Debate on reducing state income tax

[venture]

I haven’t seen any information on the other states.
But it’s pretty clear about what model works and what model doesn’t work for the people.

What other facts are you using to back up that statement that the model works? There weren't any other factors in why those states did well? Which states were they?

[ou48A]

What other facts are you using to back up that statement that the model works? There weren't any other factors in why those states did well? Which states were they?

While I don’t agree with him 100% of the time…
on something like this I trust his integrity to say what is right and true.

[Jersey Boss]

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." (Albert Einstein)

[onthestrip]

Very good food for thought

https://twitter.com/FBNStossel/statu...08968393015298

In the past 15 yrs, 9 states with no income tax gained $146 billion, while 9 states w/ the highest income tax lost $104 billion.

First, as stated, a source would be nice. Second, you cant even tell what this is saying. Gained 146bil...from what base, what time line, and gained exactly what? This is a totally vague tweet that one can conclude nothing from.

I haven’t seen any information on the other states.
But it’s pretty clear about what model works and what model doesn’t work for the people.

No its not clear that no tax states are better off than high tax states. Dont mistake correlation as causation. You can read here to show that no tax states are not better off than high tax states:
Laffer Debunked: States without an income tax do not enjoy stronger economic growth | Oklahoma Policy Institute

But what this tax cut will do is take away $120million+ less a year for the state to invest in things that make states perform well, like education, infrastructure, public health and safety, all the while giving only 62% of the population a small tax cut. 38% will get nothing, except for less goverment services. This only helps us stay at the bottom of education rankings and health statistics. There is absolutely no guarantee this will bring in anymore state revenue.

[ou48A]

First, as stated, a source would be nice. Second, you cant even tell what this is saying. Gained 146bil...from what base, what time line, and gained exactly what? This is a totally vague tweet that one can conclude nothing from.



No its not clear that no tax states are better off than high tax states. Dont mistake correlation as causation. You can read here to show that no tax states are not better off than high tax states:
Laffer Debunked: States without an income tax do not enjoy stronger economic growth | Oklahoma Policy Institute

But what this tax cut will do is take away $120million+ less a year for the state to invest in things that make states perform well, like education, infrastructure, public health and safety, all the while giving only 62% of the population a small tax cut. 38% will get nothing, except for less goverment services. This only helps us stay at the bottom of education rankings and health statistics. There is absolutely no guarantee this will bring in anymore state revenue.

No state income tax is a huge part of why Texas has done so well economically for many decades.
It stands to reason that other states without state income taxes would also generally do well and as a result have more money!

[jerrywall]

There are so many contributing factors to Texas doing well. Home equity loans were illegal until 1997, and even now are limited to 80% of home value, which helps protect them some from the bubble.

Also higher property and fuel taxes provide alternative funding to the state. Plus higher state sales tax.

I'd like the elimination of the state income taxes, but I don't see them as a magic bullet that some folks seem to.

[venture]

There are so many contributing factors to Texas doing well. Home equity loans were illegal until 1997, and even now are limited to 80% of home value, which helps protect them some from the bubble.

Also higher property and fuel taxes provide alternative funding to the state. Plus higher state sales tax.

I'd like the elimination of the state income taxes, but I don't see them as a magic bullet that some folks seem to.

Great points Jerry. It is clear there are many other factors that have to be considered. This is why it would be nice to actually see the details on where these numbers are coming from and which states are associated with them.

[Larry OKC]

I am generally in favor of tax cuts but this one is too little (the percentage and amount is nothing to get excited about) and too late (doesn't take effect until 2015). I am a bit leary of this tax cut because even though our rates decreased over the past few years, my State income taxes actually went up (nearly constant income, withholding etc). I have gone from getting a State refund of over $2,000 to owing the state $88 in that time period. One thing I did notice that may explain it, there used to be two methods for determining your State tax liability and you got to choose the lesser of the two methods. That option went away. i suspect everyone is paying the higher method now.

