Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Diminishing Returns From Higher Taxes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Diminishing Returns From Higher Taxes

    Beware of tax increases bearing promises

    by Zachary Janowski | Aug 19, 2016 | Budget, Taxes | 0 comments

    Imagine if Connecticut had 2.5 million people working here. That would mean nearly a million more people at work. What would be different? There would be more jobs to choose from and more options when it comes to shopping, eating or having fun. Some families that moved apart seeking opportunity elsewhere would still be together. Many new people would have arrived, bringing new ideas and opportunity with them.

    A million more people working would bring with them a lot of tax revenue, which could pay for roads, bridges, teachers, schools and a reliable safety net. Connecticut could have had this future. Instead it chose another path.

    All of this may sound fantastical, but it is only too real. In 1991, Colorado had slightly fewer people working than Connecticut (1.51 million vs. 1.56 million, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Today, Connecticut has only 1.6 million workers, while Colorado has 2.5 million.

    Colorado is a very different state and it may just be an overachiever. But Connecticut has underperformed its neighbors, too. In the past 25 years, employment in Connecticut rose by just 5.9 percent. Massachusetts, New York and even Rhode Island did better, as did the rest of New England and New Jersey. And not just a little better. Two or three times better, if not more.

    Over the next week, Connecticut will mark the 25th anniversary of the state’s income tax, which deserves a sizeable share of the blame for the state’s poor economic performance. Since 1960, the 11 states that adopted an income tax saw their share of state and local tax revenue decline, according to data compiled by Arthur Laffer and his co-authors in “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of States: How Taxes, Energy, and Worker Freedom Change Everything.”

    Think about that. Raise taxes and you end up with slower revenue growth.

    Taxpayers know that tax increases aren’t free, but too often politicians forget the cost. Connecticut’s economic underperformance over the past quarter century should be Exhibit A.

    The income tax was sold as the solution to many of Connecticut’s problems, but it wasn’t. It didn’t stabilize our finances. Taxes continued to rise over the following years, including two tax increases larger than the original income tax itself. Yet Connecticut is ranked 50th and just ahead of bankrupt Puerto Rico for fiscal condition by the Mercatus Center, among other rather dismal indicators.

    The income tax was supposed to come with spending discipline. The constitutional spending cap passed by a margin of four to one, yet lawmakers never implemented it by defining three terms in the amendment. A commission is working to help them do just that.

    The suggestion that a tax increase is the prelude to restraint makes about as much sense as a diet that begins with a trip to an all-you-can-eat buffet. It’s not setting yourself up for success. The better approach is to start the discipline now. If, in the beginning, a lot of discipline isn’t an option, start with a little.

    These lessons — that tax increases don’t solve problems, that they have an economic cost and that fiscal responsibility is no more glamorous than it sounds — are particularly important right now. The only reality looming larger in Hartford than the upcoming elections are the billion-dollar deficits that will make their presence felt shortly after the results come in.

    **Originally published in Tri-Corner News**

  • #2
    Re: Diminishing Returns From Higher Taxes

    "According to Arthur Laffer, the Laffer Curve is real!"

    "Next up: Bono's Opinion on U2: Great, or Greatest?!"

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Diminishing Returns From Higher Taxes

      ct has public pension problems, mostly. not as bad as illinois, but bad. ct also is the 1st or 2nd wealthiest state but has 3 of the 10 poorest cities in the country. i think the story is a little more complicated. and try to explain why california, with an income tax rate twice that of ct, is doing well.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Diminishing Returns From Higher Taxes

        Originally posted by jk View Post
        try to explain why california, with an income tax rate twice that of ct, is doing well.
        better narrative / marketing than most states (seeing icons in film, the PR work done for the CEOs of the multi billion dollar companies, appearance in films & songs)
        more hospitable climate (at least west of the mountain range, year round)
        tech & entertainment industries set up hubs there a long time ago (and 'software eating the world')
        asset price bubbles (and the lower federal rate on capital gains / carried interest / etc. when compared against ordinary income)
        capital flight (hot Chinese money)

        ct also is the 1st or 2nd wealthiest state but has 3 of the 10 poorest cities in the country.
        isn't much of that wealth associated with proximity to NYC?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Diminishing Returns From Higher Taxes

          Originally posted by seobook View Post
          isn't much of that wealth associated with proximity to NYC?
          It is now. Once upon a time Hartford was the insurance capital in its own right. But a big problem is how regressive it got.

