InvestMacro

By John Rennie Short, University of Maryland, Baltimore County 

Five years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many U.S. cities are still adjusting to a new normal, with more people working remotely and less economic activity in city centers. Other factors, such as underfunded pension plans for municipal employees, are pushing many city budgets into the red.

Urban fiscal struggles are not new, but historically they have mainly affected U.S. cities that are small, poor or saddled with incompetent managers. Today, however, even large cities, including Chicago, Houston and San Francisco, are under serious financial stress.

This is a looming nationwide threat, driven by factors that include climate change, declining downtown activity, loss of federal funds and large pension and retirement commitments.

Why cities struggle

Many U.S. cities have faced fiscal crises over the past century, for diverse reasons. Most commonly, stress occurs after an economic downturn or sharp fall in tax revenues.

Florida municipalities began to default in 1926 after the collapse of a land boom. Municipal defaults were common across the nation in the 1930s during the Great Depression: As unemployment rose, relief burdens swelled and tax collections dwindled.

In 1934 Congress amended the U.S. bankruptcy code to allow municipalities to file formally for bankruptcy. Subsequently, 27 states enacted laws that authorized cities to become debtors and seek bankruptcy protection.

Declaring bankruptcy was not a cure-all. It allowed cities to refinance debt or stretch out payment schedules, but it also could lead to higher taxes and fees for residents, and lower pay and benefits for city employees. And it could stigmatize a city for many years afterward.

In the 1960s and 1970s, many urban residents and businesses left cities for adjoining suburbs. Many cities, including New York, Cleveland and Philadelphia, found it difficult to repay debts as their tax bases shrank.

In the wake of the 2008-2009 housing market collapse, cities including Detroit, San Bernardino, California, and Stockton, California, filed for bankruptcy. Other cities faced similar difficulties but were located in states that did not allow municipalities to declare bankruptcy.

Even large, affluent jurisdictions could go off the financial rails. For example, Orange County, California, went bankrupt in 2002 after its treasurer, Robert Citron, pursued a risky investment strategy of complex leveraging deals, losing some $1.65 billion in taxpayer funds.

Today, cities face a convergence of rising costs and decreasing revenues in many places. As I see it, the urban fiscal crisis is now a pervasive national challenge.

Climate-driven disasters

Climate change and its attendant increase in major disasters are putting financial pressure on municipalities across the country.

Events like wildfires and flooding have twofold effects on city finances. First, money has to be spent on rebuilding damaged infrastructure, such as roads, water lines and public buildings. Second, after the disaster, cities may either act on their own or be required under state or federal law to make expensive investments in preparation for the next storm or wildfire.

In Houston, for example, court rulings after multiple years of severe flooding are forcing the city to spend $100 million on street repairs and drainage by mid-2025. This requirement will expand the deficit in Houston’s annual budget to $330 million.

In Massachusetts, towns on Cape Cod are spending millions of dollars to switch from septic systems to public sewer lines and upgrade wastewater treatment plants. Population growth has sharply increased water pollution on the Cape, and climate change is promoting blooms of toxic algae that feed on nutrients in wastewater.

Increasing uncertainty about the total costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change will inevitably lead rating agencies to downgrade municipal credit ratings. This raises cities’ costs to borrow money for climate-related projects like protecting shorelines and improving wastewater treatment.

Underfunded pensions

Cities also spend a lot of money on employees, and many large cities are struggling to fund pensions and health benefits for their workforces. As municipal retirees live longer and require more health care, the costs are mounting.

For example, Chicago currently faces a budget deficit of nearly $1 billion, which stems partly from underfunded retirement benefits for nearly 30,000 public employees. The city has $35 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and almost $2 billion in unfunded retiree health benefits. Chicago’s teachers are owed $14 billion in unfunded benefits.

Policy studies have shown for years that politicians tend to underfund retirement and pension benefits for public employees. This approach offloads the real cost of providing police, fire protection and education onto future taxpayers.

Struggling downtowns and less federal support

Cities aren’t just facing rising costs – they’re also losing revenues. In many U.S. cities, retail and commercial office economies are declining. Developers have overbuilt commercial properties, creating an excess supply. More unleased properties will mean lower tax revenues.

At the same time, pandemic-related federal aid that cushioned municipal finances from 2020 through 2024 is dwindling.

State and local governments received $150 billion through the 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and an additional $130 billion through the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act. Now, however, this federal largesse – which some cities used to fill mounting fiscal cracks – is at an end.

