By
"Swanson regards the government for which he works as 'a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer’s teat until they have sore, chapped nipples...'"http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392713/hayekian-hoosier-charles-c-w-cooke


Charles C. W. Cooke - The Hayekian Hoosier
www.nationalreview.com
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the November 3, 2014, issue of National Review. However talented he may be, no writer will ever be safe from his audience, for it is they who will eventually pronounce upon his meaning. Ray Bradbury once stormed indignantly out of a class at UCLA a…
Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:32:43 +0000
By
"Much has been made of the revenue decline as marginal tax rates were reduced but total tax revenue is still running ahead of inflation over the last ten years." http://kansaspolicy.org/KPIBlog/123094.aspx
Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:53:11 +0000
By
New public opinion survey shows stunning lack of understanding of K-12 finance - 7% of Kansans know how much is spent per-pupil.

"The number of Kansans who can correctly answer this question remains disturbingly low, but knowing how frequently funding is misrepresented by education officials and special interests, it's not surprising. Instead of trying to low-ball school funding to justify increased aid, the focus should be on improving outcomes."

http://kansaspolicy.org/SurveyUSAPolling/


SurveyUSA Polling
kansaspolicy.org
Show your support of Kansas Policy Institute's work and our advocacy of limited government and free markets. Join us to receive weekly e-mail updates, event notifications, and a 'first look' at our latest research and analysis. Click here to join.
Fri, 14 Nov 2014 16:37:22 +0000
Last Refreshed 11/23/2014 2:03:46 AM
KPIBlog
Print
Debunking CBPP on tax reform and school funding - Part 4
Posted by Dave Trabert on Saturday, May 17, 2014

We continue our debunking of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) latest report entitled "Lessons for Other States from Kansas' Massive Tax Cuts."  Part 1 dealt with state revenues. Part 2 covered state spending in general and school funding in particular.  Part 3 addressed claims that that tax reform hasn't boosted the economy.  Today we tackle their assertion that tax cuts won’t lead to economic growth.

CBPP claim #4 - Little Evidence to Suggest That Tax Cuts Will Improve Kansas’ Economy in the Future

Actually, there is a lot of evidence; CBPP just conveniently avoids it.  Instead, they substitute their opinion and employ their standard tactic of making claims without disclosing supporting data; they also reference predictions that Kansas will trail the nation next year in some economic indicators.

We’ll start the debunking with a brief history lesson.  Private sector job growth in Kansas trailed the national average in ten of the last fifteen years (1998-2013).  Kansas’ private sector gross domestic product trailed eight times (1997-2012) and personal income trailed eleven of the last fifteen years (1998-2013).  Indeed, Kanas’ history of economic stagnation was the impetus for tax reform.   As we explained in Part 3, the full economic impact of tax reform will take years to unfold.  It’s intellectually dishonest of CBPP to imply that tax reform isn’t working because a long term negative trend hasn’t suddenly created tremendous gains.

Now let’s look at the evidence.  The adjacent table compares the performance of the ten states with the lowest state and local tax burdens with the ten states with the highest burdens, based on the most recent rankings from the Tax Foundation.  The low-burden states are Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and Alabama.  The high-burden states are New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont and Pennsylvania.

The low-burden states increased jobs at twice the rate of high-burden states.  Low-burden states have superior growth in Wages & Salaries and Private Sector Gross Domestic Product.  Low-burden states have positive domestic migration while high-burden states have negative domestic migration.  In other words, US residents are choosing to move to low-burden states and choosing to leave high-burden states. 

 

Tax reform critics like to attribute the superior economic performance of low-burden states to weather and access to ports and natural resources.  But you’ll notice that both groups have states with good weather, bad weather, coastal, land-locked and natural resources.  But there is one category which really separates the two groups of states – spending.  High-burden states spend 40 percent more per-resident to provide the same basket of essential services.  States with an income tax spend 49 percent more than those without an income tax. 

The key to having low taxes is to keep spending under control by providing services at a better price.  A state could be awash in oil revenue and still have a high tax burden if it spent more.  Texas, by the way, gets less than 3 percent of revenue from oil; they have a low tax burden because they only spent $2,293 per-resident to provide the same basic basket of services on which Kansas spent $3,409 (2012 actual per NASBO).

 

The moral of the story is pretty clear: states that spend less, tax less – and grow more.     

Archives