What would it cost to end homelessness in America?

On Wednesday, I went to a luncheon hosted by the Columbus Metropolitan Club on the topic of homelessness. The panelist posed a question to one of the panelists: what would it cost to end homelessness in America?

The panelist Bob Weiler, a real estate developer in Columbus, said the money exists, but the political will doesn’t. The response was useful and rang true to me, but I’m a policy analyst. I wanted to place my hand into the proverbial wound: I wanted to know how much it would cost.

So let’s do some math.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress, 653,104 people experienced homelessness during the annual point in time count in January 2023.

Let’s start with an expensive way to estimate this: comparing it to the cost of prison. Incarceration is an expensive form of housing due to the high costs of security. 

The Federal Bureau of Prisons estimated in their 2021 Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration Fee that the 2019 cost to imprison one person for a year was $39,158. If we adjust this cost for inflation to December 2023 prices, then this comes out to $46,114.24 per person in current dollars.

This means the cost to house every homeless person in the United States using this estimate of the cost to provide shelter for federal inmates would be about $30 billion. This should be considered a high-end estimate due to the high costs of providing shelter in this way.

What if we just paid for the average cost of housing across the country? According to the Apartment List National Rent Report for January 2024, the nationwide median rent in January 2024 was $1,379. This means that paying for the rent for each of these 650,000 people experiencing homelessness would cost about $11 billion.

There should be cheaper ways to house people than simply paying the median rent, but these figures suggest that on the high end, eliminating homelessness in the United States should cost somewhere from $11 billion to $30 billion per year.

How does this compare to other social spending by the federal government? Let’s look at the the top antipoverty programs in the country in the 2023 Census Bureau annual report on poverty in America to assess this question.

The top antipoverty program in the United States is Social Security, which pulled 29 million people out of poverty in 2022. The United States spent $1.5 trillion on Social Security in FY2023. This means eliminating poverty using the most expensive method above would cost about 2% of what we currently spend on social security retirement payments.

The second largest antipoverty strategy in the United States is refundable tax credits, which pulled 6.4 million Americans out of poverty in 2022. The federal government distributed about $57 billion in cash to families through the earned income tax credit in 2023. So the least efficient method we have for ending homelessness would cost a little over half as much as the federal earned income tax credit.

The third-largest anti-poverty program is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as “food stamps.” This program pulled 3.7 million Americans out of poverty in 2022. The University of Missouri’s Food & Agricultural Policy Research Institute estimates SNAP cost the federal government $112 billion in FY 2023. That means our most expensive method for ending homelessness would cost about a quarter of the annual federal spending on SNAP.

It looks like Bob was right. The money is there, the question is whether the will is there to use that money to end homelessness in America.

Can school lunches boost student achievement?

Over the past month, I’ve been working on updating the Ohio Poverty Measure, a report published by Scioto Analysis that uses local data to provide the most accurate picture of poverty across Ohio. This measure is based on other poverty measures like the California poverty measure, and the New York City poverty measure, all of which are based on the Supplemental poverty measure.

These measures improve on the official poverty measure by accounting for non-wage income that people have like SNAP benefits, subtracting unavoidable costs like work or medical expenses, and making a geographic adjustment for cost of living. 

During this research, one thing that stuck out to me was the inclusion of free and reduced breakfast and lunch at schools as an addition to income. What surprised me about this was just how inexpensive these meals were, usually only a few dollars per meal. 

This made me wonder, how much good did these free meals actually provide for students? Would increasing the accessibility of these meals be a low-cost way to substantially improve outcomes for low-to-middle income students? 

Overall, the research supports the idea that free lunch is beneficial for students. In the short run, one study found that universal free meals improved test scores for both poor and non-poor students. This suggests that there might be an effect beyond offering meals to students who otherwise might not be able to afford eating lunch. Since test scores are correlated with future earnings, this means offering school lunch could be a long-term intervention for improving human capital and fostering economic growth.

Another study found that the quality of a school lunch can have an impact on test scores. More nutritional meals in California public schools were associated with better performance on standardized tests. This effect could potentially help explain why test scores increased among non-poor students who do not receive free lunch as well as those who receive subsidized lunch. On the margins, it is likely that some students could have improved the nutritional content of their lunches by switching to the meals offered by the school. 

One study from Sweden found that the adoption of free school lunches in the 1960’s led to higher lifetime earnings for students. This is unsurprising, as we know that adolescent academic performance is associated with higher earnings as an adult. 

What are the implications of this for policymakers? Universal free lunch for students on the surface seems like it could be a valuable investment. To know for sure, a full cost-benefit analysis would be needed. The evidence we have now is enough to make the idea credible.

Still, it is important to remember that this program can be expensive. In Minnesota, where universal free lunch recently became law, lawmakers initially underestimated the costs of the program by almost $100 million, causing some to argue that the program needs to be scaled back. Other policymakers who consider free lunch programs should recognize that the demand for lunch goes well beyond poor students. 

Hopefully, Minnesota can continue their free lunch program and other states can look to it to see its effectiveness. Maybe one day, this program will enable us to measure the long-run effects that free lunch has on these students' adult outcomes.

The science behind Ohio Gov. DeWine’s gender-affirming care ban veto

In late December, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed House Bill 68, a bill to ban gender-affirming care practices for minors.

This came as a surprise to many as DeWine has often found himself embracing social conservative positions throughout his long career. And indeed, DeWine framed his decision as a conservative one in his public statements on the veto, saying his decision is “about protecting human life” and rejecting the idea that “the government knows what is best medically for a child rather than the two people who love that child the most, the parents.”

In DeWine’s statements, he says repeatedly that it was the testimony of parents and people who received gender-affirming care that this care saved their lives that swayed him. That young people who felt trapped in bodies that weren’t theirs were able to find solace in this care that turned them away from the impulses of self-destruction that gender dysphoria can spark.

What is gender-affirming care? According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s Office of Population Affairs, gender-affirming care comprises four general practices.

The most simple practice is social affirmation. This includes practices such as adopting gender-affirming hairstyles, clothing, name, gender pronouns, and use of gender-appropriate restrooms and other facilities. These signal to someone experiencing gender dysphoria that they are being socially accepted for their gender expression.

Another is puberty blockers. According to a review of gender-affirming care published in the Annual Review of Medicine last year, these are hormones that can pause pubertal development,  prevent otherwise permanent development of secondary sex characteristics that are not aligned with a person’s affirmed gender identity, and allow time for further gender exploration.

Next is hormone therapy: testosterone therapy for biological females and estrogen therapy for biological males. This sort of therapy can help development of gender-affirming characteristics and is partially reversible.

The final is gender-affirming surgery. This includes operations to change chest shape, genitals, or reproductive organs to affirm gender.

DeWine’s focus seems to be on puberty blockers and hormone therapies. He says explicitly in his public statements that he does not support gender-affirming surgery for minors. But the bill went further than that, prohibiting physicians from “prescribing a cross-sex hormone or puberty blocking drug to a minor” according to analysis of the bill by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.

The best evidence available tells us transgender and gender diverse youth have higher risk for mood disorders, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. It also tells us that these youth tend to have better mental health and well-being outcomes later in life if they receive gender-affirming care earlier rather than later.

We should acknowledge that we are still gathering data on this sort of treatment. But the early data is promising. Short- and medium-term studies have found higher sense of well-being, resolution of gender dysphoria, and even lower rates of suicidal ideation.

Like any type of treatment, there are side effects to consider. Some early evidence of impacts to bone density, growth, blood pressure, neurocognitive development, and fertility need to be taken seriously.

Overall, it seems that in this case Governor DeWine listened to the current scientific consensus: gender-affirming care can save lives, and for that reason is a viable option for families that care about the mental health and safety of their children.

This commentary first appeared in the Ohio Capital Journal.

How can we reduce the federal debt?

Coming into 2024, the current U.S. federal debt is roughly $34 trillion. That is over $100,000 of debt per person, and more importantly it is roughly 1.2 times as large as the nation's economic output. Near the end of 2023, this became a more prominent problem as the credit rating firm Moody’s lowered their evaluation of the federal debt from “stable” to “negative.”

At Scioto Analysis, we mostly spend our time talking about State and Local governments, which are not capable of financing anywhere near the same amount of debt as the federal government due to the ubiquity of balanced budget amendments. Still, the federal debt has big implications for lower forms of government. 

Safety net programs like social security and Medicaid are extremely important federal programs that could be candidates for spending cuts should the political winds blow the right way. If these programs got diminished or went away, there would be massive gaps in the state safety net that state and local government could be saddled with.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s Debt Fixer interactive tool, the federal government would need to reduce expenditures/raise taxes to generate over $6.7 trillion by 2034 in order to get the debt to GDP ratio back to 98%. Their interactive tool lets users select different policy options that have been analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office to see what certain changes would have on the overall budget (this was the inspiration for Scioto Analysis’ own State Budget Tool). 

One takeaway I have from some time with this tool is that a balanced federal budget requires both tax increases and spending cuts. It sounds obvious to say, but once you start looking at these options more closely it becomes clear why this is politically an extremely difficult option. 

Of all the options laid out by the CRFB, the most significant debt reduction policy is a wealth tax on the ultra wealthy. This would account for roughly $3.1 trillion in new revenue, less than half of the gap needed to reduce the debt to GDP ratio to 98% by 2034. Some other examples of tax policy are enacting a Value Added Tax ($2.9 trillion), increasing the corporate tax rate ($1.3 trillion), and taxing financial transactions ($1.1 trillion).

Looking at the spending side of the equation, we see that the three biggest options laid out are replacing the Affordable Care Act with state credits ($800 billion), limiting the growth of annual defense spending ($560 billion), and making Social Security benefits a flat amount ($530 billion). 

Although it is theoretically possible to reduce the debt solely by increasing taxes, it is pretty clear that this is politically infeasible. If policymakers are serious about reducing the budget deficit, there is going to need to be a mix of budget cuts and tax increases. 

Perhaps federal policymakers can learn from state and local governments at this moment. States almost universally are required to have balanced budgets, which means finding creative compromises. The drawback of requiring a balanced budget comes in periods of recession, where federal government intervention is often essential to preventing deep economic turmoil.

Although it is still unlikely that the current federal debt will result in a catastrophic economic collapse, this is still an extremely important issue. The day will eventually come where spending needs to get under control before the risk becomes too much bigger. The longer we wait before figuring the budget out, the more painful the change will be. 

Four policy stories you may have missed in 2023

2023 was a big year for policy research. We saw an update of the federal cost-benefit analysis guidelines, new evidence of the importance of state safety nets, and more. Below is a quick selection of some of the most important research from the past year. 

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4

We’ve already written about the importance of Circular A-4 on the cost-benefit analysis world, but as arguably the most consequential new written report of the last year it is worth going over again. Circular A-4 is the Office of Management and Budget’s official guidance on how to perform regulatory analysis.

This is the most important guidance for cost-benefit analysis in the United States. Broadly speaking, many of the changes to this document make it so that regulatory analysis will put more emphasis on how policies affect future generations. Not all regulatory analysis is concerned with such long timelines, but those that are will not be as short-term focused as they have been. 

Brookings Research on State Safety Nets

Just last month, Brookings released a report comparing the generosity of social safety nets in each state. By generosity, they specifically mean how eligibility changes across states (it is important to note that uptake for these programs is a separate problem). They find that safety net programs are often more generous on the East Coast, while the Deep South and Southwest regions are lacking slightly.

Additionally, this report looks at how safety net programs change over time. Unsurprisingly, the COVID-19 pandemic was responsible for the largest one-year increase in safety net generosity. The largest increase historically was after the 2008 financial crisis. 

Flint Water Crisis Shows Economic Impacts

In 2015, Flint, Michigan experienced a health crisis due to a contaminated public water system. This event garnered national attention, and the problem was eventually resolved in 2016. The health effects of the poor drinking water have been explored previously, but this year a team of researchers looked at how this event has impacted housing prices in Flint.

They found that housing prices in Flint fell by as much as 20% following the crisis and have yet to recover, despite the fact that water quality has been stable for many years. Because most Americans accumulate wealth by owning homes, this is a major economic blow to these residents. This research highlights the importance of public policy in the aftermath of major crises. The long term effects of major events are not always obvious, but they can still be extremely severe. 

Diversity among teachers shows positive long-run effects

A new study from researchers at American University has found that increasing racial diversity in the teaching workforce can lead to positive long run effects, especially for students from historically marginalized communities. Past research has shown that increased diversity can lead to many short term benefits, but this paper is the first of its kind that looks at long run benefits like college attendance.

These authors found that Black students who had at least one Black teacher in grades K-3 were 13% more likely to graduate from high school than their peers, and 19% more likely to go to college. White students experienced no long-term changes in educational attainment. 

I am looking forward to seeing what new things we learn in 2024.

2023 Year in Review: Scioto Analysis Celebrates Five Years

We get it: you probably don’t follow each Scioto Analysis release with rapt attention. That is why at the end of the year I like to write a round-up of studies you may have missed from the year.

