close

One of the most challenging aspects of taxes is finding the balance between limiting taxation to ensure it does not choke out economic innovation and growth while taxing enough to keep the government functioning well. Despite having less expenses, many rural county governments in the state have higher property taxes than urban counties.

It is a balance many governments fail to meet, which is why many tax policies are often miswritten. Property taxes comprise most of Mississippi’s revenue in each of its 82 counties.  In fact, over a quarter of the Mississippi government’s revenue comes from property taxes.  This source of revenue is used for a variety of different purposes; however, a third of municipal governments and public schools’ budgets rely on property tax collections. 

Mississippi exercises a system of five classifications of taxable items when pursuing property taxes.  There is a different assessment ratio in each of these classifications, ranging from 10 to 30 percent of the total value: Class I consists of single-family, owner-occupied residential property, and its assessment ratio is 10 percent. Class II consists of any property that is not Class I property nor property used for public service assessed by the state or county and is assessed at 15 percent. Class III property entails personal property except for motor vehicles and public service property assessed by the state or county.  It is assessed at 15 percent. Class IV property is any public service property assessed by the state or county except railroad and airline property, and it is assessed at 30 percent. Finally, Class V consists of motor vehicle property, and it is assessed at 30 percent.

Despite the specific parameters for the state-mandated rates, there is a large degree of arbitrary inconsistencies on the county-level, which is where the actual taxes are levied. In order to get a grasp on these specifics, MCPP conducted an analysis of average property tax rates per county divided by the per capita income, population, and average property values.

The analysis revealed that many of the poorest counties with the lowest property values have the highest per capita property tax burdens. In addition, many of the counties with the lowest incomes and the lowest populations have even higher taxes than urban counties with higher property values, larger populations, and more government services to pay for.

This reveals that many counties are placing their citizens at a higher risk of tax forfeiture while also driving down incomes. Not only does this affect individuals simply seeking to keep their property, but it is also a distinctive for investment and growth. If property taxes are high, this can also lead many to sell their property and live elsewhere. At the end of the day, county governments ought to tax their people fairly. Local tax rates that arbitrarily tax the property that their people already own without due consideration of actual population and actual government budgets should drastically reformed. If county governments truly want to treat their citizens fairly and encourage growth, property tax overhauls could be a crucial step.

1970’s Santa Clause is Comin to Town is one of Rankin/Bass’ most popular stop-motion animated programs. The holiday classic, based on the song of the same name, tells the story of how Santa Clause came to be. To lovers of liberty, it also serves as an allegory for free markets and how prohibition and tyrannical laws only lead to worse outcomes.

Santa Clause is Comin’ to Town casts its title character as an idealist, an individualist who detests nonsensical regulatory laws and fights against them, all whilst spreading Christmas cheer. The tyranny begins when Sombertown’s governor, the Burgermeister Meisterburger seeks to ban all toys after he trips over one and breaks his leg.

Does this not seem familiar to when we hear left-wing activists nowadays seeking to ban anything they deem “dangerous?” – guns, toy guns (ironically), fast food advertisements, fossil fuel-powered cars, pets, “violent” video games (more toys), and free speech, among other seemingly harmless things. The thing is, we continue to attempt to ban things when we know that doesn’t work. By nature, people will do what authority tells them not to. Outlawing something that we do not understand, fear, or do not like does not work and is simply unjust. To decide what’s good and not good for an individual without their consent is an infringement on self-governance completely. The most prevalent example of this is the prohibition of alcohol, which we know only made matters worse – crime, addiction, corruption, etc.

Santa sees the injustice happening in Sombertown and dares to defy the governor’s orders. When he finally makes the perilous journey into the village, he opens his sack of toys, and happy children commence to playing with them.

Infuriated, Meisterburger orders the arrest of the children, but Santa intervenes and offers him a yo-yo. It immediately improves the governor’s sour disposition, until one of his officers reminds him that he's breaking his own law. Thankfully though, the distraction allows Santa to escape arrest.

