Some state politicians are touting the results of an Ernst & Young study that purports to rank North Carolina’s business taxes as among the lowest in the nation. But this flawed study ignores basic principles of public-finance economics and most of the taxes that influence business decisions. More accurate studies that examine all relevant taxes and all types of businesses suggest that North Carolina’s tax rates are high in regional rankings, thus discouraging economic growth.
The North Carolina General Assembly is returning to Raleigh for a special session on economic development. Rather than rush to push targeted tax credits and incentives for a few, lawmakers should pursue a broader examination of the factors under their control that really influence state economic growth. The wrong direction is to enact any set of policies that increase the state bureaucracy or the ranks of lobbyists seeking to arrange special “deals” for their industrial clients.
The North Carolina Senate held a special session in mid-September to pass a bill reforming the state’s treatment of medical-malpractice issues. A key element of the legislation — instigating expert review of malpractices claims before trial and imposing a related “loser pays” rule to discourage frivolous lawsuits — would be a welcome improvement. But some of the bill’s other provisions, including price controls and subsidized insurance, are much less attractive.
It‘s been a decade since a contentious merger of three Guilford school districts, and now merger disputes are underway in Orange and Cleveland counties. Unfortunately for merger advocates, the evidence is thin that creating larger school districts improves efficiency or learning. Indeed, some studies suggest that district mergers result in more non-instructional spending and actually hurt student achievement, particularly for those in lower-income communities.
A House-Senate compromise budget for the 2003-05 biennium will cost North Carolina taxpayers another half-billion dollars a year and do little to stem the government’s long-term growth. General Fund spending will actually rise 3 percent in FY 2003-04 and 5 percent in FY 2004-05, with most of the increase over the next two fiscal years concentrated in health and human services, debt service, the UNC system, and subsidies to nonprofits. North Carolina deserves better.
The North Carolina Justice and Community Development Center released a report in May that purported to demonstrate that 60 percent of North Carolina families with children were not receiving enough income to meet a “living-income” standard. This startling statistic was the result of gross exaggerations of cost and undercounts of income, including no accounting for child support payments. Moreover, the Center’s proposed solutions would increase poverty.
State lawmakers are considering a proposed constitutional amendment to allow local governments to issue bonds without a public vote to construct convention centers, sports arenas, and other “economic development” projects. Careful research of these programs in other states reveals that they do not enhance a community’s economic growth over time. Moreover, they weaken governmental accountability to a voting public that does not favor subsidizing private businesses.
Defenders of North Carolina’s fiscal policies over the past two years argue that the state’s massive increases in sales, income, business, and other taxes were just part of a national trend. But the available data put North Carolina near the top in tax increases over the past two years, with more than $1 billion in annual fiscal impact. The state’s quick recourse to higher taxes may be one reason why its economy has been trailing the rest of the region and nation since mid-2001.
The North Carolina Senate is considering a budget plan for the 2003-05 biennium that would compound the House’s error in raising taxes in the midst of a slack economic recovery. While proponents of the plan claim that it would help families with children, the reality is that it would impose higher taxes on family purchases of such items as clothes, furniture, candy, soft drinks, and health insurance — in order to fund a $726 million increase in state spending, or 5.1 percent.
Political observers may welcome the North Carolina House’s uncharacteristic speed in devising its 2003-05 budget plan by its previously announced deadline of Easter weekend, but state taxpayers are unlikely to view its nearly $860 million in extra taxes over the next two fiscal years as timely given the weakness of the state’s economic recovery. By working harder to identify budget savings, lawmakers could have avoided the tax increase without adversely affecting teachers, prisons, or other core services of state government.
