Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Policy

California Is Either Recovering or Imploding. We're Not Quite Sure Yet.

Income tax revenues for January exceed expectations. That may not be good news.

Scott Shackford | 2.1.2013 12:01 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

See! I keep saying that California does a terrible job projecting revenues and expenses and that we shouldn't tie the state's recovery to predictions that may prove to be completely wrong. Here's the latest from the state's Legislative Analyst's Office:

As of today, January 31, the state has collected a net amount of $12.775 billion of [personal income tax] for the General Fund and the Mental Health Services Fund (all funds). This exceeds DOF's projection for the entire month--as released in the January 10 2013-14 Governor's Budget--by $5.01 billion.

Oh, uh, $5 billion more than projected. Well, then. If I were Jon Stewart, this would be the point where I would be sheepishly shuffling around papers on my desk and trying to look adorably chastened.

However, the surprise cash infusion may not be good news.  The LAO analyzes three possible explanations for the unexpected growth in tax revenue, and two of them actually aren't positives:

More Revenue Now…Less In the Next Fiscal Year. Given the higher federal tax rates that were part of the federal "fiscal cliff," both our office and the administration have long projected that some taxpayers (particularly high-income individuals and families) would "accelerate" a portion of their future capital gains, wage, dividend, and other income from 2013 to 2012 in order to take advantage of lower federal tax rates. It is likely that a substantial portion of the January boost in PIT collections results from these accelerations being greater than expected. To the extent this is true, higher collections in January 2013 will tend to result in lower-than-projected collections in later months, particularly between now and April 2014. In other words, the higher revenue for 2012-13 (part of which will be "accrued," or attributed, back to 2011-12) could contribute to lower-than-projected revenues for 2013-14.

  More Revenue Now…Less Between Now and April 2013. High-income Californians will pay higher taxes retroactively back to the beginning of 2012 under Proposition 30, which was approved by voters in November. It is possible that some of these taxpayers are "settling up" via estimated payments now, rather than April, when most such settling up activity was projected to occur.

  More Revenue…Period. Given the magnitude of the January revenue boost, it is also likely that a portion of it is attributable to 2012 taxable income simply being greater than previously projected (separate and apart from any higher level of accelerations). Generally favorable stock market trends in recent months could be contributing to this. In addition, various California-specific taxable income trends, such as capital gains income related to the state's technology industries, could be a factor. Higher-than-projected PIT payments related to Facebook's initial public offering also may be playing a role. (As we have noted previously, the state's prior revenue projections--lowered significantly in the administration's January 10 revenue estimates--have largely omitted Facebook-related PIT payments connected to discretionary stock trading activity by the company's early investors and employees.)

It's possible that all three explanations are true to some degree. Following some bad income tax projections last spring, California has consistently been showing growth in income tax revenue. However, sales tax and corporate tax revenues have been pretty flat or declining. The economy may be recovering for many Californians, but they aren't rushing out to spend. The LAO warns that the unexpected high revenues should not be taken as a sign that the state's bottom line has improved.

We'll probably know by May whether the burst in revenue was a going away present from California's wealthiest or if it's the real deal. I don't expect California's leaders to show the same restraint.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Steven Greenhut on Progressive Failure in California

Scott Shackford is a policy research editor at Reason Foundation.

PolicyEconomicsCaliforniaTaxesState Fiscal CrisisState Governments
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (6)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Sevo   12 years ago

    It doesn't matter. The overall liabilities are beyond any chance of being balanced by revenues. Paying the minimum on your credit card just leaves you with more to pay next month, it doesn't mean you've 'balanced' your budget.
    See for example: "School districts pay dearly for bonds"
    "By 2049, when the debt is paid, it will have cost taxpayers $154 million - seven times the amount borrowed."
    http://www.sfgate.com/default/.....237868.php
    And no one is yet even whispering about the retirement benes.

  2. Fist of Etiquette   12 years ago

    Hey, as long as those dollars are out of the hands of irresponsible taxpayers and in the hands of state officials, however it happened it's great for the Incan economy.

  3. LTC(ret) John   12 years ago

    So when they take this as "it will always continue up and up!" and spend the living #$%& out of every dime they can find, and this ends up popping they will all be standing around with "who farted" look on their collective faces and then say " clearly the only solution is moar taxez"!

    1. Night Elf Mohawk   12 years ago

      In a recession the government needs to spend more for stimulus; in an expansion the government needs to spend more because we can afford it. What could go wrong?

  4. ThatSkepticGuy   12 years ago

    "Well, then. If I were Jon Stewart, this would be the point where I would be sheepishly shuffling around papers on my desk and trying to look adorably chastened."

    BUT JON STEWART IS A COMEDIAN! HE CAN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE THINGS HE SAYS OR DOES! HE'S JUST A WHACKY GUY, DOOPITY-DOO!

  5. andarm16   12 years ago

    They'll take option 3, and spend the increased revenue on some ultra long term disaster like high speed rail, that will only make the budget worse in the long term, and look all shocked and try to find a way to raise taxes again when it turns out to have been option 2.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Can We End Racism by Ending the Idea of Race Itself?

Rachel Ferguson | From the June 2025 issue

The Supreme Court Said States Can't Discriminate in Alcohol Sales. They're Doing It Anyway.

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 5.24.2025 7:00 AM

Cocaine Hippos, Monkey Copyrights, and a Horse Named Justice: The Debate Over Animal Personhood

C.J. Ciaramella | From the June 2025 issue

Harvard's Best Protection Is To Get Off the Federal Teat

Autumn Billings | 5.23.2025 6:16 PM

Trump's Mass Cancellation of Student Visas Illustrates the Lawlessness of His Immigration Crackdown

Jacob Sullum | 5.23.2025 5:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!