And I know it is counter-intuitive, but in nearly instance, tax cuts result in MORE revenue not less. This goes back to at least the time of JFK (gasp, a Dem). If the taxpayer is allowed to keep more of their money, they have a tendency to spend it. That means more purchases. More employees to make it, shift it & sell it. More employees earning a paycheck instead of getting unemployment and other government aid. That in turn means more spending and the cycle keeps going. Even some Republicans have bought into having to "pay for" a tax cut fallacy. You don't have to as it is largely self-sustaining. You are only moving a pile of money from one category to another. You get the income tax cut back in sales taxes, property taxes, decreases in expenditures for social services etc.

[onthestrip]

No state income tax is a huge part of why Texas has done so well economically for many decades.
It stands to reason that other states without state income taxes would also generally do well and as a result have more money!

One state that has no income taxes does well means that all states would do well without it? That is one incredible assumption. You dont think Texas has also performed well because of their oil, ports, huge agricultural industry and extremely cheap immigrant labor? Its not just because of no income tax.

All you have to do to debunk your assumption is look to the highly educated, high income earning, high quality of life, and slightly higher tax states New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. They do quite well themselves and in most areas better than Texas. Ever looked at the poverty level of Texas? Well if you dont want to take the time Ill tell you. They have the 5th highest in the country. Worse even than Oklahoma.

[ou48A]

There are so many contributing factors to Texas doing well. Home equity loans were illegal until 1997, and even now are limited to 80% of home value, which helps protect them some from the bubble.

Also higher property and fuel taxes provide alternative funding to the state. Plus higher state sales tax.

I'd like the elimination of the state income taxes, but I don't see them as a magic bullet that some folks seem to.

There is no doubt that there are many contributing factors and that why I said it was a huge part. Getting it right is like a building a business formula. Whoever has the best business formal will benefit the most.

Not having a state income tax has helped Texas a lot with relocations to its state which in turn helps drive higher property, fuel, and sales tax revenue.

I too would like the elimination of the state income taxes but it’s going to probably require a very slow transition and the increase of other tax revenue.

[ou48A]

I am generally in favor of tax cuts but this one is too little (the percentage and amount is nothing to get excited about) and too late (doesn't take effect until 2015). I am a bit leary of this tax cut because even though our rates decreased over the past few years, my State income taxes actually went up (nearly constant income, withholding etc). I have gone from getting a State refund of over $2,000 to owing the state $88 in that time period. One thing I did notice that may explain it, there used to be two methods for determining your State tax liability and you got to choose the lesser of the two methods. That option went away. i suspect everyone is paying the higher method now.

And I know it is counter-intuitive, but in nearly instance, tax cuts result in MORE revenue not less. This goes back to at least the time of JFK (gasp, a Dem). If the taxpayer is allowed to keep more of their money, they have a tendency to spend it. That means more purchases. More employees to make it, shift it & sell it. More employees earning a paycheck instead of getting unemployment and other government aid. That in turn means more spending and the cycle keeps going. Even some Republicans have bought into having to "pay for" a tax cut fallacy. You don't have to as it is largely self-sustaining. You are only moving a pile of money from one category to another. You get the income tax cut back in sales taxes, property taxes, decreases in expenditures for social services etc.

If you’re the state trying to sell a relocating company on the advantages of moving to your state it’s a huge advantage to have low or no personal income taxes to sell to the CEO and to other high ranking employees. The latest OK tax reduction IMHO is more physiologic than anything.

[onthestrip]

If you’re the state trying to sell a relocating company on the advantages of moving to your state it’s a huge advantage to have low or no personal income taxes to sell to the CEO and to other high ranking employees. The latest OK tax reduction IMHO is more physiologic than anything.

Polls of business owners show that they prefer an educated workforce and high quality of life over personal income taxes. The state chamber of commerce did one not long ago that showed the importance of personal income taxes ranked lower than several other factors.

