Kristi Noem has only herself to blame, what drug legalizers ignore and other commentary

“A who’s who list of right-of-center” groups last week asked Speaker Mike Johnson to set a House vote on the More Homes on the Market Act “which would boost the exemption from capital gains tax for people selling their primary residence” — “an idea for making housing affordable that 64 congressional Democrats have also endorsed,” explain The Washington Times’ editors.The problem: Homeowners whose “kids have moved away” can’t “downsize into more modest accommodations” without risking “the taxman’s wrath,” so “they stay where they are, leaving new families with fewer choices when shopping for a suitably sized place to live.” IRS rules impose tax penalties on homes whose price has risen more than $250,000, “or $500,000 when filing jointly”; the bill would double those limits — recognizing that decades of inflation alone can account for those “gains.” The “legalize and tax addictive drugs” strategy assumes that “addicted users’ demand” is “highly inelastic” — that is, that “reducing supply through enforcement” only “makes drug traffickers richer,” notes City Journal’s Charles Fain Lehman.

But that ignores the impact of prohibition in “suppressing consumption and associated harms.” That is: “The actual act of prohibiting drugs” yields “relatively large reductions in consumption,” while the legalize-and-tax model “depends on the assumption that policymakers will set socially optimal taxes.” Experience shows that excise taxes wind up capped by “corporate lobbying” and the persistence of “rosbust grey markets” that provide “an estimated half” of the supply.In the end, “strategic enforcement” coupled with “preserving prohibition” does the least harm.  Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Please provide a valid email.

By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.Never miss a story.

...