It is clear that the United States is facing a significant crisis in relation to inflation. This problem has existed for a variety of reasons that cannot be boiled down to one or two issues. Instead, this problem has multiple influencing factors and variables. Despite these elements, central planners have continued to make predictions that are often proven wrong.
The factors that have pushed inflation upward will likely linger into 2022, especially if the Omicron variant comes into play. In his recent remarks to Congress, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell noted that despite its prior predictions of limited inflation, the Federal Reserve no longer viewed the recent inflation growth as “transitory.” Instead, the Fed is now considering raising interest rates to mitigate the increasing growth of inflation as the prospects of its long-term effects continue to expand.
In response to this crisis, various states are seeking political action, trying to mitigate the negative effects of this inflation. While some try to open up the free market, trying to provide some organic solution to the problem through tax cuts, others policymakers try to provide an artificial solution through monetary policy. While the former actively seeks to resolve the issue, the latter denies the true problem at hand.
In November, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker expressed the nature of the current economy and the problems with President Biden’s efforts to fix it. The reality is that the inflation problem is far worse than experts had predicted. Prices of goods have risen by 6.2 percent, the greatest margin since 1990. Gas prices are being driven through the roof (nearly 50 percent), placing a great burden on Mississippi agriculture, a critical element of the state’s economy. As a whole, Mississippi has suffered from the effects of inflation, and the reality is that this simply could not be reflected in the predictions of experts.
Senator Wicker’s remarks demonstrate the very reason why monetary policy often does not work. Artificial solutions to economic problems often assume that economic phenomena can be accurately predicted and centrally planned. Various government policies like setting tax rates, printing currency, economic regulations, and government spending merely serve as a manipulative tool to change how the economy works, but they are useless if people cannot predict and prescribe what the economy needs in the near future.
Unfortunately, the inflation crisis rose at a rapid pace, making it nearly impossible to predict. Perhaps the better option is to simply let the free market take its course than sweat over what is the best way to approach monetary policy.
Is concerning is that such policies of government involvement, are often lazy in nature, putting more of an emphasis on the government simply “buying out” the economy rather than establishing good monetary policy. The Heritage Foundation examined the nature of the economy within the Covid-19 context. It explained that while appearing to be helpful and compassionate in a crisis, government spending only postpones the inevitable. It appears that the nation is now reaping what it has sown in its zealous attempt to “protect” the United States economy.
Mississippi faces a hard road ahead, and as much as it is tempting to step in and solve for a wavering economy, it is all the more critical to let free market solutions simply take their course. As useful as studies and expert predictions can be, the whole economy cannot rely on them entirely. After all, no one can predict the future – not even the “experts.”
Like never before, the compilation of information has increased exponentially with every passing year. In recent years, more personal information has been cataloged than perhaps all of the prior centuries combined. Despite the privacy importance of this data, many policymakers have done very little to protect this data from the eye of Big Brother.
Fundamentally, most consumer electronic data reside under the electronic access of companies (such as in a cloud). While some of the data is under the sole control of individuals, most of the data is stored by companies that utilize the data in various ways. In cases of government surveillance, these companies may be all but forced to turn over their user data, without a warrant in some cases.
This brings up the fundamental question of data innovations and protection from the eye of big government. It is important to consider why data privacy is important for consumers. Rather than just simply being “users” within a broad tech ecosystem, these are individuals with their own personal lives. In light of this increased use of consumer data, there is a need for protection from government itself. There are several reasons for this.
Fundamentally, it is important to note that without the proper safeguards, every technological advancement in data collection and usage is a potential tool in the hands of government. We see this in the surveillance state of communist China. As innovation increases, the different levels of available information increase as well. While technological data collection was more limited in former days, even fingerprints and retinal scan data have become commonly harvested in the wake of new biometric technologies.
In order to grasp how new technology can be improperly used by government without proper safeguards, an example from history demonstrates how the government can “innovate” to get electronic data about citizens. Rather than it being a trend that has started in the last generation or so, using private sector technology holdings as a doorway to surveillance goes back to prior centuries. In the 1800s, government agents developed the ability to tap into privately owned telegraph wires and listen in on conversations. By the Civil War, telegraph tapping was being used for military intelligence.