Santa later launches a guerrilla campaign to smuggle toys into Sombertown. He adopts the conventions that we now associate with the Legend of St. Nick — arriving under cover, entering homes through unconventional means, planting toys in wet socks hung by the fire — to meet the demand for toys while avoiding law enforcement.

The governor’s men then adopt more aggressive tactics like unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as subjecting violators to excessive punishments, though we’re told the tyrant(s) eventually died off and were replaced by better men. “By and by,” the narrator says, “the good people realized how silly their laws were,” and Santa's story goes worldwide. He no longer is considered an outlaw, but a saint. He grows older, but continues an annual ride across the planet, delivering gifts to all the well-behaved boys and girls.

It's an unconventional happy ending, and a silly allegory, but one that resonates with those who favor limited government. Unjust laws are finally repealed with the help of a brave individualist and freedom reigns. If there is some lesson to be learned, it’s that the prohibition of anything could result in many worse outcomes – crime, corruption, and increased government control over average citizens’ lives. If the adults don’t get anything out of this animated classic, hopefully, the kids will.

Agriculture is a growing industry. In a day when the nation has now has the ability to produce more agricultural products than prior generations, it has become apparent that agriculture is an industry where innovative business models and technologies have extraordinary potential. Despite this success, there has been a growth in regulations that inhibit this innovation.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the nation’s agricultural per-capita production has increased by almost 300 percent since 1948. While there was relatively little change in the inputs, the growth compounded. What is the cause of this? Studies by the USDA found that much of this growth was driven by the adoption of innovative business models and new technologies.

While innovations in technology and business carry a directly positive effect for agricultural growth, there is an opposite effect when regulations increase.  Ultimately, there are two main jurisdictions for agricultural regulation, the state government and the federal government.

A Purdue University analysis of the agricultural regulations imposed on the federal level from 1997 to 2012 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USDA found that the regulations had a substantial impact on innovative growth in productivity.  Because of USDA regulations, the study found a 24.7 percent decrease in productivity growth, for EPA regulations, the study found a 36.8 percent decrease in productivity growth.

Despite such dismal effects of regulation on growth, federal agricultural regulation has only increased since the Purdue study’s 2012 end year. A 2018 study conducted by the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, and again, the USDA itself, had similar findings. Stating that “growth in total regulatory restrictions has a negative relationship with growth in crop yield.” This federal environment has led to calls from groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation for a decrease in these excessive regulations, citing a fundamental issue with the extent and enforcement of federal agricultural regulations.

While state-level regulations have varied across the nation, these state-level regulations can inhibit agricultural innovation and growth as well. The extent and enforcement of agricultural regulation is different in every state, but examples of regulatory burdens on agriculture abound. This is true both for innovative agricultural technology and innovative agricultural business models.

On the innovative technology side, California law requires all self-driving tractors to have an operator stationed in the vehicle, practically defeating the purpose of “driverless” tractors. In Mississippi, drone operators seeking to spray pesticide or fertilizer would have to get an airplane pilot’s license. This is due to an outdated requirement that all aerial applicators have a pilot’s license. Both of these rules are based on outdated laws from the 1970s, and these regulations are only two such examples of burdens that states have placed on agricultural technology.

In addition to regulations on ag-tech, many states also have regulatory burdens on innovative agri-business models as well. For several years, multiple states did not permit farmers to sell shares of their dairy herds to outside participants. In addition, several states have prohibited certain farm-to-consumer food sales from being marketed on social media, forcing many farmers to be excluded from a basic tool that other sectors are permitted to use widely.

Even a brief survey of the agricultural landscape demonstrates a need for meaningful regulatory reforms. Farmers across the state and country have recently battled economic downturns, natural disasters, a global pandemic, and numerous other challenges. The least that the government can do is remove regulations that inhibit their productivity and innovation.  While there is a myriad of agricultural regulations that should be fundamentally repealed on the state and federal level, there are also proactive reforms that could help maintain an environment that encourages growth.

