THE SOLUTION: Defined contribution plans.

Defined contribution (DC) plans consist of employer/employee contributions into individual accounts—think 401(k)—which employees can manage as they see fit. Upon retirement, the funds are available to employees. DC plans fundamentally differ from DB plans in that they cannot incur unfunded liability (so taxpayers are not on the hook), they put investment decisions into the employee’s hands, and they are transferable from one job to another.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Public DC plans exist across the nation; states such as Michigan and Alaska offer DC plans for new state employees, while others such as Florida offer both DC and DB plans.

THE OPPORTUNITY: Pension reform offers a chance to stop the bleeding. DB plans cannot (by definition) incur unfunded liabilities. DC plans also offer employees a retirement account that they can manage themselves and take with them if they change jobs in the future.

KEY POINTS

• DC plans can protect Missouri from devastating budget shortfalls.
• When a DB plan’s investment returns are below (sometimes unrealistic) assumptions, taxpayers can be forced to pay the cost.
• DC plans put investment decisions in the employee’s hands and can be transferred from one job to another.
• Shifting to DC plans reduces the political incentive to overpromise when impacts won’t be felt for years.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Policy Study: Public Employee Pensions in Missouri: A Looming Crisis

Policy Study: Missouri Transition Costs and Public Pension Reform

Essay: The Funding Status of State and Local Government Pensions in Missouri

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Public Pension Reform appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Open collective bargaining.

Open collective bargaining would allow the public to attend meetings where government bodies are negotiating collective bargaining agreements with unions to ensure that tax dollars are being spent wisely. Openness in public affairs empowers citizens to hold their government representatives accountable. The public is directly affected by policies set during collective bargaining; citizens therefore have a right to be present during such meetings. An open collective bargaining rule would not prohibit the public agency from discussing and formulating its bargaining positions in executive session.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Texas all require contract negotiations to be open.

THE OPPORTUNITY: A transparent negotiating process will enable the public to hold government accountable in its dealings with public employee unions and help ensure that the agreements reached between the two parties are in the interest of everyone instead of just a select group of employees.

KEY POINTS

• Open collective bargaining gives citizens the opportunity to attend union negotiations with government bodies and help ensure that tax dollars are spent responsibly.
• Missouri’s Sunshine Law allows government bodies to close meetings to the public if they relate to a negotiated contract, even though there is no compelling reason why negotiations between a union and a public body should be held in secret.
• Government unions can make campaign contributions and support candidates that they will potentially bargain with after election. This advantage makes it especially important that the public be aware of how the government and public employee unions interact.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Policy Study: A Primer on Government Labor Relations in Missouri

Video: Government Unions: Restoring Accountability

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Open Collective Bargaining appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

THE SOLUTION: Higher education reform.

Reform in Missouri should focus on reduc­ing costs through innovation to attract more students. Universities could help reduce costs by encouraging competency-based education (CBE), which can reduce the time that students must spend in the classroom by granting ac­creditation when a student shows that she has mastered the subject matter. These programs allow students to pursue a degree while simul­taneously protecting them from excessive costs and loan defaults. At the same time, the state could promote income-share agreements (ISAs), which provide an alternative to student loans whereby a student agrees to pay a percentage of future income in exchange for present financial aid.

WHO ELSE DOES IT? Schools across the nation, such as Texas A&M, Purdue, University of Michigan, and University of Wisconsin, offer CBE degrees. Purdue has a self-funding ISA program in which it loans money to current students and then reinvests returns into future student borrowing.

THE OPPORTUNITY: Recent upheaval at Missouri’s largest university has given us a chance to step back and evaluate how best to improve the higher education environment and provide cost-effective options to students. The University of Missouri system made progress in protecting free speech this past summer; now it should focus on reducing costs to help draw more students to our public universities.

KEY POINTS

• Higher education can greatly increase a student’s financial prospects, but not everyone who spends money at a university comes out in the black.
• CBE programs can reduce tuition costs and the time a student must spend in class.
• By reinvesting earnings, ISAs can fund future de­grees.

SHOW-ME INSTITUTE RESOURCES

Essay: Stuck in the Middle with Mizzou: Examining the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the University of Missouri

Case Study: Moving Mizzou Forward: Reform Ideas from Around the Nation

Op-Ed: Reaping the Whirlwind in Columbia

Blog Post: Mizzou Enrollment Shrinks to a New Low

For a printable version of this article, click on the link below. You can also view the entire 2018 Missouri Blueprint online.

The post 2018 Blueprint: Higher Education appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This essay explains how TIF is intended to work, where in the Saint Louis area it has been applied, and the (underwhelming) results of its application. Click on the link below to read the entire piece.

The post Tax-Increment Financing in Saint Louis appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

With that statement, Missouri State Treasurer Eric Schmitt described our state’s severe underfunding of public employee retirement plans. To put an issue that Show-Me Institute writers have been highlighting for years in simple terms, when initial contributions to a retirement plan are too low or don’t grow as fast as projected, spending promises can’t be kept. Either retirees are hung out to dry, or taxpayers must step up and pay what a plan cannot.

Addressing our current spending issues is essential to improving our state’s fiscal health, but if we fail to consider Missouri’s long-term pension obligations the results could be disastrous.

As any savvy investor knows, the power of compounding can make a huge difference when it comes to saving. If our investment assumptions today are even slightly different from what actually happens in the market, this difference can grow rapidly over time. A widening gap between assumed and actual returns is especially troubling, because most economists agree that estimates for pension investment returns are often too rosy.

In 2015, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute estimated that Missouri’s public pension plans had a total of $57.3 billion in unfunded liabilities (which are calculated as current assets minus the net present value of what will need to be paid). If plan investments fail to grow enough to cover promised benefits, then a bill much larger than even $57.3 billion will hang over the budget discussions Missourians have years from now.

So how can we fix this problem? Reforms that help Missouri transition away from plans that promise payments for life and toward plans that incur their costs up front can protect our state from investment risks. Schmitt illustrates this perfectly when he says “Our goal as a state should be to fully fund our obligations as they are incurred instead of putting the burden on the backs of our children and grandchildren.” Policymakers should consider adopting this goal—the sooner, the better. 

The post Pension Reform in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last year, Ameren filed for approval to install six charging stations between St. Louis and Jefferson City along 1-70 in order to alleviate the “range anxiety” EV drivers suffer with the current number of stations available.  Instead of approving or denying the request, the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) postponed its decision on the matter because it was unsure of whether it even had jurisdiction to regulate the emerging technology.

Some background: utilities such as electricity are often delivered to consumers through monopolies because of how expensive competing delivery infrastructure would be—it is rarely feasible for a startup to lay new pipes or string new wires.  To keep current monopolies in check, regulatory bodies (like the PSC) monitor and approve the prices utilities can charge to cover expenses while still protecting consumers from exorbitant prices.

Many private citizens and businesses already own and operate charging stations, so approving Ameren’s expansion into the market is controversial.  Daniel Hall, the PSC’s chairman, said “. . . it’s unclear whether or not it should be a regulated industry or whether it should be an open, unregulated, competitive market. . . . Where there is a competitive market, I’m not sure that that is a role for the commission.”

Hall’s uncertainty about the PSC’s role makes sense.  If the PSC were to approve Ameren’s project, it’s possible that all of Ameren customers (whether they own an electric vehicle of not) would have to chip in to cover the cost of construction for the new stations. 

Communities around the nation are debating whether the public-utility model would stifle competition, or if it is a necessary kick-start to EV adoption. Kansas’ regulatory body recently denied Kansas City Power & Light’s request to charge ratepayers for a $5.6 million charging station initiative, arguing the proposal was anti-competitive and that it would be unfair to require all ratepayers to subsidize a handful of EV drivers.   Meanwhile, Oregon has ruled (see p. 8) that utilities may own charging stations and cover costs through all ratepayers if they prove an area is in need and would not otherwise receive investment.

Ameren is proposing to construct stations in an area that is currently underserved, but electric cars are relatively new, and technological improvements could soon make them more prevalent than they are today. Missouri’s PSC has been confronted with a difficult decision, and they deserve credit for not blindly jumping into the unknown.  If a free-market model could improve customer choice and spur innovation, then we should be wary of expanding a monopoly where it may not be necessary.

The post Policymakers Wisely Look Before They Leap appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Testimony: Senate Bill 228 and Modification of the Year 2000 Retirement Plan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Similarly, an investment that initially seems negligible can go a long way given enough time to compound, and this lesson applies when saving for the future. In June, the Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System (MOSERS) decided to reduce its assumed return rate from 8% to 7.65%, meaning that altogether, the amount members will need to contribute next year will increase by almost $50 million. This extra cost today is hardly ideal, but in the long run it helps avoid a much larger bill.

