​Chad speaks with Dr. Vance Ginn from Ginn Economic Consulting 

Originally published at The Hill. 

​Former President Donald Trump’s proposal to exempt tips from federal income and payroll taxes might sound like a windfall for service workers, but it’s a costly illusion that undermines fair tax policy and economic efficiency. This plan, proposed as legislation by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), designed to appeal to a crucial voter base, exacerbates inequities and distorts the tax system. There’s a better way.

The core problem with exempting tips from taxes is that it narrows the tax base, leading to potential hikes in overall tax rates on tipped workers and everyone else to compensate for deficit spending. A broad tax base with low rates is essential for minimizing economic distortions and spreading the tax burden fairly. Narrowing the base by exempting tips would shift the burden to non-exempt income earners, creating an uneven playing field and violating sound tax policy.

This proposal picks tipped workers as winners over everyone else, incentivizing more tipped jobs and payments. Today, nearly every payment app prompts users for tips, a practice that could proliferate further under such a tax exemption. This disrupts consumer behavior and distorts the labor market by artificially boosting the attractiveness of tipped positions over other roles, regardless of the actual economic value they generate.

Moreover, this policy would discourage employers from raising the base wages of tipped employees. The federal minimum wage for tipped workers has stagnated at $2.13 per hour since 1991, and making tips tax-exempt might reduce the pressure to increase this base wage by employers, harming the workers it aims to help.

Fiscal implications are significant. Estimates suggest exempting tips could reduce federal revenue by $150 to $250 billion over a decade. This shortfall requires higher taxes on other income forms or cuts to public services. Additionally, the potential for increased tax avoidance, as employers and employees reclassify wages as tips, would complicate tax administration and enforcement.

A more effective approach would be to make the individual income tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, as they expire next year. Coupled with broadening the tax base and lowering rates, this would create a more efficient and equitable tax system. Reducing or eventually eliminating corporate income taxes could stimulate investment and economic growth, benefiting a broader range of Americans.

Milton Friedman, the renowned free-market economist, advocated for a broad-based tax system with low rates and minimal exemptions. His philosophy centered on minimizing government intervention and ensuring tax policies do not distort economic decisions. Focusing on permanent tax cuts and broader reforms can create a more robust and fair economic environment that truly benefits all workers.

Addressing excessive government spending, which has contributed significantly to our fiscal crisis, is also crucial and missing from Trump’s proposal. Neither Trump nor many Republicans seem to be advocating for significant spending cuts these days. Committing to reducing government expenditures would help manage the fiscal crisis and boost economic growth and prosperity by leaving more resources in the hands of individuals and businesses.

While Trump’s proposal might seem appealing, it fails to address deeper issues within the tax system and the labor market for service workers. A broad-based tax system with low rates and minimal exemptions and less government spending is a more equitable and efficient approach that would support more prosperity than exempting tips from federal taxes.

​Join me for Episode 106 of the Let People Prosper Show to learn about the importance of economic freedom and what it means for women and men with Dr. Meg Tuszynski, Managing Director of the Bridwell Institute for Economic Freedom in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University and a Research Assistant Professor at the Cox School.

Subscribe, share, and rate the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.com for more insights from me, my research, and ways to invite me on your show, give a speech, and more.

Originally published at AIER. 

​The push for a carbon tax has regained popularity as the fiscal storm in 2025 and climate change debates intensify. Advocates claim it’s a solution to pay for spending excesses while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But a carbon tax is a misguided, costly policy that must be rejected.

A carbon tax functions more like an income tax than a consumption tax, capturing all forms of work, including capital goods production and building construction. These sectors are heavy on carbon emissions, meaning the tax disproportionately burdens them, stifling investment and innovation — much like a progressive income tax, but with broader economic repercussions. 

For example, in the US, the construction sector alone accounts for about 40 percent of carbon emissions. A carbon tax would heavily penalize this industry, reducing its capacity to grow, generate new housing, and create jobs. Moreover, implementing a carbon tax involves massive administrative costs. The federal tax code is already complex and costly; a carbon tax would exacerbate these issues. 

Determining net carbon emissions is a nuanced process subject to ever-changing and arbitrary federal definitions, increasing compliance costs for businesses and consumers. 

A study by the Tax Foundation found that a carbon tax would cost billions of dollars annually in administrative costs, a burden that would ultimately fall on consumers through higher prices, less economic activity, and fewer jobs. 

The US economy is already suffering from regulatory costs of $3 trillion annually, including many energy-related restrictions, and the Biden administration has added more than $1.6 trillion in regulatory costs since taking office.

One core principle of free-market capitalism is that it comes with limited government. A carbon tax contradicts this principle by expanding governmental regulation of everyday economic activities. The tax revenues would also enable further overspending, though that’s questionable given the supposed purpose of the tax is to reduce carbon emissions and, therefore, the taxes collected.

Furthermore, a carbon tax could favor certain production methods over others, disrupting the level playing field that free markets thrive on and leading to inefficiencies and market distortions. The government picks winners and losers by favoring specific methods, undermining competition and economic growth. Renewable energy projects are likely to receive preferential political treatment, skewing investments away from the market’s more efficient, practical technologies.

Pigouvian taxes, aimed at correcting negative externalities, are often cited to support a carbon tax. These taxes are named after economist Arthur Pigou and are designed to correct the negative effects of externalities by imposing costs equivalent to the external damage. But they can be counterproductive as they are bound to be the wrong tax rate, distorting economic activity. 

Carbon taxes fail to account for complex economic interactions and unintended consequences. The PROVE It Act, for instance, proposes a new carbon tax framework but lacks a clear, consistent, and scientifically sound basis for implementation. This uncertainty raises the stakes for economic disruption and consumer cost increases.

Another critical issue in the carbon tax debate is ‘who decides?’ 

Climate science is ever evolving, and economic models predicting the outcomes of carbon taxes are fraught with uncertainties. Placing high costs on consumers based on unsettled science and unpredictable economic impacts is not a prudent policy approach. We should promote voluntary measures and technological advancements that naturally reduce emissions through market activity.

Importantly, the EPA does not consider carbon dioxide a harmful pollutant in the traditional sense, as it is essential for life. We need carbon dioxide to breathe and enjoy a fulfilling life. This further questions the rationale behind taxing carbon emissions, as it imposes undue economic strain in an attempt to regulate a naturally occurring and necessary element. 

Even if America hadn’t been doing better than other countries that joined the Paris Treaty for goals on carbon emissions, China (and India) aren’t interested, thereby putting more of the unnecessary cost of reducing these emissions on Americans.

Moreover, the cost of carbon taxes can be significant. Increasing production costs leads to higher prices for goods and services, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income households — especially when they already suffer from high inflation. This regressive nature undermines its purported environmental benefits, placing a heavier burden on those least able to afford it. For example, a $50-per-ton carbon tax could increase household energy costs by up to $300 annually, hitting hardest those who can least afford it.

Countries implementing carbon taxes, like some in Europe, have seen mixed results. Emissions reductions have been minimal, while economic growth has been hampered. These policies often result in job losses and decreased global competitiveness, showcasing the unintended consequences of such interventions. For instance, France’s carbon tax led to widespread protests and economic disruption, illustrating such policies’ social and economic challenges.

While the intention behind a carbon tax — to reduce American GHG emissions in an effort to combat global climate change — is questionable in itself, the economic realities and principles of free-market economics prove it is a flawed approach. With the fiscal storm likely coming next year, Congress should just say no to the PROVE It Act and the carbon tax in general.

​The bottom line is that increasing the government’s footprint through such a tax is neither conservative nor market-oriented. Instead, we should focus on market-driven solutions that encourage innovation and efficiency without imposing heavy-handed regulations.

Join me for Episode 105 of the Let People Prosper Show to learn how to remove barriers to work and prosperity so people can have good jobs and fulfilling careers with Dr. Liya Palagashvili, a senior research fellow and director of the Labor Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
​
Like, subscribe, and share the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.com for more insights from me, my research, and ways to invite me on your show, give a speech, and more.

Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.

​Kansas has been simmering in economic stagnation for decades, trailing behind national averages in job growth, population increases, and economic growth. Like a poorly tended grill, high taxes and selective business subsidies have smoked out potential growth, leaving stagnation rather than sustenance.

