- When powerful politicians give no-bid construction contracts to their friends, you get Olympic bathrooms with two toilets to a stall. Thank god we don’t have those sorts of problems here in the West, right?
- Sheldon Adelson, owner of one of the largest (off-line) gambling ventures in the world, is really worried about on-line gambling. And, apparently, he “can sound surprisingly like a Southern Baptist preacher.” Bruce Yandle probably saw this coming.
- Remember that time when the D.C. City Council tried to side with the local taxi monopoly to keep out an innovative new competitor that was wildly popular with customers? Remember how Council members backed down after they were inundated with protests from angry constituents? Politicians in Pittsburgh, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Paris (France) don’t.
- In an effort to catch up with the private sector, the Obama Administration wants to move more government business from paper to the web. The paper industry is not a fan of this. In Bastiat’s telling, candlestick makers didn’t like competition from the sun either.
- Makers of maple syrup want more exacting grading standards for maple syrup. In other news, I would like a law saying that only economists who attended ASU and GMU can call themselves economists.
- Soccer star and aspiring (unproductive) entrepreneur David Beckham is trying to get a stadium built. He says “We don’t want public funding…We’ll fund the stadium ourselves. It’s something where we have worked hard to get this stage, to fund it ourselves.” In other reports, however, “Beckham’s group has hired prominent Tallahassee lobbyist Brian Ballard to help seek a state sales-tax subsidy similar to what other professional sports teams across Florida have received for building stadium facilities.”
- Elsewhere in privileged Floridian soccer news, the city of Orlando plans to use eminent domain to seize a church in order to tear it down and build a parking lot for Orlando’s new soccer stadium.
- WAMU’s Patrick Madden tweets that Mayor Vincent Gray has assured voters they will not be paying for soccer team D.C. United’s stadium….Voters will, however, pick up the cost of the land at $150,000,000 and then rent it back to the team for $1.00 per year. Sounds too crazy to be true? Read the terms here (to be fair, it looks to me like taxpayers will only be paying $140,000,000).
- Pat Garofalo writes: “In a move its protagonist, Vice President Frank Underwood, could be proud of, the studio that produces Netflix’s “House of Cards” is all but attempting to extort tax dollars out of the state of Maryland. As the Washington Post reported, Media Rights Capital has threatened to move production of its show about an absurdly corrupt Washington elsewhere if it doesn’t get a new slew of taxpayer money.”
- According to this report, FBI agents posed as film executives to bribe a California state senator to expand film tax credits. This sort of film subsidy corruption scandal will likely sound familiar to those in Iowa. And Massachusetts. And Louisiana. Makes you think that P.J. O’Rourke was right: “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
President Obama’s recent budget proposal to pay for pre-school programs by increasing cigarette taxes highlights the confusion both on federal and state levels over taxing tobacco products. A recent Mercatus working paper questions the efficiency and utility of sin taxes in general. But even more fundamentally, tobacco tax policy may fail in its primary goal, which is to reduce the health risks of consuming tobacco.
Since the goal of tobacco taxes is to reduce tobacco’s harms by discouraging its use, the tax rates on various tobacco products should be commensurate with their health risks. If smoking carries four times higher cancer risks than using smokeless tobacco, then the tax rates on cigarettes should be four times higher than taxes on, for example, smokeless tobacco. Yet if cigarettes are taxed at a lower rate than this ratio, the policy may in fact encourage tobacco users to smoke as opposed to using less harmful smokeless tobacco.
A health policy that does not encourage riskier tobacco products should set the ratio of smokeless tobacco and cigarette taxes similar to their health risk ratios. According to a recent review of medical studies, snus (a common type of smokeless tobacco) users face considerably lower oral cancer, gastric cancer and cardiovascular disease risks compared to smokers (see Table 1). In addition, other studies found that, unlike smoking, snus does not lead to lung cancer (the table shows the lung cancer risk for nonsmokers compared to smokers). Importantly, snus users do not expose those around them to second hand smoking, further limiting its negative health impacts. Based on the relative health risks, snus taxes should be considerably lower than cigarette taxes.
Table 1. Comparative Health Risks
|Health Risk||Risk Ratio (Snus users vs. Smokers)|
So how do states fare? Table 2 shows the tax rates for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco for select states, which are calculated based on the data are from Tobacco Free Kids campaign (in the source, the tax rates are per ounce of snus and per pack of cigarettes). To make sure that we compare apples to apples, I account for the varying nicotine content in these products. According to a recent study, consuming one gram of snus delivers nicotine content equal to smoking a cigarette. That works out to about a can of snus (typically 1.2 oz) replacing approximately 35 cigarettes (almost two packs). So I convert state taxes to show rates per equivalent nicotine amounts. For simplicity, I focus only on the states that tax smokeless tobacco by ounce. Other states tax smokeless tobacco based on either wholesale or manufacturing prices rather than retail, making calculations trickier.
The relative cancer and cardiovascular disease risks of snus are lower than the risks of smoking, ranging between 0.14 and 0.6 (see Table 1). States with a high snus to cigarette tax ratio are essentially pushing tobacco users towards smoking, which carries higher health risks (coded red in the table). States with a moderate tax ratio are somewhat neutral (coded yellow). Their tax ratio is commensurate with relative health risks for some but not all risk sources. Finally, states with a low tax ratio generally encourage tobacco consumers to use a safer product (coded green).
Table 2. State Tobacco Taxes for Equivalent Nicotine Content
|State||Snus Tax (gram)||Cigarette Tax (cigarette)||Tax Ratio (Snus/Cigarette)|
|District of Columbia||$0.03||$0.13||21.16%|
Note: snus and cigarette taxes are rounded to nearest cent. The tax ratio is based on actual tax values.
The picture that emerges from the table is that of a confused health policy pursued by the states. Only two states in the list set the snus and cigarette tax rates at the level that does not steer consumer towards riskier tobacco products. Most states set the tax rates at levels that are commensurate with some risks but not the others. Specifically, most states do not account for the fact that snus does not cause lung cancer, which is one of the greatest risks of smoking. Finally, a few states may be steering tobacco users towards cigarettes by setting snus taxes too high (or cigarette taxes too low).
I am not claiming that smokeless tobacco is harmless or that states should promote smokeless tobacco as a substitute for cigarettes. As the National Cancer Institute points out, smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to smoking. It still carries increased health risks, including certain types of cancer and cardiovascular diseases. But current policy on tobacco taxes may result in the unintended consequence of pushing tobacco users away from less risky forms of tobacco towards riskier ones.
Iowa Job-seekers and wage-earners will feel the sting of the longest running unemployment benefits extension in U.S. history.
Thomas L Cardella & Associates expected to create 500 jobs in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. But now 200 of those jobs will be located in El Paso, Texas. The firm changed their plans because of the effect of the increased payroll tax. The company’s payroll tax is increasing form 1.5 percent to 8 percent, or $900,000. That hike makes the firm unprofitable and Cardella doesn’t want to pass it on to the customer as the government recommends. Instead the firm will freeze wages and benefits and slash corporate salaries.
A peculiar argument currently being circulated is that the federal-state unemployment program is stimulating the economy, and unbelievably, creating jobs. Rep. Pelosi made this claim. And it has been echoed by opinion-makers.
Read Thomas Cardella’s op-ed in today’s Press-Citizen refuting it.
The Obama Administration is receiving a range of reviews for its decision to freeze federal employee pay for the next two years. Is it a mark of good fiscal management, or a symbolic gesture. As expected, public unions don’t like it. Though few are praising Iowa’s departing Governor’s decision to do the exact opposite and approve a six percent wage increase for state workers.
Are public wages too high? Andrew Biggs finds while four recent studies conclude that state-local workers are no better paid than their private sector counterparts, these studies fail to account for health care benefits and pensions and thus understimate the real level of public sector compensation. When factoring these benefits in, the public sector pay premium is as high as 20 percent in California.
Today the Tax Foundation released its annual State Business Tax Climate Index.
Good tax policy is not just about low rates. The Index’s author, Kail Padgitt, writes:
State lawmakers are always mindful of their states’ business tax climates but they are often tempted to lure business with lucrative tax incentives and subsidies instead of broad-based tax reform. This can be a dangerous proposition.
The public choice pressures that Dr. Padgitt is talking about encourage state policy makers to cut special tax deals for politically-important businesses and to keep rates high for those who are aren’t so well-connected. The Business Tax Climate report is a nice antidote to such thinking:
The goal of the index is to focus lawmakers’ attention on the importance of good tax fundamentals: enacting low tax rates and granting as few deductions, exemptions and credits as possible. This “broad base, low rate” approach is the antithesis of most efforts by state economic development departments who specialize in designing “packages” of short-term tax abatements, exemptions, and other give-aways for prospective employers who have announced that they would consider relocating. Those packages routinely include such large state and local exemptions that resident businesses must pay higher taxes to make up for the lost revenue.
The best climates: South Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, Nevada, Florida, Montana, New Hampshire, Delaware, Utah and Indiana.
And the worst: New York, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Rhode Island and North Carolina.
Tax Foundation state projects director Joe Henchman writes in today’s Daily Caller about five ideas to help states facing budget shortfalls (that is to say, virtually every state) get back in black:
- Prioritize appropriations. When the majority-Democratic Arkansas Legislature votes to appropriate money, the money isn’t immediately spent. Instead, each appropriation goes to a legislative committee that ranks them in order of priority. Items are funded only to the extent money is available, forcing debate about how best to allocate limited resources while permitting a wish list if revenue exceeds expectations.
- Review tax incentive programs. Although many states recognize they have burdensome tax systems, they use targeted incentives for particular industries rather than reducing burdens for everyone. Besides dumping a higher tax burden on everyone else, the jobs created are dependent on the handouts and often vanish when the incentives end. Tax incentive programs also often escape oversight and cost-benefit analysis. Iowa recently recommended elimination of several ineffective tax incentives after a review. Other states should do the same.
- Broaden sales taxes and use the revenue to lower tax rates. A good sales tax applies to all final goods once and only once. Exempting clothing and groceries may seem like a good idea, but doing so causes year-to-year revenue instability and drives up the rate on everything else. Gross receipts taxes and taxes on business inputs cause distortions that harm economic growth. Adopting a sales tax base of all final products and services would enable both lower rates and more predictable revenue.
- Reduce reliance on taxes on high-income earners and corporate profits. When deciding in which state to live or locate their business, one of the factors that top earners must weigh is the marginal tax rate they will face in each state. While high statutory tax rates on high incomes may bring a revenue increase in the short term, they can harm long-term economic growth as providers of jobs and capital choose to locate in lower-tax states. With these volatile revenue sources at a minimum, it may be perfect timing to minimize them.
- Establish rainy day funds and spending restraints. To ride out recessions, states need to build a rainy day fund of 12 to 18 percent of their annual spending. Setting aside 2 to 3 percent of each year’s budget in good times can accomplish that, but those structures need to be in place now or else states will be in this mess again.
Joe discussed state tax policies on C-SPAN earlier this month.