An experimental column about Ohio’s income tax
A big bunch of you are going to hate this, but sometimes, we just have to push the envelope.
What follows is an experiment. We’ve done a lot of experiments over the last 11 years as we pursued a path to sustainable journalism. Many failed – as should happen with good faith experimentation — but enough succeeded to put us into a healthy financial condition with a bright future.
We should never stop experimenting. We should never become complacent. So, here goes.
I wrote last week about our need for a smart, conservative column for the next generation. I heard from a couple who might fit, and I’ll talk to them in coming weeks. I also heard from a lot of people from my generation and earlier ones offering their services. Thanks, but we’ve got that covered.
In reading the many responses, I got to wondering whether we might find an alternate path by eschewing tradition and looking to innovation. What if we used artificial intelligence tools as a shortcut?
That’s what I’ve done here, with an issue likely to be on Ohio’s legislative agenda in 2025: income tax cuts aimed at one day abolishing the tax. In mere minutes, using a couple of AI tools, I came up with cogent arguments for and against state income taxes. Using that information – along with a good dose of my own knowledge from decades of experience and a lot of institutional memory – I converted what AI gave me into a column. It lays out the conservative and liberal viewpoints, without the anger and outrage we get in many columns today. I even offer a half-decent compromise.
I’m calling this experiment “PAInt CounterpAInt.” Get it? Yeah, like I said, many of you will hate this. In the spirit of experimentation, though, I ask you to read on with an open mind, and then let me know, constructively, what you think:
Who doesn’t hate paying the Ohio income tax? Anyone?
Our lawmakers know how we feel, and sure to be on the Ohio legislative agenda this spring is another round of income tax cuts with a goal of someday eradicating the tax altogether. With each two-year budget, the Republican-controlled Legislature cuts income taxes while citing tired platitudes that appeal to their base. And Democrats sling over-the-top criticisms about how the cuts doom us all.
Before we get to the politicians’ bloviating in the budget debate, I thought laying out the solid arguments on both sides of this thing might help voters understand it. For efficiency, I turned to artificial intelligence tools to make sure I leave nothing important out.
The best case for cutting or ending Ohio’s income tax is that it requires cutting government, which has grown large, inefficient and onerous, controlling too many parts of our lives. When loaded with cash, government has proven to be an undisciplined mess. When people tightly restrict the amount of money government can spend, we force it to concentrate on core functions of public safety, education, health and infrastructure like roads and bridges.
The most effective way to rein in our out-of-control government is to choke off its resources. That alone is reason to get rid of the income tax. But another benefit is keeping money in the hands of the people, who work hard for it. It also means more cash for businesses to re-invest, creating more jobs.
Finally, not having an income tax makes us more attractive to people and businesses seeking to move. Florida and Texas don’t have income taxes, and they have long been two of our fastest-growing states. Ohio, with its onerous income tax, founders. We need to grow our population like Texas and Florida.
The case for keeping the income tax is it’s progressive, meaning everyone pays a fair share. People who earn more money pay more. The bite we all feel is more equal. With the sales tax, low-income people pay a much higher percentage of their earnings than those with wealth. It’s unfair.
An income tax also is the most reliable source of cash a government like Ohio can have, and reliable income streams are important for government. When leaders can accurately project revenue for years, they can plan to fill the long-term needs in education, transportation and elsewhere. The steady revenue means government can provide services to people who desperately need them.
You also could argue that having an income tax actually makes us more attractive to businesses looking to move. Business leaders want to be sure the state can provide what they need. They don’t want to deal with cash-strapped states that can’t provide the basics.
There is a compromise here, one that could satisfy people on both sides if they would keep their minds open. What if this year, instead of cutting income taxes for everyone, we cut them only for people in the middle class and below? They’re the ones who actually need the help, and they’ll quite likely spend what they save, pumping the money into the economy to help it grow. Wealthy people just pocket the savings.
Meanwhile, elected leaders could plot out a clear, measured phase-out of the income tax over a decade, with clear benchmarks for cuts each year to winnow it away, while figuring out how to reduce government to match the more limited availability of cash.
Nearly everyone hates paying that income tax. If the state could operate without it – partly by becoming more efficient and less onerous – we’d all benefit. How about we aim for that.
So, there it is. Clear thoughts from both sides of a controversial issue, sans the ugly stuff. What do you think? Would you read something like this each week? Could we boil it down even more, into a Tiktok video, to reach a wider audience and have a better-informed electorate? What about a podcast version, with people politely arguing the points?
I’m at [email protected].
Thanks for reading.