Debunking the Business Tax Climate Index


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
List of states by median household income, including Washington DC.  Data from the Census Bureau.
List of states by median household income, including Washington DC. Data from the Census Bureau.  Data accurate as of 2012.  Newer data cannot be accessed due to the Republican party’s unfortunate decision to shut down the government.

I once had the following conversation with a state senator:  She proudly told me that she favored letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. So I asked her, “what about Rhode Island’s tax cuts for the wealthy?” “Well,” she told me, “we have to worry about our business climate.”

It is a disturbingly common refrain. Conservatives constantly point to business climate rankings that put Rhode Island towards the bottom. A few months ago, the state Senate, in collaboration with the right-wing lobbying group RIPEC, released a very silly report entitled “Moving the Needle” that harped on these curious business tax climate surveys. The most famous of these rankings is the Business Tax Climate Index put out by the Tax Foundation, a very conservative think tank. A few days ago, the Tax Foundation put out its 2014 rankings, giving our great state 46th place. There was the predictable flurry of bloviating about how this means we need to cut income taxes for the rich even more than we already have. So I felt it was time for a thorough debunking of the Index.

Part of the reason conservatives need statistics like the Index is that blue states tend to score a lot better than red states do on most conventional economic indices, like median household income.

Judging by real numbers, the blue states clearly are much wealthier than the red states. Many of the red states that do do well—Alaska, Wyoming, and North Dakota—have strong economies because they have large amounts of natural resources, not because of their economic policies. Red states, simply put, are generally economic disasters. So if conservatives want to argue things are worse in the blue states, they need to make up new numbers. That is precisely what the Index does. The Index supposedly measures how effective a state’s tax system is at promoting business. But it is actually just a fancy way of distorting tax data to favor conservative tax policies.

Before we jump into the weeds, I need to define two critical pieces of tax jargon: progressive taxes and regressive taxes. A progressive tax is a tax where you pay a higher rate the more you make, and a regressive tax is where you pay a lower rate the more you make. Most of the Index is designed around favoring regressive taxes. Simply put, the more aggressively a state redistributes wealth from the 99% to the 1%, the better it scores on the Index. So let’s break down the top five distortions:

1. Tax Weighting

This is the most important distortion. The Index examines five different taxes and weights them as follows:

Individual Income Tax — 32.4%

Sales Tax — 21.5%

Corporate Tax —  20.2%

Property Tax — 14.4%

Unemployment Insurance Tax — 11.5%

These weights are not derived from an estimate of how much each tax affects businesses. Instead, they come from how much each tax varies from state to state. This results in the oddity that the tax weighted highest—the individual income tax—is a tax few businesses pay. And the tax that the Index’s 2013 report admits plays the most important role in determining business location—the property tax—is weighted the second lowest. Perversely, the Index punishes states for shifting the tax burden from businesses to individuals. Now, there is a good reason the income tax makes the top of the list—it is one of the few progressive taxes states assess. Here is how the tax burden gets distributed in Rhode Island:

Chart from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
Chart from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

2. Excluding fees and charges

The Index does not incorporate all taxes. The biggest omission is fees and charges, which are the most regressive, anti-business component of taxation. A state that raised revenue exclusively through sky-high licensing fees, highway tolls, business chartering fees, code violation penalties, speeding tickets, parking tickets, drilling fees, mining fees, logging fees, and pollution charges would receive a perfect rank on the Index because none of those taxes would be included. But all of those taxes very much affect businesses.

3. Punishing lower tax rates for the middle class and small businesses

When the Index assesses the income tax and corporate tax components, it strongly penalizes progressive tax systems and favors more regressive tax systems. First, the Index ranks states by the top rate, and then it applies a penalty for having lower tax brackets for businesses and corporations that are less well off. The results can be absurd. States are severely punished for cutting income taxes for the middle class or cutting corporate income taxes for small business. If you make less than $300,000, which nearly everyone does, you pay higher taxes in Massachusetts than Rhode Island:

Income tax rates in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Income tax rates in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

But the Index ranks Massachusetts’s income tax 13th, well ahead of Rhode Island’s 36th place ranking. The same logic applies to corporate income taxes. If a state creates a bracket with lower taxes for smaller businesses, the Index will penalize it. This merely reflects what conservatives believe the tax system should look like. It has nothing to do with helping businesses. Indeed, it is exceptionally difficult to imagine how increasing taxes on small businesses could possibly improve the business tax climate.

4. Further diluting property taxes

Even though the 2013 Index admits that property taxes are the most important factor in business location decisions, they have the second lowest weight. Even that does not tell the whole story, since property taxes are further watered down by lumping gift and estate taxes into the property tax category.