This was our fifth full year as a social impact policy analysis firm and we published nine large analyses on top of the smaller analyses we do throughout the year. Below is a roundup of the five analyses we at Scioto believe were the most impactful.

Pennsylvania’s Looming Climate Crisis: The Rising Price to Protect Communities from Extreme Heat, Precipitation, and Sea Level Rise

In 2021, Scioto Analysis started working with a coalition of local governments in Ohio to estimate the cost of climate change for local government budgets down the road. That culminated in the study “The Bill is Coming Due: Calculating the Financial Cost of Climate Change to Ohio’s Local Governments”, which made news throughout Ohio and even resulted in one of the sponsors of the research testifying in Washington D.C. during consideration of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.

This year, we followed that up with a study on the state of Pennsylvania. This time around, we zeroed in equity, finding that rural and high-poverty municipalities will have to pay more per capita due to climate change costs such as road maintenance and landslide protection. The study was covered by outlets such as CBS and the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Ohio’s Recreational Cannabis Legalization

Over the past few years, Scioto Analysis has been doing a series of cost-benefit analyses demonstrating how cost-benefit analysis is carried out when done well. These cost-benefit analyses have covered topics ranging from the earned income tax credit to school closings for COVID-19 to urban tree canopy programs.

We do this as part of our social bottom line mission: we think policy analysis should be better in state and local government. For policy analysis to improve we must first show what good policy analysis looks like.

Over the summer, when we were considering a new cost-benefit analysis to conduct, we decided to study legalization of recreational marijuana in Ohio. Little did we know at the time that voters would be deciding on this question in November.

In October, we released our cost-benefit analysis, which found tax revenue generated by the proposed policy would generate benefits far in excess of the costs of legalization. The study was covered in a range of national news outlets, including Forbes, the Center Square, the Ohio Capital Journal, Crain’s Cleveland Business, Benzinga, Morningstar Marketwatch, Ganjapreneur, Green Market Report, High Times, and Marijuana Moment.

The Ohio Human Development Report

If policymakers want to know where they can take their community, they need to first understand where their community is. Alongside our work to promote better cost-benefit analysis, we have been conducting a multiple-year study focused on this question: how can we baseline well-being in a community?

We are using Ohio as a case study and have released a series of studies on inclusive economic growth (including our GPI 2.0 study, which came out earlier this year). We have also released studies on poverty and inequality.

This Fall, Scioto Analysis partnered with a group of students at Ohio State’s Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics to conduct a study on human development in Ohio. This study goes beyond dollars and cents and brings health and education indicators to assess the well-being of Ohioans.

For the first time, this study compares human development between racial groups in Ohio and across counties. We found that despite human development scores improving over time, there are disparities between white Ohioans and other groups as well as geographically across the state when it comes to income, health, and education.

Keep your eyes open: our goal is to round out this research in 2024 with a study focusing on a new frontier for well-being analysis in Ohio: subjective well-being.

Poverty in Franklin County, Ohio

Before the pandemic, a group of county leaders in Columbus’s Franklin County, Ohio were spearheading an ambitious project to fight poverty in the county. In 2021, the county hired Cleveland NAACP President Danielle Sydnor to lead the RISE Together Innovation Institute, a permanent center working to fight poverty in the County.

To create a baseline for their work, RISE Together partnered with Scioto Analysis in 2023 to conduct an ambitious study of poverty in the county. This culminated in the 2023 Poverty Snapshot–a study of poverty in Franklin County that covered topics ranging from prevalence, intermittency of poverty, interactions with employment, housing, and public policy, and poverty disparities.

A few of the findings of the report are as follows.

• One in seven Franklin County residents lives in poverty.

• Child poverty likely costs Franklin County $5.2 billion in economic activity annually in the form of reduced earnings, crime, health impacts, and child welfare impacts.

• Black, Hispanic, and Asian residents of Franklin County all experience poverty at higher rates than white residents. Despite this, most people experiencing poverty in Franklin County are white.

• Hundreds of thousands of Franklin County residents are lifted from poverty by federal programs, with the most significant impacts coming from Social Security, refundable tax credits, and economic stimulus payments.

Scioto Analysis will continue supporting RISE Together in 2024 as they look to use these findings to build the case for policies that reduce poverty throughout the county.

3C+D Economic Impact Study

Columbus has not had intercity passenger rail in half a century. A group of people under the banner of All Aboard Ohio are looking to change that.

