FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 17, 2015
Non-Competitive Grades Harming Work, Mobility, and Opportunity for Rhode Islanders
Preponderance of Fs and Ds Should Signal Need for Change in Policy Culture
Providence, RI — The opportunity for upward mobility for many Ocean Staters continues to be hampered by a non-competitive business climate and onerous family tax burdens, as evidenced by the poor grades the State of Rhode Island received on the 2015 Report Card on Rhode Island Competitiveness, the fourth annual such report, released today by the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity.
Burdened with public policies that discourage work and a productive lifestyle, the state’s poor grades in 10 major categories (two F’s, seven D’s, and one C) reflect a government culture geared to benefit special interest insiders, while at the same time promoting job-crushing and soul-crushing dependency among the general populace.
Raising even further alarm, Rhode Island ranked dead-last, overall, when compared with report cards from other New England states.
“This report card clearly demonstrates the wreckage that decades of liberal policies have wrought upon our state. These unacceptable grades should be a wake-up call to lawmakers that a government-centric approach is not producing the social justice and self-sufficiency that Rhode Islanders crave,” suggested Mike Stenhouse, CEO for the Center. “If we want to provide more mobility and opportunity for our neighbors and entrepreneurs, we must completely reform our public policy approach. We must learn to trust in our people and remove the tax and regulatory boot of government off of their backs by advancing policies that empower the average family with choices, that reward work, and that grow the economy.”
The two categories with F grades are Infrastructure and Health Care; the seven D’s are Business Climate, Tax Burden, Spending & Debt, Employment & Income, Energy, Public Sector labor, and Living & Retirement in Rhode Island; while Education received a C-. Among the 52 sub-categories evaluated, Rhode Island received 19 F’s, 24 D’s, 5 Cs, 3 Bs, and just one lone A.
In a related 1-page brief, the Center also analyzes report card trends over recent years as well as comparisons to grades for other New England states.
The RI Report Card, originally developed for the Center by a national economist, compiles into a single document the state rankings among key economic and social indexes, as published by dozens of credible 3rd party national organizations.
The 2015 report card, with citations, as well as reports from prior years can be downloaded at RIFreedom.org/RIReportCard.
Mike Stenhouse, CEO
401.429.6115 | email@example.com
About the Center
The nonpartisan RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity is Rhode Island’s premiere free-enterprise research and advocacy organization. The mission of the 501-C-3 nonprofit organization is to return government to the people by opposing special-interest politics and advancing proven free-market solutions that can transform lives by restoring economic competitiveness, increasing educational opportunities, and protecting individual freedoms.
The Center’s 4th annual REPORT CARD demonstrates how RI’s political class continues to cater to special insiders, while depriving other Rhode Islanders of the opportunity for upward mobility, educational opportunity, and personal prosperity.[button url=”http://rifreedom.org/RIReportCard/” target=”_self” size=”medium” style=”royalblue” ] 2015 Report Card [/button]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 13, 2015
2016 Proposed Budget Does Not Address Major Problems
No Game Changing Economic Ideas
Does Not Address Long Term Structural Deficits
Continued Special-Interest Spending
Providence, RI — Governor Gina Raimondo’s proposed FY-2016 budget plan provides no game-changing ideas to boost Rhode Island’s stagnant jobs market and overall economy and does little to improve the state’s poor-rated business climate or to address long-term structural budget deficits.
By shifting money from certain side funds to the general fund and by borrowing money from the future via risky re-financing schemes, the Center rates the plan as a temporary band-aid approach, instead of major steps towards a long-term solution.
“Despite years of Rhode Island experiencing negative results, this budget continues and expands the state’s practice of assuming that government knows best, and that a few insiders in back rooms can solve our problems better than the rest of us can,” said Justin Katz, research director for the Center. “From tens of millions of dollars in phantom ‘trust us’ savings to millions more poured into slush funds for centralized economic development to a scary new ‘statewide property tax,’ several back-flips backwards overwhelm the few positive policy steps forward.”
The plan’s government-centric approach toward economic development that favors specific industries is merely an extension of the same, failed public policy approach that is responsible for putting Rhode Island into its current economic rut. The Center, instead, recommends broad based tax and spending reductions as the primary means to boost the economy.
Other than vague goals to reduce Medicaid and state personnel costs, multi-hundred million dollar deficits are still projected in future out years.
