Posted on 01/25/2006 6:49:40 PM PST by george76
IT IS AN axiom of commerce that economic development follows Interstate highways.
Except in Vermont.
A new study by University of Vermont economist Arthur Woolf has found that development that should have come along I-91 up the Connecticut River instead came across the river — in New Hampshire.
The reason?
Higher taxes and regulations in Vermont.
“We’re seeing the gap grow larger and larger each time we do the study,”...
“Those communities along the river are really feeling the impact now.”
They are feeling the impact of taxes and regulations imposed in the 1960s and ’70s...
Vermont border counties had 3,120 fewer jobs and lost $432 million in retail sales in 2002 alone because of taxes and regulations.
Those jobs and sales went to New Hampshire.
(Excerpt) Read more at gamma.unionleader.com ...
I wonder if that counts as "outsourcing."
Plus they have that judge...
Pwogressives don't need not job from da'man. They got trust funds.
The best and brightest have and will continue to leave Vermont and Mass.
The lazy and "gifters" will continue to move to Vermont or Mass. and, then, complain...
The same issues for California and the other western states...
Quelle surprise!
Vermont should post signs...
Perverts welcome, easy jail time, lots of sympathy and young kids available.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/hl565.cfm
An American Economic Review study found that every dollar of taxes could impose as much as $4 of lost output on the economy, with the probable harm ranging between $1.32 and $1.47
Edgar K. Browning, "On the Marginal Welfare Cost of Taxation," American Economic Review, Vol. 77, No. 1 (March 1987), pp. 11-23."Another study in the Journal of Political Economy estimated that the corporate income tax costs more in lost output than it raises for the government."
Jane G. Gravelle and Laurence J. Kotlikoff, "The Incidence and Efficiency Costs of Corporate Taxation When Corporate and Noncorporate Firms Produce the Same Good," Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 97, No. 4 (1989), pp. 749-780.
STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DICK ARMEY
HEARING ON THE IMPACT ON
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES OF REPLACING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX
Committee on Ways and Means, Full Committee, 4-15-97 Testimony
Hinders Economic Opportunity
According to a study by Jane Gravelle, an economist with the Congressional Research Service, and Larry Kotlikoff, an economist at Boston University, the corporate income tax costs the economy more in lost production than it raises in revenue for the Treasury. Dale Jorgenson, the chairman of the Economics Department at Harvard University, found that each extra dollar the government raises in revenue through the current system costs the economy $1.39.
Economic Burden of Taxation
William A. Niskanen
Presented October 2003
Friedman Conference
Federal Reserve Bank Dallas page 6.
www.dallasfed.org/news/research/2003/03ftc_niskanen.pdf"Given that the elasticity c implicit in recent U.S. fiscal conditions is about 0.8 and the average tax rate is about 0.3, the marginal cost of government spending and taxes in the United States may be about $2.75 per additional dollar of tax revenue. One wonders whether there are any government programs for which the marginal value is that high. Given the estimate of the long-term elasticity c from the U.S. time-series data, the marginal cost of government spending and taxes may be as high as $4.50 at the current average tax rate. "
A Taxreform bump for you all.
If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright and replace them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.
H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information:
Hm....
They could always raise taxes and increase regulation. That'll fix the problem.
Lower tax states have balanced budgets, jobs, industry and growth. Go figure.
It must be because of the government schools.
They'll try to figure out a way to fine companies for not setting up shop in their state.
Just so people know...the 'Vermont Disadvantage' is a play on a common political phrase used in New Hampshire: 'the New Hampshire Advantage'...in reference to their historically low tax, no income tax environment.
The New Hampshire Advantage has lessened in recent years, though, as activist state courts forced an income tax on the state to pay for education. Some folks just can't afford to live in their own houses anymore, the property taxes are so high.
But the 'Live Free or Die State still looks pretty good when compared to its now socialist neighbors...
"Live FRee or Die" bump!
Whoops. I meant to say that the courts forced a property tax on the state, not an income tax.
A wonderful object lesson. They should just take a satellite pic of both sides of the river. Kind of like, this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs kind of thing. Except "this is your economy, this is your economy on oppressive taxes and regulations."
Good idea for an ad.
LOL....or they could take the OECD approach....
Demand "Tax Harmonization" between the two states......
That would cure the problem by making New Hampshire tax just like Vermont...killing their economy as well. LOL....that'll teach 'em.
Good idea!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.