[Utmost Certainty]

Interesting thought, though I don't fully understand. In an earlier post you emphasized the following quote: "A new quarter-percent tax on DeKalb County residents financed infrastructure improvements such as roads and railroad exchanges that benefited Steel Dynamics, Bercaw said" I don't know anything about this tax so am shooting from the hip here, but would think the citizens of that county would have had to vote to approve such a tax. If they wanted to pay a higher tax rate to enhance critical infrastructure why is that government skewing markets? Infrastructure is a necessity in many instances of business location decisions. If a county government (via what I assume was a formal vote by the citizens) wants to pay to make their county look better to potential businesses - why is that a problem? I would agree with you though, that if the feds hand over dollars from one area to another in order to enhance infrastructure to create an advantage over another that is patently unfair. To me, the more local the decisions - even of government, the better and more efficient our dollars are used...

Agree with you that localized decisions generally → smarter decisions.

I'm not sure if the county citizens voted on it or not—it would be good to find out. I would like the idea of that better than an imposed tax.

Though this could be taken a step further—and made even more localized—where the government middlemen are removed entirely from the process. For instance, instead of having a government tax (be it imposed or voted upon), one could set up an investment fund or something of this nature that local people voluntarily put their money into, etc. When the free-market is unleashed, the possibilities are interesting and endless.

[!1776!]

Though this could be taken a step further—and made even more localized—where the government middlemen are removed entirely from the process. For instance, instead of having a government tax (be it imposed or voted upon), one could set up an investment fund or something of this nature that local people voluntarily put their money into, etc.

In theory a great idea, but they would need to recoup their ivestment, a gap that is usually filled by municipal bonds, which are again given preferential tax status (though I think for a good reason).

Problem as I see it is that there are too many leeches, to few investors. On something like a local or county level tax (if authorized by a vote of the citizens) there is majority buy in. If optional, the leeches won't pay even if they benefit. Thats a tough reality that I have a hard time getting my head around for an investment only approach to work.

In my area I floated the idea of raising the per child enrollment fee for public school. It went nowhere. Part of that is likely union teachers not wanting to be directly accountable, the other part though was people with kids saying they shouldn't have to pay more since they pay property taxes.

I do to, and I have multiple kids in public school. I only think it is fair to have more of that cost on me (since they are my kids using the resources) than the community in general. I should pay more, and have more voice, than the no kid hippee down the street that wants more class time spent on studying the social inequalities of post-modern fart making art, but nobodey seems to think thats right - even some of the people with kids in the system.

I'm not sure what the solution is when people using the resources wont even step up.

When the free-market is unleashed, the possibilities are interesting and endless.

100% agree.

Take care.