Special Session Tax Cut Passed—and Signed

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

The tale of 2022’s legislative activities has been a bit of an odyssey. Hopes were high in January that reforms—from tax cuts to government transparency—were in the offing, but when the regular session ended in May with very little progress on these items, I made my frustrations known, and of course, I wasn’t alone in that.

Then as the summer began, rumors percolated that a special session would be called to reduce income taxes, and in July, Governor Parson declared his intention to bring the legislature back for that purpose. Show-Me Institute experts supported that move. The special session gaveled in September, and the governor signed that tax cut bill—SBs 3 & 5—into law yesterday.

The details of the tax cut bill accord with the original recommendations for reform from Institute analysts in July, so you may be unsurprised that I’m keen on the final product. Starting next year, the income tax will drop below 5% for the first time, to 4.95%, and then (subject to revenue triggers) will migrate toward 4.5% over a period of years. The bill also modestly cuts taxes from the bottom alongside these top-rate cuts, exempting the first $1,000 of a taxpayer’s income from taxation. All in all, a good strategy.

That said, I sure hope future legislators plan on accelerating the process sometime in the next few legislative sessions. At the current tax cut pace, the income tax would be due to be eliminated in roughly 50 years . . . assuming tenth-of-a-point cuts continue to be scheduled in the future and happen on time from the 4.5% rate. Knowing the way the legislature operates, the issue of income tax cuts may not be broached much in 2023, but the legislature should consider shortening the timeline for such cuts considerably, and soon.

That said, congratulations to the governor, the Senate, and the House for getting this across the finish line. While we look askance the agricultural tax credits that were passed alongside the tax cuts, the income tax cuts were needed and at least partially saved this year’s legislating cycle. Hopefully next year another special session won’t be required because the regular session ends up being very productive. Fingers crossed.

WATCH: Clay County Voters to Decide on Tax Reduction

Posted on by David Stokes

In November, voters in Clay County (and also Laclede County) will have the opportunity be the first counties in Missouri to reduce their commercial property surtax rate.

See a map of commercial surtax rates across Missouri here.

The commercial surtax is a property tax levied at the county level on commercial property only. Unlike other property taxes, it does not adjust downward as assessment value increases, and it cannot be lowered by elected officials. Per the Missouri Constitution, it cannot be raised, and only voters can lower it. To date, voters in Missouri have never lowered a surcharge tax rate, but in November, voters in Clay County will have the opportunity to be the first to do so. The modest reduction Clay County is proposing to equalize itself with Jackson County, in my opinion, is very good public policy, but more on that later.

The tax rate varies by county based on the amount of money the tax it replaced—a commercial inventory-based tax—raised in each county in 1985. If your county had many businesses that generated products subject to the inventory tax, such as Clay County with the Claycomo Ford Plant, you probably have a high replacement tax rate. If you are a county that had a lot of businesses that did not generate much taxable inventory, such as counties in the Lake of the Ozarks region with its tourism economy, you likely have a low commercial surtax rate. But the real issue is that because of the difficulty in adjusting the rate, counties still have the rate based on the economic conditions of 1985.

Federal Overreach on EVs

Posted on by Avery Frank

The federal government is once again using climate change as a justification for a massive economic project. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan (NEVI) was recently approved by the Biden Administration, and through it, Missouri will receive $98.9 million in NEVI funds through the year 2026. Missouri’s funding is one small part of NEVI, as the federal government has dedicated $5 billion nationwide to deploy a comprehensive electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.

Is this massive undertaking needed? Can the free market not guide the expansion of EVs itself?

A mere 8% of Tesla owners and 18% of other EV owners said charging stations being too far away was a major difficulty, and an even lower 8% and 14% respectively said there were not enough charging ports at each charging station. Despite these statistics, the federal government is attempting to control the charging station market throughout the country instead of allowing the free market to operate. The government claims to be farsighted when protecting future generations on climate change policy, but their policies are routinely shortsighted. If we truly want to be more environmentally friendly, central planning is not the answer; instead, we ought to trust in the responsiveness of the free market to consumer desires.

Lucid Motors is an example of market innovation occurring naturally without central planning. Recently, Lucid gained traction in the stock market due to having the longest-lasting car battery in the market. In response, competitors started creating longer-lasting batteries in order to win over consumers who prioritize battery life.