5. Punishing tax deductions that help businesses

Perhaps the strangest component of the Index is the penalties it imposes for tax credits designed to spur growth. These include job tax credits, research tax credits, and exemptions from sales taxes for basic goods like medicine and food. Although conservative orthodoxy favors simple taxes without exemptions, it is very hard to see how tax credits for businesses could possibly impose a serious burden on businesses. This peculiar hatred of deductions yields some quite comical results. Take Delaware for instance. With a corporate tax code that gives it far and away the most businesses per capita of any state in the union, Delaware is a famous corporate tax haven. So one might expect Delaware to rank highly on the Index’s corporate tax ranking. But it ranks last. Why? Because Delaware has quite high tax rates but enormous exemptions for out of state income. And the Index does not like exemptions.

Throughout its 56 pages, one theme shines abundantly clear—the Index prefers more regressive taxes.  Needless to say, this has nothing to do with the business tax climate.  It is just about right-wing ideology.

The sad truth is that a slavish obsession with these conservative business tax climate reports has created a seriously unfriendly business tax climate in Rhode Island. We have slashed income taxes for the wealthy and dumped much of the burden on businesses in the form of higher property taxes and fees, especially in core business areas like Providence. It is time to recognize these silly reports for what they are—right-wing propaganda that should not be taken seriously.  That’s how national Democratic pundits treat them.

Why Leaving RI To Save Tax Dollars Is A Bad Investment


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

Anyone who leaves Rhode Island for a better life, god bless. Anyone who leaves to save money, good riddance. And to anyone who would confuse the two, get real.

As the progressive left in the Ocean State calls on the General Assembly to reverse the Carcieri-era tax breaks for the rich, the best defense the right has come up with is that the affluent will move away if we ask them to pay their fair share. While I’m fairly confident most folks are smart enough not to make such life-altering decisions based on the singular factor of tax rates, for those of you who aren’t, here’s a personal story for you:

When I was in elementary school, my parents split up and my dad lost his job. My mom, who worked at Bostitch, could no longer afford our big fancy house and our affluent lifestyle in the suburbs of East Greenwich. So she had a choice: she could either move us to a different community, where her meager salary would go much farther, or we could continue to struggle to get by in EG.

My mom, easily the wisest social scientist I have ever known, decided to keep us here. We moved to a smaller house but stayed in town. From our new home, I could almost see Warwick from the back yard, it was right there on the other side of Post Road less than a half mile away.

We could have moved there, too, and at a fraction of the cost. But my mom wanted to keep us in East Greenwich schools, which were already regarded as head and shoulders better than our neighboring communities. (This was the first generation in 100 years of Bostitch employees who didn’t by and large live in East Greenwich … now the manufacturing plant is still here but is virtually devoid of jobs.)

I’m quite pleased with my mom’s decision to keep us in East Greenwich even though it cost her more A LOT more to do so. So is she, as are my brother and sister. Interestingly, the four of us are pretty socially, politically and economically diverse, and perhaps the one thing we all agree on is that staying here was well worth the investment.

Now, you can argue that East Greenwich to Warwick isn’t the same as Rhode Island to Massachusetts. But you can’t argue that it’s cheaper to live in East Greenwich than it is in Warwick – and that is the argument conservatives are making on migration; not that wealth will cross state lines because it is better elsewhere, but because it is cheaper.

If wealth is moving to neighboring states because it is better there, then Rhode Island has a problem. But if we’re losing wealthy residents because it’s cheaper there, that’s not as bad … Ask anyone in my family and they will tell you those who would make such a short-sighted decision might not be destined to be wealthy forever…

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.

Bits & Pieces: Spring in America and Underdogs


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
(via Wikipedia)

Al Jazeera Examines Occupy Wall Street: Occupy Providence has thrown the buzzwords “American Spring” around on their Google Groups page a bit, and I’m still skeptical, but this video on Al Jazeera English’s “Fault Lines” program gives us a reminder of just what was going on then. Undoubtedly, Occupy changed the debate. Since Occupy retrospectives seem to be in vogue (bringing some attention to Rhode Island due to the negotiated ending), this one is good.

“Fault Lines” is a pretty good program, and I’ve largely enjoyed each new one. Most interesting to Occupiers is probably this one on Chile’s mass actions. I’d argue that Chile, with its Chicago School-designed free market economy, relative modernity and democratic government is far more similar to the United States than either Spain or Greece or any of the Arab nations that have faced mass movements, and it’s been far more successful at mobilizing youth despite a far more traditional organizing model.

How Underdogs Can Win: Malcolm Gladwell provides a on the idea of David vs. Goliath, and dissects how undermining the rules of the game creates havoc when facing more traditional-minded opponents. For anyone who’s ever had to run on tight resources, it’s definitely rewarding. Mr. Gladwell is/was a tobacco industry shill, but there’s no denying he’s a capable writer. Though… I’m still not sure if on closer examination the whole thing doesn’t fall apart.

