Question A: The proposed income tax change will grow Ohio's economy.
Question B: The proposed income tax change will increase inequality.
Question C: The proposed income tax change will increase labor force participation.
Question A: The proposed income tax change will grow Ohio's economy.
| Economist | Institution | Opinion | Confidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Andreas | Bluffton University | Strongly Disagree | 9 | This is merely shifting WHO pays taxes. It is NOT a reduction in the size of government. As Milton Friedman said, "To spend is to tax." This bill does not address spending at all so it does not change the mathematical requirement to tax. |
| Bizuayehu Bedane | Marietta College | Uncertain | 9 | |
| David Brasington | University of Cincinnati | Agree | 8 | it will make local public services rely more on local taxation, and attract people and new businesses to the best-run municipalities |
| Kevin Egan | University of Toledo | Strongly Disagree | 10 | Ohio's state income tax rates right now vary from about 2.8% to 3.99%. Changing that to a flat 2.75% is a small change that will have no measurable impact on the growth of the economy. Moreover, people choose where to live based on a package of quality-of-life attributes, so a more important question is effectively using the tax dollars collected to enhance desirability of a location. |
| Kenneth Fah | Ohio Dominican University | Uncertain | 9 | |
| Bob Gitter | Ohio Wesleyan University | Strongly Disagree | 9 | The reduced income tax will go mostly to high income individuals who spend a smaller share of their income than others while government expenditures will decrease. This will not help growth. |
| Nancy Haskell | University of Dayton | Uncertain | 5 | |
| Paul Holmes | Ashland University | Disagree | 8 | Taxes for the wealthy are already historically low. Any 'job creation' they would do with this tax decrease, they're already doing. Instead, this will decrease funding for public services (education, emergency services etc.), which (if allowed to happen) would decrease Ohio GDP. Instead, what's likely is that taxes will increase on the poor and middle-class to make up these funding shortfalls. Make no mistake, this is a redistribution scheme, not a tax decrease. |
| Faria Huq | Lake Erie College | Uncertain | 5 | |
| Michael Jones | University of Cincinnati | Strongly Agree | 5 | |
| charles kroncke | Mount Saint Joseph University | Uncertain | 5 | |
| Trevon Logan | Ohio State University | Uncertain | 10 | |
| Michael Myler | University of Mount Union | Strongly Disagree | 9 | If you want to increase state GDP, you should give money to the poor and lower middle classes who spend 99% of their income, not to the wealthy who are already buying everything they could possible want. |
| Joe Nowakowski | Muskingum University | Disagree | 8 | |
| Curtis Reynolds | Kent State University | Disagree | 8 | Cuts to state income taxes do not increase state economic activity as much as commonly claimed. It would be more likely to do so if taxes were very high, but income taxes have been cut repeatedly in Ohio for years already. |
| Kay Strong | Independent | Strongly Disagree | 10 | A study published by the San Francisco Federal Reserve (2021) concluded that ensuring equitable opportunities---including schooling for all Americans to participate in the economy would lead to equity gains of nearly $23 trillion over a 30-year period." Decimating a progressive income tax system in favor of the privileged is tantamount to flushing $23 trillion of output down the stool. |
| Ejindu Ume | Miami University | Uncertain | 7 | |
| Kathryn Wilson | Kent State University | Strongly Disagree | 8 | In choosing which state to live in, families consider not only the taxes paid but also the amenities provided, including the quality of schools, safety, and quality of life such as parks. The cuts that would need to be made to makeup the revenue shortfall would significantly affect the ability to provide these amenities. Ohio currently ranks higher nationally on the amount of tax burden (less state/local tax burden than the average state) than it ranks on measures like K-12 education. In the long run, I think this plan would have a negative effect on Ohio's economy. |
| Rachel Wilson | Wittenberg University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | Public services and goods are an important part of the necessary infrastructure to grow an economy. Cutting state income taxes will reduce the public infrastructure. Our current tax rate is very competitive with other states and doesn't need to be reduced. |
Question B: The proposed income tax change will increase inequality.
