The plan is simple: use the fees to pay for 911 and stop charging more than that service needs. Let ratepayers keep more money in their wallets! https://t.co/dxruqUK2qx
— Patricia Morgan (@repmorgan) February 22, 2018
— michael riley (@ri1929shrugs) February 21, 2018
Regarding #6: P3 Public Private Partnerships are an alternative bond/finance & delivery system for public works projects; nothing to do with funding. Therefore, support of a P3 does NOT mean support of tolls, new taxes, or any other funding mechanism; a completely separate issue.
— Mike Stenhouse (@MSten37) February 19, 2018
Scoop is such an innocent word… Read on… Stealing would be more like it. https://t.co/IFvg5RykE4
— James (Jim) McGuire (@jimm3783349) February 18, 2018
A bond. A scoop. a bond. A scoop.
"Proposal would ‘scoop’ money from RI Housing to balance budget"https://t.co/QGghyU6uPC
— katherine gregg (@kathyprojo) February 15, 2018
Weaponized ridiculousness of political rhetoric about taxes, abortion, and Donald Trump.
If the Highway Trust Fund actually spent gas tax dollars only on roads and bridges – like an actual "user fee" – instead of on unrelated diversions like bike paths and mass transit, it would be 98% solvent for the next 10 years. WITHOUT a gas tax increase. https://t.co/85pyQdbWdU
— Akash Chougule (@AkashJC) February 14, 2018
— michael riley (@ri1929shrugs) February 14, 2018
— Patricia Morgan (@repmorgan) February 14, 2018
Translation: Republicans in Washington raised taxes on a small group of rich people and Rhode Island Democrats want to cut them. Interesting times we live in. https://t.co/yaKBQVEnaf
— Brian C. Newberry (@BrianCNewberry) February 14, 2018
Members of RIGA thinking about sidestepping cap on state and local tax deductions must understand the unintended consequences of such legislation and how if can adversely impact their constituents. https://t.co/EFJ9a8uqOh
— gary sasse (@gssasse) February 14, 2018
— Ian Donnis (@IanDon) February 14, 2018
— Monique C (@MoniqAR) February 14, 2018
CC: RI Governor. All of these problems and more apply to your toll plan, also. https://t.co/1wngvvPCEl
— Monique C (@MoniqAR) February 13, 2018
Taxes and spending are two sides of the same coin. Republicans were quick to do the easy part and cut taxes, but have shown zero willingness to make tough choices on spending.
Ignoring one undermines the other – this backroom budget deal is an affront to the American people.
— Akash Chougule (@AkashJC) February 8, 2018
— Susan Wynne (@scwynne) February 10, 2018
One can have real debates about the wisdom of driving up housing prices. If you’re trying to get started in the state, high housing prices are a huge burden. On the other hand, if you own property in Rhode Island, making property more scarce should drive up its value… at least until the inability of people to move around easily strangles the economy even more and reduces the reasons for living here in the first place.
That said, it’s worth pointing out that this sort of thing certainly plays a role:
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management announced Friday that 17 projects will receive matching grants to protect 889 acres of open space and farmland. The funding stems from the Green Economy Bond program, which was voters passed in 2016.
The initiative aims to invest $35 million to preserve open space, improve recreational facilities and clean up land and waterways.
So, taxpayers committed to spending money (with interest) on initiatives that will reduce the amount of buildable land, leaving hundreds of acres that do little for anybody who doesn’t have a lot of free time. Sure, it sounds like a nice thing to do, but it would be less of a concern if we could be confident that people understood the economics involved. The value of land is mainly helpful when one makes the decision to sell (and buy in a less-inflated market elsewhere); in the meantime, it primarily means higher property tax bills and pressure for more debt and state-level taxes to subsidize housing for those who can’t afford it.
One thing we can say for Rhode Island government: It’s great at creating tax traps that drag the economy down in ways that aren’t easily traceable back to them, while they buy votes from special interests.
