Page 391 – Show-Me Institute

Tax Foundation: Missouri’s Sales Taxes Still Well Above Average

Posted on April 16, 2015May 5, 2026 by Patrick Ishmael

Last year, I wrote in Forbes about whether Missouri is a “low tax state.” (It isn’t.) I explored how Missouri compared to other states on a variety of taxes. At the time, by the Tax Foundation’s metrics, Missouri’s combined state and local sales taxes ranked 14th highest in the country.

This finding probably surprised a few Missourians, but it shouldn’t. Missouri’s state sales tax may be relatively low at 4.225 percent, but locally imposed sales taxes nearly double the average sales tax paid in Missouri stores. This includes extra sales taxes in special taxing districts like Kansas City’s Power & Light District, which can pump the sales taxes actually paid by consumers to well over 10 percent. These sales taxes are, of course, in addition to the state’s income and property taxes, which aren’t exactly low either. This is why Missouri isn’t a “low tax state.”

The Tax Foundation released its 2015 sales tax rankings, and . . . well . . . Missouri still ranks 14th at a rate of 7.81 percent, well ahead of 29th-ranked Florida (6.65 percent), which, of course, doesn’t have an income tax. The Tax Foundation’s report makes special mention of the failure of Missouri’s transportation sales tax last year, which would have added another three-quarters of a percent to the state’s already-high sales tax. Had Amendment 7 passed and bumped the state’s average sales tax to over 8.5 percent, chances are very good that Missouri would have jumped into the top 10 of high sales tax states, ahead of states like California (8.44 percent) and New York (8.48 percent). Missouri’s sales taxes are already bad; this year it is cold comfort to know that they could have been worse.

Missouri needs substantive, across-the-board tax relief. There’s still time for the legislature to act this year—at least on the income tax—but the clock is ticking.

Kansas City Builds by Digging Itself into Holes

Posted on April 16, 2015May 5, 2026 by Patrick Tuohey

We’ve written extensively about the money that Kansas City has been handing out to downtown developers. Every dollar they give away is one less for infrastructure and basic services. Proponents claim that this is all worth it because of the revitalization of downtown. (Other observers, such as the Kansas City Business Journal, seem more cautious.) If the handouts of the past have been so successful, we should be able to sit back and watch all the private economic development dollars roll in. Yet despite claims of success, Kansas City is still giving away money.

Cordish, the company that brought us the Power & Light District then sued to lower their county property taxes, says that the downtown investment has been a success! But apparently the success wasn’t great enough to forgo further subsidies for two more residential buildings.

The Port Authority in Kansas City recently announced that they will be using public dollars to subsidize the construction of luxury residential condominiums along Kansas City’s riverfront. There is great demand they say, but apparently not enough to avoid the use of public underwriting.

A Crossroads hotel has received TIF subsidies, and an apartment building in the same area is receiving a property tax abatement and a $1 million exemption in sales taxes.

When will the public subsidies end? How do we know when we’re done? Is there any incentive for developers to say they do not need public subsidies? (The answer to that last question is no.) This is important because every subsidy means less money for city and county services; every abatement means less money for schools, less money for libraries. Right now, at least $93 million of city revenue is redirected each year to these developers. That doesn’t include the new projects for Cordish, Burns & McDonnell, and Cerner. Developers shouldn’t be encouraged to build skyscrapers while digging taxpayers into a hole.

What Public Schools Can Learn from Homeschool Parents

Posted on April 16, 2015May 5, 2026 by Brittany Wagner

In March, dozens of families attended the Greater Saint Louis Home Educators Expo. The discussions led by parents, former educators, and homeschool alumni were an echo of what public school teachers have rallied for since the establishment of standardized testing—more creativity in education.

Much like public school teachers, parents must ensure children receive a well-rounded education, but the difference is that parents are able to spend more time exploring their children’s interests.

“I want to help you love this,” Diana Waring explained to her children about her approach to educating at home.

Waring relayed her friend Beverly’s story.

Beverly was a mother who homeschooled her two boys. Lacking a college degree, she was afraid she would not be able to properly educate her children. One day, Beverly took her sons to the public library to pick out books that interested them. The boys gravitated toward cartoons. At home, they spent time creating their own drawings using homemade equipment. They caught the attention of a Disney cartoonist, who was amazed at what the boys were able to do on their own. Chris and Allan Miller are now professional graphic artists.

