This month the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal released the 14th edition of the Index of Economic Freedom, a publication that ranks countries on nine measures of economic freedom: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government size, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom.
The U.S. ranks fifth this year, after Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia. At the bottom of the list are North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Libya, and Burma (Myanmar).
From the executive summary:
There are clear relationships between economic freedom and numerous other cross-country variables, the most prominent being the strong relationship between the level of freedom and the level of prosperity in a given country. Previous editions of the Index have confirmed the tangible benefits of living in freer societies. Not only is a higher level of economic freedom clearly associated with a higher level of per capita gross domestic product, but those higher GDP growth rates seem to create a virtuous cycle, triggering further improvements in economic freedom. Our 14 years of Index data strongly suggest that countries that increase their levels of freedom experience faster growth rates.
Click here for more on international taxes.
The anti-property tax fervor that has swept the nation over the past couple of years has registered another victory. This time it was in the State of Florida. On Tuesday night, the voters approved Amendment 1, a measure that would scale back property taxes in the Sunshine State, mostly on primary homes. This was in addition to the property tax cut that the state legislator and Gov. Crist put into law in 2007. For more on the vote, here is an Orlando Sentinel article discussing the vote, as well as providing a good brief overview of the issue in Florida.
An interesting question for local political pundits to answer is what was the role of the importance of the Republican Primary compared to the Democratic Primary in driving turnout and thereby influencing the vote on this measure, given that the former would be more likely to vote in favor of Amendment 1 to cut taxes. To what extent would the final result have been different, and would it have even made a difference?
In a rush to relieve Virginia motorists of steep "abusive driver fees," state legislators have run head-on into a 130-year-old Virginia State Supreme Court case that is thwarting their attempts. The controversial law passed last year requires drivers charged with abusive driving to pay heightened charges (taxes) to the state. They are currently charged in three installments over the space of three years and range from $750 to $3,050.
The repeal of the highly unpopular law appears to be a virtual certainty but the Washington Post reports that refunding money paid by those already assessed is being held up by Ratcliffe v. Anderson (Va. 1878), which states that the legislature "oversteps its authority when it passes legislation to invalidate or otherwise reopen a court judgment or decrees." The court's decision effectively prevents any retroactive action by the legislature in stopping the collection of the tax already owed.
One possibility being discussed is to grant refunds of the tax paid only after complete payment. This would require taxpayers to pay the repealed tax, and then receive it as a refund. That is at least in harmony with the Court's decisions. But a refund troubles some lawmakers who oppose writing checks to drunk drivers convicted of killing someone during the last year.
Although the long-standing case throws a wrench into the well-designed plans of the lawmakers, it appears that an all-out effort will be employed to side-step the case law and repeal last year's bad legislation that became worse law:
The House also wrestled Monday over what to do about those who are already paying the fees. House Democrats pushed for an amendment that would allow them not to pay. But the Republican majority, citing many of the same concerns that came up in the Senate, rejected the idea.
Our recent wrap-up of their likely repeal is here.
No comments:
Post a Comment