June 10, 2008

An Easy Way to Save Money on Gas

Slate -- of all outlets -- is running a piece that asks why Missouri has the lowest-priced gas in the country.

Three reasons:

1) Gas taxes -- Missouri's gas tax is 17.6 cents per gallon; North Carolina's is 30.15 cents.

2) Pipelines -- which is related to supply. Missouri is at the intersection of several major pipelines. Theoretically, North Carolina is doing even better here -- with several trillion barrels of untapped reserves sitting just off the coast (but far enough off so that beach-goers wouldn't even see the rigs).

3) Ethanol -- the price of which is rising more slowly than the price of crude oil. Of course, as Slate points out, ethanol is increasing food prices. The solution? Cut taxes on groceries too ... by exempting groceries from the local-option sales tax of 2 percent.

Easley on Taxes

Anyone see/hear Gov. Mike Easley criticize the Bush tax cuts and ergo McCain for wanting to "continue to give tax breaks to the rich" during his introduction of Sen. Obama yesterday?

Well, Governor, have you taken a look at your record?  You've raised more taxes on working class people than anyone around.

Exhibit 1: The "temporary" sales tax increase - $270 million per year out of the pockets of all taxpayers
Exhibit 2: The "Education" Lottery - $400+ million out of the pockets of mostly lower income people

And what one tax did you remove?  It was the other "temporary" tax on the richest tax payers!

So, who's the one who's cutting taxes for the rich while raising taxes on the poor?  Bush? McCain? or Easley?

May 28, 2008

Lessons From the Great Lakes

The economic woes up in my former home state of Michigan continue. Unfortunately for those that have not yet escaped, Governor Granholm somehow believes that state government can tax and spend their way out of recession. This WSJ piece provided a couple of valuable lessons for North Carolina.

"...the latest news of Michigan's deepening budget woe is a national warning of what happens when you raise taxes in a weak economy....Six months later one-third of the expected revenues have vanished as the state's economy continues to struggle. Income tax collections are falling behind estimates, as are property tax receipts and those from the state's transaction tax on home sales."

This dynamic effect should be no surprise. The more you tax an activity, the less of that activity there will be - the lowered economic activity thus creates disappointing tax revenues.

I may note here that one of the justifications for tax increases over the past several years both in Detroit and Michigan is population loss. That's right, for all you folks here in NC that argue or believe that population gains is an excuse for raising taxes - up north they try to justify tax hikes due to a shrinking population. Funny how that works, next thing you know politicians will tell us that no change in population also requires tax increases.

At any rate, Granholm stays true to her liberal ideology by putting her faith in government to turn around the state's economic woes:

"Ms. Granholm argued that these new taxes would raise some $1.3 billion in new revenue that could be "invested" in social spending and new businesses and lead to a Michigan renaissance."

Hmm, this rhetoric sounds awfully familiar to what the liberal leadership in Raleigh is serving up. Government investing in social spending and business development to grow the economy - how's that working out for you up in Michigan? Is this really the example we want to follow?

Of course, if you think that population growth is "out of control" in NC, continuing our tax and spend policies could reverse that trend, just as in Michigan:

"Michigan natives grumble that the only reason more people aren't blazing a path out of the state is they can't sell their homes."

May 12, 2008

Burn One for the Teachers

Easley wants you to puff more so he can give N.C. teachers a 7% pay raise. That is, if the $.20 additional tax doesn't get you to quit. Regressive taxes and lung cancer for the sake of those who teach our chirren!
-Max Borders

May 07, 2008

Read Our Lips: "No New Taxes!"

Our friend Mitch Kokai sums up the beating voters laid on local option tax increases last night.

"No North Carolina county has endorsed the land-transfer tax. That tax went 0-for-4 tonight.

Counties went 2-for-20 in seeking local sales tax increases.

Based on unofficial election night returns, 66 percent of the 536,805 votes cast in local tax referendums opposed tax increases."

These results are eerily similar to recent Civitas polling results, which found that 66 percent of voters think taxes in North Carolina are "too high." (question 16)

Such results show that lawmakers across our state are out of touch with North Carolina citizens. Their insistence on trying to reach deeper into our pockets rather than prioritizing their spending displays a complete disrespect for the true owners of tax dollars - the taxpayers.

Perhaps winning the award for "Most Out of Touch County Commissioners" should be awarded to Orange County. First, they spend $10,000 in taxpayer dollars to conduct a public opinion poll regarding voter opinion of a land transfer tax, with the results showing strong opposition. Not dissuaded, they insist on placing the transfer tax on the ballot anyway, spending another $100,000 on an "education" campaign essentially advocating for the tax to be approved. After all that, the tax still gets trounced by a 2 to 1 margin. They should be ashamed of themselves. Kudos to Orange County voters (and voters across the state) for taking a stand.

 

Balfour Evicerates Another Taxation Myth

See Brian Balfour's letter to the Cary News, which cuts up the guilt-envy-mythology of some leftist arguing by omission. Some juicy bits:

Ms. Wiehe attempts to exploit class envy veiled behind the mantra of “fairness.” Her article includes several numeric data points to support her argument, but failed to include some that readers may find interesting. According to the 2007 North Carolina Comprehensive Annual Report, the top 17.5 percent of income earners in the state contributed 69.5 percent of all income taxes paid in 2005. Further, the top 1.6 percent of taxpayers paid more than $2.5 billion in state income taxes alone, equivalent to roughly one-sixth of all General Fund tax revenue for that year.