In my view, President Donald Trump’s administration is highly unlikely to bail out urban areas – especially more liberal cities like Detroit, Philadelphia and San Francisco. Trump has portrayed large cities governed by Democrats in the darkest terms – for example, calling Baltimore a “rodent-infested mess” and Washington, D.C., a “dirty, crime-ridden death trap.” I expect that Trump’s animus against big cities, which was a staple of his 2024 campaign, could become a hallmark of his second term.

Resistance to new taxes

Cities can generate revenue from taxes on sales, businesses, property and utilities. However, increasing municipal taxes – particularly property taxes – can be very difficult.

In 1978, California adopted Proposition 13 – a ballot measure that limited property tax increases to the rate of inflation or 2% per year, whichever is lower. This high-profile campaign created a widespread narrative that property taxes were out of control and made it very hard for local officials to support property tax increases.

Thanks to caps like Prop 13, a persistent public view that taxes are too high and political resistance, property taxes have tended to lag behind inflation in many parts of the country.

The crunch

Taking these factors together, I see a fiscal crunch coming for U.S. cities. Small cities with low budgets are particularly vulnerable. But so are larger, more affluent cities, such as San Francisco with its collapsing downtown office market, or Houston, New York and Miami, which face growing costs from climate change.

One city manager who runs an affluent municipality in the Pacific Northwest told me that in these difficult circumstances, politicians need to be more frank and open with their constituents and explain convincingly and compellingly how and why taxpayer money is being spent.

Efforts to balance city budgets are opportunities to build consensus with the public about what municipalities can do, and at what cost. The coming months will show whether politicians and city residents are ready for these hard conversations.

About the Author:

John Rennie Short, Professor Emeritus of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

By Erica Neuman, University of Dayton and Curtis Farnsel, University of Dayton 

When corporations based in areas of above-average income inequality pay more taxes, it’s not just the public that appreciates it – investors do, too. That’s the key finding of our recent research published in the journal Accounting and the Public Interest.

Our finding challenges traditional economic theory holding that investors see corporate taxes as a transfer of wealth from shareholders to the state. That would suggest investors value only strategies that minimize taxes. The reality isn’t so simple.

As accounting professors at the University of Dayton, we study the intersection of corporate taxes and corporate social responsibility. We wanted to better understand how corporate taxes affect firm value and stock prices, and whether that relationship changes if a company is headquartered in an area with high income inequality.

So we looked at financial data from over 1,500 firms over a 10-year period between 2011 and 2019, as well as the income inequality in the metro areas where they’re headquartered. For the latter point, we used the Gini coefficient, a measure of income distribution in a given place. This is a particularly useful context for looking at corporate taxes, since one of the key functions of taxation is to counter inequality.

We found that there’s a negative relationship between corporate taxes and firm value for companies headquartered in areas of average inequality. In other words, paying more corporate taxes lowers firm value. That’s in line with previous research and traditional economic theory.

However, we found that when local income inequality rises above the average, the relationship between corporate taxes and firm value flips. This flip suggests that some companies actually receive a financial benefit from paying corporate taxes.

Why? We found that these companies enjoy a reputational benefit for being socially responsible taxpayers. Indeed, our results were driven by businesses that are are otherwise widely viewed as good corporate citizens. For those companies, paying taxes represents one of many socially responsible behaviors.

Why it matters

Our research offers evidence that investors view corporate taxes positively when they’re consistent with other socially responsible behaviors. Given that corporations have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, this finding suggests that corporate taxes can play a role in a company’s corporate social responsibility, or CSR, efforts.

Our findings also align with a 2023 KPMG survey of more than 300 chief tax officers that found more than half said they cared more about looking like good corporate citizens than reducing their tax burdens.

An extensive body of research has shown that companies’ investments in CSR activities aren’t just selfless – they’re linked with improved operational and financial outcomes. There’s evidence that businesses that prioritize CSR are better able to attract quality employees; have improved corporate reputations; and are more profitable as judged by return on assets, return on equity and return on sales.

While work on tax responsibility has lagged behind other CSR research, evidence is mounting that paying corporate taxes has positive effects. Much of this research indicates that companies that aggressively minimize tax payments and gain a reputation as “tax avoiders” face harm to their reputation – and therefore, the bottom line.

Our study dovetails this research and identifies a specific context in which investors view corporate taxes favorably. At a time of tax reform both globally and in the U.S., and as lawmakers and pundits continue to call for greater tax transparency, companies should be aware of the role of corporate tax responsibility in their overall CSR portfolio.

What’s next

Corporate tax responsibility is complex and not yet well defined. Our current research examines other circumstances that lead investors to value corporate taxes, which will help companies to quantify the value of including taxes in their CSR portfolios.

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

About the Author:

Erica Neuman, Assistant Professor of Accounting, University of Dayton and Curtis Farnsel, Assistant Professor of Accounting, University of Dayton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.