Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, and the details... your local schools are partially funded by the local property taxes, but other funding comes from the state, including money from the state income tax.
Same with roads and bridges. The gas tax pays for a large portion of it, but not even close to all.
Mississippi is already a welfare state in the fact that it receives back more Federal dollars than they pay in. I.e., Mississippi citizens are on the dole, paid for by people in other states. Removing 1/3 of the state's funding will make that even worse.
Incidentally, I have been arguing against cutting programs that don't need cutting. I AM NOT arguing against eliminating the state income tax... as long as that money is replaced elsewhere. I live in Tennessee where there is no income tax, but we have about a 10% sales tax. Recent laws requiring paying the tax on internet orders make it even more fair.
Want another way to significantly reduce the state's budget and increase income? Legalize recreational marijuana and tax the cr@p out of it. Then set everyone convicted of non-violent marijuana-related offenses free and clear their criminal records. This will empty out the prisons (at $18,000/person/year) and add to the available work force. While you're at it, significantly reduce sentences of any non-violent offenses related to other illegal drugs for the same reason.
Oh, and the details... your local schools are partially funded by the local property taxes, but other funding comes from the state, including money from the state income tax.
Same with roads and bridges. The gas tax pays for a large portion of it, but not even close to all.
Mississippi is already a welfare state in the fact that it receives back more Federal dollars than they pay in. I.e., Mississippi citizens are on the dole, paid for by people in other states. Removing 1/3 of the state's funding will make that even worse.
Incidentally, I have been arguing against cutting programs that don't need cutting. I AM NOT arguing against eliminating the state income tax... as long as that money is replaced elsewhere. I live in Tennessee where there is no income tax, but we have about a 10% sales tax. Recent laws requiring paying the tax on internet orders make it even more fair.
Want another way to significantly reduce the state's budget and increase income? Legalize recreational marijuana and tax the cr@p out of it. Then set everyone convicted of non-violent marijuana-related offenses free and clear their criminal records. This will empty out the prisons (at $18,000/person/year) and add to the available work force. While you're at it, significantly reduce sentences of any non-violent offenses related to other illegal drugs for the same reason.
There's a ballot initiative to do the latter. The person who is overseeing it is doing a very bad job at handling it and because of her ineptness it will fail https://www.facebook.com/groups/YesOnProposition48/
If they can replace the 31% revenue that they currently get income tax then fine but there's nothing in the bill doing so. I'm all for paying sales taxes for internet sales.
I've long noticed a trend that the people screaming loudest to cut government spending always want to start with the spending that benefits other people. The spending they think doesn't benefit themselves. I'd love to see someone advocating for reducing government spending by volunteering to forgo maintenance on their local roads and bridges; saying they don't need police or other emergency services; or volunteering to take care of the elderly members of their family and forgo socialist programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Anyone care to guess the number one indicator for crime? It's poverty. Sure, you have the people who will steal even if they don't have to (the wall-street bankers who caused the last economic meltdown spring to mind), plus mental illness and addiction are also way up on the list. But for the most part crime is driven by poverty-fueled desperation. For every dollar you cut from social welfare programs you'll have to spend two dollars in law enforcement and prison funding. Would you rather pay $12,000/year (scroll down for MS's numbers) to support someone on welfare, or $18,000/year to support someone in state prison? Don't forget the cost for police to catch them and courts to try them. I know which number I'd rather pay, but then I use common sense.
Anyone care to guess the number one indicator for poverty? It's lack of education. Of course, you have lack of ambition (i.e., laziness) as well as mental illness and addiction (same with crime... go figure...) also way up on the list, but lack of education leading to lack of opportunity is always at the top.
You want to reduce crime and welfare? It's quite simple: Improve education. No, a teacher getting a 20% raise won't suddenly start teaching 20% better. But a bright college student who wants to improve the world won't even consider teaching as a career if all he gets is a promise of long hours and poverty-level wages. It takes a little money to attract the best teachers, otherwise you get glorified baby-sitters who teach-to-the-test.
And no, not everyone has the mental aptitude for college, but there are different kinds of education. I follow Mike Rowe on Facebook (of Dirty Jobs and Somebody's Got to Do It fame), and he advocates for more vocational education. Teaching people how to weld, or run construction equipment, or repair air conditioners, or fit pipes, or repair electrical transmission lines. His foundation will even give you a scholarship if you qualify.
These are false dichotomies. It isnt an either or situation.
I can agree to things such as poverty is related to crime and education is related to poverty.
However, I utterly disagree with your solutions and terms. Just as you propose the solutions are about the entire system....so am I.
I just can't figure out why people are so all-fired concerned about where (oh where!) Mississippi will evah git th' money to pay for all those badly needed teachers and firemen, and how (oh, HOW!) all those bone jarring potholes will be fixed. And bridges! From the talk you would think there needs to be a newspaper called The Daily Bridge Collapse.
I am not afraid. Mississippi will get the money from somewhere. It will be from you and me, Dear Voters, never you fear that. The Light Fingered Lunatics in Legislature will not go wanting. They will find where we spend the money they let us keep and they will go to that place with law books in hand. And they will depart from that place with one more page in their book.