Also missing from Ms. Wiehe’s calculations are the billions of dollars worth of public assistance received by the low-income households included in her comparison. Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, child care subsidies and a litany of other social programs significantly reduce the actual tax burden for low income households, but are not included in Wiehe’s estimates. Further, Wiehe leaves out the fact that people are highly mobile in terms of income. Today’s low-paid intern is tomorrow’s upper-middle class manager. Wiehe’s data merely represents a snapshot in time, and distorts the lifetime tax burden of today’s upwardly mobile society. Her recommendations would serve to expand government programs at the expense of economic growth, disproportionately harming the very same low income households she claims will be helped.
-Max Borders

April 30, 2008

Taxes: Common Sense to Rockingham County

Jeffrey Sykes has a piece up in the Reidsville Review today that makes a lot of sense. Apply it statewide.
-Max Borders

April 15, 2008

Civitas Poll: 2/3rds Think Taxes are Too High

As everyone celebrates tax day today, we are releasing results of our April DecisionMaker poll that shows that 2/3rds of NC voters think the amount of taxes they pay are too high for the services they receive from state government.

The Civitas Institute’s April DecisionMaker reveals that two-thirds (66%) of North Carolina voters believe state taxes are too high for the services they receive. 29% believed it was about right, while only 2% thought taxes were too low.

“North Carolina residents overwhelming agree that they are not getting back in services what they are paying in taxes,” stated Civitas Institute Executive Director Francis DeLuca. “North Carolina used to be known as a low-tax state, but this is increasingly farther and farther from the truth,” DeLuca added.

Read the full release here.

More Lakoff-like Pap from Richard Conniff

Conniff borrows from Lakoff (which we've covered here). Here's Professor Boudreaux's response:

Richard Conniff proposes that the money we pay to government be called "dues" rather than "taxes" ("Abolish All 'Taxes',: April 15).  He argues that "we need language to remind us that this is our government, and that we thrive because of the schools and transit systems and 10,000 other services that exist only because we have joined together."

A celebrated intellectual tradition - represented by the likes of Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, and Ronald Coase - holds that most of what government does, if worthwhile, can be done better by free markets and civil society.  A related intellectual tradition - represented by scholars such as James Madison, James Buchanan, and Gordon Tullock - implores us to understand that government is predatory unless tightly constrained by constitutional rules.  Uncle Sam long ago escaped his constitutional fetters.  The predictable result is that he is now far too predatory - witness, for example, his agricultural subsidies and his Patriot Act snooping - for anyone seriously to regard taxes as anything other than protection money paid to brutes in suits.

I'd add that if we're paying dues, it's to a club we're not allowed to leave (remember the auditors and the men with the guns.)
-Max Borders

March 26, 2008

Predatory Bureaucrats

This letter in the Williamsport Sun-Gazette poses a question that many will find difficult to answer:

"I wonder if the politicians' recent "suggestions" to lenders to "renegotiate" some of the mortgage principal so the borrowers can keep from losing their homes should also apply to those homeowners who happen to be unable to afford their confiscatory state and local property taxes.

How often do you think these bureaucrats make any offers to "renegotiate" your tax bill?"

So-called "consumer advocates" love spinning tales of "victims of predatory lenders." What about homeowners who become victims of predatory bureaucrats who continue to raise taxes in their lust for more power?

March 24, 2008

Who's Paying Tax in N.C.?

Wouldn't you like to know. (Hint: Look out for those calling for the wealthy to pay their "fair share.")
-Max Borders

March 19, 2008

A Full Cent

The budget passed last year gave counties the option of holding a referendum to increase the sales tax a 1/4 cent.  Wake County leaders recently announced they wanted to do just so to pay for school construction.

But then they wanted a 1/2 cent sales tax increase to pay for mass transit.

How do these conflicting proposals compete for limited resources?

Combine it into one and raise the sales tax a full percent in Wake County!  Or at least that is the latest proposal from Wake County Commissioner Joe Bryan.  "A penny for progress."

Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.

Budget & Tax Blueprint for N.C.

Check it out.

February 25, 2008

No Laffing Matter

Governments - state and federal - should take a careful, hard look at this video.
-Max Borders

February 22, 2008

Just What Kind of "Change" Do You Think He Means?

It's little wonder that Barack Obama is hammering the word "change" down people's throats every chance he gets. Because if he gets his economic plan implemented, that's all we'll be left with: pocket change.

This Washington Times article pulls back the curtain on the Wizard to reveal all of Obama's rhetoric as simple big government spend and tax policies:

"Sen. Barack Obama is very gloomy about America, and he is aligning himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic party in hopes of coming to the nation's rescue. His proposal? Big-government planning, spending, and taxing — exactly what the nation and the stock market doesn't want to hear."

Has anyone in the mainstream media even dared to question just how Obama plans to pay for all of his programs? The Times article puts forth an educated estimate:

"The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax increases on the rich won't pay for it. The middle class ultimately will shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth."

$800 billion? That's just under $11,000 for every family of four. Given the countless trillions in unfunded liabilities from Social Security, Medicare, state and local government retiree health benefits, is now the best time to embark on such an ambitious spending spree? Moreover, Obama seems to be ignoring some major economic lessons from around the world:

"It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital — and reaping the economic rewards — Mr. Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Mr. Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Mr. Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages."

February 21, 2008

False Advertising

Oh those sneaky politicians and the way they will change the name and hide the true meaning of something just to trick people into raising taxes.

Don't be fooled by the so-called, "Congestion Relief Fund."  It's a tax increase to build trains.  And as Wake County Commissioner Tony Gurley said best, "I don't expect the transit plan to create a significant reduction in traffic on the roads."

If they were truly concerned with reducing congestion, we'd be building more roadway capacity, not building some fantasy train system that at most will take 3% of the cars off the road (which will be replaced with 2-3 years of growth).

Trains - 5x the cost and 1/5th the capacity of roads.  So how do we reduce congestion?

February 03, 2008

Bar Stool Economics

Hat tip: Michael Strong:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and
the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their
bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank
in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a
curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he
said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer
by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we
pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the
other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is
$3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's
share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each
end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner
suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to
work out the amounts each should pay.!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing
(100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the
first four continued to drink for free. But once
outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their
savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the
sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got
$10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only
saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times
more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should
he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get
all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison.
'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits
the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for
drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without
him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have
enough money between all of them for even half of the
bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax system works. The people
who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a
tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the
atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

-
Max Borders

February 01, 2008

Out of Whack

When the Governor's budget comes out in a couple of months and SEANC starts whining about pay increases for state employees, someone send them this:

"State and local government workers are enjoying major gains in compensation, pushing the value of their average wages and benefits far ahead of private workers"

January 29, 2008

Stimulus Halfway Home

The $146 billion economic "stimulus" bill passed the US House of Representatives earlier today 385-35.  The only NC Congressman to vote against it was Rep. Howard Coble (R) who had concerns about the impact of the bill on the deficit (and rightly so).

The bill now heads to the Senate where it will be interesting to see if the Senators attempt to change it despite threats of a Presidential veto.

Keep an eye on NC Sens. Dole and Burr on the proposed amendments and see if they hold with the President and House's position.

Also keep an eye on whether the Democratic leadership revises its earlier thwarted attempts to increase taxes on domestic energy production to subsidize renewable energy.  Lots of goodies and favors to be thrown around, it'll be interesting to see just how clean this bill can make it out of the Senate.

Wonder Why?

Our friends over at the Locke Foundation released their annual report on the cost of local government to the taxpayers.  To no one's surprise, Charlotte comes out on top -- due in no small part to its obsession with light rail.

But then you see waste like this, "Charlotte city and school board leaders are spending about $45,000 this month traveling out of town for retreats"  and wonder if it is not just something more -- a negligence of their duty to be stewards of the taxpayer dollar.

We already know Mayor McCrory has gone to Paris to study the trains there, but what other far off destinations are the other officials heading to?  Well, how about the Grandover Resort in Greensboro for a 3-day "retreat." 

Apparently, Charlotte is devoid of places for City Council members to gather in one place and talk to themselves.  Maybe they can talk about more ways to spend taxpayer money to lure themselves back to where they live.

January 21, 2008

Rebate Checks: Not Very "Stimulating"

Looks like RCC has commented several times on the proposed "economic stimulus" package coming from DC. The main points describing this as a bad idea seem to focus on the long run, i.e. "the rebate money will just be financed by debt or tax increases, which will place a drag on the economy." This viewpoint, of course, is true.

But what about the short run?

Doesn't it seem like sending a "rebate check" to millions of Americans will prompt them to consume more? Not so. Bruce Bartlett does an excellent job in this WSJ piece describing why using Milton Friedman's permanent income hypothesis:

"(Friedman's) research had led him to conclude that consumer spending was less a function of liquidity than something he called "permanent income." Friedman observed that when workers lost their jobs, they didn't immediately cut back on spending. They borrowed or drew down savings to maintain spending, in the expectation of finding a new job shortly. Conversely, consumers didn't immediately spend windfalls. They kept spending on an even keel until they achieved a promotion at work, or other increase in their long-term income expectations."

In short, upon receiving said rebate checks, people will either save the extra money or use it to pay down debt (two sides of the same coin). Studies following the tax rebates of 1975 and 2001 confirm Friedman's theory. Bartlett proclaims:

"A new rebate probably won't do much harm. But anyone who thinks it will prevent a recession -- if one is actually in the pipeline, which is not at all certain -- is dreaming."

A better fiscal policy response? Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill provided the best advice:

"If we want to change consumption patterns, we need to make permanent changes in peoples' tax burdens."

January 18, 2008

Where's My NC Stimulus?

With all the talk about the Feds allowing me to have some of my money back so I can stimulate the economy got me thinking.  Why shouldn't the state of NC step up and do its part?

How about letting me have that 1/4 cent "temporary" sales tax increase that was made permanent?  That would inject approximately $250 million into NC's economy.  (Ironically, almost 2x the stimulus package Bush and Congress are talking about).

And don't tell me NC needed the revenue due to a budget shortfall.  All told, the state collected more than $3.1 billion in total surplus revenue from FY2003-04 to FY2007-08

I wonder how NC's economy would be faring if that $3.1 billion had been left in the capable hands of the NC citizenry to use as they saw fit.

December 26, 2007

Do It For The Children!

What is wrong with all you North Carolinians?  Do you not know there are needy children out there in our state depending on you to buy lottery tickets so they can have Pre-K, scholarships and school buildings?

According to this article, the Lottery folks are begging people to buy tickets.  They are even dispatching sales representatives to lottery outlets (gas stations) around the state trying to convince people to plunk down $20 for the second installment of the $1 million raffle. 

"Fill 'er up with Regular, grab me a Diet Pepsi, a Moon Pie and a hand full of them there raffle tickets, please."

Lottery officials are shocked, shocked I tell you, that people aren't willing to shell out the cash for lottery tickets right after Christmas.  I guess we're all just selfish and don't really care about the chil'ren, right?

December 14, 2007

Taxes: Who pays what?

Here's an interesting post from Cato-at-Liberty.
Read it and comment away...
-Max Borders

December 11, 2007

Taxpayers Should be "Concerned"

The National Conference of State Legislatures just released its State Budget Update: November 2007 report (fee required). The report focuses primarily on expected tax revenues to state governments across the nation. One item to note is a chart which details a survey of legislative fiscal offices, in which respondents rate their state's revenue outlook for the remainder of FY2008. North Carolina is marked as "concerned." Other choices include "optimistic", "stable" and "pessimistic." NC was one of 19 states in the "concerned" category, with the other 32 either "optimistic" or "stable" (Puerto Rico was included in the survey).

North Carolina's "concerned" status comes in spite of data contained elsewhere in the report stating "personal income tax revenue is stronger than expected" and General Fund Revenues "exceeded estimates by roughly $75 million, or 1.7%" (through September).

So NC officials are "concerned" about the revenue prospects even though personal income tax revenues (the state's top revenue source) are stronger than expected, and overall GF revenues are exceeding expectations? Curious. I know the housing sector slowdown will impact the economy, but that is a nationwide problem. Why aren't more than 19 states "concerned" about revenues as a result? Furthermore, NC is expected to be one of the states least effected by the housing slump.

I don't know about you, but whenever state officials claim they are "concerned" about revenue streams, I start to get real "concerned" about them raising our taxes.

December 10, 2007

Wanna Appeal the Tax Revaluation?

Americans for Prosperity is here to help you with this process if you need it.
-Max Borders

December 04, 2007

Tax Competition and the Tar Heel State

This video is pretty good at explaining tax competition -- i.e. the idea that governments, in order to keep the geese who lay the golden eggs - must keep their taxes low enough to prevent flight. So how does this apply to North Carolina?

We charge close to the highest taxes (in both corporate and personal income) in the Southeastern U.S. So in order to attract and keep businesses, we've turned to economic incentives. But this can't last forever. Indeed, state governments (and politicians) eager to shower constituents with goodies - a means of keeping power and keeping people dependent (not to mention companies flush with cash) -  must keep raising taxes. Right now, N.C. is still competitive with other U.S. states who've gone off the deep end. But soon we'll end up like Michigan, whose population and businesses are leaving en masse.

In order to restore the benefits of tax competition (to everyone) and remain competitive, N.C. will have to change its tax policy. While those on the far left will winge about companies paying their "fair share" (whatever that means), and good ole boys will lose some of the means by which they're keeping power, the choice is stark: compete or die.
-Max Borders

December 03, 2007

Rudy and the FairTax

Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, while in Greensboro today, took time to assail the FairTax plan advocated by fellow Presidential candidate Gov. Mike Huckabee based on his assertion that the FairTax would hurt homeownership.

"I think there are several tax deductions that are vital to our economy," Giuliani said. "This would not be a good time - I don't know if there would ever be a good time to do this - to advocate ending the home mortgage deduction. The home mortgage deduction is considered by many critical to the ability of people to buy a home and keep their home."

Frankly, I'm quite disappointed in the former Mayor.  The FairTax, while not perfect, ends many of the problems of the current tax system -- namely, the tax code deciding "winners and losers" in our society. Deductions create non-market forces that persuade people to do things out of what influences their wallet, not necessarily out of their own best interest.  How many people purchased houses just for the tax break, only to see them not be able to afford that home and have it foreclosed?  How is that "helpful to the economy"?

If you believe that people should all be treated the same under the tax code for say, being married versus single, then why should renters versus home owners be treated any different?

The government should not bribe me into making lifestyle choices.  I should be assessed a tax rate as low and fair as possible regardless of any personal choices I make.  It is not the proper role of government to incentivize me to do or don't do something based on what it think is in my best interest.  Oh yes, thank you central planners in Washington for telling me how I can keep more of my money if I cave to your demands.

It is these exemptions, exceptions, tax credits and loopholes that are at the root of the corruption of influence of special interest in our political system.  As long as companies, individuals and special interest groups can influence the tax code to decide winners and losers, we all lose.

As James Madison wrote in Federalist #10, "There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects."

Eliminating the ability of factions to benefit itself and harm its competitors through the tax code will do just that.  Mayor Giuliani speaks often about removing the government influence of imbalance in education, but advocates keeping some of those same imbalances in the tax code?  Give me a break.

**Full disclosure - I have contributed money (not much, though) to Giuliani's Presidential campaign, and worked for two years as a staff member in Washington, D.C. for Rep. John Linder (R-GA), the primary sponsor of H.R. 25, The FairTax bill.

November 21, 2007

Doing Better Redux

A commenter on my last post on "Doing Better" pointed out that there are some pdf excerpts of the booklet to the right of the screen. He says that I might just agree with some of the ideas in there, and he was right. But not without caveats:

  • Idea 1: Broaden the sales tax base. (Disagree. "Broadening" means hiding taxes and death by a thousand cuts. The fewer the taxes and narrower the base, the more transparent they are.)
  • Idea 2: Modernize sales taxes for new economy. (Agree as long as extending taxes to services is revenue neutral -- i.e. reduces the burden on goods. Not sure about taxing the Internet just yet.)
  • Idea 3: Raise cigarette taxes for public health. (Disagree. This is a largely regressive tax and it reeks of social engineering. If more people smoke, you get more revenue but more unhealthy people. If fewer people smoke, you get fewer smokers but less revenue for other public health issues. Dumb idea, which they admit. Still, they're happy to force people to stop smoking, revenues be damned. Nanny statist.) 
  • Idea 4: Enact a state Earned Income Tax Credit. (Agree if this replaced social welfare programs. Negative income tax is an ok idea if it stands alone, but not if it adds to the status quo.)
  • Idea 5: Modernize state income brackets. (Disagree This is a "soak the rich" tax and works against investment and growth.)
  • Idea 6: Deal with hidden income tax increases. (Not sure about this one. Sounds ok on its face.)
  • Idea 7: Rethink tax relief based on age alone. (Not totally hostile to this. But it leaves an already screwy senior entitlement system in place.)
  • Idea 8: Eliminate corporate tax loopholes. (Disagree. We should stay away from corporate taxes. In fact, they should be banned wholesale. They make industies less competitive at home and abroad and the costs of such taxes just get shifted back onto consumers.)
  • Idea 9: Enact a property tax circuit breaker. (Like this alright, except for the "ability to pay" bit. Let's shield everyone from excessive property taxes. People who "can pay" may want to support a charity or put a kid through college.)
  • Idea 10: Strengthen accountability. (Sounds ok. We could add some measures to this.)
  • Idea 11: Conduct performance reviews. (Sounds ok. I'd add internal financial incentives for bureaucrats to find cost-saving measures and enhanced quality.)

    I probably didn't give the attention to the booklet that it deserves, but stuff like this is worth extended discussion and blogging. I know the BetterSouth.org folks would appreciate it. That said, beware of the Lakoff-like 'taxes are our friends' thrust of the document. Further comments and thoughts are welcome. (Thanks to Greg Flynn for pointing these excerpts out.)
    -Max Borders

November 20, 2007

Taxes are the Price of our Freedom?

Here's a quote from the Center for a Better South's booklet "Doing Better: Progressive Tax Reform for the American South." (Full disclosure: I haven't read the booklet. Ain't gonna. It costs $10.) But here's a quote from the Introduction:

Nobody likes taxes. But taxes get a bad rap. Like them or not, taxes are not something that should be vilified because of their very nature. Instead, people might consider looking at them in another light -- as the necessary price we pay to keep our democracy alive. Taxes are the price of our freedom. Imagine what we wouldn't have if taxes didn't fuel government programs and services.

Sounds like a leaf taken straight from the George Lakoff bible of selling socialism to dummies.

But taxes are neither "membership fees" a la Lakoff, nor are they merely the price of freedom. If all we were buying was our freedom, we'd have police protection, a standing army, and maybe - maybe - some roads. The marginal rate would be around 10 percent. But when I "Imagine what we wouldn't have if taxes didn't fuel government programs and services," I imagine a world without subsidized dependency, bureaucracy, special interest capture, inefficiency, waste, government-induced poverty, useless functionaries, and nannies breathing down our necks at every turn.
-Max Borders

November 16, 2007

Transfer Tax = Property Tax?

In his weekly column, NC Insider reporter Scott Mooneyham asserts that the transfer tax is no different than the property tax and that buyers will just roll the payments into their mortgage much like they do with property taxes now.

A real estate transfer tax was no more or less a "home tax" than the property tax. Just as property taxes are rolled into the overwhelming majority of mortgage payments, transfer tax payments would have been folded into the price of the home and become a fraction of the monthly mortgage payment. The cost would have been foisted on buyers, not sellers.

Mooneyham misses the boat on this one by a wide margin.  He falsely assumes that the transfer tax can always be passed on from seller to buyer in the price of the house.  In the current buyers' market, there is no way the seller will be able to recoup this tax.  The seller will have to eat it out of his equity.

Also under his scenario, the transfer tax would be rolled into the principle portion of the mortgage payment, not the escrow account that other items, such as property tax and homeowners insurance, are paid into.  Thus, a homebuyer would then be paying interest on the transfer tax for the next 30 years, making the effective cost of the transfer tax double its original charge.
(Hey wait, maybe I like his argument, that makes the case for the transfer tax even easier to fight... It's not a 0.4 percent tax -- by the time you pay interest on it over the life of your loan, you're really paying closer to 0.8 or 1 percent.)

But let's just assume for one minute that he is correct, that the transfer tax will be passed on from seller to buyer.  That just means that the seller will raise his price 0.4 percent to account for having to pay that tax.  So why then, is it the same people who advocate voraciously for " more affordable housing" are the same ones who advocate for the transfer tax.  The transfer tax would only make housing less affordable, artificially inflating the cost of housing at least 0.4 percent.  (Even more if you consider that the transfer tax would be paid 4 times on newly built homes - from original land owner, to developer, to builder, to new homeowner.)

Any way you slice it the transfer tax is bad.  And thank goodness voters in 16 counties saw how damaging it would be to to the equity in their homes.  Now as long as we don't fall under the spell of the re-education programs, the idea of this tax can be dead and buried.

November 13, 2007

Arrogance

A message to you unintelligent lemmings (aka voters):

Many have figured that last weeks resounding defeat of the land transfer tax would discourage your county commissioners from ever bringing the issue up again.  Well, think again.  Apparently, you overwhelmingly voted down the transfer tax, not because of your dislike of this tax or your questioning the need for counties to have additional revenue, but because you weren't educated enough.

Take a look at the words of Moses Carey, Jr., chairman of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, and candidate for NC Senate, on his reasons for putting the land transfer tax on the May ballot in Orange County:

...the failure of land transfer tax referendums last week could probably be attributed to the public not fully understanding the implications of voting down the measures."It didn't discourage me because one of the reasons we decided not to put an option on the ballot in November was there wasn't enough time to fully educate the public," he said. Commissioners have already moved toward informing the public on the taxes, voting 4-1 to appoint an advisory committee to help educate residents.

Ah, yes.  Voters are stupid, Commissioner Carey (and many others like him) think they know better than you, and he will make sure that he spends your tax dollars to educate you better on why you should raise your taxes - thus an "advisory committee."

So how much of your tax money will Commissioners like Carey be willing to spend to "fully educate" you on the land transfer tax?  Maybe we should open up some Maoist-style "re-education camps" so Commissioner Carey can ensure you vote the tax increase he wants, whether you want it or not.

November 09, 2007

You Just Knew This Was Coming

It took just a few days for the NC Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) to lick their wounds on their resounding defeat of higher taxes at the polls Tuesday and start their post-election spin and veiled threats.

According to the News & Observer, the Association is now threatening higher property taxes due to the defeat of the land transfer tax.

Without a 0.4 percent "transfer tax" to help defray the costs of growth, commissioners in most counties -- including Johnston and Chatham -- probably will have to rely more on raising property taxes, said Todd McGee, spokesman for the N.C. Association of County Commissioners.

This is going to be their standard talking points to threaten property owners with for the next year.

The mission for the rest of us is to question the need for additional taxes and we need to make the following points loud and clear. 
1.  Under the Medicaid swap that gave the counties the authority to put the transfer or sales tax on the ballot, each county was guaranteed an additional $500,000 in revenue per year. 
2. Are counties spending their existing sources of revenues effectively or are they squandering resources on economic incentives and other wasteful spending items?
3.  The argument that they need more revenues for "growth" is a bunch of baloney.  In high-growth counties, county budgets are still growing faster than population growth plus inflation.  In many other counties, population growth is basically flat or is negative, so obviously they don't need more revenue options to "defray the costs of growth."

Anti-tax forces didn't win the war on Tuesday, the battle has just begun.

November 07, 2007

Cut the Corporate Tax: US & NC

It's an idea that's long overdue.
http://kudlowsmoneypolitics.blogspot.com/2007/10/corporate-tax-cut-ahead.html

Transit Tax Rolls, Transfer Tax Smacked Down

Transit Tax: Charlotteans are still under the spell of the folly trolley and all that free money from other states (federal dollars), but they still think they need more money for roads. Here's an interesting duh moment in the above-linked article:

City and transit officials say losing the tax -- without replacing the lost revenue -- would require cutting 41 of 76 bus routes, many of which are for commuters. Tax opponents acknowledge bus service would be curtailed.

So why aren't they adding buses instead of building rail? Oh, that's right, Charlotteans are snobs... Now for the good news:

Transfer Tax: From AFPNC: "Local governments spent large amounts of taxpayer money to promote tax increases but they were still soundly defeated at the polls by voters. Taxpayers should be spared of further abuse of their tax dollars by having local governments abandon their efforts for more power and money. Local governments should learn to live with-in their means like taxpayers do."
-Max Borders

November 05, 2007

Corporate Taxation Putting U.S. Companies at a Disadvantage

This summary of a recent U.S. Dep't of Treasury conference is quite troubling for those concerned about U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. The major finding was:

"Scholars and heads of large corporations have been pointing out the serious problems with the U.S. corporate tax for more than 15 years. There is now a growing consensus that the complex and high-rate corporate tax needs to be overhauled."

It seems that even the welfare-state loving Europeans have at least figured out that heavy taxation on business is, well, bad for business (and bad for job creation, wages, etc).

"Europe is on a corporate tax-cutting binge. The U.S. federal plus average state corporate tax rate stands at 40 percent, which is much higher than the European Union average of 24 percent. It appears foreign rates will keep falling, putting an ever-greater squeeze on U.S. competitiveness."

Unfortunately, so-called "progressives" in this country can not seem to rid themselves of the "make those big, evil corporations pay their fair share" mentality. The reality is that high rates of corporate taxation hurts the little guy most of all.

"Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has shown statistically that higher corporate tax rates mean lower worker wages."

This intuitively makes sense: when the owners of capital are allowed to keep less of their income/profits, less capital accumulation occurs; with less capital accumulation there is less money to invest in productivity gains - worker wages are directly tied to productivity so lower levels of productivity gains means less income growth. Furthermore, higher taxation means less money to invest in new job creation. Let us also not forget that higher taxes on businesses puts upward pressure on the prices they charge for their goods. All of these factors hurt the poor disproportionately - leading one to question the "progressive" urge for high corporate taxation in regards to their claim to be advocates for the poor.

October 11, 2007

Good news for North Carolina & Conservatives

I found hope in of all places the Policy Watch Blog.  Many pundits have been sounding the death knell of the conservative movement for years.  One of the core issues for Conservatives is that government already taxes too much and they should use the "revenue" they have more efficiently before they come back to taxpayer for "revenue enhancements.  NC Policy watch and their latest "poll" done by Public Policy Polling jumped out as offering hope for the future.  Three questions in particular show that minorities and young people are not as friendly to higher taxes and big government as our friends on the left would lead you to believe.

Question two asks about funding SCHIP using higher cigarette taxes and it was 50% support and 50% opposed or had no opinion. The cross tabs show that self identified minorities are either more hostile or ambivalent to this higher tax than whites. In addition the younger the person the more unfair they view this higher tax - definite hope for the future!

Question six asks about sources of new funding for highway construction.  Only 43% go with one of the many suggestions to raise taxes and 54% select an option that precludes a tax increase.  3% have no opinion on this question so I naturally put them in the group that does not want to raise taxes.  With the wording of most of these questions the default answer is to raise taxes.

Question seven is about transportation funding and asks about raising "...significant transportation funding by placing an additional sales tax on large, gas guzzling vehicles". A clear plurality (47%) opposes raising taxes and a big majority either opposes or don't have an opinion (65%). Only 38% support raising taxes.

On questions six and seven self identified minorities and younger respondents oppose higher taxes in higher percentages than whites and older respondents.  Men and self identified Republicans also register higher numbers in opposition to taxes.  But the hopeful sign in this poll is minorities and younger respondents show they understand higher taxes are not necessarily the answer to every problem and in the end they will pay higher prices and still not get what they were promised.

Policy Watch could have saved some money by reading this report by the Civitas staff that details why the hostility to higher taxes by young people and minorities!

The rest of the questions in this short "poll" elicited the responses that the drafters of the poll seemed to want.  I think these three questions did not turn out as they hoped, especially if you dig into the cross tabs.

October 09, 2007

So, Can We Have Our Money Back?

According to the Charlotte Observer, the much ballyhooed Teapot Museum in Sparta is not going to be built as envisioned.  Instead of 16,000 square feet of majestic teapots for everyone to view, the museum is going to be smaller, and focus on items other than teapots.

So, since Jim Black violated House Rules to get the museum the $400,000 and is now a convicted felon, and since the project is no longer what we (the public) were told it was going to be...

(And I'm not going to try to get into the whole story of Jim Harrell's (D-Surry) donor who also gave money to Black who Meredith Norris promised a job as Teapot Museum Director in exchange for the contributions -- Google it if you like, it's a great little scandal).

Basically what I'm asking is, can we have our money back? 
Apparently we need that $400,000 to make sure families making $80,000 year can have government-run health care for their kids.

September 21, 2007

Googled from Behind

If you haven't had a chance yet, please take time to read this article in today's News & Observer updating the Google project in Caldwell County.  If this doesn't emphasize how fundamentally flawed the incentive shell game is, I don't know what will.

It turns out that after waiving Google's property taxes for the next 30 years, the Caldwell County Commissioners turned around and raised property taxes on everyone else by 22.2%!

Unbelievable.

Hopefully as more things like this are revealed, the tide will begin to turn on this incentive game.  Would Caldwell County residents still have supported the Google deal if they knew their property tax bills were going up by nearly one-fourth? I guess they'll have a referendum on that next fall when those Commissioners stand for re-election.

September 09, 2007

Corporate Taxation: On the Backs of Labor

Lefties love corporate taxation and want to increase it at every turn. The idea is, if you tax companies, the fatcats get fewer profits, which they somehow don't deserve, and with the difference they'll somehow be able to grow just as well without.  But here's a little of what really happens according to this study cited in a post by Greg Mankiw (courtesy of Jon Henke):

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares that are reasonable for the U.S. economy. Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax. The domestic owners of capital bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden. Domestic landowners receive a small benefit. At the same time, the foreign owners of capital bear slightly more than 70 percent of the burden, but their burden is exactly offset by the benefits received by foreign workers and landowners.

In effect, it looks like soaking the fatcats actually drives down wages. From the comments section:

If we abolished corporate taxation, or brought it down to an internationally competitive 10%, US based corporate income would be vastly more profitable in the short run. This would spur new competition and reduce profit margins by producing lower prices and also by bidding up wages. Thus the initially huge increase in profitability would arbitrage down to a profitability closer to where we are now, albeit a bit higher. (If it arbitraged to exactly where we are now, what is the incentive for the increased new business formation?)

Thus, even though the Ted Kennedy's of the demogogic Left would scream about it being a giveaway to the rich to slash or abolish corporate income taxes, and they'd be right in the short run (although the middle class mutual fund owners would get a huge amount of that too, and troubled pension funds would get a much needed boost), in the long run it would mean a large raise for the average American worker and a large raise for the average American consumer as well.

The average American pays the bulk of the corporate income tax in the long run in terms of lost wages and higher prices.

August 31, 2007

So, what was the reason?

With the decision last night by the Orange County Commissioners that they were not going to put the transfer tax on the ballot this fall, it meant that the big three Triangle counties (Wake, Durham and Orange) have all deferred on putting the tax on the ballot this year.

Funny thing is, it was the representatives of those counties (Orange - Hackney, Durham - Luebke, Wake - Weiss) who were most adamant about giving the counties the option of the transfer tax.  I thought these counties were "so desperate" for new revenue to deal with growth that they had to have the transfer tax?  What happened?

Hmm... Liberal representatives in safe seats, insulated from voter backlash against raising taxes vs. county commissioners who, in many cases, have to run county-wide and face the voters.

I guess we know who won.

August 24, 2007

Budget & Taxes: Fitzsimon believes state government is perfect

In his latest love letter to government largess, Fitzsimon over at Policy Watch sounds awfully defensive trying to justify the explosive growth of North Carolina's state government. Apparently, he believes the General Assembly has done such an outstanding job of governing that they deserve a raise of 20% over the last two years. Of course, this "raise" is actually the GA's way of telling themselves they spend every penny of our tax dollars so wisely they deserve more of it. First, he feels it necessary to justify the GA's spending of the "surplus":

Much of the ($1.4 billion) surplus is considered one-time money that may not be there next year.

