North Dakota Ranks Near The Bottom In List Of States With Best Business Environments

Business Week ran a story about the states in America with the best environments for business along with a slide show of the 25 states with the best business environments. Given that North Dakota has been bucking national economic trends with a growing state economy and state budget surpluses I looked to see where my state is ranked.
What’s surprising (not to me but I’m sure to a lot of people on the state) is that North Dakota wasn’t even in the top 25. Instead, the state ranks near the bottom of the list at 30.
Business Week’s rankings were based on data from the Tax Foundation, which you can read here. What’s interesting is that in the breakdown of each state’s different taxations (page 9 of the report), North Dakota scores pretty well in property taxes (ranked 5 out of 50 states) but toward the bottom on both income taxes (35 out of 50) and unemployment taxes (34 out of 50).
In fact, if it weren’t for North Dakota’s overall score being leveled out by property taxes the state would have scored much lower. And given how many North Dakotans are unhappy with the level of their property taxes, it illustrates just how bad this state’s tax environment really is.
What conclusions can we draw from all of this?
I think it’s clear that North Dakota’s currently-flourishing economy is a bit misleading. Yes, our economy is flourishing, but it isn’t thanks to our state’s tax-and-spend policies which keep tax burdens high to fund double-digit spending increases every biennium and ridiculous economic development schemes that, frankly, rarely work out well. Instead our economy is due mostly to the re-invigorated oil industry in the state. We have oil, much of it relatively newly-discovered, and the nation has needed oil over the last few years. That’s sparked a massive build up in the state oil industry, pumping a lot of money into our economy and into our local and state tax coffers.
Which means that our economy has grown despite big-government policies put in place by Governor Hoeven and the legislature, not because of them. And with all our economic eggs in one basket (the oil industry), we are in a pretty tenuous position as our state political leaders including the government continue to spend money at double-digit growth rates going forward.
Especially with the price of oil having fallen to rock bottom.
Recently on the Scott Hennen Show I heard North Dakota businessman Mike Marcil (CEO of the Marcil Group) talking about what a great job our state’s political leaders have done as stewards of the state economy. I hear a lot of people in the state echo that same line, but I think it’s bunk. This state is doing well because of the oil industry. Period. And it’s worth noting that when people like Marcil lavish praise on the current tax-and-spend leadership in the state, it’s because people like Marcil are usually the beneficiaries of a lot of that spending. In Marcil’s case, economic development dollars that have done a lot to line his pockets.
Always follow the money.

Tags: ,


«
»
  • http://rawdawgb.blogspot.com/ Rawdawgbuffalo

    depression is Nipping at our Nose

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Face it, the state and local governments look on the productive people as cows to be milked to benefit the already overpaid government workers.

  • Flickertail

    I laugh at all the press the ND economy is getting. The reason for us having a surplus is oil and farming. Talk to small buisiness owners and see how they are doing. Almost every small business owner I talk to are having a down year. But that may be only my experience

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Well, I wouldn't say that businesses are doing poorly. I think the state's economy is, actually, doing very well.

    The question is: What is causing it? I think it's a ripple effect from the oil fields, not big-government policies.

  • theovermind99

    I'd agree with flickertail that the main reason ND's economy is doing well is because of oil and farming prices generally. I don't think the coming year will be as good because those prices have all fallen off. This is a great reason for broadening the states economy. And while tax cuts and better business laws would help, you still need economic development to help bring new businesses to ND that wouldn't consider moving here ordinarily. That would help the state weather the economic cycles that come and go.

  • jimmypop

    Talk to small buisiness owners and see how they are doing.

    in the FM area, its never been better. retail traffic was up at west acres. not sure hwo things are out west, but I have not heard any complaints.

    personally, I am my business owning friends have never had better years.

  • AR-15

    I hope Bismarck's economy slows down so some people leave the town. I know this comment will piss off some people, but I hope ND's population declines in 2009. ND has more than enough people for my liking.

  • jimmypop

    yes, we need less workers to work here so everyone would HAVE TO HAVE 3 jobs to keep us pushing forward… good thinking.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    nd while tax cuts and better business laws would help, you still need economic development to help bring new businesses to ND that wouldn't consider moving here ordinarily.

