​States across the country are rethinking tax reform to stay competitive for residents and businesses. Many are exploring ways to phase out personal income, business franchise, and property taxes to attract workers, foster economic growth, and ensure property rights. But doing so requires careful planning to ensure stability and fiscal responsibility.

One of the most important decisions in this process is choosing the right mechanism to trigger tax cuts.

Two common approaches are revenue triggers and surplus triggers. While both have their merits, surplus triggers are far more reliable and sustainable. They base tax cuts on actual fiscal surpluses rather than optimistic revenue projections and address the core problem of government: spending.

Why Spending Limits and Surplus Triggers Make Sense
Tax reform doesn’t happen in isolation—it needs to be part of a broader strategy to limit government growth and promote fiscal discipline. This is where spending limits come into play. A spending limit ties annual increases in government spending to measurable factors like population growth and inflation. By keeping spending under control, surpluses naturally occur when revenues grow faster than the spending limit, creating the perfect opportunity for meaningful tax cuts.

Here’s why a surplus trigger, paired with a spending limit, is the best approach for phasing out taxes:

1. Stability Over Speculation
Revenue triggers rely on meeting specific revenue targets before tax cuts are implemented. While this sounds straightforward, it assumes continuous economic growth—a risky gamble. If revenues fall short due to economic downturns or other factors, tax cuts may be delayed or reversed, creating uncertainty for taxpayers and businesses.

Surplus triggers, on the other hand, only initiate tax cuts when there are genuine excess funds at the end of the year. This approach ensures that tax relief is stable, reliable, and based on real financial health rather than speculation.

2. Encouraging Fiscal Discipline
A surplus trigger works hand-in-hand with a spending limit, which naturally generates surpluses by controlling government expansion. This ensures that tax cuts are backed by actual savings, not temporary windfalls. Revenue triggers, by contrast, don’t address the root cause of fiscal instability—unrestrained spending. Without limits, even rising revenues can be outpaced by unchecked spending growth, leaving little room for tax relief.

By focusing on spending, surplus triggers encourage long-term fiscal discipline, making tax reform sustainable.

3. Reducing the Risk of Tax Reversals
Revenue-triggered tax cuts can be politically fragile. If revenue growth slows, lawmakers may feel pressured to raise taxes again, undermining the entire reform effort. Surplus triggers avoid this problem by tying tax reductions to actual fiscal conditions. This ensures that cuts are less likely to be reversed, providing certainty for taxpayers and businesses alike.

How Surplus Triggers Work in Practice
A surplus trigger takes the revenue collected above the spending limit at the end of each fiscal year and allocates it toward specific priorities. Here’s a practical example of how this can work:

• 90% of the surplus is directed to a Tax Relief Fund to reduce the income tax rate gradually over time. This fund can also act as a buffer to cover limited spending needs, if necessary. Any leftover funds can go toward paying down debt, further strengthening the state’s financial health.
• The remaining 10% (or less) is left in the general fund or a rainy day fund for unforeseen revenue shortfalls due to a recession, natural disaster, or other reasons. But the focus during those shortfalls should be reducing spending so more money remains for tax relief when people tend to be hurting the most.

By splitting surplus funds between tax relief and rainy day funds, states can provide immediate benefits while laying the groundwork for future prosperity.

Flexible, Sustainable Tax Reform
Unlike revenue triggers, surplus triggers don’t lock states into rigid tax cut schedules. Instead, they allow flexibility to adjust the pace of tax reductions based on actual surpluses. This makes a complete phase-out of the income tax achievable within a reasonable timeframe, such as a decade, while ensuring that essential services and fiscal stability are preserved.

When combined with a spending limit, surplus-triggered tax relief delivers significant economic benefits. Lower income taxes increase disposable income for families, encourage consumer spending, and attract businesses looking for a more favorable tax environment. Over time, the resulting economic growth broadens the tax base, generating additional revenue from sales and property taxes to offset the reduced reliance on income taxes.

Research shows that phased tax relief can drive billions in economic growth and create thousands of new jobs. It’s a strategy that not only improves the fiscal health of the state but also enhances the quality of life for residents.

