Economists agree: Little reason to trust stink tank’s economic modeling


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

mrmoneybags Tom Sgouros and Jason Becker are both well-respected critical thinkers in Rhode Island politics, though they don’t often have opportunity to agree – for example, Sgouros has been critical of the new state education aid funding formula that Becker helped devise.

But it turns out the two have found common ground when it comes to the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. Both agree the science, as it were, associated with the right wing think tank’s plan to eliminate the sales tax is built on rosy predictions and politically-charged assumptions.

Last week Sgouros wrote two posts on the right wing think tank’s specious use of economics in their proposal to shrink state government by reducing the sales tax (here and here). This inspired Becker to take a closer look at the modeling used for its report. After doing so, he tweeted, among many others:

and

Additionally, he tweeted these questions and concerns:

Becker also tweeted this report compiled by an University of Arizona economist (you can check her credentials here) disparaging the same economic modeling tool that the RI right wing think tank used to push its preferred policy here as the Goldwater Institute was using in Arizona.

In it, she wrote, “They should know that models can only be used for modest changes from existing economic conditions and that results from modest changes cannot be used to predict what would happen with large, never before seen, changes in policies.”

Rebuilding Rhode Island’s Economy, Part 3: Densifying Downtown


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Downtown Providence from the Providence River. (Photo by Bob Plain)
Downtown Providence from the Providence River. (Photo by Bob Plain)

Recently, it was reported that Providence has the 5th highest residential occupancy rate in the country. This is good and bad news.

The good news is that an occupancy rate of 96.3% represents strong residential demand for Providence (this was validated by the market study of the Superman Building conducted by 4Ward Planning). This is likely because not much has been getting built in Providence since the housing market collapsed in 2006 (notable exceptions are the Providence G and the Arcade micro-lofts; my understanding is that the demand for these units is immense, particularly for the micro-lofts because of their affordability). But the bad news is that a high occupancy rate increases rental prices and is indicative of an undersupply of residential rental units. Between 1980 and today, the city’s population has grown from 156,804 to 178,432, a growth rate of almost 14% (admittedly the population of Providence is still much lower than the high of over 250,000 during the 1930s-1940s).

From my perspective, though, the high occupancy rate is a huge opportunity for Providence and the state. Downtown/urban living is in high demand nationally, and Providence is no exception. Increasing residential density downtown, particularly by building on underutilized surface parking lots, would be a huge boon for the restaurants and retail shops that exist there and will create new vibrancy in an area of Providence that can sometimes seem a little bland. It would also be hugely beneficial for the city as more residential units = more property taxes. I say this BECAUSE residential demand is so strong. If it weren’t, there would be no reason to build.

Providence parking lots
Providence’s parking crisis illustrated. (by: Greater City Providence)

Making downtown Providence a more affordable place to live for young and mid-career professionals who are accessing Boston’s labor market would be a smart investment. I personally live downtown and work in Boston and take the commuter rail for my morning commute (along with hundreds of others). By doing so, I bring in external money into the city and state’s economy (i.e., my wages are paid by a Boston firm, but most of my disposable income in spent in Providence and the rest of Rhode Island). Increasing the supply of residential rental units within walking distance of the Providence train station will generate revenue for the city (via property taxes) and the state (via sales and income taxes).

People smarter than me have suggested that the overall lack of building residential rental units downtown has to do with the high cost of construction (costs are roughly the same as in Boston or Hartford), the ridiculous parking requirements (1.5 spots per residential unit), the height restrictions (most of downtown is limited to 100 or 120 feet), and the relatively modest rents that can be charged for rental units compared to other rental markets (average rental rates for downtown Providence are about $1,300 compared to $2,000 in Boston).

The minimum parking requirement of 1.5 spots per unit is particularly onerous. If we want more walkable neighborhoods, and more cost effective construction, this ordinance needs to be significantly changed. High parking minimums make construction more expensive by having to build garage parking to accommodate automobiles, even for those people (like myself) who do not own a car. These parking garages take up a lot of space and don’t deliver all that much value (a 70 square foot parking space may generate about $100/month while 70 square feet of living space is much more valuable). Further, the excess area required to allow for drive-in and out is simply wasted space.

Providence Zoning
Downtown Providence zoning map.

Similarly, most of downtown is restricted to about 100 or 120 feet maximum height (here’s a link to Providence’s zoning map). Depending on the ceiling height for the residential units, this limits construction to about 8 to 10 stories. If a developer is limited to 10 stories, and is required to put 1.5 spots for every unit, the economics for positive net return become very difficult. Closer to Rt. 95, a developer could build up to 200 feet high, and there is a small section of downtown that is zoned at 300 feet, but is occupied by the Convention Center, the Civic Center (or “the Dunk” as it is now affectionately known), the Omni Hotel, and the Residences. The surface lot across from the Hilton Hotel seems to be the only parcel that could be a prime parcel for a large tower, although its footprint is fairly small. Generally, the higher a developer can build, the more units that can be built, and the less space is taken up by parking, the more residential construction will happen. And an increase in rental housing supply brings down the cost of rental housing, as recently happened in Boston’s Seaport District.

As part of Providence zoning review, hopefully the parking mandate and the height restrictions will change (disappear). I personally like the Miami 21 zoning code that breaks through the rigidity of specifically designated land-use districts (like what Providence currently has) and adopts a form-based code that allows for organic changes in land use based on elements of walkability, the relationship between and among buildings and streets, and transitioning neighborhoods to accommodate growth and change based on what actually makes sense versus being restricted by a particular use that was set decades ago. Providence should really consider this.

Portland (of course) has been excellent when it comes to creating a bicycle friendly city, and it set another high bar for residential density when a 657-apartment project being developed in the Inner East neighborhood just outside of downtown Portland will have 1,200 parking spaces for bicycles rather than the almost 1,000 parking spaces that would be required in Providence. I imagine Providence doing something like this to minimize the wasteful impact of overly abundant car parking and making downtown living an attractive and AFFORDABLE option for all income levels.

