projecting economic impacts of legalizing marijuana in connecticut · 2020. 9. 15. · ccea...
TRANSCRIPT
ProjectingEconomicImpactsofLegalizingMarijuana
inConnecticut
ProfessorFredCarstensen
DirectoroftheConnecticutCenterforEconomicAnalysis(CCEA)SchoolofBusiness
UniversityofConnecticut2100HillsideRoad,Unit1240
Storrs,CT06269-1240
September10,2020
i
ExecutiveSummary
Corefindings:CCEAprojects,dependingonwhichtaxregimeConnecticutadoptsandhowthestatechoosestospendthosenewrevenues,legalizationgeneratingdirectstatetaxrevenuesgrowingfromtherangeof$35-$48millioninthefirstyearofoperationsto$188-$223millioninyearfive.Includingindirectandinducedimpacts,CCEApredictstotalstatetaxrevenuesreaching$235-$314millioninthefifthyear.Aggregatenewstatetaxrevenuesoverfiveyearsrangefrom$784to$952million(SeeTable6).Inaddition,directlocaltaxrevenueisprojectedat$71millionoverfiveyears,with$21millioninyearfivealone.Newemploymentexpandsfromtherangeof5,669-7,418inyearoneofoperationsto10,424-17,462inyearfive.Also,inyearfive,stateGDPgrowsbetween$953millionto$1,737million,dependingonthescenario.Higherimpactsresultifthestatechoosestoexpandorpreserveservicesinthefaceofimpendingfiscalchallenges(seeTableE-1below).
Toestablisharangeoflikelyeconomicimpactsandfiscaloutcomes,thisreportconsiderstwotaxsystemsandthenevaluatestwoscenarios:oneinwhichthestatespendsallnewnetrevenuestoexpandorpreservegovernmentservicesthatwouldotherwisebecutinthefaceofimpendingfiscaldeficitsandoneinwhichitsavesallnetnewrevenue(i.e.,putsitintoarainydayfund).
Amultipletaxpolicy(MTP)imposesbothpercentageandperunittaxes;thealternative,apercentagetaxpolicy(PTP),imposesonlypercentageexciseorsalestaxes.Ascurrentlystructured,MTPgeneratesmoregovernmentrevenues.Afterthefirsttwoyears,itwouldresultinhigherpricesthanthePTPapproach,butgiventhetypicalpatternoffallingpricesasmarijuanabecomesmorereadilyavailable,MTPwouldtendtolimitfuturegrowthofthelegalmarijuanamarketandweakenresultingeconomicdevelopment.MTPtaxesbecomehighrelativetothepre-taxprice,forcingrelativelyhighretailprices;thislikelytranslatesintoawidergapbetweenpricesinthelegalmarketversustheillegalone.Consumerswouldbothbelesslikelytobuyin-statelegalmarijuanaandlesslikelytomoveconsumptiontolegalpurchases.
Twoscenariosthenconsiderhowthestatespendsthenewtaxrevenuestoprojecttherangeoflikelyoutcomes.Inonescenario,CCEAassumesthestatechoosestosaveallofthenewrevenues,spendingnothingonnewstateservicesormaintainingcurrentservices,thusminimizingimpactsinemploymentandGDP.Inthesecondscenario,CCEAassumesthestatechoosestospendallnewrevenuesonexpandedstateservices—oronpreservingservicesthatwouldotherwisebecut,therebymaximizingeconomicimpacts.Realistically,thelatterscenarioisclosertothelikelyoutcome,givenlargedeficitsthatConnecticutfacesinthenextfewfiscalyears.Providingbothscenariospermitsfullunderstandingoftherangeofpotentialoutcomesandclearlyestablishesthateventhepessimisticscenarioforlegalization—wherethestateabsorbsallnewrevenues—isasolidchoiceintermsofjobcreation,growthinstateGDP,andbenefitstoConnecticut’sfiscalhealth.
TableE-1summarizestheimpactsoflegalizationundertheMTP,includingfixedtaxespergram.Inyearzero,cannabisbusinesseswouldperformnecessarystart-uppreparations,butcannabisdistributionwouldnotbeginuntilyearone.Thefinallineprovidesannualrevenueimpactsifthestatespendsthenewrevenuestopreserveorcreatenewservices,whichgeneratetheincrementalrevenuesshownonthatline.
ii
Nomatterwhichtaxregimethestatechoosesandnomatterhowitspendsthenewrevenues,legalizationwillgeneratesignificantjobcreation,stronggrowthinGDP,andhundredsofmillionsinnewtaxrevenues.InthefaceofthechallengeofrecoveringfromtheCOVID-19pandemic,legalizationoffersapathtoastrongerrecovery.
