Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Freedom From Religion Foundation: New 'Underzealous' Show Highlights Younger Nonreligious Belief
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 20 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
New 'Underzealous' show highlights younger nonreligious belief
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is announcing a new show focusing on the experiences of Gen-Z and millennial atheists, agnostics and other nonreligious folks.
The show features casual discussion of the specific nonreligious beliefs and experiences of invited guests. Season One covers topics such as: creating your own traditions to replace religious ones, the intersection of atheism and sex education, atheist views on ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 20 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * New 'Underzealous' show highlights younger nonreligious belief The Freedom From Religion Foundation is announcing a new show focusing on the experiences of Gen-Z and millennial atheists, agnostics and other nonreligious folks. The show features casual discussion of the specific nonreligious beliefs and experiences of invited guests. Season One covers topics such as: creating your own traditions to replace religious ones, the intersection of atheism and sex education, atheist views onthe concepts of good and evil, finding nonreligious community, leaving "reddit atheism" -- and more!
FFRF's Digital Media Manager Rowan Hahn hosts the show that focuses on the lives and opinions of everyday people, and of course, some of FFRF's staff.
The first two episodes are available now on FFRF's YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@FFRForg). The show is also available on FFRF's app, FreethoughtTV. The first features Daniel, FFRF's legal intake assistant, who talks about swapping traditions from his evangelical church with nonreligious ones, such as replacing prayer with meditation. The second episode features Key, who grew up in a small Texas town, and whose atheist beliefs and experiences there led to their strong support of comprehensive sex education.
Subsequent episodes will be premiering every other Wednesday.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/new-underzealous-show-highlights-younger-nonreligious-belief/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
New 'Underzealous' show highlights younger nonreligious belief
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is announcing a new show focusing on the experiences of Gen-Z and millennial atheists, agnostics and other nonreligious folks.
The show features casual discussion of the specific nonreligious beliefs and experiences of invited guests. Season One covers topics such as: creating your own traditions to replace religious ones, the intersection of atheism and sex education, atheist views on ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 20 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * New 'Underzealous' show highlights younger nonreligious belief The Freedom From Religion Foundation is announcing a new show focusing on the experiences of Gen-Z and millennial atheists, agnostics and other nonreligious folks. The show features casual discussion of the specific nonreligious beliefs and experiences of invited guests. Season One covers topics such as: creating your own traditions to replace religious ones, the intersection of atheism and sex education, atheist views onthe concepts of good and evil, finding nonreligious community, leaving "reddit atheism" -- and more!
FFRF's Digital Media Manager Rowan Hahn hosts the show that focuses on the lives and opinions of everyday people, and of course, some of FFRF's staff.
The first two episodes are available now on FFRF's YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@FFRForg). The show is also available on FFRF's app, FreethoughtTV. The first features Daniel, FFRF's legal intake assistant, who talks about swapping traditions from his evangelical church with nonreligious ones, such as replacing prayer with meditation. The second episode features Key, who grew up in a small Texas town, and whose atheist beliefs and experiences there led to their strong support of comprehensive sex education.
Subsequent episodes will be premiering every other Wednesday.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/new-underzealous-show-highlights-younger-nonreligious-belief/
[Category: Religion]
FFRF Ensures Ga. Superintendent Will Not Sermonize at Employee Events
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 20 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF ensures Ga. superintendent will not sermonize at employee events
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has made certain that future staff events in the Douglas County School System in Douglasville, Ga., will not be treated like church.
FFRF received reports from numerous school district employees regarding proselytizing that took place at the mandatory July 28 convocation. Reports, photographs and a video provided to FFRF show Superintendent Trent North sermonizing employees in his ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 20 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF ensures Ga. superintendent will not sermonize at employee events The Freedom From Religion Foundation has made certain that future staff events in the Douglas County School System in Douglasville, Ga., will not be treated like church. FFRF received reports from numerous school district employees regarding proselytizing that took place at the mandatory July 28 convocation. Reports, photographs and a video provided to FFRF show Superintendent Trent North sermonizing employees in hisofficial capacity throughout the convocation. FFRF was told that during the multihour event, North made "numerous remarks about God" and said that he believes God sent him to "save Douglas County Schools." He reportedly preached to staff, quoted bible verses, told employees that "[you] need to learn to trust the Lord," and that "we don't need church just on a Sunday, we need to teach our students to worship any day of the week."
Gospel singers also performed religious songs throughout the convocation that were reportedly explicitly Christian. FFRF's complainants stated that North would sermonize between gospel songs to emphasize the religious points being made. The event lasted roughly 190 minutes, with about two hours devoted to gospel music and sermons.
One employee stated that as the convocation progressed, it "became increasingly more Christian and religious" and that North's remarks over the course of the event reminded them of a pastor. They "tried to tune it out" but "became increasingly more uncomfortable." They further explained:
I felt like I wasn't free to get up and leave because every person in the district was there, and I would look rude or bad to them. I felt my employment was in jeopardy if I didn't comply because my school's principal told me that morning that it was a district mandated event, and that I would not be paid if I didn't attend.
Another employee stated that they felt "like the odd ball out because I didn't conform to [the superintendent's] narrative of religion," while a third stated that they "felt heavily coerced to participate in a religious service as a condition of [their] employment."
FFRF wrote to the district asking it to put a stop to the proselytizing and religious coercion of employees.
"In this case, [North], and thus DCSS, displayed clear favoritism toward religion over nonreligion, and Christianity over all other faiths, by preaching to employees in [North's] official capacity during the convocation," FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence wrote to North.
It is unconstitutional for a public school district to require employees to observe, listen to and reflect upon religious music and messaging as part of an official district event, FFRF stressed in its letter. Requiring employees who are nonreligious or members of minority faiths to make a public showing of their lack of religious belief by not participating in a prayer or else display deference toward a religious sentiment in which they do not believe is coercive, embarrassing and intimidating. The religious performances needlessly marginalized employees who are nonreligious or members of minority faiths. Up to 26 percent of Georgians are nonreligious, and by keeping employee events secular, the district excludes no one and welcomes everyone.
FFRF is pleased to report that the district has changed course to be more inclusive.
"I discussed and explained with the superintendent the principle of separation of church and state specifically addressing the First Amendment as it relates to Free Exercise Clause and the perception of promoting or inhibiting a particular religion during staff meetings," the district's legal representative responded. "I am confident that the superintendent is now cognizant of this matter and has assured me this will not occur again."
FFRF is glad to see its advocacy having a positive impact.
"District employees should not be made to feel like outsiders at mandatory work events," FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor states. "Keeping events free from religious coercion is a constitutional requirement for all public school districts. While this never should have happened in the first place, FFRF is glad to know it won't happen again."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members across the country, including over 600 members in Georgia, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-ensures-ga-superintendent-will-not-sermonize-at-employee-events/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
FFRF ensures Ga. superintendent will not sermonize at employee events
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has made certain that future staff events in the Douglas County School System in Douglasville, Ga., will not be treated like church.
FFRF received reports from numerous school district employees regarding proselytizing that took place at the mandatory July 28 convocation. Reports, photographs and a video provided to FFRF show Superintendent Trent North sermonizing employees in his ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 20 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF ensures Ga. superintendent will not sermonize at employee events The Freedom From Religion Foundation has made certain that future staff events in the Douglas County School System in Douglasville, Ga., will not be treated like church. FFRF received reports from numerous school district employees regarding proselytizing that took place at the mandatory July 28 convocation. Reports, photographs and a video provided to FFRF show Superintendent Trent North sermonizing employees in hisofficial capacity throughout the convocation. FFRF was told that during the multihour event, North made "numerous remarks about God" and said that he believes God sent him to "save Douglas County Schools." He reportedly preached to staff, quoted bible verses, told employees that "[you] need to learn to trust the Lord," and that "we don't need church just on a Sunday, we need to teach our students to worship any day of the week."
Gospel singers also performed religious songs throughout the convocation that were reportedly explicitly Christian. FFRF's complainants stated that North would sermonize between gospel songs to emphasize the religious points being made. The event lasted roughly 190 minutes, with about two hours devoted to gospel music and sermons.
One employee stated that as the convocation progressed, it "became increasingly more Christian and religious" and that North's remarks over the course of the event reminded them of a pastor. They "tried to tune it out" but "became increasingly more uncomfortable." They further explained:
I felt like I wasn't free to get up and leave because every person in the district was there, and I would look rude or bad to them. I felt my employment was in jeopardy if I didn't comply because my school's principal told me that morning that it was a district mandated event, and that I would not be paid if I didn't attend.
Another employee stated that they felt "like the odd ball out because I didn't conform to [the superintendent's] narrative of religion," while a third stated that they "felt heavily coerced to participate in a religious service as a condition of [their] employment."
FFRF wrote to the district asking it to put a stop to the proselytizing and religious coercion of employees.
"In this case, [North], and thus DCSS, displayed clear favoritism toward religion over nonreligion, and Christianity over all other faiths, by preaching to employees in [North's] official capacity during the convocation," FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence wrote to North.