[ou48A]

One state that has no income taxes does well means that all states would do well without it? That is one incredible assumption. You dont think Texas has also performed well because of their oil, ports, huge agricultural industry and extremely cheap immigrant labor? Its not just because of no income tax.

All you have to do to debunk your assumption is look to the highly educated, high income earning, high quality of life, and slightly higher tax states New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. They do quite well themselves and in most areas better than Texas. Ever looked at the poverty level of Texas? Well if you dont want to take the time Ill tell you. They have the 5th highest in the country. Worse even than Oklahoma.

Are you kidding, people and jobs are leaving high tax states in droves for low tax states.

There may be other reasons why some people move but the job creators like low taxes and people follow the jobs. It is self-evident that there is a connection between good job growth and low taxes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 600,000 New York residents moved to Florida over the decade….taking nearly $20 billion in adjusted growth income with them…. Florida has not state income tax. Florida, had a negative net migration of 966,934 between 2000 and 2010 – meaning nearly a million more people moved to the state than left. Texas also has a negative net migration – 807,552 – during the same time period.
Over that same time period, 208,794 Pennsylvanians moved to Florida, taking $8 billion in income.
California is also known for more onerous taxes and regulations….Between 2000 and 2010, the most recent data available, 551,914 people left California for Texas, taking $14.3 billion in income. Texas has no state income tax or estate tax…..There are plenty of examples.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/esca...dents-10-years



On this link you can get a decent idea how large numbers of people, jobs and their wealth has generally been leaving high tax states for low tax states.
Migration Data

[jerrywall]

Could those new yorkers be moving because they're retiring, and they like the warmer climate?

[Jersey Boss]

And I know it is counter-intuitive, but in nearly instance, tax cuts result in MORE revenue not less. This goes back to at least the time of JFK (gasp, a Dem). If the taxpayer is allowed to keep more of their money, they have a tendency to spend it. That means more purchases. More employees to make it, shift it & sell it. More employees earning a paycheck instead of getting unemployment and other government aid. That in turn means more spending and the cycle keeps going. Even some Republicans have bought into having to "pay for" a tax cut fallacy. You don't have to as it is largely self-sustaining. You are only moving a pile of money from one category to another. You get the income tax cut back in sales taxes, property taxes, decreases in expenditures for social services etc.

This is simply not true and has been thoroughly debunked.

[jerrywall]

The truth is somewhere in the middle. There's a bell curve. Obviously, 100% income tax would stifle revenues, and 0% would also do the same. So the truth is that somewhere in the middle the most revenues can be gained.

[ou48A]

Could those new yorkers be moving because they're retiring, and they like the warmer climate?

In some cases there is no doubt that is true but the high state taxes make that decision for people from those areas who have accumulated wealth. The fleeing wealth over time harms those high state taxes.


But would very many Californians be leaving for weather reasons?
They are leaving their state in droves too.
I have met some of them in small town in Oklahoma and Kansas and their not all retiered.

[onthestrip]

As jersey boss said, it is simply not true that any time taxes are reduced it brings in more money. You only need to look to Kansas at the moment to see how that's working. Last I read they were taking money from early childhood development funds to help pay for the revenue shortage. You can also look at Oklahoma in years 2008-9 to see that it isn't true. Most economists agree.

You know if we didnt have this tax cut and were able to maybe give pay raises to state employees for first since 2006, or maybe give teachers a raise or simply spend it on health services that money is getting out right back into Oklahomans pockets. Just not all to the wealthy, connected political donors. And when you invest that money back to Oklahoma citizens and businesses, you improve the lives of all citizens, which you aren't guaranteed when you cut a small amount of taxes for the top 62%.

Just want to reiterate that 38%, over 1/3 of Oklahomans get no cut from this, just reduced quality of services. Business dont like moving to states with an uneducated and unhealthy workforce.

[Just the facts]

Once you understand that taxing authority has more to do with behavior modification/social justice and less to do with revenue generation the whole picture becomes much clearer.

[ou48A]

This is simply not true and has been thoroughly debunked.

No it hasn’t!



Do Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue? - Forbes

In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.





The next time you find yourself engaged in this debate and someone tells you that you that taxes must be raised to pay down the debt, you can refer them to this article.

[kevinpate]

... Is the turnpike between OKC and Lawton still in sorry condition for a toll road?

I don't know. It's been a long time since I was in any form of hurry to go to Lawton. I usually take the two lane roads and just enjoy the trip.

[rlewis]

Are you kidding, people and jobs are leaving high tax states in droves for low tax states.

There may be other reasons why some people move but the job creators like low taxes and people follow the jobs. It is self-evident that there is a connection between good job growth and low taxes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 600,000 New York residents moved to Florida over the decade….taking nearly $20 billion in adjusted growth income with them…. Florida has not state income tax. Florida, had a negative net migration of 966,934 between 2000 and 2010 – meaning nearly a million more people moved to the state than left. Texas also has a negative net migration – 807,552 – during the same time period.
Over that same time period, 208,794 Pennsylvanians moved to Florida, taking $8 billion in income.
California is also known for more onerous taxes and regulations….Between 2000 and 2010, the most recent data available, 551,914 people left California for Texas, taking $14.3 billion in income. Texas has no state income tax or estate tax…..There are plenty of examples.

Escape From New York? High-Taxing Empire State Loses 3.4 Million Residents in 10 Years | CNS News



On this link you can get a decent idea how large numbers of people, jobs and their wealth has generally been leaving high tax states for low tax states.
Migration Data

One interesting thing that I noticed in the migration data is that the net migration between Oklahoma and Texas swung in Oklahoma's favor in 2010. That tells you that the lack of an income tax does not assure growth. It really does boil down to quality of life. A lot of the reasons why people are leaving states like New York and California has more to do with cost of living, congestion, crime, quality of schools, etc., than the taxes they have to pay. California has been a high tax for a long time; but until recent years, it grew more than any other state in the union.

I've talked to several ex-Texans that say they moved here to get away from the rat races in DFW and Houston. I was one of them myself. Not one has mentioned that state income tax rates played any part in their decision.

I agree with jerrywall in saying that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We're already there right now. We just need to do a better job of employing the funds.

[ou48A]

One interesting thing that I noticed in the migration data is that the net migration between Oklahoma and Texas swung in Oklahoma's favor in 2010. That tells you that the lack of an income tax does not assure growth. It really does boil down to quality of life. A lot of the reasons why people are leaving states like New York and California has more to do with cost of living, congestion, crime, quality of schools, etc., than the taxes they have to pay. California has been a high tax for a long time; but until recent years, it grew more than any other state in the union.

I've talked to several ex-Texans that say they moved here to get away from the rat races in DFW and Houston. I was one of them myself. Not one has mentioned that state income tax rates played any part in their decision.

I agree with jerrywall in saying that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We're already there right now. We just need to do a better job of employing the funds.

I think there were a lot of Oklahoma’s moving home from Texas to do exactly what you say and move out of the rat race.
In many ways we have a higher quality of life.

Where the lower taxes probably come most into play is in job relocations. It helps to have lower cost of living and comparatively lower taxes are part of that lower cost of living. Job relocations often occur because of cost competitive reasons. High tax locations drive up the cost of doing business and make companies less competitive.

I would agree with you that we “need to do a better job of employing the funds.” … But that should always be the goal.

[Bunty]

And I know it is counter-intuitive, but in nearly instance, tax cuts result in MORE revenue not less. This goes back to at least the time of JFK (gasp, a Dem). If the taxpayer is allowed to keep more of their money, they have a tendency to spend it. That means more purchases. More employees to make it, shift it & sell it. More employees earning a paycheck instead of getting unemployment and other government aid. That in turn means more spending and the cycle keeps going. Even some Republicans have bought into having to "pay for" a tax cut fallacy. You don't have to as it is largely self-sustaining. You are only moving a pile of money from one category to another. You get the income tax cut back in sales taxes, property taxes, decreases in expenditures for social services etc.

