 Originally published at Econlib.
At the recent vice-presidential debate between Senator J.D. Vance and Governor Tim Walz, both leaders emphasized that families are America’s backbone. However, they erred in their approach by suggesting that more government involvement could solve families’ challenges. From expanding the child tax credit to advocating for new social programs, their solutions imply that the government can strengthen families. This is a dangerous misconception. Instead of empowering families, government programs often create dependency and stifle personal responsibility. Families thrive when they can shape their futures, not when bureaucratic systems constrain them. Each time the government steps in with a new program or benefit, it diminishes that freedom, replacing it with control. What begins as well-intentioned assistance often leads to dependence on the state. For example, the expansion of the child tax credit may appear to help families in the short term, but beneath the surface, it’s just another form of wealth redistribution. The government takes from some families to give to others, often with strings attached, reducing overall freedom and fostering a culture of dependency. As Milton Friedman often argued, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Every dollar spent on social programs must come from somewhere—from today’s taxpayers or, worse, future generations who will inherit the debt. When politicians advocate for more government borrowing, they are not helping families; they are placing a financial burden on the very children they claim to support. These government interventions discourage self-reliance and erode the virtues that strengthen families, such as responsibility and initiative. The real solution to helping families is not more government intervention—it’s less. Cutting government spending and reducing taxes allows families to keep more of their hard-earned money. When families control more of their income, they can make decisions that fit their unique needs, whether saving for a home, investing in their children’s education, or starting a small business. Families are far better equipped to allocate resources than Washington bureaucrats. Moreover, reducing the size of government programs fosters independence. Work requirements, for instance, are essential to reducing welfare dependency. When individuals are encouraged to contribute to society through meaningful work, they regain a sense of dignity and self-worth—key elements for the stability and strength of the family unit. Government handouts that lack work incentives trap individuals in cycles of poverty and dependency. Over time, these individuals lose the motivation to improve their circumstances, weakening the family structure. A critical area where this is evident is in criminal justice reform. Too many fathers, particularly in minority communities, are imprisoned for non-violent offenses, leaving families without a primary breadwinner and creating emotional and financial strain. This is another case where excessive government intervention—in the form of overcriminalization—has done more harm than good. Reforming the system to focus on rehabilitation and second chances would do far more to help struggling families than government welfare checks. Strong families depend on having responsible, present role models. Keeping families intact is essential to breaking the cycles of poverty that afflict so many communities. Rising living costs are another major issue for families, but government intervention often exacerbates this problem. In housing, healthcare, and education, regulations and taxes inflate costs, making it harder for families to get by. For instance, restrictive zoning laws and excessive property taxes increase housing costs. Rather than creating new government programs to subsidize housing, a better approach would be eliminating these regulations and reducing the tax burden, allowing the free market to provide more affordable solutions. The free market has a proven track record of reducing prices and increasing access, while government involvement often does the opposite. The government should protect individual rights and ensure a fair playing field, not interfere by redistributing wealth or attempting to manage the economy. Personal responsibility and economic freedom are key to prosperity. Families need the freedom to choose how to work, spend, and live their lives. More government programs won’t strengthen families—freedom will. Politicians like Vance and Walz, though well-meaning, miss the broader point. Families don’t need more government programs; they need more freedom. This includes the freedom to work, to spend their money as they see fit, and to live without excessive regulation. By reducing the size of government, cutting taxes, and eliminating burdensome regulations, we give families the tools they need to succeed on their terms. The key to strengthening families is not expanding government but reducing its role. Families thrive when they have the freedom to make their own choices without the heavy hand of government dictating their lives. The best way to help families is to let them keep more of what they earn, remove the bureaucratic red tape that stifles opportunity, and foster a culture of personal responsibility. The freer families are to pursue their goals, the more prosperous society will become—not just for them but for the entire country.
0 Comments
 Originally published at Texans for Fiscal Responsibility.
