In the Name of Safety, We Must Ban Listening to the Radio While Driving!

Posted on by David Stokes

For too long, legislators have been avoiding the 800-pound gorilla in the back seat. In the interest of safety, legislators throughout Missouri and across the nation have mandated seat belt use, outlawed alcohol use while driving (obviously, we all agree with that one), banned talking on cell phones, and required children to sit in car seats or booster seats until they are 19 years old (OK, not quite that old). Now, they are banning texting.

All of these laws merely skirt around the edges of the real problem, which is that far too many people are rocking out to music or yelling back at the talk show host while they are driving. This carnage must stop. In the name of safety, and to fully protect the children — whom, as you may have heard — are the future, our leaders must finally take the necessary step to protect us from ourselves by banning the outrageous practice of listening to the radio while driving. It is only right.

(Thanks to Missouri safe-driver-of-the-year John Combest for the links.)

Pork for Me but not for Thee

Posted on by John Payne

There is already much gnashing of teeth among Missouri’s political class over President Barack Obama’s decision to exclude the Boeing C-17 cargo plane from the federal budget. Sen. Kit Bond is lobbying to keep the program alive, despite the fact that the Pentagon has repeatedly told the federal government that it already has more than enough C-17s. To members of Congress, there is no such thing as pork if it goes to their constituents.

There are about 900 jobs in the Saint Louis area involved in manufacturing the aircraft, and if its production is ultimately discontinued, they will no doubt be at least temporarily worse off.  However, if we want to have lower taxes in the future, we must cut spending and pork projects like the C-17 — even though they are a small part of the total budget — are one of the easier places to start. If such wasteful programs are eliminated, the money spent on them can be returned to the people of Missouri, who can spend it on far more beneficial things than a redundant, military-industrial complex boondoggle.

Country Internet Vs. City Internet

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Here’s something to celebrate in the Missouri budget: The governor cut $24 million that would have subsidized broadband Internet in rural areas.

As state officials have noticed, living in a rural community is different from living in an urban environment. You don’t have all the traffic, noise, and light pollution you’d find in a big city. The flip side is that you don’t have your choice of restaurants just around the corner, or the same opportunities to access the Internet.

The state shouldn’t try to smooth out those differences and give rural residents the benefits of city life. It would be silly to open a state-funded Starbucks on every gravel road so that rural areas would have better access to coffee. Broadband subsidies are an equally bad idea.

How a Sales Tax System Could Replace the State Income Tax

Posted on by Joseph Haslag

Missouri’s General Assembly is considering a resolution that would allow Missourians to vote on a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the state’s individual income tax and its corporate income tax, and alter the state sales tax. Lost income tax revenue would be offset by a broadened state sales tax on all consumer goods and services. All items included in the definition of personal consumer expenditures would be subject to the new sales tax.

Because of the regressive nature of sales taxes, the new broad-based sales tax would also fund a rebate program for low-income households. In effect, sales taxes paid by low-income households would be offset entirely by the rebate.

The purpose of this article is to explain how such a broad-based sales tax would work. The aforementioned resolution, House Joint Resolution 56, has been submitted by Rep. Ed Emery (R-Lamar). The basic components of the bill, especially the tax base definition and the size of the rebate program, will undoubtedly change through House and Senate debate. With the caveat that I cannot predict the final version, I proceed with my description.

Personal consumption expenditures are the goods and services purchased for end use by households. In most instances, purchases are straightforward; the consumer buys something and the sales tax is collected on the spot by the business that has a sales tax license. The licensed business periodically writes a check to Missouri’s Department of Revenue for the amount of sales taxes collected.

If the new constitutional amendment passes, many more businesses would need sales tax licenses because previously exempted services would become subject to the broadened sales tax. Many services, including medical, legal, and real-estate, are now exempt from sales taxes. If the proposed amendment were to pass, those exemptions would disappear. Your dentist would need a sales tax license, for example.

Used goods would require specific attention. Taxes on used goods would be applied only to the value added this year. Suppose you bought a used CD for $10 from a store; currently, you would pay sales tax on the entire $10 purchase. In contrast, under the new tax structure you would be taxed only on the value added by the store owner. So, if the store owner paid $6 for the CD you purchased from him for $10, the sales tax would apply only to the $4 value added this year.

Note further that no sales to businesses would be subject to the sales tax under the new amendment. For example, under the existing law if a store owner buys a file cabinet from a business supply company, he pays sales tax. If the amendment were passed, he would not be subject to a sales tax on the file cabinet. Presently, there are more than 140 exemptions to Missouri’s sales tax, and many of those are for business purchases; the exemption list would be greatly simplified.

The general idea of the resolution’s rebate program is to compute the expected amount of sales tax paid by low-income households and refund them this amount. Each year, households would present evidence, such as a federal income tax form, to the Missouri Department of Revenue to verify their income. Administration of the rebate program could be done by collecting all sales taxes and then refunding an amount to low-income households. Alternatively, low-income households could be given a stored-value card that would be swiped at the point of sale, reducing the amount available until it hit zero.

In one version, people with incomes at or below the federal poverty threshold would receive the rebate. For 2009, federal poverty guidelines say that a family of four is at 100 percent of the federal poverty level with an income $22,050; that income level for a single person is $10,830. Suppose the state sales tax rate were 5.5 percent; then, a family of four would receive a refund check for $1,212.75 and a single-person household would receive a refund check for $595.65.

For the stored-value card, the family would have $1,212.75 put on the card at the beginning of the year. With every purchase, the sales tax could be deducted at the point of sale. No state sales taxes would be collected from that household until its balance on the stored-value card reached zero.

The new proposed amendment, HJR 56, would change the tax structure for Missourians. The broadening of the state sales tax would initially produce some added work for state government. There would be an increased number of sales tax filers, and the institution of a rebate program would be dramatic. But, favorably, we already have an apparatus to deal with sales tax collection, and Missouri’s Department of Revenue would save resources heretofore devoted to collecting individual and corporate income tax.

Joseph Haslag is executive vice president of the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri-based think tank, and a professor in economics at the University of Missouri–Columbia. Sara Haslag is a pediatric nurse practitioner.

 

Pick Your Poison: Income Tax or Sales Tax

Posted on by John Payne

I attended the Show-Me Institute’s forum on Missouri’s tax system in Columbia yesterday, which featured a spirited debate about the most efficient and equitable method of taxing Missourians. Show-Me Institute scholar Ed Robb defended a “Fair Tax,” and argued that by replacing the state income and corporate taxes with a somewhat higher and broader sales tax (with an exemption for the poor), Missouri could significantly boost its economic growth, making us all better off. However, Amy Blouin of the Missouri Budget Project countered that the sales tax would have to be much higher than Robb estimates in order to offset all the revenue the state would lose by eliminating other taxes. Finally, Mizzou economics professor Jeff Milyo made the case that the type of taxation is not nearly as important for economic growth as the level of taxation (lower taxes result in higher growth), but a sales tax might be marginally preferable over an income tax because it is lower and broader.

I am by no means an expert on this issue, but one of Blouin’s arguments against the sales tax struck me as odd. Blouin contended that if we replaced all other taxes with one simple sales tax right now, it could tie Missouri’s government to recession levels of revenue, which are much lower than normal. The first problem with that is a tax on consumption should not be any more sensitive to economic fluctuations than a tax on income — both rise and fall with the business cycle. In fact, the Show-Me Institute’s executive vice president Joseph Haslag, who is also an economics professor at the University of Missouri–Columbia, has argued that sales taxes tend to be less volatile than income taxes.

More importantly, however, even if the Fair Tax were to lock Missouri’s government into a relatively low level of taxation, what’s wrong with that? According to this chart I generated using our new “Show-Me: The Spending” tool, government spending in constant 2009 dollars has grown from $14 billion in 2000 to $19.1 billion last year — an increase of more than 35 percent.

MO State Spending 2000-2010

Even as revenues fell in 2009, spending still increased at a rate of 9 percent during 2008. Maybe if revenues were to remain low, politicians and bureaucrats would learn more quickly that they cannot spend tax dollars with no thought for the long-term consequences.

What’s Good for the Goose …

Posted on by John Payne

State Rep. Ellen Brandom of Sikeston has proposed for the third time in as many years that welfare recipients be tested for illegal drug use, and the editorial board of the Post-Dispatch thinks this is such a good idea that it should be extended even further:

There’s a logic to this, of course. Many employers conduct drug screenings as a routine matter. And Ms. Brandom has noted that taxpayers object to subsidizing drug use. No doubt they do.

But if Ms. Brandom is intent on protecting taxpayers, why just go after poor folks? And why screen only for drugs?

Lawmakers, like TANF recipients, also feed at the public trough, and plenty look as though they don’t lead the healthiest lifestyles. Given their grueling schedules and the rich food that lobbyists feed them, it’s no wonder.

This can drive up the cost of public employee health insurance. So why not, as a matter of routine, assess senators’ and state representatives’ body mass index and screen them for blood cholesterol levels?

Those found not to be taking care of themselves shouldn’t be automatically punished. But they shouldn’t be a burden on taxpayers either. Those found to have LDL (“bad”) cholesterol of, say, 200 or more, should be given a second chance before the public subsidy for their health insurance is suspended. Maybe free oatmeal, too.

What’s more, barely a year goes by without a lawmaker being involved in an alcohol-related driving offense. If welfare recipients can be cut off from public benefits for substance abuse, what about top state officials?

Read the whole thing here.  What a world it would be if politicians were actually constrained by the rules they force on the rest of us.

Urban Chicken Victory in Columbia

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

Last night, the Columbia City Council passed its urban chicken measure by a 4-3 vote. The meeting was well-attended, and spirited public comments preceded the decision. If you missed it, you might want to watch the archived video here.

Opponents of the proposal brought up two arguments against urban chickens: First, that chickens would be dirty, noisy, and wild; and second, that chickens would lower property values. Urban chicken supporters answered both objections very well.

Opponents told horror stories about disgusting chickens, but they failed to show that chickens are any worse than the birds that already live in Columbia. If chickens harbor pestilence and filth, then so do all the sparrows and pigeons that fly around unmolested. Chicken supporters pointed out that other pets like dogs can carry disease or leave waste, and Columbia has no trouble regulating dog ownership so that most people are satisfied. No one is asking the city to ban all dogs for sanitation reasons; chickens should be equally tolerable.

The Columbia ordinance prohibits roosters, which should go a long way toward preventing noise disturbances. One Realtor who spoke predicted that wild roosters will find a way into the coops despite the owners’ best intentions. I find it hard to believe a rooster could break into a coop that, by law, is made of sturdy fencing with a wire net on top — unless the rooster had access to power tools.

Then there’s the possibility that escaped chickens will flock in the streets. Again, the opponents haven’t shown that chickens are more likely than other animals to cause problems; owners of any kind of pets can be irresponsible. As one councilman said, chickens aren’t the nuisance — people are. Those people are the exception, and Columbia can deal with them on an individual basis. Urban chicken supporters have lots of ideas for reducing the number of wild chickens: A private organization has offered to teach people how to care for chickens, and it’s volunteered to help place abandoned birds in new homes. One graduate student pointed out that unwanted chickens can be sold on Craigslist.

It’s clear that chickens are no more of a nuisance than dogs or cats. However, some Columbia residents — namely, Realtors — say that chickens are uniquely harmful because people think of them as farm animals. They claim that the chicken ordinance will lower property values, and that chickens next door to homes on the market could quash sales. These Realtors overlook the fact that the ordinance doesn’t override neighborhood associations’ covenants or landlords’ policies, which can exclude chickens. Chickens are not about to move into a community of mansions and destroy the value of the surrounding estates. And, as several commenters indicated, some people would actually prefer to buy a house in a city that allows chickens.

The only time chicken enthusiasts lost me was when they appealed to “sustainability” and “food security.” I can’t imagine how building a chicken coop could be fun, either. But whether I agree with the chicken owners’ ideology is not the point. People should be free to pursue their ideals and passions so long as they aren’t hurting anyone else. Chicken raising meets that criterion.

Smoke ’em While You Can

Posted on by John Payne

Although both Saint Louis City and County have recently passed a smoking ban (albeit a relatively mild one in the city), this has not placated anti-smoking crusaders in Missouri. Instead they are emboldened, now proposing a statewide ban on smoking in almost all public places. From the Saint Louis Beacon:

State Rep. Walt Bivins, R-Oakville, is leading a bipartisan cadre of at least 20 legislators who’d like to see smoking banned from most public places by next year.

In an announcement this week, Bivins and co-sponsor Jill Schupp, D-Creve Coeur, say their aim is to create “uniform statewide smoke-free standards in bars and restaurants.”

But the bill, HB 1766, is generating lots of attention because it goes much further.

The measure also would outlaw smoking at public “aquariums, galleries, libraries, and museums,” as well as sports arenas, convention halls, bingo facilities and “At least eighty percent of hotel and motel rooms that are rented to guests;”

The few exemptions include private residents not used for day-care facilities, tobacco stores, those 20 percent of hotel/motel rooms and “outdoor areas of places of employment.”

Public smoking is already banned in some form in 23 localities in Missouri, including Saint Louis, Kansas City, Columbia, and Springfield. Furthermore, even in places with no smoking ban, many businesses either forbid smoking completely or offer patrons a nonsmoking option. So, what is the necessity of this bill?

The irony, of course, is that if smoking were so widespread that no nonsmoking options existed for drinkers and diners, a smoking ban could never get a hearing in the first place. It is only when there are already many nonsmoking businesses, and smokers are a small group, that the majority can impose its will upon them so thoroughly.

I am a smoker, but I have been trying to quit lately. However, if this bill passes, I think I might have to start smoking two packs of Pall Malls a day … out of spite.

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