SeethefullreportbelowforadetaileddelineationoftheCCEAanalysis.
i
TableE-1:SummaryAnnualEconomicImpactsofConnecticutLegalizingMarijuana,
MTPYearofOperations Start-up 1 2 3 4 5
Employmentimpact(neworpreservedjobs)/years
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Governmentsavesallnettaxrevenues*
1,869 5,686 7,212 8,358 8,440 10,424
Governmentspendsalltaxnetrevenue
2,111 7,238 10,242 12,879 14,151 17,462
AddedGDP(MillionsCurrent$)
Governmentsavesallnettaxrevenues
189.9 497.3 620.0 718.3 707.7 953.2
Governmentspendsalltaxnetrevenue
213.7 653.0 932.4 1,197.2 1,327.9 1,737.2
AddedPersonalDisposableIncome(MillionsCurrent$)
Governmentsavesallnettaxrevenues
127 331 432 522 542 729
Governmentspendsalltaxnetrevenue
142 437 653 872 1,015 1,340
FiscalImpactsifRevenueSaved(MillionsCurrent$)
Directstatetaxes 35.20 86.70 139.10 185.10 223.10Indirectstatetaxes 9.01 21.92 27.82 32.77 32.86 47.69Totalstaterevenues 9.01 57.12 114.52 171.87 217.96 270.79Stateexpenditures 1.27 3.99 6.22 8.04 8.98 10.89Netstatesavings 7.74 53.13 108.30 163.83 208.98 259.90Grossfiscalimpactsifrevenueisspent/jobspreserved
10.12 64.42 129.67 195.71 249.74 313.82
Note:*Thesearetaxrevenuesgeneratedbytheprojectnetofanystategovernmentexpendituresrequiredtobringtheinitiativetofruition.Alternatively,thefollowinglineprojectswhatwouldhappenifgovernmentsratherthansavingthesefundsspentthemeitheronnewinitiativesorpreservationofexistingoperationswhichwouldhaveotherwisehadtobecut.
Contents
ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................i
EconomicImpactsofConnecticutLegalizingMarijuana..............................................................................1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
FirstFiveYearsofOperations.......................................................................................................................5
PTPandMTPEmploymentImpacts.........................................................................................................6
RevenuesSpenttoPreserveorExpandProgramsandJobs…………………………………………………………………7IncomeImpacts........................................................................................................................................8
GDP…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………8DPI........................................................................................................................................................8
FiscalConsiderations..............................................................................................................................10
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................14
1
ProjectingEconomicImpactsofLegalizingMarijuanainConnecticut
IntroductionConnecticutcitizensnowhaveeasyaccesstolegalmarijuanainneighboringstatesaswellasanactiveillicitmarketinthestate;legalizationwouldsignificantlyreframecannabisconsumption,deliveringmultiplebenefits.CCEAprojectsthedynamiceconomicimpactsoflegalizationanddevelopmentofcannabisproductionandretailingwithinConnecticutwill:
• divertillicitpurchasesofmarijuanatolicitmarkets;• transferout-of-statepurchasesintothestate;and• imposequalitycontrolsinmarketsforadultmarijuanaconsumption.
Inthisreport,CCEAexaminestwoapproachestotaxationofadultmarijuanasalesinwholesaleandretailmarkets.Gov.NedLamont’s2020bill,SB16,proposedfixedtaxespergramat$1.25ondryflowerand$0.50ontrim,1inadditiontotheusual6.35%statesalestaxandmunicipaltaxratesof3%.Analternativeapproachisastraightforwardpercentagetaxthatcombinesstatesalestaxwithaspecial20%taxatretailanda3%municipaltaxwheresalesoccur,foranaggregatepercentagetaxof29.35%.Toprojectdynamicsinthecannabismarket(adultconsumptionandmedicalconsumption)ofthetwotaxframeworks,CCEAassumesthatpercapitaConnecticutretailmarketgrowthfromlegalizationoverthenextfiveyearswillgrowatthesamepaceasColorado’smarketsdidfromlegalizationthere.
Proceedingfromthisbase,CCEAdevelopedexpansionpathsofwholesaleandretailsalesfortheseproductsunderthetwodifferingtaxationframeworks.Fixedtaxespergrammeanthateffectivepercentagetaxratesonmarijuanarisewithfallingpricesandviceversa.Thatmeansthatthelowertheprice,thehighertaxburdenthatimpactsconsumerbehavior:itreducesdemandrelativetoasimplepercentagetax.Becausethistaxproposalcontainsamixoffixedandvariabletaxrates,CCEAreferstoitastheMultipleTaxProposal(MTP).
Thealternativetaxstructurewouldimposethesame6.35%stateand3%municipalsalestaxes,supplementedbyafurther20%taxonretailsales.Inthiscase,effectivetaxratesareaconstantshareofretailprices—i.e.,taxesareaconstantrelativeburden.Aswithallsetpercentagesalestaxrates,governmentrevenuesbearthebruntofvariationsinfinalprices.CCEAreferstothistaxsystemasPercentageTaxProposal(PTP).
Inassessingmarketbehaviorsince2014,CCEAdrewuponactualmarketexperienceinColorado.Basically,ConnecticutresidentsareassumedtoparticipateinlicitmarijuanaconsumptionatthesamepaceasColoradoanshavewhileexpectingthesamerateofreductioninpricesasmoreretailoutletsbecomeavailable.Duringthefirstfiveyearsofoperations,
1SB16alsoproposeda$0.28taxpergramofwetcannabis,whichisexcludedfromthisstudyduetodatashortcomings.
2
marketpricesofcannabisdeclinedinColorado;CCEAassumesConnecticutpriceswillfollowthesamedynamic.2
ThetwotaxframeworksonConnecticut’smarijuanamarketoutlinedabovehavedifferentimplicationsforstateandlocalgovernmentrevenuesraiseddirectlyfrommarijuanasales,inadditiontopricingpressuresimposedonconsumers,asnotedinTable1.
Table1:DirectTaxesfromLicitConnecticutMarijuanaSales,Years1-5(MillionsofCurrent$)
YearofOperations 1 2 3 4 5
PTP
Connecticutretailsales,pre-taxes 180.7 336.9 496.6 631.0 713.2
20%advalorem(percentage)tax 36.1 67.4 99.3 126.2 142.6
6.35%salestax 11.5 21.4 31.5 40.1 45.3
Stateexciseandsalestaxrevenues 47.6 88.8 130.9 166.3 187.9
3%localtax 5.4 10.1 14.9 18.9 21.4
Totaldirectcannabistaxrevenue 53.0 98.9 145.8 185.2 209.3
Effectivetotaltaxrate(%) 29.35 29.35 29.35 29.35 29.35
MTP
Connecticutretailsales,pre-taxes 180.7 336.9 496.6 631.0 713.2
Budandtrimexcisetaxrevenues 23.7 65.3 107.6 145.0 177.8
6.35%salestax 11.5 21.4 31.5 40.1 45.3
Stateexciseandsalestaxrevenues 35.2 86.7 139.1 185.1 223.1
3%localtax 5.4 10.1 14.9 18.9 21.4
Totaldirectcannabistaxrevenues 40.6 96.8 154.0 204.0 244.5
Totaleffectivetaxrevenue(%) 22.5 28.7 31.0 32.3 34.3Note:ThistableshowsnoconsumerreactiontohigherpricesintheMTPcaserelativetoPTPafteryeartwo.The
2Colorado’spre-legalizationuseratewaslowerthanthecurrentsituationinConnecticut.Inaddition,ConnecticuthaslargepopulationsnearitsborderswithNewYorkandRhodeIsland,whereadult-usemarijuanaisnotyetlegal.Thus,modelingonthebasisoftheColoradoexperienceisconservativerelativetowhatthesituationislikelytobeduetolargerin-statedemandandmoredemandfromborderresidents.
3
literaturesuggeststhatlikelyreactionswouldbe$4,000—toosmalltoshowinthetable.EffectivetaxratesunderthePTPalternativeremainconstantat29.35%ofpre-taxsalesprices.TheMTPsystemresultsinalowereffectivetaxratethefirsttwoyears—thetimewhenlegalcannabispriceshavebeenhighestandwhenconsumersaretransitioningtonewstoresfromtheillicitmarketorout-of-statestores.Afterthat,PTPimposesthelowereffectivetaxrate.Inthefirsttwoyears,theproposedMTPratesarebestpositionedtoencouragemovementofconsumptionfromillicittolicitmarketsordiscourageout-of-statepurchases.Insubsequentyears,PTPholdstheadvantageoverMTPandcanbeexpectedtoresultinfewerout-of-statepurchasesandthusmoreeconomicgrowththanwithMTP.
TheMTPapproachraisesmorerevenuesforthestategovernment,amountingto$139.1millioninyearthreeto$223.1millioninyearfive.Forthemostprice-sensitiveconsumers,thehighertaxratemayresultinmoreout-of-stateorillicitpurchases.
Inadditiontoadultmarijuanaretailsalesaremedicalmarijuanasales,whichswellproducerrevenuesasnotedinTable2,whichincludespre-taxsalesprojectionbyyear.Connecticut’s2021demandformedicalmarijuanaisexpectedtobeslightlyaboveathirdofsalesofitsadultmarijuanaconsumption.Whatqualifiesasmedicalmarijuanaishighlycontrolledbythelegislature,sochangescanoccur.LegalmedicalcannabissalesarealreadyestablishedinConnecticut.BasedonprojectionsfromColorado,whichalsohadamedicalcannabisprogrambeforelegalization,weanticipateaninitialsurgeinmedicalcannabissales,followedbyadecreaseinlateryears.
