Both dichotomies are wrong — nobody is presenting us with choices A or B, pick one or the other. Our role as a research institute is to map out a long-term road to maximizing economic freedom, and that road includes broad-based tax cuts — so we write about why that’s a better solution to the problem that politicians are ostensibly trying to tackle. And, as David pointed out, sometimes those solutions actually get implemented.

If we were to approve of targeted economic development breaks, the only practical message that politicians are likely take away is that it’s a good idea to dole out special favors to the politically connected. And those sorts of favors usually take a more insidious form than tax cuts.

My statement about justice is a blanket ideal, true, but like all broad ideals, I consider it a general guideline rather than a fixed equation from which other principles are strictly derived. I’d rather try to minimize injustice where possible, so I’d argue for the value of tax cuts that are as broad as possible, even if they’re not perfectly broad. Development tax breaks don’t even come close.

There are some tax credits that we’ve written favorably about, though, like those for private school tuition for both autistic students and everyone else, or community charities. These tax credits fail the narrow “perfect justice” test just as much as economic development credits would, but are still worth implementing in the long-term sense that they may reduce other forms of government action. If fewer kids have to be educated in failing public schools, and successful private charities cause government officials to feel less pressure to ramp up wasteful social service programs, then that’s the type of tax credit that does a better job of minimizing coercion and injustice even if the marginal rate goes up a little for everybody else.

And you keep framing the motivation incorrectly: “your position is the same as ppl who dont like socialism, yet dont want to cut social security. ‘they can cut it as soon as I get mine’”

My views here don’t have anything to do with my own tax bill, or the Show-Me Institute’s. I’d make the same arguments even if I was the one exception to the broad-based tax cuts I favor, and my own burden would be guaranteed to increase.

I fully agree with vroman on social security and will gladly give up all accumulated benefis right now in exchange for a stop on the tax for me going forward. I would even agree, in order to be part of the generation that makes the change, to end all benefits to me in exchange for a continuation of my tax going forward at a reduced rate. Now that is really a no-lose proposition for the government.

2. “It’s unjust to raise the marginal tax rate for all the other people who still have to pay, in order to finance a break for a selected party”
if thats your position, then you can’t be for any tax break that is not completely universal, any time. lets say govt decides to lower the tax rate for ppl who make less than $300k/yr. well that increases the relative burden for the 1% of ppl who make $300k/yr+! govt is selectively favoring the non-rich!
in fact, the tax system is so convoluted, I dont even know if theres a single piece of legislation *possible* that would simultaneously and proportionally reduce the rate for every single individual and corporation. so youve cornered yourself into a position where its impossible for you to ever be in favor of lower taxes.
your position is the same as ppl who dont like socialism, yet dont want to cut social security. “they can cut it as soon as I get mine”. somebody has to be the first generation to take the big loss to eliminate the program. I volunteer. and I volunteer everyone my age along w me. sorry.

But your impression that we argue against development tax credits because “its bad for someone other than you to get a tax break” is mistaken. The opposition here takes a couple of forms:

1. Officials use economic development tax credits with the goal of boosting the local/state economy, and our job is to point out that this strategy doesn’t work. Regardless of the morality of tax credits, using them to pick and bolster specific businesses at the expense of others will fail, on aggregate, to produce economic benefits at a greater rate than if tax rates remained relatively low and consistent for all businesses. So, that’s what we argue would be a successful economic development strategy: lower tax rates across the board.

2. It’s unjust to raise the marginal tax rate for all the other people who still have to pay, in order to finance a break for a selected party. Notions of justice are tricky, and not everybody who agrees about the economics here will agree about which tax policy maximizes justice, or utility. But even though you’re OK with a hike in your own tax rate in order to pay for somebody else’s credit, how can you unilaterally say that everybody else should be OK with it too? Not only for themselves, but for their friends, family, neighbors, etc.? Especially when it’s used as the rationalization for an economic plan that won’t work? That’s a strange place for a libertarian to be.

I’m not sure which philosophical concerns motivate your particular brand of libertarianism, but I don’t think that select tax breaks coupled with raised rates for others can be seen as a more successful strategy for minimizing coercion than lowering tax rates for everybody at an equal rate. And we don’t have any anarchists working at the Show-Me Institute, to my knowledge, so a blanket opposition to all taxes, in any circumstances, would be a non-starter. The belief that some level of government should exist *almost* by definition implies a necessary level of taxation, however small. (Although there’s always the variant of minarchy that insists voluntary donations will cover necessary, legitimate government expenditures.)

Opposition to development tax credits isn’t even a controversial position for most libertarians — from Cato to the Mises Institute, to Wichita Liberty. And I’m sure you won’t be swayed by their arguments either, but even your pals at Anti-State.com aren’t all on the same page about this.

So, I get where you’re coming from, but it’s not the only libertarian position. Or, even, the obvious libertarian position.