The Bottom Line
Surplus triggers, paired with a spending limit, offer a sustainable and disciplined path to meaningful tax reform. They provide a reliable framework for reducing and eventually eliminating personal income taxes, ensuring that tax cuts are based on real fiscal health rather than speculative revenue growth. By focusing on spending restraint, states can achieve tax reform that is both responsible and transformative, paving the way for economic growth and competitiveness for years to come.

The choice is clear: surplus triggers are the smarter, more stable way to deliver lasting tax relief and fiscal stability.

​This week’s episode dives into key election-related issues that could significantly impact Social Security and the broader economy. With projections indicating that the Social Security Trust Fund could be depleted in six years under another Trump presidency, while a Harris presidency may maintain the status quo, voters must consider the fiscal implications of their candidates' policies. Topics covered include the impact of tax exemptions, tariff policies, and entitlement expansion, all of which threaten the solvency of the nation’s mandatory programs. 

Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.

Government Spending Is The Problem

The late, great economist Milton Friedman said, "The real problem is government spending." This is true as spending comes before taxes or regulations. In fact, if people didn't form a government or politicians didn’t create new programs, then there would be no need for government spending and no need for taxes. And if there was no government spending nor taxes to fund spending then there would be no one to create or enforce regulations. 

​While this might sound like a utopian paradise, which I desire, there are essential limited roles for governments outlined in constitutions and laws. Of course, most governments are doing much more than providing limited roles that preserve life, liberty, and property. This is why I have long been working diligently for more than a decade to get a strong fiscal rule of a spending limit enacted by federal, state, and local governments promptly under my calling to "let people prosper," as effectively limiting government supports more liberty and therefore more opportunities to flourish.

Empirical research underscores the importance of spending restraint over tax hikes in promoting economic growth. Studies by economists Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna, John Taylor, Casey Mulligan, and others have consistently shown that fiscal adjustments based on reducing government spending better foster economic growth than those based on raising taxes.

Fortunately, there have been multiple state think tanks that have championed this sound budgeting approach through what they've called either the Responsible, Conservative, or Sustainable State Budget. I recently worked with Americans for Tax Reform to publish the Sustainable Budget Project, which provides spending comparisons and other valuable information for every state. This groundbreaking approach was outlined recently in my co-authored op-ed with Grover Norquest of ATR in the Wall Street Journal. 

When Did This Budget Approach Begin?

I started this approach in 2013 with my former colleagues at the Texas Public Policy Foundation with work on the Conservative Texas Budget. The approach is a fiscal rule based on an appropriations limit that covers as much of the budget as possible, ideally the entire budget, with a maximum  amount based on the rate of population growth plus inflation and a supermajority (two-thirds) vote to exceed it. A version of this approach was started in Colorado in 1992 with their taxpayer's bill of rights (TABOR), which was championed by key folks like Dr. Barry Poulson and others.  (picture below is from a road sign in Texas)

Why Population Growth Plus Inflation?

​While there are many measures to use for a spending growth limit, the rate of population growth plus inflation  provides the best reasonable measure of the average taxpayer's ability to pay for government spending without excessively crowding out their productive activities. It is important to look at this from the taxpayer’s perspective rather than the appropriator’s view given taxpayers fund every dollar that appropriators redistribute from the private sector.

Population growth plus inflation is also a stable metric reducing uncertainty for taxpayers (and appropriators) and essentially freezes inflation-adjusted per capita government spending over time. ​The research in this space is clear that the best fiscal rule is a spending limit using the rate of population growth plus inflation, not gross state product, personal income, or other growth rates. In fact, population growth plus inflation typically grows slower than these other rates so that more money stays in the productive private sector where it belongs. To get technical for a moment, personal income growth and gross state product growth are essentially population growth plus inflation plus productivity growth. There's no reasonable consideration that government is more productive over time, so that term would be zero leaving population growth plus inflation. And if you consider the productivity growth in the private sector, then more money should be in that sector at the margin for the greatest rate of return, leaving just population growth plus inflation. Population growth plus inflation becomes the best measure to use no matter how you look at it.

Given the high inflation rate more recently, it is wise to use the average growth rate of population growth plus inflation over a number of years to smooth out the increased volatility (ATR's Sustainable Budget Project uses the average rate over the three years prior to a session year). And this rate of population growth plus inflation should be a ceiling and not a target as governments should be appropriating less than this limit. Ideally, governments should freeze or cut government spending at all levels of government to provide more room for tax relief, less regulation, and more money in taxpayers' pockets.

Overview of Conservative Texas Budget Approach

Figure 1 shows how the growth in Texas’ biennial budget was cut by one-fourth after the creation of the Conservative Texas Budget in 2014 that first influenced the 2015 Legislature when crafting the 2016-17 budget along with changes in the state’s governor (Gov. Greg Abbott), lieutenant governor (Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick), and some legislators. ​

​The 8.9% average growth rate of appropriations since then was below the 9.5% biennial average rate of population growth plus inflation since then, which this was drive substantially higher after the latest 2024-25 budget that is well above this key metric (before this biennial budget the growth rate was 5.2% compared with 9.4% in the rate of population growth plus inflation). 

This approach was mostly put into state law in Texas in 2021 with Senate Bill 1336, as the state already has a spending limit in the constitution. The bill improved the limit to cover all general revenue ("consolidated general revenue") or 55% of the total budget rather than just 45% previously, base the growth limit on the rate of population growth times inflation instead of personal income growth, and raise the vote from a simple majority to three-fifths of both chambers to exceed it instead of a simple majority.  There are improvements that should be made to this recent statutory spending limit change in Texas, such as adding it to the constitution and improving the growth rate to population growth plus inflation instead of population growth times inflation calculated by (1+pop)*(1+inf). 

But this limit is now one of the strongest in the nation as historically the gold standard for a spending limit of the Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) has been watered down over the years by their courts and legislators, as it currently covers just 43% of the budget instead of the original 67%. 

My Work On The Federal Budget In The White House

​From June 2019 to May 2020, I took a hiatus from state policy work to serve Americans as the associate director for economic policy ("chief economist") at the White House's Office of Management and Budget. There I learned much about the federal budget, the appropriations process, and the economic assumptions which are used to provide the upcoming 10-year budget projections. In the President's FY 2021 budget, we found $4.6 trillion in fiscal savings and I was able to include the need for a fiscal rule which rarely happens (pic of President Trump's last budget).

Sustainable Budget Work With Other States and ATR

When I returned to the Texas Public Policy Foundation in May 2020, as I wanted to get back to a place with some sense of freedom during the COVID-19 pandemic and to be closer to family, I started an effort to work on this sound budgeting approach with other state think tanks. This contributed to me working with many fantastic people who are trying to restrain government spending in their states and the federal levels. Here are the latest data on the federal and state budgets as part of ATR's Sustainable Budget Project.

​From 2014 to 2023, the following happened:

Federal spending increased by 81.7%, nearly four times faster than the 23.1% increase in the rate of population growth plus inflation.

• Had the federal government limited the growth in spending to the rate of population growth plus inflation during that decade, the federal government would’ve spent $2.1 trillion less in 2023 than the $6.47 trillion. 

• If the federal government had done this over the entire decade, the national debt would have increased by $1.8 trillion instead of the actual $12.8 trillion.
• And if this had been done over the last two decades since 2003, the cumulative national debt would have increased by less than $700 billion instead of $20.2 trillion.
• This means that following a sustainable budget would help leave more money in Americans’ pockets so that they can flourish. 

Aggregate state spending, excluding funds received from the federal government, by the 50 state governments increased by 59.0% during that decade. 

• Had their spending grown by no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation from 2014 to 2023, state governments would’ve spent $1.44 trillion in 2023, which is $430 billion less than the $1.87 trillion that all state governments spent. 
• If the states had done this over the entire decade, cumulative spending would have been $1.4 trillion less than what was actually spent, resulting in more money in people’s pockets across the country.

