How Unknown Tax Cut Saved NC Billions | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: This post, by Brian Balfour, was originally published in the Budget & Taxes, Economy, Issues sections of Civitas's online edition.

    In 2013, North Carolina's unemployment insurance (UI) program was in terrible shape. Like most states, North Carolina borrowed funds from the federal government to cover increased unemployment benefits during the great recession. The Tar Heel State owed Washington $2.75 billion. As a result, the state's employers were being hit with stiff federal UI tax hikes.

    Making matters worse, North Carolina was still experiencing unemployment rates that were exceeding national averages. To help kick start the state's recovery, North Carolina legislators passed historic state income tax cuts that were estimated to generate $2.4 billion in tax savings over five years.

    While reams of articles, studies and analysis have been devoted to those reforms, I bet you haven't heard a word about another tax cut that has already saved North Carolina's economy roughly half a billion dollars, and will cut taxes by an estimated $700 million per year during the next four years.

    These sizeable savings can be traced back to North Carolina's early repayment of the UI funds borrowed from the federal government.

    Reforms to the state's unemployment benefits in 2013 included bringing maximum amount and duration of benefits in line with those of neighboring states. These moves also triggered the cutoff of long-term federal UI benefits being moved up by six months.

    Those changes brought savings that enabled the state to pay off the feds by May of this year. Without the changes, North Carolina would not have paid off the debt until 2020.

    Predictably, however, the reaction from the media and talking heads was fierce and uniformly negative. For instance, the New York Times' Paul Krugman declared the reforms to be part of a "war on the unemployed."

    Supporters, on the other hand, pointed out that reducing the UI benefits would alter the incentives facing the unemployed, tipping the scales on the margins in favor of returning to work versus staying on the unemployment rolls and waiting for more ideal job opportunities that may never materialize.

    Ironically, none other than Paul Krugman himself in his 2010 economics textbook agreed. "Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect," wrote Krugman, explaining that granting more generous benefits "reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job."

    So what were the actual results? Since the UI reforms, North Carolina has added jobs at a rate higher than neighboring states and the national average.

    Moreover, because of the early debt payoff, employers will save more than $2.5 billion over the next four years — a huge relief that frees up money for job creation and capital investment that will lift wages.

    Under the debt repayment plan drawn up by the feds, North Carolina's job creators would have faced increasing federal unemployment tax rates, with a final payoff date as late as 2020. UI tax costs per worker on businesses would have tripled by 2019, draining hundreds of millions in funds annually that otherwise could have been reinvested in the businesses to create jobs. The interest payments alone would have totaled close to half a billion dollars.

    Instead, due to the reforms, the federal UI tax hikes were halted last year, and dropped back to standard rates again this year after the debt was paid off.

    Moreover, the UI reforms have helped the Employment Security Commission build up reserves in the UI Trust Fund to nearly $750 million, which is expected to reach $1 billion by the end of the coming winter. That in turn likely will speed up further savings under a newly revised state law.

    Previously, a 20 percent surtax would be added on to the UI tax as long as the UI Trust Fund balance stayed below $1 billion as of August 1. But Senate Bill 15, ratified in September, pushed back the deadline to next March 1 — providing enough time for reserves to reach the $1 billion threshold and thus making the surtax suspension applicable to 2016. This would generate another $240 million in tax savings for NC employers next year alone.

    Keep in mind that, without the 2013 UI reforms and the resulting early debt payoff, the $1 billion threshold likely would not have been reached for another five years or more, potentially costing job creators another $1.2 billion in taxes.

    And as employers either retain the additional UI tax savings or use them to invest in job creation, more tax revenue will flow to the state's General Fund. This helps state income and sales taxes remain low.

    So it's such a shame North Carolina's 2013 unemployment insurance reforms, which stirred up a lot of controversy at the time, have drawn so little attention since — and why it's time more people hear about North Carolina's other tax cuts.

    A version of this oped was published recently by the Fayetteville Observer. Click here to read it on the newspaper's site.
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )



Comment

( October 15th, 2015 @ 7:51 am )
 
The basic issue in this entire area is NC FAILED ECONOMY over the last 20 years. Tobacco has gone down. Even more, Textiles and furniture have left to low wage foreign countries. TRICKLE DOWN does not work, my friends . . .

Where did the concept come from???
Who gave us this pig in a poke???
Have we had enough of the Koch Brothers in NC yet???

We have been covering the severity of the Great Recession with Unemployment Insurance. People whose small businesses have had to cut back are forced to keep paying for workers they can no longer afford to hire. The term "Insurance" is a total misnomer on this one.

The basic concept of INSURANCE is "the sharing of risks." In other words, those who do not have a claim pay those who do by the premiums they pay. The concept came from worldwide shipping days when a small shipping firm would go under if a single ship were lost. Bigger lines could absorb the loss, but little guys could not! The magic concept of insurance was that all the small guys share the risks on any given load. As a Bill of Lading was posted at the dock, individuals willing to share the risk AND profit would sign under it as proof of backing. Hence, the term UNDERWRITER. Labor Unions used to assure workers of fair pay. Where did they go???

If the ship were lost, then each person backing it repaid their portion of the loss to the owner of the ship so he could continue with his business. If the ship landed safely, then the premiums stayed in the pockets of the backers and was part of their profits for the year. Everybody could survive a disaster.

If that concept were carried to modern industry in the US, then a profitable corporation like WalMart would underwrite other corps who are struggling over government decisions which adversely affect them. Another feature would be that big corps pay more taxes which keep small town mom and pop locations open through the insurance concept. Modern Corporate GREED says, "Tough luck / suck it up / we will buy your stock at a severe discount." Had the auto industry bailout been true INSURANCE, then the industrial competitors would share the loss rather than taxpayers bail them out. It all boils down to rules and who pays the rule-makers for their favors.

If you get too far out to fail and too big to fail, should you go under???

A real capitalist economy is based on risk and return. If you are wise enough to buy proper amounts of insurance properly reflecting real risks, then you can survive.

If you are forced to back big guys who do not have to participate because of undue influence on the rule-makers, guess who goes down covering the losses! I speak as one who knows the horrors of the Recession and got no Bail Out as did the big boys . . .



New Look, Continuing Mission: Mapping The Left Civitas Institute, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics Largest N.C. Cities Promised $65 Million in Incentives Over 5 Years


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

populist / nationalist anti-immigration AfD most popular party among young voters, CDU second
Barr had previously said he would jump off a bridge before supporting Trump
illegal alien "asylum seeker" migrants are a crime wave on both sides of the Atlantic

HbAD1

 
Back to Top