Such “new” technology for government surveillance that enabled listening in on real-time communication across long distances was a massive breakthrough. The difference is especially demonstrated when compared with the “surveillance” of the Founders’ day that involved British agents manually sifting through the mail bags attached to a saddle.
Despite the massive growth in government surveillance capabilities with the advent of the telegraph, it is important to note that Samuel Morse, the inventor of the telegraph, was not a government agent. Government surveillance innovators simply harnessed his technology. In fact, the vast majority of telegraph companies were owned and operated by private companies. While the technologies being used are different, this concept of using technology and data housed within the private sector as a means of government surveillance has not gone away.
Fast forward to the 21st century, and the telegraph has long fallen out of use. We live in a day when the free market has developed smartphones, facial recognition, fingerprint scanners, drones, location tracking, doorbell cameras, artificial intelligence, and a host of other technologies. Yet, the danger of the government indiscriminately using these new technologies to expand surveillance on its citizens has only increased.
Despite the danger of government being too indiscriminate, many companies that harvest or store user data have a history of providing government with user data, sometimes without even having a search warrant. One report that reviewed the number of law enforcement requests for data from several large technology companies found that 85 percent of the requests were granted.
In order to remedy this, some states are looking to implement proactive safeguards. Utah has passed legislation prohibiting the government from accessing data stored by a technology company unless a search warrant is issued. This provides a key balance, ensuring that new technology provides a platform for technological advancement, not an entry point for government intrusion.
Personal information might be kept on parchment paper written on with quill and ink, or it could be stored in complex data silos hosted in a digital cloud. Regardless of the technology being used, public policy should protect the freedom of Americans by protecting their data. The protection of personal information from undue government intrusion is a timeless part of the American ideal. In order to ensure that no technology becomes a “Trojan horse” to threaten this ideal, policies should be instituted that pro-actively ensure that the government cannot strong-arm technology companies into turning over user data without accountability.
When government overreach and excessive regulation occur, minorities often bear an extra burden. While Mississippi has a myriad of overbearing regulations, excessive healthcare regulations are potentially the most damaging. Indeed, Mississippi’s burdensome healthcare regulations have contributed to certain minorities having healthcare gaps.
According to the United States Census Bureau, 41 percent of those in the Mississippi population are a minority, consisting mostly of African Americans. This is one of the highest minority percentages in the country.
Ultimately, the state of Mississippi has a crisis of healthcare access that goes across all ethnicities. However, due to the geographic nature of healthcare access problems, healthcare access challenges in certain areas with a higher percentage of African Americans can lead to heightened challenges for the minority population as a whole.
There are several contributing factors to the reduced minority healthcare access in Mississippi. While the regulatory excesses on healthcare in the state have several variations, perhaps the most burdensome is the state’s Certificate of Need (CON) laws. Under CON laws, new healthcare providers must get permission from the state before beginning operations in a specific region. Additionally, the laws allow existing providers in the region to give input on whether not the new provider is needed.
While CON laws are problematic no matter where they are, these laws' effects on healthcare access are especially strong in rural areas. Fundamentally, rural health care systems are generally more sensitive to bad health care policy than their urban counterparts, and CON laws have an especially strong effect. According to research by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, CON laws reduce the number of healthcare providers, increase the cost of healthcare in rural areas, and ultimately lead to lower health outcomes.
Mississippi has the highest percentage of rural African Americans in the country. Thirty-eight percent of the rural population is black. When placed in the context of CON laws, it is worth noting that the state has among the worst health outcomes for blacks in the country. In many states, the majority of the black population is urban-based and experiences a lesser impact than CON laws' effects on blacks in rural areas. Meanwhile, African Americans in Mississippi bear the heightened effect of CON laws on rural areas.
Additionally, the inherent concept behind CON laws places minorities at a disadvantage. CON laws grant approval for a new healthcare provider to open up only if the state determines that the population at large needs a particular healthcare service. However, the central planners behind CON implementation often fail to account for other factors, such as the positive benefits of increased competition for minorities.
To illustrate this, it is helpful to look at a study conducted by Rutgers University. In the wake of CON repeals in New Jersey, the study found that certain cardiovascular procedures saw an increase in “utilization overall and did so more rapidly for blacks.” This was due to the fact that increased competition from new providers led to more providers working with minority populations that were outside of their traditional patients.
