Economist Henry Hazlitt frequently pointed out that when studying economics it is important to keep in mind the unseen effects of a policy choice as well as what is easily seen and perceived. This is not always easy to do, but lawmakers and all those who opine on fiscal policy would do well to remember the lesson.
With that in mind, I read Patrick O’Callahan’s column (Insight, 11-25) on the 1 percent property tax cap, Gov. Gregoire and the Democrats in the Legislature.
Regarding I-747’s 1 percent cap on the rate of growth in the amount of money a property-taxing jurisdiction can collect, the column says: “At last tally, the initiative had pared local governments’ tax collections by about $1.6 billion.”
The column laments that the 1 percent cap took money from governments. But here’s my version: “At last tally, the initiative saved taxpayers about $1.6 billion.” I’m saying the same thing but from the perspective of people who have to pay the property taxes. That $1.6 billion is a lot of money — money that has been saved, invested and spent in the economy. That’s the unseen effect of slowing the rate of tax increases (that’s right, taxes have still increased since I-747 became law).
The column implies that the government has first dibs on my paycheck, and that I can keep only whatever is left over after it has taken its cut. All the people who have had less money taken from them because of I-747 see it differently. (Barnes is the communications director of the Washington Policy Center).
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.