It is unconstitutional for a public school district to require employees to observe, listen to and reflect upon religious music and messaging as part of an official district event, FFRF stressed in its letter. Requiring employees who are nonreligious or members of minority faiths to make a public showing of their lack of religious belief by not participating in a prayer or else display deference toward a religious sentiment in which they do not believe is coercive, embarrassing and intimidating. The religious performances needlessly marginalized employees who are nonreligious or members of minority faiths. Up to 26 percent of Georgians are nonreligious, and by keeping employee events secular, the district excludes no one and welcomes everyone.
FFRF is pleased to report that the district has changed course to be more inclusive.
"I discussed and explained with the superintendent the principle of separation of church and state specifically addressing the First Amendment as it relates to Free Exercise Clause and the perception of promoting or inhibiting a particular religion during staff meetings," the district's legal representative responded. "I am confident that the superintendent is now cognizant of this matter and has assured me this will not occur again."
FFRF is glad to see its advocacy having a positive impact.
"District employees should not be made to feel like outsiders at mandatory work events," FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor states. "Keeping events free from religious coercion is a constitutional requirement for all public school districts. While this never should have happened in the first place, FFRF is glad to know it won't happen again."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members across the country, including over 600 members in Georgia, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-ensures-ga-superintendent-will-not-sermonize-at-employee-events/
[Category: Religion]
FCA Lawsuit Distorts FFRF's Efforts on Student Religious Clubs
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 20 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FCA lawsuit distorts FFRF's efforts on student religious clubs
The Freedom From Religion Foundation says a federal lawsuit distorts its endeavors to ensure that religious clubs in a New Jersey public school district remain student-led as per federal law.
The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, filed suit Aug. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Hopewell Valley Regional School District and New Jersey ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 20 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FCA lawsuit distorts FFRF's efforts on student religious clubs The Freedom From Religion Foundation says a federal lawsuit distorts its endeavors to ensure that religious clubs in a New Jersey public school district remain student-led as per federal law. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, filed suit Aug. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Hopewell Valley Regional School District and New Jerseyeducation officials. The lawsuit challenges restrictions the district recently imposed on outside adults attending religious student clubs.
Becket, a law firm named for a Catholic saint that demonstrates hostility to the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, has publicly blamed FFRF for the dispute. It claims that "an atheist advocacy group didn't like that Christian kids were choosing to learn about faith, life and sports from trusted mentors."
"That's a convenient culture war trope, but it isn't what happened," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "FFRF has never sought to prevent Christian students from forming their own religious clubs in compliance with the federal Equal Access Act."
This law requires public schools that permit noncurriculum student clubs to allow student clubs on religion or politics, with the stipulation that they must be student initiated and run. It expressly provides that "nonschool persons may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups."
"We're defending the crucial distinction between students exercising their own constitutional rights and an outside religious ministry seeking regular access to public schoolchildren," Gaylor says. "Public schools aren't mission fields for outside religious organizations."
FFRF's letter of March 13, 2025, asked the district to investigate reports that outside adults were regularly attending and participating in meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes club at Timberlane Middle School and to ensure that the club remained student-initiated and student-led.
The fellowship's own lawsuit acknowledges that FFRF asked the district to make certain that outside adults did not "regularly lead, attend or participate" in religious student clubs. It further acknowledges that the district subsequently "went even further than FFRF demanded" by allegedly prohibiting all outside individuals from attending religious club meetings.
"Becket is trying to turn a straightforward request that a public school follow federal law into a story about atheists attacking Christian students," adds FFRF Staff Attorney Madeline Ziegler. "There is an important legal distinction between students exercising their own religious freedom and representatives of an outside Christian ministry regularly leading public school students in religious activities."
In its legal complaint, the Christian group describes its "huddle ministry" as a critical component of its religious mission and states that its presence on public school campuses is "essential" because schools provide the platform through which the Christian fellowship reaches student-athletes. It says that these huddle activities include "prayer, religious teaching, religious counseling" and "ministry outreach to share the Gospel with other students."
According to its complaint, Fellowship of Christian Athletes Area Director Carolyn McDonough and another volunteer attended huddle meetings and moved among small group discussions that students were holding, "sometimes participating" in those conversations. They answered questions from students about "life, faith or sports" and mentored student leaders, providing feedback.
Elsewhere, the fellowship says its adult volunteers provide students with "spiritual guidance," mentor students in being bold in their faith and, when asked, pray for students.
"The Fellowship of Christian Athletes' own allegations show that its adult ministry representatives were regularly present on a public school campus to improperly lead religious discussions and provide spiritual guidance as part of its broader religious mission," says FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott.
FFRF notes an obvious distinction between an occasional guest speaker invited to give a presentation to a student club and representatives of an outside religious ministry regularly attending its affiliated club to participate in religious discussions and rites.
Even though the Equal Access Act provides that school employees may be present at religious or political clubs only in a "nonparticipatory capacity," the Christian fellowship specifically challenges the district's requirement that employees attend such meetings in a custodial role. It asks the court to declare that district employees, who wield tremendous authority and influence over students, nevertheless have a right to participate in student bible study, prayer and other religious discussion in their purported personal capacities.
"The fundamental principle here is simple," Elliott concludes. "An outside ministry cannot convert student rights into a right for its adult representatives to regularly conduct a ministry among children inside a public school, contrary to the safeguards of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and those that Congress expressly enacted."
FFRF will continue to defend students' freedom of conscience, including the rights of religious and nonreligious students alike while working to ensure that public schools remain neutral toward religion and comply with the safeguards imposed by federal law.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 41,000 members nationwide, including more than 800 members in New Jersey. FFRF's purposes are to defend the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/fca-lawsuit-distorts-ffrfs-efforts-on-student-religious-clubs/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
FCA lawsuit distorts FFRF's efforts on student religious clubs
The Freedom From Religion Foundation says a federal lawsuit distorts its endeavors to ensure that religious clubs in a New Jersey public school district remain student-led as per federal law.
The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, filed suit Aug. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Hopewell Valley Regional School District and New Jersey ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 20 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FCA lawsuit distorts FFRF's efforts on student religious clubs The Freedom From Religion Foundation says a federal lawsuit distorts its endeavors to ensure that religious clubs in a New Jersey public school district remain student-led as per federal law. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, filed suit Aug. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Hopewell Valley Regional School District and New Jerseyeducation officials. The lawsuit challenges restrictions the district recently imposed on outside adults attending religious student clubs.
Becket, a law firm named for a Catholic saint that demonstrates hostility to the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, has publicly blamed FFRF for the dispute. It claims that "an atheist advocacy group didn't like that Christian kids were choosing to learn about faith, life and sports from trusted mentors."
"That's a convenient culture war trope, but it isn't what happened," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "FFRF has never sought to prevent Christian students from forming their own religious clubs in compliance with the federal Equal Access Act."
This law requires public schools that permit noncurriculum student clubs to allow student clubs on religion or politics, with the stipulation that they must be student initiated and run. It expressly provides that "nonschool persons may not direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend activities of student groups."
"We're defending the crucial distinction between students exercising their own constitutional rights and an outside religious ministry seeking regular access to public schoolchildren," Gaylor says. "Public schools aren't mission fields for outside religious organizations."
FFRF's letter of March 13, 2025, asked the district to investigate reports that outside adults were regularly attending and participating in meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes club at Timberlane Middle School and to ensure that the club remained student-initiated and student-led.
The fellowship's own lawsuit acknowledges that FFRF asked the district to make certain that outside adults did not "regularly lead, attend or participate" in religious student clubs. It further acknowledges that the district subsequently "went even further than FFRF demanded" by allegedly prohibiting all outside individuals from attending religious club meetings.
"Becket is trying to turn a straightforward request that a public school follow federal law into a story about atheists attacking Christian students," adds FFRF Staff Attorney Madeline Ziegler. "There is an important legal distinction between students exercising their own religious freedom and representatives of an outside Christian ministry regularly leading public school students in religious activities."
In its legal complaint, the Christian group describes its "huddle ministry" as a critical component of its religious mission and states that its presence on public school campuses is "essential" because schools provide the platform through which the Christian fellowship reaches student-athletes. It says that these huddle activities include "prayer, religious teaching, religious counseling" and "ministry outreach to share the Gospel with other students."
According to its complaint, Fellowship of Christian Athletes Area Director Carolyn McDonough and another volunteer attended huddle meetings and moved among small group discussions that students were holding, "sometimes participating" in those conversations. They answered questions from students about "life, faith or sports" and mentored student leaders, providing feedback.
Elsewhere, the fellowship says its adult volunteers provide students with "spiritual guidance," mentor students in being bold in their faith and, when asked, pray for students.
"The Fellowship of Christian Athletes' own allegations show that its adult ministry representatives were regularly present on a public school campus to improperly lead religious discussions and provide spiritual guidance as part of its broader religious mission," says FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott.
FFRF notes an obvious distinction between an occasional guest speaker invited to give a presentation to a student club and representatives of an outside religious ministry regularly attending its affiliated club to participate in religious discussions and rites.
Even though the Equal Access Act provides that school employees may be present at religious or political clubs only in a "nonparticipatory capacity," the Christian fellowship specifically challenges the district's requirement that employees attend such meetings in a custodial role. It asks the court to declare that district employees, who wield tremendous authority and influence over students, nevertheless have a right to participate in student bible study, prayer and other religious discussion in their purported personal capacities.