CON regulations on healthcare provider expansion might help protect incumbent providers from new competition, but they do little to help everyday Mississippians. If Mississippi wants to see the void of healthcare providers in the state filled, a key step is to remove this red tape that inhibits its citizens, rural areas, and minority communities. Government control and central planning of the health sector is a recipe for deprivation, it’s time for Mississippi to turn the tide.
Precious metals like gold and silver have an interesting relationship with state economies and currencies. While the federal government has moved away from precious metals in favor of fiat currency, some state governments have also put policies in place that discourage gold and silver investment. Unfortunately, Mississippi is no exception.
Traditionally, currencies were managed on a fixed basis, meaning that governments print and distribute money based on the amount of gold and silver that is available. However, as time has moved on, these standards have been neglected and governments now operate on a more “flexible” monetary system. This means that the federal government can print money at its discretion. The problem is that the more the government prints, the less valuable American currency becomes, which causes serious economic problems like inflation.
It is no secret that the nation is suffering a crisis of inflation currently. This is due to a variety of reason that can be found elsewhere. However, state responses to this problem have started going in the right direction as governments begin to release controls like taxation on precious metals. The reason why this is a good thing is because, while precious metals are also good used for trade, it is effectually a currency. When states tax the sale of precious metals it is essentially taxing money itself. It simply does not make sense and is akin to going to the grocery store and being charged a tax for breaking out a five-dollar bill. This causes individuals to not engage in the precious metals market and distances the economy even more from a grounded monetary system.
A couple of days ago, the Money Metals Exchange and Sound Money Defense League released an index ranking the states on their precious metal policies. Each state is evaluated based on 12-criteria system that primarily examines whether states levy a sales tax against precious coins and bullion. On this point system, Mississippi ranked one of the lowest (7th worst) overall. This indicates a specific problem that can be remedied within the state by removing government taxation on precious metals.
As it stands, Ohio is the only state that has establish policies allocating a percentage of state-held pension funds to physical gold. Additionally, the majority of states throughout the country have either significantly decreased or removed altogether sales taxes on precious metals altogether. This is a good policy in returning to an economy that is grounded in something fixed. This is achieved by treating things like precious metals as distinct from the rest of the economy.
Mississippi is one of only nine states that imposes sales tax on precious metals, thus, it levies a 7% tax on gold and silver purchases. However, it is currently part of a group of states that are considering lessening or removing the sales tax on gold and silver. In the 2021 legislative session, a bill was introduced that would have repealed the sales tax on gold, silver, platinum and palladium bullion. However, the bill died in committee.
Repealing the sales tax on precious would be a good change for the economy. Prices for precious metals, and the inflation rate that comes along with them, should be able to fluctuate naturally without states artificially interfering. This is the essence of how free market economies are supposed to operate.
Friendly precious metal polices on the state level could lessen the burden for individuals like investors engaging in the market and including physical metals as part of their portfolios. Such reforms could also help citizens seeking to protect their savings and retirement from the erosion of inflation.
As Ron Paul describes it when he testified before the Arizona Senate Committee when it considered gold and silver monetary reform: “It makes no sense to tax money.” Mississippi should follow this commonsense principle and remove taxation on precious metals.
It is fairly common knowledge that many regulatory policies are arbitrarily instituted and enforced. While the existence of burdensome regulations is fairly well recognized, the specifics of just how excessive certain regulations can be is worth noting. This is especially true for new technologies and businesses that threaten entrenched interests.
At face value, the stated purpose of most regulations is to prevent some kind of harm. However, the question itself really hinges upon how regulators define the term harm. Some regulations do have a genuine intent against preventing actual harm, such as the widespread ban against driving while intoxicated. But unfortunately, the history of regulatory policy has a long history of excessive and even laughable rules.
While regulatory excesses have come in all sorts of contexts, there is a historical trend of new technologies often receiving the special ire of regulators. For instance, in the early 1900s, the advent of “horseless carriages” (better known today as cars) led to calls from some that all cars be required to follow rules that would be considered laughable today.
One such rule read: “automobiles traveling on country roads at night must send up a rocket every mile, then wait ten minutes for the road to clear. The driver may then proceed, with caution, blowing his horn and shooting off Roman candles, as before.” In addition, the proposed rules also required that cars change their paint colors every season to blend in with the scenery and not scare horses. While such rules seem comical at best in our modern context, the Pennsylvania state legislature approved the rules. The rules would have become settled law if the governor had not had enough common sense to veto them. If these rules had been enacted, there is little chance that the high speed interstates and highways of today could have become a reality.
