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.
As long as conservatism remains the dominant ideology in Mississippi it will remain poor. Mississippi is to American conservatism what Detroit is to American liberalism. Both show the failures of rigid ideology. Guarantee you Mississippians will complain then in November put Phil Bryant right back in the governor's office.
....but the conservatives, on average, are not the poor ones.
I agree that rigid ideology wont produce the best results but conservatism is not the thing that it killing Mississippi, it is, to a fair point, the only thing keeping it afloat.
Taxing and spending more on social programs, education and the like wont produce much in the way of results when a lot of people don't want to put in the work. It will simply make poor people more comfortable in their poverty and increase the grift along the way.
....but the conservatives, on average, are not the poor ones.
I agree that rigid ideology wont produce the best results but conservatism is not the thing that it killing Mississippi, it is, to a fair point, the only thing keeping it afloat.
Taxing and spending more on social programs, education and the like wont produce much in the way of results when a lot of people don't want to put in the work. It will simply make poor people more comfortable in their poverty and increase the grift along the way.
Conservatives aren't the poor ones? Mississippi politics are mostly divided between white and black. If you're white you're likely republican if you're black you're likely democrat, but you can't tell me the majority of white republicans in the state are well off. Mississippi's wealthy class is a very small percentage of the state's total population.
Conservatism has been the Mississippi ideology its entire life and in 2014 it helped the state economy to contract. I don't know how you can say it's keeping it afloat when the state economy shrunk.
Conservatives aren't the poor ones? Mississippi politics are mostly divided between white and black. If you're white you're likely republican if you're black you're likely democrat, but you can't tell me the majority of white republicans in the state are well off. Mississippi's wealthy class is a very small percentage of the state's total population.
Conservatism has been the Mississippi ideology its entire life and in 2014 it helped the state economy to contract. I don't know how you can say it's keeping it afloat when the state economy shrunk.
To add. Most poor white people in this state are Republicans....
Conservatives aren't the poor ones? Mississippi politics are mostly divided between white and black. If you're white you're likely republican if you're black you're likely democrat, but you can't tell me the majority of white republicans in the state are well off. Mississippi's wealthy class is a very small percentage of the state's total population.
Conservatism has been the Mississippi ideology its entire life and in 2014 it helped the state economy to contract. I don't know how you can say it's keeping it afloat when the state economy shrunk.
The average wealth of conservatives in the state is greater than the average wealth of liberals. If that is roughly divided along racial lines than the question is, who ever is on the small end of that stick, how is that working out for you?
Your own statement proves the problem, not your point. If Blacks are democrat and worse off than republicants, how is the state going to get better if they introduce more of what isnt working?
I personally think both parties have a lot of horrid suck to them but we dont get much of a chance to pick and chose the things that work from each and other places as well.
The government spends millions trying to convince people not to smoke. To turn right around and tell them it's OK to inhale poisonous carcinogenic fumes once they are 21 is a bad idea.
The idea that a state should legalize marijuana in order to attract tech industries is about the nuttiest idea I have heard. First it's "medical marijuana'; then it's "tax money"; now it's "to attract jobs". Fact is, some people just want to smoke dope. Go where it's legal, is all I can advise.
I've spent a lot of time in Mississippi, and want to eventually relocate there. I used to work in law enforcement, so the idea of legalized marijuana at first seemed horrible. After some growing pains here in Colorado, the tax money raised has improved countless schools. There is also so much now, that some cities and towns are using it to repair infrastructure. Colorado regulates it heavily. My doctors told me to use medical marijuana. Something I had no desire to do, believe me. I don't smoke it, I use drops.
I think a bit of what I see in your post, and some others in this thread are indicitive of what some see in the south. Some people are steadfast in their opinions and not open to what others may have to say. Much like the posts of cutting taxes, I'm anti-tax as well. But, you simply can't cut taxes and borrow, you have to pay for what you're doing.
I lived in Florida, which had no state income tax, but I was charged fees for everything. High property taxes, high initial fees for vehicle registration, toll roads. You pay for it one way or the other.
Regarding the income tax rate issue, from what I've read the "type" of tax (i.e. income tax versus property tax versus sales tax) really does impact economic growth enormously.
That's because growth is created by just a handful of people, i.e. the people who use their savings, borrow money, or take on investors to develop some new technology or new use of an existing technology to bring to the market a way to do things better, faster, and cheaper than before.
An example of a new technology would be the iPhone. As a society we're able to produce a lot more, a lot faster, because of the phones. Another example would be a new drug to prevent cancer. As a result, more people (by avoiding sickness) continue to work and produce for society.
An example of the "use" of technology would be Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is known for its remarkable use of technology to track down to the penny how profit per day/ per square inch of shelf space, they are getting from each product on their shelves. They can also use information to predict exactly when to order more product as a means to minimize their inventory (warehousing) costs.
Anyway, the proportion of people in society on a day to day basis who actually invent new technologies or invent new and better uses of technology is tiny. Probably one-tenth or one percent at the most. And by and large most of these people own small companies (small meaning a few hundred employees basically).
The key to economic growth is not over-taxing that small segment of society who produce these technologies and build the companies to implement these technologies.
In Texas and Florida, their tax on small business owners is zero. In Mississippi it's 5% which is close to the average state which is around 6%. So naturally business owners in Texas and Florida are going to out-compete those in other states because their costs are automatically 5% lower. That's (a big reason) why they are growing, are we are not.
The opposing argument is that in Texas and Florida, those business owners pay higher property taxes, so what's the difference? Well apparently the property taxes on small companies usually are tiny compared to what they would pay at a 5% income tax rate. And as a result entrepreneurs and small company owners from around the world flock to those states like Texas and Florida.
