Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Lack of dedicated revenue for housing (consequences (housing not viewed as…
Lack of dedicated revenue for housing
cause
lack of political will
some lawmakers believe dedicated revenue leads to increase in government spending without resorting to unpopular increases in rates on general-fund taxation sources
earmarking tax or other revenue requires statute or in the constitution
reduce the legislature's budgetary flexibility - they hinder the legislature's ability to construct a budget based on funding priorities, including changes in circumstances that have occurred since the earmark was adopted.
programs benefiting from earmarks often receive less scrutiny of their merits than the portions of the budget that are subject to comprehensive budget review
earmarks take power away from the governor and the legislature
earmarks require seperate tracking and accounting for revenues and expenditures. This increases governorment's accounting and financial reporting costs.
uncertain whether earmarks would hold down revenues for the favored program or lead to higher spending levels
lack of direction in regards to the source of the revenue
the link to specific taxes or increases faces powerful lobbying opposition.
if revenues derived from a porition of the tax base are earmarked - such as sales tax on one type or class of commodity - tax compliance costs for private taxpayers can increase, as they must separately track and report these revenues to the state.
dedication of user fees or benefit taxes are not evenly distributed despite the fact that the benefits of affordable housing are
depending on earmarked revenue source, funding for the program may fluctuate.
challenge determining bipartisan endorsed funding mechanism
consequences
no reliable funding source for housing. constitutional earmarks provide a legal guarantee that constrains the legislature's ability to reduce funding for the benefited program below the earmarked amount.
housing currently competing with other budget priorities for revenue
MHFA and developers can't budget plan in advance. hard to do longer range planning.
funding for housing is politicized.
hard to gain political support for varied programs year after year.
housing programs subject to comprehensive budget review - as lawmakers don't understand affordable housing, the task of educating just to protect programs can be huge
housing not protected from changing political climates
hard to get citizenery to support funding year after year, especially if there are competing issues vying for people's attention
housing not viewed as needed ongoing investment like infrastructure and education
people and lawmakers more apt to question public purpose for investment in housing
: