70th International Atlantic Economic Conference

October 11 - 13, 2010 | Charleston, USA

Earmarked Local Option Sales Taxes: Transportation

Tuesday, October 12, 2010: 4:00 PM
Whitney B. Afonso, M.A , Public Administration and Policy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Yilin Hou, Ph.D. , Public Administration and Policy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Currently there are 32 states that have adopted some form of local options sales taxes (LOST).  Within these states there are many forms of earmarked taxes: those for education, hospitals, cultural centers, and transportation to name a few.  Within the literature and classic economic thought, there is debate as to the validity and efficiency of earmarked taxes as a suitable source of revenue.  There are benefits as well as drawbacks, however there has been little work done actually looking at how much earmarked sales taxes distort the behavior of the local governments.

We hypothesize that the earmarks and dedications that come with some local option taxes restrict local governments in their operation, which causes loss in the efficient use of the sales tax revenue.  That is, restrictions on the use of the tax dollars distort the behavior of local governments, leading to efficiency loss.  Specifically we look at those taxes earmarked for transportation costs.

This paper uses national data at the county level from 1983 to 2004 data with controls and variables of interest such as: LOST rates, spending on highways and health, rural population, population density, and total revenue per capita.  The analysis supports the above hypotheses.

The preliminary results suggest that, on average, an increase in the LOST rate, earmarked for transportation, changes spending on transportation expenditures.  An 1% increase results in increased spending per capita of .01.  We see this relationship with health spending as well; interestingly there is a notable difference between the two.  The general (non-earmarked) LOST rate has a negative impact on health spending, but the opposite effect on transportation spending.  There are many potential reasons for this difference.  Most interestingly, transportation costs are being shifted to local governments more and more, this coupled with less reliance on user fees and gasoline taxes, more revenues have to be spent by local governments.  This possibility will be tested as well.