Carl Davis for the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy: [M]any states traditionally considered to be “low-tax states” are actually high-tax for their poorest residents. The “low tax” label is typically assigned to states that either lack a personal income tax or that collect a comparatively low amount of tax revenue overall. But a focus on these measures can cause lawmakers to overlook the fact that state tax systems impact different taxpayers in very different ways, and that low-income taxpayers in particular often do not experience these states as being even remotely “low tax.”
Texas, for example, appears to have all the makings of a low-tax state. It has no personal income tax, no corporate income tax, no estate tax, and ranks 43rd in state and local tax collections as a share of personal income …
But at the very bottom of the income distribution, Texas’s “low tax” reputation couldn’t be farther from the truth. The poorest 20 percent of Texans devote 13 percent of their incomes to paying state and local taxes — including sales taxes, excise taxes, and property taxes, among other levies. This tax rate is high enough to earn Texas the dubious distinction of being tied with Arizona for the nation’s sixth highest effective tax rate on low-income earners. Texas’s decision to shun income and estate taxes in favor of high sales and property tax rates has effectively shifted the responsibility for funding government downward, onto the families least able to afford high tax rates.
Sears vs. Jim Crow
Ivan Osorio for the Competitive Enterprise Institute: One major reason for [Sears’] longevity is the scale of innovation Sears introduced in retailing, especially via its catalog business. The company made more goods available to more people in more places, at more income levels, than anybody before it. In doing so, it expanded purchasing options to millions of people beyond their immediate surroundings.
The Sears catalog made items otherwise only available in city stores accessible to rural residents, including African-Americans who faced limited options under Jim Crow. As The Washington Post’s Antonia Noori Farzan notes, “the company revolutionized rural black Southerners’ shopping patterns in the late 19th century, subverting racial hierarchies by allowing them to make purchases by mail or over the phone and avoid the blatant racism that they faced at small country stores.”
Of course, it would take long years of hard work and political and legal activism to finally put an end to segregation. Yet such workarounds, implemented in the face of oppressive structures, can help play a role in forcing reform — much as carpooling aided the Montgomery bus boycott. It’s much less difficult to confront your oppressor when he can’t block your access to basic needs like shopping and transportation.
The Canadian model for the opioid crisis
Nicolas John for the R Street Institute: By discarding the prescription requirement for naloxone, the Canadian government has helped break down the powerful stigma that attaches to opioid users. The stigma of addiction can negatively affect a person’s self-esteem and damage relationships with loved ones. Perhaps the most unfortunate consequence of stigma is its ability to prevent those suffering from addiction from accessing the treatment they need. And at the public health level, stigma results in widespread economic, social and medical costs.
Unfortunately, in the United States, a patchwork of state laws still governs this life-saving drug’s availability, and the federal government has deemed naloxone a prescription drug. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been working with drug makers to follow Canada’s lead and develop an over-the-counter version for mass distribution. But more can be done.
The most controversial proposal to address the opioid crisis may also be the one with the most promise. Supervised injection facilities provide a safe space where people can consume previously obtained drugs, such as heroin and fentanyl, under the supervision of staff trained to respond in the event of an overdose or other medical emergency. These spaces also provide a medium for counseling and referrals to other social and health services. As of November 2017, there were more than 25 approved supervised consumption sites (SCSs) across Canada.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by various think tanks.