Even though MOSERS made a mere 0.35% change to their expected return rate, the long-term impacts are huge. With a lower rate of return on its assets, a pension plan’s initial contributions must go up in order to keep benefits constant. In other words, a plan compensates for slower investment growth by putting more money in initially.

This change in funding highlights the risks associated with promising high investment returns. If a pension plan’s actual returns are lower than predicted, the result is a gap between available funds and the amount that has been promised to retirees. In the case of a guaranteed public employee retirement fund, taxpayers can be asked to cover this difference, and as the gap grows, so does the burden on taxpayers.

With a current funding ratio (current assets divided by the net present value of liabilities) of 67.8 percent, the plan (according to a Columbia Tribune report) will require $394.5 million this year to cover promised benefits.  But this contribution amount will only be sufficient if investment returns match the 7.65% expectation.  If investment growth is lower (in FY 2016 MOSERS generated a time-weighted return of only 0.3%), then the funding gap will widen over time. It’s easy to project high investment returns today, but making those predictions come true tomorrow is another story.

Slight adjustments in return assumptions can have tremendous impacts over an employee’s lifetime, so properly estimating investment returns is essential to a plan’s sustainability. (This essay by Andrew Biggs provides a comprehensive discussion of public employee pension funding for readers who want to explore this topic in more depth.) If pension benefits are guaranteed to employees, then the cost of these promised future benefits should be priced using returns on very low risk assets like government securities, which are currently far below 7.65 percent. Lowering the assumed return is a step toward greater transparency regarding the true costs of pension liabilities.

The post MOSERS Wisely Reconsiders Past Assumptions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

T.S. Eliot said that “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal.” The same can be true of universities. If Mizzou wants to be great, it can learn a lot from Purdue.

Under the leadership of President Mitch Daniels, Purdue has undertaken a series of projects designed to keep education affordable, research productive, and the college experience relevant in the 21st century. In addition to more traditional reforms like better budgeting and leveraging economies of scale to shave costs, Purdue continues to push the innovation envelope.

An easy way to lessen the burden of student debt is to reduce the amount of time that students must spend in the classroom altogether. Purdue has experimented with competency-based education (CBE) to achieve this. CBE is an accreditation system that grants students credit once they demonstrate mastery of a subject. Rather than waste time in the traditional 15-week classroom, students earn credit after demonstrating expertise in eight broadly defined primary competencies.

An expedited education can help more than just the student’s wallet, and Purdue’s Polytechnic Institute lets students work through a customized course of studies at their own pace. If they need to spend more time in a course that is especially challenging, they can. But if they can graduate faster, they face a smaller tuition bill and a quicker entrance into the workforce to earn income.

But that’s not all—Purdue is also experimenting with income share agreements (ISAs) to help students finance their education. Through the “Back a Boiler” program, students can commit a percentage of their income for a set amount of years to pay back their college costs instead of taking out a lump sum loan.

ISAs protect students who find themselves graduating but unable to secure a high-paying job. If their salary is lower than expected, they aren’t buried in unmanageable debt. Likewise, if students are more successful after graduation, then the school (i.e., the initial lender) will make back more money. Inherently, ISAs incentivize lenders to maximize the value a student gains from their degree, because both the school and graduates will benefit from post-graduation success

Third, Purdue embarked on an unprecedented partnership with Amazon to provide products at a much lower cost to its students. In fact, Amazon’s first-ever pickup store was launched on Purdue’s campus. Students are offered discounted products with expedited shipping, Purdue is given a percentage of the total profits to invest in scholarships, and Amazon is introduced to a fresh wave of users each year.

Eliot also said that “anxiety is the hand maiden of creativity.” As Mizzou reels from fears of enrollment decline and a tarnished reputation, it can redouble its efforts to innovate. 

The post Want to Improve Mizzou? Look East appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Saint Louis appears to have gotten the memo.

Earlier today, Alderman Christine Ingrassia said that a bill that would raise $80 million for a stadium will not be moving forward. City officials have asked the ownership group to lower the amount of money they’re asking for.

And the city’s request is completely reasonable. If stadiums do little to boost local economies, then what is the rationale for using public funds to help build them?  This question took center stage last week when Gov. Eric Greitens completely ruled out state funding for stadiums. As a result, the prospect for public subsidies for SC STL does not appear to be good.