Taxes, entitlements, and innovation.
if @narrabay has an extra 8 million to give citizens bank for free sewers and another 5 million to scoop for @GovRaimondo why are my sewer and water bills so expensive and if the transportation dept @ridotnews has extra money why are we borrowing billions
— smokin blunts (@bluntz401) February 8, 2018
We’re still in the period of anecdote, when it comes to assessing the effects of the federal tax cut on the economy, but Investor’s Business Daily suggests that we’re seeing early indications of a tax cut’s ability to generate revenue that takes a bit off its projected cost:
The Congressional Budget Office says that federal revenues in January added up to $362 billion. That’s an increase of $18 billion— or 5.2% — from the year before. As a result, the government ran a surplus of $51 billion that month, which is equal to the previous January. …
Individual income and payroll taxes, it says, rose by $68 billion. “That change largely reflects increases in wages and salaries,” the CBO says. …
What’s more, the fact that employment gains continue to be strong means more people will be earning taxable wage income. It also means fewer people collecting government benefits, which will mean less government spending than would otherwise be the case.
The most shocking thing is that we’re debating the cost of the legislation. Here, we see more people finding work and getting off of welfare. Those sorts of positive outcomes are supposed to be what welfare programs are about, and it turns out that economic growth accomplishes them.
So to accurately assess pro-growth policy, one must first adjust the static “cost” to account for increased revenue and then assess the benefits to individuals and our society against the remaining reduction in government revenue. Naturally, I’m biased, but it seems to me that a fair assessment will show that the U.S. and most of the states (especially high-tax ones, like Rhode Island) have a long, long way to go before cutting taxes is anything less than a no-brainer.
— Patricia Morgan (@repmorgan) February 7, 2018
Its all about growth. 80s through the late 90s the economy grew steadily and tax revenues grew with it. Conversely, between 2007 and 2009, total tax revenue in the U.S. dropped from 26.9 percent of GDP to 23.3 percent of GDP. The driver: lack of growth. https://t.co/XdbTV2TtPt
— LoughlinRI1 (@LoughlinRI1) February 4, 2018
Obama raised taxes and regualtions and USA had the weakest recovery since WWII.
Reagan and now Trump cut rate and reduced regulation.
Or check out N vs. S Korea or E vs W Germany.
Free markets, lower taxes beat socialism/welfare statism https://t.co/3xgNGwZXAA
— Grover Norquist (@GroverNorquist) January 28, 2018
The legislative onslaught from the left has begun. As the poster child of their desire for government-control over the lives of residents and businesses, Rhode Island’s progressive-Democrats announced they will introduce legislation this week to establish an estimated $13.2 billion single-payer health insurance system.
https://t.co/CLI16n4tuE Americans nationwide rejoicing market explosion ..in Rhode Island we are tolling & taxing our citizens and Praying our capital doesn't go under @projo @GovRaimondo @Jorge_Elorza
— michael riley (@ri1929shrugs) January 26, 2018
Any material impact in RI particularly on state corporate taxes? https://t.co/6Vcpx7beib
— gary sasse (@gssasse) January 27, 2018
For the Providence Journal, Jim Hummel has an article and video report on T.F. Green’s minimum charge for short-term parking and requirement for ride-sharing drivers (from, e.g., Uber and Lyft) to pick up in that lot:
Taking the statements of everybody in the report at face value, there are certainly two sides to the story. The airport has to operate on its own revenue, and ride-sharing is eating into that revenue, so the money has to come from somewhere.
That said, accommodations could surely be found so that ride-sharing drivers could pick up closer to the door and under shelter. The fee for pickups is a matter of negotiation, but convenience is a matter of protectionism.
Moreover, these are questions that we’re going to have to figure out how to answer, because technology is going to keep disrupting old arrangements like exclusive access for a single taxi company.
The Governor's budget seeks to extract significant new revenues from the public via a bevy of narrow tax and fee increases, such state sponsored sports gambling, increased marijuana usage, and “scoops” from other agencies. #BudgetRI
— RI Center for Freedom⚓️ (@RICenterFreedom) January 27, 2018