          Cali has an income tax rate of between 1% and 12.3% on income ranging from $10,000 at the bottom to $150,000 at the top.
          Connecticut has an income tax rate of between 3% and 6.99% on income ranging from $10,000 at the bottom to $500,000 at the top.
          Better to be middle class in California than in Connecticut. Better to be rich in Connecticut than California. The system's set up to breed inequality.

          Much lower taxes if you're rich in Connecticut than Cali. Much higher taxes if you're working or middle class in Connecticut than Cali too. Cali's sales tax is 1% higher to make it more regressive, but its corporate tax is 1.5% higher. Connecticut's cigarette and booze tax rates are more than 300% higher than California's, hitting the poor again.

          Hartford, Bridgeport, New Britain, and Waterbury are pretty rough. But it's mostly a post-industrial story. Hartford's something of a post financial deregulation story.

          But the super wealthy towns in Fairfield County (proximity to NYC), throw everything off. The rural towns and 'cities' of Windham county on the opposite corner of the state are desperate stretches of rural and small town poverty. The proximity to giant gambling venues hasn't helped.

          Still, Connecticut is the wealthiest state per capita except Alaska, and we'll see how the numbers turn out this year after a full year of oil being down.

          The problem is not that there is not enough money in Connecticut, or that the economy is doing bad.

          Actually, Connecticut's GDP is over $72,000 per capita, about the same as super wealthy city-states like Monaco.

          It just has the wealthiest towns in America (New Canaan, Fairfield, Greenwich), right near the poorest (Brigdeport, etc)

          In fact, Connecticut has the second highest inequality in the country (GINI > 0.5) after NY.

          The problem is not a lack of GDP, or economic output, or business.

          It's extreme inequality.

          Connecticut has the same GINI coefficient of inequality as Zimbabwe, The Gambia, or Brazil. Only 10 or 15 countries in the world have more inequality than Connecticut would if it were its own country.

          Forget pensions. Forget budgets and all the other distractions.

          There's plenty of money in Connecticut. Just ask Ray Dalio.

          The problem is not a drop of it is trickling down and the state keeps making things more and more regressive.

          The most unequal country in the world is South Africa at 0.62. Connecticut is gaining on them. In 10 years, I believe it will have more income inequality than any country on earth. At that point, we will truly be in uncharted territory.

          The question is only if and when the folks in Bridgeport decide to march to Greenwich...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Diminishing Returns From Higher Taxes

            here's some more information comparing ct, nj, ny, ma on a number of scales. too much suburb, not enough city?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Diminishing Returns From Higher Taxes

              Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
              It is now. Once upon a time Hartford was the insurance capital in its own right. But a big problem is how regressive it got.

              Cali has an income tax rate of between 1% and 12.3% on income ranging from $10,000 at the bottom to $150,000 at the top.
              Connecticut has an income tax rate of between 3% and 6.99% on income ranging from $10,000 at the bottom to $500,000 at the top.
              Better to be middle class in California than in Connecticut. Better to be rich in Connecticut than California. The system's set up to breed inequality.
              As a country, we should come up with a tax system that works well for most people and for business. It isn't going to be easy. When I started my last business in 2008 we opened our first warehouse in CA but tax-wise it didn't make sense. My current state, NM, does not recognize out of state profits and CA wanted to recognize all our profits because all of our product was shipping from their state. I had a personal relationship with the CA governor from a previous business in Los Angeles and called to explain that all we had to do was move from CA to NV to lower our state taxes from ~10% to ~2.5%. Long story short, we moved. NV no state tax, NM taxed us at half our normal rate because our product was in a tax free state. Our competitors in NY and CA could not understand how we could consistently undercut their prices. We built in other advantages over time but this one got us off the ground. It's an odd game. We really should simplify it.

              Comment

              Working...
              X