Counting the Smallest Towns’ Residents

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This AP story is one of the most enjoyable articles about the Census I’ve ever read. It explores how residents of very small towns respond to inaccuracies in Census tallies.

Many reports about the Census (like the Springfield News-Leader article I wrote about) stress the connection between Census data and funding for government programs. They include quotes anticipating dire things if participation is low and funding falls short. From this point of view, the larger the total the Census Bureau arrives at for your area’s population, the better.

What sets the AP’s article apart is that the people quoted in it are focused on accuracy. Whether the Census records eight or nine residents in a town doesn’t change federal appropriations. The difference matters only to people who want the numbers to be exactly correct, for truth’s sake. One woman is actually quoted complaining that the Census Bureau states there are two residents in her town, when in fact she alone lives there. I haven’t seen any other calls for the Bureau to revise its numbers downward.

Looking at Mid-Year Budgetary Shortfall and Income Tax Rates

Posted on by Christine Harbin

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report last week about state budget shortfalls, “Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets; State Responses Could Slow Recovery.” (Link via an article on the Wall Street Journal: Real Time Economics blog).

This made me wonder the the following: Are income taxes correlated with a higher mid-year budget gap as a percent of the FY2010 General Fund Budget? Do states that have no income tax have a lower incidence of mid-year budgetary shortfall?

In an attempt to answer this, I took Table 1 from the CPP report, and added the states that do not have a budget shortfall (Alaska, Delaware, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin) and those that have a surplus (Montana and North Dakota). I sorted this table by the percentage of budget gap over the 2010 general fund budget. Next, I added the top marginal tax rates for personal and corporate income for each state. The green cells indicate states that assess zero income tax, and the red cells indicate states that have income tax rates of  9.0 percent or greater.

Projected Mid-Year FY2010 Budget Gaps as a Percentage of FY2010 Fiscal Budget by State

(Modified to Include Income Tax Rates and States With Zero Shortfall)

sorted_graph

* Washington is reflected low in the list because the amount shown is for the two-year budget, ending in FY2011.

The states that have no income tax are disproportionately aggregated at the top of the list. This graph indicates that states without an income tax may be better at predicting their revenues in the future. I can think of a few reasons why this is, and I invite our blog readers to suggest additional reasons in the comments.

  • Sales taxes are a less volatile source of revenue than income taxes.

  • Income taxes are closely tied to the job market, and sales taxes are not. When a person loses her job, she then has zero earned income, and therefore generates zero income tax revenue for the state. During this period of unemployment, however, she continues to make purchases and pay sales taxes (either by using personal financial reserves or unemployment compensation).

  • Sales taxes are more effective than income taxes in addressing budget shortfalls more immediately, because they are collected at the point of transaction. Income taxes, in contrast, are collected only once per year. States do not have to wait until residents file their income taxes in order to collect revenue.

Notice that Missouri is ranked 37. This means that 36 other states were able to forecast their budgets better than Missouri. Perhaps if Missouri repealed its income tax in favor of a broad-based sales tax, it could predict its revenues better, and it wouldn’t face such a shortfall in the future.

Turn On, Tune In, Drop By

Posted on by Eric D. Dixon

Sorry for the late notice, but two Show-Me Institute staffers will be making appearances later today — one on the radio, and one in person.

Research assistant John Payne will be a guest on the Freeman Bosely Jr. morning show on KATZ 1600 AM, once again talking about the St. Louis–area Metro transit system. His segment is scheduled to start somewhere between 11:00 and 11:15 a.m. If you want to listen but are not in St. Louis (or don’t have a radio), you can listen online at www.gospel1600.com. You can also read John’s op-ed about MetroLink expansion and watch his recent appearance on Fox 2 news.

Also today, policy analyst Dave Roland will be the keynote speaker at the Missouri Libertarian Party Convention in Jefferson City! He’ll be speaking about the importance of capturing the hearts and minds of Missourians in our efforts to spread the ideas of liberty and take practical steps toward increased freedom. The Show-Me Institute doesn’t engage in electoral politics, but we’re always happy to share our ideas with others — so, Democrats, Republicans, Greens, what have you, be sure to let us know when you’d like us to speak at your events, as well. We’d love to talk to you.

Ensuring Unemployment

Posted on by John Payne

The state of Missouri has extended unemployment benefits for up to 20 weeks. This is undoubtedly a temporary boon to the people who receive the benefits, but it can only hurt the economy. In particular, it will cause more people to stay unemployed longer. A fundamental rule of economics is that if you subsidize something, you will get more of it, and unemployment is no exception.

You might be tempted to dismiss that idea as little more than armchair theorizing, but there are solid numbers to back it up. For instance, take this blog post from University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan about unemployment in Pittsburgh from 1980–1985:

Unemployment rates got quite high in Pittsburgh in those days, reaching 16 percent at one point, and staying over 10 percent for two and a half years. The chart below shows some of the results. It graphs weeks from unemployment benefit exhaustion against the fraction of unemploy[ed] people either finding a new job or being recalled to a previous job in that week. “Exhaustion” refers to the time when benefits cease being paid to the unemployed person, regardless of whether they have found a job.