The trumpeting and thunderstorm with which they lowered taxes will be balanced by the silence of a snow day with which they will raise them. We must needs have balance, yes?
If caught raising taxes they will summon the nearest teacher and ask for testimony regarding the usefulness of a fat teacher.
If one citizens reports a possible L-5 fracture from riding on our streets, they will rush to save us all, and they will bring that same cursed book, too, you better believe.
I know! Pot! We could legalize pot! We could set all those addle-brained dopeheads free. What we need out here in the free world are more people whose brains are so blistered that they think inhaling poisonous smoke is fun and should be enjoyed freely by all. Surely those same people who thought so much of their vile habit that they resorted to illegal madness to support it, will now become honest hard working tax paying Mississippi Myrmidons who most cherished duty will be to pay taxes.
If low taxes are good for economic growth, why isn't Mississippi's economy growing?
Because a sound bite such as that doest encompass all that is required for growth.
low taxes are a component. It is fairly easy to observe the truth of this, even liberal places will go out of their way to abate taxes to attract business.
What is holding Mississippi back are things a lot of people refuse to believe.
1. There is no talent here. Talent does not come here and the talent that Mississippi produces, leaves. You cant build or attract business without people to work and run them.
2. In comparison and in peoples perception, Mississippi sucks. No one wants to come here. Sure, some of their reasons are based on perceptions that may not be correct.....but a lot of the ways people feel about this place are a measure of true.
This is a miserable place for outsiders. If the talent drain on the state is an indicator, it is a miserable place for many people from here, once they discover other options. 20-50 year old professionals say "no thanks."
There is no diversity here and the two groups that are here hate each other. There is nothing to do, and very few people want to have a conversation about the problems. They would rather attack the people who point them out.
On a bright note, I ate at Jaco's Tacos for the first time the other day and thought it was spectacular.
I have no problem cutting taxes if it matches corresponding spending cuts. But they never do, EVER. Politicians talk big game about tax cuts but then won't make the hard spending cuts because it means closing a school down here, not building a road there, and their constituents complain.
We've already seen what these kinds of actions do to state budgets in places like Kansas and Louisiana.
People that argue against the legalization of marijuana are the dumbest people I've ever met in my life. They will stand in your face and argue that it has to be illegal to protect people from themselves. Did the prohibition of alcohol work? No and neither has the prohibition of drugs. Why can't conservatives admit the war on drugs has been a miserable failure?
The Tax Foundation and ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) rank the states annually based on their tax rates and other government functions that impact economic investment incentives and barriers.
In recent years Mississippi has usually been ranking roughly 13th to 17th, somewhere in that range. There are roughly 8 or so states with no individual income tax, including Texas and Florida which are probably the two most popular states for businesses to expand these days. So Mississippi does have room for improvement in terms of lowering income tax rates to improve incentives for investors.
In recent years Mississippi's GDP annual growth rate has mirrored the national average. From 2002 to 2012, Mississippi's economy grew 46% and Mississippi ranked 30th in cumulative GDP growth (source is ALEC website). Presumably state tax revenues rise annually at a similar rate to annual economic growth. I found tables that show annual government tax revenues by state (US Census annual survey) but what I found was not in inflation-adjusted dollars, so it was hard to figure an annual average percentage increase in state tax revenues. I'm guessing though 3 or 4%, since Mississippi's economy grew by 46% over 10 years from 2002 to 2012.
I believe the Mississippi legislature's current proposed plan is to phase in cuts to the individual income tax over 15 years, which means the revenue cuts would be offset by the annual increase in overall tax revenues due to normal economic growth. Furthermore, as Reagan demonstrated, lower income tax rates open up new business investments that were previously sitting on the shelf due to profit projections being outweighed by risk of failure. As tax rates drop, the rewards begin to further outweigh the risks, which means more businesses choose to expand and thus we get a faster growing economy.
In other words, income tax cuts trigger more business expansions which causes more profits to be made which means, in the end, more money goes to the government than ever before, even if actual tax rates are lower.
One last thing...I would be surprised if investors would jump on new investments (due to tax cuts) presently while under the current federal administration. However, after the 2016 election depending on the outcome, I would guess that state income tax cuts would indeed trigger robust increases in investments in the state, which in turn would increase overall state government tax revenue collections, even though the actual tax rates are lower.
This was the genius of Reagan...i.e. cutting rates from around 70% to 28% which triggered a huge economic boom of the 80s, and overall tax revenues to the federal government were ultimately higher than ever.
This was the genius of Reagan...i.e. cutting rates from around 70% to 28% which triggered a huge economic boom of the 80s, and overall tax revenues to the federal government were ultimately higher than ever.
One thing about Reagan's "trickle-down economics" (a.k.a., "supply side economics")... The stock market has more than fully recovered from the recession and is at all-time highs. If you personally are similarly at a financial all-time high, then congratulations. However, if you are like the rest of us and still suffering the effects of the recession, then you are helping to prove that "trickle-down economics" don't. The money stays up.
The top 1% already has more wealth than the bottom 90%. Please explain to me why they need more tax cuts before they can create new jobs.
And since you mentioned the 80's, here's a graphs showing wealth distribution over the past several decades. Notice anything interesting with the top 1% line starting in the 80's?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
