CARSON CITY, Nev. – Nationwide, low-income people pay much higher rates of taxes than high earners, and Nevada's taxes are among the most unequal in the country, according to a new study.

The analysis, by the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, shows that on average, the poorest 20 percent of Americans spend about 50 percent more of their incomes on taxes than wealthy people do.

In Nevada, the difference is even greater.

Carl Davis, the institute’s research director and one of the study's authors, says Nevada's poorest taxpayers spend more than 10 percent of their income on taxes, but the highest earners pay barely 2 percent.

"There's a bigger gap between rich and poor after those taxes are collected than before,” he points out. “So it's driving apart incomes that are already very far apart at the low and high ends of income distribution."

Davis says major factors are sales tax and excise taxes, which get built into the prices of products such as beer or gasoline.

He says when states rely more on those flat taxes across the board, and rely less on taxes based on income, poorer people end up giving away bigger proportions of their paychecks and get pushed deeper into poverty.

Many politicians argue that reducing corporate and income taxes boosts the economy by attracting businesses.

But Davis says that's not what the research shows. In fact, the study finds California has the most equitable tax system nationwide, and also one of the strongest economies.

"So if high taxes on high-income people are supposed to suppress economic growth, it's certainly not playing out that way in California.," he points out.

The study calls the majority of state and local tax systems in the U.S. "fundamentally unfair," and says if issues of income inequality persist, states may have difficulty raising revenue over time.


get more stories like this via email

A lawsuit to reinstate 16,000 fired federal probationary workers could get new life today at a federal district court hearing in San Francisco.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for the firings to proceed, dismissing a preliminary injunction from the same California judge who ordered reinstatement.

Erik Molvar, executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, said the high court objected to nonprofits having the standing to serve as plaintiffs. Advocates want the judge to issue a new injunction to block the firings on behalf of the workers' unions.

"We're continuing to fight to try and make sure that these probationary federal workers are able to retain their jobs," Molvar emphasized. "And to hold the Trump administration accountable for breaking federal law."

The Trump administration said the reduction in force only affected nonessential positions and is necessary to save money. Advocates for the workers said the mass firings were illegal because they came from the Office of Personnel Management, not the agency heads and because the dismissals cited the workers' alleged poor performance, without evidence to back it up.

Janessa Goldbeck, senior adviser to the nonprofit VoteVets, said 30% of federal workers are veterans, making the firings deeply unjust.

"We certainly owe people who have served in uniform, at the very least, due process when it comes to hiring and firing decisions," Goldbeck pointed out. "But more than that, we owe the American people the very best federal government and the services that many Americans rely on."

The lawsuit claimed the firings were haphazard and put essential functions at risk. For example, the only wildlife biologist for the Los Padres National Forest was targeted, as were all of the employees of a Bureau of Land Management office in Northeastern California responsible for overseeing grazing on nearby federal public lands.


get more stories like this via email

With planting season here, North Dakota farmers have plenty on their minds, including the escalating trade war and some hope a bipartisan bill in Congress will lead to a lot less uncertainty about the future.

A handful of U.S. senators introduced a bill supporters said would restore congressional authority over tariffs. It comes amid the latest tariffs announced by President Donald Trump, which upended global financial markets.

Bob Kuylen, a wheat farmer in western North Dakota and board vice president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, wants the bill to advance. He noted commodity prices for him are going down as the trade war heats up. Unlike manufacturers, he said, farmers cannot quickly adjust their price structure.

"We just can't say, 'Oh, well, we're just going to charge $3 more for our wheat for what they did to us.' You can't do that," Kuylen pointed out.

The measure would require the President to notify Congress of tariff action within 48 hours, which then would give lawmakers 60 days to pass a joint resolution of approval. If they do not, the tariff ends. President Trump has threatened to veto the plan, arguing it would chip away at leverage the administration has over foreign countries in negotiating new trade terms.

Kuylen noted tariffs might work in limited fashion to establish fairer trade but he feels a sweeping approach is not effective. He emphasized because certainty is hard to find these days, there's a real possibility of farms either going under or operators choosing to retire and sell off their land.

"It's either they can't get an operating loan right now, some people, and we're going to lose them, or there's people that don't want to lose any more equity and they're just going to walk away," Kuylen observed.

Kuylen added even if bigger farm operations take over, losing locally owned operations hurts surrounding communities. He echoed other producers in arguing agriculture still has not recovered from the trade war under the first Trump administration. Neither of North Dakota's U.S. Senators responded to comment requests on whether they support the bill.

Washington lawmakers and Gov. Robert Ferguson disagree about how to address the state's $16 billion revenue shortfall.

The House and Senate have both passed budgets which would tax wealthy residents and corporations in order to balance the budget.

In contrast, Ferguson's plan cuts social programs and furloughs employees to save the state $7 billion.

Jeffrey Gustaveson is an organizer with Firelands Workers United, an advocacy group for rural Washingtonians. He said he supports lawmaker's efforts to make the tax system more fair.

"They're saying we should support working people," said Gustaveson, "and we're going to unlock new sources of money by increasing taxes on giant corporations, and some of the wealthiest human beings in the face of the planet."

As budget negotiations move forward, Ferguson called relying on untested taxes irresponsible. Lawmakers have until April 27 to finalize a budget acceptable to the Governor.

David Henson, a retired veteran and volunteer for Firelands, highlighted what's known as the Tax on Wall Street, which would apply to people who own stocks and bonds worth over $50 million.

Democrats say it would generate about $4 billion a year for the state.

"But it only affects 4,300 people in the state of Washington," said Henson. "They only pay 4% -- where we're paying, on average, 14% of our income on taxes. I don't think it's robbery."

Ferguson says his budget does not include reductions to vital services. But, Gustaveson countered, the governor's definition of vital is narrow.

He said a 6% cut from all state agencies will harm many services Washington residents rely on including healthcare, housing, and transit.

"There's a very clear message, I think, from the public right now," said Gustaveson, "that they support public programs and they support funding those public programs with fair taxes."

Democratic lawmakers say their proposed taxes would generate $17 billion over two years, bringing the state out of the red.