Result: American taxpayers could have been spared more than $2.5 trillion in taxes and debt just in 2023 if federal and state governments had grown no faster than the rate of population growth plus inflation during the previous decade. And this would be even more if we considered the cumulative savings over the period.  

My hope is that if we can get enough state think tanks to promote this budgeting approach, get this approach put into constitutions and statutes, and use it to limit local government spending as well, there will be plenty of momentum to provide sustainable, substantial tax relief and eventually impose a fiscal rule of a spending limit on the federal budget. This is an uphill battle but I believe it is necessary to preserve liberty and provide more opportunities to let people prosper.

​Sustainable State Budget Revolution Across The Country

Below are the states and think tanks which I'm working with and this revolution is going, which you can find an overview of this budgeting approach in Louisiana and should be applied elsewhere. 

Here are the latest efforts:

1. Americans for Tax Reform released the Sustainable Budget Project with every state's spending compared with population growth plus inflation and valuable comparisons and data for each state.
2. Alaska: Alaska Policy Forum released its third Responsible Alaska Budget.
3. Colorado: Independence Institute recently released the first Sustainable Colorado Budget.
4. Florida: James Madison Institute released its first successful Conservative Florida Budget.
5. Iowa: Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation released its fourth Conservative Iowa Budget.
6. Kansas: Kansas Policy Institute released its third Responsible Kansas Budget.
7. Louisiana: Pelican Institute recently released its second Responsible Louisiana Budget. Here is a comparison of the RLB with ATR's Sustainable Budget project.
8. Michigan: Mackinac Center released its second Sustainable Michigan Budget.
9. Mississippi: Mississippi Center for Public Policy recently released its first Responsible Mississippi Budget.
10. Montana: Frontier Institute released a Conservative Montana Budget and a report on Responsible Local budgets.
11. South Carolina: SC Policy Council released its third South Carolina Sustainable Budget. Oconee County Council in South Carolina used this approach and filed their own sustainable budget. 
12. Tennessee: Beacon Center released its third Conservative Tennessee Budget.
13. Texas: Texas Public Policy Foundation released its fifth Conservative Texas Budget and the recent release of Responsible Local Budgets.
14. Federal: The Let Americans Prosper Project along with the Responsible American Budget to rein in federal government spending to support fiscal sanity in D.C., which is essential for the future of our country.

​
If you're interested in doing this in your state, please reach out to me.

For more details, check out these write-ups on this issue by Grover Norquist and I at WSJ, Dan Mitchell at International Liberty, and The Economist.

Originally posted at The Sentinel. 

​​In a recently released report, the Kansas Department of Legislative Post Audit found that an economic development tool popular with cities across the state often do not work as intended.

The department evaluated six “Tax Increment Financing” districts across the state to determine if they were working as designed.

In 1976 the Kansas State Legislature authorized cities to create TIF districts. A TIF district, also known as a redevelopment district, is a defined area within a city that uses a tax increment to help fund development. 

When a city establishes a TIF district, the assessed valuation of all existing real property located in the district is effectively frozen at a base level. Any subsequent property tax revenue generated above the base level — either from increases to the value of existing property or from the added value of new property — is called the “tax increment.” The development can involve building houses or apartments, renovating retail space, cleaning up environmental contaminants, and more.

The idea is to leverage future tax revenue from value increases to pay for development that might not otherwise have occurred.

There are 114 TIF districts in the most populous cities in Kansas — most in Kansas City, Kansas and Wichita — and Post Audit picked six from across the state for study:

- Melrose (Kansas City): this is an industrial (business and industry) district that was created in 2002. It was completed in 2022.
- College Hill (Topeka): this is a mixed-use district (with a large residential component) that was created in 2006. At the time of the report, it was still active.
- Douglas & Hillside (Wichita): this is a mixed-use district (with a large residential component) that was created in 2006. At the time of the report, it was still active.
- Lambertz (Salina): this is a retail district that was created in 2007. It was completed in 2020.
- Ken Mar (Wichita): this is a retail district that was created in 2008. At the time of the report, it was still active.
- Valley View (Overland Park): this is a retail district that was created in 2010. At the time of the report, it was still active.