But how does it get done? The city can be a partner by helping facilitate zoning variances to reduce the parking requirement and to build taller. To subsidize the cost and make the units affordable for low-income and average people to live there, the developer should access federal Historic Tax Credits and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Building near the train station is ideal since access to Boston’s labor market is a huge incentive. More people living downtown means a more vibrant and commercially dynamic downtown.

Republicans are wrong about minimum wage and economists know it


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

DSC_8263In response to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Angel Taveras supporting a minimum wage increase in Rhode Island from its current $8 to a kingly $10.10, both Republican candidates, according to the ProJo, have opposed the idea. Ken Block is quoted as saying, “We have seen repeatedly… that Democrat-driven mandates, like increasing the minimum wage, raise the cost of doing business and ultimately lead to fewer jobs,” while Cranston Mayor Allan Fung declared, “Raising the minimum wage isn’t a solution. It’s a symptom of a larger problem.”

Are Block and Fung right when they say raising the minimum wage will have an adverse effect on Rhode Island’s already struggling economy? The short answer is no, and the truth is that economists have known this since at least 1994 when David Card and Alan Krueger published Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Card and Krueger did an analysis in 1992 when New Jersey raised its minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.05. Contrary to what Ken Block seems to believe, the study found “no indication that the rise in the minimum wage reduced employment.”

As to Fung’s position that raising the minimum wage isn’t a solution, one needs to ask, “A solution to what?” If we are looking for a solution to the problem of how to keep workers poor and minimum wage employers rich, then Fung is right. However, if we are looking for a way to potentially lift hundreds of thousands of low paid workers out of poverty, then raising the minimum wage is a solution worth pursuing. A report from ROCUnited shows how this is possible.

Both Block and Fung, it seems, are content with the status quo, in which large corporations and other other businesses underpay their employees. This puts the burden of public assistance for these underpaid workers squarely on the taxpayers. Raising the minimum wage, however, does not put any additional burdens on the taxpayer, and in fact, by getting people off public assistance, tax burdens will be lowered.

To those who think that raising the minimum wage will just benefit a bunch of teenage kids working for date money or people too lazy to find real jobs, this chart, from the AFL-CIO and put together with info from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, should dispel that idea.

fMCwyRZ

Dis-funding the Arts


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

NOTE: This article has been slightly revised based on new information received.

Please pardon me if I lead with a shockingly “artistic” word that wouldn’t be printed in a family newspaper…

riscaWhat the fuck is the State of Rhode Island doing by removing the sales tax on “the arts” and then proposing to borrow $35 million to fund the arts? And why the hell is the Governor proposing to shift the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts  and the RI Film and TV office into the made-over EDC, now called the Rhode Island Commerce Department?

In case you missed it, let me give you a brief recap. During the last legislative session, the government freed citizens from the onerous burden of kicking in 7% extra on purchases of paintings, sculptures and so on. Since the whole state is now tax free, you won’t have to travel to the former tax havens of Newport, Tiverton, and Little Compton or lesser-known parts of Providence, Pawtucket, Woonsocket or Warwick to get a deal on a stainless steel mobile or a portrait of your great Aunt. (See http://www.arts.ri.gov/special/districts/)

Children look at art at the RISD Museum
You mean we don’t have to pay sales tax if we buy it?! I’ll take two!

Pop Quiz

  • How much sales tax have you spent in the last decade on the arts?
  • Would paying no sales tax have made any difference in your purchases?
  • Would you have bought more or less “art”?

So why eliminate sales tax?

The idea is that Rhode Island would become an art buying tourist destination, drawing thousands of wealthy patrons from around the globe to spend their millions here. Yes, we’ll lose the 7%, but we’d gain so much more in hotel and restaurant revenue.

Theoretically lucky artists, maids and waiters will dance in the streets filling their buckets from the rain of money showered upon them by all those wolves and wolverines of Wall Street looking to wallpaper their apartments in Dubai. I’m not going to hold my breath.

But, in the meantime, if we’re not generating revenue from the arts, where will we get state funding for the arts?

More loans from banks!

We’re going to borrow it. Yes, just like we pay for our bridges and roads, Rhode Islander’s are going to be asked to pay extra for years to come for the art that we use today.

Maybe if the $35 million was going to actually pay for new works of art, that might be interesting (as well as profitable for folk like myself), but it’s not. According to the Providence Journal, $30 million of that will be funding for “public and non-profit cultural and performance centers” like Trinity Rep. The last $5 million will go to fund historical sites and cultural centers. I like Trinity. I like historical sites. That’s not arts funding.

The Governor also proposed an additional $1 million for art to come from the general revenue fund.

Will this million go to make more art? Will it go to bring more art to children in public schools?

According to RISCA, the answer is, nope.

“This $1 million in new funding does not provide additional resources for grants to artists, arts organizations or schools.  The Governor recommended a hold-even budget of $590,000 in state funds in our discretionary grant category.”
—RISCA Website (http://www.arts.ri.gov/blogs/?p=11952)

Who will benefit?

Under this proposal, the former EDC, now called the Rhode Island Commerce Department, will become the administrator for the $35 million. RISCA and Film will move into the Commerce Offices and “collaborate.” (Editor’s note: here’s how Randall Rosenbaum, executive director of the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts described their proposed new relationship on Twitter today and here’s how he describe it in a blog post recently.)

According to the Governor, this will “synergize and enliven the state’s creative apparatus.” Furthermore, Chafee said, “the Commerce Corporation will be a valuable tool for organizing customized programs for the arts: design shops, historical sites, intellectual property producers, all of which drive so much of our economy.”

We’ve seen how great the EDC has been at disbursing creative funds that generate jobs so far (See 38 Studios). I can only imagine how much better the arts will be when fully “synergized”

To recap the entire process as proposed:

  1. No revenue generated for the State by sales tax on “Art.”
  2. $35 million more in debt acquired by the State.
  3. Money for established organizations, tourism and historical sites buried in a bill for “arts.”
  4. The responsibility for administration of a that $35 million bond is under the aegis of the Department of Commerce.
  5. An unfunded promise of $1 million for the arts that doesn’t go to support art, artists or arts in education

So, who really wins?

  • Anyone who buys buy expensive art and pays no sales tax (see: rich people)
  • Banks that get more income from bonds (see: rich people)
  • The Department of Commerce — whatever that is.
  • But you and me? Naaah.