    But that's wrong. The only businesses ED brings here are businesses that need ED to bring here. If we cut taxes, and put money in the pockets of North Dakotan's, we'd bet businesses here that are here to service North Dakotans.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I hope Bismarck's economy slows down so some people leave the town.

    Wouldn't it make sense to then move to a smaller town?

    I mean if the economy slows down it might be your job that goes?

  • ollie-B

    AR-15
    Go find a cave and hang out with the animals. It is people like you who are standing in the way of real economic growth and prosperity in the state.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Right, like Ollie says, we need more economic development failures like websmart, New Flyer and Imation to really make this a poverty striken state.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    All economic development money does is bring marginal businesses here that wouldn't exist here – and maybe even anywhere – without our tax dollars.

    Most of the time, when the special treatment from the government ends, so does the business.

    Is that really the sort of economy we want in the state?

  • http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

    North Dakota is only interested in subsidized businesses or subsidized citizens, for that matter.
    Such is life in one of the country's biggest welfare states!<img src='http://i35.tinypic.com/2rwu8hs.jpg'&gt;

  • theovermind99

    But that's wrong. The only businesses ED brings here are businesses that need ED to bring here. If we cut taxes, and put money in the pockets of North Dakotan's, we'd bet businesses here that are here to service North Dakotans.

    If tax rates were the only factor you'd be correct. Unfortunatly for ND, they are not. South Dakota has much better tax rate and business law than ND and only has a marginally larger population. Also, California is one of the most taxed states in the county and it's the most populous state. So there must be another factor at play here. This is why we need Economic Development. In counter those other factors.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Right because telling home-grown businesses that they only exist to be taxed and making up for that by giving their money to otherwise non-viable businesses is a GREAT economic plan.

  • theovermind99

    Right because telling home-grown businesses that they only exist to be taxed and making up for that by giving their money to otherwise non-viable businesses is a GREAT economic plan.

    So having less businesses is better than having more businesses?

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I would say it's about having good businesses, not the welfare queens that get in line for the free money.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Why don't we just unburden the taxpayers from the unnecessarily high tax rates and let them decide which businesses to spend the money at.

    And let's reduce business taxes while we're at it so that it's easier for any business to open here.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    Because then all kinds of economic activity would happen and big government types wouldn't be able to a)take credit for it and b)use that activity to give out favors (because the tax rates are low).

    that exactly explains why real tax cuts are an anathema to John Hoeven and his ilk.

  • theovermind99

    And let's reduce business taxes while we're at it so that it's easier for any business to open here.

    I agree, but you have to do more to attract businesses. Not all motivations are economic. If they were state with no income tax like South Daktoa would be booming much more than they are now. Also high tax states like California would be almost empty. Yet the opposite is true. You need things like Economic Development Funds to overcome those obsticales. The side benefit is increases in population to satisfy increased labor demand. This would put downward pressure on tax rates.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    You couldn't be more wrong overmind.

    First of all California's growth predates their stupidity. They are in big trouble while SD has been growing quite well.

    You contention that more population leads to lower tax revenues sounds like it makes sense, but it never happens. The more people come in the more the government wants to spend.

  • theovermind99

    First of all California's growth predates their stupidity.

    Which proves what I've been saying. Just cutting taxes and changing laws isn't enough. Under your model, states like California shouldn't be growing at all. It's growth despite high tax rates and regulations disproves your point that we only need tax cuts and lower regs to grow the economy. I'll agree they are a key part of the solution but not the entire solution. You have to overcome other factors that preclude ND from the minds of exectives.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    What growth? They've been going downhill.

    The one thing they had going for them was that they were the home of the computer industry BEFORE the boom. When that took off it naturally went there.

    That's on the wane as is the rest of the state.

  • theovermind99

    What growth? They've been going downhill.

    http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData…
    http://www.bea.gov/regional/gdpmap/GDPMap.aspx

    Here is a listing of California GDP from 1963 to 2007 and a interactive map for state GDP across the country. It says that California's real GDP went up by 3.8% and 1.5% in 2006 and 2007 respecivly. By comparision ND's during the same time was 2.0% and 3.0%. Basically, the two states grew about about the same percentage over the last two years. South Dakota grew in 2006 and 2007 by 2.4% and 2.3% respecivly.

    What does that mean. If you only look at the last two years and compared California, ND, and SD. California by percentage grew the most followed by ND and then SD. So your contention about California is incorrect. Why do you think that is?

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development