Then why the hell have Republican state legislators been governing like there is so little money to spare, since the income tax has dropped from 7.25% in the 1990s to 5.25% today? 35,000 state employees haven't had a raise in pay in 6 years. HB 2146 attempted to help do something about it. It would have raised pay for correctional officers from $11.83 to $14.00. But the bill never made it to the full house. On top of that corrections is understaffed. 820 fewer workers are watching over 3000 more inmates when compared to 2001. It would be more responsible governing for legislators to quit sending so many people to prison convicted of victimless crimes. Colorado has a bigger population but sends only around half as many to prison.

Oklahoma highway patrol officers also haven't had a pay raise in 6 years and are operating with 56 fewer troopers than in 2006. At least, the House has approved a pay raise for them. Don't know if it has passed the Senate.

Funding for education still hasn't returned up to 2008 levels where it was $3.82 billion compared to $3.4 billion in 2013. More responsible governing in order to find more funding for education would be to force the smallest school districts to combine together, at least several at a time, to form a bigger school district administered by one school board. No schools would have to be closed unless the newly formed school board sees fit. But I haven't seen any interest in Republicans in trying to advance such a sensible plan.

Now I could understand the state of above, if Oklahoma has been decreasing in population, but it's hasn't. Republicans love to talk of making government smaller. Through income tax cuts it's working by making being a state government employee less desirable. But then I wonder, are legislators allowed to grant their staff members raises?

So to me, it's pretty damned easy to prove why more state income tax CUTS would be stupid, highly irresponsible governing. A growing state needs more money for government not less. More cars and especially trucks on the roads mean yet more money needed to deal with maintenance demands for that. One way to do that without raising taxes is to quit giving out tax deductions for jobs that don't create jobs. But I suppose its safe to assume that Republicans at the State Capitol lack the well to do that.

[BoulderSooner]

Then why the hell have Republican state legislators been governing like there is so little money to spare, since the income tax has dropped from 7.25% in the 1990s to 5.25% today? 35,000 state employees haven't had a raise in pay in 6 years. HB 2146 attempted to help do something about it. It would have raised pay for correctional officers from $11.83 to $14.00. But the bill never made it to the full house. On top of that corrections is understaffed. 820 fewer workers are watching over 3000 more inmates when compared to 2001. It would be more responsible governing for legislators to quit sending so many people to prison convicted of victimless crimes. Colorado has a bigger population but sends only around half as many to prison.

Oklahoma highway patrol officers also haven't had a pay raise in 6 years and are operating with 56 fewer troopers than in 2006. At least, the House has approved a pay raise for them. Don't know if it has passed the Senate.

Funding for education still hasn't returned up to 2008 levels where it was $3.82 billion compared to $3.4 billion in 2013. More responsible governing in order to find more funding for education would be to force the smallest school districts to combine together, at least several at a time, to form a bigger school district administered by one school board. No schools would have to be closed unless the newly formed school board sees fit. But I haven't seen any interest in Republicans in trying to advance such a sensible plan.

Now I could understand the state of above, if Oklahoma has been decreasing in population, but it's hasn't. Republicans love to talk of making government smaller. Through income tax cuts it's working by making being a state government employee less desirable. But then I wonder, are legislators allowed to grant their staff members raises?

So to me, it's pretty damned easy to prove why more state income tax CUTS would be stupid, highly irresponsible governing. A growing state needs more money for government not less. More cars and especially trucks on the roads means yet more money needed to deal with maintenance demand for that. One way to do that without raising taxes is to quit giving out tax deductions for jobs that don't create jobs. But I suppose its safe to assume that Republicans at the State Capitol lack the well to do that.

are the cops teachers and correctional workers underpaid??