SMI's Andy Wilson discusses why growth in Missouri has stalled, and you won't believe who's responsible.
Aired: 4-12-16 on KWTO, Springfield, Mo.
SMI's Andy Wilson discusses why growth in Missouri has stalled, and you won't believe who's responsible.
Aired: 4-12-16 on KWTO, Springfield, Mo.
On Thursday, April 7, the Show-Me Institute's Patrick Tuohey appeared on Kansas City Public Television's Ruckus to discuss the results of the earnings tax, Steve Rose’s concerns for the future of Johnson County, and other issues. Click on the link to watch the entire show.
Recently, the Missouri Senate approved a 5.9-cent fuel tax increase that, should it pass the House, would go before voters in the fall. If voters accept the proposal, Missouri’s fuel taxes will increase from 17.3 cents per gallon to 23.2 cents per gallon. As we’ve stated many times before, Missouri currently has a comparatively low fuel tax, fifth-lowest in the nation for regular fuel and fourth-lowest for diesel fuel. So where would the proposed increase in the fuel tax place Missouri?
The answer is that Missouri would still have a fuel tax well below the national average. Some news sources have put average state fuel tax at 20.88 cents per gallon, but this ignores the additional taxes many states (but not Missouri) place on fuel. For instance, Illinois’s fuel excise tax is only 19 cents per gallon, but its additional taxes add on 11 cents per gallon. Often, these additional taxes are sales taxes whose per-gallon amount fluctuates with gas prices. When these taxes are accounted for, the average state tax rate for a gallon of regular gas comes to 29.63 cents, with diesel at 29.33 cents.
If Missouri increases its fuel taxes by 5.9 cents (and the price of fuel holds steady), Missouri would have the 17th-lowest regular fuel tax in the nation and the 16th-lowest diesel fuel tax. Our regular fuel tax would still be cheaper than those of Kansas (24.03 cents), Iowa (32 cents), Illinois (30.18 cents), Nebraska (27.7 cents) and Kentucky (26 cents). We would become a more expensive state for gas than Arkansas (21.8 cents), Oklahoma (17 cents), and Tennessee (21.4 cents).
Whether or not voters are willing to increase fuel taxes in Missouri at all is an open question. However, even under the proposed increase, Missouri would still be a relatively cheap place to fill up, both nationally and in our region.
For the second time in five years, Kansas City has voted to retain its earnings tax by a substantial majority. While disappointing, this result was unsurprising; after all, city residents renewed the tax by a 78% to 22% vote in 2011, and this year's margin was comparable to that one. Under Missouri law, Kansas City will reconsider the renewal question again in 2021 and every five years thereafter. Given the tax's destructiveness, that's an altogether appropriate and necessary interval.
Obviously, Tuesday's results were mostly bad news for the reform side, but one largely overlooked detail was that the number of votes in favor of the tax dropped significantly since the last vote. In 2011, nearly 57,000 Kansas Citians cast ballots in favor of the earnings tax; in 2016, that figure dropped by nearly a third to just over 39,000 votes in favor, with turnout down significantly overall. That wasn't a statewide trend, either; turnout in St. Louis, which also voted on the earnings tax on Tuesday, actually rose by several thousand votes compared to 2011.
Regardless, the tax and spending reform discussion for Missouri's largest city will of course continue. That's because the earnings tax hurts Kansas City and the people in it. And thanks to the earnings tax debate, Kansas City is finally being forced to take a hard look at its TIF policies and how it delivers public services to all Kansas Citians—especially those on the East Side.
I hope that city leaders will move away from the tax sooner rather than later; it's the right thing to do for the city, and the region.
Those wishing to be considered for an internship should submit the application (click here) and the requested supporting materials. The deadline for applications is May 13, 2016. However, we will begin conducting interviews as applications are received. Applicants can expect a decision in late May.
In my youth, I made some irresponsible financial decisions. The first thing I purchased on a credit card was a tennis racket; I don’t even play tennis. Then, of course, there was the college spring break trip to Panama City that was put on the credit card. Now, a decade later, I’m still paying for many of those unsound fiscal decisions. It may sound strange, but in many ways Missouri’s education funding system is in the same boat—decisions made long ago continue to plague us today.
After Missouri’s school funding system was challenged in the courts, lawmakers went to work and put in place a new school funding formula in 2005. The plan was to phase in the new, more expensive formula over a number of years. Lawmakers realized that the formula could potentially grow at a rate that made it impossible to fully fund, so they put in place a cap. The cap restricted growth to five percent over a two-year period.
In 2009, while the formula was still in its youth, lawmakers removed the cap, allowing the state’s obligations to grow at a rapid pace. Lawmakers were expecting a financial boon from lottery proceeds—which, of course, didn’t pan out. At the same time, Missouri and the rest of the country experienced one of the largest economic downturns in recent memory.
Today, our foundation formula for public schools is underfunded by roughly $500 million. This shortfall can be tied directly to the legislature’s unsound fiscal decision to remove the cap, along with the Great Recession of 2009.
Some might scoff at what I’m suggesting. They’ll say, “The problem is that the legislature just needs to value education more and put more money into the formula.” There is just one problem with that. Believe it or not, more funding actually exacerbates the problem. Let me explain.
When I make a payment on my credit card debt, the next month’s payment is lower. However, when lawmakers increase funding for the foundation formula, it triggers an increase in the funding that will be required for the next go-round. This occurs because the formula is updated bi-annually based on how much a select group of districts spend per pupil. The legislature gives districts more money, the formula gets recalculated based on this new spending, and the target moves ever upward.