Table2:Retail,Medical,andConnecticutExpectedPre-TaxSales(MillionsCurrent$)
YearofOperations 1 2 3 4 5
Connecticutadult-usesales 180.7 336.9 496.6 631.0 713.2
Connecticutmedicalsales 119.7 147.7 146.7 148.6 118.6
Totalmarijuanasales 300.4 484.5 643.3 779.7 831.8
CCEA’sanalysislooksatmarketreactionsnotonlydirectlybutalsothroughthegeneraldynamicequilibriummodelREMI(RegionalEconomicModels,Inc.)3provides—onethatprojectsthefutureimpactsfromeachtaxstructure.ThisapproachbroadenstheanalysistoincludeimpactsofConnecticutstart-upcostspriortomarijuanaproductionaswellas
3SeetheAppendixforanexplanationofREMI.
4
operationallinkagesthroughouttheConnecticuteconomy.Itis,therefore,abetter,moreholisticapproachuponwhichtobaseemergingpolicies.
ThisanalysisbeginswithestimatesofthecapitalizationoftheindustryinConnecticutfollowedbyoperations.BecausemarijuanaproductionandconsumptionhavebeenlegalizedinCanada,fourlargeproducers,capitalizedatover$18.5billion,aretradedpubliclyontheTorontoStockExchange.Fromtheirpublicinformation,CCEAhasestimatedanindustrycapitaloutputratioof1.2587relativetopre-taxindustrysales.Thisisaconservativeapproachbecauseitonlyincludesinvestmentsbysuccessfulfirmsthathaveexperiencedrapidgrowth.Capitalexpendituresbyotherswhomayhaveinvestedunwiselyandfailedareexcluded.
BasedonthelastlineofTable2andusingtheaboveratio,annualexpectedcapitalizationissignificant,asTable3shows.Conservatively,CCEAhasassumedperfectforesightbyinvestors—thatis,thenewprocessingfacilitiesarefinishedjustintimetomeetexpandingmarketdemands.CCEAallocatedhalfthecapitalizationtoplantsandbuildings,i.e.,“non-residentialconstruction,”andtheotherhalftomachineryandequipment.Becausethenumericallydominatedyearsrefertooperations,yearzero(start-up)referstoinvestmentsmadeduringtheyearpriortoinitialproduction.
Table3:CapitalizationoftheConnecticutMarijuanaIndustry,Years0-5(Millions$)
YearofOperations Start-up 1 2 3 4 5
Non-residentialconstruction 94.5 115.9 99.9 85.8 32.8 133.3
Machineryandequipment 94.5 115.9 99.9 85.8 32.8 133.3
Note:Asidefromthestart-upyear,theabovearesimplyhalfofthecapital/outputratiotimesthepriordifferencesinoutput.Start-upisapproximatedbyhalftheinitialyear’soutput,implyingthattheotherhalfhasalreadybeeninvested.Investmentinthefifthyearisbasedondemandexpandingduringthesixthyearattheannualaveragecompoundrateinthepreviousfiveyears.
Similarly,Table4delineatesthedirectimpactsintotheREMImodeloperation.Thistabletracestheimmediatesectorimpactsofmarijuanaconsumptionineachcase.BecausemanufacturingandprocessingofmarijuanahasnotyetbeenintegratedasanindustryinREMI,CCEAapproximatesthoseactivitiesasamixtureofexistingindustries:
• Electricitypowergeneration(15%)• Soybeanandotherprocessing(9%)• Pharmaceuticalpreparations(14%)• Greenhouse,nursery,andfloricultureoperations(18%)• Professional,technical,andscientificservices(16%)
5
• Wholesalemargins(18%)• Otherretailmargins(10%)
InConnecticut,pharmaceuticalsdominatethechemicalindustry,soparallelswithmarijuanaarestrongertherethantheywouldbeinstateswithsignificantfossilfuelrefining.
Table4:SectorAllocationofMarijuanaIndustryOperationsExpenditures(Millions$)
YearofOperations 1 2 3 4 5
PTP
Utilities 45.1 72.7 96.5 116.9 124.8
Manufacturingandprocessing 123.2 198.7 263.8 319.7 341.0
Professionalandtechnicalservices 48.1 77.5 102.9 124.7 133.1
Retailmargins 54.1 87.2 115.8 140.3 149.7
Wholesalemargins 30.0 48.5 64.3 78.0 83.2
Total 300.4 484.5 643.3 779.7 831.8
Stateandlocalgovernmentcannabistaxrevenue—PTP
53.0 98.9 145.8 185.2 209.3
Stateandlocalgovernmentcannabistaxrevenue—MTP
40.4 96.4 153.1 204.0 244.5
Stateandlocalrevenuesarethedirectwholesaleanddirectretailtaxes,aswellas,intheMTPcase,perunitchargesaccruingdirectlytothestateandlocalgovernments.TheydonotincludeanyindirectandinducedimpactsgeneratedlaterinREMI.Becauseretailemployeeshavespecialproductknowledge,theyenjoywagesbetterthanmostothersinretail.Toaccommodatethisreality,theCCEAanalysisassumeda12%incrementtotheiraveragewages.
TotalannualgovernmentrevenuesarehigherintheMTPcaseduetothehigherlevelsoftaxation—theamountspaidbyconsumers.Priortohighertaxes,theoppositeistrueofrevenuesaccruingtobothmanufacturingandprocessingandretailmarginsbecausethemodelingtakesintoaccountthecontractionofdemandcausedbythehighertaxes.
FirstFiveYearsofOperationsThissectionutilizesthemostrecentversionofCCEA’sforecastingmodelofConnecticut,REMIv.2.4.1,toestablishtotaleconomicimpactsonthestateunderbothPTPandMTPwithaparallelvariationoneachscenario.UsageofthisversionofREMIassumesasnapbackrecovery
6
withintwoyears.CCEA’sownoutlookforaslowerrecoveryover10yearswouldallowmoreroominConnecticutforslightlylargerimpactsandimpliesthatalargernumberofthejobsgeneratedbythestatespendingitsincrementalrevenueswouldpreserveeconomicactivityratherthandestroyitthroughotherwisenecessaryexpenditurecuts.ThisagainunderlinestheconservativenatureoftheCCEAprojections.
Coloradohassetaninterestingprecedentbyearmarkingcertainmarijuanarevenuesforspecificexpendituressuchasbuildingschools.WithoutpresumingashiftinhowtheConnecticutLegislaturemightspendthesenewrevenues,CCEArantwoscenariostoestablishthefullrangeofpossibleimpacts—asituationwherethestatesavesallofitsnewrevenuesandthemorelikelysituationwherethestatespendsallitsincrementalrevenuesforneworpreservedservicesthatwouldotherwisebeeliminatedbybudgetcuts.CCEAbasedstatepreservedexpenditurepatternsonitscurrentannualshares.
Thissectionisorganizedtopresentthedifferencesbetweenthetwotaxsystems—PTPandMTP—asifallnewrevenuesaresavedandnonearespentonservices,oralternativelywhererevenuesarespentoneithernewservicesorservicespreservedfrombeingcutwereitnotforthecannabistaxrevenue.ThefirstoftheseisthemostconservativesetofscenariosthatCCEAdeveloped.
PTPandMTPEmploymentImpacts:RevenuesSavedJobopportunitiesinthemarijuanaindustry,itssupplychain,andinduceddemandsfromimprovedincomesarecapturedforbothresidentsofConnecticutandnon-residents.Thisdistinctionisimportantbecausenon-residentspaytaxesinthestatebutdemandfewerstateandlocalservicesthandoresidents,aswellashavingdifferentexpenditurepatternsbylocale.Chart1illustratesgrowthinresidentialandtotalemploymentforeachofthecaseswithnoincrementalmatchingofstateandlocalgovernmentexpendituresundereachtaxsystem.Thedifferencesbetweentotalandresidentialemploymentareincrementaljobsfilledbynon-residents.
7
Chart1:IncrementalJobs,ResidentialandTotal(#)
ConnecticutjobsunderPTPrisefrom1,825duringstart-upto10,459inthefifthyearofoperations.Ofthesejobs,Connecticutresidentshold1,729duringtheinitialyearofstart-uppreparationsand9,830inthefifthyearofoperations.Duringthefirsttwooperatingyears,taxesaregenerallymoreonerousunderthePTPsystemthantheMTPsystem,whileoverthelastthreeyears,theoppositeistrue.Thisexplainswhytheemploymentimpactsareslightlydissimilarbetweenthetwotaxationsystems,evenifgovernmentssaveratherthanspendtheadditionalrevenues.
RevenuesSpenttoPreserveorExpandProgramsandJobsShouldConnecticutfollowColorado’spatternandspendsomeorallofitsincrementaltaxrevenuesaccruingfromthemarijuanaindustryandtrade,jobimpactscouldbeconsiderablylarger.Chart2revealstheimplicationsofspendingallincrementalstaterevenues.
1,869
5,686
7,212
8,358 8,440
10,424
1,825
5,669
7,199
8,348 8,433
10,459
1,782
5,360
6,764
7,827 7,891
9,786
1,729
5,3456,751
7,818 7,884
9,830
'-
2,750
5,500
8,250
11,000
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
TotalJobsMixedTaxPolicy TotalJobsPercentageTaxPolicies
ResidentJobsMixedTaxPolicy ResidentJobsPercentageTaxPolicy
8
Chart2:TotalJobImpactsWithandWithoutStateandLocalGovernmentMatchingExpenditures(#)
InthePTPcase,by2026therewouldbeanadditional16,002jobsintheConnecticuteconomy,wellabovethe10,459withoutmatchingspending.BecausestaterevenuesfromtheMTPcasearehigher,spendingthoserevenueshasalargernewandpreservedjobimpactthaninthePTPcase—from10,244jobsifnotspentto17,462jobswithspendingallincremental(thesumofnewandpreserved)revenues.Spendingalltheadditionalrevenueillustratestheimportanceofcommittingsomestateandlocalgovernmentexpendituresfromthoserevenuesgeneratedbyshiftingfromtheillicittolicitmarijuanatrade.Theresultsarebasedontheexpansionofgeneralgovernmentexpendituresor,morelikely,asmallercontractionofexpendituresthanwouldotherwisebenecessitatedduetofallingstaterevenueandthusbudgetcuts.Itispossibletotailorthoseexpenditurestoencouragefurthergrowthoftheeconomy.
IncomeImpactsEconomistsuseseveralmetricstomeasureincomeimpacts.GrossDomesticProduct(GDP)measureseconomicgrowthpriortodepreciation.Becauseonlythesumofthevalueaddedateachstageinthesupplychainthroughtofinalpurchaseisincluded,itavoidsdoublecounting.Itisnotaperfectmeasurebecauseenvironmentalcostsorbenefitsarefrequentlyoverlooked.Growthinpersonalincomemeasureshowindividualsinsocietyarefaring,andnetofpersonalincomepresentsameasureoftheincreasedfreedomofconsumersgeneratedbygrowth.
GDPChart3capturesincrementalimpactsoncurrent-dollarGDP.By2025,impactsintheMTPcasenearlydoublefromstateandlocalgovernmentsmatchingspendingwiththeirmarijuanatradetaxcollections.Overtime,annualGDPincreasesaredisproportionatetoemploymentbecause
1,869
5,6867,212
8,358 8,440
10,424
1,825
5,6697,199
8,348 8,433
10,459
2,111
7,238
10,242
12,87914,151
17,462
2,068
7,418
10,026
12,27913,140
16,002
'-
4,500
9,000
13,500
18,000
22,500
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
TotalJobsMixedTaxPolicyNoMatching TotalJobsPercentageTaxPoliciesNoMatchingTotalJobsMixedTaxPolicyMatching TotalJobsPercentageTaxPoliciesMatching
9
ofongoinginflationandimprovinglaborproductivity.Thegainsaresignificant,reaching$953to$957millionin2026withoutmatchingand$1,574to$1,737millionwithmatchingexpenditures.Inallbutthefirstyearofoperations,withspendingoftherevenuesbythestategovernment,current-dollarannualGDPimpactsexceed$900million.BecausetheMTPraisesmoretaxesthanthepercentagetaxpolicycase,matchingspendingdeliversmoreimpactssothatthelargerGDPimpactscomefromtheMTPcaseratherthanthepercentagetaxscenario.
Chart3:GDPImpactswithandwithoutMatchingStateandLocalGovernmentExpenditures(MillionsCurrent$)
DPIBecausedisposablepersonalincome(DPI)isasubsetofpersonalincome(PI)andPIisasubsetofGDP,theirincrementsaresmallerthanthoseinGDP,andDPIissmallerthanPI,withthedifferencebeingpersonalincometaxes.Forpurposesofthisstudy,DPIistherelevantnumberbecauseitprovidesthebasisforincrementalhouseholdconsumption.IfConnecticutsavesthenewtaxrevenueinsteadofspendingit,thelegalizationofmarijuanaisprojectedtoresultinanincreaseindisposablepersonalincomeof$722to$729millionin2026dependingonthetax
DPImorethandoublesresultsfromthefirstyearofoperations.Legalizingmarijuanamethod.addsnotonlytochoicesconcerningitsconsumptionbutalsogenerallyexpandsconsumerchoicebyasmuchas0.3%in2025,inclusiveofmatchinggovernmentexpenditures. Withgovernmentusingthesefundstopreserveitsexpendituresby2026,annualDPIimpactsswellto$1,209millionto$1,340million—overabilliondollarsayearforConnecticutcitizenstoexercisefreedomofchoiceovertheirexpenditures.
$190
$497$620
$718 $708
$953
$186$496
$619$718 $707
$957
$214
$653
$932
$1,197$1,328
$1,737
$210 $671 $910 $1,134 $1,218 $1,574'-
450.0
900.0
1,350.0
1,800.0
2,250.0
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
MixedTaxPolicyNoMatching PercentageTaxPolicyNoMatching
MixedTaxPolicyMatching PercentageTaxPolicyMatching
10
Chart4:DisposablePersonalIncomeImpactswithandwithoutMatchingStateandLocalGovernmentExpenditures(MillionsCurrent$)
FiscalConsiderationsAsChart5indicates,by2026legalizationofmarijuanawillgenerateadditionalincometaxesof$29to$55milliontothestatedependingonthechosentaxstructureandwhetherornotmoneygeneratedfromthosenewrevenuesarespentbygovernments.Ofthepersonalincometaxesraised,23.5%gotothestategovernmentandtheremaindergoestothefederalgovernment.
$127 $331 $432 $522 $542 $729$132
$330$431
$521 $542
$722
$142 $437 $653 $872 $1,015 $1,340$148
$449
$639
$829$936
$1,209
0
350
700
1050
1400
1750
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026MixedTaxPolicyNoMatchingPercentageTaxPolicyNoMatchingMixedTaxPolicyMatchingPercentageTaxPolicyMatching
11
Chart5:MarijuanaImpactsonPersonalStateIncomeTaxes(MillionsCurrent$)
Inadditiontopersonalincometaxrevenues,CCEAhasalsoestimatedincreasedsalestaxrevenuesarisingfromincrementalpersonalconsumptionandotherincrementalstatetaxesaccruingfromheightenedproductiontomeetcannabissales,4summarizedinTable5.Personalincometaxesinthistablepertaintothoseaccruingfromearningsofanexpandedlaborforceandincreasedoutputattributabletoincreasedeconomicactivity.Similarly,salestaxesexcludethosecollectedonmarijuanabutincludethemonpersonalconsumptionfromincrementalwagesbeingearnedbytheexpandedlaborforce.
4Inpreviouswork,CCEAestablishedthatratherthanputtingselecteditemsundersalestaxa3.9%rateonpersonalconsumptionwouldraiseanequalamountofrevenues,sothatratewasappliedtoincrementalpersonalconsumption,identifiedinREMItoestimatedstatesalestaxes.Thetwomainsourcesofstaterevenuesaccountfor66.6%ofrevenuesraisedbythestate,sothatinformationwasusedtoestimateincrementalstaterevenues.
$5 $13 $17 $20 $21 $30
$5
$13$17
$20 $21
$29
$6 $17 $26 $34 $39 $55
$6
$18
$25
$32$36
$49
0
15
30
45
60
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
MixedTaxPolicyNoMatchingPercentageTaxPolicyNoMatchingMixedTaxPolicyMatchingPercentageTaxPolicyMatching
12
Table5:IncrementalIndirectStateRevenuesAccruingfromCannabisProduction(MillionsCurrent$)
MTP 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Savedsurpluses
Personalincometax 5.18 13.06 16.95 20.19 20.58 29.52
Salestaxesfromadditionalconsumption 0.85 1.62 1.69 1.77 1.43 2.43
Otherstaterevenues 2.97 7.23 9.18 10.81 10.84 15.74
Totalstaterevenues 9.01 21.92 27.82 32.77 32.86 47.69
Spentsurplus
Personalincometax 5.82 17.25 25.72 34.03 39.09 54.76
Salestaxesfromadditionalconsumption 0.96 2.32 3.07 3.90 4.22 6.02
Otherstaterevenues 3.34 9.64 14.18 18.68 21.33 29.94
Totalstaterevenues 10.12 29.22 42.97 56.61 64.64 90.72
PTP
Savedsurpluses
Personalincometax 5.40 13.02 16.92 20.16 20.56 29.22
Salestaxesfromadditionalconsumption 0.80 1.62 1.68 1.76 1.42 2.49
Otherstaterevenues 3.05 7.21 9.16 10.80 10.83 15.62
Totalstaterevenues 9.25 21.86 27.76 32.72 32.81 47.33
Spentsurplus
Personalincometax 6.04 17.74 25.15 32.28 35.94 49.28
Salestaxesfromadditionalconsumption 0.91 2.41 2.97 3.62 3.74 5.34
Otherstaterevenues 3.42 9.92 13.85 17.68 19.54 26.90
Totalstaterevenues 10.37 30.07 41.97 53.59 59.22 81.52
Note:REMI-basedestimatesexcludingdirecttaxesonmarijuanagrowthandconsumption.
13
CombiningtheinformationondirecttaxespaidbytheintegratedmarijuanaindustryinTable1andtheincrementalstaterevenuesestimatedinREMI,yieldstotalincrementalstaterevenuesinTable6.Whilethetaxregimesabovehavelittleimpactoncomparativeimpactspriortospendingthesurpluses,expendituresofthesurplusesdohaveanimpactbecauseinclusionofthetaxescollectedundereachtaxregimedodiffer.
Table6:IncrementalStateRevenuesAccruingDirectlyandIndirectlyfromCannabisSales(MillionsCurrent$)
2021Start-Up
2022Year1
2023Year2
2024Year3
2025Year4
2026Year5
TotalYears1-5
MTP Direct 35.20 86.70 139.10 185.10 223.10 667.60Indirectwithoutspendingsurplus
9.01 21.92 27.82 32.77 32.86 47.69 163.06
Total 9.01 57.12 114.52 171.87 217.96 270.79 830.66 Indirectw/spendingsurplus
10.12 29.22 42.97 56.61 64.64 90.72 284.15
Total 10.12 64.42 129.67 195.71 249.74 313.82 951.75
PTP Direct 47.6 88.8 130.9 166.3 187.9 621.50
Indirectwithoutspendingsurplus
9.25 21.86 27.76 32.72 32.81 47.33 162.48
Total 9.25 69.46 116.56 163.62 199.11 235.23 783.98 Indirectw/spendingsurplus
10.37 30.07 41.97 53.59 59.22 81.52 266.37
Total 10.37 77.67 130.77 184.49 225.52 269.42 887.87 Legalizingmarijuanageneratessignificantadditionalstaterevenuesannuallynomatterwhichscenarioorvariationischosen.Aggregatestaterevenueswillvarydependingonthetaxregimeadoptedandwhetherinitialsurplusesarespentorsavedtopaydebtdown.Spendingalloftheadditionalrevenueswillstimulatemoregrowth,increasingtotalemploymentandincomesinthestate.Ataminimum,inyearfiveofoperationsincrementalstaterevenueswillreach$235millionbutcouldreach$314million.
Table7containsthenetsurplusesgeneratedundereachtaxschemepriortoanydecisiontospendthem.Inthefifthyearofoperations,thesenetrevenuesreachbetween$224and$260
14
million.Whenthoserevenuesarespent,annualsurplusesremainingoverandabovethedirecttaxespaidbytheindustryaregenerallypositivebutunder$4million.
Table7:StateSurpluses(MillionsCurrent$)
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
MTP
Increasedrevenues 9.01 56.92 114.12 170.87 217.96 270.79
Increasedexpenditures 1.27 3.99 6.22 8.04 8.98 10.89
Surplus 7.74 52.93 107.90 162.83 208.98 259.90
PTP
Increasedrevenues 9.25 69.46 116.56 163.62 199.11 235.23
Increasedexpenditures 1.25 3.97 6.21 8.02 8.97 10.90
Surplus 8.00 65.48 110.36 155.60 190.15 224.34
Overtheinitialstart-upyearandthefirstfiveyearsofoperations,theintegratedmarijuanaindustrywillgenerate$622to$669millionindirecttaxrevenueforthestate,dependingonthetaxregime.Addinginadditionalrevenuefrominducedandindirectactivitiesraisesaggregatestaterevenuesoverthesixyearsto$793to$840million.IfthestateeitherusesthesenewrevenuestoexpandservicesortocurtailfuturecutbacksarisingfromextraordinaryexpendituresduringCOVID-19,CCEAestimatesthetotalstaterevenueimpactsforthesesixyearswillreach$898to$962million.
ConclusionThisanalysisshowsthatlegalizationofmarijuanawilldeliversignificantbenefitstoConnecticutintermsofjobs,householdincome,andbothstateandlocalrevenues.TheanalysisisalsoconservativeasCCEAworkedonthebasisofmodestassumptionsaboutthelikelypatternofgrowth.Further,thestudydoesnotincludeotherbenefitssuchasthosethatwouldresultfrombringinganillicitbusiness,includingqualitycontroloverconsumables,withinthepurviewofthestate.InthefaceofthestaggeringdisruptiontheCOVID-19pandemichascaused,thisnewindustrywouldalsoenhancethepathtoeconomicrecovery.
15
Appendix: Regional Economic Models Inc. (REMI) TheConnecticutCenterforEconomicAnalysisutilizesREMI’sgeneralequilibriummodeloftheConnecticuteconomy,PI+.Thatmodelsimulatesthecurrenteconomyagainstwhichagentsofchange,suchasthisinitiative,impactConnecticut’seconomyandgeneratepolicyinsightsthrough,realisticyear-by-yearestimatesofstatewideregionaleffects.AwiderangeofpolicyvariablesallowsCCEAtorepresentthepolicytobeevaluated,whiletheexplicitstructureinthemodelhelpstheusertointerpretthepredictedeconomicanddemographiceffects.PI+isusedbygovernmentagencies(includingmostU.S.stategovernments),consultingfirms,non-profitinstitutions,universities,andpublicutilities.ItisConnecticut’sstandardforassessingdevelopmentprojects.Modelsimulationsestimatecomprehensiveeconomicanddemographiceffectsinwide-ranginginitiatives,suchas:economicimpactanalysis;policiesandprogramsforeconomicdevelopment,infrastructure,environment,energyandnaturalresources;andstateandlocaltaxchanges.Articlesaboutthemodelequationsandresearchfindingshavebeenpublishedinprofessionalnationaljournals,includingtheAmericanEconomicReview,TheReviewofEconomicStatistics,theJournalofRegionalScience,andtheInternationalRegionalScienceReview.