Originally published at Texas Scorecard.
Texas can pass bold school choice legislation when the next legislative session starts in January 2025. This could finally happen because of the recent election wins in the House primaries, efforts led by Gov. Greg Abbott. The election wins include pro-school choice candidates beating anti-school choice incumbents or filling seats of retiring anti-school choice members. More incumbents, including House Speaker Dade Phelan, were forced to a runoff in May. Moreover, 80 percent of Republicans voted for Proposition 11 on the primary ballot to support school choice, which matters in a dominantly red state. In the evolving educational reform landscape, universal education savings accounts (ESAs) provide the best path to empower parents to decide their children’s education. They are also a practical, fiscally responsible strategy for reimagining the future of education. At least 10 states have passed universal school choice, and more are likely to do so soon. But these states haven’t reached the pinnacle of what a competitive education system should look like. The optimal school choice approach should liberate education from the constraints of the monopoly government school system, draw upon successful market-driven solutions, and offer a simplified education finance system. The Texas Legislature essentially controls the current school finance system with funding from taxpayers through taxes collected by the state, school district, and federal governments. The inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the status quo are stark, including questionable but relevant declining test scores. This highlights a critical need for an approach that better serves students’ and families’ unique needs and aspirations. The state’s school finance system is based on many factors to the school system, but the Texas Education Agency recently reported that the average funding per student was $14,928 in the 2021-22 school year. Total funding was $80.6 billion for 5.5 million students. Of course, this is how much is spent, but the actual cost of the monopoly government school system is hidden and driven higher by politics rather than market outcomes. ESAs provide flexibility in covering many educational services, including various schooling options, tutoring, testing, and other related expenses. This empowers parents to customize their children’s education to suit individual learning styles and interests. This adaptability is vital for fostering environments where children excel academically, socially, and emotionally. Implementing a universal ESA program demands a framework that balances simplicity with accountability, ensuring the focus remains on expanding educational opportunities and improving student outcomes. While many current ESA programs run alongside the government school system, this doesn’t provide the most competitive framework. Running them in tandem, whereby the funding remains the same or even increases for government schools while creating a new system to fund ESAs, is costly and lacks the incentives for optimal outcomes. Instead, we should pursue a simplified education finance approach that maximizes competition, reduces costs, and lowers taxes by funding students, instead of a system. A bold proposal would provide parents with an ESA of $10,000 per child for the school year but paid monthly or the preferred frequency to choose any approved schooling, including government, private, charter, home, co-op, tutoring, or other types of schooling. With about 6.3 million school-age children in Texas, the annual total expenditure would be $63 billion, or $17.6 billion less than what’s being spent today on government schools. Parents could receive an ESA of as much as $12,800 per student to keep the same expenditures as today. However, given the bloated bureaucracy and misguided direction of government schools, the $10,000 amount would help force efficiencies while reducing taxpayers’ costs and incentivizing new education providers. The lower cost of $17.6 billion would provide an opportunity for substantial school property tax relief. Combining ESAs and property tax relief would further accentuate the proposal’s appeal, addressing the lack of school choice and burdensome property taxes. The bold approach eliminates most, if not all, of the current antiquated government school finance system with one that gives parents a way to meet their children’s unique learning needs best. It would help alleviate the hardship for many families that can choose alternatives for financial reasons, pay lower property taxes, or have money remaining to invest in their children’s quality of life and educational pursuits. As states across the nation begin to recognize the transformative potential of this bold universal school choice approach, the momentum is undeniable. This trend underscores a growing consensus on the need for educational systems that prioritize choice, flexibility, and parental empowerment. By breaking free from the monopoly government school finance system and embracing a bold ESA finance approach that empowers parents, we can pave the way for a future where every child can achieve their full potential.
0 Comments
Originally published at AIER.
Taxing unrealized capital gains on property, stocks, and other assets is not just a bad idea, it’s an economic fallacy that undermines economic growth and personal liberty. Unfortunately, President Biden’s $7.3 trillion budget proposes such a federal tax. Vermont and ten other states have made similar moves. This tax should be rejected, as it is fundamentally unjust, likely unconstitutional, and would hinder prosperity and individual freedom. A tax on unrealized capital gains means that individuals are penalized for owning appreciating assets, regardless of whether they have realized any actual income from selling them. If you purchased a stock for $100 this year, for example, and it increased to $110 next year, you would pay the assigned tax rate on the $10 capital gain. You didn’t sell the asset, so you don’t realize the $10 appreciation, but must pay the tax regardless. The following year, it dropped to $100, so there was a loss of $10. Would you be able to deduct that loss from your tax liability? The devil is in the details of the approach to this tax, but the devil is also in the tax itself. Adam Michel of Cato Institute explained two types of unrealized taxes in President Biden’s latest budget:
Taxing unrealized capital gains contradicts the basic principles of fairness and property rights essential for a free and prosperous society. Taxation, if we’re going to have it on income, should be based on actual income earned, not on paper gains that may never materialize. Moreover, taxing unrealized gains hurts economic activity by discouraging investment and capital formation, the lifeblood of a dynamic economy. When individuals know their unrealized gains will be taxed, they have less incentive to invest in productive assets such as stocks, real estate, or businesses. This leads to a misallocation of resources and slower economic growth. Additionally, this tax reduces the capital available for entrepreneurship and innovation. Start-ups and small businesses often rely on investment from individuals willing to take risks in the hope of eventually earning a return on their investment. By taxing unrealized capital gains, we discourage risk-taking and stifle innovation, essential elements for improving productivity and raising living standards. The tax undermines personal liberty by infringing on individuals’ property rights and financial privacy. It gives the government unprecedented control over people’s assets and creates a powerful disincentive for individuals to save and invest. This is particularly troublesome in an era of increasing government surveillance and intrusion into private affairs. Proponents of taxing unrealized capital gains argue that it is a way to address income inequality and raise revenue for social programs. This argument can’t withstand scrutiny. This tax does little to address the root causes of income inequality, such as government failures in fiscal and monetary policies. Instead, this new tax would merely redistribute wealth from productive individuals to the government, thereby further misallocating hard-earned money. Furthermore, the tax revenue raised from this tax will be far less than proponents anticipate, as individuals will work less, invest less, and find ways to avoid such taxes through legal paths. This would result in less economic prosperity and a resulting decline in tax collections. From an economic and moral perspective, taxing unrealized capital gains from property, stocks, and other assets is a bad idea. It undermines economic growth, stifles innovation, and infringes on personal liberty. Instead of resorting to the misguided policies of the Biden administration and some states, we should remove barriers created by the government. These include reducing spending, taxes, and regulations. We should also impose fiscal and monetary rules. Achieving these goals and ending the bad idea of a new tax on unrealized capital gains will encourage investment, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity for all. Only then can we truly unleash the potential of a free and prosperous society. Could Colorado become one of the seven states with no income tax? Vance Ginn, former White House Office of Management and Budget, believes the state is on the #Path2Zero.
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 agree, 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. 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. And recently I worked with Americans for Tax Reform to publish the Sustainable Budget Project, which provides spending comparisons and other valuable information for every state. Don't miss the latest updates as of January 2024. This groundbreaking approach was outlined recently in my co-authored op-ed with Grover Norquest of ATR in the Wall Street Journal. When Did It 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 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:
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 (in alphabetical order) and state think tanks which I'm helping and information on how this process is going in those states. Here's an overview of this budgeting approach in Louisiana that can be applied elsewhere. I will update these periodically, with the successful versus not successful budgeting attempts being 18-6 so far.
If you're interested in doing this in your state, please reach out to me. P.S. Good write-up on this issue here by Grover Norquist and I at WSJ, Dan Mitchell at International Liberty, and The Economist. Originally published at James Madison Institute. Florida is an economic leader because it has produced pro-growth policies of lower government spending, taxes, and regulations for years. This strong institutional framework must continue. A new report, “Reducing the Burden of Sales Taxes in Florida,” authored by The James Madison Institute (JMI) Senior Vice President Sal Nuzzo and JMI Senior Fellow Vance Ginn, Ph.D., outlines recommendations for ways in which Florida lawmakers can reduce the government burden on citizens and businesses. “Florida continues to be the best place to start and grow a business. That requires us to continually examine ways to make it more attractive as states become more and more competitive. One way our policymakers and governor can do this is by addressing the sales tax allowance, which currently places us at a competitive disadvantage when looking at other states, especially within our region. By making this allowance more reflective of how much compliance truly costs, we can ensure that the principles of limited government and economic liberty advance.” — Sal Nuzzo, Senior Vice President, The James Madison Institute “Florida has been a key model for the country with a sound approach to conservative fiscal policy. This includes the commitment to a conservative state budget, no personal income tax, minimal corporate welfare, and sensible regulation. To retain the title of “Free State of Florida” and provide more opportunities that let people prosper, policymakers should continue championing policies that spend, tax, and regulate less so families and entrepreneurs can reach their full potential. Reducing the burden of collecting sales taxes on entrepreneurs by at least doubling the sales tax allowance and streamlining the collection process to reduce compliance costs will help achieve this goal while providing lower prices to families.” — Vance Ginn, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, The James Madison Institute Thank you for tuning into the FINAL Let People Prosper podcast episode 76 of 2023! Today, I have a brief but informative podcast for you, recapping the highlights of the economy and my business, Ginn Economic Consulting, LLC.
As a Christmas gift, I am giving away a complimentary subscription to the paid version of my newsletter and a copy of Lexi Hudson’s fantastic book, “The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves.” To enter this giveaway, simply fill out the information at the link and rate my podcast on either Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Is there anyone whom you would like for me to interview in 2024? Leave them in the comments. Today, I cover:
The rise of several underdog states and the fall of previous favorites tells the story of the Tax Foundation’s new 2024 State Business Tax Climate report. The findings support how less government contributes to more flourishing, while heavy-handed taxes hinder prosperity.