| Economist | Institution | Opinion | Confidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Andreas | Bluffton University | Strongly Agree | 7 | The bill does not specify what other parts of Ohio government must increase taxes and fees, so this bill causes a lot of uncertainty, but the one thing that IS certain is that it eliminates the progressivity of the main progressive tax in Ohio, so it is a safe bet that the other taxes that must increase to balance the budget will be more regressive. |
| Bizuayehu Bedane | Marietta College | Uncertain | 9 | |
| David Brasington | University of Cincinnati | Uncertain | 8 | it depends on local government response, how they change income and property taxes in response |
| Kevin Egan | University of Toledo | Strongly Agree | 10 | Yes, this policy change is directly reducing taxes primarily on higher income households. |
| Kenneth Fah | Ohio Dominican University | Agree | 9 | |
| Bob Gitter | Ohio Wesleyan University | Agree | 9 | The benefits will flow to higher income individuals but the spending cuts will hurt lower income individuals. |
| Nancy Haskell | University of Dayton | Agree | 9 | |
| Paul Holmes | Ashland University | Strongly Agree | 10 | This will so obviously increase inequality that it's not even worth debating. |
| Faria Huq | Lake Erie College | Strongly Agree | 9 | |
| Michael Jones | University of Cincinnati | Strongly Disagree | 5 | |
| charles kroncke | Mount Saint Joseph University | Uncertain | 5 | |
| Trevon Logan | Ohio State University | Agree | 6 | |
| Michael Myler | University of Mount Union | Strongly Agree | 9 | Giving $11,000 to high-income earners and $3 to low-income earners is an efficient way to increase inequality. |
| Joe Nowakowski | Muskingum University | Agree | 8 | |
| Curtis Reynolds | Kent State University | Agree | 7 | Cutting taxes will certainly not improve inequality, since much of the benefits will be felt by higher income individuals. On top of that, required cuts to services to balance the budget may disproportionately hurt lower income households. |
| Kay Strong | Independent | Strongly Agree | 10 | A flat tax is a regressive tax in which low-income taxpayers carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Further squeezing those least able to cover daily living expenses qualifies as truly draconian. |
| Ejindu Ume | Miami University | Strongly Agree | 9 | |
| Kathryn Wilson | Kent State University | Agree | 6 | The benefits of the tax cuts will largely go to higher-income individuals with a very small effect for the vast majority of Ohioans. However, the harms that accrue from the cuts in goods and services like education will negatively impact all Ohioans. |
| Rachel Wilson | Wittenberg University | Strongly Agree | 10 | Wealthy cities will be able to handle the blow to their budgets while smaller cities and rural areas will suffer. This proposal shifts the burden to the local government by cutting the local government fund and so will create a winner takes all situation amongst Ohio cities and regions. It makes the overall state tax system regressive not flat. |
Question C: The proposed income tax change will increase labor force participation.
| Economist | Institution | Opinion | Confidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Andreas | Bluffton University | Strongly Disagree | 9 | This is mostly a tax cut for Ohioans who have higher than average income. They already have less need to work compared with the lower and middle working class who will likely see taxes rise. There is no reason to think that shifting the tax burden more onto the working class will cause people to work more. |
| Bizuayehu Bedane | Marietta College | Disagree | 8 | |
| David Brasington | University of Cincinnati | Agree | 4 | |
| Kevin Egan | University of Toledo | Strongly Disagree | 10 | This small tax change will have no measurable impact on labor force participation. Anyone arguing for such a tax change should simply state they think a flat tax is fairer. There is no measurable efficiency reason. |
| Kenneth Fah | Ohio Dominican University | Uncertain | 9 | |
| Bob Gitter | Ohio Wesleyan University | Disagree | 8 | I can't see much change in the labor force participation of the tax cut. This will not drive the work decisions of the higher income individuals. |
| Nancy Haskell | University of Dayton | Uncertain | 6 | |
| Paul Holmes | Ashland University | Disagree | 8 | Tax rate changes have almost no effect on primary-earner labor-force participation, and this will be no exception. Any other effects would be tiny and not worth considering. |
| Faria Huq | Lake Erie College | Uncertain | 5 | |
| Michael Jones | University of Cincinnati | Agree | 5 | |
| charles kroncke | Mount Saint Joseph University | Disagree | 5 | |
| Trevon Logan | Ohio State University | Disagree | 8 | |
| Michael Myler | University of Mount Union | Strongly Disagree | 5 | The difference in take-home pay appears to be insignificant--hard to imagine any noticeable effect on the number of hours a person is willing to work. |
| Joe Nowakowski | Muskingum University | Agree | 6 | |
| Curtis Reynolds | Kent State University | Disagree | 8 | Labor force participation is not likely to respond to the income tax cuts proposed. Taxes (particularly as low as they are in Ohio) are not a primary or even secondary cause of labor force participation. Labor force participation is driven more by the ability to find jobs that match the worker's skills, the preference of the individual to work relative to other activities (household production) which is also related to other costs (such as child care expenses). |
| Kay Strong | Independent | Strongly Disagree | 10 | In real life, men and women make the decision to enter(not) the labor force based on far more immediate considerations than a nebulous tax rate. |
| Ejindu Ume | Miami University | Agree | 6 | |
| Kathryn Wilson | Kent State University | Uncertain | 6 | Given the inelasticity of supply of labor, I do not expect this will have much if any effect on labor force participation in the short run. In the long run, if it results in lower educational opportunities for Ohio students, it may reduce labor force participation. On the whole, I put uncertain but if increasing labor force participation is the goal, there are much more direct and effective ways that could be accomplished such as improving child care access and paid leave. |
| Rachel Wilson | Wittenberg University | Disagree | 10 | Our taxes are not so high that they are discouraging labor. |