From 1979 to 2022, Kansas’s private job growth was just 53% compared to the national average of 88%. Imagine the vibrancy of having an additional 451,000 jobs in the state—jobs that could have been fostered with more competitive tax policies. 

Kansas has seen a net exodus of nearly 198,000 residents since 2000, driven away by an unwelcome tax environment. The states with the lowest tax burdens saw an influx of 4.6 million people from domestic migration during the same period, while the high-tax states watched 10.7 million residents pack up and leave. According to recent IRS data, Kansas lost $2.1 billion in adjusted gross income due to people moving elsewhere since 2017.

The Kansas Policy Institute’s Green Book shows per capita spending of $4,941 in 2022 was substantially higher than in states with no personal income taxes ($3,283) and the ten best economic performance ($3,543). States with lower tax burdens have had better job growth and economic activity. 



Between 1998 and 2022, the ten states with the lowest state and local tax burdens averaged 51% growth in private-sector employment versus 34% for the ten states with the highest burdens. Kansas, ranked 44th during this period, achieved just 16% growth. Furthermore, Kansas’s high spending per person translates to higher taxes, ultimately burdening its citizens and hampering economic growth.

More recently, Kansas’s unemployment rate ticked up to 2.9% in May 2024, a slight increase but a revealing one. The total nonfarm payroll employment saw a marginal uptick by 100 jobs. Beneath this weak report, there was more weakness as the private sector lost 300 jobs while the government added 400 jobs. This isn’t growth; it’s a reshuffle at a high cost to private-sector workers. Over the past year, Kansas has seen an overall increase of 24,000 jobs, with the private sector contributing 18,700 and the government sector adding 5,300, or about 20% of the total.

During the recent special session, the Legislature passed several measures to boost the state’s economic prospects. One notable legislative action was passing a multi-billion dollar STAR bond to attract major sports franchises, especially the Chiefs and Royals from Missouri, just a few miles away. Investing in sports is like predicting Kansas weather—unpredictable and always exciting. There is potential for economic rain, but this will likely put you in a financial storm instead.

Moreover, the recent special session saw efforts to provide broad tax relief, with the key being reducing tax brackets from three to two, which is a correct step toward a flat income tax.  These changes could significantly impact Kansas’s economic landscape, reducing the tax burden and potentially helping grow the economy. However, the effectiveness of these measures will depend heavily on their implementation and the accompanying fiscal restraint. 

Flattening the income tax would transform Kansas from a flyover state into a destination. This move would simplify the tax code, making it fairer and less of a headache—because the only thing Kansans should worry about rising are the sunflowers.

Kansas has also flirted with property tax relief with KPI promoting a constitutional amendment to limit appraisal valuation increases, which has broad support. The same or separate constitutional amendments should limit property tax levies, which cover the product of appraisals and tax rates, and cap state and local government spending to the rate of population growth plus inflation. The latter would best limit the true burden of government in the form of spending, providing predictability and stability for homeowners and businesses alike.

Kansas is sitting on a $4 billion reserve—it’s like having a savings account when you’re deep in credit card debt. Responsible budgeting ensures fiscal sustainability and prevents the state from falling into the cycles of budget shortfalls and hasty tax hikes that have plagued it in the past. By following this approach, over-collected taxpayer money called a “surplus,” can be returned by cutting a flat income tax rate.

This can be achieved by spending on essential services outlined in the state’s constitution, providing opportunities for strategic budget cuts and growth of no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation. This balanced approach helps ensure fiscal sustainability without compromising essential services.

By implementing bold tax reforms and adopting a disciplined approach to spending, Kansas can pave the way for a prosperous future. These measures will create an environment conducive to job creation and economic competitiveness, ensuring that Kansas becomes a place where businesses thrive, and residents enjoy a higher quality of life.

​Join me as I discuss the following on how free-market capitalism:
💼 Fosters innovation by allowing entrepreneurs to create and compete, driving economic growth. 
📈 Allocates resources efficiently through supply and demand, meeting consumer needs effectively.
🏡 Promotes liberty and economic freedom, enabling people to pursue their interests and improve living standards, even among those who disagree.
Listen, like, share, and subscribe.

​Join me for Episode 104 of the Let People Prosper Show to dive into a discussion on the liberty movement in Illinois, the importance of federalism, and the benefits of entrepreneurship with John Tillman, CEO of the American Culture Project and chairman of the board at the Illinois Policy Institute.

Like, subscribe, and share the Let People Prosper Show, and visit vanceginn.com for more insights from me, my research, and ways to invite me on your show, give a speech, and more.

Originally published at Dallas Morning News. 

More conservatives are likely to be elected to the statehouse in November. This is a historic opportunity in 2025 to enact a new budget that provides property tax relief, empowers all families with universal school choice and puts state spending in Texas on a more sustainable trajectory in 2025.

Texas, in a nation grappling with unsustainable government spending, stands out for its relative fiscal restraint and economic dynamism. However, despite historically prudent budgetary policies, Texas lawmakers enacted the largest two-year budget increase last year and the second-largest property tax relief measure (though many claimed it was the largest).

According to the Sustainable Budget Project by Americans for Tax Reform, Texas, unlike the federal government and the vast majority of states, has done better at aligning its budget growth with the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for government spending, as measured by the rate of population growth plus inflation.

Over the past decade, federal spending has escalated by an astonishing 81.7%, nearly quadrupling the 23.2% rate of population growth plus inflation, according to Americans for Tax Reform data. In stark contrast, Texas has exhibited fiscal restraint, ensuring its spending did not spiral out of control.

The implications of such fiscal prudence are profound. If the federal government had followed the sustainable budget approach from 2014 to 2023, it could have saved taxpayers an estimated $2.1 trillion in 2023 alone. Texas’ measured approach during this period allowed the state to spend and tax $22.0 billion less than it might have otherwise, benefiting taxpayers and the broader economy.

The recent and uncharacteristic budgetary excesses in Texas diminish the capacity for property tax relief. Further property tax reform is crucial. Property taxes are unfair, burdensome, and they keep people renting from the government by paying property taxes forever.

The competitive landscape is also evolving, with states like North Carolina and Florida thriving by implementing aggressive tax cuts and regulatory reforms. Texas must respond by intensifying its commitment to pro-growth policies and fiscal conservatism if the Lone Star State is to maintain economic leadership.

A constitutional spending limit, similar to Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, would help put state spending in Texas on a sustainable trajectory. Even in a blue state where progressives are in charge, this measure has effectively kept state and local spending in check. Its adoption in Texas would ensure that state and local budgets grow in line with the average taxpayer’s ability to pay.

To truly distinguish itself, Texas should consider a strategic overhaul of its tax system, particularly in property taxes. With no personal income tax, Texas could relieve property holders of a significant financial burden by eliminating school district maintenance and operations property taxes. This shift, funded through better-controlled state and local government spending, could transform the economic landscape for homeowners and businesses.

The state could achieve this monumental feat by using the resulting surpluses from spending restraint to reduce school district M&O property tax rates, aiming to phase them out over the next decade. The Texas Legislature already controls the school finance formulas so this property tax is mostly “local” in name only, and legislators have been phasing it down in recent years.

It’s possible to reduce and even eliminate truly local property taxes by cities, counties, and special purpose districts through spending restraint that would produce surpluses, which can then be used to drive property tax rates down to zero over time. Some localities would take longer than others to accomplish this, but as people vote with their feet to places without property taxes, other local governments would look for ways to eliminate theirs.

The result would be less government spending and little to no property taxes in Texas. This shift in a pro-growth direction would enhance homeowners’ financial freedom and support more economic growth through increased personal savings and business investment.

Texas’ economic policies have historically positioned the state as a leader in job creation and financial freedom, helping to achieve record economic growth, job growth and in-migration. However, the path forward requires conserving and enhancing these policies. Texas must adapt to the changing economic landscapes by fostering a more favorable business climate, reducing governmental interference, and revamping its tax system to maintain and strengthen its competitive status.

By prioritizing spending restraint, strategic tax relief and universal school choice, Texas can secure a prosperous economic future and set a standard for budgetary sustainability.

Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform, a taxpayer organization founded in 1985 at the request of President Ronald Reagan. Vance Ginn is a senior fellow at ATR, president of Ginn Economic Consulting, and previously served in the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.