RI 10th Least At-Risk for Corruption In Nation: According to the corruption risk report cards released by the State Integrity Investigation. Since I’ve previously written about how RI isn’t really corrupt versus other states, I feel vindicated. Unfortunately, we got a C overall and the least corrupt was New Jersey with a B+. The naysayers are bound to point out that we got an A in redistricting, despite the CD1 maneuvers. But we got Fs in Judicial Accountability and State Civil Service Management, so I guess that’s where the conversation should focus (it probably won’t). The next step for the Investigation is to suggest solutions. Keep an eye out.

New Hampshire Libertarian Republican/Democratic Coalition Defeats Marriage Repeal: In a 211-116 vote in the House, libertarian Republicans and state Democrats joined up to defeat a socially conservative Republican attempt at repealing the extension of marriage to cover homosexual couples. Given that in Rhode Island, it was a struggle even with a gay Speaker of the House to pass civil unions, this defense of the right of marriage by social liberals in New Hampshire proves that it doesn’t matter what letter stands next to your name, you can still defend people’s rights. The question for the Republicans is if this means that the party’s social conservatives are finally facing a backlash after their success in 2010.

96% of Americans Admit to Receiving Welfare (When Told What Counts As Welfare): Yes, apparently when you don’t have to check in with a government agency to get welfare, you don’t acknowledge it as welfare. However, when you’re aware you’re receiving government welfare, you’re much more pro-government. Ezra Klein’s post for Washington Monthly ends up reinforcing the notion that our welfare system is dangerously screwed up. Basically, tax policy transfers a lot of wealth from the poor to the wealthy. The post doesn’t go into it, but in many ways, deficit spending does the exact same thing. Poor people don’t buy government bonds.

Rhode Islanders Take On Payday Lenders:* Speaking of tax policy, over at the Barrington Patch, a large group of people, churches, politicians, and advocacy groups have a letter laying out why reforming payday loans is a smart idea. It’s pretty clear that the industry makes an exorbitant profit and won’t go belly up if they have to deal with reduced profits, nor that the current rate (260% APR) is particularly necessary. In case you missed it, Cracked.com’s John Cheese wrote an article long ago about how one gets screwed being poor, and payday loans took #4.

__________________________________

*Correction: Earlier, this letter was falsely attributed to Barrington Patch editor William Rupp. Apologies for the mistake.

Flight of the Earls Mythology Debunked


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 original "Flight of the Earls" during which some affluent Irish in the early 1600's left for mainland Europe to recruit sympathizers against the British crown.

You can bet that as the General Assembly debates raises taxes on Rhode Island’s richest residents, we’re sure to hear much about the “Flight of the Earls.”

In fact, almost any time you talk taxes with a local conservative you are bound to hear a story about someone moving out of state because of the high costs of living here. This false narrative, known as the Flight of the Earls, is meant to scare the state out of taxing the rich with the threat that they will simply move to Fall River or Florida if we do.

My question: Who are these foolish rich people who would so disrupt their lives and spend thousands of dollars to relocate in order to save a few hundred bucks in taxes, and why do we care if they leave? After all people who would employ such flawed economic logic can’t really be expected to create many jobs, let alone figure out how to pay their tax bill…

Of course, no one moves to save money on taxes – that would be like buying a new car to avoid oil changes – and a new report from the Economic Progress Institute proves as much.

The Flight of the Earls theory, the reports states, “ignores the fact that moving – selling a home, hiring movers, buying a new home – is very costly, even for wealthy households. And leaving a place filled with family, friends, business associates and other connections, in addition to changing schools, imposes substantial burdens.”

Authored by Jeffrey Thompson, a research professor at the Political Economy Research Institute, the report goes on to suggest that the very reason the right says the rich will leave is actually a reason they are likely to stay.

“The wealthy drive better cars,” writes Thompson, “but they drive them on public streets. Even if affluent families send children to private schools, the businesses they own hire workers who graduate from local schools. And upper-income families value the services of fire and police as much as any other family.”

His research found that so few people actually move, less than 2 percent of households between 2008 and 2009, that migration has almost no effect on tax revenue collected. “Income has only a very weak impact on the chance of moving to a different state, with the likelihood actually dropping for the highest income households,” he wrote.

Thompson cites a New Jersey study that found the wealthy were no more prone to move out of state after a tax increase than they were before.

Of course, what really happens is people decide to move for lifestyle or career considerations and if they were the type to complain about Rhode Island in the first place, they will suggest that their complaints are actually the reason for their exodus.

But even when the rich do move away, they typically sell their homes to people in a similar tax bracket. It’s the cheap homes, not the expensive ones, that are sitting idle on the market. And for the few rich folks who are fleeing Rhode Island because of taxes, we can take heart that they will likely be replaced by people who wouldn’t make such an illogical life choices.