The fight over Gov. Mark Dayton's effort to raise taxes for high earners is underway. So, in the spirit of tossing kindling on the fire, consider this: Job growth in Minnesota slowed in the decade after it cut state income tax rates.
This is an inconvenient fact for anyone who believes that corporate and personal income tax rates are among the most important predictors of a state's long-term economic vibrancy. But it would be equal folly for supporters of tax increases to conclude the opposite, that high taxes are not a barrier to attracting, retaining and fostering job growth.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple when you're talking about economic competitiveness, long-term prosperity and the appropriate response to a budget crisis.
During the 1991 recession, for example, states that mainly cut spending outperformed those that mainly raised taxes. But the reverse was true during the 2001 recession, with states that raised taxes substantially outperforming those that did not, according to the economists at Moody's.
The best solution, said Dan White, an economist with Moody's Economy.com, "is complicated and depends on a lot of local considerations."
Dogma, alas, usually trumps nuance in the debate -- now three-plus decades on -- over the merits and failings of Minnesota's business climate.
The argument has been waged principally by Minnesota's biggest companies, and in simplistic terms it holds that Minnesota should aspire to be more like the states that routinely rank among the Top 10 in terms of attractive business climates: South Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, Nevada, Florida, Montana, New Hampshire, Delaware, Utah and Indiana.
Many are very pleasant places to visit and, given that six of the 10 lack a state income tax, some might even be worth retiring to. But by almost every measure Minnesota is richer and more economically diverse.