"The fundamental principle here is simple," Elliott concludes. "An outside ministry cannot convert student rights into a right for its adult representatives to regularly conduct a ministry among children inside a public school, contrary to the safeguards of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and those that Congress expressly enacted."
FFRF will continue to defend students' freedom of conscience, including the rights of religious and nonreligious students alike while working to ensure that public schools remain neutral toward religion and comply with the safeguards imposed by federal law.
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 41,000 members nationwide, including more than 800 members in New Jersey. FFRF's purposes are to defend the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/fca-lawsuit-distorts-ffrfs-efforts-on-student-religious-clubs/
[Category: Religion]
WLF Urges Fourth Circuit to Reject Antitrust Theory That Would Punish Inadvertent Patent Acquisitions
WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Urges Fourth Circuit to Reject Antitrust Theory That Would Punish Inadvertent Patent Acquisitions
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to affirm a lower court's rejection of a monopoly claim challenging Johnson & Johnson's inadvertent acquisition of four patents that it did not know about when it bought another company. WLF argues that Section 2 of the Sherman Act imposes liability for willful aggrandizement of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * WLF Urges Fourth Circuit to Reject Antitrust Theory That Would Punish Inadvertent Patent Acquisitions * Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to affirm a lower court's rejection of a monopoly claim challenging Johnson & Johnson's inadvertent acquisition of four patents that it did not know about when it bought another company. WLF argues that Section 2 of the Sherman Act imposes liability for willful aggrandizement ofmarket power, not market power acquired through happenstance.
The case arises from J&J's 2020 acquisition of biotech company Momenta for its investigational drug "Imaavy." As part of the transaction, J&J acquired Momenta's portfolio of more than 500 patents. J&J discovered years later that four of those patents covered a manufacturing process that a competitor planned to use for a biosimilar version of "Stelara," a J&J prescription drug wholly unrelated to Imaavy. After J&J asserted the four patents in litigation, CareFirst sued, alleging that J&J's acquisition of those patents years earlier constituted unlawful monopolization of the Stelara market.
In its amicus brief, WLF argues that CareFirst's theory conflicts with Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent distinguishing between the willful acquisition of monopoly power and market power obtained through serendipity. It contends that imposing liability without proof that J&J knew of the patents' competitive significance at the time of acquisition would improperly convert Section 2 into a strict-liability offense. It also warns that CareFirst's theory would undermine the federal merger-review process and chill M&A activity in the pharmaceutical industry, which could discourage innovation.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/08/19/communicating/wlf-urges-fourth-circuit-to-reject-antitrust-theory-that-would-punish-inadvertent-patent-acquisitions/
* * *
WLF Urges Fourth Circuit to Reject Antitrust Theory That Would Punish Inadvertent Patent Acquisitions
*
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to affirm a lower court's rejection of a monopoly claim challenging Johnson & Johnson's inadvertent acquisition of four patents that it did not know about when it bought another company. WLF argues that Section 2 of the Sherman Act imposes liability for willful aggrandizement of ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Aug. 19 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * WLF Urges Fourth Circuit to Reject Antitrust Theory That Would Punish Inadvertent Patent Acquisitions * Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to affirm a lower court's rejection of a monopoly claim challenging Johnson & Johnson's inadvertent acquisition of four patents that it did not know about when it bought another company. WLF argues that Section 2 of the Sherman Act imposes liability for willful aggrandizement ofmarket power, not market power acquired through happenstance.
The case arises from J&J's 2020 acquisition of biotech company Momenta for its investigational drug "Imaavy." As part of the transaction, J&J acquired Momenta's portfolio of more than 500 patents. J&J discovered years later that four of those patents covered a manufacturing process that a competitor planned to use for a biosimilar version of "Stelara," a J&J prescription drug wholly unrelated to Imaavy. After J&J asserted the four patents in litigation, CareFirst sued, alleging that J&J's acquisition of those patents years earlier constituted unlawful monopolization of the Stelara market.
In its amicus brief, WLF argues that CareFirst's theory conflicts with Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent distinguishing between the willful acquisition of monopoly power and market power obtained through serendipity. It contends that imposing liability without proof that J&J knew of the patents' competitive significance at the time of acquisition would improperly convert Section 2 into a strict-liability offense. It also warns that CareFirst's theory would undermine the federal merger-review process and chill M&A activity in the pharmaceutical industry, which could discourage innovation.
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2026/08/19/communicating/wlf-urges-fourth-circuit-to-reject-antitrust-theory-that-would-punish-inadvertent-patent-acquisitions/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Idaho Gets Housing Policy Right and Sets Up Future Success
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 19 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Eliza Terziev, housing and land use policy analyst:
* * *
Idaho gets housing policy right and sets up future success
Idaho's 2026 housing package treats affordability as a supply problem caused by excessive regulation.
-
During the 2026 legislative session, Idaho enacted landmark housing bills addressing the state's persistent housing challenges. As of June 2026, the median sale price of a home in Idaho had risen to $479,611. According to Federal Reserve Economic Data's All Transactions House Price ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 19 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Eliza Terziev, housing and land use policy analyst: * * * Idaho gets housing policy right and sets up future success Idaho's 2026 housing package treats affordability as a supply problem caused by excessive regulation. - During the 2026 legislative session, Idaho enacted landmark housing bills addressing the state's persistent housing challenges. As of June 2026, the median sale price of a home in Idaho had risen to $479,611. According to Federal Reserve Economic Data's All Transactions House PriceIndex, home prices in the state increased nearly 71% between quarter one of 2020 and quarter one of 2026. A 2024 estimate finds that this rapid home price appreciation has left 28.3% of Idaho households cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. As affordability plummeted, legislative action became increasingly necessary.
Idaho's housing challenges are largely driven by rapid population growth pressing against restrictive land-use regulations. A recent analysis from the Mercatus Center finds that Idaho had the highest net in-migration rate per 1,000 residents of any state in the country between 2018 and 2023. An analysis by the Gem State Housing Alliance found that, before the current reforms, Idaho's municipalities had many varying restrictions that limited diverse housing types and were especially restrictive of infill and smaller units.
Idaho's recent construction boom has not yet overcome years of supply constraints and stabilized or lowered home prices (see Figure 1). Recent estimates found that the state was short over 45,000 homes, despite leading the nation in per-capita housing growth. Recognizing this challenge, legislators liberalized housing markets to encourage the level of development needed to meet growing demand.
A restructuring of land use laws was necessary, not only to deal with current housing affordability concerns, but to create a resilient market capable of adapting to changing needs. States that act sooner rather than later will be better positioned to attract people looking for places to build their lives and careers without pricing them out of the market. Idaho's sweeping reforms have poised the state for future success.
* * *
Figure 1: Home Price Change vs. Building Permits Issued in Idaho 2000-2025
* * *
Idaho's housing package
Senate Bill 1354: Accessory dwelling units
Idaho's SB 1354 requires cities with more than 10,000 residents to allow homeowners to build at least one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a single-family lot. It also prohibits owner-occupancy requirements, additional parking requirements in most cases, excessive setbacks, or other development standards that are more restrictive than those applied to the primary residence.
The law also prevents local governments and homeowners associations (HOAs) from applying other overly restrictive regulations. Applying such restrictions to local governments is crucial, since that has been the source of the extreme supplier restrictions, but most states passing similar laws have allowed homeowners associations to restrict ADUs, which is appropriate since those are private contractual agreements that all property purchasers agreed to in advance.
This is a mostly well-designed example of state preemption. Beyond simply legalizing ADUs, the legislation anticipates and blocks many of the regulatory barriers that local governments have used to limit their construction following statewide housing reforms. This foresight creates an avenue for Idaho's housing supply to keep up with demand in perpetuity while offering several advantages for both homeowners and lawmakers.
ADUs offer several advantages that make them an effective housing supply strategy. Because they are typically smaller than traditional single-family homes, they are a naturally more affordable housing option. They also serve as infill, meaning they do not require lots of additional infrastructure to facilitate their use. Their size and lower cost also make them well suited to households with distinct housing needs, such as college students seeking affordable accommodations or older adults who want to downsize while remaining close to family.
Further, where ADUs have been supported by comprehensive statewide reforms, they have been able to meaningfully increase housing supply. After easing ADU regulations, California permitted more than 139,000 ADUs between 2018 and 2024. California's success suggests that well-designed state legislation enables significant new housing production.
Senate Bill 1352: Minimum lot size reform
The United States faces a nationwide shortage of starter homes, and Idaho is no exception. Starter homes are designed to provide an entry point to homeownership, but as home prices have climbed and the supply of smaller homes has dwindled, this first step has become increasingly out of reach.
SB 1352 addresses one of the regulatory barriers to building starter homes by reducing minimum lot size requirements for qualifying new starter-home developments. This step makes it easier for developers or parcel owners to build smaller and more affordable houses without the regulatory hurdles that typically make this endeavor too inconvenient or costly to take on.
For qualifying starter-home subdivisions of at least four acres, the law prevents municipalities with more than 10,000 residents from requiring lots larger than 1,500 square feet for single-family detached homes. It also standardizes front and rear setback minimums, allowing more of each lot to be used for housing.
Larger minimum lot size requirements are consistently associated with higher housing costs, requiring unnecessarily large land purchases and making the building of smaller homes unprofitable. Reducing these minimums can substantially increase the number of homes that can be built on available land. Estimates from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) find that just by lowering the minimum lot size for new subdivisions to 1,200 square feet, Idaho could add roughly 6,200 additional homes annually at prices below the current median. While this bill sets the minimum slightly higher than 1,200 square feet, it takes a critical step toward making it legal to build smaller homes across the state.
Not every new home in Idaho will be built on the smallest possible lot, but SB 1352 creates the option where it may be desired. Evidence suggests there is growing nationwide demand for smaller homes on smaller lots. Although the national median lot size remains well above 1,500 square feet, it has been declining for decades. In a comparison of median lot sizes across different regions in the United States, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) finds that the Mountain division, which includes Idaho, already has among the smallest median lot sizes in the country, trailing only the Pacific division. Allowing even smaller lots builds on these long-term market trends and expands opportunities for more diverse housing types.
House Bill 707: Lot splits
HB 707 complements SB 1352 by extending small-lot housing reforms to existing residential properties. While SB 1352 applies to new starter-home subdivisions on undeveloped sites, HB 707 allows owners of qualifying existing residential lots to split their property if the resulting parcels meet applicable minimum lot-size requirements.
Rather than requiring the full subdivision platting process, which is the legal process of dividing a piece of land into individual lots, the bill creates a streamlined administrative process for dividing off a lot containing an existing ADU or other qualifying secondary structure. The bill is narrowly targeted, with the lot split needing to be supported by a lender's letter demonstrating that separate financing or refinancing is needed, and it cannot create more density than local zoning already permits. It allows a homeowner to separate a backyard cottage or similar dwelling onto its own legal lot while retaining ownership of the primary home.
Previously, many ADUs and similar secondary dwellings could not be sold or financed separately from the main house, even when they functioned as independent homes. A backyard cottage or garage apartment might be physically complete and occupied, but without its own legal lot, it could not be bought, sold, or mortgaged on its own terms, effectively keeping that housing off the market. HB 707 creates a straightforward administrative path to separate that unit, giving lenders and buyers a clear process to work with. The result is that existing housing that was previously locked in place can now be on the market like any other home.
House Bill 800: Manufactured homes
HB 800 requires local governments to allow manufactured homes on any lot zoned for single-family or multifamily housing, unless an HOA in that area restricts it. The bill also lowers and standardizes the minimum size local governments can require for manufactured homes: 400 square feet for single-section homes, like single-wide or tiny homes, and 800 square feet for multi-sectional homes, including manufactured duplexes. It updates the legal definition of "manufactured home" to explicitly cover these multi-dwelling unit homes built to federal HUD standards.
Manufactured homes cost an estimated 48% less per square foot than comparable site-built homes. Despite these cost savings, many communities have historically restricted where they can be located through zoning and design standards, limiting them to designated parks or the outskirts of cities.
By requiring qualifying manufactured homes to be treated like site-built homes for zoning purposes, Idaho law reduces barriers to their placement. This change makes it easier for homebuyers to choose manufactured housing while limiting local zoning practices that have excluded these homes for reasons unrelated to community health or safety. Communities with an HOA can still choose to limit manufactured housing, preserving that option for homeowners.
House Bill 706: Single-stairway reform
HB 706 allows small apartment buildings up to six stories to be built with a single stairway instead of the currently required two. Apartments eligible to be built under this new rule are capped at four units per floor and 6,000 square feet per story. Automatic sprinklers and other fire protection must be included, with no more than two such buildings allowed per lot.
Research comparing fire death rates in existing single-stair buildings in New York City and Seattle to other residential buildings found no difference. This finding was further reinforced by separate research from the Netherlands, where single-stair buildings are common. Having the option to build without a second staircase opens new savings without compromising safety.
The intent is to continue to make it economically feasible to build smaller units, since the two-stairway requirement has been one of the biggest obstacles to constructing these more affordable buildings. For four- to six-story buildings, estimates indicate that a second staircase can add between 6% and 13% to construction costs. Having the option to avoid these additional costs can manifest in real savings for builders and buyers.
Notably, the bill doesn't mandate the change, giving local governments the option to allow single-stairway buildings, while cities that prefer their current rules can keep them.
House Bill 585: Third-party inspections
HB 585 establishes statewide timelines for electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning inspections performed by state or local governments. If a requested inspection is not completed within 48 business hours, the permit holder may hire a qualified third-party inspector and receive a refund of the government inspection fee. The law also requires that when a building fails an inspection, the inspecting authority must provide the reason for the failure in writing within three business days or issue a partial refund. The legislation is intended to reduce inspection delays while preserving existing safety and inspection standards.
Long approval timelines at all stages of construction are a significant contributing factor to long home-building timelines. Research consistently finds that longer approval timelines are associated with higher costs for finished homes, which are passed down to the buyer. These delays also influence how much housing is ultimately built. Recent evidence from multifamily construction in Los Angeles found that reducing approval timelines by 25% could have increased housing production by 12.7% over the 12-year study period.
If city inspectors in Idaho cannot keep pace, builders can now turn to a credible third party. HB 585 eases the administrative burden on local governments and gives builders a path to keep projects moving in the event of a delay.
House Bill 583: Short-term rentals
HB 583 shows that Idaho is correctly diagnosing its housing problem and taking appropriate steps to deal with it. The state's housing package takes direct steps to allow the development of new homes while making clear that increasing housing supply will not come at the expense of homeowners' right to use their property as they see fit.
Under HB 583, local governments cannot ban short-term rentals (STRs) in residential zones, require a special-use or conditional-use permit specific to short-term rentals, cap the number of STRs allowed in a neighborhood, or mandate owner-occupancy as a condition of operating an STR. Additionally, local governments cannot place more-stringent rules on STRs than standard homes in many respects. For example, they cannot require more-stringent fire safety standards, additional parking, the reporting or use of additional data, or require that hosts purchase additional insurance.
The bill also requires STR platforms to register with the Idaho State Tax Commission to collect and remit applicable state and local taxes on the bookings they facilitate, while barring local governments from imposing taxes or fees specifically on the operation of a rental marketplace. By establishing a uniform statewide framework, the bill reduces regulatory fragmentation that makes it difficult for online STR platforms to operate. This approach considers the reality that these platforms play a huge role in facilitating the STR market, and that undermining their operation creates a real barrier to entry for hosts.
Cities can still enforce nuisance ordinances and set safety standards, so long as those rules apply equally to all residential properties. When STRs create genuine disturbances, neighbors retain avenues for recourse, while compliant properties are protected from unnecessary interference.
This vigilance on property rights and willingness to create laws that reflect what online platforms are built to handle is a model for how other states should approach this controversial issue.
STRs have faced increasing hostility from many state and local governments across the country because they can cause small increases in home prices. However, overly restrictive land use rules are largely to blame for the current housing crisis. Robust, well-functioning housing markets should be able to handle both the demands of the permanent housing market and the desire of some people to use their homes as STRs.
Idaho's cumulative housing package, including HB 583, indicates lawmakers' keen awareness of the causes of the housing crisis. It signals their willingness to address the challenges directly without encroaching on property rights.
Takeaways
Idaho's 2026 housing package is the outcome of lawmakers treating housing affordability as a systemic supply problem caused by excessive regulation rather than a challenge that can be managed at the margins. Instead of searching for a single solution, or simply setting aside additional funding, the legislature systematically removed barriers that make it harder to bring new housing to market, while prioritizing property rights. These individual reforms work synergistically, creating a regulatory environment that allows housing supply to respond to changing market conditions. No state can predict future population shifts, but states can pass laws that allow supply to keep pace with changing demand. In doing the latter through this housing package, Idaho has created an exemplary model for other states.
* * *
Eliza Terziev is a housing and land use policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/idaho-gets-housing-policy-right-and-sets-up-future-success/
* * *
Idaho gets housing policy right and sets up future success
Idaho's 2026 housing package treats affordability as a supply problem caused by excessive regulation.
-
During the 2026 legislative session, Idaho enacted landmark housing bills addressing the state's persistent housing challenges. As of June 2026, the median sale price of a home in Idaho had risen to $479,611. According to Federal Reserve Economic Data's All Transactions House Price ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 19 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Eliza Terziev, housing and land use policy analyst: * * * Idaho gets housing policy right and sets up future success Idaho's 2026 housing package treats affordability as a supply problem caused by excessive regulation. - During the 2026 legislative session, Idaho enacted landmark housing bills addressing the state's persistent housing challenges. As of June 2026, the median sale price of a home in Idaho had risen to $479,611. According to Federal Reserve Economic Data's All Transactions House PriceIndex, home prices in the state increased nearly 71% between quarter one of 2020 and quarter one of 2026. A 2024 estimate finds that this rapid home price appreciation has left 28.3% of Idaho households cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. As affordability plummeted, legislative action became increasingly necessary.
Idaho's housing challenges are largely driven by rapid population growth pressing against restrictive land-use regulations. A recent analysis from the Mercatus Center finds that Idaho had the highest net in-migration rate per 1,000 residents of any state in the country between 2018 and 2023. An analysis by the Gem State Housing Alliance found that, before the current reforms, Idaho's municipalities had many varying restrictions that limited diverse housing types and were especially restrictive of infill and smaller units.
Idaho's recent construction boom has not yet overcome years of supply constraints and stabilized or lowered home prices (see Figure 1). Recent estimates found that the state was short over 45,000 homes, despite leading the nation in per-capita housing growth. Recognizing this challenge, legislators liberalized housing markets to encourage the level of development needed to meet growing demand.
A restructuring of land use laws was necessary, not only to deal with current housing affordability concerns, but to create a resilient market capable of adapting to changing needs. States that act sooner rather than later will be better positioned to attract people looking for places to build their lives and careers without pricing them out of the market. Idaho's sweeping reforms have poised the state for future success.
* * *
Figure 1: Home Price Change vs. Building Permits Issued in Idaho 2000-2025
* * *
Idaho's housing package
Senate Bill 1354: Accessory dwelling units
Idaho's SB 1354 requires cities with more than 10,000 residents to allow homeowners to build at least one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a single-family lot. It also prohibits owner-occupancy requirements, additional parking requirements in most cases, excessive setbacks, or other development standards that are more restrictive than those applied to the primary residence.
The law also prevents local governments and homeowners associations (HOAs) from applying other overly restrictive regulations. Applying such restrictions to local governments is crucial, since that has been the source of the extreme supplier restrictions, but most states passing similar laws have allowed homeowners associations to restrict ADUs, which is appropriate since those are private contractual agreements that all property purchasers agreed to in advance.
This is a mostly well-designed example of state preemption. Beyond simply legalizing ADUs, the legislation anticipates and blocks many of the regulatory barriers that local governments have used to limit their construction following statewide housing reforms. This foresight creates an avenue for Idaho's housing supply to keep up with demand in perpetuity while offering several advantages for both homeowners and lawmakers.
ADUs offer several advantages that make them an effective housing supply strategy. Because they are typically smaller than traditional single-family homes, they are a naturally more affordable housing option. They also serve as infill, meaning they do not require lots of additional infrastructure to facilitate their use. Their size and lower cost also make them well suited to households with distinct housing needs, such as college students seeking affordable accommodations or older adults who want to downsize while remaining close to family.
Further, where ADUs have been supported by comprehensive statewide reforms, they have been able to meaningfully increase housing supply. After easing ADU regulations, California permitted more than 139,000 ADUs between 2018 and 2024. California's success suggests that well-designed state legislation enables significant new housing production.
Senate Bill 1352: Minimum lot size reform
The United States faces a nationwide shortage of starter homes, and Idaho is no exception. Starter homes are designed to provide an entry point to homeownership, but as home prices have climbed and the supply of smaller homes has dwindled, this first step has become increasingly out of reach.
SB 1352 addresses one of the regulatory barriers to building starter homes by reducing minimum lot size requirements for qualifying new starter-home developments. This step makes it easier for developers or parcel owners to build smaller and more affordable houses without the regulatory hurdles that typically make this endeavor too inconvenient or costly to take on.
For qualifying starter-home subdivisions of at least four acres, the law prevents municipalities with more than 10,000 residents from requiring lots larger than 1,500 square feet for single-family detached homes. It also standardizes front and rear setback minimums, allowing more of each lot to be used for housing.
Larger minimum lot size requirements are consistently associated with higher housing costs, requiring unnecessarily large land purchases and making the building of smaller homes unprofitable. Reducing these minimums can substantially increase the number of homes that can be built on available land. Estimates from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) find that just by lowering the minimum lot size for new subdivisions to 1,200 square feet, Idaho could add roughly 6,200 additional homes annually at prices below the current median. While this bill sets the minimum slightly higher than 1,200 square feet, it takes a critical step toward making it legal to build smaller homes across the state.
Not every new home in Idaho will be built on the smallest possible lot, but SB 1352 creates the option where it may be desired. Evidence suggests there is growing nationwide demand for smaller homes on smaller lots. Although the national median lot size remains well above 1,500 square feet, it has been declining for decades. In a comparison of median lot sizes across different regions in the United States, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) finds that the Mountain division, which includes Idaho, already has among the smallest median lot sizes in the country, trailing only the Pacific division. Allowing even smaller lots builds on these long-term market trends and expands opportunities for more diverse housing types.
House Bill 707: Lot splits
HB 707 complements SB 1352 by extending small-lot housing reforms to existing residential properties. While SB 1352 applies to new starter-home subdivisions on undeveloped sites, HB 707 allows owners of qualifying existing residential lots to split their property if the resulting parcels meet applicable minimum lot-size requirements.
Rather than requiring the full subdivision platting process, which is the legal process of dividing a piece of land into individual lots, the bill creates a streamlined administrative process for dividing off a lot containing an existing ADU or other qualifying secondary structure. The bill is narrowly targeted, with the lot split needing to be supported by a lender's letter demonstrating that separate financing or refinancing is needed, and it cannot create more density than local zoning already permits. It allows a homeowner to separate a backyard cottage or similar dwelling onto its own legal lot while retaining ownership of the primary home.
Previously, many ADUs and similar secondary dwellings could not be sold or financed separately from the main house, even when they functioned as independent homes. A backyard cottage or garage apartment might be physically complete and occupied, but without its own legal lot, it could not be bought, sold, or mortgaged on its own terms, effectively keeping that housing off the market. HB 707 creates a straightforward administrative path to separate that unit, giving lenders and buyers a clear process to work with. The result is that existing housing that was previously locked in place can now be on the market like any other home.
House Bill 800: Manufactured homes
HB 800 requires local governments to allow manufactured homes on any lot zoned for single-family or multifamily housing, unless an HOA in that area restricts it. The bill also lowers and standardizes the minimum size local governments can require for manufactured homes: 400 square feet for single-section homes, like single-wide or tiny homes, and 800 square feet for multi-sectional homes, including manufactured duplexes. It updates the legal definition of "manufactured home" to explicitly cover these multi-dwelling unit homes built to federal HUD standards.
Manufactured homes cost an estimated 48% less per square foot than comparable site-built homes. Despite these cost savings, many communities have historically restricted where they can be located through zoning and design standards, limiting them to designated parks or the outskirts of cities.
By requiring qualifying manufactured homes to be treated like site-built homes for zoning purposes, Idaho law reduces barriers to their placement. This change makes it easier for homebuyers to choose manufactured housing while limiting local zoning practices that have excluded these homes for reasons unrelated to community health or safety. Communities with an HOA can still choose to limit manufactured housing, preserving that option for homeowners.
House Bill 706: Single-stairway reform
HB 706 allows small apartment buildings up to six stories to be built with a single stairway instead of the currently required two. Apartments eligible to be built under this new rule are capped at four units per floor and 6,000 square feet per story. Automatic sprinklers and other fire protection must be included, with no more than two such buildings allowed per lot.
Research comparing fire death rates in existing single-stair buildings in New York City and Seattle to other residential buildings found no difference. This finding was further reinforced by separate research from the Netherlands, where single-stair buildings are common. Having the option to build without a second staircase opens new savings without compromising safety.
The intent is to continue to make it economically feasible to build smaller units, since the two-stairway requirement has been one of the biggest obstacles to constructing these more affordable buildings. For four- to six-story buildings, estimates indicate that a second staircase can add between 6% and 13% to construction costs. Having the option to avoid these additional costs can manifest in real savings for builders and buyers.
Notably, the bill doesn't mandate the change, giving local governments the option to allow single-stairway buildings, while cities that prefer their current rules can keep them.
House Bill 585: Third-party inspections
HB 585 establishes statewide timelines for electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning inspections performed by state or local governments. If a requested inspection is not completed within 48 business hours, the permit holder may hire a qualified third-party inspector and receive a refund of the government inspection fee. The law also requires that when a building fails an inspection, the inspecting authority must provide the reason for the failure in writing within three business days or issue a partial refund. The legislation is intended to reduce inspection delays while preserving existing safety and inspection standards.
Long approval timelines at all stages of construction are a significant contributing factor to long home-building timelines. Research consistently finds that longer approval timelines are associated with higher costs for finished homes, which are passed down to the buyer. These delays also influence how much housing is ultimately built. Recent evidence from multifamily construction in Los Angeles found that reducing approval timelines by 25% could have increased housing production by 12.7% over the 12-year study period.
If city inspectors in Idaho cannot keep pace, builders can now turn to a credible third party. HB 585 eases the administrative burden on local governments and gives builders a path to keep projects moving in the event of a delay.
House Bill 583: Short-term rentals
HB 583 shows that Idaho is correctly diagnosing its housing problem and taking appropriate steps to deal with it. The state's housing package takes direct steps to allow the development of new homes while making clear that increasing housing supply will not come at the expense of homeowners' right to use their property as they see fit.
