It’s a sad fact of this age of instant cyber communication that the “Comments” section of many, if not most, Websites are bereft of intellectual heft.
All too often, the comments quickly devolve into polemics bordering on incoherence bordering on insanity. And even if the comment thread begins with at least a modicum of intellectual oomph, it often doesn’t last long.
There are exceptions, however. A great case in point can be found in the comments regarding an Allegheny Institute op-ed (posted at Townhall.com) on Frank Gamrat and Jake Haulk’s May 3 policy brief (Vol. 17, No. 20) on jobs and how they are tied to tax revenue in the Keystone State.
The bottom line of the scholars’ research was that while improvement in business and consumer optimism bodes well for Pennsylvania’s economy, myriad taxing and regulatory issues must be addressed to achieve bona fide economic betterment.
Refreshingly, the responding comments show there remain a goodly number of thinking people willing, and able, to engage in rational and polite discussion.
To wit, one poster responded:
“One of the measures of how a given state is doing is the net wealth being held by its current residents. If one rich person moves out of state (and takes all his cash and investments with him) and is replaced by one poor person, the population has not changed, but the “wealth” held within the state has certainly dropped. Future economic activity will certainly be diminished by that move.
“Also, the new (poorer) resident is likely to earn less at his job (presuming he has one) than the guy that just moved-out. That will drop the state income and sales tax revenues.”
Good point.
Then, the same respondent added this:
“I don’t have details, but I get the ‘feeling’ that much personal wealth has left most of the Northeast states during the last several decades. It would be interesting if someone were to study the ‘private per-capita-wealth’ trajectory of each state over time.”
That would be a worthy point to study.
The discussion continues with another posting:
“It would be very interesting and we both can guess the results. The Northeast economy was predicated on natural resources and transportation; this allowed steel, energy and manufacturing to blossom. You can’t replace those heavy industries with outlet malls and expect the same standard of living or tax base.”
Then there was this response:
“There is a chicken & egg question here — which came first, the outlet malls or the emigration? Climate is a substantial issue –which do you prefer: New York or North Carolina winters? But that could be countered with preferential tax policy.
“Tax policy is probably the biggest factor. People move out of the Northeast because they don’t want to pay the higher income/property/sales taxes or the estate taxes on their children’s legacy.
“It seems to me that most of the Northeast states are in a tax-induced stall. They raise tax rates (or add taxes) to cover their costs because income/wealth is moving out and the higher taxes causes more people/money/income to leave.
“They’ve got to become ‘cheap-living’ states to attract people to come and not to go –but they’ve got too many promises to keep (bonds/pensions/etc.). Sounds like a future financial train-wreck to me.”
Then, one of the prior posters continued the discussion:
“Pennsylvania government has a predatory attitude toward business and industry; they have never met a business they couldn’t drive out of the commonwealth.
“Businesses that can’t afford to leave Pennsylvania are breathing a temporary sigh of relief that (President Barack) Obama is gone, that’s all.
“The other bounce can be attributed to tourism and the halo effect of having major transportation arteries running through the state. Someone on their way from New England to the Midwest may stop at Breezewood for a coke and a sandwich; there is your economic boom.”
Added yet another commentator:
“IMHO (In my humble opinion) PA is lucky to have a mix of industries and thereby attract a diverse work force. I think we are at the point where the PA Legislature has to come to terms with the pension obligations and potential sale of the liquor store business. They will alleviate some of the problems.
“The next step would be that you cannot tax folks to point of wanting to relocate. My example will be the metro NY/NJ area where a lot of folks will be retiring around 2020 and beyond and will probably relocate to the Sun Belt states.”
Ah, how gratifying to see such civil discourse. For it keeps the discussion on point and advances the debate.
Colin McNickle is a senior fellow and media specialist at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