With the backing of farmers and groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), many states have enacted sweeping agricultural freedom laws that have expanded access to agricultural products by consumers. Given that a large percentage of the agricultural sector centers around food production, several states looking to cut regulations have enacted “Food Freedom” laws. Many of these laws encompass reforms such as expanding farm-to-table meat sales, broadening cottage food sales, and lowering small farmers' licensing and permit requirements.

In addition to specific changes to the most commonly burdensome regulations, there is also immense potential in a regulatory exemption program. In such a program, individual farmers could request specific exemptions from excessive agricultural regulations that do not affect health or safety. In some cases, a broad regulatory repeal like the food freedom laws may not apply to a farmer in a unique regulatory situation. 

Using such exemption programs, individual states, and even the federal government, could have platforms for farmers to continue operating and growing in the economy without being hamstrung by a one-size-fits-all approach. This “regulatory sandbox” model has a successful track record of success in other sectors, such as financial technology, and it could be a platform for farmers in unique scenarios to get the regulatory relief they need.

The outdated rules of yesterday, and arbitrary regulations of today, shouldn’t be permitted to restrict the growth of agricultural innovation and prosperity for the future. A proactive agricultural sector can only grow to its fullest potential in a free market context.

Farmers have enough challenges to face as they strive to produce products for their families, neighbors, and country. Instead of placing more burdens on these hardworking folks, sound public policy should ensure that farmers can continue to grow and innovate without having the blight of a heavy-handed government.

The Christmas season represents a major source of cultural optimism that encourages people to spend more freely, sparking quick and, at times, unsustainable economic vitality. While this usually provides a boom, economic circumstances aggravated by government actions could mean a leaner holiday for thousands of Americans.   

Due to current economic hardships like inflation, the consumer price index reported that the price for goods and services have increased 6.2 percent over the last year (that number increased by 0.9 in the last month alone). Things are getting more expensive and under normal circumstances, people would be much less likely to consume more expensive items beyond what they need to buy out of necessity. Additionally, supply chain problems have led to a shortage of items one can buy. Meanwhile, the federal government of 2021 had a consistent pattern of policies that discouraged labor participation and increased monetary inflation.

However, despite economic challenges, consumer spending still occurs. This should not be surprising as the Christmas season generally represents a period in which people are not as concerned about the price tag. The data shows that even though holiday spending is less than previous years, people are still spending more than they typically do in other parts of the year.

This should be encouraged. Regardless of what economic theory you hold, consumer demand and spending are an essential part of boosting the economy. Even in the supply-side framework, cutting taxes for businesses to create jobs only works if those businesses have a demand for their product. The biggest problem that stands in the way is if companies can keep up with the demand when they themselves are running into a supply shortage. The ultimate solution to this is having the government come alongside businesses and help them make it easier to make goods by cutting red tape.

Mississippi is far from avoiding this problem during the Christmas season. Gas, food, and other consumer products are rising making it more difficult to travel and celebrate. Cultural optimism certainly helps with the state’s ability to maintain the economy. However, the true and sustainable solution to promote a healthy economy is by continuing to promote the free exchange of goods and services. Mississippi has already taken a step in testing this by creating a tax free holiday in the month of July. However, it can take further steps in promoting free market principles this holiday season by simply allowing companies to operate freely and becoming a help, rather than a hinderance, to them.

Ultimately, both businesses and consumers should be free to pursue what is most prudent for their interests. One of the greatest myths people believe regarding the economy is that simply because the nation is entering into economic hardships does not mean that government intervention is warranted.

This Christmas season may exhibit a time in which people will sacrifice, spend, and travel less, but that conclusion must be made by the consumers themselves, rather than government policymakers. As we enter the Christmas season, the choices of the people, rather than the government’s central planners and regulators, should be at the forefront.

