Free Enterprise Club and Buckeye Institute Release Cost-Benefit Analysis of Electric Vehicle Subsidies in Arizona

Phoenix, AZ (June 4th)–Today the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, in collaboration with the Economic Research Center at The Buckeye Institute, released “It Ain’t Easy Being Green: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Electric Vehicles in Arizona.” The paper is a comprehensive study examining the pros and cons of electric vehicle (EV) subsidies in Arizona and whether these inducements are worth the cost to taxpayers and utility ratepayers.

The analysis was conducted in response to several proposals being considered by policymakers in Arizona to encourage more drivers to purchase EVs, including a current proposal at the Arizona Corporation Commission to require utility companies build EV charging stations, with the cost of these stations being passed along to all ratepayers through higher utility rates.

The study reveals that EVs are already heavily subsidized by taxpayers in Arizona and that creating a new mandate for the construction of charging stations would only exacerbate the status quo, distort the market for EV technology and redistribute wealth to a few affluent EV car owners at the expense of every electricity user in the state.

“After a comprehensive analysis, our research clearly shows that—in an effort to encourage the purchase of more electric cars—Arizonans are being over taxed to subsidize wealthy owners of electric cars, which disproportionately hurts those who can’t afford to purchase a new electric car.  Taxpayers are seeing little return on these subsidies, paying on average more than $6,000 more per electric car on the road than they are realizing in benefits over the course of five years,” said Andrew J. Kidd, Ph.D., an economist with the Economic Research Center at The Buckeye Institute and one of the authors of “It Ain’t Easy Being Green.” “Furthermore, if a new proposal by the Arizona Corporation Commission is adopted, Arizonans will pay more on their electric bills to subsidize the building of more electric charging stations—even though there are currently 12 public chargers for every electric car on the road in Arizona.”

Some of the other key findings in the study include:

  • A Charging Station Mandate would act as a regressive tax on low and middle-income households to benefit more affluent EV drivers.
  • Over 83% of EV tax credit subsidies went to households earning above $100,000. Conversely, less than 1% of those subsidies were accessed by households below $50,000.
  • In Arizona, EV car owners pay on average $500 less each year than non-EV drivers for road maintenance.

“Mandating the construction of EV charging stations, paid for with an increase in utility rates, is both unnecessary and unfair,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “Taxpayers are already overpaying based on the benefits provided by Electric Vehicles. Instead of handing out another subsidy to EV drivers, policymakers should explore other options that avoid picking winners and losers among ratepayers.”

Getting Conform and Reform Right

As the Club has covered for over a year, Arizona taxpayers are facing the largest income tax increase in state history if a proper federal tax conformity plan is not adopted by the legislature. The department of revenue estimates that the conformity tax increase would be over $200 million dollars in the first year, with some estimates as high as $300 million.

The good news is that policymakers appear to be on the same page that any additional conformity revenues must be given back. This is a big win for taxpayers. What remains an open question is the manner in which the money is returned.

The second issue is just as important as the first.  Though a simple approach on stopping the tax hike (such as cutting all the tax rates) could be done, the Club has advocated that the conformity issue be used as an opportunity to reform and simplify our income tax code.

Reforming Arizona’s income tax code is long overdue, and if done right could be bring us closer to neighboring states Utah and Colorado with a simple flat income tax. If we can’t eliminate the tax, a simple/flatter system is the next best choice.

Unfortunately, most of the discussions related to conform and reform have been behind closed doors in budget meetings, with little input from the public. Though various components have been leaked, it has been extremely difficult to determine which proposals are best without reviewing the projected impact on taxpayers.  

For example, adopting a reform model that cuts taxes for some taxpayers while raising taxes on others (picking winners and losers) would be suboptimal. The only way to figure this out is through modeling from the Department of Revenue.  Yet most of this data is only accessible to lawmakers and the executive branch; it leaves interested observers and stakeholders at a disadvantage on making an informed decision.

Without a front row seat to the debate or access to modeling, the Club has been seeking out a reform plan that both returns all of the money and holds taxpayers across all income ranges harmless.

The 3 Bracket Solution

Last week a conform a reform plan was released that appears to do the trick (The plan can be viewed by clicking HERE).

