Supply Siders Like Virginia’s Economic Outlook

Virginia economic performance over the past 10 years: fair-to-middling.

Virginia’s economic performance has been mediocre over the past 10 years compared to that of other states, finds the 2018 edition of “Rich States, Poor States,” but the Commonwealth’s public policy mix gives it an economic outlook rank of 10th best in the nation.

The “Rich States, Poor States” economic competitiveness rating reflects the analytical viewpoint of supply-side economists Stephen Moore and Arthur B. Laffer and gives heavy weight to tax burden, public indebtedness, size of state bureaucracy, and traditional business-climate factors such as right-to-work and average workers’ compensation costs.

Many other factors influence a state’s prospects for economic growth, such as industry mix, education and skill levels of the workforce, entrepreneurial vitality, cost of living (particularly housing), and the quality of government services. Even so, the attributes identified by “Rich States, Poor States,” now in its eleventh year of publication, clearly have considerable value in explaining differential rates of population and economic growth.

Laffer and Moore elaborated upon the importance of tax burden in a Wall Street Journal column today, in which they made the case that the capping of State and Local Tax (SALT) deductions will accelerate the movement of businesses and people — especially wealthy people — from high-tax blue states to low-tax red states. States with the highest, most progressive tax tax burden like California and New York, they predicted, will be the biggest losers. Conversely, low-tax states will be the biggest winners.

About 90% of taxpayers are unaffected by the change. But high earners in places with hefty income taxes—not just California and New York, but also Minnesota and New Jersey—will bear more of the true cost of their state government. Also in big trouble are Connecticut and Illinois, where the overall state and local tax burden (especially property taxes) is so onerous that high-income residents will feel the burn now that they can’t deduct these costs on their federal returns. On the other side are nine states—including Florida, Nevada, Texas and Washington—that impose no tax at all on earned income.

Laffer and Moore did not discuss Virginia specifically, but according to the “Rich State, Poor State” methodology, the Old Dominion has a favorable tax and business climate. Hence, all other things being equal, economic performance should fare better looking forward than it did over the past 10 years when budget sequestration and defense spending caps squeezed the Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads economies.

I would caution against making any judgments regarding short-term performance based on these numbers. Federal spending is the No. 1 economic driver in Virginia, and the state’s fortunes rise and fall to a considerable degree depending upon the vagaries of federal budget policies. Right now, Uncle Sam is in spendthrift mode, so that augurs well for us. But, as I frequently warn, what can’t go on forever… won’t. At some point, the federal spending spigot will close.

Rather, tax and business climate factors make a difference over long periods of time. They facilitate a steady drip… drip… drip… in the migration of corporate and human capital from state to state, metro to metro. A perfect example is the recently announced relocation of Gerber Products Company of its U.S. headquarters from New Jersey to Arlington. The company will invest $5 million and create 150 jobs. By itself, that one move is not terribly significant given the huge scale of the Northern Virginia economy. But if the corporate migration from New Jersey and New York to Northern Virginia is entirely one way — and it is — small investments add up over a long period of time.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

11 responses to “Supply Siders Like Virginia’s Economic Outlook”

  1. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    https://www.vachamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FORMATTED-Chamber-Economic-Update-2018Q1.pdf

    Was just reading this from our friend Fletcher Mangum, who does this report for the Virginia Chamber of Commerce. I quote: “But, except for a brief period from mid-2015 to mid-2016, Virginia’s growth in Total Nonfarm employment, although positive, continues to under-perform the national average.”

    I still believe that the continuing uncertainty over state tax rules – and whether or not Virginia will conform or not to various key federal changes – has to be providing some headwind. It could decide to conform to the rules, but then tinker with the rates. Yes, many other states are also being slow in adjusting their policies.

    We are also looking at yet another year when the General Assembly will be hard pressed to adopt its budget by June -thanks to the Senate announcement today that it wants to see the 1Q tax receipts (3Q of the fiscal year) before taking even the preliminary steps toward a conference report.

  2. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: ” Laffer and Moore elaborated upon the importance of tax burden in a Wall Street Journal column today, in which they made the case that the capping of State and Local Tax (SALT) deductions will accelerate the movement of businesses and people — especially wealthy people — from high-tax blue states to low-tax red states. States with the highest, most progressive tax tax burden like California and New York, they predicted, will be the biggest losers. Conversely, low-tax states will be the biggest winners.”

    Both of these guys were spectacularly wrong in other places they have chosen to comment on – Kansas being a prime example.

    People who live and work in Connecticut and San Francisco are NOT going to move to Alabama and Kentucky for lower taxes!

    The two guys are living in LA LA Land!

    Here’s an account of their involvement in the Kansas debacle:

    ” What others are saying about the Kansas tax deal”

    http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-commentary/article156418934.html

    1. djrippert Avatar
      djrippert

      Why do I click on links posted by LarrytheG? I had almost put that self-serving blather machine Paul Krugman out of my memory until I clicked that link and read the same old same old pablum. Ugh! The most beautiful sight in the world would be seeing Obama leaving the White House with Krugman under one arm and Hillary under the other.

      Interesting economic news today …

      1. Jobless claims have fallen to the lowest level since 1969, 48 years ago.
      2. Trade deficit dramatically shrunk

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Both Moore and Laffer are less than credible on their philosophies.

    For instance, if one looks at all of the tax expenditures in the tax law they look like this:

    https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/UserFiles/Image/specialbrief/SB_hodge_20110309-figure1-L.jpg

    Why did Trump and Congress go down the list to pick the one they did and Laffer and Moore make the case that the capping of State and Local Tax (SALT) deductions will accelerate the movement of businesses and people?

    the “movement” of businesses and people because of the Federal tax code and how it affects various states?