We have created a vicious circle in which more spending begets more spending.
Now, the legislature is considering reinstating the five-percent cap. This would not necessarily fix the perpetually increasing funding cycle, but it would slow it down. It would make it more feasible for lawmakers to fully fund the foundation formula.
We all make unwise financial decisions from time to time. The key is to learn from our mistakes and correct them. I stopped buying things, especially things like tennis rackets, with credit cards. Some lawmakers have realized that removing the cap has created an untenable situation where we will never be able to fully fund the foundation formula for public schools. Reinstating the cap is one step toward fixing that problem.
Yesterday, school districts across the state asked their residents to increase property taxes to provide more funding for their schools. Several weeks ago, we provided information sheets on these votes to help citizens make informed choices as to whether or not they thought their districts needed more money.
The results were a mixed bag, with six issues passing and five failing. Here are the results:
Chillicothe R-II 37¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED
Columbia 65¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED
Laclede 49¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED
Niangua 93¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: FAILED
Maplewood-Richmond Heights 50¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED
Marshfield R-I 50¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: FAILED
Mexico 40¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: FAILED
Newburg R-II 96¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: FAILED
Ft. Zumwalt R-II 48¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED
Saint Louis City 75¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: PASSED
West Plains R-VII 95¢ per $100 in assessed value tax levy increase: FAILED
We also followed two other ballot issues. Here are the results from those:
Hickman Mills “No Tax Increase” Bond: PASSED
Ladue 38¢ per $100 in assessed value debt levy increase: PASSED
(I’ll check back on the results in the coming days to see if there are any changes.)
So what do we make of all of this? A few thoughts:
We’re going to stay on top of these tax levy issues. Be on the lookout for another round of analysis before the next slate of elections in November.
“Is college worth it?” This question is being asked more and more as the cost of tuition continues to rise. During a recent presidential debate, it was stated that “welders make more than philosophers”; the implication was that those who go to trade schools often make more than those who earned a traditional college degree. While going to college is about more than just earning a paycheck, labor market outcomes are something we should consider.
Business leaders have voiced concerns over how unprepared recent graduates are to enter into the workforce, many of them citing the lack of applicable skills as a major problem. The Alabama Community College System projected that over the next year, 5,000 skilled worker jobs will need to be filled in southwest Alabama alone.
Having recognized this problem, several states are backing programs that would allow students enrolled in vocational training programs to earn credentials at a faster rate, continue to build on those credentials, and keep them no matter where they move. They are considered portable and stackable. Portable in the sense that, as the McGraw-Hill Research Foundation notes, they are “trusted by employers and educational institutions throughout the country… they would be independently verified or accredited”; and “stackable” in the sense that they can be combined with each other to earn industry certifications or even associate’s or bachelor’s degrees.
An example of a portable credential is the National Career Readiness Certificate. This credential measures the test-taker’s ability to solve problems, think and read critically, and understand and use work-related text. The certificate is recognized in 42 states and can be used by employers to help predict an applicant’s ability to succeed in the workplace.
Virginia addressed the need for skilled workers in 2008 by creating the Virginia Career Pathways System. This system includes training programs like apprenticeships so students can earn credit toward a certificate or degree while also getting hands-on training.
Mississippi created a similar system in 2005 that has 4 levels of skills achievement. It starts with an Adult Basic Education Certificate, then moves on to a Manufacturing Skills Basic Certification. At the next level, students can choose the manufacturing skill they want to learn in depth and enroll in a program devoted to it. Finally, the industry knowledge they acquire can be used for college credits toward a degree.
Stackable credentials are more flexible than traditional degrees, appear more in tune with what employers want, and may be collected over time at a lower cost. They are a promising way to help students get the preparation they need to be successful in the job market.
Missouri’s nonfarm employment growth over the past year significantly lags nearly every other state. The picture is somewhat brighter for several of Missouri’s metropolitan areas, however.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ recent data release (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/metro.pdf) allows us to compare job creation in Missouri to that in other states over the past year. Between January 2015 and January 2016 the number of employees on nonfarm payrolls in Missouri increased by only 0.7 percent. (The figures used in this report are based on non–seasonally adjusted data.) Though better than in the six states where employment numbers actually declined, Missouri’s job growth is much slower than that of most other states: Missouri ranks 38th in new nonfarm employment growth over the past year. And when compared with its neighbors, Missouri’s record of job growth is below average (1%), and notably worse than Tennessee (3.2%) and Arkansas (2.3%).
Missouri’s job growth was weak, but is this reflective of the metropolitan areas? The table below shows that, on average, jobs increased at a 1.6 percent rate across the eight metropolitan areas. The percent change in nonfarm employment ranges from a high of 4.6 percent in Columbia to a low of 0.5 percent in Cape Girardeau. In Kansas City and St. Louis, the two metropolitan areas that together account for about 85 percent of nonfarm employment in Missouri, job growth outpaced the rest of the state: In Kansas City nonfarm employment increased by 2 percent while in St. Louis it rose by 1.2 percent.
|
Area |
Percent change in nonfarm payrolls |
|
Missouri |
0.7 |
|
Cape Girardeau |
0.5 |
|
Columbia |
4.6 |
|
Jefferson City |
1.2 |
|
Joplin |
0.3 |
|
Kansas City |
2.0 |
|
St. Joseph |
0.6 |
|
St. Louis |
1.2 |
|
Springfield |
2.4 |
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics