DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effect of State Taxes on Charitable Giving by William Freeland, Ben Wilterdink and Jonathan Williams

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effect of State Taxes on Charitable Giving by William Freeland, Ben Wilterdink and Jonathan Williams alec.org SEPTEMBER 2015 STATEthe FACTORA PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL The Effect of State Taxes on Charitable Giving By William Freeland, Ben Wilterdink and Jonathan Williams Executive Summary n often overlooked aspect of public policy is the role When all state taxes are considered, a 1 percentage point in- A that charitable organizations have in addressing some of crease in the total tax burden is associated with a 1.16 percent society’s most pressing concerns. Because of this important drop in charitable giving per dollar of state income. Similarly, role and since charitable organizations are funded privately this State Factor found that an increase in total tax burden of through donations, understanding how state policies interact roughly 1 percentage point of total state income results in a with charitable organizations is crucial for a robust discussion roughly 0.09 percentage point decrease in the level measured about public policy. This State Factor examines state tax poli- charitable donations as a percent of income. cies that encourage charitable giving, apart from the charita- ble giving deduction. While many factors certainly influence an individual’s choice To learn more about how the American about donating to charity, there are broad policy choices that Legislative Exchange Council helps develop can encourage higher rates of growth in charitable giving. By innovative solutions in partnership with examining various tax burdens and tax rates with rigorous eco- lawmakers and business leaders, or to become nomic analysis, this paper’s research findings show that a 1 a member, please visit www.alec.org. percent increase in the personal income tax burden is associat- ed with 0.35 percent decrease in charitable giving per dollar of American Legislative Exchange Council state income. Similarly, this State Factor found that an increase 2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 600 in personal income tax burden of roughly 1 percentage point Arlington, VA 22202 of total state income results in a roughly 0.10 percentage point Tel: 703.373.0933 decrease in the level of measured charitable donations as a Fax: 703.373.0927 percent of income. www.alec.org THE STATE FACTOR For these figures, the opposite is also true: a tax cut of the size Introduction described will result in a proportionate increase to charitable giving. Moreover, given that total state charitable giving as a he concept of civil society has existed for centuries, yet it is percent of income ranges from roughly 5.2 percent down to T too often left out of serious conversations about public pol- 1.15 percent across states and years, this suggest that taxes icy. Civil society is a collection of individuals who are connect- have a strong effect on charitable giving. ed through various social institutions and range from national groups with many chapters to local community organizations. These strong findings indicate that charitable giving increases Too often, discussion on the size and scope of government ig- when the burden of government, through taxes, is reduced. nores the role of civil society, particularly the larger role civil so- This effect is three-fold. First, taxes reduce an individual’s in- ciety can be expected to fill as government is reformed in order come, leaving less income to donate to charity in a given year. to tax less and focus its responsibilities on core competencies Second, taxes reduce potential income growth that could that government is uniquely situated to accomplish. have resulted in subsequent charitable giving. Third, taxes pay for public services and citizens may decide that they are This unique place in society is recognized by the United States already paying their share of social spending through taxes government by granting non-profit status, which exempts these and decline to contribute to charity, thus “crowding out” organizations from tax treatment as a business, precluding or- charitable donations. While it is clear that tax reductions do ganizational taxation under the corporate or personal income not necessarily translate into loss of government services— tax code and even allows private money donated to these orga- there are many ways that governments can spend tax reve- nizations to be deducted from the tax liability of donors. nues more efficiently—it is certainly relevant that when taxes are reduced, charitable organizations are likely to offset re- When discussions of tax reductions or spending reform occur ductions in public benefits. within state legislatures and the public sphere, discussions of charitable giving are often absent, even from the talking points It is also worth noting that the reverse effect is also true; an of tax reduction and spending reform advocates. These de- increase in taxes is associated with a decrease in charitable bates often focus on advocates of big government lamenting giving. These increases in taxes, which