Time and again, stadiums fail to spur the economic growth that developers promise. Subsidies can help bring a beautiful new stadium to a city, and people may well attend the events held at the new venue.  But much (if not most) of the economic activity taking place at the stadium isn’t actually new; instead, it reflects spending reallocation.  In other words, if people purchase game tickets, they won’t eat out as often or spend money on other forms of entertainment.

With two weeks left before the Board of Aldermen’s deadline for approval, public funding for MLS is not completely off the table, but economists everywhere may rejoice to learn that people are acknowledging their research. 

Avoiding wasteful spending is definitely a step in the right direction, but we should keep in mind that Ballpark Village recently received $16 million in public funding, the Blues are asking for assistance with $138 million in renovations, and many, many, many non-sports–related projects are in line for similar subsidies.  The MLS discussion has engaged many citizens, but the issues with tax subsidies run far deeper than one project.  

The post Prospects Bleak for MLS Proposal-and That’s a Good Thing appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Right now, because of reckless spending by career politicians, we can't even afford the core functions of government, let alone spend millions on soccer stadiums.

The project’s ownership group, SC STL, has taken Greitens’s words seriously and delayed a request for $40 million in tax incentives from the state. In addition to this $40 million are plans for Saint Louis City to pay $80 million, but before any public funds are awarded we should ask what return the city will see on its investment. Are there benefits to owning a stadium? Here are some claims that SC STL made in its written proposal to the state:

Claim 1: Publicly financing an MLS stadium will help make Saint Louis a “first-class city” and will “complete one of the great corridors of sports, culture, and entertainment in the nation.”

What being a “first-class” city means is ambiguous, and Saint Louis taxpayers have heard this song before. The $3 billion spent on MetroLink (thus far) was supposed to make the city first-class. Today, MetroLink trains carry less than 1% of metro-area commuters and have failed to spur significant economic development. In the 1990s, the Edward Jones Dome was pitched as a way to grow the economy and revitalize downtown; it failed on both fronts. Exactly how another professional sports team will help Saint Louis climb the urban ranks, and how that ascension justifies a massive subsidy, is unclear.

Claim 2: SC STL has made “significant effort to minimize the public financing component of the project.”

It is, at best, unclear what efforts SC STL has made to minimize the need for public subsidies. SC STL originally estimated that the expansion fee for joining MLS would be $200 million, but MLS recently announced that the fee would be only $150 million. One might expect that the $50-million cost reduction would be passed along to the city and the state, but SC STL made clear it would still ask for the full $120 million. Can SC STL really claim they have made “significant effort to minimize public financing?”

Claim 3: The recent departure of the NFL Rams reduced tax revenues for the city, and an MLS team would help recover some of those lost revenues.

This is a little like a doctor prescribing more of the same “medicine” that made the patient sick in the first place. Pushing for a stadium deal to help make up for revenue shortfalls caused by a previous stadium deal lies at the border of questionable and crazy. Of course, the proposed MLS stadium deal isn’t 100 percent identical to the deal city officials offered the Rams, but we won’t fix the outcomes of poor policy with more of the same bad policy.

Claim 4: Taxpayer subsidization is justified because a stadium will spur economic growth.

The Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC) conducted a study concluding that an MLS stadium would generate $24.5M in net state general revenue over 33 years, but this study deserves some scrutiny. Economists overwhelmingly agree that benefits from stadiums are overstated due to studies failing to take into account that spending is taken away from other businesses. Moreover, these studies rely on a controversial economic concept known as a “multiplier effect,” which is a measure of the overall impact of money in a local economy. In short, studies assume a multiplier effect far higher than most economists believe exists, and so, project rosy but unrealistic, outcomes. This is why, despite studies claiming stadiums will be boons for the economy, history and economics show promised economic benefits don’t pan out as projected.

The current proposal for publicly subsidizing an MLS stadium in Saint Louis is heavy on optimism, but that optimism isn’t justified by research or by past experience. Taxpayers should be wary of doubling down on a bet in hopes of paying off the debt we’re already stuck with.

The post A Critical Review of the SC STL Proposal appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We travel from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, where President Mitch Daniels has embarked on an ambitious program to keep costs down and design new majors and programs that allow students to progress at their own pace, to Texas, where then-Governor Rick Perry’s call to create a $10,000 degree spurred innovation statewide. Finally, we conclude at one of the finest universities in our nation, the University of Chicago, to show what it means to have a commitment to free speech and the open exchange of ideas.