Post Audit reviewed project documents and tax records to determine the construction and financing timelines for the selected TIF districts and found that three of the six TIF districts reviewed are not expected to pay off their TIF costs on time or have not generated enough revenue to cover these costs.

All six of the TIF districts reviewed are on track to be at or below estimated costs, but most experienced delays in construction.

Additionally, Post Audit said of the TIF districts they reviewed, cities have incurred between $1.6 and $7 million in direct costs and in at least four of the districts there are significant indirect costs because of and increase in crime.

Moreover, it is difficult for the state to determine the efficacy of TIF districts as — while state law authorizes them — they are administered by local city governments.

TIF districts don’t have the benefits many claim
While Post Audit was at pains to note that six districts is too small a sample size to extrapolate results for all 144 state-wide, Economist Dr. Vance Ginn, a senior fellow at the Kansas Policy Institute — which owns the Sentinel — said in a recent post on the KPI website, that the issue is far more complicated than it might seem.

“The reality of TIF projects is far more complicated, as audits frequently show delays in cost recovery and overestimated economic benefits,” Ginn wrote. “Worse, these government subsidies often crowd out private investment and leave taxpayers footing the bill for developments that may not deliver their promised benefits.”

As an example, Ginn noted the College Hill district — audited by the department — in Topkea.

“The audit for Topeka’s College Hill district revealed that the city is expected to use general funds to cover 40% of project costs — diverting resources from other essential services,” he wrote “This mismanagement highlights a fundamental problem with TIF districts: they often fail to deliver the economic benefits they promise while locking cities into long-term financial commitments.”

Ginn, who was also the former chief economist in the White House Office of Management and Budget also noted that — while the audit was successful at quantifying direct costs to the cities, it “overlooked a more significant issue — the opportunity costs to taxpayers.”

“What if the funds tied up in these TIF projects had remained in the hands of taxpayers instead?” Ginn asked in the column. “Instead of subsidizing developers, that money could have stayed in local pockets, allowing individuals to spend, save, or invest in ways that meet their needs and preferences. This missed opportunity for organic economic growth — driven by individual decisions rather than government intervention — should not be ignored.”

Moreover, Ginn said, the direct costs noted by the audit do not include the additional interest on the debt accumulated when cities use bonds to finance their portion of the projects.

“These costs ultimately fall on taxpayers, as cities must dip into general funds or raise taxes to cover the shortfalls,” Ginn wrote. “Worse, these funds could have been used for other purposes — like lowering taxes or investing in essential public services — if the city had avoided entering into these development deals in the first place.”

Ultimately Ginn said, TIF districts are simply inefficient and expensive.

“The audit of Kansas’s TIF districts reveals deep flaws in the management and outcomes of these projects,” he wrote. “Rather than continuing to gamble on subsidies that rarely deliver, policymakers should focus on spending less and putting more money back into the hands of taxpayers. The costs of TIF districts — direct and in terms of missed opportunities — are too great to ignore. 

“A more prosperous future lies in allowing individuals to drive economic growth through their choices rather than relying on government subsidies that pick winners and losers.”

​In episode 80 of This Week's Economy, I discuss the SALT tax deduction problems, California’s social media law concerns, nuclear power race with China, VP debate challenges, presidential candidates miss pro-growth policies, and Texas can eliminate property taxes. 

Watch the episode, or listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website vanceginn.com or newsletter vanceginn.substack.com for more information.

​In episode 77 of This Week's Economy, I break down the flawed economic promises of presidential candidates who ignore that nothing is truly free. From proposed AI regulations and fracking policies to tax plans and protectionism, I explore the impact these issues have on innovation, energy independence, and economic growth while highlighting why free-market solutions are key to prosperity. Get the show notes and more information at vanceginn.substack.com.

Interview on NTD News.

Vice President Kamala Harris has announced plans to raise both the corporate tax rate and the rates on capital gains taxes.
According to Vance Ginn, the founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting and a former chief economist at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, these provisions will slow the economy and stifle investment. NTD spoke to him to find out more.

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.

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.

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.