Maine lawmakers are considering legislation to require corporations to reveal the amount of state income taxes they pay.

Supporters of the bill say more state level data are needed to determine the extent of corporate tax avoidance.

Maura Pillsbury, tax policy analyst for the Maine Center for Economic Policy, said too often corporations use tax loopholes and accounting schemes to avoid state taxes while benefiting from millions of dollars in state subsidies and tax breaks.

"We're hopeful that this information will really help give Mainers and the legislature a picture of if our tax system is functioning the way it's intended and if everyone is paying their fair share," Pillsbury explained.

Pillsbury argued businesses asking for public funds should be accountable to the public. The bill has faced some pushback from businesses concerned with privacy but the measure has so far received bipartisan support.

A report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy finds more than 100 of America's largest corporations paid no income taxes for at least one year following the 2017 corporate income tax cuts instituted under former President Donald Trump.

Pillsbury pointed out corporations rely on taxpayer-funded roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure -- even an educated workforce -- to earn their profits, yet fail to give back to the state.

"We have small businesses right in our communities that are struggling to compete with big corporations while they're using all of these public services," Pillsbury emphasized. "It's really important to know if they're paying their fair share into all these things that help Maine prosper."

Pillsbury added corporations reveal data in their Securities and Exchange Commissions filings to their shareholders and if Maine is investing in these businesses, they deserve the same information.


get more stories like this via email

Over 70 Michigan townships and counties are taking a stand in court, saying the state is overstepping its authority on renewable energy permits.

These municipalities have appealed to the state Court of Appeals on Michigan's new clean energy law. They argue it takes away local control over zoning and permits for renewable projects.

They say the authority goes to the Michigan Public Service Commission under the new law.

Attorney Michael Homier said the commission initially promised input from local communities, but changed the process through an order.

"My clients, you know, frankly find it insulting," said Homier. "This is about local control and the constant erosion of local control, when the state and some bureaucratic agency thinks they know better, and they don't."

The new law went into effect on November 29. A spokesperson for the MPSC said the agency will implement the legislation as the court reviews the case.

The municipalities claim the order from the MPSC also improperly redefines key terms, creates unlawful processes, and contradicts clear legislative intent - violating the Administrative Procedures Act.

Homier said this is a big issue.

"You can't just change those definitions because you want it some other way," said Homier. "That's not how it works. Only the legislature can amend it."

Michigan aims for 100% clean energy by 2040, with 2023 legislation requiring 80% from clean sources and 60% from renewables by 2035 - something Homier stressed that he's not against.

"Nobody wants to stop clean energy, at least I don't," said Homier. "None of my clients do. But, they do have a say in where it should be located and what adverse impacts might be caused by it."

Since filing the appeal on November 8, and an amended version on November 12 - adding more municipalities, Homier said about a dozen others have contacted him wanting to join the fight.





get more stories like this via email

A Wisconsin Circuit Court's ruling involving public sector bargaining rights has intensified the stakes for the state's Supreme Court election in 2025.

The judge ruled Act 10 is unconstitutional because it treats different groups of public employees unequally. The controversial 13-year-old law strictly limits public sector bargaining rights in Wisconsin.

Michael Childers is a professor of labor education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

He said the law also took the state back more than fifty years, as Wisconsin was a pioneer in the fight for workers' legal rights.

"It was the first state in the nation that formerly allowed for public sector bargaining," said Childers, "and then became the first to basically greatly curtail bargaining rights for all but police and fire in the state."

Act 10 would be struck down pending a final decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which currently has a liberal majority.

The Republican-controlled legislature that appealed the recent decision is hoping to drag out the case, but the public workers who challenged the law hope the court rules before a new justice is seated next year.

Wisconsin's public sector laws of 1959 and 1962 are regarded as turning points in American politics and the legal rights of workers.

Childers said Wisconsin's union participation was always higher than the national average until the passage of Act 10 in 2011, which fundamentally changed the ability of public sector workers in Wisconsin to have influence over their workplace.

"They had rights similar to what most workers in the private sector in the United States enjoyed, which is the ability to bargain over hours, wages, and all other conditions of work," said Childers, "so this would be reinstated pending this decision."

Childers said Wisconsin experienced the largest decline of union membership in the U.S. over the past decade.

If Act 10 is struck down, it could open the door for a resurgence of union engagement across the state.





get more stories like this via email

A new report shows Connecticut's teacher pension financing reinforces inequity.

The Equable Institute's report finds Pupil Pension Subsidies are paid at less than 50% the rate for students of color, compared with white students.

They're also paid at lower rates for low-income students.

Anthony Randazzo, executive director of the Equable Institute, noted the state must rethink how those subsidies are paid to school districts. He said districts will realize the actual costs of teacher's salaries.

"By saying that they need to contribute some money toward teacher pension benefits," Randazzo explained, "it would mean that every school district needs to think about if we're going to allocate a certain amount of money to salary to pay teachers a certain wage, we're also going to have to pay a portion of that salary. We have to pay employer contributions, and the employer contributions are always as a percentage of salary."

Since the state would be paying less in salary costs, Randazzo said he thinks those extra dollars can be redistributed to districts that need it more.

This can be done through the state's school funding formula or another mechanism.

The overall goal is that wealthier districts' residents would have to pay a bit more to keep their teacher's salaries high, while needier districts would have money to pay teachers better.

But the biggest challenges could be stakeholders who are comfortable with the status quo.

Upon implementing this plan, residents in wealthier school districts might not want to pay more taxes to keep teacher salaries high due to a loss in state subsidies.

Randazzo said other stakeholders might take issue with the tradeoffs.

"If you're a labor leader in some of the wealthier districts, this will make it slightly harder for you to negotiate salaries because there's now higher costs that the district has to pay," he said. "If you are a stakeholder in school administration, you certainly don't want to have more costs pushed down onto school districts."

Another report finding is that higher academically performing districts receive greater pension subsidies than lower-performing districts.

Randazzo said he feels this impacts how school districts can compete when hiring and retaining teachers.




get more stories like this via email