OTHER OBSERVATIONS. The Center soon plans to publish a policy brief that will povide a more detailed analysis of the budget plan, but today also makes the following observations:
- The plan gives government more power in attempting to orchestrate economic development, and is a further departure from proven free-market principles
- The plan continues the practice of new special interest spending programs at the expense of the average Rhode Islander
- The new state property tax fee is a slippery slope that could lead to this tax being applied to lower valued properties in the future
- The increased hospital fee and health insurance premium fees will likely result in more costs being passed down to consumers and will likely also lead to health insurance premium hikes
- The vendor/supplier corporate tax credit idea is a handout to special interest big corporations
- New pre-K, full-day K, and construction spending ideas are handouts to special interest unions
- The new rental taxes will be a drag on our state’s vital tourism industry, especially harming smaller entrepreneurs
- The higher cigarette tax will likely lead to even greater “black market” activity, with the state is unlikely to meet the increased $7+million revenue expectations
- The increased town tipping fees to RI Resource Recovery could lead to increased property taxes in those towns
October 14, 2014 – Providence, RI: The Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity released today a scoring-summary of the sales tax reduction plan offered by gubernatorial candidate, Allan Fung, who proposes to gradually reduce the state’s sales tax rate to 5.5% over the next four years from its current level of 7%.
According to the Center’s economic modeling program, RI-STAMP, the Fung plan would produce the following ‘dynamic’ results for the Ocean State job market and for state and municipal budgets. As compared with current baseline projections over the next four years …
A 6.25% sales tax rate in year-1 would produce 2043 new private sector jobs; would require $19.9 million in state budget savings; and would add almost $17 million statewide in new municipal revenues
A 6.00% sales tax rate in year-2 would produce 2663 new private sector jobs; would require $28.3 million in state budget savings; and would add almost $23 million statewide in new municipal revenues
A 5.75% sales tax rate in year-3 would produce 3250 new private sector jobs; would require $36.5 million in state budget savings; and would add over $29 million statewide in new municipal revenues
A 5.50% sales tax rate in year-4 would produce 3804 new private sector jobs; would require $46.3 million in state budget savings; and would add almost $36 million statewide in new municipal revenues
For years, the Center has been advocating for an immediate repeal of the sales tax, or a major reduction to 3%, as the most cost-effective way to produce tens of thousands of new jobs and to provide a major boost to Rhode Island’s stagnant economy. According to the Center’s RI-STAMP projections …
A 0.0% sales tax rate would produce 25,426 new private jobs; would require about $313 million in state budget savings; and would add about $150 million statewide in new municipal revenues.
A 3.0% sales tax rate would produce 13,424 new private jobs; would require about $47 million in state budget savings; and would add about $119 million statewide in new municipal revenues.
A detailed analysis of multiple sales tax reduction scenarios, with corresponding RI-STAMP projections, can be found here.
August, 2014 – We consistently hear Rhode Island lawmakers claim that citizens or the wealthy can “afford” some minor, new tax to pay for some new government project. That may be true in some cases.
But what is also true, in almost all cases, is that OUR STATE’S ECONOMY CANNOT AFFORD THE TAX HIKES.
A new study by the nationally renowned Mercatus Center explains this cause and effect.
Read below or go to the Mercatus page here; http://mercatus.org/publication/state-economic-prosperity-and-taxation
State Economic Prosperity and Taxation
Policymakers frequently debate how different methods of taxation affect their states’ economies. While most economists agree that higher taxes result in reduced investment and innovation, previous studies have not found overwhelming evidence that higher tax rates lead to lower economic growth.
To untangle this paradox, new research by economist Pavel Yakovlev for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University examines the effects of taxation on states’ economic performance, businesses growth, and net migration rates. The study finds that higher state taxes correlate with lower economic performance, even when controlling for various factors. The magnitude and significance of this effect varies depending on the type of taxes and the type of economic activity in question. The study analyzes the relationship between states’ economic performance and tax variables including effective average tax rates, the personal income tax, and personal income tax progressivity.
To read the study in its entirety, please see “State Economic Prosperity and Taxation.”
- A higher average tax burden reduces state economic growth. Dividing total tax revenue by gross state product (GSP) shows that a 1 percent increase in a state’s average tax rate is associated with a decrease of 1.9 percent in the growth rate of its GSP.
- Taxes impact migration patterns. If higher state taxes lead to lower economic activity and employment, it is conceivable that people will move to states with better economic prospects. Of the nine states with no personal income tax, four—Florida, Nevada, Washington, and Tennessee—are among the states with the highest population growth rates in the country in recent decades. Also, data show that a higher personal income tax rate is associated with a higher probability of residents migrating to a state with a lower tax rates.
- Income tax progressivity affects the number of new firms. The number of new firms opening in a state is a key indicator of beneficial creative destruction and innovation that will improve living standards for the state’s residents over time. Other studies have found that new firm entry accounts for 20–50 percent of a state’s overall productivity growth. The latest economic data show that the rate of start-up creation is sensitive to personal income tax progressivity. A 1 percent increase in personal income tax progressivity is associated with a reduction of 1.2 percent in the growth rate of the number of firms.
- While the data show an important relationship between GSP growth and average tax rates, the impact of average tax rates on per capita income is less clear. A 1 percent increase in a state’s average tax rate can be expected to decrease per capita income by 0.07 percent.