Okay, fine. But why not return these self-described "overcollections" to the taxpayers? This marks the fourth straight year of budget surpluses - totaling nearly $3.5 billion. These overcollections amount to roughly $1,600 for a family of four. And let's not forget the thousands of new and better jobs that could have been created with an additional $3.5 billion pumped into NC's economy - jobs that would largely go to those most in need. Instead of economic opportunity and a chance at independence for the poor, "progressives" will choose bigger government and bureaucratic dependency every time.

Fitzsimon goes on to summarize North Carolina's tax burden:

Another important number about the state budget comes from the North Carolina Budget and Tax Center. A July report from the Center using U.S. Census Data found that as a percentage of personal income, North Carolina’s total state and local taxes in the period from 2000-2005 were at the same level as they were in 1990s.

So in his mind, the tax burden is summed as follows: "it hasn't gotten worse, so it can't be that bad."  A closer look at the data contradicts this sentiment, however. According to the Tax Foundation of Washington DC (perhaps the nation's largest clearinghouse of tax data), NC's average state/local tax burden of the 90's was 9.93 percent of income. From 2000-05, it was 10.15 - a mild increase to be sure, but certainly not "the same level." Nevermind the inherent bias of the data by comparing a whole decade comprised largely of economic growth to a five year span dominated by recession.

Furthermore, let's look at some more recent data. Under Gov. Easley's tenure, the state/local tax burden increased from 10% of personal income in 2000 to 11% in 2007; which translates into a 10 percent increase in the share of our income going to taxes.

Furthermore, NC has climbed to the 19th highest state/local tax burden in the nation - and highest in the Southeast. This is up from 36th highest in 2000. In short, NC has passed a whopping 17 states in tax burden under the current governor.  Compare this to our rankings (dating back to 1970) prior to Gov. Easley. The previous high ranking was only 28. According to Fitzsimon:

Hardly sounds like the state’s taxes are out of line.

What "line" might that be?

August 07, 2007

Taxes: Not "OR" but "AND"

Leftist and media legerdemain on the transfer tax is often carried out by employing "or" with respect to tax options -- as in this article by Democrat Party handmaidens WRAL:

Property tax revenue isn't providing enough money to handle local growth, Ruffin said. He said the best way to get ahead of the curve is to adopt a quarter-cent sales tax increase or a transfer tax equal to 0.4 percent of the sale price of a home. (Emphasis mine.)

Make no mistake. Within three years Durham County along with other NC counties will see increases to both their property taxes and the transfer tax. Working families for whom home equity is their only retirement investment will have much of that taken.

August 01, 2007

Senate Passes 21 Percent Fee Increase

Legislation (SB 1352) that passed the state Senate on Monday would increase the annual vehicle registration fee by $8, from $28 to $36. The $8 increase would increase the annual registration fee per private vehicle by 29 percent.

In 48 counties, vehicle owners pay up to a $30 charge for an annual vehicle emissions inspection in order to legally drive their cars each year. In addition, vehicle owners pay personal property taxes based on their county of residence. Looking at registration and inspection fees alone, the $8 increase would increase the annual burden on each vehicle owner by 14 percent. In the 52 counties in which an emissions inspection is not required, drivers pay for a $10 inspection. For them, the $8 increase represents a 21 percent increase in their annual registration and inspection burden.

July 30, 2007

Balfour: Econ 101

Balfour makes the case for basic economics in this N&O letter to the editor - a case that, sadly, must be made time-and-again because bureaucrats and utopia-builders are usually deranged by zero-sum thinking. A snip:

"Diverting resources from the private sector into the less productive hands of government bureaucrats slows overall economic growth. A low rate of economic growth always disproportionately hurts the working poor, who are at the margins of employment and job security."

July 24, 2007

Fitzsimon's Defense & a Mea Culpa

Chris Fitzsimon ably defends himself here against those fighting proposed devolution of new taxing authority to municipalities -- specifically on local transfer tax referenda. We at Civitas were among the accusers (here) in our suggestion that he used the referendum proposal in a cynical manner. Fitzsimon more-or-less satisfactorily resolves the inconsistency. And I can see now that we were unfair.

That, however, shouldn't distract us from the fact that Fitzsimon wants to give municipalities the power to tax us in a different - additional - way than they're already taxing us. The new form of taxation is death by a thousand paper cuts. We can't afford that at any level of government -- even if it involves tyrannies of the majority. So instead of our trying to point out inconsistencies, or their trying to point out how much special interests are spending to protect their industry, let's both stick to the ideas -- i.e. the costs, benefits, and wisdom of the legislation. -Max Borders

Realtors Make Good Points

Of course the Realtors are protecting their interests, but they make really good points, too. Critical thinkers must address the arguments not the funding:

-Some say that a transfer tax is a tax on growth.  However, it’s the current homeowners who pay this tax when they sell their home; many of whom have lived here and paid property taxes for years.  If revenue is needed for services and infrastructure that will benefit everyone, then everyone should pay their fair share.

-It is interesting that the NC Association of County Commissioner and the NC League of Municipalities, the groups that are such proponents of the right to vote on the transfer tax issue, are so steadfast in their opposition to allowing citizens to vote on the issues of forced annexation and limiting local government authority to condemn private property.

-Between 2004-2006 local governments gave away over $400 million in economic incentive packages that induced corporations to locate in North Carolina, resulting in growth.  Now these same local governments want to raise taxes on current residents in the form of a transfer tax based upon claims that they need additional revenue to pay for that growth.

-In 2005, the