Who loses?

  • Artists, who continue to struggle to make a living with possibility of real government support.
  • Children who spend more time working on mindless tests and only get a taste of “art” as an extension of “business.”
  • Taxpayers who pay extra money for loans.
  • The entire State of Rhode Island, because art that serves business is called advertising and art that serves government is called propaganda.

What can we do?

  • Do call Your Senator, Rep and the Governor. Tell your friends.
  • Don’t vote for a bond issue to fund the arts. Don’t vote for representatives and senators who claim to support the arts but undermine it. Don’t vote for a Gubernatorial candidate who won’t make a real commitment to support the arts. Don’t vote for anyone who tells you that the business of art is commerce and business.

Oh, and instead of making a campaign contribution this month. Go out and spend a few dollars or a hundred dollars or even $1,000 on art made in Rhode Island. I can promise you that every dollar you spend will be appreciated and recycled within the community. And you’ll have something cool to hang on the wall, or read.

And maybe donate an extra 7% to a charity. Rich people might not be able to afford it, but you can.

Helio Melo says RI income tax policy has hit the rich, helped the state


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
From 2012 House Finance Committee budget consideration.
From 2012 House Finance Committee budget consideration.

House Finance Committee Chairman Helio Melo said the oft-debated restructuring of Rhode Island’s income tax code under Governor Don Carcieri has resulted in more annual revenue, and that the wealthy are paying more than they did prior to the changes.

“I don’t think we cut income tax on the wealthy,” he told me last night, before sitting down for the first evening of the legislative session. “I think they actually pay more than they have in the past. We took away a lot of exemptions when we did that.”

He also said the changes top-down changes have resulted in more revenue, too.

“I think we are seeing more money coming in with personal income tax so if we just look at it that way I would say yes. Does it mean we are getting more jobs? I’m not too sure about that…”

You can listen to our conversation here, including voter ID (Melo: “I don’t have a problem with it.”) and later today I’ll be post my conversation with Rep. Maria Cimini about tax equity and her contrasting thoughts on it:

Apples to Twinkies: Cicilline on subsidy reform

DSC04357The Rhode Island Public Interest Research Group (RI PERG) released a report this morning during a press conference at Hope Market in Lippitt Park in Providence revealing that agricultural subsidies pay for twenty Twinkies, but only half an apple, per taxpayer. The report, entitled “” finds that since 1995, $19 billion in tax money has subsidized junk food ingredients versus only $688 million for apples. According to RI PIRG canvasser Corinne Winter, most fruits and vegetables grown in Rhode Island are considered “specialty crops” by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) meaning that Rhode Island is eligible for only a tiny fraction of taxpayer funded farm subsidies.

This kind of tax subsidy has a direct impact on issues like obesity, especially considering that nearly $17 billion has been spent since 1995, on “,” according to Winter.

Congressman David Cicilline was at the press conference to speak to a sizable crowd (and woefully inadequate press) on the subject. He pointed to a Republican congress more beholden to corporate welfare through farm subsidies than to supporting important programs like SNAP that help feed people across the nation.

“If you are looking for an example of congressional disfunction” the Congressman said, “the Farm Bill is a very good place to start.”

For decades the Farm Bill has lead to a set of distorted incentives in food production.

It could not be clearer: Our nation’s agricultural policies are explicitly subsidizing the production and purchasing of unhealthy foods instead of fruits and vegetables.

This year, says Cicilline, Republicans in Congress have “doubled down on this strategy and made it even worse.”

The first version of the Republican’s proposed Farm Bill increased these unhealthy subsidies, and to pay for them they proposed defunding the essential SNAP program by $20 billion and wanted to cut what few subsidies actually exist for healthy fruits and vegetables. This bill failed, but Republican leadership are now forwarding another bill that cuts programs designed to provide low-income families with access to nutritious foods completely.

So much for family values.

Jesse Rye, managing director of Farm Fresh Rhode Island said that the SNAP program “is such an important program to so many Rhode Island citizens and it’s really critical to the health and well being of our state. [Farm Fresh RI] pilot[s] a program at farmer’s markets that incentivizes SNAP benefits usage at farmer’s markets so that when someone comes to a market like this, and takes their SNAP benefit cards, they get 40% of a bonus on top of whatever the value of their card is.”

“People are happy,” continued Rye, “to go to a farmer’s market and get healthy, fresh food right from their farmers.”

You can watch the press conference in its entirety below:

DSC04347

DSC04359

DSC04341

Why the Sakonnet River Bridge tolls matter

Sakonnet River BridgeIt’s not often that I disagree with Bob Plain, but I think he underestimates the importance of the battle over the Sakonnet River Bridge tolls.

There are three important things going on here:
First, as progressives, we should oppose tolls as a matter of principle.  Because everybody pays the same rate no matter how much you make, tolls are one of the most regressive taxes out there, hitting those who can least afford to pay the hardest.  They also waste a ton of time.  By sending people way out of their way to avoid them, tolls waste a lot of gas, which is bad for the environment.  Unlike income taxes, they do do serious damage to the economy.  Oh, and they’re quite expensive to collect.  Ending the income tax cuts for the rich makes more sense.  Even raising regressive property and sales taxes makes more sense.

Secondly, this is yet another example of House leadership breaking promises.  After having put in a compromise on the tolls to secure the East Bay representatives’ votes on the budget–votes necessary for the budget’s passage–Fox changed course and added the 10-cent toll.  Although just the latest example of House leadership going back on its word, this time it put real fury on the floor.  That night, the ranks of the anti-Fox caucus swelled considerably.

If leadership keeps this up, progressives should have the votes to block another right-wing budget come this time next year.

Finally, and most importantly, this battle is about how we plan on paying for the delayed maintenance on our infrastructure.  Traditionally, infrastructure is funded through bonds, but for reasons that remain unclear to me, we have decided not to fully fund maintenance when we do our infrastructure bonds.  As a result, we have to spend quite a bit more money replacing bridges.  The obvious thing to do would be to do a simple deferred maintenance bond and start a practice of pre-funding maintenance in the original infrastructure bond issues.  Because the Fed has given us a one-time opportunity to borrow at very low interest rates–and because deferring maintenance usually winds up costing more later–we are wasting tons of taxpayer money by not floating a huge infrastructure maintenance bond before interest rates rise.  That’s before you even get into all the jobs an infrastructure bond would create.  (I know Keynesianism is a hard sell on Smith Hill, but that doesn’t make it any less correct.)

But that’s not what the General Assembly is planning on doing.  In her floor speech on the tolls, conservative Senate President Paiva-Weed did not mince her words about where the right-wing leadership is heading on this issue.  “The fact is, we need to start looking at user fees,” she declared.  Translation:  Instead of taking advantage of a free lunch on maintenance bonds, we will be funding repairs on the backs of those who can least afford to pay.

So no, the toll battle is not a bunch of meaningless whining about ten cents.  It is about progressive taxation, it is about a breach of trust, and it is about Keynes.

Fox says tax equity part of budget discussions


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Gordon-Fox“That’s part of the discussion,” said House Speaker Gordon Fox yesterday afternoon when I asked him if raising income taxes on Rhode Island’s richest residents might be part of the solution to balancing Rhode Island’s budget for next year.

Fox told me he will be discussing the issue with Rep. Maria Cimini about her bill that would raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 by 2 percent, but he said he didn’t want to talk too much about it because it is being considered in the larger context of the budget, which is currently being crafted by the two finance committees and their chairmen.

“Right now it’s still very fluid,” he said.

A similar bill sponsored by Rep. Larry Valencia would raise taxes by 4 percent of those who make more than $200,000. Conservative economic expert Gary Sasse last year even proposed an increase, though smaller than both Cimini and Valencia’s proposals. Cimini’s bill could be seen as a compromise as progressives have been flooding the State House with calls about services that desperately need additional resources, such as affordable housing, homelessness, public education and economic reform.

Fox has been a strong proponent of keeping taxes low on the richest Rhode Islanders, in fact he sponsored a 2010 bill that was the most recent effort by the General Assembly to lower taxes for the rich. But this year, with the state facing a $50 million shortfall, he has given new consideration to income tax reform – a policy popular statewide and on the liberal East Side of Providence.

He said the state is due for a “broader argument” about “austerity versus raising revenue.” To his mind, “it’s a balance,” he said.

“We’ve had to make some cuts to some traditional Democratic constituencies,” Fox said, “it’s been hard.”

Speaker Fox is open to being moved on tax equity


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
George Nee, president of the AFL-CIO, talks to House Speaker Gordon Fox. (Photo by Bob Plain)
George Nee, president of the AFL-CIO, talks to House Speaker Gordon Fox. (Photo by Bob Plain)

House Speaker Gordon Fox is open to the idea that the time has come for tax equity in Rhode Island. But he still needs to be convinced it’s the economic tack for the state.

“Major changes to the state’s income tax code were enacted only a few years ago, and he needs to be convinced that there is a compelling reason to alter that reform effort which makes Rhode Island much more competitive with our neighboring states,” said Fox’s spokesman Larry Berman in an email to me yesterday.

While it’s certainly not a ringing endorsement of legislation that would raise income tax rates slightly on those who make about a quarter of a million dollars a year, it’s a stark contrast to what Fox, who sponsored the most recent bill that lowered taxes to the rich, has said in the past.

Fox still sees “tax stability and predictability” as being attractive to business owners, said Berman, but his statement comes as the legislature grapples with how to plug a $51 million deficit after years of cuts to services to balance the state’s budget and Rep. Maria Cimini, a champion of the tax equity movement, sent a letter to House colleagues last week imploring them to support her bill that would raise about $66 million and prevent the state from having to cut more services.

She said years of austerity has left the state with little left to cut – as well as dangerously dilapidated roads and bridges and a workforce that is meeting the demands of a 21st century economy.

When I spoke to Cimini yesterday, she made a point of saying that the proposed legislation doesn’t seek to reverse the 2010 tax code changes, but rather than many tax breaks the legislature has given the affluent in recent years.

Much evidence has been presented over the past three legislative sessions that shows tax cuts to the wealthy didn’t stimulate the economy. While the evidence doesn’t prove the tax cuts caused the recession, it does show that the tax cuts didn’t stimulate job creation, as politicians and conservative pundits said they would.

tax rate v unemployment

Sales tax elimination: intriguing idea but bogus economics


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
7th Ward, New Orleans. (Photo by Bob Plain)
7th Ward, New Orleans. (Photo by Bob Plain)

The RI Center for Freedom and Prosperity, whose funding sources I look into here, has a so-called “prosperity agenda” that calls for elimination of the sales tax. At first glance this would appear to be a reasonable direction to move our State. It is no secret the sales tax is one of the most regressive forms of taxation affecting the lives of low wage earners, and comprising a much larger percentage of their yearly income than that of wealthier residents of our State.

Taking a deeper look in 2012 the sales tax accounted for $824 million, 28 percent of our state budget. No where in the recommendation to eliminate the sales tax is there a mechanism by which to account for the loss of more than a quarter of our state budget which leads me to ask several questions.

The Center claims the lost revenue from elimination of the sales tax will be offset by increased business. This claim is intellectually dishonest and has been widely discredited. The lost revenue would clearly be made up with one painful cut after another to government services which would come as welcome prize for the Centers anti-labor benefactors.

Is it the position of the Center that a 28 percent reduction in the state budget will benefit individuals with developmental disabilities, elderly men and women, school children, and our state’s proud veterans? Will a 28 percent reduction in the State budget improve the lives of Rhode Islanders who depend on public transit to get to and from work, doctor appointments, and to conduct their daily lives?

When it comes to funding important priorities such as higher education, repairing infrastructure, supporting cities and towns, funding public schools, providing a safety net for those in need, and funding important public services count me as one citizen of Rhode Island who is not willing to play games with over a quarter of our state’s budget.