are then translated into the loss of public services, with all spending deemed essential government spending for a given purpose, may reduce charita- and already at the most frugal of scales, while tax reformers ble giving in that area. This negative feedback loop could result note the proliferation of government waste ripe for cutting, in worsening a problem that additional government spending the benefits of additional economic growth as true social as- seeks to solve. Given these findings, the impact of tax changes sistance (more jobs, more income and more entrepreneurial on charitable giving is an often overlooked piece of the pub- opportunity) and the positive “Laffer” effects of tax cuts which lic policy puzzle and policymakers should consider it carefully partially dull the loss of revenue that would otherwise be ex- when discussing tax policy changes. pected from tax cuts. But what is often forgotten is the charitable sector—both what they provide currently and what more they would be able to provide given a tax cut. That is, if lower tax states tend to give “This State Factor examines state tax more, and tax cutting states increase their giving, then charita- ble giving belongs in the conversation regarding state tax cuts. policies that encourage charitable Civil society may well appropriately—and perhaps more effi- giving, apart from the charitable ciently–fill necessary gaps in public needs that might happen to arise alongside a back stop of more money in taxpayer pockets, giving deduction.” more economic growth and a government that provides for core social needs. 2 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING The space between what individuals are able to accomplish stitute Fellow Charles Murray describes the unintended con- on their own, voluntarily, and what government is able to—or sequences of simple output based government aid programs, should—accomplish is filled by another crucial component of “The first effect [of government policies] . was to make it civil society: private charitable organizations. Charitable orga- profitable for the poor to behave in the short term in ways that nizations, broadly defined, are non-governmental collections were destructive in the long term. Their second effect was to of individuals or communities that work to solve some problem mask these long-term losses—to subsidize irretrievable mis- in society or otherwise provide social value in the gap between takes. We tried to remove the barriers to escape poverty, and private enterprise and government action. These organizations, inadvertently built a trap.”1 in their most abstract sense, have been around in some form or another as long as people have been interacting with one another. Today, there are countless charitable organizations, diverse in size, scope and mission. Ranging from religious or- ganizations to public policy groups, these groups generally do not seek to make a profit, like businesses, and are not an arm of any government. Whether it is a foundation that donates millions to fighting global disease and hunger or the neighbor- hood church that operates a food bank for the neediest in a community, charitable organizations fill an important role in civil society while relying exclusively on voluntary donations. According to some, solving social problems is thought to be en- tirely in the purview of various government programs funded by taxpayers. However, there are limits to what government is able to accomplish and, perhaps more importantly, limits on what government should attempt to accomplish. Much has been written on the effectiveness of privately fund- The government programs, funded by the ed charitable organizations and the lackluster performance Workforce Investment Act, provide aid of government-run aid programs. Of course, there is a role to about 7 million people annually. Only for government aid programs, but when it comes to provid- ing long-term assistance to individuals in need, private charity 56 percent of enrollees in the program is unquestionably in a better position to do so. Government find work, while 20 percent are unable to is able to acquire—through taxes—and directly spend large amounts of money on a large number of people, often in the retain their job after six months. form of government assistance checks. However, government agencies are less able to predict and meet specific needs of individuals and communities. Much of the lasting benefits of Howard Husock, a philanthropy researcher and Vice President charity come from individualized attention and knowledge that at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, highlights a government is often unable to provide. comparison between government job training programs and private job training programs. The government programs, Solving societal problems is rarely, if ever, as simple as transfer- funded by the Workforce Investment Act, provide aid to about ring money from one individual to another. Instead, the focus 7 million people annually. Only 56 percent of enrollees in the on an individual’s development is what is most important.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Analysis of the Graded Property Tax Robert M