    Take a look at the top tax expenditures (subsidies) in the Federal code… and ask what would happen if the Feds stopped providing subsidies for those things. Would that ALSO “facilitate” business ?

  4. djrippert Avatar
    djrippert

    In any other state I’d agree with Moore and Laffer. But not Virginia. Virginia’s economy is driven by federal government spending – especially military, intelligence and homeland security. When Obama cut these areas Virginia took a hit. As Trump expands these areas Virginia will do quite well.

  5. I do feel Virginia is in a potential position to improve business climate. But thing like joining RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), if we do, tells me we want to say “NO” to industry. So that puts us vulnerable to federal government spending, and DJR says we look good there for the moment. So we can fall back on that for now, and worry about our bad economy later. Oh wait I forgot going “solar” will make us all millionaires, silly me.

    1. . . . Been mulling over your comment on joining the RGGI. First, here is what the RGGI is today: [from Wikipedia, footnotes omitted]

      “RGGI is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to cap and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power sector. RGGI compliance obligations apply to fossil-fueled power plants 25MW and larger within the ten-state region.
      RGGI establishes a regional cap on the amount of CO2 pollution that power plants can emit by issuing a limited number of tradable CO2 allowances. Each allowance represents an authorization for a regulated power plant to emit one short ton of CO2. Individual CO2 budget trading programs in each RGGI state together create a regional market for CO2 allowances.”

      What do I think of it? I would feel a lot better about it if this were something most of the States affected by it (i.e., the States with lots of fossil-fueled electric generation) were participating in — because with just a few States in RGGI, it’s wide open to the criticism, I think correctly, that it’s a “feel-good” confiscation of electric ratepayers’ money in those few States participating just to set a good “moral” example. In fact RGGI probably would be illegal if each State utilities commission simply ordered its utilities to participate; what saves RGGI from that is the specific law authorizing it in each participating State.

      Well, what is the moral case for RGGI? Basically it comes down to the moral case for re-joining the Paris Accord and fighting to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions into the atmosphere by taxing these emissions in a fair-handed way. That’s a purely political decision, and obviously it’s a decision that should be made at a National level, by Congress, the Republican leadership of which seems unlikely to take action on such matters.

      At the State level, the best I can say for this massive and costly experiment is that it shows Congress that a majority in the RGGI states, and presumably a substantial percentage elsewhere, really do care about global warming and fossil-fueled generation’s contribution to that — enough to put their money where their mouth is — demonstrating also that the cost is not enough to trigger a revolt against principle. If RGGI could win over a supermajority of the States, maybe that would have some political as well as social impact. Also, as an ongoing experiment it is a way to develop the payment and measurement mechanisms making a transition to a national law easier.

      Should Virginia join RGGI? I wouldn’t press for that; neither would I lose sleep over doing so. Carbon cap and trade is going to happen after the Dems return to power, which Trump is about to guarantee; if we join a few years early, it probably won’t hurt us much given our embedded output levels and low likelihood of huge future carbon-emitting additions (natural gas pipelines notwithstanding!)

  6. TBill,

    As I have mentioned before, the RGGI states have saved over $2 billion in energy costs over the past seven years.

    In the last 12 months, Virginia has added over $2 billion to our future energy costs due to the approval of the ACP and even more billions to the future energy costs of businesses and families by the approval of the recent energy bill.

    If your proposition is that Virginia’s energy policies are friendlier to businesses than what RGGI provides, I don’t think the data back that up.

    If we really wanted lower energy costs and more economic activity we wouldn’t promote energy projects that add to our costs and send the profits from those activities to out-of-state shareholders.

    There are much better ways to attract new businesses and workers to this state in ways that also benefit our existing companies than a continuation of the “Virginia Way”.

  7. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Here’s a more up-to-date list of the Federal Tax Expenditures.

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/screen_shot_2017-03-17_at_10.19.43_am.png

    Why did number 9 on that list get selected to “help” business?

  8. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    “Supply side” economics is voodoo economics.

    it basically views taxes collected and spent on govt as disappearing into an economic black hole – as opposed to that money – paid as salaries to govt workers – coming back into the economy – the same way it would if it were money spent on private sector products and services – going to wages than also then come back into the economy.

    Moore and Laffer convinced Kansas to do this and it ended up an unmitigated disaster… so now they’re moving on to more ideological idiocy by claiming that by hurting “blue” states on state/local tax destructibility – it will convince people and businesses to move to low tax states like Alabama and Kentucky.

    Make no mistake – Supply Side was totally exposed as Voodoo economics in Kansas… and it was their own GOP legislature that admitted it, overruled the Gov, and had to raise taxes again to fund needed services like schools.

    1. djrippert Avatar
      djrippert

      Pretty ridiculous comment. Saying supply side economics is voodoo economics is pretty typical of the dumbing down of complicated matters that I’ve come to expect from liberals. Take the old East Germany. Communist. Confiscatory taxation. Now, the two sides of Germany unify and the East Germans are allowed to keep more of their money. What happens? An economic boom. Chad has a 60% tax rate. Would it be voodoo economics to suggest that letting the people of Chad keep more of their earnings rather than giving it to the government might spur economic growth?

      If a country had a tax rate of 100% and lowered it to 50% do you think that country’s economy would grow?

      You can’t look at a single measure like tax rate and declare a change to that rate to be voodoo economics. The efficiency of public sector vs private sector matters. The absolute level of taxation matters.

      As for limiting the deductibility of SALT payments … good! New York City has decided to elect a communist as its mayor. While that’s their prerogative why should I subsidize that decision? I’d like to see the deductibility of charitable contributions severely capped. Why should billionaire jackwagons like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet be able to set up what are essentially parallel governments with tax free funds?

Leave a Reply