Although an intriguing concept with the potential to reduce the tax burden on working families there is no distinction made on how to replace the lost revenue associated with elimination of the sales tax. Policy grade- D-

House Finance will hear tax equity bills today


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

tax rate v unemploymentThe powerful House Finance Committee will hear two bills on income tax equity today. One sponsored by Rep. Maria Cimini of Providence would raise income taxes on the richest Rhode Islanders by 2 percent and would mean $60 million for the state. The other, sponsored by Rep. Larry Valencia, who represents Exeter, Hopkinton and Richmond, would raises income taxes on the rich by 4 percent.

Both bills are targeted to reverse income tax cuts for those who make more than $200,000 a year, or families that make more than $250,000. Legislative leaders, specifically House Speaker Gordon Fox, and former Governor Don Carcieri sold these tax cuts to the public on the basis that they would help improve Rhode Island’s economy. The state economy got worse with each subsequent tax cut.

Here’s Valencia explaining the difference between the two bills being heard today:

Rep. Valencia continues push for tax equity


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Larry ValenciaRep. Larry Valencia is charging hard at injustice and promoting progressive values in the General Assembly.

This Democrat serving  Hopkinton, Exeter, and Richmond voted ‘Yea’ on marriage equality, is a cosponsor of the marijuana legalization bill, the lead sponsor of the repeal of Voter ID, cosponsors Rep. Maria Cimini’s Tax Equity bill, and has also introduced a tax equity bill of his own (H5805) that would actually bump Rhode Island’s top earners tax rate by 4 percent. Cimini’s bill (H5374) calls for a 2 percent bump. Valencia is calling the bill the “Double Cimini.”

Specifically, Valencia’s bill would raise tax rates on individuals earning over $200,000 and couples earning over $250,000 by 4 percent. Valencia estimates that the rate increase would raise an additional $130 million-plus in annual revenue for the state.

Valencia would like the additional revenues to be put towards creating an Office of Inspector General to improve departmental oversight in the state, shoring up social programs for the developmentally disabled, and relieving some of the burden on those who are on fixed incomes, the elderly, and Rhode Island’s veterans.

[vsw id=”fEG5SH3-V-o” source=”youtube” width=”525″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

At a press conference on Wednesday, Valencia touted the bill as a way to, “correct the current imbalance of tax burden that has been place on working families and small businesses with a fair and modest solution, while also addressing our revenue crisis.”

In his position on the House Finance Committee, Valencia is privy to some downright scary fiscal projections for the state.  Some show that the states structural deficit could balloon to nearly $500 million for fiscal year 2018. “We need some changes in the revenue side, as well as some judicious cuts in spending.”

“Some of our leaders have maintained unsustainable tax breaks for the wealthy based on the premise that it would bring jobs back to Rhode Island. After 15 years and millions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, our state has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country,” Ocean State Action’s Kristina Fox offered, “to put it bluntly: it didn’t work and it is time to try something new.”

The Young Democrats of Rhode Island are supporting this bill. Alex Morash called income tax reform, “…vitally important to complete a picture of Rhode Island that works for everyone. We’re not asking for a handout. We’re asking for a fair shot in an economy that works for all Rhode Islanders.”

One would think that  local mayors, administrators, and council members would be clamoring to support this bill, especially in Rhode Island’s most distressed communities, but bill proponents have yet to approach local legislators for support.  “I don’t know if we’re at that stage yet. Building support for legislation like this takes time,” Valencia said. This is the third year that he has introduced the bill.

“Equal protection from environmental hazards cannot happen in Rhode Island without tax fairness,” said Amelia Rose, Director of the Environmental Justice League of RI, “Our Department of Environmental Management is underfunded and the budget continues to be cut. This has slowed the remediation of brownfields in urban areas, which directly affects the quality of life of the predominantly immigrant and low-income people that live in these areas.”

Local policy researcher and sometime RI Future contributor, who crunched many of the numbers in the bill, offered these points. “Opponents of tax equity, what they’re implicitly saying, is that this problem of appeasing rich people is the biggest problem that we’re facing today. My question to them is: Are you sure?”

Valencia, not satisfied with simply increasing revenue, has also introduced legislation that would create the office of an Inspector General in the state. The office would provide oversight to all divisions of government in the state, in an effort to make sure that the investments that we do make are prudent and returns on those investments are realized.

For MetLife and Rhode Island, size matters


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Downtown Providence from the Providence River. (Photo by Bob Plain)
Downtown Providence from the Providence River. (Photo by Bob Plain)

In the brouhaha about MetLife leaving, I did see and hear people try to blame this on the too-high RI taxes. Of course; it’s always about the taxes, isn’t it? I would like to make one point about that.

For 2012, MetLife reported $1.4 Bn of operating earnings. In comparison, the $80-90 Mn of tax relief that the will receive would just register as a rounding error in any single year. But those tax savings will be spread out over a number of years. As such, they don’t even constitute a rounding error.

Any company, of any size, that makes long-term decisions based on a few years worth of tax savings is not a company that will be around long enough to realize those savings. Only a company in dire straits would make so drastic a move for so little return. Because let’s face it, the up-front investment that is required will more than eat up those tax savings. In such cases, breaking even is a good result in the real world.

No: the savings will come from other areas: lower rent vs what is being paid in the Northeast, in greater Chicago, in the SF Bay area; it will come from lower wages paid to younger workers who do not incur the disability and medical expenses an older workforce will incur; it will come from pension benefits that do not continue to accrue to said older workers, and that will not be paid at all to younger ones. That’s where the money is.

No, RI’s problem is not the tax structure. It’s the size that matters.

The sad fact of the matter is that RI does not have its own economy. RI is a pale reflection of what is happening in Boston. Nor is this a recent development: it was already true in the early 1980s. Look back at the numbers; that was the period when Dukakis was creating (or taking credit for) the “Massachusetts Miracle.” The 128 Loop was America’s Technology Highway, where high tech lived before being superseded by Silicon Valley. Massachusetts recovered sooner than most of the country from the recession of the late 1970s; RI was a couple of years behind.

Then, in the mid-eighties came the phenomenon of Woonsocket turning into a bedroom community for Boston. Same with Nashua NH. Around then the ProJo carried a story of people taking classes to lose their RI accent because they felt that companies in Boston believed that people with an RI accent were less intelligent.

So, no, this is not a new phenomenon. What I have cited is anecdotal; but the numbers in the BLS and Census, etc. will support these contentions.

Also according to the US Census, in 2000, 79% of the population of the US lived in urban areas. In states like Nevada, it’s upwards of 90%. More, 45% of the population of the US now lives in the top 20 urban areas. In the meantime, the Census Bureau also says that one-third of all counties in the country are being drained of population. What does this mean?

It means that the urban concentration that began at the end of the 19th century is continuing. More and more people are living in and around cities while other areas languish. Telecommunication, and telecommuting were supposed to make cities obsolete; the opposite is happening. Telecommuting was all the fad in the late 90s and into the new millennium; now, companies are eliminating it.

It means that, in order to compete, size is a huge factor. Charlotte NC is now the #2 financial center in the country, after NYC. It has surpassed Chicago, with its Mercantile Exchange. It is the #2 center largely because the #1 bank, Bank of America, has its HQ there, and Wells Fargo has its East Coast operations HQ there. The Charlotte Combined Statistical Area has 2.4 million people. This is not rural America anymore.

With a million people, Rhode Island cannot compete with such a center, any more that it can compete with Boston. The advantages of a large educated, concentrated workforce with good infrastructure and a compact geographical footprint are too great to overcome. This is why NYC not only continues to exist, but to thrive, in the face of all the reasons conservatives say it shouldn’t: high taxes, big government, and whatever else they complain about. Half of the wealthiest zip codes in the country are in NY and NJ, both of which are high-tax states.

RI is not losing jobs to lower tax states; RI is losing jobs because the vast majority of jobs are in these concentrated urban areas. If jobs aren’t there already, they’re relocating there. I heard a story on NPR that a growing company in Kansas could not find workers. That’s because no one is willing to relocate to a small town that depends on a single employer; what happens when that employer decides to off-shore the jobs? People are stuck in a small town without prospects. In a larger metro area, there are other jobs, or at least a greater possibility of other jobs.

Size matters. The country is not de-urbanizing. Exactly the opposite.

Addendum: The point is, MetLife made its decision to relocate to NC for its own reasons. Only then did it approach the NC government and see how much it could extort from the state’s taxpayers. In other words, MetLife got money from the state to do exactly what it would have done without the tax breaks. In fact, there have stories to this effect in the North Carolina media, complaints that the state of NC got played for chumps by a large company.

And, btw, NC in general, and Charlotte in particular, have unemployment rates that are only a couple of tenths of a percent lower than what RI and Providence has. It’s not exactly boom-town down there, either.

So, yes, NC is getting the jobs. But they would have gotten the jobs without the subsidies.  So no, it’s not about the tax rates, no matter how often or how loudly conservatives will say it is.

Tanzi On Tax Equity: Will Help State Save Money


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Conventional wisdom might say that those who are elected to represent the “working class” will support tax equity and those who are elected to represent the “job creators” won’t.

Narragansett and South Kingstown might boast the state’s most eclectic mix of both and their representation in the House, progressive Democrat Teresa Tanzi, says she supports the tax equity bill for reasons that should appeal to both the rich and poor.

Tanzi asked Governor Chafee to beef up the office of revenue analysis this year. Such a move would cost money in the short term, but she says it would help the state better manage its tax expenditures in the long term. She also thinks a stable funding source for better public transportation throughout the state will benefit everyone.

[vsw id=”2zF1OkEgdk8″ source=”youtube” width=”525″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

Rep. Cimini: State Budget Balanced On Backs Of Poor


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Progressive Providence Rep. Maria Cimini, said the General Assembly is balancing the budget on the backs of the poor while the richest Rhode Islanders get a pass as the state struggles through a recession.

“I think it is really crucial that everyone in our state is called upon to sacrifice when we are struggling,” she said. “Over the last few years as we’ve been facing a recession, the General Assembly has done its job by balancing the budget. But we’ve done it through cutting important programs and raising fees which disproportionately impact low income and moderate and middle income Rhode Islanders. I haven’t seen us call upon upper income Rhode Islanders to make the same kind of sacrifice.”

[vsw id=”nazmFCYdOew” source=”youtube” width=”525″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

Conservative pundits and politicians counter Cimini’s point by claiming rich Rhode Islanders will move to a different state if their tax breaks are rolled back. Initially, conservative pundits and politicians – led by former Gov. Don Carcieri – said tax breaks for the rich would stimulate economic growth. In hindsight, the opposite has occurred.

Cimini said the additional revenue could be used to improve urban public education or infrastructure “all things that both citizens and businesses alike say we need as a state.” Popular political/economy blogger Ted Nesi said yesterday on Twitter that the bill would be stronger if the new revenue was earmarked for a specific program. Rhode Islanders for Tax Equity, a grassroots group hat advocates for a less regressive state tax policy said the money should go to struggling cities.

A blockbuster story in Sunday’s Washington Post showed that one in three residents of Woonsocket can’t afford to feed themselves without government assistance and that food stamp dispersal is driving the economy more than private sector innovation or need.

It remains to be seen if the local mainstream media will invest the same type of effort reporting on the Washington Post’s findings about the state’s SNAP program as it did in Ken Block’s. The Post story showed that 33 percent of Woonsocket uses food stamps; Block’s report showed that one half of 1 percent of recipients misuse the program.

Sen. Pichardo: Tax Equity


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Senator Juan Pichardo, a one-man Latino caucus in the state Senate, is the lead sponsor of the tax equity bill in the that chamber. He says it’s important for the rich to pay their fair share so that Rhode Island can improve its failing infrastructure and get people back to work.

He represents Elmwood and the West End of Providence, and says the unemployment rate in his district is 21 percent. Here’s a short video on why he thinks tax equity is so important for the future of Rhode Island.

[vsw id=”VACgf1whIBk” source=”youtube” width=”525″ height=”344″ autoplay=”no”]

Will ‘Moving the Needle’ Help Rhode Island?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

So, yesterday was the day when Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed threw down 25 bills that she hopes will “improve Rhode Island’s business climate and its position on national business-friendliness surveys.”  After years of bad decisions and then paralysis, the General Assembly now has a collection of bills to review that stem from the recommendations set forth in Moving the Needle, a joint report by the Senate Policy Office and the business backed policy group RIPEC.

Before I look into the actual legislation, I wanted to make a general comment about the obsession that people have regarding national business rankings.  Rhode Island all too often gets hung up on its self-defeating cynicism and inferiority complex.  Rather than looking at the assets that exist in the state and developing a plan to use those assets to grow the economy and support the businesses that currently exist, policymakers seem obsessed with how we rank nationally.  People generally forget that before the global economy went down the toilet, Rhode Island had an unemployment rate that matched the national average.  A lot has happened in the past 6 year, but in March 2007 the state’s unemployment rate was 4.8%.  Aside from the global recession, I’m not sure the structure of every state’s economy has changed all the dramatically.

One word of advice would be to just stop looking at national ranking.  Rhode Island is not Texas.  Rhode Island will never be Texas.  The only way Texas will ever be relevant to Rhode Island is if there is something very specific that Texas does that Rhode Island may want to replicate.

I humbly offer my comments about specific pieces of legislation while acknowledging that overall much of it makes sense, but will likely only be marginally beneficial.

  • Division of Economic Data and Information: This, to me, seems like it should exist within the Economic Development Corp.  But aside from where the function sits, gathering detailed economic data, analyzing that data, and using it to inform strategy is critical to growing the economy.  Equally important, though, is that this needs to be something much more than a person who merely aggregates information from the Division of Labor and Training.
  • Long-Term Strategic Visioning Document: Planning is good and every successful business and government does it.  Rhode Island should do it too.  Something that has always frustrated me about Rhode Island is its lack of implementation.  If one were to do a scan of the past few years, they could find a whole assortment of studies, economic development plans, guidance documents, etc.  But what the state has not yet done, what it seems the state is incapable of doing, is developing an implementation plan, a governance structure to facilitate the execution of the implementation plan, and granting it the authority and autonomy to do it.  Again, I think much of this should be housed in the RIEDC.
  • Commerce & Workforce Coordination Cabinet: I’m all for cross-departmental coordination, but I fear this may just be another meeting that people have to attend.  I think it comes down to how much autonomy it will have to offer recommendations for the long-term strategic vision, how willing this or any Governor is at listening to and incorporating that advice, and how serious public officials will be with the task at hand.
  • Business Presence on Statewide Planning: Planning for the state’s transportation, water system, affordable housing, growth centers, economic development, etc. is a skillset that business may not have.  I’m fairly indifferent about including some business presence on the State Planning Council to incorporate some additional information that they may not be getting, so long as they let the professionals do their jobs.
  • Preserving the Renewable Energy Fund: Yes please.  Additionally, I would boost the fund to at least $10 million and provide low interest loans and limited grants to those who would like to invest in renewable energy for residential properties.
  • Back to Work Rhode Island: I have very mixed feelings about this.  On the one hand, unemployed Rhode Islanders can quickly become irrelevant in a rapidly changing labor market.  Ted Nesi recently highlighted this when he asked if Rhode Island is suffering from hysteresis.  The longer an unemployed worker is out of a job, the less appealing they become to potential employers.  If for nothing else, getting some skill training and having a recent job listed on a resume makes me want to support this.  On the other hand, I wonder what the oversight mechanism will be.  I can picture unscrupulous employers abusing this system and churning though workers on an ever-repeating 6 week basis (think restaurants, retail, hospitality, etc.) without staff time dedicated to oversight.
  • Childcare for Participants in Workforce Training and Childcare Assistance Pilot: YES.  This is critically important for single parents who want get job training but cannot afford child care.  I would also add transportation vouchers for them to get to and from training.
  • Enhanced Jobs Match:The state should be thinking more creatively about linking the unemployed to employment opportunities, especially considering the dwindling funds for job training. The state needs a system that better links the supply of skills that the unemployed has with the demand for skills that employers need.  If there is a huge unmet need for a prolonged period of time, then training funds should be used to meet that need.  The problem is, and it is no small problem, it will take more time to screen candidates at the local One Stops, which means if the state doesn’t put more resources to this important task, fewer people get served.  If DLT needs help with this system, they merely have to tap the vast network of tech folks in Providence who could probably design and build a better system than what we have over the weekend… while they sleep.But more to the point, Rhode Island needs more than just this.  To put it bluntly, the public workforce system is broken.  In particular, it is underfunded and operates in silos.  And in Rhode Island, the folks at Workforce Solutions of Providence / Cranston don’t have the same level of authority as the folks who work at Workforce Partnership of Greater RI.  The former are city employees, the latter are DLT employees with much greater access.  Also, there are not enough people in the public system who can speak Spanish.  I wrote a report for the City of Providence last year called Rethinking Workforce Development for Providence’s Labor Force that details a lot of the issues that make the system inefficient and ineffective.  The system needs more than a new website.
  • Help Former Students Finish Their Degree: It’s a good idea to help people get their degrees, but there are a lot of reasons why people leave college prior to completion: transportation, shift change, child care, used up Pell grant, etc.  Communicating with students to get them to finish is a good thing, but someone needs to actually do it.
  • Reverse Transfer: This would allow for credits earned for a Bachelor’s degree to be transferable toward an Associate’s degree at CCRI.  Might as well, but it will likely be underutilized.
  • Economic Development Tax Credit Accountability Act and Tax Credit Statement of Purpose: Yes, but EVERY SINGLE tax credit and expenditure offered by the state should be reviewed for their cost and effectiveness at generating economic growth.  Any tax credit or expenditure that is shown to not generate an appropriate level of growth to justify its cost should be eliminated.
  • Restore Historic Tax Credits: Rhode Island, I want you to understand that if you do this, it will cost a LOT of money.

Much of what came out yesterday is non-controversial and fairly common sense.  To quote a colleague: “Congratulations to the Rhode Island Senate for formulating a plan to get us out of the recession, 4 years after it officially ended. I knew you could do it.”  The unfortunate reality is that it will take a while for the state to grow out of the recession.  This is just the first step.

Conservative Talking Points And Conspiracy Theories


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In response to our post this morning about how increasing income taxes by 2 percent the tax rate for the richest 2 percent of Rhode Islanders, I got a couple responses on Twitter.

One came from the RI Tea Party that I thought was particularly ridiculous, but I think it also speaks to a way fiscal conservatives are manipulating the debate here in Little Rhody.

RI Tea Party on tax equity

Storified by Bob Plain· Tue, Mar 12 2013 08:35:24

Redistribution of wealth = theft “@RIFUTURE: Tax equity bill would yield additional $66 million for Rhode Islanders. http://ow.ly/iNJkC”RI Tea Party
@riteaparty I think you are taking a very radical view of income tax reform.Bob Plain
@bobplain Persecute the wealth producers of RI by giving $ they’ve earned to those who have not? If that’s radical, we’re guilty as charged.RI Tea Party
.@riteaparty you think paying taxes is being persecuted? really? #firstworldproblemBob Plain

Here’s a multiple choice question about the tea party tweets: When they tweet that tax reform is “theft” and/or persecution, do you think this is:

  1. A realistic expectation from  a civil society that has long ago decided against anarchy
  2. Purely philosophical, and not meant to be taken seriously as a matter of political debate
  3. Pure histrionics meant to make a pretty moderate progressive tax reform proposal seem like Stalinism.

If you guessed 1., you will probably enjoy life a little more in Alaska, or certain remote parts of Montana. If you guessed 2., I’d really like to have that conversation with you at another time (maybe after the session). And if you guessed 3., chances are you understand how the political/economic narrative in Rhode Island is being distorted by radical libertarian talking points.

Seriously folks, this is a real issue in Rhode Island.

In today’s Providence Journal Ed Achorn actually put forward the idea that perhaps Governor Chafee and the legislature want people to move out of Rhode Island because that will make them more politically powerful. This is a paid staffer for the statewide paper of record who wrote this!!

I once worked for an editor in Oregon who believed that September 11 was planned by the Bush Administration and that the United States faked the moon landing, and he opined about such things! Achorn’s allegation is equally credible. Personally, I don’t suspect either of them believe in such conspiracy theories … I think they all just enjoy writing ridiculous things.

Do RI Corporations Really Need A Tax Break?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The Senate Finance Committee hears tax code amendments proposing to drop the corporate income tax rate by 2 percent over the next three years. (Photo: Dave Fisher)

This week, both the House and Senate finance committees considered legislation that would reduce the corporate income tax from 9 percent to 7 percent over the next three years.

The move, as always, is touted as a way to make Rhode Island’s business climate more competitive with our neighboring states’. While Rhode Island’s corporate tax rate is the highest in New England, as I posted yesterday, the real-world ramifications of a 2 percent state tax reduction means little to most of our businesses, due to the fact that the majority of the tax burden on Rhode Island’s businesses are borne of local property, sewer, and tangible asset taxes.

The vast majority of our businesses, y’know, the small ones that legislators tout as the “lifeblood of Rhode Island’s economy” report income of less than $249,999 on their tax returns. Even at the top of that tier, a business that reports earnings of $249,999 pays $22,499 in taxes to the state at 9 percent. At a rate of 7 percent, that same business would pay 17,499; a net gain of $5,000 which could easily be eaten up by those local taxes, especially if that business made capital improvements to its structure or purchased new equipment.

Check out this chart of the combined corporate income and taxes collected by the state for FY 2010 from the R.I. Division of Revenue.

As you can see, the 42,929 businesses that reported a loss/or $249,999 or under in income paid just under $29 million, even though the combined adjusted income of these entities was actually a loss of  over $370 billion.

At the other end of the spectrum, the 152 businesses that reported income of $500 million or over, whose adjusted taxable income was just over $212 billion – a 580 billion dollar increase from the low end of the tier – paid just under $25 million, or $4 million less than the nearly 43,000 businesses who posted either a loss or income of $249,999 or less.

A policy brief issued by the Economic Progress Institute stated,

“With a price tag of almost $90 million over five years, the proposed corporate income tax reduction could backfire if public services that businesses rely on are cut as a result of revenue losses. Furthermore, the proposal will do nothing to help the majority of local businesses that do not pay the corporate income tax. Finally, research suggests that corporate tax cuts do little to stimulate economic growth.”

Once again, our small businesses get hosed by the tax code. It seems that even when it comes to corporate “people”, the 1 percent ride the backs of the 99 percent. And to top it all off, many of these 152 top-tier businesses get cushy tax breaks on property and tangible assets from the cities and towns that they call home.

Tax equity anyone?

New York Times Calls Foul On ‘Flight Of Earls’ Myth


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
A sculpture in Ireland depicts the orginal “Flight of the Earls” during which some affluent Irish in the early 1600’s left for mainland Europe to recruit sympathisers against the British crown.

Can we finally put to rest the false idea that the rich will leave Rhode Island if the state raises taxes? The Earls aren’t fleeing the Ocean State, they flock here. We’ve got the best beaches and we treat our rich like they are royalty.

And even if we only had the best beaches, the New York Times this weekend threw more cold water on the tired old talking point that there will be a wealth exodus if we make the affluent pay their fair share.

It’s an article of faith among low-tax advocates that income tax increases aimed at the rich simply drive them away … That, at least, is what low-tax advocates want us to think, and on its face, it seems to make sense. But it’s not the case. It turns out that a large majority of people move for far more compelling reasons, like jobs, the cost of housing, family ties or a warmer climate. At least three recent academic studies have demonstrated that the number of people who move for tax reasons is negligible, even among the wealthy.

Yes, Rhode Island is going through a scary population decline. But it’s not because the rich are leaving Newport for Westport or Greenport. It’s because middle class folks can’t find jobs here anymore. This study of California shows that while the convention wisdom has been that rich people leave the Golden State because taxes are too high, it turns out that it’s actually the middle and low-income people who make up most of the out-migration.

From 2005 to 2011, California lost 158 people with household incomes under $20,000 for every 100 who arrived, and 165 for every 100 people with household incomes between $20,000 and $40,000. In contrast, just slightly more people with household incomes in the $100,000-$200,000 range left than came to California (103 out per 100 in), and California actually gained a hair more people in the $200,000+ range than it lost (99 out per 100 in). The rich aren’t leaving California, but the poor and the middle class are.


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387