Tax Incentives Work, So Why Not More of Them?

The Cincinnati Enquirer reported on the lack of tracking by the city of Cincinnati for return on the investment of tax incentives designed to attract businesses to the area.  They found there is no such tracking of ROI.  City doesn't track return on incentives

The state of New York has been advertising their program of reduced taxes, abatement and other incentives to attract businesses and expansions in their state. The federal government has been giving grants, low interest loans, and tax incentives to many businesses to expand and build, especially in the area of green energy technology.

Does this work to attract new and expanding businesses?  It does, but how much so is the question.  Cincinnati cannot tell you that answer.  Maybe others can. My point here is that if tax incentives work, even in mostly liberal New York, why are liberals opposed to reducing taxes for all business, and even for all people?

The tax incentive business is a negotiating ploy to get business owners to choose one city or state over another for the location of new business or expansions.  If I was the governor of any state, or mayor of any city, I would fight to lower all taxes, then tell all business owners to move here.  In fact I would tell all citizens that our doors are open for business and all taxes are lower than you'll find in the next state over.

We know there is an optimal tax rate where tax receipts are the highest possible and the rate is the lowest possible.  Lowering tax rates has lead to higher tax receipts under Kennedy, Reagan and G.W. Bush.

Liberals typically claim corporations are not paying their fair share.  The 1% are not paying their fair share.  But then they create these tax incentive zones to attract business.  Well, which is it?  If it works in some places, why not all places?

If we really want the economy to take off and wealth to be created, then why don't we actually practice what we know to be true?

Operation Choke Point - Killing Legal Business

Operation Choke Point - Washington Post

The Obama administration, through use of the FDIC, is choking off legal business' access to financial services such as checking accounts, payment processing and loans.  They are doing this not because there is any particular illegal activity by those businesses, but because they don't like them.

Imagine if a government official told your bank manager to close your checking account because he did not approve of your lifestyle.  Below is the telling quote form this article, along with links to supporting reports.

"... just because there are some bad apples within a legal industry doesn’t justify effectively destroying a legal industry through secret executive fiat."

Mind you, there is not a piece of legislation supporting this government action to force legal business out of business, or at least impose serious roadblocks to continued operations.

This policy was introduced by the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder, and obviously endorsed by President Obama.  Fundamentally Changing America!

To Shoot or Not To Shoot

Civil Rights Leader Goes Though Scenarios
If you have any opinion about whether or not police shootings are justified, please watch this video.  The first man to experience the scenarios is a community civil rights leader who has protested against cops involved in shootings.  His opinion has since changed.  Interesting when you consider the "hands up, don't shoot" protests of the past several months.

Social Science and Social Policy

Two Parent Advantage

"The role of social science," he would write, "lies not in the formulation of social policy, but in the measurement of its results." Not in postulating what will work but in demonstrating what does work. And, increasingly, what does not work. 

 

The above paragraph is taken rom George Will's column, including the Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote.  Will explains that policy has results, and social scientists should explain the results (what works), not promote any particular policy (what will work). 

I consider myself a libertarian with some conservative leanings.  I am often told that conservatives do have compassion for the less privileged.  While liberals go on and on telling us everything we should be doing to help those same people.  If I express an opinion about school choice, I am told I do not want poor kids to be educated.  Likewise if I express my disdain for Obama-care, I am told I want granny to die.  Nothing could be further from the truth. Meanwhile their programs intended to raise the poor and uneducated out of the poverty they find themselves in have not succeeded in the least.

Ever since the 1960's and President Johnson's war on poverty, the percentage of citizens living in poverty has not changed very much if at all. (USNews & World Report)

The bottom line is this: If you wait until after you graduate high school to get married, and wait until after marriage to have children, your likelihood of living in poverty is about 10% of what it would be if you change the order of those three events in any way.

Liberals have great intentions.  Despite all the policies they have implemented in 50 years, they just cannot demonstrate the results we all desire.  Maybe it is time to listen to conservatives and libertarians.

Mandatory Voting Violates First Amendment

Obama Praises Idea of Mandatory Voting

Isn't the president supposed to be a constitutional scholar?  I know I've heard that said.  So now he supports the idea of mandatory voting for all.  Let's analyze this shall we?

Voting is political speech, and we have the right to vote if you meet all criteria such as citizenship, age and residency.  Having the right to vote also provides for the right not to vote, just as the right of free speech is partnered with the right to remain silent.  So Mr. Obama, the constitutional scholar, wants to revoke your right to free political speech by taking away your right to remain silent, or not vote.

The value of your one vote is in the ability to express your political will by placing a ballot in the box.  Presumably, your vote carries the same weight as all other votes.  But if people vote who do not have the right to do so, what then happens to your one vote?  It becomes less meaningful of course. 

The point of this is that identifying yourself at the polling place proves you have the right to vote, or not.  It prevents fraudulent voters from voting.  It does not prevent rightful voters from voting.

Once we determined this to be that case, then all we need to do is figure out how all voters can best identify themselves as such.  This is not the hurdle some would have you believe.

The Real Impact of Minimum Wage, Part 2

Ruinous 'Compassion", by Dr. Thomas Sowell

"The following year, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was passed, requiring minimum wages in the construction industry. This was in response to complaints that construction companies with non-union black construction workers were able to underbid construction companies with unionized white workers (whose unions would not admit blacks)."

The real reason for minimum wage laws was to prevent blacks from taking work away from whites, and it was effective.  Minimum wage laws do help masses of people improve their standard of living, as is implied by the term 'living wage'.  In fact, minimum wages prevent many people with little skill and experience from ever getting the skills and experience they need to improve their earning potential.

The Real Impact of Minimum Wage

Seattle's $15 Minimum Wage

"Substitution Effect" is what this is called.  When the price of anything goes up, people substitute lower cost for higher cost items and services.  The same thing holds true for labor as for gasoline, food, clothing, etc.

Businesses are not immune to the substitution effect either.  In fact, they must earn more than they cost, so finding lower cost alternatives is a requirement for staying in business.