Almost no one started working during the 2-3 weeks prior to the exhaustion of their unemployment benefits (weeks “-3” and “-2” in the chart). Miraculously, more than one quarter started work a week later (19% started a new job, 10% returned to a previous job). Economists agree that a huge reason for this behavior is that people are more willing to remain unemployed when unemployment itself generates a paycheck. (The job they take may not be great, but the data show that often there is a job to take).

If incentives mattered in Pittsburgh in the early 1980s, why wouldn’t they matter in the United States today? Or why did employment increase almost 1,000,000 last summer?

Not only would this decision cause more unemployment in Missouri, it would also further stretch an already overextended budget. It’s a bad idea all around.

(Casey Mulligan link via Marginal Revolution.)

More Rent Seeking ? National Style

Posted on by David Stokes

Rent seeking has been a major topic around here recently. I don’t need to provide links — if you’re reading this on the main page of the blog, you can just scroll down a bit for some excellent posts. Now we are going to do a little bit more rent seeking as a nation, by charging international visitors without visas (I guess this means residents of Windsor going to Detroit for a Red Wings game) a new $10 fee that will be used to market the United States internationally. Basically, it will be a national version of what just about every city (including St. Louis and [probably] Kansas City) does with hotel taxes: charge an extra fee and use it to promote the local travel industry. I think we can admit that there are plenty of worse examples of rent seeking than this, but it still entails private enterprise using the government and taxation in order to benefit one sector of the economy at someone else’s expense. (It makes it a lot easier to do this if the expense is borne by someone who does not live here.)

Now, I want to get into their numbers:

The association says the U.S. welcomed 2.4 million fewer overseas visitors last year than in 2000. And that, the group says, has cost it an estimated $509 billion in total spending and $32 billion in direct tax receipts.

We can presume that 2.4 million is for one year, and $509 billion is for 10 years. Taking 2.4 million a year for 10 years, and dividing that into the total spending amount, yields an average amount spent per visitor of just more than $21,000. This article states that the average spending per visitor is $4,500. I don’t think I believe the number put out with the bill signing, but the alternative would be to accuse the PR and lobbying group behind this effort of inflating their numbers. And we all know that would never happen. …

The Lesson Applied to Film Production Incentives

Posted on by Christine Harbin

In the beginning of Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt describes classic rent-seeking behavior:

While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

To see this lesson applied, check out the personal blog of Jason P. Hunt, a film and television producer in Kansas City. He uses it to voice support for H.B. 1587, which would increase the cap of film production tax rebates from $4.5 million to $10 million. Although I’m getting bored of blogging about the production incentives program in Missouri, I want to refute the specific points that Hunt made in his most recent post, “An Open Letter to the Missouri Senate”:

I understand several in the legislative branch would question why we need to increase this cap.

I question this, too, especially since only one single production in Missouri has ever come close to the $4.5 million cap during the last 10 years. (That production was Up in the Air, which was awarded $4.13 million.) The second-highest amount ever awarded was $786,800. The “Show Me: Tax Credits” web tool shows that the average amount awarded is only $369,347.

I suppose Hunt’s implicit argument is that glamorous, large-scale productions won’t be motivated to film in Missouri unless the state coughs up even more cash. If Missouri awards more money to an activity in which it has a comparative disadvantage, it faces an increasing opportunity cost. This is money that the state could otherwise devote to other programs and/or return to the pockets of taxpayers.

Consider that for every dollar allowed as a tax credit under the program, three have to be spent within the state.

From what I understand, an economic multiplier of 3 is unrealistic. In estimating the activity generated from its film incentive program, Louisiana uses a demand earnings multiplier of 0.3982. Here’s a math problem: How much wealth do a $61,000 Range Rover and a $68,000 Mercedes generate in a state? Using Hunt’s logic, they would create $387,000 of economic activity within the state’s borders. I disagree that this is realistic.

That’s found money.

That money comes from other states. If a person is walking to her car in a parking lot and finds $20 lying on the ground, she may consider herself to be $20 richer. However, the person who dropped the $20 on the ground in the first place is $20 poorer. No wealth was generated. When a production company from another state spends $1,000 in Missouri, the money is not created out of thin air; it’s $1,000 that the company would have otherwise spent in a different state.

When states regard each other as antagonistic economies, it is a mutually detrimental situation. Targeted incentive programs result in dead-weight loss and restrict overall growth. In order to increase overall economic growth and prosperity, Missouri should focus on the activities for which it has a comparative advantage, and then trade amicably with the states that have a comparative advantage in producing films.

There’s another reason it’s a bad idea to regard this out-of-state spending as “found money”: Missouri doesn’t get to keep 100 percent of it. States that offer film production incentives get a raw deal, because they are poorer by the amount of money that they allocate in tax credits. For every $1,000 that a film production company spends in Missouri (up to the cap), the state economy only keeps $650. In other words, Missouri government pays the film company $350 for every $1,000 that it spends here. Raising the cap, as Hunt supports, would exacerbate this loss.

Home Birth Statistics

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The National Center for Health Statistics has released a report on out-of-hospital births. In 2006, 64.7 percent of such births occurred in homes. Another 28 percent took place in birthing centers.

The report includes a few maps that allow readers to compare states; one categorizes states according to percentage of home births in 2005 and 2006. Missouri’s percentage was above the national average, and ahead of all neighboring states’ percentages with the exception of Iowa. (Wisconsin and Oregon, two other states I’ve written about a lot, had higher percentages of home births than Missouri.)

The next map shows each state’s change in percentage of home births between 2003–2004 and 2005–2006. Missouri saw no significant change during this period. This is not surprising, considering that Missouri’s General Assembly didn’t pass a bill legalizing midwifery until 2007. I would expect to find an increase in Missouri’s percentage of home births after that bill’s midwifery provision finally became law in 2008.

Miniature Goats

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Now that Columbia permits residents to own chickens, it’s a good time for the city to look into the next trend in urban agriculture — miniature goats:

The Carbondale, Ill., Planning Commission was debating this month whether to allow residents to keep chickens when Priscilla Pimentel, a member of the city’s Sustainability Commission, added goats to the mix.

“If you can have a 250-pound dog in town, why not a miniature goat that can produce milk?” she says. “It’s just common sense.”

Miniature goats are about as big as medium-sized dogs, and can be led around on leashes. Like chickens, they’re domesticated animals that don’t threaten anyone. People should be allowed to own them in cities.

Against the Proposed Toyota Ban

Posted on by Christine Harbin

As the latest egregious example of economic illiteracy to come out of Washington, Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) has proposed banning Japanese-made cars. This is a knee-jerk reaction that would be ineffectual at making American drivers safer, and would have many unintended negative consequences.

First, the ban wouldn’t even solve the problem, because all of the Toyotas that were recalled in January for malfunctioning gas pedals weren’t manufactured in Japan. They were manufactured in the United States:

As for banning Japanese-made vehicles: All 2.4 million Toyotas recalled Jan. 21 due to sticky gas pedals, and most of the 5.6 million vehicles recalled because floor mats might jam pedals, were assembled in the USA.

Would this ban have anything to do with the fact that the U.S. government has a large financial stake in GM, a major Toyota competitor?

Banning Toyotas would have many negative consequences. For example, the men and women who work in Toyota dealerships and Toyota manufacturing plants would have to join the ranks of the unemployed. This would have a noticeably negative effect in Missouri, which has a high-enough unemployment rate already — 9.6 percent as of December.

Banning foreign imports like Toyota would hurt consumers because it would limit their choice of cars. When free trade is restricted, a people can only consume what their country is able to produce. In an adapted excerpt from their book Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, Milton and Rose Friedman elucidated what this means to consumers:

We cannot eat, wear, or enjoy the goods we send abroad. We eat bananas from Central America, wear Italian shoes, drive German automobiles, and enjoy programs we see on our Japanese TV sets. Our gain from foreign trade is what we import. Exports are the price we pay to get imports. As Adam Smith saw so clearly, the citizens of a nation benefit from getting as large a volume of imports as possible in return for its exports or, equivalently, from exporting as little as possible to pay for its imports.

The ban would also increase consumer prices on all cars by decreasing the total supply. Domestic car producers do not have the capacity to make up for the shortfall in the short run, which would aggravate this effect. In the aforementioned excerpt, Milton and Rose Friedman explained that “‘Protection’ really means exploiting the consumer” because she has to pay more for goods.

The ban would also decrease the quality of vehicles that are available to American consumers, which is the very problem that this policy is intended to alleviate. When a country attempts to protect certain industries, it removes their incentive to innovate in order to compete in the global market. By banning foreign imports such as Toyota, the United States would do the American car industry and American consumers no favors. GM and Ford have difficulty competing with foreign firms like Toyota and Honda in the status quo world economy because they have “benefited” from American protectionist policies on cars for so long. Furthermore, bans on foreign imports become even more disadvantageous in the future if/when the trade restriction is lifted, because domestic car companies would have lower-tech, lower-quality products than their foreign competitors.

Government intervention in international markets hurts business and discourages economic growth. When a country slaps protective measures on its trade policy, it is probable that other nations will retaliate in kind, leading to increased consumer prices. Impeding free trade is very dangerous policy when international economies are so intertwined. We only have to look to the recent past for evidence of this. Last September, Obama placed a 35-percent tariff on tire imports from China. This was effectively a tax on Americans who drive cars, who were predicted to experience a 20- to 30-percent increase in the cost of tires as a result of the policy. China responded the following Sunday in retaliation by placing its own tariffs on imports of American poultry and automobiles.

I have an alternative suggestion: Instead of banning foreign imports, each U.S. senator should complete a refresher course on macroeconomics before assuming office. Based on Sen. Johanns’ proposal, I see no evidence this the former secretary of agriculture ever took one in the first place.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging