STAMP:
SHOWING HOW STATE TAXES MATTER
Summary
of the Simulation Results of BHI's State Tax Analysis Modeling
Program (STAMP)
The
following tables present findings of tax model simulations estimated
using seven of the 15 STAMPs that are currently in use. For each
state we used STAMP to simulate the effects of a one percent increase
in both the income and sales tax rates. The tables here show the
effects of those simulation on tax revenues, employment and the
capital stock in each state. Since there is currently no income
tax in Texas, STAMP cannot accurately address the implications of
such a policy change. Therefore, you will see n/a for the income
tax change simulation for that state. At the bottom of each table
you will see an average, weighted by population, of the results
of the simulation in all the states presented.
| Reduction
in Sales Tax by One Percentage Point:
Effects
on State Tax Revenues (%)
|
| 2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
Arizona
|
-13.5 |
-13.2 |
-12.4 |
-11.7 |
| California |
-2.5 |
-2.0 |
-1.8 |
-1.6 |
| Michigan |
-9.5 |
-8.8 |
-8.2 |
-7.7 |
| New
York |
-3.1 |
-3.2 |
-3.3 |
-3.4 |
| Pennsylvania |
-4.2 |
-4.2 |
-4.2 |
-4.3 |
| Texas |
-11.1 |
-11.1 |
-11.1 |
-11.1 |
| Virginia |
-2.8 |
-2.5 |
-2.4 |
-2.4 |
| Weighted
Average |
-5.7 |
-5.4 |
-5.3 |
-5.1 |
| |
| Reduction
in Income Tax by One Percentage Point:
Effects
on Sales Tax Revenue(%)
|
| 2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
Arizona
|
-7.3 |
-7.5 |
-7.7 |
-7.9 |
| California |
-5.0 |
-4.7 |
-4.6 |
-4.5 |
| Michigan |
-7.0 |
-7.5 |
-8.1 |
-8.7 |
| New
York |
-6.4 |
-6.5 |
-6.6 |
-6.8 |
| Pennsylvania |
-12.7 |
-12.9 |
-13.2 |
-13.8 |
| Texas |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
| Virginia |
-5.0 |
-4.5 |
-4.2 |
-4.1 |
| Weighted
Average |
-6.7 |
-6.7 |
-6.8 |
-6.9 |
| |
| Reduction
in Sales Tax by One Percentage Point:
Effects
on Employment (%)
|
| 2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
Arizona
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| California |
2.0 |
2.7 |
3.1 |
3.2 |
| Michigan |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| New
York |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
| Pennsylvania |
3.4 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
| Texas |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
| Virginia |
1.3 |
1.8 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
| Weighted
Average |
1.5 |
1.8 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
| |
| Reduction
in Income Tax by One Percentage Point:
Effects
on Employment (%)
|
| 2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
Arizona
|
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
| California |
0.9 |
1.2 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
| Michigan |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
| New
York |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
| Pennsylvania |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
| Texas |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
| Virginia |
2.8 |
3.9 |
4.4 |
4.6 |
| Weighted
Average |
1.2 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
1.6 |
| |
| Reduction
in Sales Tax by One Percentage Point:
Effects
on Capital Stock (%)
|
| 2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
Arizona
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| California |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| Michigan |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| New
York |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| Pennsylvania |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| Texas |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
1.4 |
| Virginia |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| Weighted
Average |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| |
| Reduction
in Income Tax by One Percentage Point:
Effects
on Capital Stock (%)
|
| 2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
Arizona
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| California |
1.6 |
3.0 |
4.2 |
5.3 |
| Michigan |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| New
York |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| Pennsylvania |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| Texas |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| Virginia |
2.6 |
4.3 |
5.4 |
6.1 |
| Weighted
Average |
0.9 |
1.6 |
2.2 |
2.7 |
Persons
interested in acquiring a STAMP for their state should contact:
Dr.
David G. Tuerck, Executive Director
Beacon Hill Institute, Suffolk University
8 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Phone: 617-573-8750
Fax: 617-994-4279
Email: dtuerck@beaconhill.org
To
obtain a PDF version of the BHI
STAMP brochure click here.
|