At best, Congress and the White House have dithered over pro-growth policies. At worst, and far closer to the truth, Washington has pushed an anti-growth agenda including higher taxes and more regulation, protectionism and government spending.

There are examples of elected officials making positive contributions, however. Where? In certain states. Consider some key tax changes that went into effect at the start of the year:

Arizona moved from a two-rate income tax with rates of 2.55 percent and 2.98 percent to a flat rate of 2.5 percent.

Arkansas cut its corporate income tax rate from 5.9 percent to 5.3 percent.

Idaho cut its individual income tax rate from 6 percent to 5.8 percent.

Indiana cut its individual income tax rate from 3.23 percent to 3.15 percent with a phase down that could lower the rate of 2.9 percent in 2029.

Iowa went from a personal income tax with nine brackets and a top rate of 8.53 percent to four brackets and a top rate of 6 percent. The number of brackets and top rate will continue to decline until hitting a 3.9 percent flat tax in 2026. In addition, Iowa’s corporate income tax rate went from three brackets with a top rate of 9.8 percent to two brackets and a top rate of 8.4 percent.

Kentucky cut its individual income tax rate from 5 percent to 4.5 percent. If certain revenue triggers are met, the rate should decline to 4 percent in 2024.

Missouri cut its top individual income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 4.95 percent.

Nebraska reduced its highest individual income tax rate from 6.84 percent to 6.64 percent, with the rate scheduled to phase down to 5.84 percent in 2027.

New Hampshire has no general personal income tax, but imposes an income tax on interest and dividends. That rate declined from 5 percent to 4 percent on its way to being phased out by 2027. Also, the state corporate income tax rate was cut from 7.6 percent to 7.5 percent.

North Carolina dropped its individual income tax rate from 4.99 percent to 4.75 percent.

Pennsylvania reduced its corporate income tax rate from 9.99 percent to 8.99 percent, with the rate scheduled to be phased down to 4.99 percent by 2031.

Unfortunately, there are also state lawmakers looking to take their states in the wrong direction and inflict more damage to their already inhospitable tax climates. As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, eight states  — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York and Washington — seek to impose wealth taxes of one kind or another.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the idea in California would be to take
1 percent a year from households worth more than $50 million and 1.5 percent from those worth more than $1 billion.

Illinois would tax unrealized capital gains as income. And in New York, State Sen. Gustavo Rivera introduced a bill to increase the state’s 10.9 percent top capital gains tax rate, adding 7.5 percentage points for households earning more than $550,000 and another 7.5 points for those above $1.1 million.

Of course, such taxes come on top of federal levies.

These destructive proposals ignore basic economics. Whether lawmakers intend it or not, they’re designed to undermine economic growth by chasing away entrepreneurship and investment. And make no mistake, this very much is about taxing small businesses. According to the Federal Reserve, the top 1 percent in total wealth own 57 percent of private companies.

These eight states serving up class warfare measures meant to punish top income earners would spread economic destruction and provide additional incentives for people to move to less punishing states. Keep in mind that California, New York and Illinois already rank among the top states for exporting people to other states.

So if 11 states can take pro-entrepreneurship, pro-small business, pro-investment — that is, pro-growth — policy steps, why can’t federal officials do the same? Since states often are referred to as laboratories of democracy, federal lawmakers can just as easily look to destructive experiments for inspiration, including wealth tax ideas.

In the end, it’s about choosing to align policy with sound economics or not. The question for policymakers is this: Do you want to incentivize wealth creation and all the resulting benefits that spread across the economy or incentivize wealth destruction?