Click on the link below to read more.

The post Moving Mizzou Forward: Reform Ideas from around the Nation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In November, Missouri’s State Auditor’s office ran a test.  It randomly delivered 309 letters to political subdivisions in its database.  Each of these public entities (cities, school districts, special taxing districts, etc.) was sent a very simple, anonymous sunshine request, and the responses were then monitored.  The results were dismal.  More than two-thirds of public entities failed to fully comply, and roughly one in six failed to respond at all. 

A few political subdivisions even refused to provide information unless they were told who was requesting it, even though nothing in the Sunshine Law requires that proof of identity accompany a request for information. 

The point of the exercise was to learn what the average citizen deals with when checking on a public body, and the results show that the process is often overly burdensome.  Some responses asked for payments as high as $80 for easily attainable documents like minutes from 2015 meetings. Show-Me Institute analysts have submitted our fair share of sunshine requests and have at times been met with outrageous demands.

It’s possible that some of these failures come from a lack of understanding of the law. If this is the case, then public servants need to be brought up to speed on their duty to the public. When government entities aren’t open to public scrutiny, there is reason for concern.  There’s nothing unreasonable about demanding that public information be public.

The post State Audit Reveals Transparency Problems appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A recent study commissioned by the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) found that the lack of aggregate information available from developers has made analysis of projects difficult. The study was intended to measure the impact subsidies have had on job creation, but the researchers found that no data was available regarding payroll information. The SLDC subsequently recommended additional reporting from incentive recipients.

Currently, municipalities must submit project details to the Missouri Department of Revenue every year or face losing TIF privileges, but municipalities get their information directly from developers (who self-report), and often reports are incomplete or inaccurate.  In a few cases, such as the construction of a seven-story multi-use building on Tucker Blvd., developers have even listed their anticipated project costs at $0! (see “Nadira’s Place”).

Inaccurate reporting is also an obstacle to accountability, allowing developers to receive taxpayer dollars without being held to the promises they made regarding job creation. When projects fail, there are no consequences. Worse yet, without information about what (or how badly) things went wrong, we can’t learn from the failure and be more selective about future subsidies.

Increased accountability would not limit the use of subsidies where they may be appropriate, but it could help us make better decisions about how they should be used. The SLDC report contains several policy proposals, including the use of “claw back” provisions that would require developers to pay back money they received as incentive for developments that failed to produce their promised job-creation or revitalization outcomes. Given that the story of development subsidies in Saint Louis has hardly been a tale of rousing success, area leaders would do well to take note of the SLDC report and consider its recommendations.

The post Subsidies in St. Louis, Part 4: Accountability and Clawbacks appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s State Auditor recently released an audit on the City of Bridgeton’s Employee Retirement Plan, and the picture painted was bleak. In addition to finding that the city’s Finance Commission failed to meet even once from 2012 to 2014, the report says the plan is only 67% funded and that the unfunded liability is approximately $14 million. The plan’s current funds will not be able to pay the benefits that retirees have been promised. The combination of insufficient contributions and lackluster investment returns has brought put the existing plan in its current condition.

Defined-benefit plans like Bridgeton’s typically involve a commitment to make monthly payments to employees for the remainder of their lives. In order to sufficiently fund the promised benefits, plans assume a rate of return on the contributions that they invest. Those assumptions are often too rosy; Bridgeton’s assumed rate has been 7.5%, while over the past ten years the time-weighted return has only been 4.16%.

Over time, the funding gap widens and the result is a large gap between the amount the city has promised retiring employees and the amount the city has set aside for that purpose. In Bridgeton’s case, no payments have been withheld from retirees, but in order for the city to meet its future obligations, contributions have to increase. Either funds must be allocated away from other public services, or taxes must go up.

This is exactly what has happened. In April 2015, Bridgeton increased its hotel service occupation tax from $0.85 to $3.00 per day. A portion of the additional revenue goes toward increasing the plan’s contributions by $200,000 each year.

Bridgeton is not alone. The Pew Charitable Trusts reports the shortfall between state-run promised pension benefits and available funding is nearly 1 trillion dollars nationwide. Defined-benefit plans are often legally binding, so when investment returns fall short of what was predicted for the plan years ago, taxpayers can be forced to foot the bill.