In the latest economic showdown between Texas and California—the two largest U.S. states by population and economic output—the results are clear: Texas is outpacing California in job creation and overall economic performance. Over the year leading up to September 2024, Texas added 327,400 jobs, an impressive 2.3% growth rate, while maintaining an unemployment rate of 4.1%. In contrast, California gained 265,300 jobs, or 1.5%, and continues to grapple with a rising unemployment rate of 5.3%. These figures highlight the profound impact of the two states’ contrasting economic models. With its more free-market policies—marked by lower taxes, minimal regulations, and a commitment to personal responsibility—Texas has fostered an environment ripe for growth. Meanwhile, California’s more interventionist, big-government approach, characterized by higher spending, taxes, and regulation, is struggling to keep up. Texas’s Free-Market Approach: A Proven Model for Prosperity Texas’s economic success is no accident. The state has long embraced a model of limited government intervention and a business-friendly regulatory environment. This combination has made Texas a magnet for businesses and workers seeking economic opportunity and a lower cost of living. A key driver of Texas’s success is its lack of a personal income tax, which provides an immediate financial advantage for individuals and businesses. This tax-friendly environment has attracted major corporations, including Tesla, Oracle, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, who have moved their headquarters to Texas in recent years. These relocations have boosted job creation and solidified Texas’s reputation as a national leader in economic opportunity. Texas’s economic growth is also bolstered by its diverse industry base. The state is home to many sectors, from energy and manufacturing to technology and health care, which has helped insulate it from economic downturns. Even as national challenges like inflation and supply chain disruptions persist, Texas’s economy has grown, driven by its robust job market and pro-growth policies. California’s Struggles: Big Government Holding Back Growth While California remains the largest state economy in the country, its economic growth is being held back by its big-government approach. The state’s high taxes and overregulation have created significant barriers to business growth and job creation, contributing to slower employment gains and a higher unemployment rate than Texas. One of California’s most significant challenges is its sky-high cost of living, particularly in housing. Regulatory hurdles, including restrictive zoning laws and environmental regulations, have limited the supply of affordable housing, driving up costs and forcing many residents to seek opportunities in states like Texas. This outmigration has become a growing problem for California, weakening its workforce and tax base. Furthermore, California’s heavy reliance on government spending and expansive social programs has created long-term fiscal vulnerabilities. The state’s large budget deficits often necessitate spending cuts in public services, and its high tax rates continue to burden residents and businesses. In contrast, Texas’s greater fiscal discipline and commitment to balanced budgets have enabled the state to grow without relying on excessive government intervention or spending. The Future for Texas: Opportunities for Continued Growth While Texas outperforms California in job creation and economic growth, the state still has room to improve. One key area where Texas could enhance its long-term success is by addressing government spending at the state and local levels. Despite its reputation for fiscal conservatism, Texas has seen increases in government spending in recent years, which pose challenges to its pro-growth model. To maintain its competitive edge, Texas should continue pursuing policies that reduce the government burden on individuals and businesses. One such policy would be eliminating school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes, providing substantial tax relief to homeowners and further supporting faster economic growth. By spending less and using budget surpluses to phase out these taxes over time, Texas could solidify its position as a low-tax state and continue to attract businesses and residents seeking economic freedom. Additionally, Texas should focus on maintaining its business-friendly regulatory environment. As states compete for talent and investment, keeping regulations minimal and predictable will ensure that Texas remains a top destination for companies and workers. Conclusion: Texas Shows the Power of Free Markets The latest employment data clarifies that Texas’s free-market approach is driving stronger economic growth and job creation than California’s more interventionist model. With 327,400 new jobs added over the past year and a 4.1% unemployment rate, Texas stands as a testament to the power of low taxes, limited regulation, and fiscal responsibility. In contrast, California’s slower job growth, higher unemployment, and economic struggles reflect the limitations of big-government policies. As Texans thrive, the state offers a blueprint for other states seeking to boost economic performance and job creation. By prioritizing free markets and personal responsibility over government intervention, Texas proves that economic prosperity comes from empowering individuals and businesses to innovate, invest, and grow. But there’s more to do!  Originally published at Pelican Institute.