The scores for the 50 states in the report declined by 0.19 points from the prior report, indicating a less overall competitive business tax climate nationwide. Considering that half of all states have cut taxes over the past three years, and an increasing number are moving to flax taxes, pressure is building on states to seek tax cuts or risk getting left behind. An inspiring success story is Iowa, which has emerged as a beacon of pro-growth tax reform. Iowa reduced its top marginalindividual income tax rate from 8.53 to 6.0 percent. By consolidating its previous nine tax brackets into four, the newer, more streamlined tax system is less burdensome for Iowans. Another improvement in Iowa’s reforms was reducing the marriage penalty. The state removed a longstanding tax burden by doubling the bracket amounts for married couples filing jointly. The state also shifted its previously three-bracket corporate income tax structure into just two brackets, which caused the top rate to drop by 1.4 percentage points. As a result of these changes, Iowa’s ranking improved from 38th to 33rd in just one year. While there’s room for improvement, the state is on a better path. Considering the conservative budgeting by Governor Reynolds and the legislature, and the transition to a flat 3.9 percent income tax rate by 2026 and a flat corporate income tax rate of 5.5 percent, the state could soon be on its way to 15th place. Massachusetts, on the other hand, experienced the sharpest decline of all the states, plummeting 12 places down to 46th. This regression in business tax competitiveness can be largely attributed to a new state constitutional amendment. It transitioned Massachusetts from a single-rate to a graduated-rate income tax system with a new 4 percent surtax for a top marginal tax rate of 9 percent for incomes over $1 million. This progressive policy not only represents a departure from the trend of rate reductions and bracket consolidation in other states as part of the flat tax revolution, but also introduces a significant marriage penalty. While implementing a new payroll tax further contributed to Massachusetts’s decline in tax competitiveness, the state’s individual tax component ranking fell from 11th to 44th. Unfortunately, this fall was foretold by the vast number of people fleeing the state, many of whom were no doubt searching for a more tax-friendly place of residence. After all, people vote with their feet. While Massachusetts experienced a sharp fall, Mississippi and Idaho emerged as rising stars in the world of tax reform. Mississippi’s ranking jumped from 27th to 20th thanks to three major shifts. It became the second state to implement permanent full expensing for select investment in machinery and equipment, passed a flat personal income tax, and will soon phase out its franchise tax. These forward-thinking policy changes encourage investment and economic growth, positioning Mississippi as a more competitive business destination. Likewise, Oklahoma has also made significant strides in tax reform. In addition to eliminating its marriage penalty, the state reduced its split roll ratio in property taxation and withdrew its capital stock tax. These actions propelled its property tax component ranking to substantially improve from 30th to 15th. As a result of these reforms, Oklahoma’s overall ranking has risen significantly, now at 19th. And while Governor Stitt’s recent special session was unsuccessful in making bigger strides for tax cuts, the state looks poised to do so soon, thereby improving its competitiveness. On a similar path, Idaho made a noteworthy move by transitioning from four brackets to a flat individual income tax at 5.8 percent. Additionally, the state cut its corporate income tax rate to 5.8 percent, further enhancing its tax competitiveness. These reforms boosted its individual tax component rank by two places, now at 17th. The findings from the Tax Foundation’s report underscore a fundamental economic truth: Free markets do not discriminate. They thrive where they are permitted to flourish, and that starts with sustainable budgeting and sound tax policy. States like Iowa, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Idaho, which prioritize tax cuts and financial freedom, are poised to rise in the rankings and could quickly become some of the more sought-after states. As they continue to reduce tax burdens, they create environments where individuals and businesses can retain more of their earnings, which invites innovation, improves the quality of life, and encourages moving to those states. Meanwhile, states like Massachusetts and New Jersey, which ranks 50th in the report, choose high spending and taxes that will contribute to continued out-migration as individuals and businesses seek refuge in states prioritizing economic freedom. The message is unmistakable. Free markets work, and policymakers should heed the lessons from these tax climate rankings. Originally published at AIER. The Texas Legislature just found out it has a huge opportunity to correct its profligate spending failures made earlier this year. But instead, they’re gearing up to spend more at the expense of strapped taxpayers. This would be a fatal error for the Lone Star State.
Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar recently released the Comptroller's Revenue Estimate (CRE). This report acts like a financial checkup to confirm sufficient tax revenue available to cover expenditures based on the state’s balanced budget amendment. The current two-year tax revenue for 2024-25 was updated higher to $194.6 billion available for general spending, an increase of 24.8% from the previous budget. This certified revenue estimate exceeds the $176.3 billion appropriated by the 88th Legislature for general purposes, resulting in a projected surplus of $18.3 billion. This large amount is from a more vibrant economy than previously estimated and could go a long way to putting school property taxes on a path to elimination. Yet the Texas Legislature’s recent out-of-control spending habits indicate taxpayers probably won’t get more property tax relief than the minimal amount passed this year. The state wants to increase spending on a government school system in the current third special session rather than on students to have universal school choice. And spending could go up by more than $13 billion outside of the expenditure limit if voters approve most of the 14 constitutional amendments on the state ballot this year. Add it all up, and it’s no wonder that Texans find living in many places across the state unaffordable. While Texas has witnessed major economic achievements this year, such as noteworthy records for labor force participation and job creation, the 88th Legislature's actions raise serious concerns about the future. This year, the Lone Star State passed its largest spending increase, largest corporate welfare, and just the second-largest property tax cut in state history, which the latter will underwhelm homeowners when they get their bills. This could be a major problem for Republicans who have touted this as the “largest property tax cut in the world” or the “largest property tax cut in Texas history.” While Texans grapple with an affordability crisis, spending the state surplus and voters approving the proposed ballot items, except propositions 3 (prohibit wealth taxes) and 12 (abolish Galveston County treasurer’s office), would add insult to injury. Rather than squandering the surplus, the Texas Legislature should prioritize strengthening the Texas Model by: 1. Spending less at the state and local levels, strengthen the state’s spending limit with the rate of population growth plus inflation covering all state funds, and have that spending limit also cover local government spending similar to Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. 2. Taxing less by putting local property taxes on a path to elimination using surpluses to reduce school district M&O property tax rates until they are zero. Local governments should leverage their surpluses to reduce their property tax rates until they are zero. 3. Regulating less by removing barriers to work, removing occupational licensing restrictions, reforming safety nets, and passing universal school choice. Strengthening the Texas Model isn't just about fiscal responsibility; it's about securing a thriving future for generations to come. Texas, with its unique spirit and determination, can continue to lead the way, fostering an environment where free-market capitalism thrives and individuals prosper. The surplus, instead of being frittered away on needless pursuits, should be a catalyst for transformation that redefines the Lone Star State's destiny, safeguards liberty, and sows the seeds of enduring prosperity. Originally published at The Center Square. I hope you enjoy the fantastic 67th Let People Prosper Show episode with TX State Rep. Brian Harrison! Please subscribe to my newsletter if you haven’t already, and subscribe to my podcast wherever you get yours. I would appreciate it if you would also rate and review my podcast! Brian (bio) and I discuss:
While the latest “strong” US jobs report and “cooling” CPI inflation have been touted as promising, a closer look reveals more complexity, and many American families continue to bear the brunt of DC’s failures over the last three-plus years.
