Would an Income-tax Cut Benefit Missouri?

Missouri’s economic growth has consistently lagged that of much of the country—so badly, in fact, that our state’s gross domestic product growth ranked 40th among the states between 2010 and 2020. That’s the grim reality of Missouri’s position relative to the rest of the country while states like Florida, Tennessee, and Texas leave us in the dust. How can policymakers help create an environment that strengthens economic growth to benefit more Missourians?

Tax relief and reform alone won’t solve all of Missouri’s problems or immediately launch Missouri to the front of the pack in attracting talent and capital from around the country. We need better schools with more educational opportunities We need to reduce crime, especially with three of our major cities—St Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield—ranking distressingly high on national crime indices. But solving either, let alone both, of these problems is very complex and likely to require a multi-pronged approach as policymakers work to build consensus and tackle each element of the problem.

There are some things Missouri can never have—like Florida’s coastline (although the Lake of the Ozarks is plenty to brag about)—but implementing good tax policy is well within our grasp. Some would seek quick, superficial, and ultimately harmful “fixes,” like using subsidies or tax credits (subsidies by a different name) as handouts to lure large, well-connected companies to expand in Missouri, with no guarantee that any jobs they create would outlast the flow of taxpayer money. But history and research have undermined the claim that we can subsidize our way to prosperity or successfully pick winners and losers. One thing policymakers absolutely can do is create a better, more level playing field for families and small businesses with an income-tax cut that returns money to their pockets and reduces the penalty on hard work and investment.

Thankfully, Governor Parson and the General Assembly appear poised to pursue exactly that—rate reductions to Missouri’s income tax—in the upcoming special session of the legislature. Doing so would not only be welcome relief to Missourians suffering under decades-high inflation, but it would also be a great way to kickstart a bold tax-reform agenda to improve the economic prospects of every Missourian. Economic research has demonstrated that lower income-tax burdens encourage work, improve productivity, increase entrepreneurship, promote innovation, and attract people and firms from places with more punitive taxes. When we enable people to earn higher returns on their labor and investments, it should come as no surprise that we get more of both.

This isn’t theory or idle speculation. One only needs to look as far as neighboring Tennessee to see a state much like our own that has grown dramatically faster than Missouri in recent decades. One major reason for that growth is that Tennessee is one of nine states with no income tax, and its major cities do not have local income taxes. Greater economic growth is more than just a statistic. It’s more jobs and new businesses at places ranging from local mom-and-pop shops to modern tech start-ups—all driving up wages and creating ladders of opportunity. Growth benefits Missourians of all backgrounds, which is why we must seize on the opportunity to return power and money to the people through the kind of income-tax-rate reductions now being discussed.

Those who oppose these cuts look past the obvious success of Tennessee and Florida and instead bring up the specter of Kansas, which faced negative consequences in the years following its own major tax cuts. But not every tax cut is created alike, and prudent budgeting always demands running the math both on the revenues and spending sides, which is exactly what Missouri policymakers are doing carefully and seriously as they deliberate. By contrast, when Kansas cut taxes, it created a special zero percent rate for only certain forms of income (namely, LLCs, S-Corps, and other pass-through entities) and did not undertake other subsidy and spending reforms to ensure that the numbers would add up. Favoritism and bad arithmetic are bound to create problems. Not surprisingly, many businesses changed their structure to these newly tax-free entities, and Kansas state revenues fell. Kansas reduced the tax rate on pass-through income to zero, far below that of regular income. Not only did this change have little justification economically but it also greatly encouraged tax avoidance behavior through income reclassification

That is not the proposal under consideration in Missouri. Governor Parson and the legislative leadership are considering accelerating already-planned rate reductions by cutting the Missouri income tax rate from 5.3 percent to 4.8 percent—a move well justified by the enormous surge in revenues the state continues to experience. It would be even better for our state if Missouri were to push even further past 4.8 percent. The prudent course of action in that case would be to also pursue subsidy reductions and other tax and spending reforms to ensure the stability of Missouri finances for vital public services. State leadership is also considering increasing the standard deduction on state taxes, which would deliver further relief to working- and middle-class Missourians, removing some from the tax rolls entirely.

At a time of high inflation and labor shortages, putting Missouri on a faster growth track through pro-growth, pro-work, pro-investment income tax reductions could not be more appropriate. In the short term, having more money in their pockets will provide much-needed relief to struggling families and empower Missourians to achieve their dreams, whether this means saving for a house, starting a business, or donating to their communities. In the long run, taking an important step toward major tax reform signals that Missouri is open for business and no longer willing to cede ground to states like Tennessee, Florida, or Texas. If those states can attract investment and talent by rewarding hard work and entrepreneurship, then we can too.

However you measure it, Missouri has not been growing compared to other states. If the Governor and legislature succeed in passing some combination of tax rate reductions and other adjustments to our income-tax system, they will increase opportunities for all Missourians. That would be a legislative special session we could be proud of.

Perry County Should Reduce Its Commercial Property Tax Surcharge

In 1985, Missouri changed the way that local governments tax commercial and industrial property. Voters approved eliminating the personal property tax on business merchandise and inventory and replacing it with a surcharge on the value of commercial real estate. That year, each Missouri county calculated its new surcharge at a revenue-neutral level of replacement for the discontinued business property taxes. Among the reasons for the change was a desire to base the tax on the value of real estate, which is more consistent than ever-fluctuating inventories. The change was enacted through an amendment to the Missouri Constitution, and that amendment stated explicitly that the replacement levy calculated by the counties could not be raised. However, the change also mandated that only voters—not local elected officials—could reduce the tax. Similarly, the commercial surcharge is at odds with the mechanics of other property taxes in Missouri, which have tax rates that fall as assessed valuations rise. The surcharge tax rate (also called the surtax) remains at the same level, even as assessments increase.

The timing of this change is important. In 1985, Perry County set its rate at $1.06 per $100 of assessed commercial valuation. This is a much higher rate than other counties in the region. Perry County has long had a strong manufacturing base, and it is likely that those industrial companies generated substantial inventory taxes that necessitated—at the time—a high surcharge replacement tax rate. By comparison, Bollinger County’s rate is much lower, at $0.13, St. Francois’ rate is a mere $0.20, St. Genevieve is just above that at $0.21, Madison’s rate is $0.25, and Cape Girardeau tops out the rest of the area at $0.37. Perry County is almost triple the surcharge tax rate for its region.

Assessed valuations have grown enormously since the tax was introduced. For example, in 1986 (the first year after the current assessment system was implemented) the total assessed valuation of Perry County was $84 million and $11 million of that was commercial property. As of the most recent reassessment in 2021, the total assessed valuation of Perry County is $404 million, with $74 million being commercial (an increase in commercial valuation of more than 500 percent). The surcharge rate has never been reduced to offset that significant rise in commercial assessed valuation, as happens with other property taxes. The combination of a high tax rate and the difficulty involved with reducing it puts Perry County at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the region in 2022.

This is a problem, but a problem without blame. These differences were probably not a big deal in 1985, when the tax alteration described earlier had a neutral effect for Missouri businesses. But it is a major problem now. Reducing rates as commercial assessments rise is simply an issue of fairness. It would not lead to a tax revenue decrease but would simply mean treating the commercial surcharge like other property taxes in Missouri.

Another issue with reducing the tax might be more complicated. Lowering the commercial surcharge rate could both spur economic activity and reduce the perceived need for tax incentives. Frankly, from a government revenue perspective, many of the dollars lost to the surcharge reduction could be replaced by a reduction in the tax incentives that have been given to select businesses. Perry County and Perryville have each engaged in harmful tax subsidies like tax-increment financing. Reducing the surcharge rate for all businesses while eliminating the use of tax subsidies for a few, select businesses would be a public policy win–win for Perry County.

