Why the New Property Tax Rules in Missouri Are Bad, Part 1

Posted on by Scott Tanner

This is the first in a series of blog posts about why the new property tax legislation passed in the recently concluded special session of the Missouri Legislature is harmful.

The new state law creates three types of counties for property taxes:

1)        Five percent counties: These counties are made up primarily of Missouri’s smaller, rural counties. In these counties, upon local voter approval, a homeowner’s property tax liability can go up by no more than the lower of five percent or the national inflation rate during reassessment, unless voters approve tax rate increases or the homeowner improves their property. There are 75 counties in this category.

2)         Zero percent counties: These counties are made up primarily of mid-sized and suburban Missouri counties. In these counties, upon local voter approval, a homeowner’s property tax liability cannot increase at all during reassessment unless voters approve tax rate increases or the homeowner improves their property. There are 22 different listings for counties in this category.

3)         “Unaffected” counties (my term, not language from the bill): These counties are primarily Missouri’s large urban counties or counties in central Missouri, including the Lake of the Ozarks area. These 17 counties and the City of St. Louis are not included in this legislation and their tax and reassessment system will continue unchanged. It is worth noting that Jackson County, which has had by far the worst administration of assessment and tax collection in recent years of any Missouri county, is unaffected.

There are many reasons why these substantial changes to the system are bad, but the first one is that, in general, property taxes are the least harmful tax for economic growth. So, if you want to create a tax system that encourages greater economic opportunity for all Missourians, the property tax is the last tax you should focus on. Furthermore, these changes will almost certainly lead to greater governmental reliance on income taxes (mostly through the state’s foundation formula for school funding), which is exactly the wrong way to go about this.

Here is a chart I like to share. It includes four major economic studies of tax policy. The conclusions are obvious. Property taxes, in general, are the least harmful for economic growth and income taxes are the most harmful. Why Missouri would be severely limiting property taxes in many counties in a manner that will increase dependency on income taxes is beyond me. It may make for good politics. It is not good tax or economic policy.

Not all property taxes are the same, of course. Property taxes focused on the value of the land are the best, and we need to expand that (i.e., land taxation) in Missouri. Property taxes focused on homes and buildings are next best. Missouri makes heavy use of personal property taxes on cars, boats, etc., and those taxes on mobile assets are less beneficial and should be phased out. Finally, personal property taxes on business and farm equipment are harmful, and should be ended. (The final category makes up a very small part of the property tax base, so ending it would not be difficult.)

Future posts will discuss the constitutional problems with this bill, the harmful effects of favoring current homeowners over future homeowners, a discussion of Charles Tiebout and his theories, and more. For more information, please see my testimony from the special session, these policy studies on this issue of property taxes and assessments, and related commentaries.

The One Big Beautiful Bill’s Impact on Medicaid with Brian Blase and Elias Tsapelas

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

In this episode, Susan Pendergrass is joined by Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, and Elias Tsapelas, director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute, to break down the health care provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

They focus specifically on the bill’s Medicaid provisions, including efforts to enforce eligibility checks, freeze the growth of provider tax schemes, and reduce improper enrollment. Blase and Tsapelas also discuss the reality behind claims that millions will lose coverage, the true cost of Medicaid expansion, and the perverse incentives that allow states to game the federal reimbursement system.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Testimony of Patrick Tuohey Before the Missouri House Economic Development Committee June 10, 2025

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

On June 10, 2025, Patrick Tuohey, senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute, testified before the Missouri House Economic Development Committee during a special session focused on proposed stadium subsidies for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals. In his testimony, Tuohey argued that the proposed funding package is based on a false sense of urgency, fueled by non-competitive offers from Kansas and a misleading June 30 deadline. He questioned the economic value of the proposed subsidies, highlighted concerns about taxpayer risk, and warned against allowing professional sports teams to play local governments against each other.

Read his submitted testimony here: https://bit.ly/4kXtdII

See the recording of the full hearing here: https://house.mo.gov/MediaCenter.aspx

Testimony of David Stokes Before the Missouri House Economic Development Committee June 10, 2025

Posted on by David Stokes

On June 10, 2025, David Stokes, director of municipal policy at the Show-Me Institute, testified before the Missouri House Economic Development Committee to express concerns about the property tax provisions included in a special session bill.

Stokes warned that the proposed property tax caps, added on the Senate floor without a public hearing, are constitutionally questionable, economically harmful, and likely to trigger long-term unintended consequences. He argued that freezing or severely limiting property taxes in certain counties will increase pressure on other revenue sources, such as sales taxes and state income taxes, and lead to greater use of tax districts like TDDs and CIDs. He also raised concerns about fairness and uniformity, noting that identical homes could be taxed at dramatically different rates simply based on how long someone has lived there.