- As previous studies have also noted, these findings can be sensitive to the time period, statistical methods, and variables used. Nevertheless, the results still lead to a general conclusion: not all tax variables exhibit a significant correlation with the selected measures of economic activity, but when they do, the relationship is usually negative.
Higher state taxes generally reduce state economic growth, GSP, and even population. It is clear that people produce or consume less, or even move to a different state, in response to higher taxes. Not all types of tax increases can be expected to significantly harm economic outcomes, but higher taxes are generally correlated with lower standards of living.
Center’s CEO discusses the recently passed FY-2015 budget, BIG QUESTIONS for gubernatorial candidates, and the state of the state on “State of the State” cable TV.[button url=”http://vimeo.com/channels/365354/99366876″ target=”_blank” size=”medium” style=”royalblue” ] Cable TV Interview [/button]
By Mike Stenhouse, CEO
The 2015 state budget is now public. Corporate tax and estate tax cuts are in. Help for the middle class is out. In fact, the average worker is being asked to pay for reforms that benefit more well-off constituencies. Why? It’s not just a matter of fairness; it’s a question of economic stability.
Rhode Island’s poor economic performance and dismal jobs outlook can largely be attributed to high levels of taxation and regulation across all points of Rhode Island’s economic lifestyle.
An analogy can be made between a prosperous state economy and a three-legged stool, where each leg plays an equally important role in keeping balance and maintaining strength, as part of the normal economic cycle through which most individuals progress:
- First leg – workers – where individuals produce the products and services essential for a growth economy; where valuable professional experience can gained; and where individual wealth can accumulated and spent in the local economy;
- Second leg – business sector – corporations and entrepreneurs who, as managers or small business owners, guide the free-market to generate profits that further fuel the overall economy; and where, simultaneously, further personal wealth and experience can be accrued and spent;
- Third leg – investors – where wealth is put at risk via equity investment back into the business sector, further boosting the economy and creating jobs, and which provides additional opportunity to grow individual wealth; where philanthropy funds local charities; where wealth is spent on a large scale, often in retirement, and, finally; where wealth is passed down to family heirs in the hope of maintaining ongoing investment and philanthropy in the state.
All three economic roles, or legs of the stool, are equally important and are inter-dependent on each other. The free-enterprise system allows individuals move from role one to another as they choose, as they acquire capacity, or as other circumstances dictate.
A balanced, growth economy must have strength in each of its three legs: a partnership of sorts. If any one leg is out of balance or weak, likewise, the other legs – and the overall economy – will also suffer. It is this tri-lateral partnership that creates a vibrant free-market economy and a stable tax “base”, strong enough to support public assistance programs and foundational services such as education and infrastructure.
However, in recent decades in Rhode Island, excessive government interference has systematically weakened all three legs of our economic stool, limiting the capacity of individuals to move from one role to another; and at all three roles, driving many out of our state.
With high sales and property taxes in a high cost of living state, and with limited opportunity for upward mobility because of a weak jobs market, Rhode Island is a barely affordable home for many workers in low and middle income families, who have little chance of saving money and accumulating initial wealth. Yet no relief is planned in 2015 for the average worker.
With the highest corporate tax in New England and one of the worst business environments among all states, along with a dwindling consumer base, it has become very difficult for businesses and entrepreneurs to prosper in the Ocean state. Limited corporate tax relief is designated in the 2015 budget for the business sector.
For wealth that is accumulated despite these roadblocks, our state has further imposed a dis-incentive for many families to keep that wealth in Rhode Island, by charging one of the nation’s most punitive estate, or death, taxes … tending to drive high-income individuals out of our state. Some relief is also planned for wealthy investors in 2015.
Yet, while it is a positive sign that some reform is planned to fortify the two roles that generally involve higher income individuals, why are we ignoring relief for the middle class? To make matters even worse, the new gas taxes and fees on real estate transactions, vehicle inspections, and traffic court appearances, along with the new the ‘use tax’ on income, will be a direct hit on middle and low income families.
This puts the proposed 2015 budget completely out of balance.
There is, however, a policy idea on the table that would restore that balance by aiding those with lower incomes. Our Center’s sales tax reform idea, that cuts the rate to 3%, can also fortify the worker leg, leading to more family savings and creating thousands of vital, new job opportunities. If we also implement a major sales tax cut, strengthening this leg as well, this would spur consumer demand, increasing corporate profits and wealth creation in the other two legs. This is a balanced, win-win solution. Instead, Rhode Islanders are yet again looking at an unbalanced, win-lose approach.
Rhode Islanders want a government that works for everyone, not just for the well-off. We can do this by cutting corporate, estate, AND sales taxes.
The former rock star, Meatloaf, may have crooned that “two-out-of-three ain’t bad”. But when it comes to fortifying all three economic roles that are equally essential in turning around a struggling state like Rhode Island … two-out-of-three ain’t good enough!
Mike Stenhouse holds an economics degree from Harvard University.