May 20, 2020 - The May Revision includes a number of revenue-related proposals. This post describes these proposals and offers our initial comments and recommendations. We also offer alternative revenue options that the Legislature could consider.
June 4, 2019 - Presented to: Budget Conference Committee
October 5, 2020 - The 2020‑21 budget package included several tax policy changes. Overall, the budget package assumes these changes will result in a net revenue increase of about $4 billion in 2020‑21. Starting in 2023‑24, the net effect of these changes are expected to reduce revenues below what they otherwise would have been.
May 6, 2015 -
California’s state and local governments levy a tax on retail sales of tangible goods. This report begins with an overview of California’s sales and use tax. It then provides more detail about which transactions are subject to this tax, the variation in tax rates across the state, the distribution of revenue among state and local governments, and revenue growth over the last few decades.
(5/12/15: Correction made to expiry date of manufacturing equipment exemption.)
(5/12/15: Correction made to difference in sales tax for gasoline.)
January 31, 2000 - The growth of the Internet raises many tax policy issues. These include: How can we ensure that the tax system is fair without interfering with the Internet's evolution? How will the Internet's growth affect government tax bases? We examine these and other Internet-related tax issues in detail, and recommend that California approach them by pursuing multistate tax agreements and consider undertaking a comprehensive review of telecommunication related levies.
February 6, 2009 - To assist the Legislature in resolving the 2009‑10 budget gap, we developed a list of proposals that would raise more than $5 billion in each of 2009‑10 and 2010‑11. Our proposed options include eliminating or modifying 12 tax expenditure programs for a savings of $1.7 billion over the next two years. In general, these recommendations are based on our conclusion that these programs lack a strong rationale or are not sufficiently effective or efficient in achieving their stated goals. We also identify two targeted rate increases—increasing the vehicle license fee (VLF) to 1 percent and a three-year temporary PIT surcharge—that, combined, would raise $3.4 billion in 2009‑10 and $3.5 billion in 2010‑11. These options could be considered by the Legislature in lieu of any of the Governor’s revenue-related proposals. We believe these proposals have merit, both for tax policy reasons (for example, the VLF increase would result in all property in California taxed at the same rate) and for reducing the net impact of any rate increases on taxpayers (as both the VLF and PIT are deductible for federal tax purposes).
October 15, 2018 - Presented to: Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee and Senate Governance and Finance Committee
May 2, 2006 - In 2004, California temporarily extended, from 90 days to one year, the time that recently purchased vessels, vehicles, and aircraft must be kept out of California in order to avoid the state’s use tax. This report looks at the economic and fiscal impacts of the law change. We find that (1) the law change has resulted in a sharp reduction in out-of-state usage exemptions and an increase in sales and use tax revenues, and (2) the negative economic impacts arising from the measure do not appear to be particularly large.
December 17, 2019 - In this post, we discuss a key interaction between sales taxes and other taxes on cannabis retailers—in particular, local business taxes. Due to this opaque, counterintuitive interaction, the overall tax rate on cannabis is slightly higher than it appears to be. We recommend that the Legislature make statutory changes to address this issue.
December 11, 2018 - The California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA) administers a sales tax exemption for equipment used for certain manufacturing activities. (Many people refer to this program as an exclusion rather than an exemption.) Under current law, this program will end on January 1, 2021. Public Resources Code 26011.8(g) requires our office to report on the effectiveness of the program—including its economic, fiscal, and environmental effects—by January 1, 2019. This report fulfills that statutory requirement.
December 17, 2019 - In November 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, which legalized the nonmedical use of cannabis (typically called recreational or adult use) and created a structure for regulating and taxing it. In this report we provide (1) background information on cannabis and its legalization in California, (2) a discussion of the effects of adjusting the tax rate, (3) an assessment of other potential changes to California’s cannabis tax structure, and (4) recommendations for the Legislature.
August 5, 2013 - The sales and use tax is the state’s second largest revenue source as well as a major funding source for cities, counties, and some special districts. Historically, consumers have spent about the same share of their income each year on taxable items, meaning that sales taxes generally kept pace with growth in the state's economy. Starting in 1980, however, California consumers began to spend a growing share of their income each year on nontaxable items, especially services, and a declining share of their income on taxable goods. Although total consumer spending kept pace with the state’s economy, this shift in spending caused growth in taxable sales to lag behind growth in the state’s economy. Correspondingly, total sales tax revenues for the state and local governments have grown somewhat slower than the state's economy since 1980, despite periodic increases in the tax rate.