The payroll survey’s net gain of 336,000 non-farm jobs is a popular headline, as the figure nearly doubled expectations. But the household survey, a second crucial report by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows that only 84,000 jobs were added in September. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate stayed at 3.8 percent, which would be much higher if more people were looking for work. Let’s consider the labor force participation rate of 62.8 percent to double-check the headlines. If this rate were 63.3 percent, as it was in February 2020, there would be 1.4 million more people in the labor force. If they are all unemployed, today’s unemployment rate would be nearly 5 percent, which is substantially higher than the touted 3.8 percent rate. There have also been substantial revisions to the non-farm jobs report in recent months because of volatile data used for seasonal adjustments since the shutdowns, which makes much of it “garbage in, garbage out.” There were, for example, an additional 119,000 jobs added over just July and August than what was initially reported, giving us reason for pause with all of these reports. In short, this volatility in the job market data makes it challenging to discern actual trends, especially when Americans continue to be concerned about the economy. On top of a fickle job market, the latest consumer price index (CPI) sits at 3.7 percent over the past year, while the core inflation, which excludes food and energy, is 4.1 percent. This core inflation rate is double the Federal Reserve’s average inflation rate target and doesn’t show any signs of reverting to 2 percent any time soon. This problem was created by the Fed’s bloated balance sheet, which results from its willingness to help finance the federal budget deficits caused by excessive government spending. Until Congress reins in government spending and money printing, inflation will strain household budgets. Also, real (inflation-adjusted) average weekly earnings dropped by 0.2 percent over the past year, and the average family’s real income has suffered a significant blow, with a decline of more than $7,000 since the start of 2021. These financial setbacks are not coincidental. They are the direct result of the progressive policies of the Biden Administration, the Federal Reserve’s bloated balance sheet, and Congress’s habit of excessive spending. If we want to understand the true state of our economy, we should pay more attention to the Fed’s balance sheet, which remains a crucial indicator of inflationary pressures. This is why I was never on team “transitory inflation.” Even a relatively superficial understanding of the work of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and John Taylor has indicated from the start that we would face persistent inflation. Sure, supply-side factors contributed to higher prices in some markets, as did supply chain bottlenecks. But those are short-term fluctuations that don’t tell the entire story of reduced purchasing power for everyone over a longer period, which is a story of failed public policy on top of the failed shutdowns during the pandemic. The explanation is pretty straightforward. There was a sudden halt in the economy due to pandemic shutdowns that distorted many exchanges throughout the marketplace. The federal government then sent out redistributed money to individuals and employers so they wouldn’t have to fret too much during a stressful time. This propped up many Americans, creating any number of zombie firms, zombie workers, and a debt-fueled zombie economy. But this alone wouldn’t explain the inflation, as increased government spending doesn’t stimulate anything other than more government and some specific markets. Next, the Fed more than doubled its balance sheet, increasing its assets from $4 trillion to $9 trillion. This doesn’t lead to long-term economic growth, but it does contribute to many market distortions and inflation across the economy. Much of this money stays in the hands of the banks, mortgage companies, and others at the upper part of the income spectrum. Only then does some of it spread further, in a process known as the Cantillon effect. The problem is not only a propped-up economy with multiple asset bubbles, but reduced purchasing power that punishes lower-income families the most. Few, if any, of the positives from more money in circulation goes to these families. Instead, they have seen whatever savings they had dwindle. To achieve a more stable and prosperous economic future, we must strike a balance between sound fiscal and monetary policies and curb excessive government spending and money printing. This will only begin to happen when we have rules that control discretionary policies by the administration, Congress, and the Fed. While headline jobs and inflation data might suggest a strong economic recovery, digging just a little deeper into the data shows a weak economy with major challenges. It’s time for policymakers to take a hard look at the factors contributing to these economic woes and adopt prudent policies that address the root causes of stagflation. Originally published by AIER. Read the full paper here. Here's the original post by the Pelican Institute. Pelican Institute reform plan would flatten personal and corporate taxes, boost jobs in first year. Baton Rouge — As candidates for Louisiana governor debate the future of the state, a new poll shows Louisiana voters strongly support phasing out the state’s income tax while ushering in fiscal responsibility. Today, the Pelican Institute has released a new tax reform plan that would do just that—transform the state, make it more competitive, pave the way for more and better jobs, and launch Louisiana’s comeback. By a wide margin, 58% of Louisiana voters support phasing out the state income tax (only 20% oppose), and 66% want leaders to prioritize responsible budgeting and limiting the growth of state spending to bring fiscal stability to state government (only 9% oppose). Voters also strongly back education freedom; 62% support giving Louisiana parents the ability to use state funds to select the school of their choice for their child’s education (only 25% oppose). The poll, which was conducted by Cor Strategies in partnership with the Pelican Institute, can be seen here. In Louisiana’s Comeback: A Tax Reform for Our Brighter Future, the Pelican Institute identifies the state’s significant tax problems and proposes a path to set the state in a brighter direction, including flattening the personal and corporate income taxes to 3.5% rates, reducing the number of tax preferences, eliminating the corporate franchise tax and the inventory tax, and reforming the budget to limit the growth of spending, among other changes. “If we are to write Louisiana’s comeback story, we first have to get our fiscal house in order and fix our broken tax code that has, for far too long, landed Louisiana at the bottom of every good list and the top of every bad list,” said Daniel Erspamer, Chief Executive Officer of the Pelican Institute. “Louisiana families are suffering, and too many of our best and brightest are leaving the state to find opportunity elsewhere. It’s time to embrace a bold vision for tax reform proven to bring jobs and opportunity – not to mention our kids and grandkids – back to our state.” Louisiana suffers under a tax system that is brutally punishing for families and businesses. It is painfully progressive, thereby increasing tax rates as more income is earned—and that disincentivizes greater earnings, reduces productivity, and slows economic growth. Meanwhile, tax preferences create exemptions and deductions that make compliance costly, pick winners and losers, and narrow the tax base. That, in turn, requires an even higher tax rate to collect needed revenue for funding limited government. On top of that, Louisiana’s taxes on businesses are particularly burdensome, including a triple taxation on profit, investment, and inventory, that together stifle economic growth. The Pelican Institute’s tax plan solves these problems with a proposal that will kickstart the economy into immediate growth and increase the number of available jobs in the state in the first year. The plan is the latest part of the Pelican Institute’s Comeback Agenda released in March of this year, which lays out a series of policies critical to the state’s future, including tax and budget reform, guaranteeing universal education freedom, enhancing public safety, and reducing regulatory barriers to work. A two-page guide to the reform can be read below and a one-pager below that. A recent report from the Tax Justice Network (TJN) boldly asserts that “countries will lose $4.7 trillion over the next 10 years…[and] countries around the world collectively spent $4.66 trillion on public health in a single year” due to tax havens. In light of this seemingly shocking discovery, many groups are now campaigning for global tax reform so that nations will avoid “losing out” on tax revenue.
The new idea of the “UN tax convention and to create a global tax body under UN auspices” would do the opposite of creating better economic outcomes. According to the report, which compiles data from 47 countries, multinational corporations legally avoid paying the highest taxes, mainly by moving to so-called “tax havens.” Tax havens include jurisdictions offering low corporate tax rates, alluring multinational corporations and affluent individuals to seek tax relief by conducting their financial activities there. A key player in this process is profit shifting, where companies redirect their profits to low-tax jurisdictions, despite earning most of their revenue in high-tax regions. Small countries like the Cayman Islands, with their corporate tax rate of only 6%, are one of these havens, but there are also more prominent countries like Switzerland and Hong Kong that are favorable homes for large corporations, both having rates under 20%. It’s perfectly legal for a company to move its headquarters and finances to other countries, but these tax havens can pose a threat when many governments depend on taxes to finance government spending. Rather than risk losing these resources, countries are clamoring for centralized taxation with higher tax rates to level the playing field. But there’s a better way. While these countries are pointing to tax havens to try and place blame for lost tax revenues, there are three fingers pointing back at them. Instead of centralizing a global tax and empowering politicians and bureaucrats, countries with high corporate taxes, like the U.S., with a corporate tax rate of 21%, should consider domestic tax reforms that prioritize lowering corporate taxes and limiting government spending. Reduced corporate tax rates, like those in the 2017 Trump tax cuts, can enhance a country’s competitiveness and appeal to businesses instead of driving them to move their money to tax havens. This was the result of those tax cuts as many businesses started moving back to the U.S. or started repatriating their money here. Simultaneously, keeping government spending in check with responsible budgeting prevents escalating the government’s overall burden, reducing the “need” for higher taxes. While corporate taxes typically pass along the burden to consumers through higher prices, fewer jobs, and lower wages, consumption-based taxes such as final sales and use taxes (not value-added taxes) are less burdensome and more equitable. And these taxes better match economic fluctuations and taxpayers’ ability to pay for spending, which is why more countries (and states) should be moving to them. Fewer burdensome taxes support more economic growth, resulting in more tax revenue, which many politicians desire. By supporting growth instead of raising taxes and hoping that converts to growth (it won’t), spending can be better balanced, reducing deficits, which is just future taxes. While the Tax Justice Network’s findings are interesting, they hardly point to the need for global tax reforms because these tax havens are legal ways to avoid paying higher taxes. Instead, the U.S. and elsewhere should reform their tax system if they hope to foster competition and provide more paths for human flourishing. Originally published at Econlib. Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) recently signed into law the tax relief compromise by the Legislature’s second special session. This relief is historic with the country’s largest tax cut and the largest net tax cut in Texas history.
But it falls short of what Texans were promised of the largest property tax cut in the state’s history, as it’s instead the state’s second largest property tax cut because of the largest spending increase in Texas history. Rather than providing substantial relief and simplifying the property tax system, the package presents a burdensome approach that could hinder the state's progress. By overspending and adopting a convoluted tax relief strategy, Texas risks falling behind states rather than leading the way in addressing real property tax concerns. The deal provides $12.7 billion in new property tax relief out of the nearly $33 billion surplus as the Legislature increased the upcoming 2024-25 biennial budget by more than 30% in state funds. This is the largest increase in Texas history and well above the the key rate of population growth plus inflation of 16% over the last two years. The major target for property tax relief was reducing school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes. These property taxes are essentially a statewide property tax, which is prohibited by the state’s constitution, as they are partially determined by the state’s school finance system that includes redistribution of property taxes from school districts with high-valued property to districts with lower-valued property. Of the nearly $33 billion in state surplus funds and tens of billions more in new revenue available, the state allocated just $7.1 billion for a modest 10.7-cent reduction per $100 valuation in those property tax rates, called “compression,” which provides long-lasting relief and benefits everyone. The other $5.6 billion is for raising the homestead exemption by $60,000 to $100,000 for the appraised value of primary residences to determine how much is paid for school district property taxes. But this will be short-lived as valuations rise quickly and has failed to provide long-lasting relief the last three times it’s been tried in Texas since 1997 while benefitting only only homeowners. The $12.7 billion over the next two years will hardly alleviate the burden of property taxes on Texans and is a far cry from eliminating them altogether as Gov. Abbot initially set out to do. The package also includes a pilot project of an appraisal cap on non-homestead property at 20% per year for three years. This property doesn’t have a cap on it today so this will benefit some but will mean that local governments will just ratchet up property tax rates to bring in the tax revenue they desire to grow spending. There will also now be three elected officials added to county appraisal boards. Texans are left with this compromise package that unnecessarily complicates the tax system and obstructs efforts to eliminate school M&O property taxes, enabling the government to pick winners and losers. In this case, renters would undoubtedly be among the losers, and they are nearly 40% of households across the state. A more robust approach is necessary soon to achieve significant, long-lasting property tax relief for Texans. The best path being discussed is to buy down school district M&O property tax rates with surplus funds starting with limiting government spending, which was lacking this session after years of an improving budget picture. Ways to improve this overall package would have been by institutionalizing the buy-down plan and imposing spending limits on local governments. The final part of the package is $600 million to raise the exemption of gross receipts to pay franchise taxes from $1 million to $2.47 million, which is important but doesn’t help reduce property taxes and is less effective than cutting the franchise tax rates until they’re zero. This brings the total amount of new tax relief to $13.3 billion. This amount is lower than the $14.2 billion that the Legislature provided to buy down school property taxes in 2008-09, which would be about $21 billion to have the same purchasing power today. And even if you include the state maintaining its property tax rate reduction in 2019 of $5.3 billion in this year’s budget for a total of about $18.6 billion, it would not equal $21 billion. But that 2008-09 relief was done by raising bad taxes of the franchise tax, sales tax on motor vehicles, and cigarette tax which this time no taxes are raised as the taxpayer funds come from surplus money. So, this 2023 tax relief package can be called the “largest net tax cut in Texas history” but not the “largest property tax cut,” and is the largest tax cut in the country. But Texans could have had more relief if the state hadn’t spent so much. Eliminating school property taxes is a crucial next step for Texans to truly own their homes instead of renting from the government forever. And this will be achieved faster when politicians stop spending so much. So while this historic relief is much appreciated, there’s much more to do next session for Texans to stop renting and start owning. Originally published at Real Clear Policy. (The Center Square) – The property tax relief package passed by the state Legislature is the second largest in Texas history, economist Vance Ginn, president of Austin-based Ginn Economic Consulting, says.