With the free market spurring innovation for battery life in EVs, why would we need a massive expansion of charging stations? The already high levels of satisfaction with charging station availability will only increase as battery life further improves. As the demand for EVs continues to grow, electric chargers and EV infrastructure will likely grow proportionately. There’s simply no reason for the federal government to interfere in an industry where the free market is already spurring plenty of innovation.

Kansas City Westside Community Goes All-in on Abatements

Posted on by David Stokes

The Kansas City Westside neighborhood is the historic home of the Mexican–­­­­­­American community in Kansas City. It has experienced particularly large property assessment and tax increases in recent years for a variety of reasons, some of which you can read about here, here, and here.

Due to its great location, the neighborhood is undergoing gentrification as new, wealthier homeowners move in, leading to property value increases and higher taxes on long-term residents. In order to combat this, the neighborhood organization proposed turning the entire neighborhood into a Chapter 353 abatement plan designed to refund a percentage of property taxes to current residents based on their incomes.

I genuinely understand the desire for people to stay in their neighborhoods and not be taxed out by rising property values. But I think this enormous neighborhood abatement plan is a very bad idea. If it were copied throughout Missouri, it would lead to increased reliance on sales and income taxes (that is a bad thing), an increase in the abuse of abatements as certain people get special deals and other people pay higher rates, and a general increase in the involvement of government in the simple act of owning a home, since a government body has to vote on plans like this. Make no mistake: if this practice becomes common everyone, on average, is going to end up paying higher property taxes.

An article in support of this plan states that it is only available to current residents. That is deeply troubling (emphasis added):

These benefits accrue only to existing West Side residents. New people coming in would not receive any of the benefits, so the plan would not produce further gentrification.

There is a name for this type of tax policy. It’s called “welcome stranger.” That simply means that new property owners pay higher tax rates for comparable properties than current owners. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against it in 1990, but I strongly suspect that the lawyers behind this Westside 353 plan crafted the plan to try to avoid legal challenges. Even if that is the case, is this good public policy? Absolutely not. This is going in the entirely wrong direction. We need to end tax abatements and other tax subsidies throughout Missouri so that the tax base is broader for everyone—and rates thereby lower—to fund the government services we want.

I had hoped the mayor of Kansas City would veto this bill, but he did not. I now expect the lawyers who drew this plan up to start passing out business cards at every neighborhood meeting in Missouri where there is a colorable claim for using Chapter 353. The short-term gain for the Westside community may produce long-term harms for Missouri.   ­

Aldermanic Discourtesy

Posted on by David Stokes

“Aldermanic courtesy” is a practice adopted by some local government boards or councils that gives wide latitude to local officials for what is allowed or approved within their ward or district. There are many “quality-of-life” issues where preferences vary within a larger city, so some level of deference to local preferences is inevitable and fine. Issues such as liquor licenses, bar operating hours, minor traffic rules (e.g., stop signs or one-way streets), minor zoning choices, and much more are often left to the discretion of the local elected member of whatever board or council applies. In the City of St. Louis, tax subsidies for local developments often fall under this umbrella of aldermanic courtesy.

While I recognize the appropriate use of aldermanic courtesy in some instances, I am the last person to defend its widespread practice. Laws should be applied evenly to the greatest extent possible, and too often aldermanic courtesy just enhances the whims and personal power of the practitioners. Whether your new restaurant is allowed to serve liquor should not depend on whether the alderman likes you or not.

Recent unfortunate events in the City of St. Louis have brought the practice justifiably into question, but like a desperate gambler whose every bet is wrong, the board of alderman can’t even get ethical reform right. The board just decided to bypass the usual practice of aldermanic courtesy in the 17th Ward FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS. The local alderwoman had been more hesitant to support tax subsidies in her ward, and she deserves praise for that (and some related criticism). So the developers who want their giveaways just found another member of the board to introduce their subsidy bill, and it is expected to pass.

The most absurd statement in the story is this one:

In any case, [Alderman Marlene] Davis said aldermen should be willing to listen to the “experts at SLDC,” who professionally vet development projects.

The idea that “experts” at the St. Louis Development Corporation actually “vet” these development subsidy requests is beyond absurd. The ease and frequency in which developers receive these subsidies, combined with the continued decline of much of the City of St. Louis, are Exhibits A through Z for why all these types of subsidies don’t work.

These tax subsidies are there for the taking. A few aldermen, such as Ms. Pihl, occasionally try to push back somewhat. So what happens then? You just find another member of the board to go around the member who won’t rubber stamp your handout. If this is how we are going to reform aldermanic courtesy in the City of St. Louis, then bring back the crooked assessor.

Ladue Food Trucks Have Started Rolling—Now We Need to Step on the Gas

Posted on by Avery Frank

I hoped that Show-Me Institute videos, testimonies, and articles would bring needed reform to food truck policy in Ladue, and it seems like these efforts have at least gotten the ball rolling. I mean, how could anyone oppose the undeniable truth of a street interview? While there are still far too many restrictions on food truck operation, I commend Ladue officials for removing the blanket ban on food trucks and taking a first step in allowing this lucrative, fun, and growing industry to establish a foothold (or parking space) in their city.

Although the ban was removed, strict regulations still exist, as food trucks must be part of a special event, which is a serious obstacle. Special events require a thirty-day notice prior to the date, and if a special event uses more than eight vendors (among other stipulations), then 120 days of notice are required. These rules constrain opportunities for food trucks in Ladue, making the city an occasional stop rather than a hub.

The scale of the food truck industry has skyrocketed in recent years, as the number of businesses has increased from 9,705 in 2012, to 22,474 in 2018, to 35,512 in 2022. Ladue regulations prevent the city from effectively capturing sizeable sales tax revenue, increased options for consumers, and job opportunities for aspiring entrepreneurs.

For consumers, food trucks provide on-the-go food options to those on lunch break, on a walk with their children, or hanging out with friends. The increased competition drives down prices and provides increased choices (including niche ones) to consumers.

Permission to more easily operate in Ladue could lead to more permanent businesses in the city. If a food truck found success in Ladue, food truck operators may decide to establish traditional brick-and-mortar locations in the city. This isn’t just hypothetical—food trucks have turned into traditional restaurants elsewhere in St. Louis.

Most anxieties about food trucks are unfounded. If concerns exist regarding restaurant surplus, increased competition helps create a more efficient economy. If policymakers fear exacerbating the labor shortage in restaurants, the average food truck business has 1.2 employees. Whatever the worry may be, food trucks should not be strictly limited to special events, and Ladue would benefit from food trucks being able to fully and freely operate within its borders.

Laclede County Proposes Its Own Tax Cut

Posted on by David Stokes

Patrick Ishmael and I have been writing and talking a lot about the proposal on the ballot in Clay County to reduce its very high commercial property surtax. Voters in Clay County will decide whether to reduce the surtax rate slightly to equal Jackson County’s tax rate. We think that even though the change is modest, it would be a beneficial move for economic growth in Clay County.

Not to be outdone, Laclede County officials have also decided to put a surtax reduction before voters. While the Laclede County rate is not as high as the Clay County rate, it is nonetheless very high and by far the highest among neighboring counties. Laclede County’s rate cut is also larger than Clay County’s. Laclede County officials are proposing to reduce the surtax from $1.03 per $100 of assessed valuation to $0.51. The key thing to remember is that the surtax does not roll back as assessed valuations increase, so over time as the local economy grows—and this tax cut should help it grow more—the rate remains the same and the tax revenue generated by it will increase. For the record, the $0.51 rate is right on average for Missouri counties. (Some are saying that the average rate is $1.02, but whoever calculated that clearly used a weighted average. The largest counties of St. Louis, Jackson, and Clay with their very high rates significantly alter the calculation. I think the unweighted average (mean: $0.53; median: $0.41) is preferable for comparing individual counties to each other, especially counties such as Laclede, which is economically competing more with Camden and Dallas counties than with St. Louis and Kansas City.)

The Lebanon R-3 school district is crying some wolf about the size of this rate cut. School officials claim the district will lose $275,000 per year from this; however, Lebanon R-3 is a large school district, and that figure is less than one percent of its total revenues. This is a district that received $4 million in federal stimulus funds alone last year and which is poised, like every Missouri taxing district, to soon see a significant increase in personal property tax revenues this year from the dramatic increase in used car values. The personal property tax windfall alone should make up for the potential loss of revenue from the surtax reduction, should the voters pass it.