Developed by Senate Finance Chairman JD Mesnard, his 3-Bracket model would implement the following income tax reforms:

  • Offset the entire conformity income tax increase and return the money to taxpayers.
  • Provide an offset for additional tax revenue generated by the proposed implementation of an online sales tax (a.k.a. Wayfair) thereby preventing another tax increase.
  • Collapse Arizona’s income tax brackets from 5 to 3
  • Mirror Federal Tax Reform by doubling the standard deduction for all taxpayers.
  • Keep the medical deduction and add a new charitable deduction.
  • Implement a new child and new family tax credit

Why the 3-bracket plan? This is only plan so far released that will hold individual income taxpayers (which include small businesses) harmless across all income thresholds and stops multiple tax increases, saving taxpayers over $300 million per year. Other reform plans, though well intentioned, appear to shift taxes across income levels that would trigger a tax increase on thousands of Arizona families and small businesses.

As structured, the 3-bracket plan would provide taxpayers making $50k or less with a substantial income tax cut. Taxpayers in this income group would see their tax bill slashed by an average of 20 percent.

Finally, the 3-bracket solution would simplify our tax code while flattening out the brackets. Reducing the progressivity of our income tax code should be the cornerstone of any reform package.

As the legislature (hopefully) heads into the final stretch, it the Club’s hope that the 3-bracket plan is seriously considered and adopted as the conform and reform solution in the budget.

Arizona GOP Goes All-In on Job Killing Tax Hikes

The Arizona Republican Party has decided to become the party of tax hikes. Yesterday, party Chairwoman Kelli Ward announced that the GOP is officially backing an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to impose a permanent $500 Million dollar sales tax increase for education. This is both bad policy and bad politics that will inflict irreparable harm on our state economy and sales tax code.

Arizona Doesn’t Need to Raise Taxes

As the Club has chronicled for months, there has been a steady drumbeat at the legislature by political insiders to raise taxes for education. This is despite the fact that Arizona is enjoying incredible economic growth and record state revenues.

Since the economic boom began two years ago, state revenues have increased by $1.7 Billion. By comparison, from FY 2009 to FY 2017 state revenue grew by only $1.2 Billion. This rapid revenue growth wasn’t an accident—it is a result of pro-growth reforms by a new administration in Washington, Governor Doug Ducey and a conservative state legislature.

Thanks to the surge in tax receipts, Arizona is in the process of implementing the largest increase in K-12 spending in state history. Over a billion dollars has been injected into schools for teacher pay increases, district additional assistance restoration and new school construction.  

Even with this large increase in education spending, Arizona will have nearly a $1 billion dollar surplus for FY 2020. It proves that the problem was a lack of taxpayers, not tax increases.

Amending Our Constitution to Raise Taxes?

Even if the State GOP believes that a tax hike is needed, the idea that it should be referred to the voters as a constitutional amendment is simply reckless.

If changes to our tax code are deemed necessary, the most sensible approach would be to approve a tax hike through the normal legislative process. Like our Federal Government, Arizona is a republic, which means taxing authority has been vested with the legislature. It is their responsibility to determine the appropriate levels of spending and taxation. Punting the issue to voters is nothing more than a way for politicians to avoid accountability for their actions.

But even if it was determined that the issue must go to the ballot, then it should be a statutory proposal similar to Proposition 301 that was approved nearly twenty years ago. Instead, they want to declare that the state government has a constitutional right to $500 million dollars in sales tax revenue.

Also unclear is whether the language has been vetted to ensure that it won’t lead to unintended consequences. Since this is a constitutional amendment, each word or syllable could face significant judicial scrutiny. 

One such example is the provision to dedicate “twenty percent for maintaining an in-state tuition rate” at our state universities. The drafters of SCR 1001 probably thought this was a politically clever maneuver since voters like the idea of keeping in state tuition low (knowing full well that it is a meaningless mandate).

What is not considered is that “in-state” is not defined in the measure, meaning the courts could decide how this applies to various populations, such as illegal immigrants. The Free Enterprise Club does not have a position on the DACA issue, but it is unclear whether the Arizona GOP considered such issues when endorsing this proposal. Perhaps they trust that judges won’t expand the meaning of new language being written into our constitution.  

What about the Polling?

