Editor,
Monday's article by Abigail Ramirez was a one-sided regurgitation of Judy Anderson's opinion of the proposed tax hike. The so-called Quality of Life tax represents a hostile business climate, a regressive tax burden on a poor county and a disturbing trend in government paternalism and cronyism.
Businesses are interested in working in places with low taxes, a sophisticated labor force and basic law and order, more than ancillary concerns like zoo and museum funding. Raising taxes will have a chilling effect. Prospective employers will attach a political risk premium to doing business in Albuquerque if they perceive a capricious local attitude toward taxation.
Consumption-based taxes like gross receipts taxes are regressive because poorer families have a higher marginal propensity to consume. Therefore, the Quality of Life tax perversely hurts those with the lowest quality of life. Unlike income taxes, consumption taxes don't allow for low-income families to pay less.
None of the tax revenue is going to public goods. Private nonprofits, museums and wildlife parks all charge fees for their goods and services. In effect, everyone would be taxed for something many will be barred from enjoying. There is absolutely no language in the proposal or evidence otherwise that free revenue will persuade these tax beneficiaries to provide anything for free, as the article suggested. As the government competes with private citizens, corporations and foundations as a funding source for the arts, it will crowd out private investment for these goods.
The government is a terrible arbiter of taste and morality. Art and culture are the penultimate question of private and personal taste, not a realm for public choice. Public art is bad art.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
True cultural amenities will arise endogenously if the city provided better basic public goods. Albuquerque has an unusually high homicide rate, a weekly barrage of meth lab stings, a troubling DWI rate and some of the worst public education in the nation. The more progress we make on basic infrastructure issues, the more likely arts and culture will be produced organically without the harsh blow of government fiat. Albuquerque cannot yet compete with places like Chicago, Minneapolis, San Francisco and New York in terms of culture and the arts, based on theater seats per capita and other measures of culture. It does have the advantage of having a much better tax climate. It would be poor policy to erode this competitive advantage.
Earmarking appropriations from tax-generated funds for private groups and individuals is pork by any other name. Albuquerque biological parks, museums and nonprofits manage to operate within their current budgets. This is a handout to lobbyists and bureaucrats at our expense. The best way to achieve a vibrant community is to pursue a rational fiscal policy coupled with a reverence for cultural entrepreneurship.
Austin Duus
UNM student