If the Miller brothers had been educated in a traditional school, certainly they would have been taught by a teacher with a college degree or higher, but would their creative interests have been fostered?

In Missouri, homeschool parents are directed to keep records of their children’s studies, much like the plan books teachers keep, but unless there is an issue—the state does not actively regulate what occurs inside the home environment. This freedom allows parents to teach in a stress-free atmosphere.

Often, homeschoolers are viewed with suspicion by traditional educators, but they shouldn’t be. Instead, officials should be looking for ways to provide a customized educational experience, like the homeschool experience of Chris and Allan Miller, for every child. We could start by creating an Education Savings Account program and empowering students with access to course choice.

Second Chances

Posted on April 16, 2015May 5, 2026 by Brittany Wagner

As K'Von Williams illustrates, DeLaSalle Education Center transforms young lives. Unfortunately, Missouri uses a one-size-fits-all accountability model to evaluate public schools. Because DeLaSalle serves only dropouts and at-risk students, it cannot so easily mask its students' performance like other alternative high schools across the state, which count their students' scores with the overall district. Missouri should reform its public school accountability system so that more students like K'Von get a second chance at receiving a quality education.

Show-Me Now! Second Chances: K’Von’s Story

Posted on April 16, 2015May 5, 2026 by Brittany Wagner

Alternative public charter schools like DeLaSalle in Kansas City serve kids who struggle in traditional public schools. Because of school choice, K'Von Williams is now a senior at DeLaSalle who is benefiting from their unique academic approach.

Stadium Planners Move to Block City Vote

Posted on April 15, 2015May 5, 2026 by Joseph Miller

Last week, the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) brought suit against Saint Louis City over an ordinance that requires a vote on city dollars going to a new stadium. The lawsuit’s proponents argue that the city’s ordinance is broad and vague, prevents the city from participating in planning and site preparation, and contradicts state statutes. In fact, the ordinance is doing precisely what it is designed to do: prevent the city from using every trick in the book to fund a new stadium without a vote.

The ordinance in question is Chapter 3.91 of the Revised Code of the City, which requires a vote on any public assistance for a professional sports stadium. Assistance is defined as:

. . . any City assistance of value, direct or indirect, whether or not channeled through an intermediary entity, including, but not limited to, tax reduction, exemption, credit, or guarantee against or deferral of increase; dedication of tax or other revenues; tax increment financing; issuance, authorization, or guarantee of bonds; purchase or procurement of land or site preparation; loans or loan guarantees; sale or donation or loan of any City resource or service; deferral, payment, assumption or guarantee of obligations, and all other forms of assistance of value.

Banning both direct and indirect assistance may seem broad, but cities too often spend large amounts of public dollars planning, and then publicizing, controversial projects. For example, Kansas City spent almost $2 million planning a streetcar expansion that was ultimately defeated at the ballot box.

Far from being vague and overly cautious, the ordinance’s language seems prescient, as the RSA plans to use just about everything the ordinance describes as assistance, including:

Extension of the $6 million annual bonds that currently fund the Edward Jones Dome. How the dome, which is in need of expensive rehab regardless of what happens with the Rams, will be funded is anyone’s guess.

Providing land, which presumably would be bought with public dollars. This would include the Bottle District, which is currently owned by Paul McKee’s Northside Redevelopment Project, to be redeveloped as a parking lot.

Transportation Development Districts and Community Improvement Districts. These districts, of indeterminate size, would levy additional sales or property taxes. The larger the size of the district, the greater the revenue.

Tax Increment Financing. Sales taxes, earnings taxes, and utility taxes that would otherwise have gone back to the city to fund regular services would instead pay for the new stadium.

It seems obvious the situation here is not that of a badly written ordinance restricting reasonable city planning, but rather an ordinance that blocks, and was designed to block, exactly what the RSA is trying to do: get city dollars for a stadium, no matter the source, without a public vote.

Streetcars Still Don’t Create Economic Development

Posted on April 15, 2015May 5, 2026 by Patrick Tuohey

Yesterday, we detailed the ever-shifting claims of streetcar proponents about the economic benefit of streetcars. Numbers have ranged from $750 million to $1.2 billion.