A common response from the tax hike lobby is that voters overwhelmingly support higher taxes for education. Periodically an education group will trot out a poll showing support for a tax increase, which is then gleefully used by the political establishment to spook lawmakers into believing that they need to get on the “right side” of the issue.

It is true that most public opinion polls have voters saying they would be willing to pay more in taxes for education. But what about the only poll that matters, the one that occurs on election day when people actually vote? Are tax increases passing at the rate that the polling indicates? Let’s take a look:

  • At the height of the Red4ED movement in AZ last year, there were several education spending proposals for voters to consider. Most were in the form of bond proposals for school districts. Virtually every bond question had organized support and little opposition on the ballot. Plus, these measures can be sold to voters as a way to get more money for schools “without raising taxes.” Yet nearly half of the education bonds on the ballot were rejected by voters. If support for education funding was as high as the so-called experts claim, they should have been approved at a 9-1 clip.
  • In 2018 Colorado voters had their own version of ‘Invest in Ed’ income tax proposal on the ballot in Initiative 73, a “soak the rich” measure that would have raised taxes on the wealthy to put $1.6 billion into education. Supporters of amendment 73 claimed that polling showed voters supported the proposal, and it was heavily backed by the teacher’s union and education community. The measure was overwhelmingly rejected by voters.
  • Oregon voters in 2016 had an opportunity to raise taxes on Corporations to pay for early childhood development and K-12 education. Measure 97 was another “free lunch” education spending plan rejected by voters by a wide margin 59-41.
  • In 2016 Arizona voters had an opportunity to support more spending for education with no tax increase under Proposition 123. The measure was backed by Governor Ducey, most of the education community, the entire legislature, and faced no real opposition while raising over $4 million dollars. The measure barely passed 51-49.

As the evidence shows, when November rolls around and voters actually have to make a decision, support for tax increases is much lower than what the polling indicates.

Muddled Message Heading into 2020

Now that the AZ GOP has joined the tax hike chorus, it is difficult to know what the party will stand for heading into 2020. Two days ago the AZ GOP posted a tweet declaring that “Tax Cuts Work” and that Republicans believe taxpayers should be able to keep more of their money.  How they plan to reconcile their support for the Trump tax cuts while pushing for tax hikes on the Arizona ballot should make for some entertaining political gymnastics.

It will also be interesting to see how various GOP leaders respond to the new party platform. Governor Doug Ducey has been a consistent and vocal opponent to raising taxes, as well as a vast majority of the Republican legislature who know and understand how tax increases can derail our economic recovery. It is in their best interest to hold firm against this disastrous proposal so voters know that there are at least some elected officials that care about protecting their wallet.

The only reason the Republican Party exists is to help get people elected. By declaring they support SCR 1001, they are sending the message that the only way Republicans can win in 2020 is if they support a massive tax hike at the ballot. We wish them luck on their bold new strategy to try to tax Arizona into prosperity.

AG Brnovich Tackling Corporate Welfare at ASU

For months now, the AZ Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR, the governing body for Arizona State University) have been in embroiled in a hot legal battle over taxpayer subsidies for wealthy developers.

At the center of the legal dispute is whether ABOR has violated several provisions of the Arizona constitution designed to protect taxpayers from crony capitalist giveaways.

Evidence suggests that they have.

The framers of Arizona’s constitution understood that property taxes are a zero-sum game, and that any levy assessed should be as fair and equitable as possible.  If someone pays less as a result of a special interest carve-out, everyone else will be forced to pay more.   To prevent picking winners and losers through the property tax code, the framers installed several key protections in our constitution:

  1. Uniformity Clause, “all taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only.”
  2. No Evasions, “no property shall be exempt which has been conveyed to evade taxation”
  3. No Exceptions, “All property in the state not exempt under the laws of the United States or under this constitution or exempt by law under the provisions of this section shall be subject to taxation to be ascertained as provided by law.
  4. No Gifts, “Neither the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or corporation.”

Governmental entities, including public universities, do not pay property tax.  This makes sense as the money to pay the taxes would have to be taken from taxpayers in the form of more taxes.  But for decades now, local cities as well as ABOR have devised creative solutions to exploit their exemption from property taxes and “lend” it to private developers.

