What’s the Matter with Connecticut?

Economy |
By Patrick Tuohey | Read Time 2 minutes minutes

In 1971, the band Ten Years After released the song “I’d Love to Change the World” in which they bemoaned society’s troubles and offered some possible solutions, including:

Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more?

More than 40 years after that song was released, the state of Connecticut is learning a lesson from  policies that heavily tax the rich. According to the Associated Press:

New figures released last week show tax revenue from the state’s top 100 highest-paying taxpayers declined 45 percent from 2015 to 2016. The drop adds up to a $200 million revenue loss for the state…

This latest drop in tax revenues paid by the wealthy, a problem for the past several years, has exacerbated Connecticut’s current budget woes. The projected deficit for the new fiscal year beginning July 1 has now jumped from about $1.7 billion to $2.3 billion, while the deficit predicted for the second year of the state’s two-year budget is now about $2.7 billion. The state’s main spending account, the general fund, is roughly about $18 billion annually.

As the headquarters of several hedge funds, Connecticut is especially sensitive to changes in that industry. Recent fund failures have meant that investors have sought to protect themselves from risk, meaning less profit and a double whammy for the Nutmeg State.

The commissioner for the state’s Department of Revenue Services conceded to the AP that “part of revenue decline can also be attributed to ‘a handful’ of wealthy individuals who moved to more tax-friendly states.” Imagine that. If your state levies higher taxes on the wealthy than other states do, the wealthy leave. The AP story also cites a similar example in New Jersey last year.

Soak-the-rich tax policies may seem great on bumper stickers and in song lyrics, but they are no way to run an economy. As we have written, in Missouri and elsewhere governments must compete against one another. Rather than penalize producers to cover for profligate spending, government should only tax what is needed to provide basic services effectively and efficiently.

To their credit, even Ten Years After wasn’t convinced of the merits of their proposal, ending with the refrain,

I’d love to change the world
But I don’t know what to do
So I’ll leave it up to you

About the Author

Patrick Tuohey is a senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute and co-founder and policy director of the Better Cities Project. Both organizations aim to deliver the best in public policy research from around the country to local leaders, communities and voters. He works to foster understanding of the consequences — often unintended — of policies regarding economic development, taxation, education, policing, and transportation. In 2021, Patrick served as a fellow of the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas. He is currently a visiting fellow at the Yorktown Foundation for Public Policy in Virginia and also a regular opinion columnist for The Kansas City Star. Previously, Patrick served as the director of municipal policy at the Show-Me Institute. Patrick’s essays have been published widely in print and online including in newspapers around the country, The Hill, and Reason Magazine. His essays on economic development, education, and policing have been published in the three most recent editions of the Greater Kansas City Urban League’s “State of Black Kansas City.” Patrick’s work on the intersection of those topics spurred parents and activists to oppose economic development incentive projects where they are not needed and was a contributing factor in the KCPT documentary, “Our Divided City” about crime, urban blight, and public policy in Kansas City. Patrick received a bachelor’s degree from Boston College in 1993.

Similar Stories

Support Us

Headline to go here about the good with supporting us.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging