, including media coverage, policy briefs and community conversations on the Cliff Effect.

Provide Paid Family Leave: The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee working mothers paid time off to care for a new child. Here's a recent cost-benefit analysis from IUPUI's School of Public and Environmental Affairs Capstone Program, which showed that 48% of all private employees in Indiana do not have access to Paid Sick Days (more than all neighbors states) and a benefit to the state (“reduced costs associated with less contagion of communicable diseases, reduced employee turnover, and increased employee productivity”) of $3.12 million.

Raise the Minimum Wage:  From our recent blog, 14 Reasons to Raise Indiana's Minimum Wage: Nationally, nearly 2/3rds of tipped workers are women, and Indiana is 1 of 5 states – along with Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi – in which more than 7 in 10 minimum wage workers are women. According to this analysis of the EPI report from GovBeat, 20% of female workers in Indiana would be directly affected. With women earning just $0.73 cents to their male counterpart (the 6th largest gender gap in the U.S.), increasing the tipped minimum wage is a good step towards equal pay. The Wall Street Journal showed this past weekend that less than 12% of those that would benefit are under 20 years old. From Sarah Jackson and Elizabeth at Brookings Institution on the recent shift in low-wage worker demographics: "The typical worker likely to be affected by a raise in the minimum wage today is a woman in her 30's working full-time, with a family to support." Speaking of families to support, Indiana is among eight states where over a quarter (25.5%) of children have a parent who would benefit from the minimum-wage increase.

Expand Medicaid: A recent report by Save the Children ranked the U.S. as 30th of 176 nations in  the industrialized world for "best places to be a mom."  The report says that the U.S. has the  highest first-day death rate in the industrialized world. An estimated 11,300 newborn babies die each year - 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined. In Indiana, infant mortality stands at 7.6 of every 1000 births - tied for 5th highest in U.S. Among leading causes, the report cites high adolescent births, lack of education, and calls for greater investments in healthcare.  Jesse Cross-Call at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities posted a blog on the benefits of medicaid expansion for mothers, saying that up to 6 million women between the ages of 19 and 44 may become eligible if all states were to expand Medicaid. The Sergeant Shriver National Center on Poverty Law lists a few ways the ACA is currently helping women, and whereas only 12% of women were previously eligible for maternity through individual market plans, 100% of them now do. 

Here an infographic from Half in Ten on the work that needs "to be done to ensure that mothers are provided the same economic opportunities to thrive not only as individuals but also for their families and for the nation."

Contact your federal and state legislators and tell them that you support your mothers and families. Ask them to do the same!
Saturday, May 10, 2014

GUEST BLOG: Public Sector Jobs Deficit

By Brooks KirchgassnerBrooks is a Legislative Assistant with the Institute and an Associate Faculty member in the Department of Political Science at IUPUI. 

Following legislation allowing Indiana counties the option to eliminate the business personal property tax (without providing replacement revenue), accompanied by another round of corporate income tax cutseven more of the burden of funding critical government services will inherently be shifted towards middle - and low- income families, while local governments are expected to continue to struggle to meet infrastructure and service needs - arguably just as critical to growth as minimizing business costs. Here's a look at the employment picture:

Currently, state and local government employment is down 2.5% since its peak in July 2008. As of January 2014, there were 383,500 jobs in this sector. That's 26,200 fewer than there were during the peak of state and local government employment in July of 2008. Add that to the 19,600 jobs needed to keep up with an average population growth of 4.3% since the job-peak for a total state and local government jobs deficit of 45,800 (Figure A). The total non-farm jobs deficit is 174,700 - that's 32,000 less total jobs since the recession began, plus 142,700 to keep up with an average population growth of 4.3% during the same time period.

You can explore some of the trends yourself with this interactive from Governing magazine on state government employment trends - illustrating notable  declines in corrections, financial administration, hospital staff, and highway positions since the beginning of the recession. And because education employment “accounts for such a large share of public employment", here is state-by-state map displaying "percentage changes in non-education full-time equivalent employment from 2007 to 2012". The author notes that “states with stronger economies tended to add more workers” -  yet, only New Mexico, Oklahoma and Maine saw greater percent reductions than Indiana’s 10.8% loss.

Public sector  job losses and post-recession austerity measures not only have visibly adverse effects on infrastructure, public safety and health investments, the classroom, and other important service and community needs, but also reduce private sector demand, affecting total economic activity.

                        Figure A - State and Local Government Jobs Deficit 
Source: Economic Policy Institute Analysis of Current Employment Statistics and Local Area Unemployment Statistics January 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014

'Inside the Statehouse 2014' - Victories and Missed Opportunities for Hoosier Families, A Post Session Wrap-Up

Lawmakers officially concluded the 2014 session on March 13, one day before the constitutionally mandated end-date for short sessions. While legislators continued a decade-long focus on tax breaks for businesses and picking winners for the state’s economy, some of the Institute's policy agenda made it on to the General Assembly's radar. Below we highlight some Victories for working Hoosier families as well as Missed Opportunities. 

Legislative Victories
2014 legislative victories for working Hoosier families include the defeat of suspicionless drug-testing of TANF recipients, a study of part-time students by the state's Commission on Higher Education (a positive step towards closing Indiana's skills gap), expansion of mass transit for Central Indiana, increased infrastructure spending, and a pre-K pilot program. 

SB 330: Better Skills for Adult Learners
Description: Requires the commission for higher education to award part-time student grants totaling at least 50% of the available appropriation each fiscal year to adult students who are pursuing a program of study that will lead to a specific high demand, high wage job. Requires the commission to submit not later than November 1, 2014, to the legislative council a report that provides information about the part-time student population in Indiana, including the population's size, its financial need, its completion rates, and recommendations for increasing the population's completion rates using financial support and student incentives.
Last Action Taken: Passed the House & Senate; awaiting Governor's signature. 
Position - Support: The study of part-time learners will be a positive step forward for this population, which makes up nearly half of all Indiana college students. This measure is also a policy priority for the Indiana Skills2Compete Coalition. 

SB 176Central Indiana Transit
Description: Provides for the establishment or expansion of public transportation services other than light rail in an eligible county through a local public question placed on the ballot under an ordinance adopted by the fiscal body of the eligible county. Requires the department of local government finance to review and approve the language of a local public question. Provides that Delaware County, Hamilton County, Hancock County, Johnson County, Madison County, and Marion County are eligible counties. Requires goals for participation by minority business enterprises, veteran business enterprises, and women's business enterprises in the development of a public transportation project.
Last Action Taken: Passed the House & Senate; awaiting Governor's signature. 
Position - Support: A step in the right direction towards providing greater accessibility for low-income workers in Indiana to travel to and from work. Click here for a summary of the bill and here to show your support for mass transit. 

HB 1004 Early Learning Pilot Grant Program.
Description: Authorizes the office of the secretary of family and social services to establish a pilot program to make grants to certain entities that provide qualified early education services to eligible children who are four years of age. Establishes the prekindergarten and early learning study commission.
Last Action Taken: Passed the House and Senate; awaiting Governor's signature.
Position - Support: Indiana joins the 41 other states that provide pre-K funding for children who are at least four years-old, and while only a pilot program it is a welcome step in the right direction. Research on the benefits of early childhood education are abundant (particularly for low-income children who face barriers to economic mobility as adults), so examining (and implementing) the right design for Indiana is an action that is long-overdue. Thank you Governor Pence for making this a priority. 

Missed Opportunities
Work Sharing: Despite support from both labor and business interests, as well as bi-partisan support in the Indiana House, legislation that would have created a work share program to protect Hoosier jobs and provide flexibility to employers was not given a hearing in committee and was voted down as a second reading amendment offered by Senator Karen Tallian. This missed opportunity has cost the state federal reimbursement to the UI trust fund and $2,074,861 in outreach and implementation grants. Work share is a "win-win-win" for business, workers, and the state. See more on Work Sharing (research, media coverage and fact sheets) here.

Cliff Effect: The Institute called attention to our recommendations to address the cliff effect - policy design in work-support programs that act as barriers to employment and mobility for low-income families – during Restore Economic Mobility Day at the Indiana Statehouse and several communities around the state. While legislation was sidelined, in-roads were made on outreach and education.

Stay tuned throughout the year for new research, up-to-date information on summer study committees at the Indiana Statehouse, our role in federal policy that affects working families in Indiana, and much more. In 2015 we will continue to advocate for meaningful legislation and investments that reward hard working Hoosiers by ensuring they share in economic growth; reflect the economic reality of low- and middle-income Hoosiers by strengthening work support programs, and ultimately; equip all Hoosiers with the opportunity to obtain the skills necessary in order to attract high-paying, quality jobs that are necessary for a family’s economic self-sufficiency.
Friday, March 21, 2014

What Corporate Tax Burden?

By Meg Wiehe: 
State Tax Policy Director 
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP)

On the immediate heels of significantly cutting taxes for corporations and high income individuals, lawmakers are close to making a deal to deliver additional tax breaks to some businesses including very profitable multi-national corporations.
The compromise that has emerged in recent weeks (and will likely be sent to Governor Pence today) would give counties the option to cut local business taxes and would include a gradual reduction in the state’s corporate income tax rate from 6.5 percent to 4.9 percent (Indiana lawmakers cut the rate gradually from 8.5 percent to 6.5 percent in 2011.  The 6.5 percent rate goes into effect next year).

Yet, an analysis of the aggregate state corporate income taxes paid (or not paid) by two of the largest and most profitable corporations based in Indiana –Eli Lilly and NiSource– shows that lawmakers should first be concerned with asking how much if anything these and other profitable corporations operating in Indiana are actually paying before further cutting the rate.

Eli Lilly and NiSource have been staggeringly successful in avoiding state corporate income taxes in recent years. In 2011, both corporations actually paid a negative state tax rate despite recording profits. In other words, rather than paying any state income taxes in 2011, Eli Lilly and NiSource received rebates.

Between 2008 and 2012, NiSource paid only $9 million total in aggregate state corporate taxes on more than $2.4 billion in profits for an effective rate of just .4%, far below Indiana’s rate. During the same period, Eli Lilly’s effective rate was just .6%, paying only $61 million in total aggregate state income taxes on more than $10 billion in profits. 

When some of Indiana’s most successful corporations are paying such a small fraction of their profits in state income taxes to states around the country, it raises serious questions about whether reducing the corporate income tax is a worthwhile priority.

Lawmakers interested in true corporate tax reform should start by ensuring that profitable multi-national corporations are paying something resembling the legal rate. When these large companies are able to dodge almost all state income taxes on their U.S. profits, the inevitable impact is a tax shift away from big corporations and onto everyone else, including small businesses and middle-income families. Creating a level playing field between large businesses and “mom and pop” businesses should be a priority for state policymakers—but that is best done by repealing harmful tax giveaways, not through reducing corporate income tax rates.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

- Copyright © Indiana Institute for Working Families -Metrominimalist- Powered by Blogger - Designed by Johanes Djogan -