While at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Ginn helped devise a plan to eliminate one of multiple property taxes homeowners pay: the school maintenance and operations (M&O) tax. Eliminating this tax over time was part of Gov. Greg Abbott’s call for the first and second special legislative sessions. Ginn, who sat down with The Center Square to explain differing property tax relief approaches, was also integral to implementing federal tax reform efforts when he worked at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget under the Trump administration. After the legislature passed an $18 billion property tax relief package Thursday, House Speaker Dade Phelan said it was “the largest cut in Texas history.” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said it was “the largest property tax relief package in Texas history, and likely the world.” Abbott, when running for reelection for his third term, vowed to return half of the state’s record $33 billion surplus to taxpayers. On Wednesday, he said the package allocated “at least $13.5 billion from our historic budget surplus to provide substantial relief to property taxpayers across Texas.” With additional money from the budget, he said they were delivering “over $18 billion in property tax cuts.” According to Ginn’s analysis, the package includes $12.7 billion in new relief and $5.3 billion from the earlier-approved state budget. Neither $13.5 billion nor $12.7 billion is half of the surplus, he points out. The combined $18 billion in property tax cuts, Ginn also points out, isn’t the largest property tax cut in state history. That occurred under Gov. Rick Perry in the 2008-2009 legislative session when the legislature passed $14.2 billion in property tax relief, he said. In order to surpass that, adjusting for inflation, “for us to have the same purchasing power of those dollars back then it would need to be about $21 billion,” he said. “This isn't the largest tax cut in history. It's substantial, it's historic, probably the second most ever.” But more problematic, he says, is the Republican-led legislature spent more money than ever before. “This session was the largest spending increase in Texas history of more than 20%,” he said. “If you look at all funds, and more than 30% if you look at state funds, the state's portion is up by a massive 30%. More than $50 billion being spent; that’s more than ever before. “If you spend too much, you can't provide as much in tax relief. That's just dollars coming from the taxpayers.” The $33 billion surplus means the state over collected taxes, he added. “That should be returned to the taxpayer. And the best way to do that,” through property tax reduction, “is through compression.” “The research that I've done on this in the past is that's the only way you can get to zero. If we really want to eliminate property taxes, which is what Governor Greg Abbott said he wants to do, you can't do it by raising the homestead exemption. You could raise the homestead exemption to $1 million, $2 million, $3 million but you're always going to have property values that are above that. So that can't get you to zero.” “Appraisal caps don't do that either,” he said, because they just slow growth, referring to the House plan, which was included in the bill. “Appraisal caps don't reduce property taxes. The only way to get to $0 per a $100 valuation, meaning a 0% tax rate, is by compression, lowering property tax rates until they get to zero. If you want to talk about limiting the growth of property taxes or a small relief, then you can talk about appraisal caps or homestead exemptions. But if you want elimination, and actually reduce them over time, the only way, the gold standard, is compression.” Ginn explained how compression works. "Rght now, when people pay property taxes to the school districts, the districts are funded at a set amount. The amount [that taxpayers overpay] that goes over the set amount, known as recapture, spills over and goes to Austin. When we talk about compression, what we're saying is we're wanting to reduce the recapture amount by the state funding a reduction in school M&O property tax rates. “You do this by using state dollars collected from taxpayers, mostly sales taxes, but also franchise taxes. The school districts still receive the same amount of money because state law requires them to be fully funded. The difference is how much [recapture money] goes to Austin or not.” Compression going to zero would eliminate recapture altogether, he explains. Recapture is one reason why “the school property tax is essentially a statewide property tax,” he said. While the M&O tax is “determined by the school finance formulas that are set by the Texas legislature, “It's local in name only. That's why the focus has been to eliminate it at the state level. Use record levels of sales taxes and surplus dollars to reduce, compress the school district property tax until it goes all the way to zero.” Original post at Washington Examiner from The Center Square. An Overview
The good news is that state officials in Texas have been debating how to provide one of the largest tax cuts in the state’s history and were even talking about eliminating school maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes. But that good news withered away in the second special session of the 88th Texas Legislature, as the amount looks to be only about $12.7 billion in new relief (an additional $5.3 billion to maintain past relief was passed in HB 1 budget) of the at least $33 billion surplus. And given that the largest property tax cut was $14.2 billion for 2008-09, the state would need to provide $21 billion in new relief this time for it to be the largest tax cut in Texas history, so Texans could have the same purchasing power of relief as they had then. While there has been a lot of debate on how the state should provide property tax relief of school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes, which comprise more than 40% of total property taxes collected by local governments across the state, the best way to provide the most relief to everyone is through compression. This is simply using state dollars—mostly through sales taxes—to buy down school district M&O property tax rates that the state mostly controls with its school finance formulas. Instead, the compromise between the House and Senate, which Governor Abbott looks poised to sign, is a watered-down approach that provides too little in relief—just $12.7 billion in new relief in SB 2 (88(2))—because they chose to spend too much. And there is too little in compression with just $7 billion for 10.7 cents per $100 valuation in reduction for school M&O property taxes. The rest is a combination of raising the homestead exemption for school districts by $60,000 to $100,000, limiting non-homestead appraisal growth to 20% for three years, and requiring three directors on appraisal district boards to be elected with counties that have a population of 75,000 or more. The next part of the package is SB 3 (88(2)), raising the franchise tax exemption for gross revenue to $2.45 million from $1 million. The final piece is HJR 2 (88(2)), which puts this package (except the compression) on the November 7, 2023, ballot for voters to consider approving. While it is good that there is so much going to tax relief, this package will make the tax system more complicated, make it more difficult to eliminate school M&O property taxes, contribute to higher school M&O property tax rates, and shift the burden around as homesteads and small businesses are chosen as the winners while renters and other employers are losers. The government should not be in the business of socially engineering people’s lives through the tax code by picking winners and losers, and this is exactly what this package does. Paths to Eliminating Property Taxes I have long researched and published on eliminating property taxes in Texas. There are different ways to do it, but the one discussed most recently by Texans for Fiscal Responsibility and Governor Abbott was the buy-down of school M&O property taxes until they’re eliminated, something I supported in a paper I co-authored in 2018. The plan has been through multiple iterations. My July 2021 co-authored paper looked at this buy-down approach of using 90% of state surplus dollars above a stricter spending limit of population growth plus inflation to compress school M&O property tax rates until they are zero within about a decade; the other approach explored in this paper was of tax reform that would broaden the sales tax base to eliminate those taxes immediately, without raising the rate, based on a dynamic economic model. Both of these were built on a strong spending limit, given spending is the ultimate burden of government on taxpayers. The latest was a December 2022 co-authored paper where we address the affordability crisis in Texas and how the buy-down plan would help with this while providing more economic growth. I also wrote a 2023 paper updating this based on how quickly this could be done if a frozen budget with zero growth was used to provide more surplus funding to eliminate these property taxes. I also wrote another 2023 paper noting how there is no need to be fearful about a recession or reduced revenue as there would be the need for spending restraint or cuts, plenty of money in the rainy day fund, or excess reserves held by school districts to address any shortfall to maintain the relief and fund public education. Adding to this research were two professors at Rice University who, in 2018, also studied different reforms of the buy-down approach and the sales tax expansion approach to eliminate school M&O property taxes. They found that these approaches would provide substantial benefits to the state in terms of increased economic growth and job creation. After reviewing different options for the buy-down approach, compression is best because everyone benefits, including from the dynamic effects of more growth, more jobs, and lower