When it comes to the public policy climate for small business and entrepreneurship, Maryland is a so-so state. With its ranking of 28th on the Small Business Survival Index 2007, which was released at the beginning of November, it’s not atrocious, but it’s far from great. It’s mediocre.
On the plus side, the Index data show that Maryland has no corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT), fairly low property and consumption-based taxes, and low workers’ compensation costs. Among the negatives are an individual AMT, a death tax, a large number of health insurance mandates, high electricity costs, a poor rating on eminent domain legislation, and poor ranking on highway cost effectiveness.
Apparently, Maryland policymakers were not content with being in the middle of the pack. They apparently wanted their state to measure up FAR WORSE when compared to the other states!
So, in case you missed it, a tax package passed late last month by state lawmakers and signed into law by Governor Martin O’Malley will make Maryland a far less friendly place to do live, work, invest and do business.
Consider the increases that were imposed as part of an annual tax increase estimated at $1.4 billion – the largest tax increase since the late 1960s:
• the state’s top personal income tax rate will rise from 4.75% to 5.5%;
• the corporate income tax rate will go from 7 percent to 8.25 percent;
• the sales tax rate increases from 5 percent to 6 percent, while also being extended to computer services;
• the cigarette tax goes from $1 per pack to $2;
• the state’s car-title tax will jump from 5 percent to 6 percent;
Indeed, these tax increases seem specifically designed to raise the costs of work, investment, entrepreneurship and job creation in Maryland. If that was not the intent, it will be the result.
Showing posts with label Index. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Index. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
North Dakota, Population Loss, and Immigration
North Dakota is not exactly a hot spot.
From 2000 to 2006, only two states actually lost population. One was Louisiana, which is not surprising given Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The other was North Dakota, with a decline of almost one percent. Neighboring South Dakota grew by 3.5 percent, and the overall U.S. by 6.1 percent.
On the SBE Council Small Business Survival Index 2007, North Dakota ranked a respectable, though far from stellar 20th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Index ranks the states according to their public policy climates for entrepreneurship. There’s obviously room for improvement, especially given the fact that South Dakota ranked best in the nation, deriving big benefits from not imposing any personal income, individual capital gains, corporate income and corporate capital gains taxes.
A cover story in the November 26 USA Today (“North Dakota’s aging face: Can a culture resist change?”) is worth reading as well. It is a fairly balanced piece about the shortage of people and workers in North Dakota, coupled with a resistance among some resident to change via immigration. A couple of points are worth highlighting from the piece:
• “Attitudes along the nation's northern tier indicate that the level of anger about illegal immigration has little to do with firsthand experience. Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, North Dakota ranks 48th in terms of its percentage of foreign-born population. Montana ranks 49th.
“Yet in the month before a bipartisan effort to overhaul the nation's immigration policy collapsed last June, Montana's junior senator was inundated with calls opposing the plan, which would have offered an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship.
“‘I got more comments in one month (on the immigration bill) than I did in a whole year on Iraq,’ Tester says.”
• “Some strategists argue that lawmakers are overreacting to a vocal minority. ‘They have a megaphone from one side stuck in their ear,’ says Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster who has worked for groups advocating immigration changes that include a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.”
The article also noted that the state received a 10-year federal grant in 1999 to boost jobs and stem population loss. Surprise, surprise -- that hasn’t worked too well.
Here are a couple of obvious ideas for North Dakota to embrace. First, dramatically reduce the tax and regulatory burden in the state to make North Dakota a far more attractive place to live, work, and invest in and start up a business.
Second, embrace anyone willing to come to the state to live and work, including immigrants. The state’s members of Congress should be leading the way in supporting legislation that will not only secure our borders, but expand legal avenues for immigration for those willing to work and make a positive contribution to our country. After all, if any place needs immigrants, it’s North Dakota.
From 2000 to 2006, only two states actually lost population. One was Louisiana, which is not surprising given Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The other was North Dakota, with a decline of almost one percent. Neighboring South Dakota grew by 3.5 percent, and the overall U.S. by 6.1 percent.
On the SBE Council Small Business Survival Index 2007, North Dakota ranked a respectable, though far from stellar 20th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Index ranks the states according to their public policy climates for entrepreneurship. There’s obviously room for improvement, especially given the fact that South Dakota ranked best in the nation, deriving big benefits from not imposing any personal income, individual capital gains, corporate income and corporate capital gains taxes.
A cover story in the November 26 USA Today (“North Dakota’s aging face: Can a culture resist change?”) is worth reading as well. It is a fairly balanced piece about the shortage of people and workers in North Dakota, coupled with a resistance among some resident to change via immigration. A couple of points are worth highlighting from the piece:
• “Attitudes along the nation's northern tier indicate that the level of anger about illegal immigration has little to do with firsthand experience. Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, North Dakota ranks 48th in terms of its percentage of foreign-born population. Montana ranks 49th.
“Yet in the month before a bipartisan effort to overhaul the nation's immigration policy collapsed last June, Montana's junior senator was inundated with calls opposing the plan, which would have offered an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship.
“‘I got more comments in one month (on the immigration bill) than I did in a whole year on Iraq,’ Tester says.”
• “Some strategists argue that lawmakers are overreacting to a vocal minority. ‘They have a megaphone from one side stuck in their ear,’ says Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster who has worked for groups advocating immigration changes that include a path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.”
The article also noted that the state received a 10-year federal grant in 1999 to boost jobs and stem population loss. Surprise, surprise -- that hasn’t worked too well.
Here are a couple of obvious ideas for North Dakota to embrace. First, dramatically reduce the tax and regulatory burden in the state to make North Dakota a far more attractive place to live, work, and invest in and start up a business.
Second, embrace anyone willing to come to the state to live and work, including immigrants. The state’s members of Congress should be leading the way in supporting legislation that will not only secure our borders, but expand legal avenues for immigration for those willing to work and make a positive contribution to our country. After all, if any place needs immigrants, it’s North Dakota.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)