Skip to content

For the Budget Center’s annual budget preview, “The State Budget Process and Key Issues to Watch for in 2018,” Director of Research Scott Graves provided an overview of the state budget process and highlighted opportunities for public engagement.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Director of Research Scott Graves provided an overview of the California budget process for the California Environmental Justice Alliance’s legislative call. Scott discussed how to actively engage in the budget process effectively, identified key players, and highlighted the differences between the legislative and budget pathways.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

This post is the first in a California Budget & Policy Center series that will discuss the tax cuts proposed by President Trump and Republican congressional leaders and explore the implications for Californians and the nation.

Now that Republican leaders in Washington, DC, have moved on from their latest failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they have quickly turned their attention to a combination of tax cuts and deep spending reductions that together would have dire implications for many low- and middle-income people in California and across the nation. In September, the Trump Administration and leaders in the US House of Representatives and Senate unveiled their unified tax framework, which would provide significant tax cuts that predominantly benefit the wealthy.

Republican leaders are developing the full details of their tax plan in parallel with efforts to enact a budget for fiscal year 2018, and in order to offset the costs of tax cuts they are also seeking draconian cuts in spending on an array of critical programs and services. Congressional rules allow for a “fast track” process to pass tax cuts and certain spending reductions with a simple majority in the Senate (without needing any Democratic votes) — a process known as “reconciliation.” If GOP leaders pursue their proposed tax cuts, they will enact a massive redistribution of wealth that would be, in part, paid for through budget cuts to programs that help low- and middle-income families make ends meet and access greater economic opportunity.

Latest GOP Tax Plan Skews Benefits to the Wealthy

Despite their stated goal of providing a tax cut for middle-class families, the latest GOP framework would provide the vast majority of its benefits to wealthier Americans and corporations. For instance, the current tax framework is most specific about repealing the estate tax;  ending the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT); cutting corporate tax rates; potentially lowering the highest income tax rates; and preserving tax preferences for mortgage interest — in short, a range of benefits that accrue disproportionately to wealthier households.

In contrast, the tax proposal’s benefits for working families are less explicit — and apparently far less substantial. Based on information released so far, the clearest proposals benefiting middle-class households are a doubling of the standard deduction and an unspecified increase in the Child Tax Credit, though the tax framework also includes some vague language about future “additional measures.” However, accounting for changes like the elimination of personal exemptions and an increase in the bottom marginal income tax rate for some filers, many low- and middle-income families could see little benefit, if any.

Though the President had promised that the rich “will not be gaining at all with this plan,” the numbers tell a different story. In fact, a recent analysis of the GOP tax package points to a vastly unfair distribution of its benefits. According to the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the top 1 percent of households — a group whose annual incomes are at least $615,800 and average over $2 million — would receive over two-thirds of the tax cuts in 2018 (see chart below), an amount equivalent to 4.3 percent of this group’s pre-tax income. The bottom 60 percent of Americans, however, would receive 11.4 percent of the tax cuts, equal to a meager 0.7 percent of this group’s total income. What’s more, these Americans would be most likely to be affected by corresponding federal spending cuts that GOP leaders are proposing to offset the overall cost of the tax cuts.

In other words, the latest GOP tax plan is heavily skewed to benefiting the wealthiest households in the US, likely at the expense of many low- and middle-income households.

The regressive impacts of this tax framework may be even greater in some states. Here in California, an even larger share of the tax cuts — almost 82 percent — would go to just the top 1 percent of earners in 2018, with another 16.6 percent going to the next 4 percent, and the rest of the benefits spread across the remaining income levels (see chart below). The richest 1 percent of California earners — those making more than $864,900 a year — would receive an average tax cut of $90,160. In contrast, middle-income households — making between $47,200 and $75,500 a year — would receive a much smaller average tax cut of $470, and the lowest income households — those making less than $27,300 a year — would receive a tax cut of $120. For many of these low- and middle-income households the benefits of these marginal tax cuts would likely be offset by significant cuts to federal programs and services including health care, housing, food assistance, and job training assistance, among others.  

Revenue Losses Would Hurt the Economy and Struggling Households

The latest GOP plan would also come at a huge cost in lost revenues. Estimates of the resulting revenue loss vary from $2.2 trillion to $2.4 trillion over the next decade. While the plan purports to add $1.5 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade, yet-to-emerge details about the plan and likely compromises on some of the plan’s more controversial proposals (such as the elimination of the federal deduction for state and local taxes, widely known as the “SALT” deduction) could result in a much larger increase in federal debt.

The Trump Administration insists that the tax cuts will boost economic growth and pay for themselves, but analysts agree that this scenario is highly unlikely. Rather, in order to minimize the costs of the tax plan, the GOP would likely respond by attempting to further slash entitlement programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, Medicare, and other parts of the federal budget that include funding for housing, job training, and other assistance. These cuts would likely have negative impacts on the economy by destabilizing economic conditions of millions of households who rely upon those programs to help make ends meet and to access greater economic opportunity.