prices. It’s also the only way that’s being discussed today to get the school M&O property tax rate to 0%. Another approach to provide property tax relief was pushed by the Senate this year and looks to be included in the bill passed in the second special session: raising the homestead exemption from $40,000 to $100,000. But this approach will never eliminate those taxes and will push the burden of funding spending to everyone else, making the system less equitable while quickly evaporating any relief from appraisal growth and making the path to elimination harder because rates will rise from it when school spending increases. Given the different approaches discussed this year by the House and governor and then the Senate and lieutenant governor, I did an analysis of the median valued home in Texas of $350,000 in Austin, Houston, and Dallas. I used the tax rates for each of these locations and had the home increase in value by 10% per year, which is the maximum growth for a homestead under current law. I didn’t change anything else to provide an apples-to-apples comparison of a tax reform in 2023 to estimate what would happen over the next five years given a 1) $60,000 increase in the homestead exemption, 2) SB 1 (88(1)) with $60,000 increase in the homestead exemption and 10-cent compression (similar to tax relief package in second special session), 3) HB 1 (88(1)) with 16.2-cent compression, and 4) what would be largest tax cut in Texas history of $21 billion with a 25-cent compression. I should note that this modeling is just on a homestead, so it doesn’t account for the much more broad-based effects of the compression scenarios. Austin The following three charts are for Austin, including Austin ISD, to see what these four scenarios would look like given the assumptions above in each year. The first chart shows what would happen for total property taxes (i.e. ISD, city, county, and special purpose district property taxes) under these scenarios compared with the total tax paid of $5,945 for a $350,000 home in Austin. The results show that SB 1 and the 25-cent compression are similar; however, both of them would have only one year of lower total property taxes until 2025, when the amount paid would exceed that of 2023. The second chart shows similar results as SB 1 and the 25-cent compression have the greatest effects on the 2023 ISD M&O property taxes of $3,089. However, HB1 also provides relief until 2028, when the amount paid would exceed that of 2023. But, more importantly, given these are only homesteads and don’t account for families who pay rent or own a business, the third chart’s example shows that HB 1 with 16.2-cent compression and the 25-cent compression cut the tax rate the most over time, as this compression in just 2024 continues to buy down the rate as values increase by 10%. Houston The following charts are for Houston, with similar results for each of the scenarios. Dallas The following charts are for Dallas, with similar results. In my conversations with CBS News Texas, ABC 13 Houston, and The Texan, I recently explained how compression is the gold standard to eliminate school M&O property taxes. I also recently wrote[VG1] how the Texas Legislature had the largest spending increase in Texas history this session, thereby not providing enough in property tax relief. I argued that Governor Abbott should veto the budget or at least $8 billion of budget items and use it for compression so that Texans get record relief. But that did not happen. It should be noted that compression will help renters. The Texas comptroller’s report (see Table 33 below) finds that 26% of school property taxes is passed along to renters. Businesses submit 52% of those taxes, but people pay for them through higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs, and higher rent. Simple supply and demand shows that the property taxes would rotate the private market supply of housing leftward, thereby raising rents and lowering the quantity supplied compared with the free market. In other words, the market does set the rents, but that market is distorted by property taxes, so removing those school taxes would help push down rents through competition. When the landlord has a vacancy and is paying lower property taxes, then she will lower the rent given lower cost to attract tenants. It may not happen overnight, but it will as that’s how competition works, and those businesses that don’t will be forced out of the market through losses. This wouldn’t just be a shift in supply of housing that would reduce rents; that would happen some when this tax is cut and certainly when it’s eventually eliminated, but that’s not the only way. The following chart shows that there’s movement down the demand curve as the supply curve corrects to the private supply curve (S1) rather than the distorted supply curve (S2) with the ad-valorem property tax, which will lower prices and increase the quantity supplied. This is through competition that will happen as consumers will have more negotiating power and landlords will want to rent out every unit but won’t if they don’t lower their rents, as their competition will because their costs have been reduced. From the fact that property taxes are going down, there’s a reduction in cost by the landlords, so they have the ability to get more renters at a lower rent. As renters know, if property taxes don’t go down, they will go to another location—hence more consumer power. The consumer has much power in every market if they choose to wield it, especially when government gets out of the way. Again, it wouldn’t change rents overnight, as many are in leases, but it would over time. One of the issues contributing to the affordability crisis in Texas, especially for lower-income folks, is skyrocketing property taxes. Any relief would be most appreciated by 100% of property holders through compression. Lowering school M&O property tax rates through compression is the best path for everyone to benefit from lower taxes, more economic growth, and tax rates that would go to zero. Many groups shown in the page below have already stated their support for the buy-down plan, which was supported by the governor; the House passed much of it, though that was mostly thrown out in the final package. And they needed to add HB 16 (88(2)) by State Rep. Briscoe Cain, which would put in statute the buy-down plan to zero, along with his HB 17, which would impose spending limits on local governments. Conclusion
At the end of the day, I’m glad Texans are talking about property tax relief. Other states have been cutting taxes, so Texas can’t sit back and be competitive with other states without spending less and cutting taxes, as corporate welfare makes the problems worse. The Legislature unfortunately passed a revamp of the expired Chapter 313 in HB 5 during the regular session. This new version, called Chapter 403, provides property tax abatements issued by school districts to mostly big businesses. Fortunately, when school district M&O property taxes are eliminated, this corporate welfare will be eliminated, too. There are so many reasons to eliminate property taxes. Texas will be an economic juggernaut! And what’s maybe the most important is that Texans will have more of their right to own property preserved instead of renting from the government forever with this immoral wealth tax known as property taxes. Raising the homestead exemption might be a part of the final deal, but we should remember that it picks winners and losers, is not sound tax policy, and has been tried three times (1997, 2015, and 2021) without substantial reductions in those taxes paid. I’m okay with broadening the sales tax base and eliminating school M&O property taxes immediately and using surplus dollars above a stricter spending limit to buy down sales taxes over time. This would also broaden the sales tax base for local governments, which should use those funds to buy down their own property taxes and limit their spending with a restrictive limit like the state’s based on population growth and inflation to use surplus dollars to buy down the rest until they are zero. But there isn’t the political will yet to take this approach, so the best way right now is the buy-down path for school property taxes by the state and local government buying down their own could happen over the next decade for the eventual elimination of all property taxes in Texas. The way to do this is by sufficiently reining in government spending, which the Legislature did not do this session—thereby wasting an unprecedented opportunity to do something big. Eliminate school property taxes first, then find a way to eliminate the rest. My preference is to limit all local government spending to the state’s spending limit based on population growth and inflation, and use 90% of their surpluses to buy down their own property taxes until they are zero. This is a path to giving Texans their God-given right to own property. Get tax relief done for Texans! Stop renting, start owning! Originally published by Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. This Week's Economy Ep. 16 | Why Final Sales Tax Is Least Burdensome with Less Government Spending7/7/2023 Thank you for watching the Let People Prosper Show, which today includes the 16th episode of "This Week's Economy,” where I briefly share insights every Friday on key economic and policy news across the country. Today, I cover: 1) National: Why America is headed down a road of less freedom and liberty due to ongoing excessive government spending and why a spending limit based on a maximum of the rate of population growth plus inflation would put us back on track to prosper; and 2) Sound Fiscal Policy: Why I believe that the only tax the governments should have in a 21st-century economy to fund limited government is a final sales tax, and the benefits of eliminating property, income, and corporate taxes and the problems with carbon taxes. You can watch this episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating!
For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, check out my website (https://www.vanceginn.com/) and please subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment. Today, I'm honored to be joined by Patrick Gleason, Vice President of State Affairs at Americans for Tax Reform. We discuss: 1) How the state flat tax revolution has swept across the country over the last two years, which states have joined, and why it is a beneficial change for more flourishing; 2) Misconceptions about flat taxes, Kansas as an example of how to make tax relief fail, and the need for responsible state budgets; and 3) Patrick's current work on tax and school choice reform across states. Gleason’s bio:
You can watch this interview on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share on social media, subscribe to your favorite platform and my newsletter, like it, and leave a 5-star rating. Find show notes, thoughtful economic insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more at my website and my Substack newsletter. It's great to see that state officials in Texas are debating how to provide one of the largest tax cuts in the state's history. Unfortunately, that amount is only about $12.3 billion in new relief (an additional $5.3 billion to maintain past relief) of the at least $33 billion surplus. And given that the largest property tax cut was $14.2 billion for 2008-09, the state would need to provide $21 billion in new relief this time for it to be the largest tax cut in Texas history so that Texans can have the same purchasing power of relief as in 2008. While there's a lot of debate of how the state should provide property tax relief of school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes, the best way to provide the most relief to everyone is through compression, which is using state dollars mostly through sales taxes to buy down school district M&O property taxes that the state mostly controls with its school finance formulas, and it is the best way being discussed to get those taxes to zero. The Texas House already passed HB1 in the first special session that provides $12.4 billion for a 16.2-cent (per $100 valuation of property) compression of ISD M&O property taxes. Meanwhile, the Texas Senate already passed SB1 that provides $12.1 billion for 10-cent compression and a $60K increase in homestead exemption to $100K for ISD M&O property taxes. Texas Governor Greg Abbott then tweeted that his plan is the plan outlined by the Texas Public Policy Foundation which uses state surplus dollars for compression of ISD M&O property taxes each session until they are zero. I’m very familiar with this plan as I co-authored the original version with my former colleagues at TPPF in 2018. The plan has been through multiple iterations. My July 2021 co-authored paper looked at this buy-down approach of using 90% of state surplus dollars above a stricter spending limit of population growth plus inflation to compress school M&O property taxes until they are zero within about a decade or a tax reform that would broaden the sales tax base to eliminate those taxes immediately without raising the rate based on a dynamic economic model. And the latest was a December 2022 co-authored paper where we address the affordability crisis in Texas and how the buy down plan would help with this while providing more economic growth. I also wrote a 2023 paper updating this based on how quickly this could be done if a frozen budget with zero growth was used to provide more surplus funding to eliminate these property taxes. And I also wrote another 2023 paper noting how there is no need to fear about a recession or reduced revenue as there would be the need for spending restraint or cuts, plenty of money in the rainy day fund, or excess reserves held by school districts to address any shortfall to maintain the relief and fund public education. Two professors at Rice University also studied different reforms in 2018 of the buy down approach and the sales tax expansion approach to eliminate school M&O property taxes and they found that these would provide substantial benefits to the state. Compression is best because everyone benefits, including from the dynamic effects of more growth, more jobs, and lower prices, and it's the only way that's being discussed today to get the school M&O property tax rate to 0%. The other path by the Senate is to raise the homestead exemption from $40,000 to $100,000 but that will never eliminate those taxes and will push the burden of funding spending to everyone else making the system less equitable while evaporating any relief quickly from appraisal growth and making the path to elimination harder .because rates will rise from it. Given the different approaches being discussed by the House/Governor and Senate/Lt. Governor, I did an analysis of the median valued home in Texas of $350,000 in Austin, Houston, and Dallas. I used the tax rates for each of these locations and had the home increase in value by 10% per year, which is the maximum growth for a homestead under current law. I didn't change anything else to provide an apples-to-apples comparison of a tax reform in 2023 to estimate what would happen over the next five years given a 1) $60,000 increase in the homestead exemption, 2) SB 1 with $60,000 increase in the homestead exemption and 10-cent compression, 3) HB 1 with 16.2-cent compression, and 4) what would be largest tax cut in Texas history with a 25-cent compression. I should note that this modeling is just on a homestead so doesn’t account for the much more broad-based effects of the compression scenarios. Austin The following three charts are for Austin, including Austin ISD, to see what these four scenarios would look like given the assumptions above in each year. The first chart shows what would happen for total property taxes (i.e. ISD, city, county, and special purpose district property taxes) under these scenarios compared with the total tax paid of $5,945 for a $350,000 home in Austin, which the results show that SB 1 and the 25-cent compression are similar but both of them would have only one year of lower total property taxes until 2025 when the amount paid would exceed that of 2023. The second chart shows similar results as SB 1 and the 25-cent compression have the greatest effects on the 2023 ISD M&O property taxes of $3,089 but HB1 also provides relief until 2028 when the amount paid would exceed that of 2023. But, more importantly, given these are only homesteads and don't account for families who pay rent or own a business, the third chart shows that HB 1 with 16.2-cent compression and the 25-cent compression cut the tax rate the most over time as this compression in just 2024 continues to buy down the rate as values increase by 10% in this example. Houston The following charts are for Houston with similar results for each of the scenarios. Dallas The following charts are for Dallas with similar results. I recently explained how this would work and how compression is the gold standard with the only meaningful way to eliminate school M&O property taxes that are being discussed now in my conversation on CBS News Texas. I also recently wrote how the Texas Legislature had the largest spending increase in Texas history this session thereby not providing enough in property tax relief. I argued that Gov. Abbott should veto the budget or at least $8 billion of budget items and use it for compression so that Texans get record relief. It should be noted that compression will help renters. The Texas Comptroller's report (see figure below) finds that 26% of school property taxes are passed along to renters, and businesses submit 52% of those taxes but people pay for them through higher prices, lower wages, fewer jobs, and higher rent. Simple supply and demand shows that the property taxes would rotate the private market supply of housing leftward thereby raising rents and lowering the quantity supplied compared with the free market. In other words, the market does set the rents but that market is distorted by property taxes so removing those school taxes would help push down rents through competition. When the landlord has a vacancy and is paying lower property taxes, then she will lower the rent given lower cost to attract tenants. It may not happen overnight but it will as that’s how competition works, and those biz that don’t will by forced out of the market through losses. This wouldn't just be a shift in supply of housing that would reduce rents, which would happen some when this tax is cut and certainly when it’s eventually eliminated, but that’s not the only way. There’s also movement down the demand curve as the supply curve corrects to the private supply curve (S1) rather than the distorted supply curve (S2) with the ad-valorem property tax which will lower prices and increase the quantity supplied. This is through competition which will happen as consumers will have more negotiating power and landlords will want to rent out every unit but won’t if they don’t lower their rents as their competition will because their costs have been reduced. From the fact that property taxes are going down there’s a reduction in cost by the landlords so they have the ability to get more renters at a lower rent. And renters would know this as property taxes go down or they will go to another location. Hence, more consumer power, which the consumer has much power in every market if they choose to wield it, especially jelly when govt gets out of the way. It wouldn’t change rents overnight as many are in leases, but it would over time. One of the issues contributing to the affordability crisis in #Texas especially for lower-income folks is skyrocketing property taxes. Any relief would be most appreciated by 100% of property holders through compression. Lowering school M&O property tax rates through compression is the best path for everyone to benefit, not only from lower taxes but also more economic growth, and for those taxes to go to zero. Many groups have already stated their support for the buy down plan, which is also supported by the Governor and the House has passed much of it though they need to add HB 5 by Rep. Briscoe Cain which would put in statute the buy down plan to zero. At the end of the day, I'm glad Texans are talking about property tax relief as other states have been cutting taxes so Texas can't sit back and be competitive with other states without spending less and cutting taxes, as corporate welfare makes the problems worse. The Legislature unfortunately passed a revamp of the expired Chapter 313 in HB 5 during the regular session that is now called Chapter 403, which provides property tax abatements issued by school districts to mostly big businesses. Fortunately, when school district M&O property taxes are eliminated, this corporate welfare will be eliminated, too.
There are so many reasons to eliminate this tax. Texas will be an economic juggernaut! And what's maybe the most important is that Texans will have more of their right to own property preserved instead of renting from the government forever from this immoral wealth tax known as property taxes. Raising the homestead d emotion might be a part of the final deal, but we should remember that the homestead exemption picks winners and losers, is not sound tax policy, and has been tried three times (1997, 2015, and 2021) without substantial reductions in those taxes paid. 'm okay with broadening the sales tax base and eliminating school M&O property taxes immediately and using surplus dollars to buy down sales taxes over time. This would also broaden the sales tax base for local governments which should use those funds to buy down their own property taxes and limit their spending with a restrictive limit like the state's based on population growth and inflation to use surplus dollars to buy down the rest until they are zero. But there isn’t the political will yet do this approach so the best way right now is the buy down path for school property taxes by the state and local government buying down their own could happen over the next decade for the eventual elimination of all property taxes in Texas. The time to start doing this is now. Get tax relief done for Texans! Texas’ 88th regular legislative session, sine die as of Memorial Day, will be remembered as the one that got Texas closer to looking like California and less like the leading pro-market and limited government Lone Star State.
Instead of the desired “largest property tax cut in Texas history,” school choice, and spending restraint that would best let people prosper, legislators passed the largest increases in spending, corporate welfare, and safety nets in state history. Texas taxpayers can only hope that Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) just-called special session will help with property tax relief but there will need to be more special sessions for universal school choice and other pro-prosperity priorities. The newly passed total budget for the upcoming two-year period amounts to $321 billion, which is a 21.3% increase from what was initially appropriated in the prior period. Excluding federal funds, state funds increased by 31.7% to $219.1 billion. These are the largest increases in recent history and likely ever. And both are substantially above the rate of population growth plus inflation of 16% over the last two fiscal years. In short, legislators passed massive budget increases which aren’t conservative or responsible and will make it difficult to sustain these expenditures over time. Making matters worse, the Legislature provides over $10 billion in new corporate welfare, the largest amount in state history. This includes renewal of property tax abatements by school districts, HB 5, that had died in December 2022, money for the governor’s Texas Enterprise Fund, and subsidies for natural gas projects, movie production, broadband projects, water projects, state parks, and more. And much of this will be on the ballot this November to create new funds to spend on these efforts, which voters should reject. Instead, these expenditures should be done in the normal budget process as constitutionally dedicating these taxpayer dollars will remove them from under the constitutional spending limit, allowing the state to spend even more. Texans were quick to celebrate the movement toward new property tax relief efforts, which is a major burden for property owners across the state. And with a surplus of $33 billion, there was the opportunity to do so by rightfully returning these over collected taxes. But those cuts never materialized in the wake of less effective solutions of appraisal caps and homestead exemptions taking precedence over the previously promised historical property tax cut. The gold standard for relief of school district maintenance and operations property taxes is through compression, which means that the state uses mostly sales taxes to buy down those property tax rates and thus tax collections by the most possible. And the amount should be about $21 billion, or 25-cent compression, in inflation-adjusted dollars to have the same purchasing power today as what was the largest property tax cut of $14.2 billion in 2008. This is a critical path to eliminating nearly half of the property tax burden in Texas so people can truly own their property instead of renting from the government forever. Still, any relief provided is made much less effective with the passage of HB5, which is just Chapter 313 revamped. HB5 gives more corporate welfare to big businesses by allowing school districts to give tax breaks to companies for new buildings, thereby choosing winners and losers among school districts affected. As school districts lose property tax funds at the hands of HB5, state funds must compensate for the loss on the backs of taxpayers across the state. These big spending, big corporate welfare, and no tax relief represent a potential turning point in the wrong direction that harms a robust economy. In the first called special session this week, there has already been a bill passed by the Texas House that would provide that opportunity by compressing school district M&O property taxes by 16.2 cents per $100 valuation with $12.4 billion. The Texas Senate has a proposal that would compress those taxes by 10 cents per $100 valuation and raise the homestead exemption by $60,000 to $100,0000 with $12.1 billion. So far, Gov. Abbott has said that the call was only for compression but Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) has been pushing back. At the end of the day, compression is best as it helps everyone, is long-lasting as a share of taxable value, and, more importantly, is the only way to eliminate these taxes. But what’s still a problem is that these amounts are only about one-third of the $33 billion surplus, meaning the Legislature wants to spend more money than return to taxpayers. This is not the path to prosperity as at least $21 billion in new tax cuts is needed for this to be the largest property tax relief in Texas history. Lawmakers should prioritize responsible relief measures that encourage job growth and support initiatives that promote long-term economic prosperity by reducing spending, cutting taxes, and supporting prosperity. Originally published by The Center Square. There’s much discussion in Baton Rouge about how to best allocate scarce taxpayer money that’s overflowing the state’s coffers. A problem with $3 billion in the state’s savings accounts is that everyone has their hands out to receive some of it. But the ones who should be remembered first are the taxpayers. In this discussion, one of the bright spots is tax reform, particularly eliminating the state’s corporate franchise tax. The corporate franchise tax is levied annually on the taxable capital of corporations, including capital stock, surplus, and undivided profits. Unlike corporate income taxes, which are levied on a company’s profits, these taxes are imposed on a company’s net worth. Therefore, the tax penalizes investment and requires companies to pay the tax regardless of whether they make a profit. While it’s just three percent of the state’s revenue, it’s a large burden on businesses as only 16 states have one and two of them (i.e., Connecticut and Mississippi) are phasing theirs out. Louisiana should eliminate its corporate franchise tax, too. There were improvements to the franchise tax in the state’s 2021 tax reforms that reduced the rate and increased the minimum amount needed to begin paying the tax. Those reforms also included revenue triggers which would reduce personal income taxes and corporate franchise taxes if three revenue targets are hit. This tax could be reduced substantially this session. The first two triggers are already hit so the Legislature simply needs to add about $55 million to the rainy day fund to hit the final one and there could be at least a 50 percent cut in the corporate franchise tax rate. And State Senator Bret Allain’s SB 1 could help make this phase out more certain. Eliminating this tax would result in increased productivity, faster economic growth, higher consumption, and greater investment. We’ve been working with the Economic Research Center to examine the economic effects of eliminating this tax. Their model estimates the dynamic effects of tax changes on economic variables. Table 1 includes the dollar values reported in millions of 2012 inflation-adjusted dollars and are based on the estimates in the Congressional Budget Office’s February 2023 economic projections. Employment is represented by full-time equivalent non-farm jobs, in thousands of jobs. Removing this tax on capital would support more investment and economic output over time with the largest effect in the first year. Their results show that eliminating the costly corporate franchise tax would result in gross domestic product (GDP) increasing by $330 million, with employment increasing by at least 1,000 jobs, consumer spending increasing by $30 million, and investment jumping by $170 million in 2024.