With its rich cultural heritage and strategic location along the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana boasts significant economic potential. However, recent data underscores the need for the state to tap into this potential and enhance its economic growth, especially in comparison to its neighboring states. As of September 2024, Louisiana’s unemployment rate is 3.9%, a slight increase from the previous year but below the national average of 4.1%. Over the past twelve months, Louisiana added 2,000 jobs, a 0.1% increase in nonfarm employment. This growth is positive but well below the 1.3% national rate and significantly lower than regional competitors like Texas (2.3%) and Florida (2.1%), where job growth has been much stronger. It’s imperative for Louisiana to keep pace with its neighboring states. By urgently implementing bold pro-growth policies, such as lowering taxes, reducing regulations, and improving workforce development, the state can create an environment that attracts businesses, generates jobs, and enhances overall economic prosperity. Comparing Louisiana with Neighboring States The contrast between Louisiana and its neighboring states is stark. Texas continues to lead the pack, with 327,400 new jobs added over the past year. Meanwhile, Florida has also experienced strong economic growth, with its unemployment rate declining to 2.8%, among the lowest in the region. While still facing economic challenges, Mississippi has recently seen a boost in job creation through pro-business reforms, resulting in an unemployment rate of 3.3%. Louisiana’s relatively slower job growth and higher unemployment rate prove the urgent need for reform. The state’s heavy reliance on the oil and gas sector, while a source of strength in the past, has created economic volatility. Diversification into industries such as manufacturing, technology, and tourism, coupled with meaningful policy reforms, is not just important but crucial for Louisiana to remain competitive in the region. Pro-Growth Policy Recommendations for Louisiana To unlock its economic potential, Louisiana should consider implementing several key reforms that have proven successful in other states:
Moving Louisiana Forward Louisiana’s economy has shown signs of recovery, but much more work must be done. By embracing pro-growth policies focused on reducing taxes, streamlining regulations, and integrating workforce and social services while prioritizing high-demand, high-value career opportunities, Louisiana can revitalize its economy and compete more effectively with its neighbors. The state’s natural resources, cultural vibrancy, and strategic location give it a strong foundation to build, but success will require bold leadership and a commitment to reform. Join me for Episode 119 of the Let People Prosper Show with Dr. Peter Boettke, a Distinguished University Professor of Economics at George Mason University, the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism, and the Director of the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Pete recently received the Public Choice Society's highest academic honor for his significant contributions to Public Choice scholarship. In our conversation, Pete discusses the evolution of economic thought, the importance of education in shaping economists, and the role of government in economics. We explore personal experiences that led them to economics, the influence of key figures like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, and the challenges of public governance. The discussion emphasizes the need for economic literacy, the importance of rules in policy, and the future of economic thought in addressing contemporary issues. Please share and rate the Let People Prosper Show wherever you get your podcasts, visit vanceginn.com for more insights, and subscribe to my newsletter for show notes at vanceginn.substack.com.  Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute. Kansas has long been a critical player in the Heartland, but its recent job performance reveals progress and potential pitfalls. As of September 2024, Kansas’ unemployment rate sits at 3.3%, up from 2.6% the prior year, signaling a tightening labor market despite steady job growth. Over the last twelve months, Kansas added around 19,000 jobs, reflecting a 1.3% increase in nonfarm employment. While this growth is commendable, it lags behind the national average of 1.6% and the state’s regional peers, such as Missouri (2.9%) and Nebraska (2.2%).  Kansas is at a crossroads.
Although its policies have produced moderate gains, the state must embrace more aggressive, pro-growth reforms to remain competitive. By examining neighboring states and successful models like Texas and others, Kansas can chart a path toward stronger economic growth, job creation, and greater prosperity. How Kansas Compares Compared to its neighbors, Kansas’ job creation numbers show mixed results. Missouri, for instance, has been more aggressive in attracting business investment, contributing to a lower unemployment rate and faster job growth. Nebraska’s low unemployment and focus on maintaining a favorable tax climate have made it a regional standout. Kansas’ employment growth rate of 1.3% over the past year is notably slower than Texas’s, which added 327,400 jobs (a 2.3% increase) over the same period, with an unemployment rate of 4.1%. While the one percentage point difference in annual job growth between the two states may not seem like a lot, each percent matters when considering how long it takes employment to double. The rule of 72 calculates how long a percent will double by taking 72 divided by that percent. So, the 2.3% in Texas would double employment every 31 years, while the 1.3% in Kansas would take 55 years to double. While the unemployment rate is lower in Kansas than in Texas, the labor force participation rate–the share of people working or looking for work–has been declining in Kansas while increasing in Texas in recent months. When people leave the labor force, this can artificially reduce the unemployment rate as fewer people are working or looking for work and likely end up on safety net programs, reducing economic output. This comparison highlights Kansas’s room to grow, particularly given its rising unemployment rate over the last several months. Pro-Growth Policies for Kansas To ignite its economic potential, Kansas should prioritize a suite of pro-growth policies aimed at boosting private sector investment, reducing the tax burden, and unleashing the full potential of its workforce. Here are a few strategies Kansas could adopt:
Kansas has all the tools to succeed: a strong agricultural base, a growing manufacturing sector, and a skilled workforce. However, without significant policy changes, it risks falling behind its neighbors and losing out on potential economic gains. By focusing on tax cuts, deregulation, education reform, and responsible government spending, Kansas can attract more businesses, create jobs, and set itself on a course for long-term prosperity.  Originally published at Washington Times.