Under HB 583, local governments cannot ban short-term rentals (STRs) in residential zones, require a special-use or conditional-use permit specific to short-term rentals, cap the number of STRs allowed in a neighborhood, or mandate owner-occupancy as a condition of operating an STR. Additionally, local governments cannot place more-stringent rules on STRs than standard homes in many respects. For example, they cannot require more-stringent fire safety standards, additional parking, the reporting or use of additional data, or require that hosts purchase additional insurance.
The bill also requires STR platforms to register with the Idaho State Tax Commission to collect and remit applicable state and local taxes on the bookings they facilitate, while barring local governments from imposing taxes or fees specifically on the operation of a rental marketplace. By establishing a uniform statewide framework, the bill reduces regulatory fragmentation that makes it difficult for online STR platforms to operate. This approach considers the reality that these platforms play a huge role in facilitating the STR market, and that undermining their operation creates a real barrier to entry for hosts.
Cities can still enforce nuisance ordinances and set safety standards, so long as those rules apply equally to all residential properties. When STRs create genuine disturbances, neighbors retain avenues for recourse, while compliant properties are protected from unnecessary interference.
This vigilance on property rights and willingness to create laws that reflect what online platforms are built to handle is a model for how other states should approach this controversial issue.
STRs have faced increasing hostility from many state and local governments across the country because they can cause small increases in home prices. However, overly restrictive land use rules are largely to blame for the current housing crisis. Robust, well-functioning housing markets should be able to handle both the demands of the permanent housing market and the desire of some people to use their homes as STRs.
Idaho's cumulative housing package, including HB 583, indicates lawmakers' keen awareness of the causes of the housing crisis. It signals their willingness to address the challenges directly without encroaching on property rights.
Takeaways
Idaho's 2026 housing package is the outcome of lawmakers treating housing affordability as a systemic supply problem caused by excessive regulation rather than a challenge that can be managed at the margins. Instead of searching for a single solution, or simply setting aside additional funding, the legislature systematically removed barriers that make it harder to bring new housing to market, while prioritizing property rights. These individual reforms work synergistically, creating a regulatory environment that allows housing supply to respond to changing market conditions. No state can predict future population shifts, but states can pass laws that allow supply to keep pace with changing demand. In doing the latter through this housing package, Idaho has created an exemplary model for other states.
* * *
Eliza Terziev is a housing and land use policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/idaho-gets-housing-policy-right-and-sets-up-future-success/
Getty Appoints Kimberly Uyttewaal as Vice President of Development and Institutional Advancement
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 19 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust posted the following news release:
* * *
Getty Appoints Kimberly Uyttewaal as Vice President of Development and Institutional Advancement
*
The J. Paul Getty Trust has appointed Kimberly Uyttewaal as Vice President of Development and Institutional Advancement, where she will lead Getty's fundraising and strategic partnership efforts to support its mission as a leading global art organization.
"Kim has capably served Getty in a number of roles for over a decade. Her commitment to our mission, her collegial spirit, and her extensive ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 19 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust posted the following news release: * * * Getty Appoints Kimberly Uyttewaal as Vice President of Development and Institutional Advancement * The J. Paul Getty Trust has appointed Kimberly Uyttewaal as Vice President of Development and Institutional Advancement, where she will lead Getty's fundraising and strategic partnership efforts to support its mission as a leading global art organization. "Kim has capably served Getty in a number of roles for over a decade. Her commitment to our mission, her collegial spirit, and her extensiveexperience in international affairs are all critical to Getty as we begin major renovation projects across our campuses and work to increase our global reach," said Katherine E. Fleming, president and CEO of Getty.
Uyttewaal joined Getty's Institutional Advancement team in 2015. Her service at Getty includes department leadership as Interim Vice President, Development; Senior Director, Advancement International Programs; and Director of Donor Relations. During her time at Getty, Uyttewaal has led successful fundraising initiatives for PST ART: Art and Science Collide; secured the institution's largest gift to support arts education through the establishment of the Mia Chandler Endowment for School Visits; and led Getty's fundraising team's successful campaign for the LA Arts Community Fire Relief Fund.
Uyttewaal has also led special initiatives and institutional partnerships expanding Getty's work in Los Angeles and globally. Recent examples include an ongoing cultural partnership with Villa Albertine, Getty Global Forum with LUMA Arles, Getty Global Talks Presented with Christie's, and the Getty Prize (formerly Getty Medal), which awards one individual who can then recognize the work of an arts or educational non-profit with a pay-it-forward $500,000 grant from Getty.
"Getty is entering a defining moment and is at the cutting edge of art and what it means, and can do, for communities," said Uyttewaal. "I'm honored to contribute at this pivotal moment under Katherine Fleming's leadership, and work with exceptional colleagues driven by Getty's mission. Most of all, I'm inspired to work with a generous community of supporters whose philanthropy makes a tangible impact and strengthens our civic space by providing connection and access to the arts."
Prior to her work with Getty, Uyttewaal served at arts and higher education institutions including the American Center Paris, the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, California Polytechnic State University, and CSU Northridge. She has also worked in multimedia and communications in the international corporate sector in Paris.
Kim earned a bachelor's degree in History from the University of California, Berkeley, and a master's degree in French Studies from New York University with a focus on French cultural policy.
***
Original text here: https://www.getty.edu/news/getty-appoints-kimberly-uyttewaal-vice-president-development-institutional-advancement
* * *
Getty Appoints Kimberly Uyttewaal as Vice President of Development and Institutional Advancement
*
The J. Paul Getty Trust has appointed Kimberly Uyttewaal as Vice President of Development and Institutional Advancement, where she will lead Getty's fundraising and strategic partnership efforts to support its mission as a leading global art organization.
"Kim has capably served Getty in a number of roles for over a decade. Her commitment to our mission, her collegial spirit, and her extensive ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 19 -- The J. Paul Getty Trust posted the following news release: * * * Getty Appoints Kimberly Uyttewaal as Vice President of Development and Institutional Advancement * The J. Paul Getty Trust has appointed Kimberly Uyttewaal as Vice President of Development and Institutional Advancement, where she will lead Getty's fundraising and strategic partnership efforts to support its mission as a leading global art organization. "Kim has capably served Getty in a number of roles for over a decade. Her commitment to our mission, her collegial spirit, and her extensiveexperience in international affairs are all critical to Getty as we begin major renovation projects across our campuses and work to increase our global reach," said Katherine E. Fleming, president and CEO of Getty.
Uyttewaal joined Getty's Institutional Advancement team in 2015. Her service at Getty includes department leadership as Interim Vice President, Development; Senior Director, Advancement International Programs; and Director of Donor Relations. During her time at Getty, Uyttewaal has led successful fundraising initiatives for PST ART: Art and Science Collide; secured the institution's largest gift to support arts education through the establishment of the Mia Chandler Endowment for School Visits; and led Getty's fundraising team's successful campaign for the LA Arts Community Fire Relief Fund.
Uyttewaal has also led special initiatives and institutional partnerships expanding Getty's work in Los Angeles and globally. Recent examples include an ongoing cultural partnership with Villa Albertine, Getty Global Forum with LUMA Arles, Getty Global Talks Presented with Christie's, and the Getty Prize (formerly Getty Medal), which awards one individual who can then recognize the work of an arts or educational non-profit with a pay-it-forward $500,000 grant from Getty.
"Getty is entering a defining moment and is at the cutting edge of art and what it means, and can do, for communities," said Uyttewaal. "I'm honored to contribute at this pivotal moment under Katherine Fleming's leadership, and work with exceptional colleagues driven by Getty's mission. Most of all, I'm inspired to work with a generous community of supporters whose philanthropy makes a tangible impact and strengthens our civic space by providing connection and access to the arts."
Prior to her work with Getty, Uyttewaal served at arts and higher education institutions including the American Center Paris, the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, California Polytechnic State University, and CSU Northridge. She has also worked in multimedia and communications in the international corporate sector in Paris.
Kim earned a bachelor's degree in History from the University of California, Berkeley, and a master's degree in French Studies from New York University with a focus on French cultural policy.
***
Original text here: https://www.getty.edu/news/getty-appoints-kimberly-uyttewaal-vice-president-development-institutional-advancement
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary Entitled 'Inequality Is Not the Problem'
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 19 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by research professional and podcaster Lipton Matthews:
* * *
Inequality Is Not the Problem
And a wealth tax is not the answer.
-
Few slogans travel through modern politics with as much confidence and as little scrutiny as the claim that inequality is a social ill to be corrected at nearly any cost. Yet a fair reading of the evidence suggests the opposite conclusion. Inequality is not a defect in the system. It is the primary mechanism by which human achievement compounds, wealth spreads, and ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 19 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by research professional and podcaster Lipton Matthews: * * * Inequality Is Not the Problem And a wealth tax is not the answer. - Few slogans travel through modern politics with as much confidence and as little scrutiny as the claim that inequality is a social ill to be corrected at nearly any cost. Yet a fair reading of the evidence suggests the opposite conclusion. Inequality is not a defect in the system. It is the primary mechanism by which human achievement compounds, wealth spreads, andliving standards rise for the great majority of people who never come close to the top of the distribution.
Consider what a world without inequality of talent and reward would actually look like. Strip away the possibility that some minds could rise far above the rest, and Newton never isolates the laws of motion, Einstein never reconceives space and time, and the intellectual scaffolding of modern physics simply does not exist. Glaring mediocrity, not shared flourishing, is what awaits a society that refuses to let exceptional minds pursue exceptional outcomes. The same logic extends from the laboratory to the marketplace. Had the founders of Amazon and Google possessed only ordinary ambition and ordinary intelligence, neither company would have grown into the infrastructure of daily life that it is today. Millions of people rely on Amazon to have packages delivered to their door within two days, sometimes in a matter of hours, while billions of search queries flow through Google each year because someone was allowed to become exceptionally rich by building something extraordinarily useful. The founders of these companies did not become billionaires by extracting value from society. They became billionaires by creating it, and the rest of us have been made better off in the bargain.
It is worth pausing on where that kind of wealth actually comes from, since so much of the case against inequality rests on the assumption that fortunes are inherited or simply extracted from others. According to one estimate that explored the wealth of the 10 richest men in 2024, none built his fortune through inheritance, and most grew up in middle- or upper-middle-class households before building companies worth hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars. Nor does that wealth sit idle. Among that same group, a median of about 89% of net worth was concentrated in the companies they built, which means that their fortunes rise and fall with the performance of the businesses they created rather than sitting in a cash hoard or a stockpile of assets. The economy, in fact, depends on some people having more wealth than they need to consume, because it is precisely that surplus, channeled into capital markets, that funds business operations, research, inventories, payrolls, and private lending across the country. Strip that surplus away, and the machinery that finances new enterprises loses its fuel.
That machinery has a name, and it happens to be one of America's most underappreciated advantages. The United States possesses the deepest and most dynamic venture capital ecosystem in the world, and it is no accident that this ecosystem has produced companies like Facebook and Oracle. These enterprises began as ideas funded by investors willing to risk capital on unproven ventures and now anchor entire sectors of the global economy. Without a surplus of wealthy individuals willing to deploy their capital into early-stage companies, private credit, and long-shot ventures, the American entrepreneurial system would be starved of the very funding that allows a garage startup to become a Fortune 500 company. Every dollar of wealth a billionaire earns from a company he built typically generates seven or more dollars for other investors, whether active traders or ordinary Americans whose retirement accounts track a rising stock market, which means that the surplus wealth concentrated at the top does not sit apart from the rest of the economy, but continuously reinvests itself into it.
This same confusion between enrichment and impoverishment runs through the popular narrative about the American middle class. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have insisted for years that the middle class is disappearing, hollowed out by decades of stagnation and elite capture. Turning to the data tells a different story, and a more encouraging one. The share of American families in the "core" middle class did fall, from 36% in 1979 to 31% in 2024, but that decline was not the product of families sliding into hardship. It was the product of families experiencing social advancement. The upper middle class, home to just 10% of families in 1979, grew to 22% by 2001 and then to 31% by 2024, a tripling that left it as large as the core middle-class itself and nearly as large as the two downscale groups combined. By 2024, America achieved a milestone: more families sat above the core middle class threshold than below it, and the combined share of families in the lower, core, and upper middle classes rose from 70% to 78% since 1979. Whichever way the numbers are sliced, the story is the same. Families are not falling out of the middle class. They are graduating out of it and into a tier of prosperity that scarcely existed a half-century ago.
The gains show up just as clearly in the share of the nation's income each group commands. The upper middle class alone now receives half of all family income, and its share of the total nearly doubled between 1979 and 2024. Combined with the richest Americans, the upper middle class and the rich together saw their share of income rise from 28% in 1979 to 68% in 2024. Even families near the bottom of the distribution shared in this progress, with those at the 10th percentile ending up approximately 30% better off than their peers a generation earlier. That is not a portrait of stagnation. It is a portrait of an economy that has manufactured upward mobility on a scale large enough to reshape the entire class structure of the country. Nor is the richer classes' larger share of the pie evidence of a stalled economy. Wealthy Americans tend to work longer hours than their peers, and the innovations they have driven have made the broader economy more productive, which means that their growing share of income reflects a growing pie rather than a shrinking one for everyone else. What critics label a shrinking middle class is, more accurately, a booming upper middle class, and it is difficult to see how a nation becoming more prosperous at that pace constitutes a crisis.
Given this record, it is worth asking why calls for a wealth tax have grown louder on the political left, culminating in proposals such as California's billionaire tax, arguably the most direct assault yet on accumulated wealth itself. The trouble is that the empirical case for such a tax is thin at best, and where evidence does exist, it points toward harm rather than benefit. A study using data from 20 OECD countries between 1980 and 1999 found that wealth taxes dampen economic growth in a manner that is remarkably consistent across statistical methods, estimating that a one-percentage-point increase in the wealth tax rate reduces economic growth by roughly 0.035 percentage points. That relationship held up under a battery of robustness checks, with estimated effects ranging narrowly between 0.026 and 0.042 percentage points regardless of which variables were treated as endogenous or which instruments were used. Wealth taxes, in other words, do not merely fail to help growth. They actively work against it.
Spain offers perhaps the clearest illustration of just how little a wealth tax accomplishes relative to the damage it inflicts. In 2002, despite levying rates as high as 2.5% on net wealth exceeding roughly Euros10.7 million ($12.2 million), Spain's wealth tax generated a mere 0.002% of GDP in revenue, a figure so small that it barely registers against the country's overall tax base. Compare that with countries like Switzerland and Luxembourg, which collected far more relative to GDP despite far lower rates, and the disconnect between statutory ambition and actual collection becomes impossible to ignore.
More recent research on Spain only deepens the case against the tax. After Spain reintroduced its wealth tax in 2011 in the wake of the Great Recession, researchers found that taxpayers responded aggressively to avoid it. A 0.1 percentage point increase in the average wealth tax rate led to a 3.21% reduction in taxable wealth over four years, driven largely by taxpayers shifting assets into exempt categories, particularly business-related exemptions. Taxpayers also restructured their income and asset portfolios to take advantage of the limit on total tax liability, a maneuver that accounted for 92.6% of the impact on revenue reduction. The cumulative effect was staggering. Between 2012 and 2015, revenue losses attributable to these avoidance strategies amounted to 2.75 times the wealth tax revenue collected in 2011.
Norway supplies a third case study, and it confirms just how mobile wealth becomes the moment it is taxed. When the small northern municipality of Bo cut its marginal wealth tax rate from 0.85% to 0.35% in 2021, average taxable wealth in the municipality rose by 60% for every one percentage point cut in the rate, and by 68.7% among those actually subject to the tax. The mechanism behind that surge was migration. In the year before the reform took effect, 68% of the net wealth held in Bo belonged to people who had just moved there, and wealthy individuals with a net worth above NOK 10 million ($1 million) became more than three times as likely to relocate to the municipality once its wealth tax fell. If a single town of fewer than 3,000 residents can pull in dozens of wealthy taxpayers simply by cutting its rate, it should surprise no one that wealth flees jurisdictions that raise theirs. A tax base that is this responsive to rate changes is not a reliable source of revenue. It is a reminder that capital, unlike labor, can simply get up and leave.
Similarly, Jamaica presents a cautionary tale for anyone eager to punish the wealthy through the tax code. In the 1970s, Jamaica experimented with democratic socialism under Prime Minister Michael Manley, who was bold enough to tell his critics that they were free to leave for Miami if they disliked his policies. Many of the country's elite families took him up on the offer. Without their financial and human capital, the economy contracted, and Jamaica's real GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, was 20% lower in 2022 than it had been in 1970. Half a century later, similar rhetoric has resurfaced in American politics, with democratic socialists once again berating the wealthy for having too much. And just as in 1970s Jamaica, the elites targeted by that rhetoric are not staying to absorb the blow. They are leaving states like California and New York for Miami, taking their capital and their businesses with them.
Wherever it has been tested, punishing wealth does not redistribute prosperity so much as drive prosperity elsewhere, and the closer a society comes to Jamaica's experiment, the more of its own future it forfeits in the process. Inequality of talent, ambition, and reward is not the disease afflicting American life. It is the engine that has driven scientific discovery, built the companies that define modern convenience, financed the venture capital ecosystem responsible for firms like Facebook and Oracle, and lifted millions of families into the upper middle class over the past half-century. Attempting to legislate that inequality away through instruments like the wealth tax or statist policies will not narrow the gap between rich and poor so much as slow the very growth that has allowed so many Americans to climb the ladder in the first place, all while failing, as Spain, Norway, and Jamaica each demonstrate in their own way, to deliver the revenue and fairness its advocates promise.
* * *
Lipton Matthews is a research professional and podcaster. His work has been featured in CapX, the American Spectator, The Federalist, Mises.org and other publications.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/inequality-is-not-the-problem/
* * *
Inequality Is Not the Problem
And a wealth tax is not the answer.
-
Few slogans travel through modern politics with as much confidence and as little scrutiny as the claim that inequality is a social ill to be corrected at nearly any cost. Yet a fair reading of the evidence suggests the opposite conclusion. Inequality is not a defect in the system. It is the primary mechanism by which human achievement compounds, wealth spreads, and ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 19 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by research professional and podcaster Lipton Matthews: * * * Inequality Is Not the Problem And a wealth tax is not the answer. - Few slogans travel through modern politics with as much confidence and as little scrutiny as the claim that inequality is a social ill to be corrected at nearly any cost. Yet a fair reading of the evidence suggests the opposite conclusion. Inequality is not a defect in the system. It is the primary mechanism by which human achievement compounds, wealth spreads, andliving standards rise for the great majority of people who never come close to the top of the distribution.