While noble in making the federal government mostly harmless, the Articles of Confederation (the country’s first governing document) approved only one legislative chamber, relied on voluntary tax support, and had no common currency or central military, among other issues. To effectively run a country consisting of independent states, there needed to be some common procedure. As more and more states became interested in amending the Articles, a meeting was set in Philadelphia, PA on May 25, 1787. It was quickly agreed that simple changes would not work. Instead, the entire document needed to be replaced. This meeting became the Constitutional Convention.

The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included an executive branch, a representative legislature, and a federal judiciary. The document was remarkable, but deeply flawed. The main issue being that it did not include a specific declaration of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. The absence of a "bill of rights" turned out to be an obstacle for ratification by the states. It would take four more years of intense debate before the new government's form would be resolved.

Recently freed from a monarchy, the American people wanted guarantees that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech and religion, nor upon their right from warrantless searches and seizures. So, the Constitution's framers heeded Thomas Jefferson who argued, “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to… and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” In 1791 the United States Bill of Rights became the Constitution's first ten amendments and the law of the land.

This said, it must be noted that it, no matter the language, did not include everyone. For instance, women and property-less men were second-class citizens, unable even to vote. Native Americans were entirely outside the constitutional system and governed by treaties. Slavery was legal and the slaves had no access to the rule of law. But, as the preamble to the Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…” The key words here are, “in order to form a more perfect union.”

The US will never be perfect, but we must always strive to be, and we have made great progress in doing so. Jefferson once wrote to Lafayette, “We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a feather-bed.” He was correct, but through civil rights, innovation, individualism, and economic liberalism, this American experiment has prevailed. We have become an example to other nations and are the “shining city upon a hill” – and we will continue this course. Additional amendments were later added to extend its protection of rights to all people, regardless of race or gender, and to keep state and local governments from violating the people’s rights. The Bill of Rights is the perfect example of believing in your fellow man.

This Bill of Rights Day, we should be grateful and celebrate our basic liberties reiterated in the text of the same name. It has proven to be one of the most influential documents in contemporary history, codifying the theory of natural rights, which holds that humans are granted certain liberties by God, God alone, and that no one should have the power to infringe them.

It is a basic economic principle that when taxpayer dollars are injected into a sector of the economy, there is an imbalance in the free-market forces of competition and supply that help keep prices low and quality high. This shows true as the growing government has contributed to the problem of increased costs for health and higher-education.

In order to understand the context of rising education and healthcare costs, it is important first to consider the extent of these rising costs. Rather than being isolated incidences, higher education and healthcare have seen a consistent pattern of cost increase.

The American Enterprise Institute looked at the history of costs for multiple sectors using the Consumer Price Index from 2000 to 2020. The analysis attempted to consider the top cost increases in light of inflation and other factors. The report found that while overall inflation led to a 60 percent increase in costs, college tuition and fees increased by over 170 percent. Meanwhile, hospital costs increased by over 200 percent.

The increases in higher education costs tie directly into the amount of government funding that has flowed into the higher education system. According to U.S. News and World Report, the average in-state tuition at national universities was $5,775 in 2002 (adjusted for inflation to 2021 dollars). In 2021, the average in-state tuition was estimated at $11,631. So, in simple terms, college tuition has more than doubled.

Such increases are not isolated to the last 20 years either. Over 30 years ago, in 1987, some were already sounding the alarm that expanded government involvement in higher education brought about in the 1970s was causing tuition increases. Many universities jumped at the chance for more government dollars through grants and “subsidized” loans. Such circumstances eventually led the Federal Reserve to conclude in 2017 that every dollar of student aid would ultimately lead to an average tuition increase of 60 cents. This trend has continued to hold true. While college tuition slightly decreased in the wake of Covid, the long-term increased student and government debt and higher long-term tuition costs will likely be felt for years to come.

The same principle of harmful government intervention applies to much of the government’s health care funding as well. In 1970, the average American had $1,848 (in 2019 dollars, adjusted for inflation) in annual healthcare costs. By 2019, the annual healthcare cost per person had risen to $11,582. This reflects a six-fold increase. Granted, the factors that tie into healthcare costs and increases are complex and numerous. But a review of the impact of government healthcare spending demonstrates a real impact that affected Americans across the country.