Read his submitted testimony here: https://bit.ly/4kXtdII
See the recording of the full hearing here: https://house.mo.gov/MediaCenter.aspx

Testimony: The Show-Me Sports Investment Act and Senate Bill 3 on Property Tax Adjustments

Posted on by David Stokes

On June 10, Show-Me Institute Senior Fellow Patrick Tuohey and Director of Municipal Policy David Stokes submitted testimony to the Missouri House Economic Development Committee. Tuohey addressed the Show-Me Sports Investment Act and stadium subsidies, while Stokes focused on Senate Bill 3 and proposed property tax adjustments.

Click here to read testimony on the Show-Me Sports Investment Act.

Click here to read testimony on Senate Bill 3 and property tax adjustments.

Watch Patrick Tuohey’s Testimony

Watch David Stokes’ Testimony

The Wrong Direction on Tax Policy

Posted on by David Stokes

A version of this commentary appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Taxes are going down, right? That’s a good thing, right? My answers are “yes,” and a hesitant “maybe?”

I like low taxes, but I like low taxes evenly spread out for everyone. How we tax is almost as important as how much we tax. Whether they are income, property, or sales taxes, and whether they are at the national, state, or local government level, too often lately we are cutting taxes for some people in some instances for some things. These highly targeted cuts might work out overall, but often they are done because they make good politics, not good public policy. Taxes should be broadly based for several reasons, including fairness, certainty, and administrative ease. This is the opposite of what is happening.

Congress seems likely to pass changes to federal income tax rules that would exempt income from tips and overtime from taxation. This is absurd. The airport skycap who works a 50-hour week should be admired for his hard work, but his tax treatment should not be any different from that of the woman processing tickets behind the airline counter for 40 hours per week. This proposal treats things that are, essentially the same—regular, tipped, and overtime wages—as entirely different things for taxes. That’s a dangerous road to travel.

Staying in the same realm, one of the most hotly contested items in the ongoing federal tax debate is whether to raise the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Currently, the SALT cap is $10,000 per household. This means that you can deduct state income taxes, local property taxes, etc., up to $10,000 from your federal income taxes. Currently, congressmen from higher-tax states are fighting to significantly increase the SALT deduction cap. The latest number is $40,000. That means that high-tax states would be able to continue increasing taxes knowing that their taxpayers would in part be subsidized by other federal taxpayers. California (or any high-tax state) would get to keep the tax money, and Missouri taxpayers would get to subsidize California taxes. This is preposterous.

The same things are happening locally in Missouri. A few years ago, legislation was passed allowing counties to freeze the property taxes of senior citizens. Scores of counties in Missouri have since done so. As a result, the wealthiest sector of the population gets its property taxes frozen upon turning 62. Younger families working and raising kids will see their taxes continue to rise, and those taxes will almost certainly rise more than they otherwise would have without the senior tax freeze. This is insane.

Another example includes Missouri’s sales tax rules. The legislature passed a law removing sales taxes from diapers and feminine hygiene products. We can all sympathize with the aim here. But adding more products to the sales tax exemption list will increase pressure to raise sales tax rates (or institute entirely new sales taxes) on the other products that are still taxed. Your diapers will have cost less due to reduced taxes, but your infant’s clothes will cost a little more with the new sales taxes on them.

Each of these targeted tax changes will have unseen, harmful effects. High-tax states will continue to get away with tax increases if the SALT deduction is raised. More workers will see their pay come via high-pressure “tips” instead of typical wages. Seniors will avoid beneficial downsizing simply for tax purposes. As fewer goods are subject to regular sales taxes, new special taxing district sales taxes will be added onto everything else. These targeted taxes will likely succeed for purposes of short-term politics, but they are going to fail by any longer-term fiscal measure.

Is there anything going right with tax policy? Sure. Keeping the federal tax rates from rising by passing those parts of the “big, beautiful bill” will benefit everyone, although the entire plan needs further spending cuts. In Missouri, the state income tax rate has been steadily coming down for everyone over the past decade as revenue targets are hit. Finally, the sales tax base has been broadened by taxing online sales and legal marijuana in the past few years. All of those moves are consistent with good tax policy.

If you are a wealthy California homeowner over 62 who still works for tips on overtime while buying diapers online for your Missouri grandkids, you may benefit from all of these changes. But if you are like most people you will benefit from maybe one while being hurt by the others. Of course, the one you benefit from will be clear and obvious, while the multiple ways you are harmed will be small and harder to detect. You will think you’re a winner in this game of tax politics. But in reality, you won’t be, and neither will the government’s fiscal condition.

Kansas City’s World Cup Potemkin Village

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Kansas City is spending $1.4 million in previously allocated World Cup funds to subsidize vacant storefronts ahead of the 2026 tournament. But if mega events like the World Cup really sparked economic development, would we need to pay businesses to show up?