ASU Projects: Research Park, Marina Heights, and Omni Hotel Are Evidence of Gamesmanship:      

“Research Parks”

In the 1980’s ASU formed a “research park” which strived to have private business and students working alongside each other in educational pursuits to launch ideas into the marketplace.  This was permitted legislatively, and the university paid the same rate of taxation as other users in the same classification but on a mere 1 percent of their property value.  It soon became quite obvious that the mission of the research park was creeping beyond the original intent of the legislation and as a result, major corporations were enjoying major tax deference for what was their normal business operations. 

Between the research parks of University of Arizona and ASU, they host approximately 50 companies in 4 million square feet.  These companies don’t pay property taxes but instead pay a “tariff” to the university as well as the city.  All the other jurisdictions, including the State of Arizona who rely on property taxes, get absolutely nothing.

Marina Heights

Marina Heights is located on Tempe Town Lake and includes the well-known “State Farm” building.   In December 2017, with a deal that captured headlines in the state, the building’s “lease-back” was sold to a business partnership that includes Arizona icon and business insider Jerry Colangelo for almost $1 Billion – one of the largest commercial land transactions in state history.

One of the most valuable assets of the property was the value of not paying taxes.  In fact, that value is approximately $12.1 Million a year of which $3.45 would be owed to the State, $6.6 to the Tempe Elementary and Tempe Union school districts, and $1.2 million to the Maricopa Community College District.  Not only do these jurisdictions have to back fill their budgets and other property owners make up that difference, but other like businesses must try to compete with a colossal tax advantage.

Omni Hotel

Brnovich’s latest suit filed in January of this year centers around a project called Omni Hotel (located on Mill Ave and University) and predominantly argues the deal included a massive violation of the state constitution’s gift clause.

In typical ABOR fashion, the Omni Hotel transaction is a sweet deal for developers and less so for taxpayers as a whole.  ASU will spend $19.5 Million to construct a conference center and parking garage and pay $8 Million to the hotel for use of that parking garage to the profit of the hotel.  ASU will only be allowed use of the conference center 7 days out of the year.

It is a 60-year lease with an express provision of evading taxes by requiring a “in lieu of taxes” payment of $1 Million a year.  The hotel is only on the hook for $85 per square foot for rent even though within two blocks there are other hotels that sold for a market rate of $212 – 216 per square foot – a seemingly $9 Million subsidy.

This major injection of corporate welfare does not even account for the $21 Million in tax incentives being given by the City of Tempe.

Justice for Taxpayers

Given the explicit intentions of the state constitution to protect the property tax base from chicanery of the system; ABOR’s long-standing history of using their tax-exempt status to shield corporate entities should not be ignored.  AG Brnovich is doing a service to every taxpayer in the state by calling for an end to this blatant illegal practice. 

Afterall, ASU is also constitutionally bound to make tuition “as nearly free as possible.”  Year after year of tuition hikes on Arizona students are certainly hard to square with hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate giveaways.

Why are Lawmakers Pushing Billions in Tax Hikes Despite Record State Revenues?

An interesting paradox has developed at the legislature this year. Even though state policymakers are sitting on record tax revenues and a robust Arizona economy, they seem more obsessed with tax increases than ever before.

So far this session there are efforts by Republicans to increase the sales tax by $600 million, raise the gas tax by $750 million, increase income taxes by $200 million, impose taxes on most internet transactions at a cost of over $250 million, retain the $190 Million VLT registration fee and allow political subdivisions to increase sales taxes at the local level. All together it would amount to over $2 billion in tax hikes, a mind-blowing amount that would dwarf any previous tax increase enacted in the State.

The arguments in favor of each of these tax hikes vary, but most surround the topic of additional funding for K-12 schools. This sentiment was understandable. As Arizona stumbled through eight years of job killing policies under the Obama Administration, there was mounting pressure to find new funding sources for education to address the state’s anemic revenue growth.

Fortunately, this is no longer the case. Between the change in administrations in Washington and a consistent focus on pro-growth policies here at home, our economy has taken off. Arizona now has the 3rd fastest growing economy in the country. People are once again flocking to the state, and the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity projects that 165,000 new jobs will be created by 2020.

