Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Executive summary
Proposition 103 on Novembers ballot will raise about $500 million annually for education over the next five years. It does this by increasing Colorados income tax rate from 4.63% to 5% and the state sales tax rate from 2.9% to 3%. These are the rates that existed throughout the 1990s a period of strong economic growth in Colorado. These revenues will be used to counteract deep cuts to education spending enacted in recent years and to help protect against further cuts. Opponents have argued that the increases in tax rates will slow economic growth, resulting in slower job growth than is currently projected. A thorough review of the research on economic development shows that while taxes matter, other factors, including the cost and quality of labor, quality of public services, proximity to markets and access to suppliers, are more important. Over the long term, investments in education that result in a better-educated and higher-skilled workforce will make
Colorado more attractive to businesses and help drive our economic growth. Economic analyses show that while tax increases are likely to slow job growth, increases in state spending tend to increase job growth. In fact, several studies suggest that the increased number of jobs related to additional state spending would exceed the losses due to tax increases. At a minimum, it is likely that these effects will cancel each other out. The decline in job growth driven by tax increases will likely offset the increase in job growth created through additional education spending. However, continued cuts in education spending will cost us jobs and, over the long run, will likely hurt the quality of our workforce, making Colorado less attractive to businesses and individuals looking to relocate. Passing Proposition 103 is good for Colorados students, their families and schools. It helps protect against future cuts in education spending, adds to our long-term economic competitiveness and does so without harming our economy. It is the right thing to do.
1905 Sherman Street, Suite 900, Denver, Colorado 80203 303-297-0456 www.bellpolicy.org
of growth (Chart 1). Nevada, the only state of the five with negative monthly job growth during this period, extended through 2013 an existing sales tax rate that was set to decline by 0.35 in 2011.26 However, this extension was accompanied by massive cuts to public spending. Nevada was also hit especially hard by the collapse of the housing bubble.27 According to the September 2011 Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast, Oregons 4.2 percent growth in the past year is better than all western states and the U.S. average. Oregons year-over-year increase ranks fifth-best nationally.28 Clearly, the comparison of Oregons growth with that of its neighboring states does not support the argument that increases in state taxes will automatically have a negative affect a states economic growth.
Based on these analyses, we conclude that Proposition 103 will have a negligible effect on people moving into or out of Colorado. When coupled with our states natural beauty and high quality of life, Colorado is likely to remain attractive to businesses and others looking to migrate.
Conclusion
Proposition 103 will raise much-needed revenue for education by returning income and sales tax rates to levels in place throughout the 1990s a period when Colorado experienced strong economic growth and created jobs faster than all but three other states. Economic analyses of the effects of state taxes and spending on economic growth show that while tax increases are likely to slow job growth, increases in state spending tend to increase job growth. At a minimum, it is likely that they would cancel each other out, with the decline in job growth due to increased taxes being offset by the increase in job growth created through increased education spending. However, several studies suggest that increases in the number of jobs related to additional spending would exceed the losses due to tax increases. In any case, continued cuts in education spending will cost us jobs and, over the longrun, will likely hurt the quality of our workforce, making Colorado less attractive to businesses and individuals looking to relocate. Passing Proposition 103 is good for Colorados students, their families and schools. It helps protect against future cuts in education spending, adds to our long-term economic competitiveness and does so without harming our economy. It is the right thing to do.
End notes
1
million is available to school districts beginning in early 2012 which will reduce the amount of overall cuts.
4
Colorado Legislative Council. 2011 State Ballot Information Booklet, Sept. 9, 2011. Hardin, C. (2011). Proposition 103: Loot Dreams. Colorado Springs Independent. Mitchell, N. (2011). Roller-coaster revenue ride. Education News Colorado. Because revenue estimates came in higher in June 2011 than originally anticipated, another $67.5
Colorado School Finance Project, Profile Data: 2011 Highlights, Summer 2011 Oldham, J. Colorado Voters May Raise Taxes by $3 Billion After Caps Sap School Funds. Bloomberg. Fruits, E. (2011). The Effects on Employment and Migration. Common Sense Policy Roundtable.
Poulson, B and John Merrifield, Proposition 103: What is the cost to Colorado Taxpayers?, Independence Institute. Fisher, P. & Ditsler, E. (2003). Taxes and State Economic Growth: The Myths and the Reality. The Iowa Policy Project. Fisher, P. & Ditsler, E. (2003) and Lynch, R. (2004). Rethinking Growth Strategies: How State and Local Taxes and Services Affect Economic Development. Economic Policy Institute. Lynch, R, 2004, p 43 Fisher, Ronald, The effects of state and local public services on economic development. New England Economic Review, March/April, 1997. Wasylenko, Michael, Taxation and economic development: The state of economic literature, New England Economic Review, March/April, 1997. Fisher, Ronald, March/April 1997. Clemens, J and Stephen Miran, The effects of state budget cuts on employment and income, Harvard University, May 10, 2010. Metro Denver Economic Development Corp. The Ideal Climate for Growing Talented Workers, 2011. CNBC, Americas Top States for Business 2011, June 28, 2011. Jaffe, M (2011), GE could double the size of its solar panel plant in Aurora, Denver Post, October 14, 2011. Education Week (2010). Quality Counts 2010 and Colorado
Young, C. & Varner, C. (2011). Millionaire Migration and State Taxation of Top Incomes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. National Tax Journal. Tannenwald, R., Shure, J. & Johnson, N. (2011). Tax Flight is a Myth: Higher State Taxes Bring More Revenue, Not More Migration. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Kirk, R. (2010). How Colorado Compares in State and Local Taxes. Colorado Legislative Council. Kirk, R. (2010). Hedges, C, (2003), Ten Years of TABOR, The Bell Policy Center. Snell, R. (2011). Taxes on the Horizon? National Conference of State Legislatures. Johnson, N., Nicholas, A. & Pennington, S. (2009). Tax Measures Help Balance State Budgets: A Common and Reasonable Response to Shortfalls. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Nevada Department of Taxation (2011). Tax Rate Changes. Dostal, E. (2011). Biggest spending cuts, tax increases in Nevada history wont close budget gap, Assembly speaker says. Las Vegas Sun. Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, Oregon Revenue and Economic Forecast (2011). Economic growth is based on the growth in the states coincident index, which measures nonfarm employment, the unemployment rate, and real wage and salary disbursements.
20
21
10 11
22 23
12
24
25
13 14
26 27
15
16
28
17
18