NC Budget and Tax Center

The House is poised to to introduce an “economic development” bill that they claim will boost the economy, but almost certainly will fail to provide real solutions to the lack of available jobs and long-term economic mobility needed by North Carolinians. While the full details of the bill have not been released, reports suggest it will include more give-aways to large corporations that will do little to change North Carolina’s economic vitality. Signals to date indicate that the bill will expand corporate incentives and give large multi-state companies another big tax break. We’ve already read this story before, and it doesn’t end well for many small businesses, struggling rural communities, or workers who have not seen a raise in years. Any new proposals should be carefully considered, but old ideas that have already proven inadequate won’t magically fix what ails the North Carolina economy.

Certainly, North Carolina’s labor market could use the support of sound public policies that could strengthen the recovery and ensure that it is delivering broad benefits to all North Carolinians not just a select few. The state’s job deficit stands at more than 400,000 jobs needed to provide employment to all who want to work, the number of unemployed people in the state remains elevated relative to pre-recession levels and poverty has not come down nor have wages grown as the economy has recovered.  There is a long way still for North Carolina to go in addressing the economic damage of the Great Recession, ensuring all communities enjoy a recovery and that all who want to work can and can support their families doing so.

At this critical moment then public policies should not be blunt instruments but instead reflect the real economic challenges facing North Carolina and address them head on. Here are some of the criteria that we will use to assess the bill when it is available: Read More

NC Budget and Tax Center

The lessons of the past should help us make better choices in the future. North Carolina’s history of unemployment insurance changes provide one clear lesson:  cutting taxes for employers in good times can lead to serious harm in the long-term. A bill moving to the floor tomorrow that makes changes to the unemployment insurance system could  ensure the mistakes of the past aren’t made again by including provisions that require the Trust Fund to truly reach solvency before cutting employers taxes.

It was afterall the lack of adequate funds in the state Trust Fund before 2007 was due to tax cuts for employers that happened in good times. This series of tax cuts for employers in the 1990s—detailed here—meant the Trust Fund could not meet its obligations to pay unemployment insurance to workers who lost their job through no fault of their own during the historic job losses of the Great Recession. While the unemployment insurance Trust Fund appears ready to pay back  funds borrowed, it has been able to do so largely through drastic cuts to unemployment insurance for workers that make it more difficult for jobless workers to keep looking for work and support their families’ most basic needs.  Such cuts in a downturn and slow recovery also undermine the systems’ function in the economy as a stabilizing force in a downturn.

And the repayment of the debt is just the first step in getting the fund solvent. By every measure of solvency, North Carolina still has a long way to go to be healthy enough to weather another downturn.

Now as the Trust Fund debt is nearing repayment and employer contributions will begin to strengthen the fund ahead of future downturns, it is critical that policymakers reduce the likelihood that the state will need to borrow and that is adequate to provide unemployment insurance payments to jobless North Carolinians. Here are two provisions that policymakers should include to take a more fiscally responsible approach to the unemployment insurance Trust Fund. Read More

NC Budget and Tax Center

There is a lot more that North Carolina policymakers could be doing to ensure that the state’s jobless workers get back to work. Despite the improving economy there remain too few people employed across the country and in North Carolina relative to pre-recession levels. And the changing nature of work characterized most clearly by the lack of a formal employee-employer relationship but also by lower-wages and fewer employers provided benefits is requiring systems to better align and address these conditions.

A new report released by NELP identifies the need for a state-level response in the face of this challenging labor market that is both recovering from the harm of the Great Recession and being transformed into a more precarious and less secure future for work. The strategies outlined in the report, based on the best available evidence of effectiveness, would not only seek to prevent long-term unemployment—a condition that researchers point to as increasingly likely—but also provide greater help for long-term unemployed jobseekers while ensuring a sound unemployment insurance infrastructure.

Here are some the recommendations that are particularly relevant for North Carolina: Read More

NC Budget and Tax Center

A report released this week by Pew Charitable Trust provides new insights into how states can regularly evaluate their use of economic development tax expenditures to ensure that the intended outcomes are being achieved and inform decisions about ongoing commitment of public dollars to those efforts. Just this week the Budget & Tax Center highlighted the importance of such an approach as a way to reduce investments in policies that have proven ineffective and address the revenue shortfall.

Indeed by strengthening the capacity of North Carolina to evaluate tax expenditures, policymakers can make sure that public dollars are put to work building a stronger economic foundation through proven strategies like education. As the Pew report notes, 10 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws since 2012 to require regular evaluation of economic development tax expenditures. The report largely focuses on tax credits available to all businesses in a qualifying industry, rather than on individual tax incentive “deals” signed with specific companies, but the findings are equally important for those types of corporate subsidies. Here are some key findings from their review of other state practice: Read More

NC Budget and Tax Center

This year’s Super Bowl Sunday shed new light on the for-profit college industry after advocates took to twitter to share the latest disturbing facts about the industry’s practices. The Super Bowl was held in the University of Phoenix Stadium, which is named for the largest for-profit college in the country. The university agreed to pay more than $150 million over 20 years for the naming rights on the new stadium in 2006.

In the past year, greater scrutiny of for-profit colleges, those that are managed by companies accountable to shareholders and, or publicly traded, has led to a series of legal actions and rising concern from policymakers about the role of these institutions in a context in which post-secondary attainment is the path to the middle class.

The problems with for-profit colleges are many. First, they tend to cost students at least three and half times as much as the same education at a community college. Second, their students are more likely to leave a program without a degree but with a significant level of debt. Leading to the next issue that default rates are far higher among students who attended for-profit institutions relative to their share of the total population: for-profit students represent 12 percent of all enrolled and 44 percent of those who default on their student loans.

Now, new data secured by the Center for Investigative Reporting shows that taxpayers are subsidizing the for-profit college industry to the tune of $9.5 billion a year. This is because the majority of for-profit institutions rely on public funds through Pell Grants, Stafford loans and various military tuition assistance programs to fund their operations. In fact, the analysis finds that more than 90 percent of these institutions’ revenue is from public funds. Read More