This has created a gusher in new tax revenue, most of which is going to K-12. Lawmakers are in the process of funding Governor Ducey’s ‘20by20’ teacher pay plan and restoring District Additional Assistance, which combined will add over $1 Billion in new dollars for public schools by next year.
When fully implemented this will be the largest increase in K-12 funding in state history, and will push per pupil funding so high that lawmakers will be forced to override the education spending limit in the Arizona constitution. This is only the 2nd time in 40 years that such an override vote will be required, a fact that should please everyone that has worried that not enough emphasis has been placed on education funding at the legislature.

And here is the best news yet—even after this large infusion of cash into the classroom, Arizona will still have a projected $1 Billion dollar surplus for FY 2020. It proves that the problem was the need for more taxpayers, not tax hikes.

Yet our political class appears ready to go all-in on job crushing tax increases that will derail Arizona’s economic recovery. While this may excite states like Texas looking to poach our entrepreneurs and job creators, it is bad news for everyone else that wants to keep prosperity here in the state.

Lawmakers instead should be looking to embrace our success, maintain the course and continue to pursue pro-growth ideas that work. Now is not the time to surrender to policies or politics that will move Arizona in the wrong direction.

The Legislature Takes Aim at Election Integrity Reform

Every American, no matter their political party, should have a significant interest in the wholesale integrity of the election process.  And yet the business of ensuring citizens voting is honest, clean and untampered with, has been a fiercely partisan issue, dividing Republicans and Democrats into two camps: the party for election integrity and the party against “voter suppression.”

The integrity of the elections systems is two-fold: ensuring there are legal and procedural safeguards to maintain clean and accurate voting rolls and preventing, discovering and deterring fraudulent activity.

One would think that maintaining up to date voter rolls would be an innocuous issue.  After all, neglecting to do so all but guarantees records will be cluttered with deceased persons and those who have moved out of state. In a 2012 study, the Pew Research Foundation found that 24 million voter registrations in the United States were either invalid or significantly inaccurate – that is one in every eight registrants.  This vast vulnerability directly dovetails into susceptibility of election fraud.

The issue of election fraud is as old as elections themselves and take form in a variety of ways including – double voting, ineligible voting, and voter registration fraud, etc. Yet, this type of crime is notoriously difficult to catch, document, and enforce, which makes the problem significantly underreported.

Following the Arizona general elections of 2018, many voters voiced concerns over how specifically the Maricopa County recorder’s office conducted operations.  And given the thin margins in many of the state-wide races, a little bit of fraud can have a big effect.

As a result, several Arizona lawmakers have introduced legislation to insert more practical checks into the system to both scrub voter rolls and fills cracks where the system is susceptible to fraud.

The best batch of election integrity bills have been introduced by Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R) and include:

  • SB 1046 requires voters who receive a ballot by mail to return that ballot by mail. If they do not, they may vote in person on election day with a standard ballot.  Practically, this bill helps prevent the illegal practice of ballot harvesting.
  • SB 1072 requires voters to show identification when voting at an early voting location. This makes the identification requirements consistent across all methods of in-person voting.  And although Democrats want to claim the basic function of showing I.D is burdensome to voters, 76 percent of Americans believe such requirements should be mandatory.
  • SB 1188 requires a county recorder to remove a voter from the permanent early voting list and cease sending them early ballots if the elector has not voted in two consecutive primary or general elections.
  • SB 1090 requires electors voting at an emergency voting center to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that they did in fact suffer an emergency. Also requires the County Board of Supervisors to sign off on location, quantity and hours of emergency voting centers.

Given the reasonable proposals being suggested, one might be surprised by the very vocal fidelity of the left to the notion that 1. Fraud doesn’t exist, 2. When it does it is insignificant, and 3. Any legal framework that inserts predictable rules and guidelines into the system disenfranchises voters.

This is less surprising when you consider the bills drafted by Democrat legislators this year which take a free-for-all approach.  Their philosophy seems to be the more votes cast the better – even if those votes are duplicative, unverified, or non-citizens.  These bills include repealing the prohibition of ballot harvesting, same-day voter registration, and automatic restoration of voting rights for felons.

These election integrity bills are important steps to shore up weakness in Arizona’s election process.  Despite the left’s effort to diminish the relevance of the election integrity issue, the real disenfranchisement of voters comes from diluting the votes of honest electors. Allowing for the erosion of the system casts doubt into the minds of citizens as to if their vote even counts – and that is true voter suppression.