The elected officials in Perry County should place surcharge tax reduction proposals on the ballot so that voters can have a say in making their region more economically competitive. The state legislature should then authorize a vote on changing the Missouri Constitution to allow the commercial surcharge to be reduced as assessments increase, like other property taxes. These two changes would help grow the economies of both Perry County and Missouri, and everyone benefits from that.

Ballwin TIF Ends; Clear Failure Lauded as “Great Success” by Municipal Apparatchiks

In the great film “The Death of Stalin,” there are many fantastic scenes of a dark-comic nature where the members of the Soviet Politburo try to figure out the best way to turn hard truths into lies in the service of the state.

In West St. Louis County, we get to see the City of Ballwin doing the same thing regarding a tax-increment financing (TIF) package that is about to end. Of course, it’s not exactly the same thing. Ballwin doesn’t have gulags or torture and has never invaded Hungary, and I give proper credit to Ballwin for all of that.

The Olde Towne Plaza TIF is ending; not because it uses too many unnecessary “e”s in its name (although it does), but because it has hit the Missouri TIF time limit of 23 years. According to a story in West Newsmagazine, the project and TIF have been a large success (emphasis added throughout):

“It really served to fill two goals: One was to stimulate economic development. The other was to improve the infrastructure. Overall, it was a success,” long-time City Attorney Robert Jones recalled.

Further down, we read:

Finance Officer Denise Keller told West Newsmagazine by email, “The Redevelopment Plan itself was very successful in that an attractive and quality development of retail and service commercial uses has been constructed and maintained, enhancing the tax base and the resulting tax revenues for the city and all other taxing districts within the Redevelopment Area.”

Got it. This tax subsidy has been a big success. God only knows how a rapidly growing suburban region could experience growth without the Kreskin-like ability of city officials to predict the future. But wait, if you keep reading further down the article:

Incremental taxes captured for repayment of the bonds, however, (fell) short of expectations and by the time the bonds mature, there will not be sufficient funds to repay the full amount of the principal due.

So, the project and subsidy were a great success, even though the TIF district didn’t actually pay off the bonds. That’s ok, at least general city funds are not involved here, just the TIF district funds:

Keller added that the bonds have never been an obligation of the city and do not reflect on the financial health of the city.

Thank goodness for that. But wait, if you read further, you see that even though the bonds weren’t an “obligation” of the city:

The city was required by the bond indentures to make an annual contribution toward the repayment of the bonds. The cumulative amount of this contribution to date has been $2.7 million.

I don’t know how you define words like “obligation,” “success,” and “sufficient,” but if you read the full article carefully, this wonderful, amazing, tax-subsidized project experienced high turnover, generated far less revenue than expected, had the city step in to pay shortfalls out of other tax revenues (even if it was not “obligated” to), and the development now has to use an ongoing special sales tax ostensibly targeted for transportation to fully pay off the TIF bonds. All of this while any drive down Manchester Road shows a litany of empty storefronts, brought about in part by numerous municipal tax subsidies used to lure businesses from one place to the other based on chasing the subsidy, not where the best location for their business really would be.

TIF doesn’t work. Politicians, urban planners, and city managers can’t predict the future. To quote P.J. O’Rourke, giving the power of tax subsidies to local politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

All of the road improvements Ballwin brags about with the TIF project could have been funded by normal taxes collected over the period of the TIF project, from whatever developed here or elsewhere in the area. Why? Because capitalism works. Frequently, municipal officials throughout Missouri forget that and think that somehow they have the special knowledge to plan their economies in a better way. It’s ridiculous, and in the end it usually fails and you find yourself denying reality to the press.

Stalin would have been proud.

Turning Teachers into Entrepreneurs

Being an entrepreneur is hard work. Or so I’m told. I’ve never actually been an entrepreneur. From what I gather, to become one you must have an idea of a product or service that other people want. And you must be able to produce that good or service for a price that other people are willing to pay. Those two things are key. Without an idea, you’ve got nothing. Without customers, your business will flop.

We rarely use this sort of entrepreneurial thinking in education. For one, the vast majority of students—roughly 90%—attend a public school. Charter public schools are growing in this sector, but traditional public schools still enroll, by far, the most students of any school type. Of the roughly 10% of students who attend private schools, most attend some sort of religious school. Catholics have historically served the lion’s share of private school students.

With public and church-sponsored schools dominating the landscape, there has never been much room for entrepreneurs. Even if someone had a great idea, they would struggle to compete with free public schools or church-supported private schools.

That is beginning to change.

In places such as Florida, where school choice programs allow students to attend private or micro schools with publicly supported scholarships, we are seeing the start of something interesting—teachers becoming entrepreneurs.

I recently had the pleasure to serve as an advisor on a report conducted by Step Up for Students. Step Up for Students is “a state-approved nonprofit scholarship funding organization that helps administer four scholarships for Florida schoolchildren.”

Step Up conducted focus groups with former public school educators who left the public school system to start their own schools. These teachers thought they had a great idea to serve students and, thanks to the scholarship program, families had the means to pay tuition at the schools.

Check out the terrific slide deck or the video below to learn more about these teachers turned entrepreneurs.

A Letter to the Editor: Roll Back Personal Property Tax Rates

Used car values have risen dramatically in Missouri. Prices for used cars increased 25 percent in 2021 alone. Because Missouri is one of the only states with a personal property tax on cars, that increase is going to hit taxpayers hard come December.

The personal property tax is exempt from our Hancock Amendment rules on rolling back property tax rates as values increase. As car values have typically declined over time, this has not been a problem in the past. But with used car values increasing and no tax rollback required, local governments around Missouri will see an unexpected windfall in property tax payments this year. That is not how the tax system is supposed to operate.

There is a solution here. Local elected officials, including county, city, and school district representatives, should voluntarily roll their tax rates back once property valuations are finalized. St. Charles County government has taken the lead on this, and other local governments around the state should do the same for their residents. The personal property tax rate is unconnected to the real property tax rate, and rolling it back to a revenue-neutral level is simple, allowable, and—most importantly—good public policy.

Local governments in Missouri are awash in federal stimulus and COVID-relief funds, while ordinary citizens are getting hammered by inflation. Cities, counties, and school districts don’t need another bonanza on the backs of Missouri taxpayers. Rolling personal property tax rates back is the right thing to do.

Link to the letter on the EMissourian site here.

Agricultural Tax Credits Are Still a Bad Deal

Last week, Governor Parson called a special session of the Missouri Legislature to pass the “largest tax cut in state history.” In addition, the governor called for the extension and creation of eleven agricultural tax credit programs. While my colleagues and I have written a lot about the benefits of lowering the state’s income tax, we’ve also written about how bad of a deal these agricultural tax credits—like almost all tax subsidies—have historically been for Missourians.

Missouri’s already one of the national leaders in sacrificing state tax dollars for private economic development interests. Over the past decade, our state has devoted nearly $6 billion to tax credits with little to show for it. That’s also why my colleague David cheered when four of the tax credits listed below were allowed to expire last year. But now that the state has a surplus of revenue as a result of a better-than-expected economy (in the year these tax credits were not active), it’s apparently time to bring them back.

I’m not disputing that rural parts of the state would benefit from greater investment. But state tax credit programs are clearly not the way to do it. Government officials cannot predict the future, nor should they be in the business of picking winners and losers, which is something I thought Governor Parson agreed with. When the governor vetoed the tax rebate bill that spurred this special session call, he criticized the legislature’s decision to approve one-time tax benefits for some, instead of favoring permanent tax relief for all Missourians. The governor was correct then. So why is he now supporting tax credits paid for by so many to benefit so few? Here is a list of the tax credit programs being considered in the special session, and how many (actually, how few) entities used each program in the last year credits were issued:

  • Wood Energy Tax Credit – 8
  • Meat Processing Facility Investment Tax Credit – 13
  • Ethanol Tax Credit – NEW
  • Biodiesel Retail Sellers Tax Credit – NEW
  • Biodiesel Producer Tax Credit – NEW (6 producers)
  • Urban Farm Tax Credit – NEW
  • Rolling Stock Tax Credit – 0
  • Agricultural Product Utilization Contributor Tax Credit – 31
  • New Generation Cooperative Incentive Tax Credit – 4
  • Specialty Agriculture Crops Act Tax Credit – NEW
  • Family Farm Breeding Livestock Tax Credit – 15

As you can see, in total, only 71 entities used these tax credits in the last full year they were active. That’s right, just 71! Forgoing millions of state tax dollars in favor of so few entities seems like the opposite of the governor’s sentiment in the tax rebate discussion. I’d simply ask the same logic to be applied to agricultural tax credits. Research and experience have shown us that these programs do not work. Instead of using the special session to double down on bad policies, a better and fairer solution is to lower taxes for everyone.

Affordable Housing and Kansas City: Further Thoughts

(You can read part onepart twopart three, part fourpart five, part six, part seven, and part eight in this series here.)

The concerns people have over housing affordability raise a number of policy questions ranging from zoning to the fees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge for new mortgages to the minimum wage, vouchers, and the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC). In Missouri, the largest state-funded tax subsidy is the LIHTC program. The analysis in the previous two blog posts helps reveal why Missouri’s current LIHTC program is not designed to meaningfully improve housing affordability in Kansas City.

As I explained in the previous post in this series, Kansas City has a surplus of affordable housing for all income groups except those at the very bottom. But does the LIHTC program actually help those at the bottom of the income ladder?

There are numerous problems with the LIHTC program, such as the fact that it inflates construction costs. But arguably the biggest problem is that the criteria it imposes for developers to receive subsidies do nothing to promote additional housing at the cheapest rent levels. The most common arrangement for LIHTC developments is for 40% of the units to be reserved for those earning below 60% of the area median income (AMI). But the rents for the LIHTC units are not based on the income of the potential residents; rents are set based on the income in the surrounding area (the AMI). Because of this, even LIHTC-subsidized housing would likely not be affordable enough for the lowest-income families.

To use some numbers to illustrate this example: As explained above, rent needs to be no more than 30% of your income to be considered affordable, and LIHTC units considered “affordable” can be reserved for those making 60% of the AMI. So rent for that “affordable” unit in a LIHTC development will be 18% of the AMI (30% x 60% of AMI). Based on the $78,000 AMI in Kansas City, this means that the monthly rent for a family of 3 in that LIHTC unit is about $1,170 per month ($78,000 x 18% / 12). But as was described previously in this blog series, a family of three in Kansas City making 30% of the AMI needs rent to be about $585 per month to be considered affordable—and the cost of the LIHTC unit is nearly double that figure. Because of this, LIHTC tends to offer little to no help to the poorest residents.

In future work, the Show-Me Institute will provide more insights into not just the LIHTC program but the broader array of policies that have been discussed—or even new proposals that have not garnered as much attention—to promote a dynamic housing market that serves the needs of all Missourians.

 

 

 

 

 

Is There Actually a Teacher Shortage?

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Dan Goldhaber .

Dan Goldhaber is an AIR vice president and director of Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research at AIR. He is also an affiliate professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Washington, the director of the Center for Education Data & Research, and the co-editor of Education Finance and Policy.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on Stitcher 

Listen on SoundCloud

Map of Commercial Property Tax Surcharges in Missouri

I know, I know, if you are like most Missourians, you’ve been talking about the commercial property surtax (or surcharge) constantly over the past few months and you are probably tired of the subject. But stick with me for at least one more post on the subject. As you all undoubtedly know based on your many conversations on the topic with family, friends, co-workers, and if this is actually true, highly likely your therapist, 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.

That is why we built this map. The map below shows the commercial surtax rate for every county in Missouri. The redder the county, the higher the rate. The rate varies from $1.70 per $100 of assessed commercial valuation in St. Louis County to $0.01 in Reynolds County. The unweighted average rate is $0.53; the median rate is $0.41. Please check out the map (there is also a download link at the bottom of the post) and see where your county fits.

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