This commercial property surtax cut should be a real benefit to economic growth and job growth in Laclede County, and it will be interesting to see what the voters decide.

 

Robertson Fire District Changes Move Forward

Posted on by David Stokes

A judge has thrown out a lawsuit that sought to block a recall vote for Robertson Fire District in northwest St. Louis County. So the recall vote of the full board will move forward, although the politics of that recall are not what this post is about. As I have written about before, this dispute is a complicated but ultimately vital issue that perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with so many of our very small tax entities in Missouri that get little attention from the public or media.

To summarize, about 20 years ago Hazelwood annexed a part of unincorporated St. Louis County that had been served by Robertson Fire District. Because of an obscure and misguided law (RSMO 72.418), Hazelwood was not allowed to use its own fire department provide fire protection services to the newly annexed area. Instead, Hazelwood was required to keep paying Robertson Fire District the amount it was due from property taxes within the part of its district now within Hazelwood. (It’s more complicated than that, but those are the basics of the arrangement.)

That part is troubling enough, but what happened over the ensuing years is that the fire district was able to convince voters in that area to increase their property taxes dramatically, because the residents did not owe the increased taxes like they normally would. In this case, the entire city of Hazelwood had to pay the higher taxes that benefitted (perhaps) a small number of residents. These elections were likely held on little-attended election dates where small groups of residents were able to wield outsized influence. The fire department union probably comes into play here, as a very politically active union can more easily dominate a fire district than a city fire department, although it can certainly do so with the latter, too.

Over the years, it has gotten to the point where Hazelwood is considering bankruptcy to pay the insane taxes it owes a fire district for services Hazelwood could and should be providing itself to these residents. This situation reflects everything that can go wrong with local government in Missouri—high taxes, inefficient government, and the imposition of taxes on taxpayers who have no say in the matter to benefit special interests. I wrote about this issue in my paper on Special Laws in Missouri. RSMO 72.418 needs to be changed so that cities that annex or incorporate have the option of providing fire services to the new parts of a city if that is what the new residents want. It is reasonable to require some type of payment to the fire district in these instances, but the current law allows the rampant abuse we are seeing in St. Louis County by the Robertson Fire District and needs to be substantially changed.

WATCH: Taxes Have Consequences with Arthur B. Laffer, Jeanne Sinquefield and Brian Domitrovic

Posted on by Zach Lawhorn

On September 20, 2022, Show-Me Institute and Show-Me Opportunity hosted a discussion with Arthur B. Laffer, Jeanne Sinquefield and Brian Domitrovic about their upcoming book Taxes Have Consequences: An Income Tax History of the United States.

Watch a Recording of the Full Event Here

 

About The Book

Taxes Have Consequences: Dr. Arthur B. Laffer and Dr. Jeanne Sinquefield imageAuthors: Arthur B. Laffer, Brian Domitrovic and Jeanne Cairns Sinquefield

The definitive history of the effect of the income tax on the economy.

Ever since 1913, when the United States first imposed the income tax via constitutional amendment, the top rate of that tax has determined the fate of the American economy. When the top rate has been high, as in the late 1910s, the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1970s, the response of those with money and capital has been to curtail real economic activity in favor of protecting assets and income streams. Huge declines have come to the economy in these circumstances.

The most brutal example was the Great Depression itself. When the top tax rate has been cut and held at reduced levels—as in the 1920s, the 1960s, in the long boom of the 1980s and 1990s, and briefly in the late 2010s—astonishing reversals have occurred. The rich have brought their money out of hiding and put it to work in the economy. The huge swings in the American economy since 1913 have had an inverse relationship to income tax rates.

About the Speakers

Arthur B. Laffer is the legendary founder of supply-side economics and economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Donald Trump in 2019.

Jeanne Cairns Sinquefield helped pioneer index-fund investing as executive vice president and head of trading at Dimensional Fund Advisors.

Brian Domitrovic is the author of five books, including the landmark history of supply-side economics Econoclasts.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging