The only revenue source that reflects both growth + INFLATION is the transfer tax. If the 1% local option transfer tax were allowed in all 100 NC counties, (as it is currently in six counties represented by Senator Basnight) $900 million in revenues could be generated across the state. Earmark this for infrastructure and local governments could float $9 billion in bonds without a property tax increase. Over the next five to ten years those revenues are likely to double without increasing the rate.

Considering that our needs for schools, roads,mass transit, wastewater plants, open space, etc. are in the range of $ 70 billion over that period..a 1% transfer tax could have a real impact on preserving the quality of life that brought many of us here. The alternative…LOS ANGELES.

[T]he document is about a radically different vision of society – a society from a bygone era (perhaps the Old West or the antebellum South) in which most people lived shorter, less healthy, less connected lives, but by God, their taxes were low.

We can’t fund grow on budget cuts alone, we need to find a reasonable and fair ways to raise state revenues. So instead of always talking about budget & tax cuts, how about giving us some suggestions for new revenue sources.

I’m not. I argued, here and elsewhere, that necessary infrastructure investment — and there is a great need for it — can be financed without new forms of taxation. Indeed, I spelled out specifically how to redirect low-priority spending in the state budget to finance schools, roads, and other construction:

Just this year, according to JLF fiscal analyst Joe Coletti, the General Assembly is about to approve a state budget containing around $180 million in corporate welfare, $130 million in administrative bloat, $70 million in inappropriate subsidies for nonprofits and advocacy groups, and $270 million in excessive subsidies for state services consumed disproportionately by higher-income North Carolinians who don’t pay reasonable fees. In the transportation budget, Coletti estimated, there is an additional $310 million in annual expenditures for low-priority projects that would better be spent on high-value highways construction and expansion.

Setting aside for the moment the inefficient use of tax dollars in the state’s largest programs – public education and Medicaid – the above savings alone, if redirected to high-priority infrastructure needs, would represent $960 million in new investment in FY 2007-08. Do that every year for 30 years, and it comes out to about $29 billion in infrastructure investment without any new taxes (in nominal terms). Yes, the redirection might require fiscal adjustments – down in General Fund tax rates, up on Highway Fund tax rates, for example – but the net could be at least zero (and should, in fact, result in tax relief).

To turn things about, although we disagree on many things, I did expect better from you than this obvious misstatement of my argument.