As Halloween approaches, it’s not just haunted houses and ghosts that should send chills down your spine. The real nightmare is America’s fiscal crisis — a terrifying collision of unsustainable spending and an exploding national debt. At the heart of the fright are the country’s spiraling mandatory Medicare and Social Security programs, which account for about half the federal budget. As Medicare creeps toward insolvency by 2036, proposals for even more spending, such as “Medicare for All,” and amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants threaten to send the country faster over a fiscal cliff. The Biden-Harris administration’s policies have led to a surge in illegal immigration, with an estimated 12.5 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. Proposals to grant them legal status may sound appealing. Still, they further strain social services such as Medicare. Because Medicare is a pay-as-you-go system that relies on payroll taxes from current workers to fund retirees’ health care, adding millions of new recipients — many of whom are older — would only accelerate the program’s ensuing collapse. The estimated 90% of illegal immigrants here younger than 55 could be eligible with 10 years of work history before turning 65. The aggregate cost to taxpayers of recipients retiring later could be at least $1.8 trillion over time. Vice President Kamala Harris’ Medicare for All plan, coupled with amnesty, could cost $2 trillion more over the next decade to cover newly legalized immigrants, as a new study states. Combined with the full cost of Medicare for All for current Americans, the net cost could be $44 trillion, demanding unprecedented tax increases or massive cuts to essential services. And while Ms. Harris argues that these programs promote fairness and access, the fiscal reality is terrifying. The government’s spending would spiral out of control, with no clear way to rein in the costs. Former President Donald Trump has emphasized stricter immigration laws and border security. While Mr. Trump’s approach may help reduce the immediate costs of adding more people to programs such as Medicare, it does little to address the deeper issues of an aging population and soaring health care costs. Unless something is done to reform Medicare, the program will remain a ticking time bomb. The fiscal implications of immigration are complex. On the one hand, younger, higher-skilled immigrants contribute to the economy by filling labor shortages and paying taxes, which help support programs such as Medicare. On the other hand, older and lower-skilled immigrants tend to impose a net drain on public resources. Research shows that immigrants arriving in the U.S. after age 55 can impose a fiscal burden of up to $400,000 over their lifetime, while younger, educated immigrants contribute more than $1 million to the federal budget. Blanket amnesty would fail to account for these differences, much like a one-size-fits-all costume that doesn’t fit anyone quite right. The real horror story, however, is Medicare itself. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was meant to curb rising health care costs, but it has only added to the chaos. With price controls on prescription drugs, Medicare premiums are rising faster than ever, up 21% in 2024 alone, and the number of available drug plans has dropped by nearly 100. Rather than containing costs, the law’s price controls have stifled innovation and driven up prices, meaning older Americans have fewer and more expensive options. This could become a nightmare when access and quality of care are sacrificed. So, what’s the way out of this fiscal haunted house? First, the U.S. needs a sustainable budget with a strict federal spending cap tied to population growth and inflation. We can avoid the terrifying prospect of runaway deficits by cutting spending now and limiting how fast the government can spend after that. Expanding work requirements for government assistance programs such as Medicaid would help reduce dependency on taxpayer-funded benefits and encourage self-sufficiency. A market-based reform system is crucial for immigration. A solution is a visa auction system where employers bid on visas for immigrants based on their skills and economic value. By pricing visas based on demand, the U.S. could ensure that immigrants contribute meaningfully to the economy while filling labor gaps without burdening social services. Such a system would be a much-needed reform to correct decades of failed immigration policies and prevent the horrors of government failures. If America wants to avoid fiscal disaster, policymakers must confront these issues head-on. Granting amnesty and expanding Medicare without reform is like opening the door to a haunted house — you may not know what horrors await, but you know they’re lurking. By balancing immigration with sustainable economic policies and reforming programs like Medicare, the U.S. can ensure a more prosperous, fiscally sound future. The time to act is now before this fiscal nightmare becomes a reality.  From The Freemen News-Letter.
Editor’s note: this piece was originally published here. A viral clip on X (formerly Twitter) has reignited the debate over rent control, and for good reason. The video features a New York City tenant, Hattie Kol, paying just $1,334 monthly for a 1,500-square-foot Upper West Side luxury apartment with fireplaces, chandeliers, and a butler’s pantry. This rent is well below the market rate and median rent in the city of $3,500. Her family acquired the unit through rent stabilization 22 years ago, allowing her to stay indefinitely. She is now paying only 39 percent of the median rent in the city, highlighting the mismatch created by rent control. While this may seem like a win for the tenant, it’s a loss for the broader market, particularly for lower-income renters forced to compete in an increasingly constrained housing market. At its core, rent control is a well-intentioned policy aimed at keeping housing affordable by capping rents. However, it disrupts the natural balance of supply and demand, discouraging developers from building new housing and disincentivizing landlords from maintaining or upgrading existing units. In the long run, this creates a housing shortage and degrades the quality of available units, all while keeping the most vulnerable renters stuck in a perpetual housing crisis. The Flawed Economics of Price Controls Rent control is a classic case of how price controls distort markets. By capping rents below the market rate, it prevents prices from reflecting the true quantity demanded and supplied for housing. This results in fewer new units being built and existing properties falling into disrepair because landlords have less incentive to invest in them. By reducing the quantity supplied of housing, rent control limits choices and increases the quantity demanded for the few units that remain on the market. The economic consensus against rent control is overwhelming. Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman famously argued that price controls, including rent control, are among the surest ways to create shortages. In the case of housing, this policy leaves cities like New York with fewer affordable units and an overall decline in the quality of available housing. Who Benefits From Rent Control? While rent control is marketed as a tool to help low-income renters, the reality is quite different. Higher-income tenants often benefit the most, locking in rent-controlled units because they pay far below market value. In cities like New York and San Francisco, people who can easily afford market rates stay in these units for years, while low-income families face fierce competition for a limited number of affordable apartments. The woman in the viral clip is paying just 39 percent of the market rent, but there’s no evidence she needs that discount to survive. Meanwhile, those who do need affordable housing are crowded out. The result is a system where rent control helps the fortunate few while pushing the most vulnerable out of the market. Government Failures vs. “Market Failures” Proponents of rent control often cite “market failures” to justify government intervention. However, government failures are far more damaging, especially in housing. Rent control policies in places like New York and San Francisco have created severe housing shortages, leading to skyrocketing rents in the non-controlled market and forcing people to compete for fewer and fewer units. Take Houston, a city that has embraced more free-market housing policies. Without zoning laws or rent control, Houston has managed to maintain much more affordable housing by encouraging the free market to meet demand. Rather than dictating prices, the city has allowed builders and developers to respond naturally to market signals, increasing housing supply and lowering prices. The Unintended Consequences of Rent Control One of the greatest flaws in rent control is that it fails to address the underlying reasons for high rents. Instead of tackling restrictive zoning laws, excessive regulations, high property taxes, rising insurance, or other government-imposed barriers that drive up housing costs, rent control merely treats the symptoms. The result is fewer available units, a deteriorating rental stock, and even higher rents for those outside the rent-controlled system. Landlords, faced with below-market rents, often convert rental units into condos or leave them vacant rather than rent them out at lower rates. This leads to a further reduction in available rentals and worse living conditions for tenants. It’s a vicious cycle that harms the housing market and the people relying on it. The Path Forward: Embracing Free Markets The solution to housing affordability isn’t more government intervention — it’s less. Instead of imposing price controls that distort the market, governments should focus on reducing housing construction and investment barriers. This means reforming zoning laws, streamlining building regulations, and encouraging new development. By allowing the market to function freely, we can increase housing supply, drive down costs, and create more opportunities for people at all income levels. The viral clip on X is a powerful reminder of why rent control fails. While it may provide short-term relief for a select few, it harms the broader housing market and exacerbates the problems it purports to solve. If we want to make housing truly affordable, we need to let the market work — by encouraging development, reducing regulatory burdens, and allowing supply to meet demand. Let’s move beyond failed policies like rent control and embrace free-market solutions that benefit everyone, especially those needing affordable housing. This week’s episode tackles some of the most pressing economic issues before the upcoming election. We dive into both presidential candidates' economic proposals and how policies like tariffs, price controls, and intervention in the Federal Reserve are creating concern among economists. We also explore policymakers’ attempts to control prices and quantities of goods, the ongoing debate over school choice, and how the Nobel Prize in Economics brings new perspectives on prosperity and immigration. Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, visit my website for more information, and get show notes at www.vanceginn.substack.com. North Dakota voters could end property taxes — and pour ‘gas on the spark’ of a growing tax revolt10/21/2024  Originally published at Market Watch.
Supporters of Measure 4 say it would repeal the 'most egregious and least moral of all the taxes.' Critics say it would 'create chaos.' Many homeowners across the U.S. aren't happy with property-tax bills that have climbed alongside a pricier real-estate market. But voters in North Dakota have a chance to act on that discontent next month by repealing property taxes and barring counties, towns and other local governments from levying them. If the ballot measure passes, North Dakota would become the first U.S. state to end property taxes. Its passage could also add muscle to the push to eliminate the tax elsewhere, property-tax skeptics say. The idea has been floated in states like Texas, Nebraska and Michigan, while lawmakers in the Great Plains and Mountain West states say big reforms are needed quickly. Property taxes are the "most egregious and least moral of all the taxes," according to Rick Becker, chair of the organization that put Measure 4 on the North Dakota state ballot. The ballot measure would repeal residential, commercial and agricultural property taxes, he noted. These taxes uses opaque formulas to make homeowners keep paying for property they already own, he said. They're also based on the "unrealized" paper value of a home, he added. For Becker, a "yes" vote is a win inside the state and beyond. "Once that happens, the light turns on for so many people. As soon as a state steps outside that box, the other states see how possible that is," Becker said. "The sky didn't fall, and maybe we should give it a try." On the other hand, Chad Oban, who chairs Keep It Local, a coalition opposing the ballot measure, argued that property taxes need fixes - but not a "sledgehammer approach." The group's members include utility companies, farmers, educators, business groups and law enforcement. "I think we're going to defeat Measure 4," said Oban. "But I do think if it passes, there will be a lot of other states doing something similarly, or feeling like there's a political appetite." However, "if North Dakota - ruby-red North Dakota - thinks it's a bridge too far," it could make others reconsider their bids to bury the tax, Oban noted. The measure leaves it to state legislators to figure out where money comes from next for schools, parks and roads, he said. "It will create chaos, frankly, if it passes." Four in 10 North Dakota voters say they oppose the ballot initiative and 28% say they'll vote for it, according to a late-September poll of 500 voters commissioned by the North Dakota Monitor, a state news outlet. One-third of voters hadn't made up their minds, the poll said. Same proposal, rising property-tax frustration North Dakota voters easily rejected a 2012 proposal to end the state's property taxes. But the current proposal is coming at a time when voters are more frustrated, Becker and Oban both said. Municipalities across the country collected $363.3 billion in property taxes from single-family homes last year, according to Attom, a real-estate data-analytics company - a nearly 7% annual increase. The average property-tax bill climbed 4%, to more than $4,000, Attom said. Nationally, homeowners faced an effective tax rate of 0.87% on their home's estimated market value, per Attom data. North Dakotans paid a higher-than-average rate, at 0.99%, but still far less than residents of top-taxing states like Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut. Seven in 10 people (69%) say their property taxes are too high, slightly more than the 67% who say their federal income taxes are too steep, according to a poll conducted in December 2023 by the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and the Associated Press NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Six in 10 people say their property-tax bill is unfair, the survey said. Though property-tax bills have climbed on the back of higher assessed values, people feel they aren't getting the same increase in services, said Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank. Even when municipalities hold their property-tax rates steady, they are still collecting more tax revenue from rising property values, he noted. "To some degree, it's been opportunistic," he said. "That's why it's rubbed so many homeowners the wrong way." Read more: My property-tax bill spiked 40%. I fought the city - and won. Can I get tax write-offs for my time and costs? Property-tax ire isn't new, Walczak added. California voters famously capped property-tax hikes with the Proposition 13 ballot measure way back in 1978. States also have all sorts of tax breaks geared toward property-tax relief, especially for senior citizens. Talk of repealing property taxes has long occurred at the margins, Walczak said. "It's one thing to have this ongoing low murmur; it's another thing to have it start to bubble up to the surface," he said. "That seems to be where we are going now." Still, while there are good justifications to reform the tax, "none of this is a