What about places like North Carolina and Georgia? They don't have zero per cent income tax rates and they're growing just as fast. I believe the answer to that is that lower income tax rates, like Texas and Florida, have a huge impact when all other things are equal. However, that's not to say that other states can't offset their higher (e.g. 5%) tax rates with some other type of big economic advantage.
North Carolina began marketing the Research Triangle as far back as the 1950s to exploit the fact that they have UNC, NC State and Duke, plus the state capitol all in one area. And Charlotte became a banking capitol because somehow the state became the first to deregulate its banks and allow statewide banking, which set their banks up to expand when banks were finally allowed to expand across state lines. And Atlanta seemed to take off when they exploited their airport and position as the largest city in the South at a time when industries were moving out of the northeast and midwest into the South.
Other examples: New York lost much of its industry but thrived unlike other rust belt cities, because of Wall Street, an industry which isn't as easy (apparently) to just pick and move out of state. And California still thrives from the entertainment industry and San Francisco's tech industry which seems to have come heavily from Stanford and presumably Berkeley.
Bottom line seems to be that all things equal, when states that don't tax their small company owners' incomes (i.e. zero personal income tax rates like Texas and Florida) they will attract more small companies, which translates into more economic growth.
And when states do have higher income rates and still grow, it's probably because they have some other kind of big advantage (e.g. Wall Street, Hollywood, Research Triangle, Banking Center, Airport).
Conversely, states that do Not have any obvious big economic advantages (no Wall Street, no Hollywood, no Research Triangle)......And....they levy an income tax (e.g. 5%)....are likely to experience slower growth, which is exactly what we see in Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, etc.
So the answer is that those states that do Not have any kind of big economic advantage need to make themselves as attractive to small company owners as possible, which means having 0% income tax rates, instead generating their tax revenues like Texas and Florida do through property and sales taxes.
I can agree with this to a point. If Mississippi had in place a program for small business owners to create a business, and receive a tax break, I would certainly go along with that. Perhaps, even a manufacturing plant. But when a company like Wal-Mart wants tax breaks, infrastructure improvements, etc., then wants to pay it's employees so little that many of them still require government assistance, I can't go along with that.
You still have to have a steady tax income to pay for essential services, tax cuts don't offset enough creation. Do some research on Colorado Springs. They are very anti-tax. In the last few years they have laid off police and fire fighters, stopped maintaining city parks, shut off streetlights. Now they have no money to fix potholes, yet they complain about it. Want them fixed, but won't pay for it. Crime has risen there.
You need a good balance of tax income, slow and steady job growth, educating the kids, eliminating the brain drain.
An idea....perhaps have voters approve a hotel tax that goes specifically to job creation. The city I live in has this, and they have landed some decent companies with good paying jobs.
I can agree with this to a point. If Mississippi had in place a program for small business owners to create a business, and receive a tax break, I would certainly go along with that. Perhaps, even a manufacturing plant. But when a company like Wal-Mart wants tax breaks, infrastructure improvements, etc., then wants to pay it's employees so little that many of them still require government assistance, I can't go along with that.
You still have to have a steady tax income to pay for essential services, tax cuts don't offset enough creation. Do some research on Colorado Springs. They are very anti-tax. In the last few years they have laid off police and fire fighters, stopped maintaining city parks, shut off streetlights. Now they have no money to fix potholes, yet they complain about it. Want them fixed, but won't pay for it. Crime has risen there.
You need a good balance of tax income, slow and steady job growth, educating the kids, eliminating the brain drain.
An idea....perhaps have voters approve a hotel tax that goes specifically to job creation. The city I live in has this, and they have landed some decent companies with good paying jobs.
The legislature this past session tried to pass a bill to get rid of the state income tax. I was vehemently opposed to this for the reasons you stated above. Instead what they should have done was get rid of the corporate tax.
Many of the factors in that CNBC ranking are not direct policies that can be passed by the legislature. That's why tax rates are so important, because that's the one thing by far more significant than anything else that the state does that impacts whether business owners expand their companies.
I agree with the point about special tax breaks. Those are considered very bad for the economy because usually they are done as political favors or are based on politicians' beliefs about what the best causes of economic growth are (rather than letting the market decide). The key is flat tax rates (i.e. same rates for everyone) that keep politicians out of business investment decisions.
Back to Mississippi - since it doesn't have Atlanta's airport or North Carolina's Research Triangle (etc), it can't afford to compete with one hand tied behind its back, which in this case is by having income tax rates on business owners which are 5% higher than our larger neighbors (Texas and Florida and also Tennessee), which happen to be where virtually all the jobs are going (we know why...they have the lowest income tax rates on business owners who are the ones adding all the jobs).
If Mississippi wants job growth like Texas and Florida (and Nashville), it needs, at the very least, to compete on an equal playing field with them on income tax rates on business owners. There is no way Mississippi can compete with them on jobs when business owners can expand in those states and automatically have 5% more income due to zero income tax rates in those states.
Mississippi will still obviously generate tax revenue without having personal income taxes, i.e. through property tax, sales tax, corporate income tax and a few others. But more importantly, by making income tax rates zero like Texas, Florida and Tennessee, Mississippi will experience dramatic job growth as company owners expand in Mississippi, and consequently all the new growth will trigger a wave of new property, sales, and corporate tax revenues, thereby replacing the former income tax revenue altogether within a few years. In other words, Mississippi can eliminate the personal income tax and still have higher overall tax revenues to the government within a few years.
It appears that Phillip Gunn, speaker of the house, is the smartest of the three top state leaders (governor, lt governor, and speaker of the house) as he is the only one to propose serious tax cuts (eliminating the personal income tax) as well as changing the state flag, which although quite beautiful in my opinion, is also not helping when it comes to business expansion and competing with successfully growing states like Texas and Florida.
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.