And the inflation-adjusted value of a $212 million franchise tax cut would result in just $170 million in reduced total tax revenue because the increased economic growth, employment, and investment contributes to higher collections in other taxes, such as the personal income tax because there are more people working. Of note, the temporary reduction in tax revenue won’t affect the state’s budget. Over the last three fiscal years, the state has seen a boom in corporate income and franchise tax revenues, such that, according to law, anything collected over $600 million in this category automatically goes into a savings account—the Revenue Stabilization Fund—to help offset future decreases in revenue. This money is not even in the state’s operating budget, so it won’t be missed. Louisiana is hemorrhaging people and businesses as they move to other nearby states with better tax systems. The Legislature has a chance to stop the bleeding so the state and Louisianans can heal and become more prosperous over time. There’s a great opportunity to do so now. Lawmakers can pass a responsible budget, activate revenue triggers for tax relief, and set the state on a path toward ending this punishing tax so our state can be competitive. Originally published by Pelican Institute. News: Property Taxes Primed for a Special Session After Appraisal Reform Dispute Stalls Out5/29/2023 State leaders promised “historic” property tax relief this session, but though it is near the finish line, it will not make it past the checkered tape before the body adjourns sine die on Monday.
Last summer, Gov. Greg Abbott called on the Legislature to appropriate “at least half” of the then-$27 billion projected budget surplus to provide “the largest property tax cut ever in the history of Texas.” The comptroller’s January Biennial Revenue Estimate increased that total to $32.7 billion in the state treasury and $27 billion in the Economic Stabilization Fund, also known as the state’s savings account. That’s a lot of tax dollars to disburse, and number one on Abbott’s list was property taxes — which was also high on the list of both chambers. But after a lengthy, attention-grabbing impeachment proceeding against Attorney General Ken Paxton on Saturday afternoon, the clock ticked on toward the midnight deadline to distribute the conference committee report for the last-remaining property tax proposal. And then, some Sunday evening scrambling on a last-minute deal turned out to be more smoke than fire — the House conferees announced the signing of a deal last night, and posted a picture of them waiting for the Senate’s conferees to come sign it, but that ultimately did not happen. Details of that blueprint have not been disclosed as both sides have kept their cards close to their chest. The Texan can confirm that plan included the $12 billion for rate compression, a $70,000 standard homestead exemption, a $100,000 elderly and disabled homestead exemption, and a 7.5 percent appraisal cap on all real property. After a hastily convened meeting with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Abbott, Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) made a beeline for the House dais and adjourned the body until Monday morning with no deal announced on marquee property tax relief. Discussions continued into Monday morning but no deal was struck — appraisal caps being the point of insurmountable disagreement. Abbott tacitly weighed into the debate, gesturing at putting rate compression above all else, but it did little to move the needle one way or the other. The Texas House passed a revamped version of Senate Bill (SB) 3 on May 19 — a plan that included $12 billion for new rate compression and the 5 percent appraisal cap on all property from its original plan. But it also included a $100,000 homestead exemption, double what the Senate included in its proposal. Ultimately, the two sides could not coalesce on a compromise; the House dug its heels in for an appraisal cap reduction and extension, while the Senate dug its heels in against it. The ramped-up homestead exemption was not enough to entice the upper chamber to swallow the appraisal cap pill. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has maintained it to be a total non-starter in the upper chamber. As passed by the House, SB 3 would have amounted to $16.3 billion in property tax curtailment, plus the $5.3 billion already in the budget to maintain previous levels of compression. Because of this stalemate, and the emphasis Abbott has placed on it, property tax relief is sure to be on the list of issues for the coming special session — expected, but not yet confirmed, to start Tuesday. Property tax relief was on the governor’s list of emergency items at the beginning of the session. Even with the appraisal reform stalemate, there is a starting point of common ground between the chambers. The 2024-2025 state budget, approved by both chambers over the weekend, earmarks $17.3 billion for rate compression — $5.3 billion to maintain previous levels and $12 billion to add to it. The budget has no line item for homestead exemption increases and the appraisal cap extension would not require any financial injection. When the two bodies reconvene, it’s unclear how this stalemate could be resolved other than both just throwing up their hands and moving forward only with the rate compression — the aspect they both agree on. The previous record for the largest property tax cut is $14 billion in the mid-2000s. Both chambers of the Legislature have said their plans surpass that line — including the $5.3 billion to maintain current levels. Critics of that claim — such as Vance Ginn, former chief economist for the Texas Public Policy Foundation — have set the line at $20 billion in today’s dollars accounting for inflation, and also say that the entire sum of dollars going toward property tax relief should be allocated to compression. On top of this, add in the fact that to maintain levels of compression next biennium, the state will have to allocate the same amount of money toward it. Otherwise, tax bills will jump. Before the House adjourned sine die, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick issued a letter asking for Abbott to include the Senate’s property tax plan — a $70,000 standard homestead exemption, $30,000 elderly and disabled homestead exemption, a $25,000 business personal property tax exemption, and a business inventory tax credit — among a litany of other priorities. Despite the appraisal stalemate running out the clock on this session, the Legislature will quickly have another go at the issue and the chance to fulfill the promises made before and during the 88th regular session. Originally published by The Texan. This Week's Economy Ep 10 | Is U.S. in Recession? Will TX Pass Largest Spending Increase in HISTORY?5/26/2023 Today, I cover: 1) National: What's the latest on the debt ceiling deal, why I believe that the U.S. is in a recession based on the latest GDP report, and how inflation continues to indicate more aggressive monetary tightening by the Fed; 2) State-Level Jobs: I break down the latest state-level jobs report and share reasons for optimism and more with a focus on Texas and Louisiana. 3) Texas: What's going on with the current Texas legislative session, and why the proposed budget increase would be the largest spending increase in TX history while not passing the largest property tax relief in history. Plus, massive increases in corporate welfare, and large increases in social safety net spending, which would result in a disaster for Texans and the Texas economy. You can watch this episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor (please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating!).
