Commission for Strategery
Missouri’s Department of Economic Development recently released a list of the members of the statewide Steering Committee for 2010 Strategic Initiative for Economic Growth (hat tip: Missouri Watchdog).
Because it has more business leaders than bureaucrats, hopefully this committee will propose solutions that are more market-driven than government-driven. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for the new Tax Credit Review Commission.
Additionally, I am pleasantly surprised to see that only a small minority of the committee members work for companies that have been issued state tax credits since 2000. Of the 40 individuals listed, I could only find four that received any. According to the “Show-Me: Tax Credits” application:
- Wells Fargo Advisors has received $2.5 million in tax credits for development.
- Global Velocity has received $150,000 in tax credits through the Rebuilding Communities program.
- Walsworth Publishing received $2.292 million in tax credits through the EZ – Enterprise Zone program in 2001 and $15,068 through the Youth Opportunity Program between 2001 and 2002.
- Washington University received $2 million in tax credits New Enterprise program between 2002 and 2005.
Hopefully, this means that they will be more willing to reduce or eliminate expensive targeted tax credit programs in Missouri.
Your tax credit page shows that Rex Sinquefield personally received $330,241 in historic rehab tax credits for a project at 600 N. Union un St. Louis. Is Rex “more willing to reduce or eliminate expensive targeted tax credit programs in Missouri”?
Comment by Tim Egan — July 28, 2010 @ 9:50 p.m.
Tim,
We only speak for ourselves as individuals here on this blog, but it is certainly my hope that advocates for “historic preservation” acknowledge that easing burdensome regulations may yield benefits similar to those associated with direct government expenditures through tax credit programs.
Comment by Thomas Duda — July 29, 2010 @ 2:20 p.m.
I hazard a guess that most wealthy people don’t do their taxes; they have accountants and financial managers to do those taxes for them, people who have a fiduciary duty to perform their job well. This means maximizing tax breaks where permitted by law.
Regardless, I do not see the act of taking tax breaks and the act of advocating their abolition to be incoherent. Individual agency in modern life in context of these issues is fraught with compromise. Example: if you are a libertarian, how do you engage the college process given that virtually all higher education benefits from some subsidy at some level? Is the notion of American higher education inconsistent with the libertarian notions of limited government? Probably, but without education it is hard and far more chancy to function as an effective agent for change.
In any case, it doesn’t seem self-serving to argue for the abolition of a subsidy that one gets; it seems courageous. Consider the example of LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, who advocates for the abolition of laws that allow law enforcement agencies to attain the ability to become self-funding.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — July 30, 2010 @ 11:33 a.m.