1 / 18

Changes in Shared Revenue and the Effects on Wisconsin Taxpayers

Changes in Shared Revenue and the Effects on Wisconsin Taxpayers. Jenna Griffin, Jennifer Klippel, Kathryn Maguire, Brendon Riggs. May 5, 2006. Overview. The Shared Revenue Program Measures Analytical Approach Results Conclusions. The Shared Revenue Program. Background Goals

kayp
Download Presentation

Changes in Shared Revenue and the Effects on Wisconsin Taxpayers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Changes in Shared Revenue and the Effects on Wisconsin Taxpayers Jenna Griffin, Jennifer Klippel, Kathryn Maguire, Brendon Riggs May 5, 2006

  2. Overview • The Shared Revenue Program • Measures • Analytical Approach • Results • Conclusions

  3. The Shared Revenue Program • Background • Goals • Property Tax Relief • Guaranteed Tax Base

  4. Formula Components • Per-capita • Utilities • Aidable Revenues • Local purpose revenues • Tax base weight • Minimum Guarantee

  5. The Issue • Changes to Shared Revenue • Level-Funding • Discontinuation of Formula • Per Capita Reductions • Circumstances • Medicaid • Truth in Sentencing • School Aid

  6. Measures of Fiscal Disparity • Tax price: price to taxpayers, in mills, of a given level of expenditures • t/E ratio: tax price of $1,000 in per capita expenditures • low t/E ratio indicates a high level of fiscal well-being • Coefficient of variation: measures of disparity across time, using variation in t/E ratios for each year (standard deviation ÷ mean x 100) • high coefficient of variation (given as %) means high disparity • Taxpayer equity: municipalities with similar property tax rates should be able to afford similar expenditures, regardless of property wealth

  7. Analytical Approach • Municipalities by 2000 EQV deciles • not population weighted • not counties and school districts • Milwaukee analyzed separately • Interaction with School Aid

  8. Municipal t/E Ratio, 2004

  9. Coefficient of Variation of Mills-per-$1,000 Expenditures

  10. 2000 Mills-per-$1,000 of Expenditures by EQV Deciles

  11. 2004 Mills-per-$1,000 of Expenditures by EQV Deciles

  12. 2000-04 Cuts in Shared Revenue as Percent of Total Revenue Loss

  13. Impact on Municipal Levy2000-2004

  14. Impact on Combined Levy (School and Municipal), 2000-2004

  15. Coefficient of Variation of Combined Municipal and School District Mill Rate

  16. Alternatives • Return to Equalizing Formula • Revisiting Land-Use Assessment Policy • Reconfiguring the Current Expenditure Restraint Program • Diversifying Municipal Revenue Sources

  17. Conclusion • Formula Decreased Disparities • Changes Increased Disparities • Long-term Consequences

  18. Questions?

More Related