In a presentation to the Grand Island Rotary Club on Tuesday, John Jordison of the rural-focused group Nebraska Renaissance outlined a strategy to boost Nebraska’s population to 2 million by 2020. (It’s at about 1.78 million right now.)

The strategy, from a study (PDF) commissioned by the group last month, is remarkably thorough, with 47 suggestions for lawmakers and government officials. But at its core is one assertion: High taxes are a major barrier to population growth and revitalization within Nebraska, and they must be lowered in order for the state to flourish. That’s a philosophy I’ve heard quite often in rural Nebraska, particularly from politicians and business leaders.

It might seem at first like a no-brainer — of course high taxes are bad, right? — but it’s actually almost a bold one once you pick it apart. According to this philosophy, the primary thing that’s keeping people from moving into Nebraska and the state’s young people from moving back is not so much the state’s perceived remoteness or dullness, but its tax climate. Put that way, it’s certainly counterintuitive.

Does it hold up? Depends on how you look at it. In a direct sense, taxes are probably one of the last things people consider when deciding whether and where to move. More often, it comes down to proximity to family and friends, entertainment and recreational options, natural beauty, quality of schools and health care, and, of course, jobs.

That’s where the low-tax idea comes in. You can’t bring in more people without more jobs, the thinking goes, and businesses aren’t inclined to choose to create their jobs in a state that oppresses them with high taxes. So the lower-taxes-for-population-growth idea primarily functions on the indirect level, looking to attract businesses to create jobs that will then lure those coveted residents.

The conundrum is that lowering taxes can mean cutting some of the services and offerings that draw people into an area, like quality schools and recreational opportunities. (Of course, it can also mean trimming the fat of unnecessary government spending, but that’s often much easier said than done.)

So is cutting taxes the key to growing Nebraska (and since this is the Scenic Route, rural Nebraska)? Or is focusing on improving the state’s amenities and marketing them to potential residents the best tack to take to grow our state’s rural areas? Or, of course, is the right answer all of the above — in which case, how do we pay for it? I think these are fundamental questions when we look at the future of rural Nebraska, and I’d love to hear your thoughts.