Also in the early 1900s, the new technology of electricity had just started to become mainstream. Thomas Edison invented a form of electrical transmission to power his lightbulbs that became known as Direct Current (DC). Meanwhile, his rival, Nicholas Tesla, had developed an alternative type of current. This current was more effective at carrying electricity at long distances that became known as Alternating Current (AC).
Thus began the “War of the Currents.” Outraged at the prospect of AC current threatening the patent royalties he received from the use of DC current, Edison began a campaign to place AC current under the condemnation of regulators. He used the powers of the mainstream newspaper media as a platform to spread a hysteria known as the “Electric Wire Panic.” He put on a series of public electrocutions of animals using AC. Edison even funded the invention of the first electric chair (using AC, of course) as another platform to place AC current in a bad light.
Edison got close to his goal of stoking enough public hysteria for regulators to ban AC current altogether, but he was never fully successful. In fact, AC current eventually won over the electric industry as a safer and more efficient current, causing Edison’s DC current to fall out of widespread use. Yet, the power of government regulation almost eliminated the technological innovation found in AC current that allowed for electricity to travel at high voltage for long distances.
Yet the excessive regulations of yesterday were not restricted to new technology alone. Much like today, businesses were restricted as well. For instance, from the 1860s to the 1920s, several states had restrictions on the ability of banks headquartered within a state to open multiple branches. In this way, expansion was impeded, and existing interests were protected from new competition. On the national level, banks that wanted to operate across multiple states had to go through an onerous process of state-by-state restrictions requiring specific government approval for expansion. In some states, national banks could not open branches at all.
Finally, with the passage of the McFadden Act in the 1920s, banks were able to have more freedom, and today we see banks freely operating across multiple states. Someone from Mississippi vacationing in Georgia can often find a branch of their home bank with little trouble. This might not be the case if regulations had not been repealed.
While it is easy to point fingers at the past, similar regulatory absurdities exist today as well. Modern examples abound, such as excessive regulations on Bitcoin transactions and the absurd Certificate of Need laws that require new health care providers to get permission from competitors. The error of excessive regulation is no less real in 2021 than it was in 1901 or 1921. Instead of protecting old technologies and entrenched business interests, policymakers should learn from the lessons of the past and ensure that illogical regulations are placed in the dust bin of history where they belong.
It goes without saying that the post-pandemic world will (at least initially) operate differently than how we are used to. We are essentially in this state of limbo in which many aspects of society have returned to normal, and yet we still see the effects of the pandemic in effect in areas like schools, cities, and public spaces. Economically, the world is placed in a precarious position as stocks continue to fluctuate as fear of the rise of different Covid variants comes into play.
However, this precarious situation has had several impacts on society beyond just the stock market. Due to the fear of some variant rising or more government restrictions being instituted, the percentage of people leaving the workforce for retirement has significantly increased in recent years, and the average retirement age is now 55. The Peterson Institute for International Economics demonstrates numbers that suggest that even those people that are not old enough to retire are less likely to return to in-person employment because doing so may negatively affect their kids' ability to go to school. The net result of this is exactly what America is experiencing at the moment: slow labor-force recovery.
Yet, as Niall Ferguson notes, the U.S. labor market is facing an inflation surge that cannot simply be attributed to fear of Covid exposure. For one, the Biden Administration erred in providing a $1.9 trillion stimulus package earlier in the year when support had already been provided in 2020. The effect of this policy is that people now have excess savings that have provided that extra cushion needed for retirement to become a reality.
However, Ferguson also errs in his assessment that tax credits and cuts in marginal personal income tax rates negatively affect the incentive for people to return to the workforce. The assumption is that those with more money in their pockets will have less of an incentive to work. While this may be true within the context of giving people “free” paychecks in the form of stimulus packages, the effect of tax cuts helps (or at the very least contributes to) economic recovery.
When people receive tax cuts, it does not mean that they can now live with excess money. They still must pay taxes and still have additional expenditures in which to pay. However, the difference is that they now have an incentive to engage in the economy in a much freer manner and that in turn requires them to have jobs to maintain that same level of engagement.