For instance, according to the Heritage Foundation, the Affordable Care Act more than doubled the cost of health insurance in the individual market from 2013-2019. This was no less true in Mississippi. Average monthly premiums increased by 149 percent, from $214 to $532, reflecting an annual increase of $3,816. Citizens could be using such funds to put in savings, invest in the economy, or simply increase their quality of life. Instead, they have to put that income towards healthcare.

While the advocates of big government often make politically driven promises of “free” education and “free” healthcare, history and current experience continue to undermine such claims. Sure, some may perceive the government paying for higher education and healthcare as a way to help citizens save money. But the increases in cost caused by these “free” programs make the government’s “free” money a little better than just a high-interest loan -only in this case, payback comes in the form of higher costs for everyone.

Free market economics and common-sense mathematics reject the concept of government inflating healthcare and education by its false promises of “free” funding. If someone gave Johnny $10,000 to use towards his college or healthcare, and it caused all the hospitals and schools to raise their costs by at least $10,000 in response, then that wouldn’t truly be “free money.” Yet somehow, the lessons of this basic scenario are discounted if the giver’s name happens to be Uncle Sam and, worse, if the “giver” got the funds by taxation from others rather than his own benevolence. As demonstrated by healthcare and higher education, this scenario has played out in the real world.

Government funds always carry a price tag that usually begins and ends with the wallets of the taxpayers. As Americans watch the increase in healthcare and education costs, they might do well to recall that the promises of “free” money from gushing politicians have seldom stood the test of time. Rather than going back to the failed model of redistributing wealth, government policy should return to the free-market principles that have a track record of prosperity.  

It's time to give Mississippi a boost and get our state growing. Abolishing the state income tax would do that, giving every Mississippi worker a pay raise and ensuring they have more money to spend on their priorities and families.

Right now, Mississippi’s budget has a stonking surplus of almost $1 billion – We can afford to Axe the Tax! Rather than wait for politicians to figure out ways of spending the surplus, let’s give taxpayers something back by allowing workers to keep more of what they earn.

Ronald Reagan once said, “Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.” If we don’t abolish the state income tax, state officials will soon find a need to spend that surplus.

As Mississippi’s leading free market advocacy organization, we have launched the Axe the Tax campaign to make the case for change. We are highlighting to hundreds of thousands of Mississippians the argument in favor of abolishing the income tax:

We believe that there is common ground for an agreement to abolish the state income tax, using a combination of the budget surplus, and future growth in tax revenues to scrap the tax. And we will be popularizing the case for change in 2022!

Mississippi has a challenge in front of them as it continues to address the economic problems that face our nation.  One factor that needs to be addressed in this complex issue is the number of regulations within the state. As an underlying cause of these regulatory excesses, the state has dozens of regulatory boards and agencies, with many barely even cataloged by the state government itself.

The number of regulatory boards has become bloated to the point that it is hard to keep track of what board oversees what regulation. To date, there is not even a comprehensive list of all the agencies, boards, and commissions that exist within the state.

Ultimately this reflects on government inefficiency and excessive control of the economy. Given the right context and purpose, regulations can serve as a helpful tool in ensuring fair and open competition.  Now, however, regulations are often used as a political weapon to stomp out competition and economic progress. The proliferation of new rules, boards, and agencies is commonplace. In fact, this is so much the case that the legislature has no standardized system in place to notify stakeholders in government and the populace when a board is created or repealed.

Having so many regulatory boards has practical consequences. In 2018, the George Mason Mercatus Center and the MCPP reported a snapshot of Mississippi’s current regulatory scheme.  We found that Mississippi’s Administrative Code is far more expansive in terms of regulations than it needs to be.  In fact, it totals 117,558 restrictions, is comprised of 9.3 million words, and if you sat down and read it, it would take 13 weeks to read!

This does not necessarily mean regulations do not have their place.  Regulations are, after all, enumerated powers given to state legislatures as a tool to govern.  However, such power must come with limits.  For one, overregulation stifles innovation and economic growth, a necessary component to society, especially during these times.  As Broughel notes, such a system of regulations, over time, has a detrimental impact on the economy.  In fact, if a cap on regulations was established and the state simply kept that number for a couple of years, the economy could grow substantially.

On another note, overregulation places a greater burden on the government to ensure that various provisions are met.  When a government grows, it becomes harder to manage it efficiently.  The net result is an economy that is snuffled out by too much oversight and a government that is overwhelmed with too many rules and regulators to keep track of.

If Mississippi desires to become a top state that provides incentives for families and businesses to come and settle there, the state has to get a handle on its regulatory schemes.  In previous legislative sessions, policies have been proposed to do just that.  However, there have not been enough significant policy reforms that would manage this problem effectively.  As we move into the next legislative session, it should be a top priority to lessen the state government's hold on the economy by diminishing the extensive nature of its state regulations. While the government uses regulations as a context to insist that the people are accountable to its authority, how can the people themselves hold the government accountable if the state itself does not even know how many regulators there are? Rather than having a system that lacks accountability and burdens its people, the Magnolia State needs a regulatory overhaul. Meaningful reforms would ensure that every regulation serves a legitimate purpose and that every regulatory authority has transparency before the people it serves. It’s time for Mississippi to move forward.

The drone market has expanded exponentially in recent years, and it's no secret that the amount of drones in the sky has grown with it. As drones increase, potentially conflicting interests between property owners and drone operators could escalate. However, sound public policy could help alleviate these conflicts.

By their very nature, drones frequently fly over property boundaries for a variety of purposes. This makes them not too dissimilar to a plane in some ways. However, the differences between drones and their larger counterparts is the height above the ground that many fly, and the capacity of drones to be a nuisance to property owners in some instances. While the Federal Aviation Administration has generally held that crewed planes cannot fly below 500 feet, many drones fly at heights that are far lower.

This is where the issue of air property rights comes in, and with it, the need to achieve a balance between property rights and economic freedom for drone operators. While the issue of low altitude drone flights and property rights is complex, a basic starting point would be for the state to clarify the rights of property owners and drone operators.

The state of Mississippi does not currently have any provisions that address the issue of drones and property rights. Instead, the state only refers to property rights in the traditional context of physical property. Not only can this leave drone operators with an ambiguous understanding of the property boundaries, but it is also unclear for property owners as well. This leads to confusion.

For instance, it is a federal crime to destroy a drone (such as with a firearm), since the FAA considers it the same as shooting down a plane. Yet, the state-level air property law uncertainty can get especially complex when considered in light of the Mississippi trespassing law. State policy gives property owners the right to confront intrusions on their physical property and even destroy blatant intrusions in some cases. This can lead to mistaken notions that property owners can destroy drones flying over their property.

In order to clear up this ambiguity, state lawmakers should consider the concept of defining air property rights. Air property rights have been statutorily defined in several states, with the explicit purpose of providing clarity for drone operators and property owners.

While there is some level of debate on how far above the ground a drone can fly before it becomes an infringing nuisance on property rights, some have suggested a range between 200 and 300 feet as the upper boundary of air rights. In this way, drones would not be forced into manned aircraft space (typically above 500 feet) in order to respect such air property rights. At the same time, property owners and drone operators could have a mutual understanding of where their rights are. Both parties would be aware of their lines and legal rights, which they could mutually use to their advantage in a legal context.

Mississippi state-level policy needs an air property statute that is workable for drone operators and property owners. Modern technological questions need to be addressed in a relevant way that does not rely on ambiguous physical trespass laws. Mississippi needs drone policies that accommodate the principles of free-market growth and individual property rights. A statutory definition of air property rights could be a key step in achieving that fine balance.

magnifiercross linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram