How does Missouri farmland being underassessed (for tax purposes) relate to proposed state requirements for higher minimum teacher salaries being a de facto subsidy to rural Missouri?
Well, it does. Stick with me on this.
Last year, Missouri’s budget included an appropriation increasing the minimum Missouri starting teacher salary to $38,000, funded primarily by state tax dollars and not local school taxes. This year, officials are proposing legislation to raise it even higher, with the same primary funding from the state. Where do you think those state tax dollars are going to come from, and where is this new fund to increase starting teacher salaries going to be spent?
It is more difficult for rural school districts to fund themselves with property taxes because of the high percentage of agricultural property in those areas. (I’m not saying it’s impossible, just more difficult.) Whether you like it or not, farmland is underassessed in Missouri(most farmers presumably like it). It is hard to raise the revenue necessary for a small school district with a tax base starting out so low. Since tax rates are the same for various classes of property (except in St. Louis County), setting a rate high enough to raise enough funds from farmland would mean incredibly high taxes on the more accurately assessed homes and businesses in those communities.
Urban and suburban school districts, for the most part, aren’t starting their teachers out at $25,000. At Indeed.com, every job opening I saw for City of St. Louis public schools started at $46,000. In this blog post, James Shuls goes into more detail on this discrepancy. (James goes into even further detail on the problems of funding rural school districts here.)
Where do the taxes that fund much of Missouri government and, by obvious extension, this new state teacher fund, come from? As this map shows, our larger urban counties produce an outsized percentage of Missouri’s economic activities. St. Louis County alone produces over 25% of the state’s GDP. State income and sales tax collections are going to largely align with those totals.
If you were a voter in rural Missouri, and you were told that you could vote for a local tax increase or have the state pay for salary increases for your school district, what would you pick? We would all pick the latter.
This issue will play out similarly to the sheriff salary issue of about 15 years ago. There, the state decided to increase sheriff’s deputy salaries by adding a fee to process service around the state. The problem was that St. Louis County, which has a county police department and a sheriff’s department that is not a law enforcement agency (trust me on this, I used to be a county sheriff), was ineligible for the funds even though it generated more fees from process service than any other county in the state. Yes, lawsuits were filed over it, but they failed (unfortunately).
I like low taxes. If rural Missourians want low taxes, I’m all for it. But we should not establish a system where rural teacher salaries are paid for (mostly) by taxpayers in urban and suburban areas. The combination of low assessed farm values and a desire for low tax rates in rural areas should not be addressed by taking money from urban areas. I recall signs along I-70 years ago on farm fences objecting to using state funds for sports stadiums in St. Louis. Those signs were correct then, and they still are now, but it works both ways.