The good news is that Bridgeton’s defined-benefit plan was closed to future employees in 2012 and replaced with a defined-contribution plan. In a defined-contribution plan – think 401(k) – benefits are not paid out indefinitely to employees. Rather, upon retirement the funds that have been accrued are made available to the employee. The key difference between the two is that a defined-benefit plan makes a promise it may not be able to keep without taxpayer assistance, while a defined-contribution plan, by definition, cannot incur a funding gap.

Defined-contribution plans can protect taxpayers, municipalities, and employees from having to worry about underfunded pension plans or budget shortfalls. Bridgeton took the leap to defined-contribution in 2012 to avoid exacerbating its current funding problems; other defined-benefit plans in Missouri should consider doing the same.

The post Of Underfunding and Overpromising appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Before the board voted unanimously in favor of subsidization, each member gave a brief speech explaining his or her decision. The majority opinion was that tax incentives are not ideal, but that Missouri’s current economic environment demands them. Tax incentives for large projects like Centene’s have become the norm, so withholding the expected tax breaks means running the risk of losing investment to other regions.

But “we’ve always done it that way” is a dangerous line of reasoning when past decisions have negatively impacted cities, and the research shows that economic development subsidies are often used unnecessarily. They have little positive impact on the region’s economy, perhaps because they divert revenues away from crucial municipal services like schools. This is hardly a pattern we should aim to continue.

Clayton’s office vacancy rate is half that of St. Louis City, and Clayton is hardly lacking investors. This, along with the fact that last year Centene placed 4th on Fortune’s list of the nation’s fastest-growing companies, calls the need for subsidies for Centene into question.

Clayton officials justified the use of incentives by saying that no physical checks are written to Centene. If the city doesn’t give any money to the development, then they are not losing out. This reasoning fails to account for the millions of dollars in lost revenue from taxes that will go to the developer instead of into the city’s tax base.

It’s disappointing that the board felt, despite their distaste for tax incentives, that today’ market environment demands subsidization. Cases like this remind us of the need for reforms that can help create a more growth-friendly environment in the Saint Louis region and across Missouri.

The post Well, At Least It’s Not a Check appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Watch Michael Highsmith On The Allman Report appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Testimony: Tax Abatement for Centene in Clayton appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

A study commissioned by the Saint Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) looked at geographic distribution of incentive use in the city and found that roughly two-thirds of the total value of credits is concentrated in a handful of neighborhoods. This by itself may not be a problem—maybe those few areas are struggling disproportionately and need the help. But that’s not the case. To the contrary, the study showed that most incentives go toward neighborhoods that already have strong housing markets. In other words, well-off areas are receiving subsidies, while the economically depressed parts of St. Louis are ignored.

One potential cause of this inequitable distribution is the lack of rigor in the approval process for incentives. Tax increment financing (TIF) applications currently require land to be declared as “blighted,” or as “conservation” or “economic development” areas, but the legal definition of blight has become so watered-down that almost any piece of property can be declared blighted.

Additionally, the SLDC report found that some important requirements that other cities use when deciding to award tax abatement aren’t applied in Saint Louis:

As it relates to tax abatement, a significant number of the benchmarked cities require either (or both) a cost benefit analysis prior to award of the abatement and have job creation criteria as part of the decision to award. St. Louis does not require either for tax abatement. (p.3)

It seems that Saint Louis’s method of evaluating and approving tax incentives could stand some improvement, but the issues run deeper than the approval process. Part 4 of “Subsidies in Saint Louis” will discuss accountability measures regarding reporting and job creation.

The post Subsidies in Saint Louis, Part 3: Where They’re Used appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Cochrane’s growth-oriented policy program outlines the need for more efficient regulations and a simpler tax system that would encourage work instead of undermining it. He says the ideal tax system should be one that raises revenues without drastically distorting economic behaviors, and a pure tax on consumption is “close to that ideal.” The piece goes on to cover a myriad of policies where free-market reforms could boost growth and improve standards of living.

While I highly recommend reading the piece, the Show-Me Institute also had the pleasure of hosting the self-described “Grumpy Economist” last month at Saint Louis University, where he talked in more depth about how these reforms could affect Missouri and the nation. The full presentation is available online here. 

The post “But for those willing to recognize the simple lessons of history, slow growth is not hard to diagnose or to cure.” appeared first on Show-Me Institute.