In 2023, this group partnered with Scioto Analysis to conduct an economic impact analysis of expanding passenger rail in the state of Ohio. The “3C+D Corridor” would connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and Cincinnati with passenger rail service.

In our analysis, we found initial investment would generate over $100 million in gross state product and that annual economic impact of the corridor would generate tens of millions of dollars in gross state product.

We also found investment in the 3C+D corridor will create 1,100 to 1,200 jobs, most in the construction industry. Revenue generated from the nine stations due to ridership will support 170 to 320 jobs every year, primarily in the transportation and warehousing industry but also in a range of other industries.

Finally, we found that initial investment will generate $64 million to $66 million in new wages for workers across the country, which will raise $3.5 million to $3.7 million in state and local tax revenue.

More information on the study can be found on the All Aboard Ohio website.

This year, Scioto Analysis celebrated five years and we had our most impactful year yet. I am looking forward to a 2024 where we can make just as much impact in improving policy analysis at the state and local level and changing the way we measure progress and success.

Passenger rail investment will generate millions of dollars and hundreds of new jobs for Ohio

According to an analysis by Scioto Analysis released earlier this month, a new passenger rail service between Ohio’s four largest metro areas will contribute $106 million to $107 million to gross state product. After the initial investment, the corridor will continue to contribute $25 million to $47 million to gross state product per year from the economic impact of ridership.

"Just the investment to get this line started will have as much economic impact as all the passengers and cargo moved by ship, barge, and boat on Ohio's rivers and Lake Erie over an entire year,” says Scioto Analysis Principal Rob Moore.

The study was sponsored by All Aboard Ohio and funded by a grant from the Columbus Foundation.

The study reveals more investment benefits along the 3C&D Corridor.

Investment in the 3C+D corridor will create 1,100 to 1,200 jobs, most in the construction industry. Revenue generated from the nine stations due to ridership will support 170 to 320 jobs every year, primarily in the transportation and warehousing industry but also in a range of other industries.

Initial investment will generate $64 million to $66 million in new wages for workers across the country, which will raise $3.5 million to $3.7 million in state and local tax revenue.

Ongoing ridership will generate $11 million to $21 million in new wages per year, which will lead to $600,000 to $1.2 million in annual tax revenue.

These results have also been localized to the four major Metro areas, and include the communities of Crestline, Delaware, Springfield, and Sharonville. The City of Hamilton is also a possible station stop and would be included in the Cincinnati Metropolitan Statistical Area if it is ultimately chosen.

All Aboard Ohio will be promoting the results of the study in a series of “whistle stop tour” presentations across the state in January. You can find more information about these presentations here.

Five ways Ohio’s economy changed in 2023

As we approach the end of the year, I thought it would be a good idea to look back at some of the data we have and see how Ohio’s economy changed over the past year. Below are five stories that matter about Ohio’s economy in 2023.

Lower inflation might be helping income levels recover 

According to the most recent American Community Survey, real median household income in Ohio went up by about $1,000 between 2021 and 2022, roughly a 2% increase. During this time, we had generational inflation that suppressed real wage growth despite the fact that nominal household income increased by over 8%. 

In recent months, we’ve seen inflation rates start to fall back down to more manageable levels. Looking forward to 2024, hopefully this means that we might see even more real income growth. 

Both unemployment and underemployment fell

Over the course of the last year, unemployment fell from about 4% to 3% and underemployment fell from about 8% to 6% in the state of Ohio. As the economy continues to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is a good sign to see our main employment indicators continue to improve. 

Additionally, seeing underemployment fall at roughly the same rate as unemployment is a good sign that the jobs people are getting are higher quality. There is still a lot of work to be done to fully recover from the pandemic, but these signs are good indicators that employment quality is improving.

CO2 emissions are creeping back up

One trend that came out of the pandemic was a significant short-term decrease in CO2 emissions. Overall, statewide emissions have been decreasing at a pretty steady rate since about 2008. 

Our most recent emissions data shows a slight uptick in the amount of CO2 emissions. It’s too early to tell whether this is an inflection point or just some noise in an otherwise stable downward trend, but it’s an important trend to keep our eyes on in 2024. 

Health insurance coverage is increasing

According to the most recent American Community Survey data, the number of Ohioans that do not have health insurance fell by about 70,000 people from 2021 to 2022. This is extremely important in the wake of the pandemic, where we saw the importance of a strong public health infrastructure.

Our recent report on human development in Ohio found that because of the pandemic, Ohio’s life expectancy declined. Seeing more people have access to health insurance means it will be easier for people to pay for health care. 

Poverty is stagnant

Poverty in Ohio according to the Official Poverty Measure has largely remained the same after a small decrease in 2021. This is despite the fact that unemployment has been decreasing. For a fairly comprehensive look at poverty statistics in Franklin County, Ohio, check out our recently published Poverty Snapshot.

At Scioto Analysis, we are currently working on updating our Ohio Poverty Measure, which we last published in 2021. This will give us a better understanding of how Ohioans are experiencing poverty, taking into account this specific regional context. This measure also includes the impact of public benefits, something the official poverty measure does not capture.

Franklin County Poverty Snaphot: One in Seven Residents in Poverty

Today, RISE Together Innovation Institute CEO Danielle Sydnor announced the release of the first annual Poverty Snapshot report for Franklin County. This report was authored by Scioto Analysis Principal Rob Moore, who also serves as the Policy Analyst in Residence for the RISE Together Innovation Institute.

The Poverty Snapshot is a comprehensive dive into data that reflects how poverty impacts our residents and communities in Franklin County.  

“The Poverty Snapshot helps us see the real impact that poverty has on the residents of this region and to understand the impact we could have on ensuring all residents have the opportunity to thrive," said CEO Danielle Sydnor. "The RISE Together Innovation Institute will use the Poverty Snapshot data to help our partners deliver a more effective system for alleviating poverty in the County, to develop a robust policy agenda to advocate for some of the most critical issues to families in the County, and finally change the narrative of what poverty is and who's in poverty." 

According to the Poverty Snapshot report:

• One in seven Franklin County residents lives in poverty.

• Child poverty likely costs Franklin County $5.2 billion in economic activity annually in the form of reduced earnings, crime, health impacts, and child welfare impacts.

• Black, Hispanic, and Asian residents of Franklin County all experience poverty at higher rates than white residents. Despite this, most people experiencing poverty in Franklin County are white.

• Hundreds of thousands of Franklin County residents are lifted from poverty by federal programs, with the most significant impacts coming from Social Security, refundable tax credits, and economic stimulus payments.

"At the County, we will utilize this data to help us understand how to close some serious gaps in the fight against poverty and better deliver services to families in need. The work that RISE Together Innovation Institute is doing is personal to me. I believe it's incumbent on all of us to join forces to improve the community through the lives of those we're serving," says Franklin County Commissioner Kevin Boyce. 

The mission of RISE Together Innovation Institute is to harness the collective power of people and systems to disrupt structural racism and issues of poverty to achieve equity for all Franklin County residents. Their work is rooted in the belief that everyone, regardless of race, income, or zip code, should have the resources and opportunities to thrive and prosper. 

Ohio Economists split on impact of low-income tax cuts

In a survey released this morning by Scioto Analysis, economists were split on the question of whether tax cuts for the lowest income bracket in Ohio helped grow the State economy, with three economists agreeing, five disagreeing, and six who were uncertain. 

Jonathan Andreas from Bluffton University who agreed that these tax cuts contributed to growth wrote: “Because most other state taxes are somewhat regressive [with respect to] income, a progressive income tax just makes the overall tax burden fairly flat and there are theoretical reasons why somewhat progressive taxation should be more efficient for economic growth as long as wealthier people actually pay it rather than spending money on tax lawyers to evade it.”

In contrast, Paul Holmes from Ashland University wrote: “Given Ohio's (close to) balanced budget rule, the effect of decreasing taxes shouldn't be considered in isolation from the corresponding decrease in spending. Overall, I'd expect the effect to be minimal. Further, it seems unlikely that a reduction in taxes of a couple of percentage points would induce significant changes in labor supply. So overall I doubt this change had much effect on [gross state product].“

When asked if these tax cuts reduced revenues for the state, there was near consensus with 11 of 14 economists disagreeing. One reason pointed out by survey respondents was that low income people make up a small percentage of the overall state tax revenue. 

The Ohio Economic Experts Panel is a panel of over 40 Ohio Economists from over 30 Ohio higher educational institutions conducted by Scioto Analysis. The goal of the Ohio Economic Experts Panel is to promote better policy outcomes by providing policymakers, policy influencers, and the public with the informed opinions of Ohio’s leading economists. Individual responses to all surveys can be found here.