Tax Plan Is Particularly Bad for California

The combination of GOP tax and budget proposals would be particularly harmful for many Californians and for the state of California.

In terms of budget cuts, the significant cuts to Medicaid and SNAP (Medi-Cal and CalFresh in California) would likely result in reduced or eliminated benefits for millions of Californians with low incomes — over 13 million (34.2 percent) who are enrolled in Medi-Cal and over 4 million (10.8 percent) who receive food assistance through CalFresh.

These cuts would also likely undermine California’s fiscal health, forcing state leaders to choose between destabilizing the state budget by trying to fill fiscal holes as a result of federal tax and budget cuts or, on the other hand, destabilizing vulnerable individuals and communities across the state by reducing benefits.

Some California taxpayers would also see significant increases in their tax bills. For instance, the majority of Californians earning $129,500 to $303,200 annually — which can actually be considered a “middle class” income in the many parts of California where costs of living are significantly higher than much of the country — would see a nearly $4,000 increase in their annual federal tax bills. This increase is largely the result of the repeal of the SALT deduction, mentioned earlier.

In short, the GOP tax and budget plans would increase the tax bills of some Californians, providing minimal tax cuts for many others, while reducing vital public assistance, all in pursuit of providing large tax cuts to the very wealthiest households and corporations.

A Better Path

Congress can still choose a more fiscally and economically responsible path. Instead of providing tax cuts that overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest households and corporations, cutting vital public programs and services, losing trillions of dollars in revenues, and adding significantly to the federal debt, Congress could seek to enact policies that move our nation in the right direction. Federal tax and budget policies should focus on making investments that enable our communities to thrive, help the most vulnerable, and broaden economic prosperity. Any federal tax cuts should be weighted toward those who need them most, and should be revenue-neutral, with lost revenues from tax cuts offset by other revenue increases (new taxes or closed loopholes) that are fairly distributed across the income spectrum.

It will be important to pay attention to which path our elected officials in Washington choose in the coming weeks and months. Their actions may mean that Californians would face the prospect of holding their congressional representatives accountable for decisions that would disproportionately — and negatively — impact our state.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

For the Bay Area Asset Funders Network’s “Public Policy Updates and the Implications on Asset Building for Low-Income Families,” Executive Director Chris Hoene delivered his presentation “The Implications of Federal Budget & Tax Proposals for California.”

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Whether renting an apartment or seeking to purchase a home, Californians face very high housing costs in many parts of the state.

High Rents Are Unaffordable to Households with Low and Moderate Incomes

Typical rents for a modest two-bedroom apartment in the areas where nearly two-thirds of Californians live are $1,500 or more per month — a level that is unaffordable for residents with low and moderate incomes.[1]  Affordable housing costs are defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as costing 30 percent or less of household income. By HUD’s standard, a family would need at least $60,000 in annual income to afford a monthly rent of $1,500 — an income that would require 110 hours of work per week at the current state minimum wage of $10.50 per hour.[2]

However, rents vary substantially across California. Rents are highest in coastal urban areas, while rents in the Central Valley and in northern inland areas are significantly less expensive, in many cases less than $1,000 per month for a modest two-bedroom apartment. Nonetheless, even these more affordable rents are beyond the reach of many Californians. Rent that is affordable for a full-time minimum-wage worker can be no more than $546 per month — which is lower than HUD’s two-bedroom Fair Market Rent in every part of California.[3]  This means that a single parent working full-time at minimum wage cannot expect to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment for her family anywhere in California.

High Home Prices Put Ownership Out of Reach for Californians With Moderate Incomes

For many middle-income Californians, buying a home is an important goal and part of achieving the “American dream” — but home purchase prices are out of reach for many households with moderate incomes.

Two-thirds of Californians live in areas where the median sales price for a single-family home is $500,000 or more. To purchase a half-million-dollar home while keeping housing expenses to no more than 30 percent of income requires an annual income of roughly $145,000, well over twice the state median household income. In addition to the high annual income required to afford monthly ownership expenses, making a 20 percent down-payment on a home that costs half a million dollars requires $100,000 in savings. Furthermore, nearly 1 in 10 Californians live in a county where the median sales price for a single-family home is $1 million or more — only affordable to households with annual incomes of roughly $244,000 or more, with $200,000 in savings required for a 20 percent down-payment.

Like rents, home sales prices vary greatly throughout the state. In many inland areas of the state, typical home prices are less than $250,000. However, these less expensive areas tend to have substantially lower household incomes than the more expensive parts of the state. In fact, even in the county with the least-expensive median home price (Lassen County), the income required to afford the median-priced home is more than 150 percent of the local median income.

Policies That Slow the Growth in Housing Costs Can Help Families and the State Economy

California’s high housing costs create serious burdens for families and individuals with low incomes, who are likely to struggle to afford typical rents even when working full-time. Those with moderate incomes are affected by the state’s high housing costs as well, as high home sale prices put the dream of homeownership out of reach for many. High housing costs can also restrict the ability of families to relocate to access jobs or move close to family, and can push families to live farther from their jobs, leading to longer commutes, which cause increased pollution and reduced time with family. High housing costs also negatively affect the state economy by making it more difficult for employers to recruit workers and deterring individuals from moving to or remaining in California, thus limiting the available labor force and dampening economic growth.

Policy solutions are urgently needed to prevent housing costs from further escalating and to make more housing available that is affordable to lower-income households. Strategies such as subsidizing the development of affordable housing and facilitating more private housing production can help increase the supply of housing, including units affordable to residents with low incomes, thus reducing pressure on costs. These and other policy approaches need to be seriously considered in order to address the negative impacts of California’s high housing costs.


Endnotes

[1] Rents reflect Fair Market Rents (FMR) for 2017, published annually by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. FMRs are based on the 40th percentile (in a few cases 50th percentile) of gross rents, or rent including utilities, paid by renters within a specific metropolitan area or rural county who moved into their housing units within the past 15 months. FMRs are broadly representative of typical rents paid within a metropolitan area, and are adjusted by HUD to account for expected inflation in housing costs, but they may be lower than the current asking rents for vacant apartments in particularly high-demand cities or neighborhoods within a larger metropolitan area, or in areas where asking rents have been increasing very rapidly.

[2] Minimum wage as of January 1, 2017 for employers with at least 26 employees. See https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm.

[3] Assumes 40 hours of work per week at the $10.50 minimum wage for employees of large firms as of January 1, 2017. See https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_minimumwage.htm.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

A number of current proposals at the federal level, put forth by the Trump Administration and congressional leaders, call for deep spending cuts to many important public services and systems that improve the lives of individuals and families across California. These cuts are proposed at a time when both President Trump and leaders in the House of Representatives have signaled support for major tax cuts that would largely benefit the wealthy and large corporations.

Although federal spending deliberations occur far from California, their outcomes have deep potential impacts right here at home, in every part of our state. In order to shed light on the local importance of federal budget choices, as well as underscore what’s at stake in the votes cast by members of California’s congressional delegation, we are pleased to provide these House district Fact Sheets. They provide district-by-district figures on public services and supports across four areas — food and shelter, health care, income support, and education — along with local information on social and economic conditions.

Click below to get the Fact Sheet for your district. (Find your representative)

District 1 – Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R)District 28 – Rep. Adam Schiff (D)
District 2 – Rep. Jared Huffman (D)District 29 – Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D)
District 3 – Rep. John Garamendi (D)District 30 – Rep. Brad Sherman (D)
District 4 – Rep. Tom McClintock (R)District 31 – Rep. Pete Aguilar (D)
District 5 – Rep. Mike Thompson (D)District 32 – Rep. Grace Napolitano (D)
District 6 – Rep. Doris O. Matsui (D)District 33 – Rep. Ted Lieu (D)
District 7 – Rep. Ami Bera (D)District 34 – Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D)
District 8 – Rep. Paul Cook (R)District 35 – Rep. Norma Torres (D)
District 9 – Rep. Jerry McNerney (D)District 36 – Rep. Raul Ruiz (D)
District 10 – Rep. Jeff Denham (R)District 37 – Rep. Karen Bass (D)
District 11 – Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D)District 38 – Rep. Linda Sánchez (D)
District 12 – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D)District 39 – Rep. Ed Royce (R)
District 13 – Rep. Barbara Lee (D)District 40 – Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D)
District 14 – Rep. Jackie Speier (D)District 41 – Rep. Mark Takano (D)
District 15 – Rep. Eric Swalwell (D)District 42 – Rep. Ken Calvert (R)
District 16 – Rep. Jim Costa (D)District 43 – Rep. Maxine Waters (D)
District 17 – Rep. Ro Khanna (D)District 44 – Rep. Nanette Barragán (D)
District 18 – Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D)District 45 – Rep. Mimi Walters (R)
District 19 – Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D)District 46 – Rep. J. Louis Correa (D)
District 20 – Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D)District 47 – Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D)
District 21 – Rep. David Valadao (R)District 48 – Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R)
District 22 – Rep. Devin Nunes (R)District 49 – Rep. Darrell Issa (R)
District 23 – Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R)District 50 – Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R)
District 24 – Rep. Salud Carbajal (D)District 51 – Rep. Juan Vargas (D)
District 25 – Rep. Steve Knight (R)District 52 – Rep. Scott Peters (D)
District 26 – Rep. Julia Brownley (D)District 53 – Rep. Susan Davis (D)
District 27 – Rep. Judy Chu (D)

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The Sierra Health Foundation’s Center for Health Program Management hosted a webinar on justice reinvestment for the Positive Youth Justice Initiative (PYJI). Director of Research Scott Graves presented, “Criminal Justice Reforms and County Budgets: A Bird’s-Eye View,” which provided an overview of recent changes in state criminal justice policy that have affected counties.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

At the National Convening of the Young Elected Officials Network, Senior Policy Analyst Sara Kimberlin delivered a presentation on principles of progressive budgeting, including strategies for responding to expected federal spending cuts.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!