Streetcar supporters cannot agree on the impact because, most likely, the streetcar had no impact on the economic development of downtown Kansas City. The evidence presented in support of the streetcar’s impact is often merely anecdotal and fails to account for the diverted development. In February 2014, we provided a list of studies demonstrating that economic development is not a result of fixed rail. We encouraged streetcar supporters to provide contrary evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

It has been more than a year since we solicited that information, and no streetcar supporters have met the challenge. One attempt was particularly sloppy. Even the Kansas City Business Journal was dismissive of the study, titling their piece, “Streetcar Study: Take It With a Grain of Salt.”

Proponents still make the argument. The developer of the 1914 Main Street development recently added his own take on Twitter, writing, “Have said it before, will say it again: Would not be doing our 1914 Main development if not for streetcar.” But that neglects to mention the fact that the 1914 Main project also received taxpayer subsidies in the form of a property tax abatement.

So we are back to where we started: The streetcar alone cannot be said to have created any economic impact. Quite the contrary, when you look into the claims put forth by streetcar supporters—whether it is regarding the GSA, Centric, or 1914 Main Street—you find that there are always other more compelling explanations for development.

If this development is occurring because the city is handing out tens of millions in subsidies, why are we also spending tens of millions on a streetcar?

Public Schools Need Fewer Mandates, Parents Need More Choices

Posted on April 15, 2015May 5, 2026 by James V. Shuls

Over the past year, the Normandy School District has grabbed the state’s attention, and for good reason. Little more than half of the district’s students graduate on time. For those that do, the prospects are slim. Of the 125 Normandy students who took the ACT in 2014, just eight performed as well as or better than the national average. The composite ACT score was a paltry 16, not good enough for most state colleges.

While it is useful to examine what is happening in Normandy, it can distract us from problems in all Missouri schools. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), just 35 percent of Missouri fourth graders are reading on grade level. Roughly a third of our college students take remediation courses. Missouri public schools are having an incredibly tough time carrying out their primary directive—educate students. Yet, some look at our schools and want them to do more.

It seems every interest group, lobbyist, and legislator with a particular hobby horse wants to require schools to include their issue in their curriculum. Currently, legislators are calling for more bullying prevention programs and for an increased emphasis on civics education. Add those issues to sex education, gun control or gun awareness, criticisms of evolution, global warming, and a host of other topics that have been touted in recent years, and it’s easy to see that schools are being inundated by agendas.

While each of the issues mentioned could have value for Missouri’s K-12 students (that is really a subjective opinion), mandating new requirements for Missouri public schools is likely to cause mission creep, distract from efforts to teach students to read and do math, and cause controversy. Public schools already struggle to educate Missouri’s children. Diverting resources to new mandates would exacerbate the fundamental issue that our schools face.

Like lawmakers, parents have their own mandates and demands for the schools. Whether at the state or local level, however, we are never going to agree on all of the things that schools should do. The solution is not more mandates, the solution is more choice.

Instead of dictating what schools should do, lawmakers should focus their attention on giving parents more educational options. Allow parents to choose the school that most closely aligns with their values and their sense of mission, whether the school is private, public charter, or traditional public. We cannot make sure that every school caters to every family’s needs and preferences, but we can make sure every family has the ability to choose the school that comes closest.

Simply layering mandates on top of one another will not solve any of our educational problems, and it will not improve the educational system. A system built around school choice, however, has a better chance at both. It will allow individuals to choose the school that meets their needs, without forcing their will on others. Choice also will help create a system of continual improvement, which leads to increased efficiency.

We cannot mandate our way to a system that meets everyone’s needs. The more we try, the further we erode a local school’s ability to adapt, innovate, and meet the individual needs of the students it serves. It’s time to stop asking schools to do more and more. It’s time to start allowing parents to choose.

Fewer Mandates, More Choices Needed in Education

Posted on April 15, 2015May 5, 2026 by James V. Shuls

Schools today are asked to teach a lot more than reading, writing, and ‘rithmetic; and if lawmakers have their way, the list of topics mandated for instruction will continue to grow. Currently, proposals in the Missouri Legislature would require schools to caution students about sexual predators and inappropriate text messages, beef up bullying prevention, and cram in more civics education. While there may be value in these issues, continually mandating new requirements is counterproductive to improving Missouri’s educational system. It invites mission creep, distracts from core educational duties, and causes controversy.

Schools, and parents, do not need more mandates; they need more freedom.

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.