The EIT report

Below, in the Links list, I will provide the links to documents and sources for the information I discuss on this blog.
The first on is the EIT report issued in January of this year.
It is at

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B5ATkbVJQ0FiNDI4Nzg1NGEtZmJjMy00NjM2LWI2YzctM2IyZTAwZmEyNmFi&hl=en

That's all one url, with no spaces.

I will direct you to several points of interest, but still, I encourage you to read it throughly and ask questions.

Note 1: In its explanation of its data sources used for this report (pages 6 through 9), M-A states that it only referred to EIT accounts to match up things like SSN's and municipalities of residence with a person's state tax records. They don't indicate that they are really matching up collection and distribution data from their multiple sources.

The problems here are that your state tax file for the year present different numbers than your EIT filing for that year. Second problem is that your reporting of your EIT tax burden is completely self-motivated. In other words, the state isn't looking at your state filing and cross-checking the EIT database to make sure you filed EIT. The state Dept Of Revenue (DOR) just doesn't "do" EIT. The locals do. Third, there is no explanation for how M-A acounted for workers working out of state but living in PA, and all those anomalies.

Note 2: In its resulting tables, M-A calculated what it thinks should have been collected and distributed according to DOR data--not according to EIT filings. For reasons stated in Note 1, this approach may yield serious inaccuracies when compared to reality. In short, although PA companies have to report EIT witheld from PA residents, M-A doesn't explain how companies' reporting data was used,or if it even was used, and how it adjusted for EIT information the DOR just doesn't have. Further, EIT collectors also give reports t0 the Dept of Revenue. How did M-A incorporate those reports...or did it even go to the DOE? Still, M-A goes ahead with this limited and likely inaccurate data and rewrites history for us anyway, and recalculates what it thinks was EIT revenue collected and disbursed. (See tables 1 through 3)

Note 3: See table 4, where only actual numbers were used. If you crunch the numbers, you will find that there is an actual pattern of disbursement that is consistent from year to year.
However, M-A ignores that fact in its analysis. Instead, it continues to apply its recreated scenario.

Note 4: See last table, where M-A states that actual disbursements for the years were more than the estimated EIT collected. This would be a very difficult thing for the EIT executive director to do--to give away money that he hadn't even received yet. Further, this demonstrates that the M-A calculations are defective. If we paid back what they are saying was overpaid for the year 2006, for example, our effective tax rate, BY THEIR OWN CALCULATIONS would be 1.1%. That's a big deal, since by law, they are only allowed to collect 1%. Taxes are very strict that way.