Updated: Monday, 30 Nov 2009, 1:15 AM EST
Published : Sunday, 29 Nov 2009, 8:30 PM EST
LANSING, Mich. (AP) - Every time a Michigan resident begins collecting a pension or
turns 65, the nation's most generous tax breaks for seniors kick
in.
That special treatment drains about $1 billion a year from
the state's coffers when it and other cash-strapped states are
dealing with falling revenue and looming deficits that have them
slashing money for schools, closing prisons and furloughing state
workers.
Yet political pressure makes it unlikely senior tax breaks
will be touched to help bottom lines -- even as states steadily
lose more to the tax breaks as the number of older taxpayers grows.
"As soon as you talk about reducing our generosity to
seniors, somebody's going to say, `You want my grandpa to eat dog
food,"' said Michigan State University economics professor Charles
Ballard. "Obviously, the politics of it are very difficult."
Seniors have outsized clout because they vote more regularly
than young voters. Most lawmakers fear they'll unleash a backlash
if they trim benefits, even if those benefits are costing states
money they don't have.
There's even talk among some states about increasing senior
benefits. South Carolina, already the fourth-most-generous state,
is considering legislation that would increase the homestead
property tax break for seniors.
Elizabeth C. McNichol of the Washington-based Center for
Budget and Policy Priorities said the senior tax breaks add up to
anywhere from 0.5 percent to more than 4 percent of each state's
general fund revenue.
Seniors will cost states more as their numbers increase and
they need more help with nursing home costs, transportation and
other services, she noted. That's especially worrisome to states
with falling tax revenues and rising deficits.
Michigan's benefits are twice as generous as those of
second-place Kentucky, according to McNichol's 2006 study on senior
tax breaks. Georgia, South Carolina and Hawaii round out the top
five.
But no Michigan lawmaker has introduced bills that would
freeze the cap on exempted private pension income or begin taxing
the Social Security income of higher-income seniors, as the federal
government does.
Ballard notes that a retired couple in Michigan can have over
$100,000 of income without having to pay any state income tax.
Michigan State studies have shown that around 95 percent of seniors
pay no state income tax, and in many cases get extra money from the
state because of a credit for property taxes they pay on their
homes.
Tax-policy expert Bob Swanson said those figures show it
might be time to consider a slight trim, or at least a redirection.
"I don't think anyone is saying, `Don't have any senior tax
preferences.' But target them better on the people who need them,"
said Swanson, 63, a state government retiree who serves on the
Michigan League for Human Services board of directors. "We're
exempting a lot of people who certainly could afford to pay."
The league, an advocacy group for the poor, has suggested
dropping Michigan's senior tax breaks to Kentucky's level to have
more cash to put into the safety net for its hundreds of thousands
of unemployed workers. Ballard said doing that could bring in an
extra $200 million a year.
The prospect of change worries Sandy Slee, 65, a retired
state bank examiner who lives about 10 miles southwest of Lansing
with her husband, Lynn, a 68-year-old General Motors retiree. The
couple lost their dental and vision benefits this year and pay more
for health care. So any additional costs are a concern.
"I am absolutely opposed to them taxing our pension
benefits," Sandy Slee said. "We no longer have a way to generate
more income."
The Slees collect about $36,000 annually in Social Security
payments and about $31,000 in pension payments, after federal taxes
are taken out.
They pay no state income taxes on any of it. Michigan also
exempts public pension benefits from income taxes, and up to
$45,120 a year for an individual filer and $90,240 for joint filers
in private retirement and pension benefits.
The couple isn't opposed to paying more in taxes to support
education and other services, but think everyone should pay those
increases.
Steve Gools, spokesman for the Michigan chapter of the AARP,
said trimming tax breaks for the 1 million seniors who claim them
might be acceptable to help the state balance its books, but only
if the pain is shared.
"Anyone who attempts to take a huge bite out of tax savings
that are uniquely owned by senior citizens without asking for a
similar sacrifice by other taxpayers is a nonstarter,"' Gools said.
"It's going to be a matter of the balance and the fairness of the
approach."
The lost revenue will mount as the senior population grows.
The proportion of the national population aged 65 and older is
projected to grow from 12.4 percent in 2000 to 19.7 percent by
2030, according to McNichol's study. That means more people will be
qualifying for senior tax breaks when the demand for senior
services will be going up.
Many of the extra credits were added decades ago, when senior
poverty was a significant issue. But as seniors overall have grown
more prosperous, their tax breaks haven't been phased out for those
in higher income brackets.
That's not true at the federal level, where a portion of
middle- and upper-income citizens' Social Security began being
taxed in the 1980s. The federal government also bans exemptions for
pension income.
McNichol said states might have to make similar moves.
"It's definitely something that states need to think about in
terms of preparing for the longer term as we come out of this
fiscal crisis," she said.
------
On the Net:
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities report
------
Also: A look at trends in state's tax breaks for seniors, according to the Washington-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities:
------
A look at Michigan's senior tax breaks, the most generous in the nation: