A well-funded group had put a proposal on the ballot, Measure Q, that would have levied an annual $49 per parcel (of land) in Monterey County for ten years. The money would go to child care. In early August, when I read the proposal, I just knew that almost all the major players in the county would favor it or, if they didn’t, would stay silent. Who would oppose a subsidy “for the children”? But I also believed that it was a bad subsidy. Should taxpayers pay for other people’s child care? And should they be taxed to pay for an ill-defined and relatively open-ended subsidy for which there was close to zero accountability? I wanted to write a ballot argument against Measure Q. I didn’t think opponents of the measure would win, but even so it was important to offer voters an argument against the tax increase rather than a blank page in the voter guide. I won’t keep you in suspense. We did win. Moreover, our side was outspent by approximately 600 to 1.
This is one of the opening paragraphs of David R. Henderson, “Tax vs. Facts: An Election Story,” Defining Ideas, December 1, 2022.
Another excerpt:
At the same time, though, debate was occurring on social media. Chris Kramer, a friend and ally who follows the Nextdoor social network more closely than I do, told me that people were quoting my argument that the tax was regressive. Rosemarie Barnard had told me that most people wouldn’t understand what a regressive tax is. I had more confidence than she had, but it later occurred to me that their understanding of economic theory might have mattered less than I had thought. The word “regressive” sounds, well, regressive. Many people call themselves progressives. What group of people go around calling themselves “regressives”?
I love the editor’s line after the title: “A proposed tax increase meets a small but determined band of opponents.”
Read the whole thing. There’s some good economics in there about whether the burden of a land tax is on renters or landowners.
The picture above is of a juggernaut, which is what the side in favor of the tax, the side that spent $600,000 to our $1,000, felt like.
READER COMMENTS
nobody.really
Dec 2 2022 at 4:39pm
My school district also lost a bond issue/levy by a ratio of roughly 2:1. The district didn’t face any of the peculiar challenges Henderson identified, but faced other challenges–mostly, the challenge of asking people to raise their tax bills when all their other bills were rising at the same time. So the outcome of Henderson’s election may have reflected this dynamic as well.
To me, socializing a lot of child-rearing costs sounds like a ship that has sailed. I favor publicly financed K-12 education, so the idea of extending that program to pre-K years doesn’t pose any special conceptual challenge.
But my wife was on the school board, and she has a mountain of logistical concerns. Where will we find the space to house such a program? Our schools are already overflowing. (Did I mention the bond issue/levy failed?) And in an era with low unemployment, where will we get the staff? Presumably the student-teacher ratio for marginally potty-trained 3-yr-olds will have to be fairly low. Then, will we be paying this staff at the same scale that we pay high school chemistry teachers? And then there’s the issue of transportation: Will parents have to transport their own kids to school? Or will we expect 3-yr-olds to stand in the snow at the bus stop at 7am, be at the mercy of the 6th graders on the bus, and then get off and walk themselves home at 3:30pm?
When we started all-day kindergarten, that took a whollop out of the budgets of private day-care providers–who still maintain all the same facilities as before, but can charge parents only for the pre- and post-school hours. What will happen to these providers when we start with a school-based pre-K program?
Maybe there’d be a way to do this with vouchers. But if the public is paying, I’d want some measure of quality–and I can’t quite figure out how we’d police the quality of a gazillion home-based preschool programs. And if a kid gets hurt (or molested!) at one of these programs, would the schools be liable for failure to adequately supervise?
Not saying that there’s no way to address these issues–but I’d want to see some details first.
Mark A Swanstrom
Dec 2 2022 at 7:00pm
That’s an impressive victory, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the issue came up again in an off-year election. I like the 2/3 requirement for tax issues, but it seems like it may be easy to bypass as in this case. I would like to see minimum turnout requirements for tax increases (or really any election). They shouldn’t be able to pass tax increases based on 10% voter turnout.
My other big complaint about tax increases “for the children” is that government can divert funds that would have gone to the children regardless into different areas. The marginal increase in the amount going to the children is less than the amount collected in new taxes.
AMW
Dec 3 2022 at 12:05am
Not *a* juggernaut, *the* Juggernaut. And your victory kept Monterrey from becoming a little more like this guy.
Well done!
David Henderson
Dec 3 2022 at 11:31pm
Thanks on both.
BC
Dec 3 2022 at 2:46am
The notion that a tax hike can go towards “child care” or any other highly supported spending is quite deceptive. As Mark Swanstrom points out, “Government can divert funds that would have gone to the children regardless into different areas.” By definition, tax hikes can only fund the lowest priority spending. That’s how budgets work. When taxes are insufficient to pay for all proposed spending, then the marginal spending that gets cut is, by definition, the lowest priority spending. So, an honest political debate would require proponents of a tax hike to make a case that the tax hike was necessary to pay for the lowest priority, most wasteful, least popular spending. Of course, politicians aren’t known for their honesty…
Thomas Strenge
Dec 3 2022 at 4:04pm
A win is a win! Regardless the ultimate cause of the victory, on the margin, your efforts helped. Congratulations!
David Henderson
Dec 3 2022 at 11:34pm
Thanks, Thomas.
Yes. My guess is that our efforts accounted for 6 to 8 points of the margin. If that’s true, we would have won anyway. But also if that’s true, it’s a shot across the bow of people who want tax increases in the future.
One of my allies was contacted by a local leftist publication and asked questions that suggested she was trying to figure out why they lost. I think they may come back.
TGGP
Dec 4 2022 at 1:31am
A tax on the unimproved value of land is the ideal (non-Pigovian) tax. This isn’t quite that, but a tax on land is still much better than a tax on income.
Jeff
Dec 4 2022 at 4:49am
Where else but California do you hear about a group multi-millionaire senior citizens mobilizing to defeat $49 a year on populist grounds. I am no partisan of the universal child care movement, but these people are truly tone deaf about just how well the stars aligned for them.
David Henderson
Dec 4 2022 at 12:49pm
You write:
I don’t understand why you say we mobilized on populist grounds. Are you saying that when people oppose a regressive tax, they are being populist? Are you saying that opposing government provision of child care is being populist? Please explain what you mean by “populist.”
You write:
By “these people” I assume you mean my allies and me, right? But if so, doesn’t it seem to you as if winning a vote by 59 or 58 to 41 or 42 is a sign that the stars were aligned for us? So how tone deaf were we?
One other question:
I sense from your comment, and you can tell me if I’m wrong, that you think that people who are multi-millionaires should never argue for the well-being of people who aren’t. Is that what you’re saying? If so, then shouldn’t you also be critical of the multi-multi-millionaires who saw themselves as arguing for the well-being of people way less wealthy?
Comments are closed.