good reason to repeal the property tax," Walczak said. Karla Wagner, executive director of the organization AxMiTax, led an effort in Michigan this year to get a property-tax repeal on the ballot. The first-time attempt didn't gather enough signatures, but Wagner said her organization would try again. The taxes are salt on the wound when people are already stretched thin, according to Wagner. "Pickleball courts or someone's home - which is more important? Stop spending our money foolishly. Stop taking our homes away when we can't afford our bill," she said, referring to the state's tax-foreclosure laws. If they catch on, repeals are "going to spread like wildfire," Wagner said. Approval of the ballot measure in North Dakota, she added, would be "the gas on the spark." How Measure 4 might play out Measure 4 would "require the state to provide replacement payments" to the local government entities at "no less than the current real property-tax levies," according to the ballot measure's text. It could cost the state's coffers $3.15 billion over a two-year window, according to the measure. The projected aftermath of Measure 4 is a good reason to vote "no," according to North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, a Republican. "What you will do is, you will cause someone else to pick up the tab. That's what this whole thing is about. It's about, who's going to pay for it? It doesn't lower the cost of delivering anything in our state," Burgum said in August, according to the radio news outlet Prairie Public. Burgum's office did not respond to a request for comment. Becker, a Republican former lawmaker who served 10 years in the state's House of Representatives, said the state can afford the change with better decisions on its own budget. It's on counties, towns and cities to figure out how to pay for costs above what the state covers, he noted. One idea is establishing formulas for residents and businesses to pay their share of those costs. In response to critics who say the measure would take away local control over spending decisions, Becker said the approach keeps local residents in control - just not with a tax pegged to a property's assessed value. He added that, by design, the specifics of legislative next steps aren't part of the state constitutional measure; those are for elected lawmakers to decide. Vance Ginn, an economist in Texas, said state and local governments should find a way to move past property taxes, which he views as an "immoral form of taxation." Spending guardrails and changes to sales taxes could be part of the answer, according to Ginn, president of an economic consulting firm whose clients include conservative-leaning think tanks like Americans for Tax Reform. Ginn said he supports Measure 4 generally, but is concerned there "isn't a tangible path forward." If the vote fails, it's a lesson that crystal-clear funding alternatives need to accompany future repeal attempts, he added. Nevertheless, "what North Dakota is doing is helping to drive the narrative for the need to do something about property taxes," Ginn said. As Walczak sees it, turning to other taxes as a replacement would hurt "far more than a property tax does now." He's waiting to see what happens with the North Dakota vote, and what could come next. "It's likely to turn out very poorly - but it could be hard to reverse," he said. -Andrew Keshner This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal. (END) Dow Jones Newswires 10-21-24 0600ET Copyright (c) 2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Originally posted at American Enterprise Institute and by Kevin Kosar. Regular readers know that I am worried about the federal budget. The nation is $35 trillion in debt and neither party in Congress has a shown real interest in staunching the flood of red ink or fixing the 50-year old congressional budget process. America spends more on interest on the national debt than on national defense and Medicare.
Last month, former Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) reminded us that the current budget process does not force Congress to consider revenue and spending issues in tandem when it is budgeting. So, unsurprisingly, elected officials are happy to enact tax cuts while increasing spending. This fiscal insanity cannot continue forever. Social Security benefits will be cut if Congress does not do something. And who knows, maybe financiers and foreign nations will decide they just do not want to keep purchasing so many U.S. government bonds, and a debt crisis will erupt. My chat with Dr. Vance Ginn, who worked at the Office of Management and Budget and hosts the Let People Prosper show and podcast, reminded me of two truths:
To date, neither party’s candidate for president shows any interest in leading on budget issues. In fact, each of them has proposed policy plans that would increase the deficit and debt, which is dispiriting. |
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly