Comments on: Uneven Playing Fields http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/11/uneven-playing-fields.html Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:56:48 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Dave Roland http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/11/uneven-playing-fields.html/comment-page-1#comment-4340 Dave Roland Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:32:23 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=9190#comment-4340 Vroman, Any number of injustices have been defended using a similar "ends justify the means" argument. I cannot believe that a policy can be legitimate (or constitutional) if it allows government officials to choose winners and losers in the marketplace. Even if such a policy might arguably have some benefits to consumers in the short run, the long-term implications of such a policy would be to discourage entrepreneurship and innovation because of uncertainty about whether the government would come along and offer special advantages to a competitor. And, more disastrously, a willingness to allow this sort of favoritism necessarily presumes that government officials have a better understanding of what consumers need than the consumers themselves. Vroman,

Any number of injustices have been defended using a similar “ends justify the means” argument. I cannot believe that a policy can be legitimate (or constitutional) if it allows government officials to choose winners and losers in the marketplace. Even if such a policy might arguably have some benefits to consumers in the short run, the long-term implications of such a policy would be to discourage entrepreneurship and innovation because of uncertainty about whether the government would come along and offer special advantages to a competitor. And, more disastrously, a willingness to allow this sort of favoritism necessarily presumes that government officials have a better understanding of what consumers need than the consumers themselves.

]]> By: vroman http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/11/uneven-playing-fields.html/comment-page-1#comment-4337 vroman Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:58:18 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=9190#comment-4337 I know we've been on different sides of this all along, but I still disagree. Rock Port had a grocery store, they still have a grocery store. Except now their grocery store pays less taxes, and can thus lower prices. Consumer surplus increases. I agree it is unfair for government to pick who gets lower costs, but the fact remains, there is now a grocer with lower costs. It would be preferable for the city to just say "All groceries pay $X less taxes" and see who comes out on top. Barring that, it is still in best interest of customers for SOMEONE to pay $X less taxes. So the TIF plan is better than status quo, if not ideal. I know we’ve been on different sides of this all along, but I still disagree. Rock Port had a grocery store, they still have a grocery store. Except now their grocery store pays less taxes, and can thus lower prices. Consumer surplus increases.
I agree it is unfair for government to pick who gets lower costs, but the fact remains, there is now a grocer with lower costs.
It would be preferable for the city to just say “All groceries pay $X less taxes” and see who comes out on top. Barring that, it is still in best interest of customers for SOMEONE to pay $X less taxes. So the TIF plan is better than status quo, if not ideal.

]]>