Consider what a world without inequality of talent and reward would actually look like. Strip away the possibility that some minds could rise far above the rest, and Newton never isolates the laws of motion, Einstein never reconceives space and time, and the intellectual scaffolding of modern physics simply does not exist. Glaring mediocrity, not shared flourishing, is what awaits a society that refuses to let exceptional minds pursue exceptional outcomes. The same logic extends from the laboratory to the marketplace. Had the founders of Amazon and Google possessed only ordinary ambition and ordinary intelligence, neither company would have grown into the infrastructure of daily life that it is today. Millions of people rely on Amazon to have packages delivered to their door within two days, sometimes in a matter of hours, while billions of search queries flow through Google each year because someone was allowed to become exceptionally rich by building something extraordinarily useful. The founders of these companies did not become billionaires by extracting value from society. They became billionaires by creating it, and the rest of us have been made better off in the bargain.
It is worth pausing on where that kind of wealth actually comes from, since so much of the case against inequality rests on the assumption that fortunes are inherited or simply extracted from others. According to one estimate that explored the wealth of the 10 richest men in 2024, none built his fortune through inheritance, and most grew up in middle- or upper-middle-class households before building companies worth hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars. Nor does that wealth sit idle. Among that same group, a median of about 89% of net worth was concentrated in the companies they built, which means that their fortunes rise and fall with the performance of the businesses they created rather than sitting in a cash hoard or a stockpile of assets. The economy, in fact, depends on some people having more wealth than they need to consume, because it is precisely that surplus, channeled into capital markets, that funds business operations, research, inventories, payrolls, and private lending across the country. Strip that surplus away, and the machinery that finances new enterprises loses its fuel.
That machinery has a name, and it happens to be one of America's most underappreciated advantages. The United States possesses the deepest and most dynamic venture capital ecosystem in the world, and it is no accident that this ecosystem has produced companies like Facebook and Oracle. These enterprises began as ideas funded by investors willing to risk capital on unproven ventures and now anchor entire sectors of the global economy. Without a surplus of wealthy individuals willing to deploy their capital into early-stage companies, private credit, and long-shot ventures, the American entrepreneurial system would be starved of the very funding that allows a garage startup to become a Fortune 500 company. Every dollar of wealth a billionaire earns from a company he built typically generates seven or more dollars for other investors, whether active traders or ordinary Americans whose retirement accounts track a rising stock market, which means that the surplus wealth concentrated at the top does not sit apart from the rest of the economy, but continuously reinvests itself into it.
This same confusion between enrichment and impoverishment runs through the popular narrative about the American middle class. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have insisted for years that the middle class is disappearing, hollowed out by decades of stagnation and elite capture. Turning to the data tells a different story, and a more encouraging one. The share of American families in the "core" middle class did fall, from 36% in 1979 to 31% in 2024, but that decline was not the product of families sliding into hardship. It was the product of families experiencing social advancement. The upper middle class, home to just 10% of families in 1979, grew to 22% by 2001 and then to 31% by 2024, a tripling that left it as large as the core middle-class itself and nearly as large as the two downscale groups combined. By 2024, America achieved a milestone: more families sat above the core middle class threshold than below it, and the combined share of families in the lower, core, and upper middle classes rose from 70% to 78% since 1979. Whichever way the numbers are sliced, the story is the same. Families are not falling out of the middle class. They are graduating out of it and into a tier of prosperity that scarcely existed a half-century ago.
The gains show up just as clearly in the share of the nation's income each group commands. The upper middle class alone now receives half of all family income, and its share of the total nearly doubled between 1979 and 2024. Combined with the richest Americans, the upper middle class and the rich together saw their share of income rise from 28% in 1979 to 68% in 2024. Even families near the bottom of the distribution shared in this progress, with those at the 10th percentile ending up approximately 30% better off than their peers a generation earlier. That is not a portrait of stagnation. It is a portrait of an economy that has manufactured upward mobility on a scale large enough to reshape the entire class structure of the country. Nor is the richer classes' larger share of the pie evidence of a stalled economy. Wealthy Americans tend to work longer hours than their peers, and the innovations they have driven have made the broader economy more productive, which means that their growing share of income reflects a growing pie rather than a shrinking one for everyone else. What critics label a shrinking middle class is, more accurately, a booming upper middle class, and it is difficult to see how a nation becoming more prosperous at that pace constitutes a crisis.
Given this record, it is worth asking why calls for a wealth tax have grown louder on the political left, culminating in proposals such as California's billionaire tax, arguably the most direct assault yet on accumulated wealth itself. The trouble is that the empirical case for such a tax is thin at best, and where evidence does exist, it points toward harm rather than benefit. A study using data from 20 OECD countries between 1980 and 1999 found that wealth taxes dampen economic growth in a manner that is remarkably consistent across statistical methods, estimating that a one-percentage-point increase in the wealth tax rate reduces economic growth by roughly 0.035 percentage points. That relationship held up under a battery of robustness checks, with estimated effects ranging narrowly between 0.026 and 0.042 percentage points regardless of which variables were treated as endogenous or which instruments were used. Wealth taxes, in other words, do not merely fail to help growth. They actively work against it.
Spain offers perhaps the clearest illustration of just how little a wealth tax accomplishes relative to the damage it inflicts. In 2002, despite levying rates as high as 2.5% on net wealth exceeding roughly Euros10.7 million ($12.2 million), Spain's wealth tax generated a mere 0.002% of GDP in revenue, a figure so small that it barely registers against the country's overall tax base. Compare that with countries like Switzerland and Luxembourg, which collected far more relative to GDP despite far lower rates, and the disconnect between statutory ambition and actual collection becomes impossible to ignore.
More recent research on Spain only deepens the case against the tax. After Spain reintroduced its wealth tax in 2011 in the wake of the Great Recession, researchers found that taxpayers responded aggressively to avoid it. A 0.1 percentage point increase in the average wealth tax rate led to a 3.21% reduction in taxable wealth over four years, driven largely by taxpayers shifting assets into exempt categories, particularly business-related exemptions. Taxpayers also restructured their income and asset portfolios to take advantage of the limit on total tax liability, a maneuver that accounted for 92.6% of the impact on revenue reduction. The cumulative effect was staggering. Between 2012 and 2015, revenue losses attributable to these avoidance strategies amounted to 2.75 times the wealth tax revenue collected in 2011.
Norway supplies a third case study, and it confirms just how mobile wealth becomes the moment it is taxed. When the small northern municipality of Bo cut its marginal wealth tax rate from 0.85% to 0.35% in 2021, average taxable wealth in the municipality rose by 60% for every one percentage point cut in the rate, and by 68.7% among those actually subject to the tax. The mechanism behind that surge was migration. In the year before the reform took effect, 68% of the net wealth held in Bo belonged to people who had just moved there, and wealthy individuals with a net worth above NOK 10 million ($1 million) became more than three times as likely to relocate to the municipality once its wealth tax fell. If a single town of fewer than 3,000 residents can pull in dozens of wealthy taxpayers simply by cutting its rate, it should surprise no one that wealth flees jurisdictions that raise theirs. A tax base that is this responsive to rate changes is not a reliable source of revenue. It is a reminder that capital, unlike labor, can simply get up and leave.
Similarly, Jamaica presents a cautionary tale for anyone eager to punish the wealthy through the tax code. In the 1970s, Jamaica experimented with democratic socialism under Prime Minister Michael Manley, who was bold enough to tell his critics that they were free to leave for Miami if they disliked his policies. Many of the country's elite families took him up on the offer. Without their financial and human capital, the economy contracted, and Jamaica's real GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, was 20% lower in 2022 than it had been in 1970. Half a century later, similar rhetoric has resurfaced in American politics, with democratic socialists once again berating the wealthy for having too much. And just as in 1970s Jamaica, the elites targeted by that rhetoric are not staying to absorb the blow. They are leaving states like California and New York for Miami, taking their capital and their businesses with them.
Wherever it has been tested, punishing wealth does not redistribute prosperity so much as drive prosperity elsewhere, and the closer a society comes to Jamaica's experiment, the more of its own future it forfeits in the process. Inequality of talent, ambition, and reward is not the disease afflicting American life. It is the engine that has driven scientific discovery, built the companies that define modern convenience, financed the venture capital ecosystem responsible for firms like Facebook and Oracle, and lifted millions of families into the upper middle class over the past half-century. Attempting to legislate that inequality away through instruments like the wealth tax or statist policies will not narrow the gap between rich and poor so much as slow the very growth that has allowed so many Americans to climb the ladder in the first place, all while failing, as Spain, Norway, and Jamaica each demonstrate in their own way, to deliver the revenue and fairness its advocates promise.
* * *
Lipton Matthews is a research professional and podcaster. His work has been featured in CapX, the American Spectator, The Federalist, Mises.org and other publications.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/inequality-is-not-the-problem/