In other words, tax cuts are effectually different from providing stimulus packages. Unfortunately, Ferguson treats them as if they are synonymous. The reality is that the fewer taxes person has to pay, the healthier the economy gets. The labor force is included in that equation. In fact, when Trump cut taxes during the pandemic, it greatly helped the economy. It is when those cuts are removed that recovery becomes stagnate.
Moving forward for the nation and for Mississippi, public policy must be crafted in such a way that encourages people to work and engage in the economy rather than enable them to remain at home, reliant on government money. Ironically, both government interference and an excessive fear of Covid originate from taxpayers giving into a narrative that does not necessarily reflect reality. Relying on the government to return everything to normal is not the answer. Only when people get their hands dirty again and get back to work will the economy eventually return to normal.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Jackson, MS): The Mississippi Center for Public Policy continues its effort to make the case for the abolishment of the state income tax by addressing the immorality of the levy.
The inherent idea of an income tax suggests that, depending on how hard someone works and how much they earn, they will then be taxed accordingly. This is wrong.
For a government to take from its citizens, not because they have broken any law – but simply because they have worked for their earnings – is to pervert its own function and to misuse for injustice the power that it has been granted to maintain justice. Everyone should be treated equally under the law, including taxation, and contribute the same as every other citizen for the upkeep of the society in which they live.
"It's time to give Mississippi a boost and get our state growing," said Douglas Carswell, President & CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. "Abolishing the state income tax would give every Mississippi worker a pay raise. It would mean they had more money to spend on their priorities and families."
People are better at spending their own money than the government. Leaving Mississippians to keep more of their money to spend on their preferences will ultimately make Mississippi's economy more efficient.
MCPP hopes to see cooperation between state leaders and offers these recommendations to see a successful implementation of abolishing the Mississippi income tax:
- Keep non-income tax rates the same and appropriate the State's $1 billion surplus revenue to reduce the income tax revenues
- Appropriate 50% of budget surpluses to reduce income tax revenues until it has been entirely eliminated
- Place cap on State's general fund budget increases that prohibit increases above 1.5% annually
The Mississippi Center for Public Policy believes repealing the state's income tax would be both a moral and economic good, leading to higher incomes, competitiveness, and prosperity for all Mississippians.
You can read the FULL REPORT HERE.
For media inquiries, please reach out to Stone Clanton, [email protected].
In recent years, the education system has become increasingly centralized. As the federal government has continually expanded its role in education, and academic organizations have consolidated their influence, there has also been an increasingly radical push to remove even parents themselves out of the equation.
It is interesting to note that the increasing centralization of education has directly increased with the radicalization of educational priorities and agendas. Ironically this is despite the fact that many individual parents are far less likely to embrace the latest radical proposals from the Left, such as Critical Race Theory and transgender bathrooms.
However, those within the high ranks of the education establishment often buy into such priorities. According to research, many of those in high academia have gone increasingly even further to the Left. Thus, the more education is centralized, the greater the ability of the Left to advance ideologies that would not be democratically approved by the majority of parents.
These factors of polarization and radicalization have challenged much of the status quo in the education establishment. This is true both for the administrators within the system and the parents themselves.
The National School Boards Association sent a letter requesting federal law enforcement investigate certain parents who were opposed to certain policies as “domestic terrorists.” This ultimately led to the Mississippi School Boards Association announcing that it would break from the national organization.
Meanwhile, parents across the state and country are responding as well. On the one hand, parental rights and education policy have become one of the biggest hot-button issues at the ballot box. At the same time, “families have explored and adopted different approaches to schooling on an unforeseen scale.”
Such factors shed light on a growing recognition that Washington's academic elites and education bureaucrats have overstepped their boundaries. The nature of this republic is the ability of the people to civilly push back against overreaches, whether they do it as an organization or as individuals.
This points back to the truth that an increasingly top-down structure for education is not the answer for true growth and educational excellence. Truly American education was built on the foundation that strong families, faith, limited government, and personal responsibility are the true foundation for educating the next generation. Long before the centralized educational structures of today were instituted, America still had an educated populace, that not only sustained itself – but thrived.
Perhaps the time has come that some in the American ethos are having a fundamental return back to an educational vision that seeks to preserve the things that made the nation great. The survival of the American republic depends upon future generations that are grounded in the principles of freedom and liberty. Rather than handing this over to big office buildings in Washington and the academic elites, the success of the “American experiment” proves that individual education freedom and choice are the true avenues to make this happen.
Robbery occurs when one party uses intimidation, force, or threats of force to steal from another party. Most would agree that stealing is immoral, even if what was stolen was “for the greater good.” The same should be considered when talking of income taxes.
Americans first encountered an income tax in 1861 to pay for Civil War costs, demanding 3% on incomes above $800. It was replaced a year later and again in 1864 with even more progressive rates, but the acts were ultimately allowed to expire and mainly viewed as emergency measures for wartime situations.
Congress then readdressed tax laws, eventually passing the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, making it the first peace-time income tax. A 2% flat tax on incomes over $4,000 was to make up for revenue that would be lost by ongoing tariff reductions.
The Supreme Court ruled the tax unconstitutional on grounds of the 10th Amendment because it was not apportioned correctly amongst each state’s population, as then required with direct taxes. A shift from the individual rights of the Founders to the collective rights of the Progressives was a watershed transition in American thought at the turn of the 20th Century, which made the Court’s decision unpopular.
Proponents of a nationwide annual income tax argued it would force the so-called “robber barons” to pay taxes – It wasn’t supposed to provide a mechanism for Washington to reach into most Americans’ pockets. For example, the highest rate in the proposed legislation, greater than $500,000 (equivalent to $13,854,040 today), was only 7%. The average income for a single individual around the time was only $800 (equivalent to $22,166 today), plus there was an individual $3,000 exemption. So, yes, the initial rates, despite being progressive, appeared not all that burdensome. And it is easy to understand the frustration of the average American with monopolies and other forms of cronyism, but the collecting of taxes based off of one’s income would prove to be dangerous. The Federal Income Tax was finally solidified with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 (Mississippi was the fifth state to do so in 1910), allowing Congress to levy one without apportioning it upon the states’ populations.
Fast forward to 2021, and the highest rate on the bracket starts at an income of over $523,600 for a single filer, and they’re taxed at 37%, meaning they would have $329,868 left. The average income today, for a single Mississippian is $45,081 (the lowest in the nation) and is taxed at 22%, leaving them $35,163 and not taking into account the state’s income tax, sales taxes, property taxes, and any other levies. This goes to show that if you give the federal government an inch, it will take a mile, and often for the worse.
While there is plenty of room for an argument criticizing the harsh economic and fiscal implications income taxes have, a much simpler one is how immoral they are.
Just the thought of taxing someone based on how hard they work and how much they earn is depraved and selfish in nature. People have a right to the fruits of their labor. Everyone should be treated equally under the law, including taxation, and contribute the same as every other citizen for the upkeep of the society in which they live. The inherent idea that you must give up a determined amount of money to a government based on your income – or face severe consequences – is ludicrous. To quote Dr. Ron Paul: “If you concede the principle of the income tax, you concede the principle that the government owns your wages and permits you to keep a certain percentage of it.” The income tax, for the lack of a better word, is theft. Theft, as we should have learned as children, is wrong.
In taking someone’s income, the government then adds it to its funds for different programs, deeming itself a wiser steward of finances than who they took it from. The government believes that it can put someone’s money to better use than the original owner ever could and shows it is not truly concerned with the individuals’ specific needs, but only the general populace. The government has no interest in you or your loved ones’ prerogatives – Just y’all’s money.
While Mississippi can’t do much to fix its past sin of ratifying the 16th Amendment, what it can do is lessen the burden on workers by repealing its own income tax. It is the least it can do.
The Magnolia State’s income tax is a graduated one, with the first $2,000 of taxable income not taxed at all, the next $3,000 taxed at 3%, the next $5,000 at 4%, and anything over $10,000 is at 5%. This means that a worker earning over $10,000 will therefore be paying $1 in state income taxes out of every $20 they earn over $10,000. According to the Governor’s executive budget recommendations, an individual with a taxable income of $40,000 would be $1,850 better off if the income tax was eliminated. This leaves the individual more of their money and gives them the choice to spend it on their priorities.
The Mississippi Center for Public Policy is making the case for the abolition of the state income tax, and you can read more about it here.