For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, check out my website (https://www.vanceginn.com/) and please subscribe to my newsletter on Substack, share this post, and leave a comment. You may have heard that the state of Louisiana is facing a “fiscal cliff” and this is why the Legislature shouldn’t reduce the taxes Louisianans pay to fund the government. This claim is based on assumptions that the state’s tax collections will decline dramatically from the expiration of the “temporary” sales tax rate hike of 45 cents in fiscal year 2025 and the potential for less tax collections from slower economic growth. But this doesn’t appear to be true. Instead, the latest reports of growth of net earnings and tax revenues in Louisiana indicate these claims of a “fiscal cliff” are likely overblown. In fact, these assumptions support a historic opportunity to provide much needed tax relief by hitting the revenue triggers for more money in Louisianans’ pockets and the need for legislators to restrain government spending. Add in the $3 billion in taxpayer money in the state’s savings accounts and we can see that the claims of a “fiscal cliff” are likely overblown. There has been strong growth in net earnings that support more income for Louisianans, which has resulted in higher taxes collected, and there’s plenty of money on the sidelines in case there’s a downturn. Instead of worrying about how the bloated government will grow, we must consider struggling taxpayers across Louisiana and ensure the revenue triggers are hit for tax relief. According to the latest report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Louisiana’s personal income growth was stagnant at 0.0% to $250.7 billion in 2022, which declined when adjusting for inflation. But this was driven by the negative $10 billion (-4.0-percentage points) in transfer payments from a decline in safety net payments as the expanded child tax credit expired and more people found jobs. Just considering the factors that support increased economic growth and higher tax revenue, net earnings increased by $8.4 billion (+3.4-percentage points) and other income was up by $1.6 billion (+0.6-percentage point). And given that these gains in the productive part of the economy were in the industries that pay taxes such as manufacturing, wholesale trade, professional services, and health care, the trend of higher tax collections will likely continue thereby reducing the fear of a fiscal cliff. While there are economic headwinds with elevated inflation and rising interest rates from bad policies out of D.C., Louisiana must do more to help Louisianans withstand these headwinds. A pro-growth path forward includes passing a responsible budget, not busting the spending cap, paying down debt, and hitting the revenue triggers for tax relief. There have been strides to achieve these steps in the House’s budget. Table 1 shows that more spending restraint is necessary to pass a Responsible Louisiana Budget that holds spending growth to no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation, which is a good measure for the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for government spending. Table 1. Louisiana’s FY24 State Effort in House Budget Is Above Pelican’s Proposed Responsible Louisiana Budget But even if the maximum threshold of the proposed Responsible Louisiana Budget isn’t met, there’s a grand opportunity to put money into the rainy day fund to hit the triggers put in place in 2021 for substantial relief in personal income and corporate franchise taxes. The results of lower spending and lower taxes are clear from more fiscally conservative states like Florida and Texas compared with more spending and taxes like in fiscally profligate states like California and New York. Table 2 provides a comparison of these states with Louisiana in terms of economic freedom, burden government, economic prosperity, and poverty. Table 2. States with More Economic Freedom Have Better Economic Outcomes Notes: Dates in parentheses are for that year or the average of that period. Data shaded in red indicate “best,” and in blue indicate “worst” per category by state.
Economic prosperity happens when a robust private sector has a more competitive tax system, and this starts with spending restraint and limiting government. Louisiana has the keys to do this; now there needs to be political will to overcome the overblown fears of a “fiscal cliff.” If Louisiana doesn’t, there will be more losses of people and businesses. But if the Legislature achieves this pro-growth path, there will be more opportunity to let people prosper. Originally published at Pelican Institute. This Week's Economy Ep 9 | New Debt Ceiling Bill, Importance of Reducing Taxes, Gov. Spending & More5/19/2023 Don't miss the 9th episode of "This Week's Economy,” where I briefly share insights every Friday on key economic and policy news across the country. Today I cover: 1) National: Breaking down the latest debt ceiling bill and the importance of restraining government spending for helping the economy to bounce back; 2) States: How states are setting an example of better spending habits with responsible budgeting and taxation in states like Florida and Iowa; and 3) Recession: Why I believe next year's data will show that we are in a recession that is set to deepen due to ongoing stagflation, and more. You can watch this episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor (please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating!).
For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, check out my website (https://www.vanceginn.com/) and please subscribe to my newsletter on Substack (vanceginn.substack.com/). Key Point: The best way to let people prosper is free-market capitalism. Unfortunately, government has created a situation where inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings are down year-over-year for 25 straight months and economic growth is anemic. Overview: Government failures drove the “shutdown recession” and stagflationary period over the last three years that has plagued Americans, with more banking problems to come. This is fueled by the debt ceiling fight and elevated inflation that has also rocked the U.S. dollar. The answer are pro-growth policies of less spending by Congress, less regulation by the Biden administration, and less money printing by the Fed. Labor Market: The Bureau of Labor Statistic recently released its U.S. jobs report for April 2023, which was another mixed report with some strengths but many weaknesses. The establishment survey is the most reported shows there were +253,000 (+2.6%) net nonfarm jobs added in April to 155.7 million employees, which has increased by +4.0 million over the last year but just +3.3 million since February 2020. However, there were cumulative revisions in the prior two months of 149,000, so on net for that reduced the net increase to just +104,000 jobs indicating a weakening labor market. Over the last month, there were +230,000 jobs (+2.7%) added in the private sector and +23,000 jobs (+2.1%) added in the government sector. Most of the private sector jobs were added in the sectors of private education and health services (+77,000), professional and business services (+43,000), and leisure and hospitality (+31,000), which these three also led over the last 12 months. But wholesale trade lost -2,200 jobs last month while no industry had job losses over the last year. The household survey increased by +139,000 jobs to 161.0 million employed in April. There have been declines in net employment in four of the last 13 months for a total increase of +3 million since April 2022 and +2.3 million since February 2020, which both are 1 million below the jobs reported in the establishment survey. This could be because of reporting issues or the number of jobs each person has in the market. The official U3 unemployment rate ticked down to 3.4% and the broader U6 underutilization rate fell to 6.6%, which both are near or at historic lows. Since February 2020, the prime-age (25-54 years old) employment-population ratio is up by 0.3pp to 80.8%, prime-age labor force participation rate was 0.3-percentage point higher at 83.3%, and the total labor-force participation rate was 0.7-percentage-point lower at 62.6% with millions of people out of the labor force holding the U3 rate artificially low. Given some improvements, challenges remain for Americans as inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings were down (-1.1%) over the last year for the 25th straight month. Economic Growth: The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’ recently released the 1st estimate for economic output for Q1:2023. Table 1 provides data over time for real total gross domestic product (GDP), measured in chained 2012 dollars, and real private GDP, which excludes government consumption expenditures and gross investment. Most of the estimates for Q4:2022 and growth in 2022 have been revised lower, providing more evidence that 2022 was a very weak economy if not a recession. Economic activity has had booms and busts since the government-imposed COVID-related restrictions in response to the pandemic and poor fiscal and monetary policies that severely hurt people’s ability to exchange and work. In 2022, the first two quarters had declines in real total (and private) GDP, providing a reason to date recessions every time since at least 1950. While the second half of 2022 looked better, those two quarters were influenced by net exports and inventories that would have made the economy much weaker. For 2022, real total GDP growth is reported +2.1% year-over-year but measured by Q4-over-Q4 the growth rate was only +0.9%, which was the slowest Q4-over-Q4 growth during a recover on record. Then the anemic growth of just +1.1% in Q1:2023 provides more reason that this is an extended recession or at least stagflation. The Atlanta Fed’s early GDPNow projection on May 8, 2023 for real total GDP growth in Q2:2023 was +2.7% based on the latest data available, but this rate has been lowered in recent quarters. Considering the last expansion from June 2009 to February 2020, there was slower real private GDP growth in the latter part of that period due to higher deficit-spending, contributing to crowding-out of the productive private sector. Congress’ excessive spending since February 2020 led to a massive increase in the national debt by nearly +$7.6 trillion that would have led to higher market interest rates. This is yet another example of how there is always an excessive government spending problem as noted in Figure 2 with federal spending and tax receipts as a share of GDP no matter if there are higher or lower tax rates. But the Fed monetized much of the new debt to keep interest rates artificially lower thereby creating higher inflation as there has been too much money chasing too few goods and services as production has been overregulated and overtaxed and workers have been given too many handouts. The Fed’s balance sheet exploded from about $4 trillion, when it was already bloated after the Great Recession, to nearly $9 trillion and is down only about 5.2% to $8.5 trillion since the record high in April 2022 after rising nearly $400 billion in March 2023 then down $200 billion since then. The Fed will need to cut its balance sheet (total assets over time) more aggressively if it is to stop manipulating markets (see this for types of assets on its balance sheet) and persistently tame inflation, as we may need deflation which hasn’t happened since 2009 given the rampant inflation over the last two years. The current annual inflation rate of the consumer price index (CPI) has been cooling since a peak of +9.1% in June 2022 but remains elevated at +4.9% in April 2023, which remains the highest since 2008 as do other key measures of inflation. After adjusting total earnings in the private sector for CPI inflation, real total earnings are up by only +2.6% since February 2020 as the shutdown recession took a huge hit on total earnings and then higher inflation hindered increased purchasing power. Just as inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, deficits and taxes are always and everywhere a spending problem. David Boaz at Cato Institute notes how this problem is from both Republicans and Democrats. In order to get control of this fiscal crisis which is contributing to a monetary crisis, the U.S. needs a fiscal rule like the Responsible American Budget (RAB) with a maximum spending limit based on the rate of population growth plus inflation. If Congress had followed this approach from 2003 to 2022, the figure below shows tax receipts, spending, and spending adjusted for only population growth plus chained-CPI inflation. Instead of an (updated) $19.0 trillion national debt increase, there could have been only a $500 billion debt increase for a $18.5 trillion swing in a positive direction that would have substantially reduced the cost of this debt to Americans. The Republican Study Committee recently noted the strength of this type of fiscal rule in its FY 2023 “Blueprint to Save America.” And to top this off, the Federal Reserve should follow a monetary rule so that the costly discretion stops creating booms and busts. Bottom Line: Stagflation will continue with the a deeper recession this year given the “zombie economy” and the unraveling of the banking sector which will hit main street hard. Instead of passing massive spending bills, the path forward should include pro-growth policies that shrink government rather than big-government, progressive policies. It’s time for limited government with sound fiscal and monetary policy that provides more opportunities for people to work and have more paths out of poverty. There is some optimism with the House Republicans debt ceiling bill package, but it’s got an uphill battle to become law with Democrats in the Senate and White House so more must be done.
Recommendations:
|
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|