As Seattle policymakers now say they will postpone consideration of ditching the $25 per employee head tax, a column in Friday's Wall Street Journal should provide a cautionary tale on why it is important for cities and states to endorse policies that encourage entrepreneurial growth.

The column, written by Rick Newcombe, president of Creators Syndicate, is about to move his business and the jobs involved, out of Los Angeles because the city is reneging on its own tax policy. For the last 15 years Creators Syndicate has wrangled with the city over their business tax classification. Mr. Newcombe thought his business, which helps syndicate national columnists, should fall into the "wholesale and retail" classification with a lower tax rate, whereas the city thought the firm fit into the "occupations and professions" which would mean a higher tax rate.

The fight over the tax classification is nothing out of the ordinary. Businesses often appeal their tax classification. Creators Syndicate took their case to court, prevailed, and the city relented and everything seemed fine (this was in 1994).

But the city started running out of money in 2007:

"Suddenly, the city announced that it was going to ignore its own ruling and reclassify us in the higher tax category. Even more incredible is the fact that the new classification was to be imposed retroactively to 2004 with interest and penalties. No explanation was given for the new classification, or for the city's decision to ignore its 1994 ruling. Their official position is that the city is not bound by past rulings -- only taxpayers are."

Los Angeles just said to the taxpaying public, "do as we say, not as we do."

A bigger hypocritical statement I could not imagine.

Wall Street Journal op-ed: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124718265362620253.html
Crossposted at http://www.washingtonpolicyblog.org

LONDON, Feb. 14 — After a tortured debate, Britain's Parliament voted overwhelmingly today for a total ban on smoking in public places — a move that seemed certain to end the time-hallowed traditions of the smoky British pub, where a pint of ale and a cigarette once defined the down time of generations.

The decision, by an unexpectedly high margin of 384 to 184, brought England into line with Ireland, which barred smoking in public places in March 2004, and with other parts of Britain, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, where bans are to come into force over the next 13 months. The local Parliament in Wales has also said it will seek a full ban. The English ban is expected to come into force next year.

The issue was seen as so divisive within the ranks of the ruling Labor Party that legislators were given what is called a free vote, enabling them to defy the party line if they wished.

Monday's ballot overturned the formal policy of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, which had supported a partial ban permitting smoking in private members' clubs and pubs that do not serve food. The compromise would have permitted smokers to congregate in drinks-only pubs.

Opponents of that policy — including Patricia Hewitt, Mr. Blair's health secretary, and, according to the Press Association news agency, Mr. Blair himself, had said that passive smoking would damage the health of workers in any club or pub, whether food was served or not.

"This legislation is good news for tens of thousands of bar staff up and down the country," said Steve Webb, a legislator from the Liberal Democrat opposition. "The key issue has always been the health and safety of people who work in public places."

Ms. Hewitt said the arguments over banning smoking on private members' clubs were "very finely balanced" but a total ban provided a "level playing field" among all premises serving alcohol.

The government estimates that 600,000 people will give up smoking when the new law is enforced. "This bill is going to save thousands of people's lives," Ms. Hewitt said, comparing the ban to the legal requirement to wear safety belts in cars.

Some smokers, interviewed on British television, said the decision was one more sign of a "nanny state" encroaching into private lives. But campaigners from many anti-smoking groups welcomed the move.

Alex Markham, the head of Cancer Research U.K. called the ban "the most important advance in public health for 50 years" since researchers linked smoking to lung cancer. Ben Youdan, of the group No Smoking Day, said, "Compromises can't be made when protecting people against a killer is at stake."