    TaxingTaxing Simply Simply District of Columbia Tax Revision Commission TaxingTaxing FairlyFairly Full Report District of Columbia Tax Revision Commission 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 550 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 518-7275 Fax: (202) 466-7967 www.dctrc.org The Authors Robert M. Schwab Professor, Department of Economics University of Maryland College Park, Md. Amy Rehder Harris Graduate Assistant, Department of Economics University of Maryland College Park, Md. Authors’ Acknowledgments We thank Kim Coleman for providing us with the assessment data discussed in the section “The Incidence of a Graded Property Tax in the District of Columbia.” We also thank Joan Youngman and Rick Rybeck for their help with this project. CHAPTER G An Analysis of the Graded Property Tax Robert M. Schwab and Amy Rehder Harris Introduction In most jurisdictions, land and improvements are taxed at the same rate. The District of Columbia is no exception to this general rule. Consider two homes in the District, each valued at $100,000. Home A is a modest home on a large lot; suppose the land and structures are each worth $50,000. Home B is a more sub- stantial home on a smaller lot; in this case, suppose the land is valued at $20,000 and the improvements at $80,000. Under current District law, both homes would be taxed at a rate of 0.96 percent on the total value and thus, as Figure 1 shows, the owners of both homes would face property taxes of $960.1 But property can be taxed in many ways. Under a graded, or split-rate, tax, land is taxed more heavily than structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada Taxation of Foreign Passive Income (FAPI)
    INTERNATIONAL TAX POLICY FORUM / GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER Reform of International Tax: Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, and United States January 21, 2011 Gewirz Student Center, 12th floor 120 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 International Tax Policy Forum International Tax Policy Forum and Georgetown University Law Center Conference on: REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL TAX: CANADA, JAPAN, UNITED KINGDOM, AND UNITED STATES Table of Contents 1) Agenda ................................................................................................................................................... 1 2) Sponsoring Organizations a) About ITPF ....................................................................................................................................... 2 b) About Georgetown University Law Center ....................................................................................... 3 3) Taxation of International Income in Canada, Japan, UK, and US a) International Tax Rules in Canada, Japan, the UK and US (J. Mintz Presentation) ....................... 4 b) Canada i) S. Richardson, Presentation on Canadian international tax reform (Jan. 2011) ....................... 9 ii) N. Pantaleo, Presentation on Canada's taxation of foreign business income (Jan. 2011) ..... 12 iii) Advisory Panel on Canada’s System of International Taxation, Enhancing Canada’s International Tax Advantage, (Dec. 2008) [Executive Summary] ........................................... 16 c) UK i) M. Williams, Presentation on UK international tax
    [Show full text]
  • Latest CBO Report on Incomes and Taxes Shows That the Federal Fiscal System Is Very Progressive
    Latest CBO Report on Incomes and Taxes Shows that the Federal Fiscal System is Very Progressive FISCAL Scott A. Hodge FACT President No. 742 Jan. 2021 Key Findings • President Joe Biden has proposed an ambitious agenda that would make the federal fiscal system more progressive, and the huge budget deficits caused by the numerous COVID-19 relief packages could heighten the call for more tax revenues. What is needed are benchmark facts to guide these debates. • A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office fills this void with data showing that the current fiscal system—both taxes and direct spending benefits—is already very progressive and redistributive. • In 2017, the federal fiscal system lifted the incomes of households in the lowest quintile by 126 percent, in the second quintile by 46 percent, and in the middle quintile by 10 percent while reducing the incomes of households in the highest quintile by 23 percent and in the top 1 percent by 31 percent. • In 2017, households in the lowest quintile received $67.67 in direct federal benefits for every $1 of taxes paid vs. $1.60 for middle-quintile households, while households in the highest quintile received $0.15, and $0.02 for the top 1 percent. • In the aggregate, fiscal policy increased the incomes of households in the bottom three quintiles by more than $1 trillion in 2017 and reduced the incomes of households in the highest quintile by more than $1.7 trillion, The Tax Foundation is the nation’s of which $728 billion came from households in the top 1 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................................... ix Introductory Notes to Tables ................................................................. xi Chapter A: Selected Economic Statistics ............................................... 1 A1. Resident Population of the United States ............................................................................3 A2. Resident Population by State ..............................................................................................4 A3. Number of Households in the United States .......................................................................6 A4. Total Population by Age Group............................................................................................7 A5. Total Population by Age Group, Percentages .......................................................................8 A6. Civilian Labor Force by Employment Status .......................................................................9 A7. Gross Domestic Product, Net National Product, and National Income ...................................................................................................10 A8. Gross Domestic Product by Component ..........................................................................11 A9. State Gross Domestic Product...........................................................................................12 A10. Selected Economic Measures, Rates of Change...............................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Federal Income Tax Rates Work? XXXX
    TAX POLICY CENTER BRIEFING BOOK Key Elements of the U.S. Tax System INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX How do federal income tax rates work? XXXX Q. How do federal income tax rates work? A. The federal individual income tax has seven tax rates that rise with income. Each rate applies only to income in a specific range (tax bracket). CURRENT INCOME TAX RATES AND BRACKETS The federal individual income tax has seven tax rates ranging from 10 percent to 37 percent (table 1). The rates apply to taxable income—adjusted gross income minus either the standard deduction or allowable itemized deductions. Income up to the standard deduction (or itemized deductions) is thus taxed at a zero rate. Federal income tax rates are progressive: As taxable income increases, it is taxed at higher rates. Different tax rates are levied on income in different ranges (or brackets) depending on the taxpayer’s filing status. In TAX POLICY CENTER BRIEFING BOOK Key Elements of the U.S. Tax System INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX How do federal income tax rates work? XXXX 2020 the top tax rate (37 percent) applies to taxable income over $518,400 for single filers and over $622,050 for married couples filing jointly. Additional tax schedules and rates apply to taxpayers who file as heads of household and to married individuals filing separate returns. A separate schedule of tax rates applies to capital gains and dividends. Tax brackets are adjusted annually for inflation. BASICS OF PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAXATION Each tax rate applies only to income in a specific tax bracket. Thus, if a taxpayer earns enough to reach a new bracket with a higher tax rate, his or her total income is not taxed at that rate, just the income in that bracket.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxes and New York's Fiscal Crisis
    TAXES AND NEW YORK’S FISCAL CRISIS: EVALUATING REVENUE PROPOSALS TO CLOSE THE STATE’S BUDGET GAP By Jared Walczak PRINCIPLE D INSIGHTFU L ENGAGED TAX FOUNDATION | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At first glance, New York faces projected budget shortfalls as arresting as the New York City skyline, and to meet the challenge, some have proposed taxes that would rival that skyline for staggering height. The challenge confronting policymakers is real, though perhaps not as dire as once feared. Its intensity depends on the pace of recovery, the availability of additional federal aid, and the policy choices state officials make in a state that has borne the brunt of the pandemic. State lawmakers will be called upon to navigate between two forbidding shoals, finding a way to meet the state’s revenue needs from a currently diminished tax base without implementing policies that make those economic losses permanent. It is no easy task, and there are no pat answers. In this publication, we examine the scope of the losses New York confronts and the prospects for—and potential extent of—federal relief in helping alleviate the state’s fiscal crisis. Then, situated in the context of New York’s past efforts to improve its tax competitiveness, and the importance of maintaining the Empire State’s attraction in an increasingly mobile economy, we review many of the proposals for raising additional revenue. Some hold promise, others present economic perils, and a few are legal quagmires. Recent data from the New York Department of Taxation and Finance suggest four-year tax revenue losses of $20.9 billion in real terms, about a 6.7 percent inflation-adjusted decline across the period, and a challenge above what the figures would indicate for a state that was struggling to balance its budgets even before the COVID-19 pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supercharged IPO (Vanderbilt Law Review, Forthcoming, 2014)
    The Supercharged IPO (Vanderbilt Law Review, forthcoming, 2014) Victor Fleischer University of Colorado School of Law and Nancy Staudt USC Gould School of Law Center in Law, Economics and Organization Research Papers Series No. C13-6 Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 13-6 March 26, 2013 VOLUME FEBRUARY 2013 NO. THE SUPERCHARGED IPO By Victor Fleischer* Nancy Staudt** A new innovation on the IPO landscape has emerged in the last two decades, allowing owner-founders to extract billions of dollars from newly-public companies. These IPOs—labeled supercharged IPOs—have been the subject of widespread debate and controversy: lawyers, financial experts, journalists, and Members of Congress have all weighed in on the topic. Some have argued that supercharged IPOs are a “brilliant, just brilliant,” while others have argued they are “underhanded” and “bizarre.” In this article, we explore the supercharged IPO and explain how and why this new deal structure differs from the more traditional IPO. We then outline various theories of financial innovation and note that the extant literature provides useful explanations for why supercharged IPOs emerged and spread so quickly across industries and geographic areas. The literature also provides support for both legitimate and opportunistic uses of the supercharged IPO. With the help of a large-N quantitative study—the first of its kind—we investigate the adoption and diffusion of this new innovation. We find that the reason parties have begun to supercharge their IPO is not linked to a desire to steal from naïve investors, but rather for tax planning purposes. Supercharged IPOs enable both owner- founders and public investors to save substantial amounts of money in federal and state taxes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Labor Incidence of Capital Taxation: New Evidence from the Retail Sales Taxation of Manufacturing Machinery and Equipment
    National Tax Journal, June 2017, 70 (2), 257–294 https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2017.2.02 THE LABOR INCIDENCE OF CAPITAL TAXATION: NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE RETAIL SALES TAXATION OF MANUFACTURING MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT John L. Mikesell and Justin M. Ross This paper seeks to produce evidence on the labor incidence of the taxation of ma- chinery and equipment purchases by manufacturers under the state general sales tax. For the identification strategy, we exploit tax policy discontinuities among adjacent counties along state borders. The main results demonstrate that, on aver- age, there are no significant losses or gains to manufacturing labor from adjusting this tax. The main results are robust to specifications of controls and state specific time trends. The identification strategy also passes a falsification test where counties are differenced from a randomly selected county. Keywords: sales tax, capital income tax, tax incidence JEL Codes: H25, H71 1. INTRODUCTION here has long been substantial interest in the labor incidence of business tax instru- Tments, both from economists in the study of economic incidence of partial factor taxes and from policy makers who worry these taxes are “job killers.” In the case of taxes on the formation of capital inputs, previous literature has mostly been limited to the study of corporate income taxes (Gravelle, 2013).1 This literature follows in the tradition of Harberger (1962) heavily cited general equilibrium model, “The Incidence 1 See a recent symposium review of the incidence of CIT in the March 2013 issue of the National Tax Journal. For distributional analyses of proposed tax reforms, both the Joint Committee on Taxation (2013) and the Congressional Budget Office assume that 25 percent of the CIT burden will fall upon labor, whereas the Department of Treasury on average allocates about 18 percent of the burden to labor.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Freedom Day 2018 Is April 19Th
    Tax Freedom Day 2018 Apr. 2018 is April 19th Erica York Analyst Key Findings • Tax Freedom Day is a significant date for taxpayers and lawmakers because it represents how long Americans as a whole have to work in order to pay the nation’s tax burden. • This year, Tax Freedom Day falls on April 19, 109 days into 2018. • Tax Freedom Day will be three days earlier than it was in 2017, in large part due to the recent federal tax law, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which significantly lowered federal individual and corporate income taxes. • In 2018, Americans will pay $3.4 trillion in federal taxes and $1.8 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of $5.2 trillion, or 30 percent of the nation’s income. • Americans will collectively spend more on taxes in 2018 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined. • If you include annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur 17 days later, on May 6th. The Tax Foundation is the nation’s leading independent tax policy research organization. Since 1937, • Tax Freedom Day is a significant date for taxpayers and lawmakers because it our research, analysis, and experts have informed smarter tax policy represents how long Americans as a whole have to work in order to pay the at the federal, state, and local levels. We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit nation’s tax burden. organization. ©2018 Tax Foundation Distributed under Creative Commons CC-BY-NC 4.0 Editor, Rachel Shuster Designer, Dan Carvajal Tax Foundation 1325 G Street, NW, Suite 950 Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Trade and Tariffs on the United States FISCAL FACT Erica York No
    The Impact of Trade and Tariffs on the United States FISCAL FACT Erica York No. 595 Analyst June 2018 Key Findings • Trade barriers such as tariffs raise prices and reduce available quantities of goods and services for U.S. businesses and consumers, which results in lower income, reduced employment, and lower economic output. • Measures of trade flows, such as the trade balance, are accounting identities and should not be misunderstood to be indicators of economic health. Production and exchange – regardless of the balance on the current account – generate wealth. • Since the end of World War II, the world has largely moved away from protectionist trade policies toward a rules-based, open trading system. Post-war trade liberalization has led to widespread benefits, including higher income levels, lower prices, and greater consumer choice. • Openness to trade and investment has substantially contributed to U.S. growth, but the U.S. still maintains duties against several categories of goods. The highest tariffs are concentrated on agriculture, textiles, and footwear. • The Trump administration has enacted tariffs on imported solar panels, washing machines, steel, and aluminum, plans to impose tariffs on Chinese imports, and is investigating further tariffs on Chinese imports and The Tax Foundation is the nation’s automobile imports. leading independent tax policy research organization. Since 1937, our research, analysis, and experts have informed smarter tax policy • The effects of each tariff will be lower GDP, wages, and employment in the at the federal, state, and local levels. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit long run. The tariffs will also make the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Gov't Finance Briefs GFB-13-NS
    OVERNMENT FINANCE BRIEF NO . 13 Property Taxation: Economic Aspects TAX F O U N D A T I O N, I N C . This pamphlet is 2dapted hors a paper by C. Lowell Harries on Economic Evaluation of Real Property Taxation : Municipal Income Tares, Pro- credin s. the Academy of Political Science, Colum- bia University. Ed. by Robert H_ Connect. Vol. XXVIII. No. 4. January 1965 7r. Harries is the Tax Foutsdationis Economic Consultant and Professo r of Economics at Columbia L-nh-ersit -The views ex - pressed are Dr. Harris ow t- . Tax Foundation is a private, non-profit organiza- tion founded in 19-7 to engage hi nonpartisan re - f search and public education on focal and manage- ment aspects of government. It serves as a national information agency for individuals and organiza- tions concerned with government fiscal problems. Covvnunmt Finance Brief No. 1.3 + August 1988 _ i Copyright Im - I TAx For%vAm.N, 1%-c- 50 RMWeller Pbra - hew Yak, . Y. 10030 - I' Property Taxation: Economic Aspects By C- Lowell ;4acriss TIu property tax pL-trs :t role in tool.cs of takiiiz d+-)ILtr. €iam the t-; xpay r and '. o etuntent finance Lame eitmigh to aur- aiug tliltii to :i ~government trcaiurv- prise Iiialli- tihsrrvers. The tax takes 1he- julrerse. rituircre nue• ctFeru "in be snore• trip.-i taxl;ta c ps ,!rill eves Ixfere ul In+ire than wimr significance- Iitost Ik r •'diili'CF, iI- CiC~fl:t'i eii CtttLYfeiitf flltt;tii. vvrnffila- when the t. x rites :ire at the ?N!Irert — sand hringis niorr Into localtzov- hitz-h levels found in numerous coiiununi- erntnetit treamirico .
    [Show full text]
  • GREEN PASSPORT Innovative Financing Solutions for Conservation in Hawai‘I
    GREEN PASSPORT Innovative Financing Solutions for Conservation in Hawai‘i Improving the visitor experience and protecting Hawai‘i’s natural heritage © Pascal Debrunner Purpose: The purpose of this report is to identify and explore innovative conservation finance solutions that bring additional revenue to support conservation in Hawai‘i and effectively manage cultural and natural resources that are critical to our communities’ wellbeing and the visitor experience. Scope of Work: (1) This report reviews existing visitor green fee programs that support conservation in jurisdictions around the world. (2) Based on this information, the report then explores legal, economic, and political considerations in Hawai‘i that shape the implementation of a potential visitor green fee program for the State of Hawai‘i. (3) Lastly, the report presents potential pathways for a visitor green fee in Hawai‘i, noting that each of these options require further legal and policy research. How to cite: von Saltza, E. 2019. Green Passport: Innovative Financing Solutions for Conservation in Hawai‘i. A report prepared for Conservation International. Acknowledgements: The report was developed with the support of The Harold K.L. Castle Foundation, Hawai‘i Leadership Forum, and The Nature Conservancy. We are thankful for insights and perspectives from a wide range of thought leaders across the visitor and conservation sectors. October 2019 © Photo Rodolphe Holler TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]