There’s a long track record of inflated claims around the economic benefits of hosting major sporting events. Economists Robert Baade and Victor Matheson found that the 1994 World Cup resulted not in a $4 billion boost, as advertised, but in a net loss between $5.5 billion and $9.3 billion across host cities. Despite this, city officials—and their usual partners in the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Council—continue to market the 2026 event as transformational for Kansas City.

A recent Kansas City Star article outlines the Small Business Storefront Vacancy Revitalization initiative, under which the city will offer up to $25,000 per year in rent subsidies to small businesses that occupy empty retail spaces. The goal is to fill downtown with activity and present a more vibrant environment to World Cup visitors.

But if the World Cup were the growth engine it’s advertised to be, wouldn’t businesses already be competing for these spaces?

The need for incentives suggests otherwise. Rather than a natural uptick in demand, the city appears to be staging vitality. Pop-up stores and subsidized art installations may look good for a few days, but they are not a substitute for long-term market viability. Officials point to similar programs in Seattle and San Francisco, yet even there, long-term results remain unclear.

Yes, some storefronts may light up temporarily. But if Kansas City genuinely wants to support small business, better options exist: streamline the permitting process, reduce regulatory barriers, address infrastructure needs, and improve public safety. These are structural reforms that support entrepreneurs regardless of tourist calendars.

Instead, city leaders appear to be following a familiar pattern: promote a high-profile event, rush to spend earmarked funds on short-term optics, and then dodge accountability when outcomes fall short.

If it hasn’t worked so far, why would anyone expect it to work in the future?

The Miseducation of Kansas City Councilman Wes Rogers

Posted on by Scott Tanner

At the June 3, 2025, hearing before the Missouri Senate Fiscal Oversight Committee about Senate Bill (SB) 3, The Show-Me Sports Investment Act, all the usual suspects took a moment to dust off their talking points about why taxpayers should subsidize the construction or renovation of stadia for the wealthy Kansas City Chiefs and Royals.

There wasn’t anything new in the testimony. It included romantic nostalgia for bygone players and the pride we have in our teams, claims about all the economic impacts that these subsidies will drive, and, of course, fears that the teams will leave if we don’t give them what we want.

Toward the end of the supporters’ testimony, Wes Rogers, a Kansas City councilmember and former state legislator, rose to speak in favor. His remarks included the following:

I make my living selling and leasing commercial dishwashers to restaurants. Already, no matter where the Royals and Chiefs go, Kansas is kicking our butt. I install more dishwashers in the state of Kansas than I do in the state of Missouri, period. And there’s a whole bunch of reasons for that I’m happy to talk about later. But I promise you this, if we put this stadium or the Chiefs stadium in Kansas, my guys are going to be to Kansas more than they are to Missouri and that’s going to continue. And so we can say this doesn’t have an economic impact. I know it does because I’m paying 20 guys to go to Kansas instead of Missouri to work and that number is going to increase.

This is odd testimony in favor of subsidies as a source of economic development because the Chiefs and Royals already have stadia in Missouri. Yet (despite this?) he argues “Kansas is kicking our butt,” and he is seeing more business on the Kansas side. Redirecting taxpayer dollars toward new or refurbished facilities won’t change that.

I suspect Rogers knows that the real reasons for Kansas outperforming Missouri are the “whole bunch of reasons” he alludes to. For example, the high tax rate and low level of services Kansas City provides—in large part because of taxpayer-funded subsidies, such as those for sports teams, being such a huge drain on city coffers.

Earlier in his testimony, Rogers offered, “I’m actually reading economic studies about baseball, which I’ve never done before.” This is good news, but if the statement above is a reflection of his grasp of the material so far, he needs to do more reading—and rereading.

The Power of Markets

Posted on by Scott Tanner

This chart is produced by Mark Perry at the American Enterprise Institute, and this version is an update he released in January of 2024. As he describes in an earlier blog post, there is an important pattern in the price trends: the greater the degree of government involvement in the provision of a good or service, the greater the price increase over time.

If this chart is the answer, the question would be something like “Why are free-market principles so important?”

The chart shows that between 2000—2023, inflation was 82.4 percent. Price changes over this time period greatly exceeded inflation in the following categories: Hospital services, college tuition and fees, college textbooks, childcare and nursery school, and medical care services. Housing and food and beverage prices also increased by more than inflation, but barely.

At the other end of the spectrum, prices on electronics, toys, clothes, cars, cellphone service, and household furnishings have fallen, or grown much less than inflation.

Once you see the stunning gap between goods and services in industries regulated and subsidized by the government versus goods and services in industries where the government is mostly uninvolved, it is hard to unsee it. This is just descriptive data and is not meant to be a rigorous causal analysis of the effect of government. But where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire.

This is a good reminder of the reason we fight for free-market policies in Missouri. Though often well intentioned, the government is just not very good at providing goods and services efficiently. When it gets involved, we all pay the price. Of course, there are some roles the government must handle (national security is an easy example), but for the most part, we’re better off when it stays out of the way.

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