Skip to main content

Stage Two, nobody's grinning

In the book Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, Thomas Sowell wrote that most bad public policies are a result of political decisions that consider “policies, institutions, or programs in terms of their hoped-for results” rather than the “actual characteristics of the processes set in motion.” If you've read a lot of Sowell then you may recall that he made this point in his 1980 book Knowledge and Decisions.

Politicians will only consider Stage One--the contrived press conference, the pretty press release pronouncing the great hoped-for results, the alleged short-term benefits, the clear beneficiaries. They don't address the long-term consequences of such policies or "invisible victims." Sowell highlights Stage One thinking when it comes to things such as business tax increases, price controls, minimum wage laws, anti-discrimination laws.

Snipped from a Cato Institute review of the book: In stage one, government raises the minimum wage, and entry-level workers get a pay increase. In stage two, fewer marginal workers are hired as employers stretch the existing staff to work harder and longer. Further down the road in stage three, the companies re-structure their operations and invest in labor-saving equipment, substituting capital—now relatively cheaper—for the more expensive labor.

To connect this to an issue in the news now: In stage one, a major increase in business taxes may meet its immediate goal of boosting the revenues collected by a city, county, or state government. But not too far down the road, in stage two, companies experiencing higher costs and diminishing profitability will begin to shift existing production to other locations. And in stage three, many companies already affected by the tax and others that might be looking for a plant or office site will choose to locate their facilities elsewhere.

Or, if we can believe the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates. No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey (see here).

The Maryland state revenue office says it's "way too early" to tell how many millionaires moved out of the state when the tax rates rose. But no one disputes that some rich filers did leave. It's easier than the redistributionists think. Christopher Summers, president of the Maryland Public Policy Institute, notes: "Marylanders with high incomes typically own second homes in tax friendlier states like Florida, Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. So it's easy for them to change their residency."

All of this means that the burden of paying for bloated government in Annapolis will fall on the middle class. Thanks to the futility of soaking the rich, these working families will now pay Mr. O'Malley's "fair share."

* * *

Or, as I've been saying for years...once I realize an ass-whipping is coming, don't expect me to show up on time for the scheduled event...

CJL

Popular posts from this blog

Rich talking back

The rich are talked about very often in negative terms, but how often do the rich respond in kind? Australian billionaire Gina Rinehart, who inherited most of her money but apparently has also done very well with it, recently railed against class warfare and had some advice for the non-rich : "There is no monopoly on becoming a millionaire," she writes. "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain. Do something to make more money yourself - spend less time drinking, or smoking and socializing and more time working."   She complained about politicians raising taxes, regulations that slow investment, and other anti-business policies that harm the poor. "If you want to help the poor and our next generation, make investment, reinvenstment and businesses welcome."

Get rid of that watermelon!

Part 1: When I was a youngster I used to collect Confederate money, posters and photographs with caricatures of blacks, and "No blacks allowed signs." I loved the money because it was a reminder of how far the sorry Confederacy had fallen. I had one poster of a dark-skinned black boy munching on a watermelon. I would look at that small poster and wonder, "What in the world is wrong with anyone wanting to eat watermelon?" Yes, white people, I'm talking to you. Your parents, grandparents, and other ancestors who thought making fun of blacks for eating watermelon were crazy ! Even people who say that nothing has changed in race relations must acknowledge that the many stereotypes of blacks are no longer prevalent. But then, there are also some ready to remind us of days-gone-by by debunking stuff that doesn't need to be debunked today. According to the Washington Post: The sound you just heard was yet another racial stereotype going kersplat ! Some ...

Why I won't go to North Korea (Korea Times, December 27, 2012)

By Casey Lartigue, Jr. “Have you ever been to North Korea?” This is the question I am almost always asked here in South Korea when people learn that I have become an activist for North Korean escapees. My response is curt: “No.” “Do you plan on going?” they ask next. My answer remains the same: “No.” When they start to ask a follow-up question, I cut them off: "No." People are often just trying to make conversation, I know, but I am blunt for a reason: I am not interested in going to North Korea as long as North Koreans are held captive. I could go one day, but for now, I can do without a government-guided tour by " men-stealers and women-whippers ," to borrow a phrase from American abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. I don’t mean to criticize people who have gone to North Korea for political, educational, business, religious reasons or just plain curiosity. However, some people push me on the issue, ― and I push back. A good friend wh...

Last weekend: Suicide, Kim Young Ha, NK

Credit: Joanne Cho Event 1: Friday night I went to a talk given by Fulbright junior researcher Joanne Cho. She did a great job putting together statistics about some of the most commonly cited reasons that so many Koreans commit suicide. Probably the most provocative tidbit: Cho watched 86 dramas from the spring of 2012 to now, she says that 63 had "scenes depicting or discussing suicide" in a favorable light (as a way to solve problems, that troubled people can be forgiven for their sins and are even seen as sympathetic).  Another interesting tidbit: While it is often cited that Korea is number one in the world in suicide (among countries reporting reliable statistics), what I had not realized or had forgotten is that Korean men are number 8 in the world compared to men in other countries with reliable statistics, Korean women are #1 in the world when compared to women in other countries. My questions for the speaker: 1) What was a finding in your research th...

Common Sense on North Korea (Korea Times, April 2, 2012)

By Casey Lartigue, Jr. As interesting as Kookmin University professor Andrei Lankov’s writings are, there is nothing quite like attending one of his lectures. He can barely restrain himself behind the podium, often pointing and waving his arms. I also enjoy his unscripted speeches, but his answers in Q&A sessions are like the difference between watching Michael Jordan shoot baskets in warm-ups and an actual game. I have finally discovered the secret behind Lankov’s consistently solid analysis about North Korea: Use common sense. At an Asan Institute conference last summer, he argued that North Korea watchers should try to understand North Korea from its perspective. Don’t most people know that you must understand the mindset of others you are dealing with? Yet, common sense in theory gets ignored politically. From the North Korean perspective, nuclear weapons are the best thing they’ve got going. They will NOT give them up easily, even if President Obama ...